Promoting Common Sense One Person At A Time·1,967 videos
Published on Oct 9, 2013
Barack Obama’s Black Skin Has Made Him President
If you comment we reserve the right to use your comment in/as a post
Follow us, donate and help us stay on-line.
….And, I seriously doubt we will have another Black President for a very very long time … IF we even have the right to vote at all. I have a terrible fear, he will declare a “3rd Term” and get in again by massive fraud.
JEWS IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
Chief of Staff, Jewish. Son of a Zionist terrorist; dual-citizen of Israel and America (Emanuel served in Israel’s military during the First Gulf War instead of the U.S. military); used Jewish ethnic networking to land a lucrative job at an investment bank despite having no prior experience in business (he made over 15 million dollars in less than 3 years at the firm); despite supposedly being a “distribute the wealth” Democrat Emanuel was the top House recipient of monetary donations from Wall Street, hedge funds, private equity fund, banks, and the overall financial industry during the 2008 election cycle…even as the financial markets nearly collapsed in 2008.
Senior Advisor to the President, Jewish.
Treasury Secretary, Crypto-Jew. All reliable information points to him being ethnically Jewish (at least partially), but if not, he definitely married into The Tribe (m. Carole Sonnenfeld, 1985); he has been President of the New York Fed (which is by far the most powerful and influential branch of the Fed) during the major economic crisis (2007-present) which has utterly decimated the American economy and brought us to the brink of a depression and now this guy is put in charge of the Treasury?
Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Jewish. Born to Jewish mother (technically makes her Jewish), she claims her religion is now Methodist. She also may be a closet bull dyke.
IRS Commissioner, Jewish.
Treasury Advisor For Auto Sector, Jewish.
Economic Advisor to the President, Jewish.
Economic Advisor to the President, Jewish.
Director Of Economic Policy, Jewish.
Chairman Of FTC, Jewish.
Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Jewish.
Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to the Vice President.
Economic Advisor to the President, Former Head of Fed Reserve, Crypto-Jewish
Lee Feinstein (2009- )
Foreign Policy Advisor
Gary Gensler (2009- )
Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Elena Kagan (2009- )
Solicitor General of the United States
Ronald Klain (2009- )
Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Jack Lew (2009- )
Deputy Secretary of State
Eric Lynn (2009- )
Middle East Policy Advisor
Peter Orszag (2009- )
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Formerly a member of Clinton’s Whitehouse, advisor to the Bank of Iceland before they crashed and burned, and also advisor to the Jewish Oligarchs in Russia when they started stealing billions.
Dennis Ross (2009- )
Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State Mara Rudman (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor
Mary Schapiro (2009- )
Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission
Dan Shapiro (2009- )
Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council (yet another ‘neutral diplomatic Jew’ when it comes to foreign policy matters involving the Middle East); also a major Washington lobbyist and fundraiser for the Democratic Party.
James B. Steinberg (2009- ) and Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretaries of State, second in rank only to Hillary Clinton in foreign policy matters (meaning if something happens to her one of them will take over, giving a Jew yet another major Cabinet slot); both of these people are hardcore Zionist Israel Firsters, so it is difficult to imagine how they will remain objective and neutral when it comes to dealing with foreign policy matters in the Middle East.
Lawrence Summers (2009- )
Director National Economic Council, Crypto-Jew (real name: Samuelson)
Mona Sutphen (2009- )
Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Eric Lander AND Harold E. Varmus, Co-Chairs of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science/Technology.
Obama’s National Finance Chair during the election cycle; she is a billionaire heiress of the Pritzker family fortune (at least 5-7 separate billionaires in the family); the Pritzkers are major players in the ’squeaky clean’ Chicago political scene.
Economic adviser to Obama-Biden.
Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse. Great-grandaughter of Trotsky (Leon Bronstein),
Bolshevik murderer and point man for the International Banking Jew’s over-throw of Russia.
President of the CFR and Obama’s ambassador at large.
Chairman, Federal Trade Commission.
Special Representive for Border Affairs.
Chief of Staff for Michelle Obama.
OBAMA’S LEADING JEWISH ‘CZARS’
Larry Summers (real name: Samuelson)
Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm Emanuel)
Guantanamo/Military Jails Czar
Global Warming Czar
Climate Change Czar
JEWS IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Special Envoy to Pakistan/Afghanistan
Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Chairman, National Economic Council
Paul Volcker: Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Chief Economist and Economic Adviser,
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget
Obama’s Ambassador-At-Large in the (Entire) Middle East
Chief Performance Officer to streamline government and cut costs as well as Deputy
Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget
Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Chairwoman, Securities and Exchange Commission
Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Administrator, Small Business Administration
Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service
Neil M. Barofsky
Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”)
The Federal Reserve…
Benjamin S. Bernanke
Chairman of the Federal Reserve
FRB of Boston
Eric S. Rosengren: Jewish
Timothy F. Geithner: (former) FRB of New York.
Crypto-Jewish. Former Goldman Sachs executive Stephen Friedman was acting head until May, when questions about his insider Goldman Sachs stock purchases came up and he stepped down. Denis Hughes, an apparent Goyim labor leader, fills the spot at least until December, when a new one will be named for 2010.
FRB of Philadelphia
Charles I. Plosser: Jewish
FRB of Richmond
Jeffrey M. Lacker: Jewish
FRB of St. Louis
James B. Bullard: Jewish
FRB of Minneapolis
Gary H. Stern: Jewish
FRB of Kansas City
Thomas M. Hoenig: Jewish
FRB of Dallas
Richard W. Fisher: Jewish
FRB of San Francisco
Janet L. Yellen: Jewish
FRB of Cleveland
Sandra Pianalto: gentile
FRB of Atlanta
Dennis P. Lockhart: gentile
FRB of Chicago
Charles L. Evans: gentile
The updated list of Jews in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Don’t forget the crypto Jews and the shabbas goy sympathizers, which solidify ZOG’s stranglehold on “our” government. Knowing the enemy is half the battle.
To whom do these alien infiltrators pledge their allegiance? It is not the United States of America or the principles upon which it was founded.
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Al Franken (D-Minn.) He Replaced Jew Norm Coleman in a highly contested election vote count.
Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
John Adler (D-N.J.)
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.)
Susan Davis (D-Calif.)
Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)
Bob Filner (D-Calif.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Paul Hodes (D-N.H.)
Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Steve Kagen (D-Wisc.)
Ron Klein (D-Fla.)
Sander Levin (D-Mich.)
Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Jared Polis (D-Colo.)*
Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.)
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Council of Foreign Relations (NY)
Board of Directors:
Carla A. Hills (Jewish) Co-Chairman; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company
Robert E. Rubin (Jewish) Co-Chairman; Former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
Richard E. Salomon (Jewish) Vice Chairman; Managing Partner, East End Advisors, LLC
Richard N. Haass (Jewish) President, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Ackerman (Jewish) Rockport Capital, Inc.
Madeleine K. Albright (Jewish) Principal, The Albright Group LLC
Charlene Barshefsky (Jewish) Senior International Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Henry S. Bienen (Jewish) President, Northwestern University
Alan S. Blinder (Jewish) Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University
Frank J. Caufield (Jewish) Co-Founder, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Kenneth M. Duberstein (Jewish) Chairman and CEO, The Duberstein Group, Inc.
Stephen Friedman (Jewish) Chairman, Stone Point Capital
Maurice R. Greenberg (Jewish) Honorary Vice Chairman; Chairman & CEO, C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.
J. Tomilson Hill (Jewish) Vice Chairman, The Blackstone Group
Alberto Ibargüen (Jewish) President & Chief Executive Officer, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Henry R. Kravis (Jewish) Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (Jewish) Distinguished Service Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
David M. Rubenstein (Jewish) Cofounder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group
Joan E. Spero (Jewish) President, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
Leslie H. Gelb (Jewish) President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow
http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_o … ctors.html”
Of the thirty-three (33) members of the board of directors, twenty (20) are Jewish. This is a numerical representation of 61%. Jews are approximately 2.5%+ of the United States population.* This means that Jews are over-represented on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations by a factor of 30.5 times, or 3,050 percent. This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2.5%+ of the American population could so dominate this important and influential think tank.
There could be much more than 2.5% Jews in the US and we wouldn’t even know it. Also, remember that it only took 40,000 Commies to enslave an entire nation and kill millions for 70 years (Soviet Russia).
Do you think these people spoke the truth or are all of them “anti-Semites”?
“Why should we believe in God? We hate Christianity and Christians. Even the best of them must be regarded as our worst enemies. They preach love of one’s neighbor, and pity, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is a hinderance to the revolution. Down with love of one’s neighbor; what we want is hatred. We must know how to hate, for only at this price can we conquer the universe…The fight should also be developed in the Moslem and Catholic countries, with the same ends in view and by the same means.” (Lunatcharski, The Jewish Assault on Christianity, Gerald B. Winrod, page 44)
“There is no doubt that the…Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre.” (A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, James Parkes, p. 81; The Iron Curtain Over America, John Beaty, p. 194).
“The fact is that the Jews were known only as destroyers in ancient history, not creators. They have developed no science, have produced no art, have built no great cities, and alone have no talent for the finer things of civilized life. The Jews claim to be the torchbearers of civilization, but thorough their parasitic habits have deteriorated or destroyed every nation in which they have existed in large numbers.” (Charles A. Weisman, Who is Esau-Edom?, p. 28).
“Once we perceive that it is Judaism which is the root cause of anti-Semitism, otherwise irrational or inexplicable aspects of anti-Semitism become rationally explicable…Only something representing a threat to the core values, allegiances and beliefs of others could cause such universal, deep and lasting hatred. This Judaism has done…” (Why the Jews: by Denis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, 1985)
Dr. Albert M. Gessman, writing in the Winter 1969 number of the conservative Jewish journal, “Issues.” After contrasting critically almost nine pages of glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity to the disadvantage of the latter, and after reviewing the back-grounds of both religions, he concludes that, “A Judeo-Christian heritage or tradition in the proper sense of that hyphenated word does not exist; it has no foundation in historical fact.” ‘Modern Jewry’ Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41.
“It is a favorite ruse of the Jews to represent the Christians as their only enemies; in reality the persecution of the Jews began long before the Christian era, nor has it since then been confined to countries where the Christian religion prevails. If Christendom is to be accused of ingratitude for the privilege of harboring numbers of Jews in her midst, the pagan world showed itself quite equally ungrateful. Egyptians, Persians, and Assyrians kept them in complete subjection; indeed, owing to their racial characteristics, it was found impossible even under the more liberal regime of Alexander the Great’s successors to receive them into the community of nations.” (World Revolution, Nesta Webster, p. 162).
AQUINAS, THOMAS, Saint. 13th century scholastic philosopher. In his “On the Governance of the Jews,” he wrote: “The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious.”
DIO CASSIUS. Second century Roman historian. Describing the savage Jewish uprising against the Roman empire that has been acknowledged as the turning point downward in the course of that great state-form: “The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood… In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today.” (Roman History)
A.N. FIELD, in Today’s Greatest Problem: “Once the Jewishness of Bolshevism is understood, its otherwise puzzling features become understandable. Hatred of Christianity, for instance, is not a Russian characteristic; it is a Jewish one.”
Historical Quotes About Jews
In Their Own Words…..
SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, 13th c. scholastic philosopher. In his On the Governance 0f the Jews, he wrote: The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to work so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming more avaricious.
FRANZ LISZT, famed composer quoted in Col. E. N. Sanctuary’s Are These Things So?, page 278: The day will come when all nations amidst which the Jews are dwelling will have to raise the question of their wholesale expulsion, a question which will be one of life or death, good health or chronic disease, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever.
MARTIN LUTHER 16th c. German religious reformer. They are the real liars and bloodhounds, who have not only perverted and falsified the entire Scriptures from beginning to end and without ceasing with their interpreta tions. And all of the anxious sighing, longing and hoping of their hearts is directed to the time when some day they would like to deal with us heathen as they dealt with the heathen in Persia at the time of Esther… On how they love that book Esther, which so nicely agrees with their blood- thirsty, revengeful and murderous desire and hope!
The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they, who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. And the foremost undertaking which they expect of their Messiah is that he should slay and murder the whole world with the sword. As they at first demonstrated against us Christians and would like to do now, if they only could; have also tried it often and have been repeatedly struck on their snouts…
Their breath stinks for the gold and silver of the heathen; since no people under the sun always have been, still are, and always will remain more avaricious than they, as can be noticed in their cursed usury. They also find comfort with this: ‘When Messiah comes, He shall take all the gold and silver in the world and distribute it among the Jews.'(2) Thus, wherever they can direct Scripture to their insatiable avarice, they wickedly do so.
Therefore know, my dear Christians, that next to the Devil, you have no more bitter, more poisonous, more vehement an enemy than a real Jew who earnestly desires to be a Jew. There may be some among them who believe what the cow or the goose believes. But all of them are surrounded with their blood and circumcision. In history, therefore, they are often accused of poisoning wells, stealing children and mutilating them; as in Trent, Weiszensee and the like. Of course they deny this. Be it so or not, however, I know full well that the ready will is not lacking with them if they could only transform it into deeds, in secret or openly. A person who does not know the Devil, might wonder why they are so at enmity with the Christians above all others; for which they have no reason, since we only do good to them. They live among us in our homes, under our protection, use land and highways, market and streets. Princes and govern ment sit by, snore and have their maws open, let the Jews take from their purse and chest, steal and rob whatever they will. That is, they permit themselves and their subjects to be abused and sucked dry and reduced to beggars with their own money, through the usury of the Jews. For the Jews, as foreigners, certainly should have nothing from us; and what they have certainly must be ours. They do not work, do not earn anything from us, neither do we donate or give it to them. Yet they have our money and goods and are lords in our land where they are supposed to be in exile!
If a thief steals ten gulden he must hang; if he robs people on the highway, his head is gone. But a Jew, when he steals ten tons of gold through his usury is dearer than God himself!
Do not their Talmud and rabbis write that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob (as they do with their money lending) from a heathen, is a divine service. And they are the masters of the world and we are their servants-yea, their cattle!
I maintain that in three fables of Aesop there is more wisdom to be found than in all the books of the Talmudists and rabbis and more than ever could come into the hearts of the Jews…
Should someone think I am saying too much-I am saying much too little! For I see in writings how they curse us Goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and prayers. They rob us of our money through usury, and wherever they are able, they play us all manner of mean tricks… No heathen has done such things and none would do so except the Devil himself and those whom he possesses-as he possesses the Jews.
Burgensis, who was a very learned rabbi among them and by the grace of God became a Christian (which seldom occurs), is much moved that in their schools they so horribly curse us Christians (as Lyra also writes) and from that draws the conclusion that they must not be the people of God.
Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about being captives among us! Jerusalem was destroyed more than 1400 years ago and during that time we Christians have been tortured and persecuted by the Jews in all the world. On top of that, we do not know to this day what Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them from Jerusalem! … Yes, we have and, hold them captive, as I would like to keep my rheumatism, and all other diseases and misfortunes, who must wait as a poor servant, with money and property and everything I have! I wish they were in Jerusalem with the other Jews and whomsoever they would like to have with them.
Now what are we going to do with these rejected, condemned Jewish people? … Let us apply the ordinary wisdom of other nations like France, Spain, Bohemia, et al., who made them give an account of what they had stolen through usury, and divided it evenly; but expelled them from their country. For as heard before, God’s wrath is so great over them that through soft mercy they only become more wicked, through hard treatment, however, only a little better. Therefore, away with them!
How much more unbearable it is that we should permit the entire Christendom and all of us to be bought with our own money, be slandered and cursed by the Jews, who on top of all that be made rich and our lords, who laugh us to scorn and are tickled by their audacity!
What a joyful affair that would be for the Devil and his angels, and cause them to laugh through their snouts like a sow grinning at her little pigs, but deserving real wrath before God. (Von die Juden und ihren Lugen)
Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe that I am too rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Jews, believing that I ridicule them and treat them with such sarcasm. By my word, I am far too weak to be able to ridicule such a satanic brood. I would fain do so, but they are far greater adepts at mockery than I and possess a god who is master in this art. It is the Evil One himself.
Even with no further evidence than the Old Testament, I would maintain, and no person on earth could alter my opinion, that the Jews as they are today are veritably a mixture of all the depraved and malevolent knaves of the whole world over, who have then been dispersed in all countries, similarly to the Tartars, Gypsies and such folk.
From Table Talk of Martin Luther, translated by William Hazlet, page 43: But the Jews are so hardened that they listen to nothing; though overcome by testimonies they yield not an inch. It is a pernicious race, oppressing all men by their usury and rapine, If they give a prince or magistrate a thousand florins, they exhort twenty thousand from the subjects in payment. We must ever keep on guard against them.
(In a sermon at Eisleben, a few days before his death, February, 1546): Besides, you also have many Jews living in the country, who do much harm… You should know the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Savior day for day… for that reason you, Milords and men of authority, should not tolerate but expel them. They are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of changeling: and abortions. Therefore deal with them harshly as they do nothing but excruciatingly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, trying to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor and belongings.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.: They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in … It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.
Benjamin Franklin.(This prediction was made in a Chit Chat Around the Table During Intermissions, at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the diary of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.): I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But, gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other peoples not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves. Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will or how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American’s, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.
THOMAS JEFFERSON 18th c. American statesman. Dispersed as the Jews are, they are still from one nation, foreign to the land they live in. (D. Boorstin, The Americans) Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people. (Notes on Virginia)
WINSTON CHURCHILL 20th c. British politician. In 1920, he wrote a long newspaper article on the recent Bolshevik seizure of Russia. After praising what he called the “national Jews” of Russia, he said: There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenine, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. . . In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. (“Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, February 8, 1920).
WILHELM II. German Kaiser. A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief-even by pogroms, if necessary. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed to prominent Jewish bankers. (Chicago Tribune, July 2, 1922)
ULYSSES S. GRANT 19th c. American general, president. While in command of the 13th Army Corps, headquartered at Oxford, Mississippi, he became so infuriated at Jewish camp followers attempting to penetrate the conquered territory that he finally attempted to expell the Jews: I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold. (Letter to C. P. Wolcott, assistant secretary of war, Washington, December 17, 1862)
1. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Depart ment orders, are hereby expelled from the Department.
2. Within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people are furnished with passes and required to leave, and anyone returning after such notification, will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permits from these headquarters.
3. No permits will be given these people to visit head- quarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Major Gen. Grant. Jno. A. Rawlings, Assistant Adjutant General (General Order Number 11, December 17, 1862) The expulsion order was immediately countermanded by the general-in-chief, H. W. Halleck, in Washington. Apparently the expelled Jews had immediately contacted their kinsmen there and had pressure brought to bear.
GEN. WILLIAM SHERMAN 19th c. American soldier. In a letter from Union-occupied Memphis, July 30, 1862, he wrote: I found so many Jews and speculators here trading in cotton, and secessionists had become so open in refusing anything but gold, that I have felt myself bound to stop it. The gold can have but one use-the purchase of arms and ammunition… Of course, I have respected all permits by yourself or the Secretary of the Treasury, but in these new cases (swarms of Jews), I have stopped it. (The Sherman Letters)
MARK TWAIN (S. L. Clemens). 19th c. American writer. In the U.S. Cotton states, after the war … the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew.
The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant stood no chance against his commercial abilities. The Jew was always ready to lend on a crop. When settlement day came, he owned the crop; the next year he owned the farm–like Joseph.
In the England of John’s time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands. He was the King of Commerce. He had to be banished from the realm. For like reasons, Spain had to banish him 400 years ago, and Austria a couple of centuries later.
In all ages Christian Europe has been obliged to curtail his activities. If he entered upon a trade, the Christian had to retire from it. If he set up as a doctor, he took the business. If he exploited agriculture, the other farmers had to get at something else. The law had to step in to save the Christian from the poor-house. Still, almost bereft of employments, he found ways to make money. Even to get rich. This history has a most sordid and practical commercial look. Religious prejudices may account for one part of it, but not for the other nine.
Protestants have persecuted Catholics–but they did not take their livelihoods away from them. Catholics have persecuted Protestants–but they never closed agriculture and the handicrafts against them. I feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the world’s attitude toward the Jew; that the reasons for it are much older than that event…
I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is not in any large degree due to religious prejudice. No, the Jew is a money-getter. He made it the end and aim of his life. He was at it in Rome. He has been at it ever since. His success has made the whole human race his enemy. You will say that the Jew is everywhere numerically feeble. When I read in the Cyclopedia Britannica that the Jewish population in the United States was 250,000 I wrote the editor and explained to him that I was personally acquainted with more Jews than that, and that his figures were without doubt a misprint for 25,000,000. People told me that they had reasons to suspect that for business reasons, many Jews did not report themselves as Jews. It looks plausible. I am strongly of the opinion that we have an immense Jewish population in America. I am assured by men competent to speak that the Jews are exceedingly active in politics… (“Concerning the Jews,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, September 1899)
Twain’s opinion on the Jews is probably the best-kept secret in American literary history. Immediately after his death, his eccentric daughter Clara married-or was married by-the Jewish piano player, Ossip Gabrilowitsch. Twain’s publishers were given speedy instructions to delete “Concerning the Jews” from the collected works, where it had appeared in the book The Man That Corrupted Hadleybutg & Other Stories. Since Jews provided most of the agitators and orators who pushed forward the Abolition campaign that culminated in the Civil War (which Jewish bankers largely financed, on both sides), it seems a legitimate question whether there was any pre-planning for the wholesale–and retail–economic looting done by mainly Jewish carpetbaggers after the war.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW 20th c. British dramatist. This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word the Jew. (London Morning Post, December 3, 1925)
This craving for bouquets by Jews is a symptom of racial degeneration. The Jews are worse than my own people. Those Jews who still want to be the chosen race (chosen by the late Lord Balfour) can go to Palestine and stew in their own juice. The rest had better stop being Jews and start being human beings. (Literary Digest, October 12, 1932)
RICHARD WAGNER 19th c. German composer. The Jew has never had an art of his own, hence never a life of art-enabling import…
So long as the separate art of music had a real organic life-need in it, down to the epochs of Mozart and Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was utterly impossible for an element quite foreign to that living organism to take a part in the formative stages of that life. Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of judgment in it–yet merely to destroy it.
On one thing am I clear: that is the influence which the Jews have gained upon our mental life, as displayed in the deflection and falsification of our highest culture-tendencies. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of the destructive alien element, I am unable to decide, since that would require forées with whose existence I am unacquainted. ( From his book Judaism in Music)
H.L. MENCKEN 20th C. American writer.
The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display. (Treatise on the Gods)
The fact that what are commonly spoken of as rights are often really privileges is demonstrated in the case of the Jews. They resent bitterly their exclusion from certain hotels, resorts and other places of gathering, and make determined efforts to horn in. But the moment any considerable number of them horns in, the attractions of the place diminish, and the more pushful Jews turn to one where they are still nicht gewunscht… (not wanted. )
I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish… The Jewish theory that the Goyim envy the superior ability of Jews is not borne out by the facts. Most Goyim, in fact, deny that the Jew is superior, and point in evidence to his failure to take the first prizes: he has to be content with the seconds. No Jewish composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms; no Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world, and no Jewish scientist has ever equalled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. In the latter bracket such apparent exceptions as Ehrlich, Freud and Einstein are only apparent. Ehrlich, in fact, contributed less to biochemical fact than to biochemical theory, and most of his theory was dubious. Freud was nine-tenths quack, and there is sound reason for believing that even Einstein will not hold up: in the long run his curved space may be classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim. But whether this inferiority of the Jew is real or only a delusion, it must be manifest that it is generally accepted. The Goy does not, in fact, believe that the Jew is better than the non-Jew; the most he will admit is that the Jew is smarter at achieving worldly success. But this he ascribes to sharp practices, not to superior ability.(Minority Report: H. L. Mencken ‘s Notebooks)
F. SCOTT FITZGERALD 20th c. American novelist. Down a tall busy street he read a dozen Jewish names on a line of stores; in the door of each stood a dark little man watching the passers from intent eyes–eyes gleaming with suspicion, with pride, with clarity, with cupidity, with comprehension. New York–he could not dissociate it from the slow, upward creep of this people–the little stores, growing, expanding, consolidating, moving, watched over with hawks’ eyes and a bee’s attention to detail.
Back To Top
RALPH WALDO EMERSON 19th c. American philosopher, poet. The sufference which is the badge of the Jew has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth. (Fate an essay)
H.G. WELLS 20th c. British writer. The Jews looked for a special savior, a messiah, who was to redeem mankind by the agreeable process of restoring the fabulous glories of David and Solomon, and bringing the whole world at last under the firm but benevolent Jewish heel. (The Outline of History)
Zionism is an expression of Jewish refusal to assimilate. If the Jews have suffered, it is because they have regarded themselves as a chosen people. (The Anatomy of Frustration)
A careful study of anti-Semitic prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritations they inflict. (Letter of November 11, 1933)
Wells was in the habit of referring to Karl Marx as a “shallow, third-rate jew,” and a “lousy jew” in private correspondance.(Norman MacKenzieH. G. Wells)
Back To Top
CHARLES LINDBERGH 20th c. American aviator, writer. Wednesday, August 23, 1939: We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence in our press, radio and motion pictures. It may become very serious. [Fulton] Lewis told us of one instance where the Jewish advertising firms threatened to remove all their advertising from the Mutual system if a certain feature were permitted to go on the air. The threat was powerful enough to have the feature removed.
Thursday, May 1, 1941 The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have ‘the bit in its teeth’ and is hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the ‘intellectuals’ and the ‘Anglophiles,’ and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many others. (The Wartime Journals)
Back To Top
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, French statesman, general. The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but selling old clothes…
Legislation must be put in effect everywhere that the general well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces of France. The Jews have to be treated as a special people. They are a state within the state. It is discouraging for the French nation to end up under the sway of the lowest of peoples. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity… They must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens.
The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it… The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people. (From Napoleon’s Reflexions, and from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806.)
Nothing more contemptible could be done than the reception of the Jews by you. I decided to improve the Jews. But I do not want more of them in my kingdom. Indeed, I have done all to prove my scorn of the most vile nation in the world. (Letter to his brother Jerome, king of Westphalia, March 6, 1808.)
(1). Every big and small Jew in the peddling trade must renew his license every year.
(2) Checks and other obligations are only redeemable if the Jew can prove that he has obtained the money without cheating. (Ordinance of March 17, 1808. Code Napoleon.)
Back To Top
H. H. BEAMISH In a New York address, October 30 – November 1, 1937: In 1848 the word “anti-Semitic” was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word ‘ Jew’. That’s right word for them is ‘Jew’ …
I implore all of you to be accurate– call them Jews. There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must face them in this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open to the Jews and they were free. Now he has got you absolutely by the throat — that is your reward.
Back To Top
HENRY WALLACE, Secretary of Commerce, under President Harry Truman, wrote in his diary that in 1946 Truman was “exasperated” over Jewish pressure that he support Zionist rule over Palestine. Wallace added, “Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much ‘put out’ with the Jews. He said that ‘Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on earth, so how coud anyone expect that I would have any luck?’ Pros. Truman said he had no use for them and didn’t care what happened to them.”
Back To Top
HENRY ADAMS (Descendant of President John Adams) in a letter to John Hay, October 4,1895: The Jew question is really the most serious of our problems.
Back To Top
TRUMAN CAPOTE, 20th c. American writer: In an interview, he assailed “the Zionist mafia” monopolizing publishing today, and protested a tendency to suppress writings that do not meet with Jewish approval. (Playboy magazine, March 1968)
Back To Top
VOLTAIRE (François Marie Arouet). 18th c. French philosopher, writer: Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race.
The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous–cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity. (Essai sur les moeurs)
You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny. (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his ‘anti-Semitism.’ Examen des quelques objections. . . dans l’Essai sur les moeurs.) You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them. (“Juif,” Dictionnaire Philosophique)
I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth. (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166)
They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race. (Lettres de Memmjus a Ciceron, 1771)
If you go into a bar and get your ass whipped, maybe the people in the bar were wrong; but if you go into 10 bars in one night and get beat down in every single one of them, chances are that it isn’t them, it’s you.
If the Jews had only been expelled from one country, they could possibly get away with convincing the world that they had been terribly wronged. Unfortunately for them, the fact is that Jews have been thrown out of nearly every civilised nation on the planet (and a few un-civilised ones).
There was a time in this world when our own people could speak the truth about the Jews–or anything else for that matter– without fear of retaliation. Those days are gone but their words, and the truth behind them, remain.
The teachers, preachers, scientists, inventors, artists, newspaper editors, government officials and business leaders of today know full well that if they were to utter these same “politically incorrect” facts today, they would be branded “racist”, “hater”, or “anti-Semite”, hounded from their profession and marginalized from society.
Many of us realize that it is not only our job to keep the truth alive until a more sane and rational age emerges, but to do what we can to help manifest that new age.
YO BRO, TELL IT TO THE WORLD!
WHAT MULATTO OBAMA FORGOT TO TELL THE NEGRO AMERICAN:
The Black Slave Owners
By Joseph E. Holloway
The majority of black slave owners were members of the mulatto class, and in some cases were the sons and daughters of white slave masters. Many of the mulatto slave owners separated themselves from the masses of black people and attempted to establish a caste system based on color, wealth, and free status. According to Martin Delany, the colored community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the superiority of white blood and brown skin complexion.
These mulattoes of the old free Black elite did not attend church with the dark-skinned blacks of Charleston City. They not only formed congregations which excluded freedmen of dark complexion, but they only married among other mulattoes to “keep the color in the family.”
Large numbers of free Blacks owned black slaves in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society. According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The majority of black slave-owners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane.
Slave holding among the mulatto class in South Carolina was widespread according to the first census of 1790, which revealed that 36 out of 102, or 35.2 percent of the free Black heads of family held slaves in Charleston City. By 1800 one out of every three free black recorded owning slave property. Between 1820 and 1840 the percentage of slaveholding heads of family ranged from 72.1 to 77.7 percent, however, by 1850 the percentage felt to 42.3 percent.
According to the U.S. Census report in 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. Out of a population of 27 million whites only eight million lived in the South, and out of this population fewer than 385,000 owned slaves. In short, the total white population own about 1.4, while the southern white population own about 4.8 enslaved Africans.
On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. In New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city.
Year Owners Slaves
1790 49 277
1800 36 315
1810 17 143
1820 206 1,030
1830 407 2,195
1840 402 2,001
1850 266 1,087
1860 137 544
The following chart shows the free Black slave owners and their slaves in Charleston, 1790-1860.In 1860 there were at least six African Americans in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Black slave magnate in Louisiana with over 100 slaves was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at $264, 000. In North Carolina 69 free Blacks were slave owners.
The majority of urban black slave owners were women. In 1820, free black women represented 68 percent of heads of households in the North and 70 percent of slaveholding heads of colored households in the South. The large percentage of black women slave owners is explained by manumission by their white fathers, or inheritance from their white fathers or husbands. Black women were the majority of slaves emancipated by white slave owning men with whom they had sexual relations. Thirty-three percent of all the recorded colonial manumissions were mulatto children and 75 percent of all adult manumissions were females.
THE FIRST BLACK SLAVE OWNER–AND THE ORIGINS OF SLAVERY
Euro-Americans arrived in Jamestown Virginia in 1607, and the first large group of Africans arrived in 1619. However, House of Burgess records show that Africans were already in the colony before 1619. John Rolfe provides us with an eyewitness account of this first group. “About the last of August  came a Dutch man of Warre that sold us twenty negars.” Among them was one called Antonio from Angola. Later, we find that Antonio becomes Anthony Johnson. Other listed was Angelo, a negro woman,” and John Pedro, a neger aged 30.” The census of 1624-25 showed that there were twenty-three Africans living in Jamestown, Virginia listed as servants and not slaves.
Africans coming to Jamestown between 1630 and 1640 could expect to be freed after serving their indented period of time about seven to ten years for Africans and Indians. At this time there was no system of perpetual servitude or slave for life, but the system was rapidly evolving. Between 1640 and 1660 slavery was becoming a customary reality. In 1640 three servants of Hugh Gwyn, “a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James Gregory, and John Punch, a negro,” having run away from their master were overtaken in Maryland and brought back to stand trial for the misbehavior. The verdict of the court would change the system of indentured servitude and set the system in transition to plantation slavery. The court ruled that the three servants shall received punishment by whipping and have “thirty stripes apiece.” The court ordered that the Dutchman and the Scotchman should “first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired” and that they shall served the colony for three years. “The third being a negro. . .shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life.” This marks the first time that race and color becomes a factor in the status of both black and white indentured servants. In other words, the system is rapidly evolving to meet the new demand for cheap labor, and race is slowing being used as the justification for the enslavement of peoples of African origins. Between 1640 and 1660 Africans were going to court and suing for their freedom.
In 1644 Thomas Bushrod, assignee of Colonel William Smith, sold a mulatto boy named Manuel “as a slave for-Ever, but in September, 1644 the said servant was by the Assembly adjudged no Slave and but to as other Christian servants do and was freed in September, 1665.” A similar ruling is found in the case Robinson.
In 1649, there were about three hundred Africans in the colony and an increasing mulatto population. African and European indentured servants off springs were increasing and considered alarming in regard to the status of the mulatto. That is a system was evolving based on being either black or white.
Africans who entered Jamestown between 1620 to 1650 could expect to be freed after serving their indented time and given 50 to 250 acres of land, hogs, cows and seeds and the right to import both white and black indentured servants. For a brief period in American history between 1630 to 1670, a number of Africans had become freedmen and owned indented white servants. The act of 1670 forbidden free Negroes to own Christian servants but conceded the right to own servants of their own race. By 1670, it was becoming customary to hold African servants as “slaves for life,” and by 1681 what was customary became law.
The first laws regarding the status of Africans recognized the free blacks. The first status was passed in 1662 provided that the status of offspring should follow that status of the mother. What this law did was to allow white fathers to enslave their own children, and free women of color to perpetuate the free black population. In other words, it also guaranteed freed black females the right to extend their free status to their children. Black women who have served their indentured period would not provide foundation for the free black community. Many of those African who were grandfathered in the new system not only became the free black community, but this is the origins of Black slave owners.
The act of 1668 dealing with the condition of the colored population related solely to the tax obligations of a free black woman, and two years later an act guaranteed to “negroes manumitted or otherwise free” the right to own servants of their own race and expressly denied to them the right to purchase or to own white or “Christian servants.” This law recognized and sanctioned slavery, but also guaranteed the continuity of the free black class, who were now largely mulatto.
Black slave owners have not been studied as a part of American history, rather as a datum to American history, and yet slavery as a perpetual institution is legalized based on a case brought before the House of Burgess by an African, who had been indentured in Jamestown, Virginia 1621 and was known as Antonio the Negro according to the earliest records. He later Anglicized his name to Anthony. Anthony Johnson was believed to be the first Black to set foot on Virginia soil. He was the first black indentured servant, the first free black, and the first to establish the first black community, first black landowner, first black slave owner, and the first person based on his court case to establish slavery legally in North America. One could argue that he was the founder of slavery in Virginia.
Anthony Johnson arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in 1621. In 1623, Antoney[sic] and Isabella married. The next year they were the proud parents of William. William is believed to be the first African American born in British America. During his first years in North America, he escaped death in an Indian attack on Jamestown. During the following year Africans and people of color were a small minority in the Virginia colony. The census of 1625 reported only twenty-three Africans living in the colony out of a total of 1,275 white people and indigenous Africans. By 1649 the total black population was only 300 out of a total of 18,500 whites.
In 1635 Johnson’s master, Nathaniel Littleton finally released him. As the custom was he received a 250 acre plantation in 1651 under the “head right system” by which the colonial government encouraged population growth by awarding fifty acres of land for every new servant a settler brought to Virginia. He became the master of both black and white servants.
Anthony Johnson’s plantation was located on the neck of land between two creeks that flowed into the Pungoteague River in Northampton County. A few years later, his relatives, John and Richard Johnson, also acquired land in this area. John brought eleven servants to the colony and received 550 acres, and Richard brought two and received 100 acres.
In 1654 Anthony Johnson went to court and sued his white neighbor for keeping his black servant John Casor. Casor claimed that Johnson “had kept him his serv [an] t seven years longer than hee should or ought. Johnson who the courts described as an “old Negro,” claimed that he was entitled to “ye Negro [Casor] for his life.” Johnson realized that if he continued and persisted in his suit, Casor could win damages against him. So, Johnson brought suit against his white neighbor Robert Parker, whom Johnson charged had detained Casor “under pretense [that] the s[ai]d John Casor is a freeman.” The courts now ruled in his favor and John Casor was returned to him and Parker had to pay the court costs.
This case establishes perpetual servitude in North America, and it is ironic that the case was brought to the court by an African who had arrived from Angola in 1621. Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime service of John Casor; this was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
Anthony Johnson lived on his plantation surrounded by his white neighbors. He had entered a system not based on slavery, but indentured servitude. There were many Anthony Johnson’s in America, who never spent a day in slavery but were owners of slaves.
MARIE THERESE METOYER
In 1767, a Frenchman named Claude Thomas Pierre Metoyer met Marie Therese Coin-Coin from the Kongo and promptly fell in love. They became immediate occupants in Natchitoches, Louisiana where Marie and Claude lived together as man and wife. They had their first children together in January 1768, a set of twins. Things were rough going for the couple; the church would not have anything to do with the relationship and at this time Marie and her infant son Augustine were still enslaved. Early in 1776 Metoyer purchased his child and shortly after that in a private document he freed Marie and the child. Years later Marie and Metoyer broke up but, not before fathering six children. Marie stayed in Natchitoches and worked the Melrose plantation Claude Metoyer left for her; he then moved to New Orleans, left for France and married a proper French woman.
In 1778 free nonwhites were a very small minority in Natchitoches, Louisiana. By 1785, that had not changed. Marie, Augustine, and two additional sons born to her after manumission were half of the free nonwhite population. By 1786, she had eight children Augustine, Pierre, Joseph, Dominique, Francois, Toussaint, Louis, Marie Suzanne, four of whom were still enslaved.
From the money and land that Metoyer gave her, she started a plantation. The first crop was tobacco, and in 1792 she was shipping 9,900 rolls to Cuba for cigars (Mills, 30). She also produced indigo, manufactured medicine and the major source of her income came from hunting bears and fowl. All this was done with the help of her older sons, because she had no slaves at this time. She tried for nine years to free her other children from slavery and in 1815 when Metoyer died all her children were freed. In 1816 written Church documents show that she had twelve slaves, but local tradition credits her with many more. Marie Theresa now had three plots of land estimated at 11,000 acres. She was now in her late sixties and completely turned over the plantation to her children. She died sometime in the spring of 1816.
Augustine was now married and on his own since 1795. He was the first of Marie and Claude’s children to acquire a plantation, and become a slave owner. Within two years he purchased his first slave, a male between the age of eighteen and twenty to help him clear the fields. Most of the slaves he bought were for labor, but he did purchase some for family devotion. In 1798, he bought his second slave, an eight-year-old named Marguerite who was his wife’s sister. In 1800, $300 was paid for his third slave; this was a child of his still enslaved brother. The next year a slave named Marie was purchased and became Pierre’s wife. His second labor slave was purchased in 1806, a female to be the wife of the male he already owned. In June of 1809, Augustine purchased eight “African Negroes” for $3,500 cash: a male, five boys and two girls aged eleven to thirteen, and then three of the males were sold to his brother for $1,350. In 1810, he purchased two more slaves from a planter in the next county. Similar purchases and manumissions are recorded for of the Metoyer children. In 1810, Marie Suzanne purchased a slave costing $600; the peculiar thing was that she was still a slave herself. By the 1810 census Augustine had seventeen slaves; Louise, fifteen; Pierre, twelve; Dominique, eight; Francois, three; Joseph, two; and Toussaint, one. A total of fifty-eight slaves were acquired in just twelve years. The fifty-eight slaves had increased to 287 by the end of 1830. The Metoyer surname owned an average of 2.3 slaves per person, and the whites in the county only owned an average of .9 slaves per person. No other family group came close to matching the holdings of the Metoyer name.
The affluent period was between 1830 and 1840 for the Metoyer family. Pierre, one of the less prosperous brothers died in 1834 leaving a plantation of 677 acres, after giving his seven children land for their marriages. Augustine divided the land between six children and kept two plantations for himself, which contained 2,134 acres (Mills, 109). Early in 1850 the Metoyer family had improved their land by 5,667 acres and had a total of 436 slaves. In the treatment of Metoyer family slaves there are some contradictory statements.
When it came to the treatment of slaves black owners were “in a bind”. If they were nice to their slaves, they were considered by the whites to be overly tolerant. On the other hand, if they treated their slaves harshly the blacks would say they were abusive of “their people”. Legend has it that one of the original Metoyer brothers was a hard taskmaster, but not to his own slaves. He would try-out the slaves and makes them do the worst work on his plantation, things that he didn’t want his own slaves doing. After the work was done he would return the slave and claim poor working habits. That same tradition holds for one of the sisters also; there are also many written advertisements about runaway slaves that the Metoyer family put in the local newspaper. They occasionally hired a slave catcher to retrieve a slave. There is no real proof that the Metoyer family was any different from other slave owner’s black or white. Not all of the black slave owners worked and owned plantations. There were many black masters who were artisans and used slaves as workers. One of the most prominent of these owners was William Ellison.
WILLIAM ELLISON (APRIL)
On June 20, 1820 April Ellison appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Summerville, South Carolina, to change his slave name. Since, he was a free man he wanted his name changed to his former master’s William.
After his emancipation William moved to Stateburg, South Carolina (see figure 2) and became an apprentice for Mr. William McCreight. After four years of hard labor and William Ellison was ready to start his own business as a gin maker. The first few years he primarily repaired gins, but each year his customers and reputation grew. Between June 8, 1816 and January 1817, William (then April) purchased and freed his wife Matilda and his daughter Eliza Ann and brought them to Stateburg. His son Henry was born in or near Stateburg in January 1817, followed two years later by William Jr. and in another two years by Reuben.
By 1820 Ellison had managed to buy his first two slaves, two males, ages twenty-six and forty-five respectively. With the purchase of the two slaves he demonstrated to the local whites that he was not afraid to own, use and exploit slave labor. In just four short years he was a master gin maker, had changed his name and was now a slave owner.
William purchased a valuable location for his shop right at the cross road of town. The going rate at the time was $3.00 to $7.00 an acre, but he knew what prime land was worth and paid $375.00 for the land to his shop. The gin business flourished, and his reputation among the whites grew. Now that he was a prominent figure in the community he purchased more land, but this land was for a plantation.
To William Ellison slaves were a source of labor. This ideology helps to explain why there was a ratio male to female of 4 to 1 in the 1860s. The male slaves were a direct source of income, the females were future benefits. Assuming that the women produced children at a ratio of one boy to one girl the best explanation for a shortage of girls is that they were sold as slaves. The average price for a slave girl was $400 and selling twenty girls would add additional $8,000 cash, which could contribute to land and slave purchases. This silent tradition around Stateburg was not questioned, but his reputation as a harsh master was talked about. His slaves were said to be the district’s worst fed and clothed. Ellison and his family lived frugally; he was even more tightfisted about providing food, clothes, and housing for his slaves. His harsh treatment may have come from the fact that his slaves were very bitter, because the men and women had seen their daughters sold away into slavery. Also, the harsh treatment could have been from Ellison’s need to prove to the whites that he was not soft on slaves, because of his color. Sometimes his slaves ran away, and on at least one occasion he hired a slave catcher. He never skipped on medical care for his slaves, but he did not care to help their spiritual needs. Through all the years William Ellison may have been harsh on his slaves, but the money they produced helped keep his family well-to-do up until the Civil war.
In 1829 he purchased two more male slaves between the ages twelve and twenty-four. Early in the 1830s Ellison started using his sons as gin makers, but there was still more work than the men could handle. At the end of the decade, Ellison now owned thirty-six slaves thirty were male, and six female who mostly worked the fields and produced children. The census at this time had Ellison with fourteen slaves. As his ownership of slaves grew so did his land, buying over 350 acres in that ten-year span. By his fiftieth birthday, in 1840, William had reached a plateau that few whites let alone blacks had ever reached. In the early 1840s his sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston and came to live on the Ellison Plantation. His sons became slave owners with the help of their father. The slaves were from the Ellison family and were just passed down to the next generation. These slaves were not income producing slaves, but rather house servants. By 1860, Ellison increased his slave population from thirty-six in 1850 to sixty-three, an increase of seventy-five percent.
That year, in the census he reported that his total worth was just over $61,000, which was very low for the property and personal slaves that he owned. The man who started out life as a slave achieved financial success. His wealth was 90 percent greater than his white neighbors in Sumter district. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was fifteen times greater than that of the state’s average for whites, and Ellison owned more than 99 percent of the South’s slaveholders. He never achieved a monopoly in Stateburg, but was the highest producing slave owner in the county. Without slaves Ellison could never gotten past the income of a tradesman; with the slaves he accomplished the security of no other.
Although, a successful slave owner and cotton farmer, Ellison major source of income came from “slave breeding.” Throughout the South slave breeding was looked down on with disgust. He began slave breeding in 1840. Females were not productive workers in his factor or cotton fields, so he only kept a few women for breeders, and sold most of his females. He had the reputation of being a harsh master. His slaves were the worst fed and clothed. He maintained on his property a windowless building where he chained his problem slaves.
His slaves were listed among the runaways because of his harsh treatment. Having started life out as a slave did not make him sensitive to their needs because he saw his slaves as no more than property.
On one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s hunted down one of his valuable slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: “I was paid $77.50 returning the slave, and $74.00 for expenses.”
William Ellison died on December 5, 1861. According to his last will and testament his estate should be divided jointly by his free daughter and two surviving sons; he also bequeathed $500 to a daughter he had sold into slavery.
During the Civil War the Ellison family actively participated and supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war, and they also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency. At the end of the war all this was worthless and cost the family a great deal of wealth.
On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison’s oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P. P. Galliard and A. H. Boykin, local whites who knew that Buckner was Black was but overlooked this factor because of the Ellison family’s prestige and money his race status was changed to “honorary” white. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895, he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a “faithful soldier.”
WHITE SKIN BLACK MASK
The majority of the colored masters were mulattoes and their slaves were overwhelmingly of black skin. There was strong division between the two classes based on color, class, status and a culture of whiteness. There was a color and cultural clash between the two groups. The mulatto community in Charleston separated themselves from the dark skinned people, and they banned dark skinned people from their social clubs and seldom married unmixed blacks.
They created exclusionary societies such as the Brown Fellowship society. Membership was based on brown skin meaning the sons and daughters of slave masters. They formed schools and benevolent groups to provide mutual aid and operated a burial ground and society. Among its members were John W. Gordon, William T. Oliver, Edward P. and Lafayette F. Wall, Richard Dereef and Robert Houston.
Richard Edward Dereef was one of the richest black men in Charleston. He had a Wharf at the end of Chapel Street, was in the wood business, and owned slaves and rental properties, most of which were located on the east side of Charleston. Richard Dereef would never have been accepted into Charleston’s elite mulatto society, but he claimed to be an Indian- and had money. For the most part the mulatto slave owner aligned themselves with the white ruling class and helped to preserve the system of slavery.
Among black slave holders the free mulattoes owners were over represented, being the offspring of white planters and merchants. Many of their white fathers provided for them. Thomas Hanscome, a white planter of St. James and Goose Creek, provided for the mulatto children of Nancy Randale, a free black woman, with six slaves as well as stocks and bonds valued at $150,000. In 1823, the mulatto children of Henry Glencamp, the superintendent of the Sante Canal, and Jenny Wilson, a free black woman, inherited eighteen slaves as well as the plantation called Pine Hill in Stephens of Charleston District.
Many white fathers accepted their black children as legitimate heirs. For example, the children of Michael Fowler, a white planter of Christ church Parish, and his black slave/wife named Sibb lived as man and wife and raised a family on his plantation. According to Calvin D. Wilson “there was a rich planter in Charleston named Fowler who took a woman of African descent and established her in his home…There was a daughter born, who was called Isabella; the planter insisted that she be called as miss Fowler. He expected his slaves to treat his mulatto children if though they were white. His children were so acculturated into the white elite slave holding class that they only associated with whites. In 1810, the estate of Michael Fowler was divided among his mulatto children: John Fowler, Jacob Fowler, Stanhope Fowler, Nelly Fowler Collins, Becky Fowler and Isabell Fowler Dereef. The Fowler failed to emancipate any of their slaves and regarded them as investment property. They held their slaves until the end of the Civil War.
Many enslaved mulattoes like William Ellison started out as a slave. Another case is Anthony Weston, a de facto free black of Charleston City, was trained as a millwright. As the slave of Plowder Weston, he was able to hire himself out to several white planters as well as work for his master. In 1826, his master declared him freed. His skill as a millwright allowed him to accumulate a great deal of wealth and he began to invest in slaves. Technically being a slave himself, he purchased a large number of slaves in his wife name between 1834 and 1835, to purchase a total of 20 slaves, investing $8,950. He trained some of his slaves as mill wrights and they worked in his business. He became one of the wealthiest black persons in the city. By 1860, his estate was valued at $48,075 by city officials
In 1822, Moses Brown, a colored barber, purchased an African American boy named Moses from Mary Warhaim for $300. He trained the boy in the art of barbering. By 1823, the boy was working in his shop on 5 Tradd Street as a barber. In 1829, Camilla Johnson, a colored pastry cook, purchased a mulatto woman named Charleston Todd from Joseph and Ann Wilkie for $375. According to a Charleston socialite, Camilla Johnson used her mulatto servant to work at several of the parties she was hired to cater.
RICHARD HOLLOWAY SR.
Richard Holloway Sr., a free person of color bought a slave named Charles Benford in order that the slave might enjoy his freedom. Yet at the same time he owned other slaves who were not treated so kindly. In 1834, he purchased a slave woman named Sarah and her two children, Annett and Edward, from Susan B. Robertson for $575. Within three years after the purchase, he apparently became dissatisfied with the slave family and sold them for $945. Even though Richard Holloway, Sr., allowed a trusted servant to enjoy-his freedom, he was still a slave owner for profit. He sold and purchased slaves as an investment.
In 1851, Elizabeth Collinis Holloway, a woman of color, placed her servant Celia in the city jail after her slave had run away. In 1852, Holloway’s servant Peggy was confined in the workhouse for disciplinary reasons.
In the Palmetto (rice areas) there were only seven large rice planters of African descent, and they were primarily related to white kin. One example of this is the Pendarvis family, which was one of the largest slave owning “colored” families to plant rice in the state during the 1730s. The mulatto children of Joseph Pendarvis, a white planter of Colleton County, and his African mistress Parthena, were given 1,009 acres of land near the Green Savanna as well as a plantation in Charleston Neck. Joseph Pendarvis gave to his children James, Brand, William, John, Thomas, Mary, and Elizabeth, land, money and slaves. They became one of the wealthiest and most prominent slaveholding families in South Carolina. James the first born received most of the property of his deceased father, and owned more than 100 slaves. By 1786, he owned 113 slaves and 3,250 acres of land. The 1790 census informs us that he owned 123 slaves. Many of the mulatto offspring of white planters became large plantation owners in their own right.
For example, Margaret Mitchell Harris and her half brother Robert Michael Collins inherit money, plantation and slaves from their white father. In 1844, she bought Santee Plantation for 4,050, but made $7,635 from the harvest in 1849. She ran a profitable enterprise.
The notion of a homogenous African American group united by a common African ethnicity and culture is a myth. Many scholars failed to recognize the diversity in language, culture, class and color among African Americans, and how those differences provided one group of African Americans with extraordinary opportunities for higher educational and trade skills when compared to the black population. Historically, there has always been great tension between the “mulatto” and black classes because of the association of “yellow” skin with high status and class within the black social apex. Slave masters exploited these tensions for their obvious benefits, keeping their mulatto children elevated over the African field worker, and African Americans have continue to perpetuated this system of privilege and discrimination based on light skin long after whites stop make any distinction between light and dark skinned blacks. The root to this disparity is the American plantation during the 17th and 18th century.
The majority of black slave owners were members of the mulatto class, and in most cases were the sons and daughters of white slave masters. Many of the mulatto slave owners separated themselves from the masses of black people and attempted to establish a caste system based on color, wealth, and free status. According to Martin Delany, the colored community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the superiority of white blood and brown skin complexion.
After slavery it was the children of the mulato class that was more willing to cross the color line and to bridge the gap between light-skinned and dark-skinned blacks. Also, a large number of the “new” black leaders in the South came from this class/caste group. The sons and daughters of black slave masters were educated and resourceful. In the late 1860s, Frances Rollins, the daughter of William Rollins, a black slave owner of Charleston City, worked as a school teacher in Beaufort County. She was educated at the Institution for Colored Youth in Philadelphia and was one of four sisters who worked to uplift the newly freed in South Carolina. Later, she married William James Whipper, a state representative of South Carolina. Thaddeus Sasportas, the son of Joseph A. Sasportas, a mulatto slave owner, went to Orangeburg County to aid the ex-slaves and to work as a teacher, where he taught ex-slaves to read and write.
Franklin, John Hope, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans. New York: Alfred A.Knopf, 1980.
Johnson, Michael P. and James L. Roark. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. New York: W.W Norton and Company, 1984.
Koger, Larry. Black Slave owners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina 1790-1860. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers.
Lewis, Ronald L. and James E. Newton, Eds. The Other Slaves: Mechanics, Artisans, and Craftsmen. Mass.: G. K. Hall and Co., 1978.
Littlefield, Daniel C. Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981. 74-80, 83-86.
Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen, The American Negro. New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970.
Mills, Gary B. The Forgotten People: Cane River’s Creoles of Color Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977.
Phillips, Ulrich B. American Negro Slavers: A Survey of the Supply, Employment and Control of Negro Labor as determined by the Plantation Regime New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1918.
Woodson, Carter G. Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830: Together with Absentee ownership of Slaves in the United States in New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. 68-72, 84-85.
Roark, James L. and Johnson, Michael P. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1984
A Defense of Southern Slavery and Other Pamphlets. New York: Greenwood Publishing Corp., 1969. 14-16
Elkins, Stanley M. Slavery A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969. 165.
Gatell, Frank Otto and Allen Weinstein, Eds. American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. 136-141.
Lewis, Ronald L. Coa1, Iron, and Slavery Industrial Slavery in Maryland and Virginia, 1715-1865. Westport, Conn.: Negro University Press, 1979. 91, 94
McDougle, Ivan E. Slavery in Kentucky, 1792-1865. Westport, Conn.: Negro University Press,
Rose, Willie Lee. Slavery and Freedom New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Smith, Julia Floyd. Slavery and Rice Culture in Low Country Georgia, 1750-1861. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1985. 70-71.
Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage Book, A Division of Random House, 1956.
Penn University Prof Says Zimmerman Let Off Because God Is a ‘White Racist’
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, July 15, 2013, 6:19 PM
University of Pennsylvania religious professor Anthea Butler put blame on God for the Zimmerman verdict. Butler says its because God “is a white racist.”
This woman teaches religion.
Biz Pac Review reported:
While those on the left look to place blame for George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, a radical professor said it’s because God is a white racist.
In an editorial published on Sunday, Anthea Butler, a religious professor at the University of Pennsylvania, proclaimed God is “a white racist god with a problem.”
“God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us. As a black woman in an nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god. As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men.”
Butler, who accused Walmart of being sharecroppers and slave owners earlier this year, acts like the country is still in 1950s Mississippi when she said “most good conservative Christians in America think… whatever makes them protected, safe, and secure, is worth it at the expense of the black and brown people they fear.”
THE BLACK HOLOCAUST
JOHN W. FOUNTAIN
Last Modified: May 6, 2012
Imagine Soldier Field beyond capacity, brimming with 63,879 young African-American men, ages 18 to 24 — more than U.S. losses in the entire Vietnam conflict.
Imagine the University of Michigan’s football stadium — the largest in the U.S. — filled to its limit of 109,901 with black men, age 25 and older. Now add 28,223 more — together totaling more than U.S. deaths in World War I.
Picture two UIC Pavilions packed with 12,658 Trayvon Martins — black boys, ages 14 to 17 — nearly twice the number of U.S. lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now picture all of them dead. The national tally of black males 14 and older murdered in America from 1976 through 2005, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics: 214,661.
The numbers tell only part of the story of this largely urban war, where the victims bear an uncanny resemblance to their killers. A war of brother against brother, filled with wanton and automatic gunfire, even in the light of day, on neighborhood streets, where little boys make mud pies, schoolgirls jump rope, where the innocent are caught in the crossfire, where the spirit of murder blows like the wind.
It is, so far, a ceaseless war in which guns are often the weapon of choice, and the finger on the trigger of the gun pointed at a black male is most often another black male’s.
The numbers alone are enough to make me cry — to wonder why — we as African Americans will march en masse over one slain by someone who is not black, and yet sit silent over the hundreds of thousands of us obliterated from this mortal world by someone black like us, like me. It is a numbing truth borne out by hard facts:
From 1980 through 2008, 93 percent of black victims were killed by blacks.
Translation: For every Trayvon Martin killed by someone not black, nine other blacks were murdered by someone black.
In 2005, — blacks — accounted for 13 percent of the U.S. population but 49 percent of all homicides. The numbers are staggering, the loss incomprehensible.
Add to the tally of black males 14 and older slain across the country from 1976 to 2005, another 29,335 (slain from 2006 to 2010), and their national body count rises to 243,996, representing 82 percent of all black homicides for that 35-year period. What also becomes clear is this: We too often have raised killers. And this war is claiming our sons.
But that’s still not the end of the story. Add to that number 51,892 black females ages 14 and older, plus five whose gender was not identifiable, and the total, not counting children, is 295,893 — more than the combined U.S. losses of World War I, the Vietnam, Korean and Mexican-American wars, the War of 1812 and the American Revolutionary War.
Is the blood of these sons and daughters somehow less American?
Two hundred ninety-five thousand eight hundred ninety-three . . .
Imagine the United Center, Wrigley Field, U.S. Cellular Field and Soldier Field nearly all filled simultaneously with black boys, girls, men and women. Now imagine that twice over. Now imagine them all dead.
As far as I can see, that’s at least 295,893 reasons to cry. And it is cause enough for reticent churches, for communities, for lackadaisical leaders, for all people — no matter our race, color or creed — to find the collective will and the moral resolve to stamp out this human rights atrocity occurring right under our noses.
Just imagine the human carnage and the toll to us all if we don’t.
I can’t. I won’t.
JOHN W. FOUNTAIN