With his opponent conceding, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is a likely shoo-in for reelection in November. This apparently local race has national repercussions.
Anti-rights billionaire Michael Bloomberg spent $150,000 to beat Clarke, more than the two candidates spent together. During the last presidential election, Bloomberg spent as much as the firearms industry and the NRA combined. He’s committed $50 million—twice as much as before—to support candidates this fall who will work for him to destroy your civil right of self-defense.
Milwaukee taught us that even when he spends more money than the candidates, he still can’t buy an election…if you get involved.
by Howard Nemerov | The PJ Tatler | Article Source
More importantly, David Clarke is an American of African descent. Most blacks support gun control, a fancy way of saying “civilian disarmament.” For example, the National Black Police Associationwants to ban civilian ownership of handguns.
This is curious, because the history of American gun control is the history of racist oppression by white European settlers, slave masters, politicians, and black Uncle Toms. Sheriff Clarke gets this, which is why he’s been openly pro-Second Amendment.
It’s also curious how history repeats itself: One of the world’s wealthiest individuals committed a relative fortune to support an agenda which falls hardest on America’s black population: States with the most gun control have the highest black homicide ratesand the lowest gun ownership.
As more black Americans look to Sheriff Clarke as an example, this growing diversity among gun owners will help protect the Second Amendment in the future.
On this high note, I’d like to thank you for reading my columns over the years. I almost lost an important business contact over my Second Amendment writing. Due to many business factors, I’m discontinuing my journalistic endeavors. I don’t like the political aspect of this decision, but it’s clear that writing isn’t going to provide the income stream I need to secure our finances, though it risks thwarting that goal. Perhaps somebody else can step in and do research like I did. It’s a fairly straightforward process:
- Here’s what they said.
- Here’s what the data says, provided by the same government we’re told will protect us if we disarm.
- If they continue pushing their agenda despite the overwhelming evidence that they’re…uh, mistaken…can we trust they’re telling the truth that we’ll be safer?
I began over a decade ago because I was one of those well-meaning liberals who believed the propaganda that we’d be safer in a disarmed society. I believed that gun owners were the problem. I believed that the Brady Campaign were the good guys.
Then, at the behest of a law enforcement client, I set out on my own research journey. I learned that gun control is both racist and sexist in its impact on the real people who have to live in disarmed societies. That offended my liberal sensitivities: I was outraged. So I began to write, first for small local sites, and then for progressively large sites. PJ Media was kind enough to hire me to write features in 2010, and it’s been a good run.
Thanks for reading.