I answered someone just the other day when they demanded smaller gun magazines, that the continued creation of gun free zones and gun control measures was doing what in limiting gun violence? Even a close, lifelong friend suggested to me that perhaps it was time to limit magazine capacity. Former V.P. Dick Cheney suggested it and hoards of gun haters, and not so much gun haters, are “compromising” to say it’s reasonable to restrict gun rights in this fashion because………well, why is it?

The strongest argument I have heard, which is weak at best, is that if we limit magazine capacity fewer people will get killed when a deranged bastard decides to annihilate masses of people. There actually may be some substance to such an argument but let’s consider the truth, if only for a moment.

The first question to ask is how many lawful citizens that you know of kill people randomly? The Tuscon massacre was a planned out event. Do you honestly believe that Loughner would NOT have been able to get his hands on a 30-round magazine if they were deemed illegal to own?

But, I’ve been down this road a thousand times before and you can discuss the ins and outs of what restricting magazines would accomplish, if anything. However, in everything that is discussed about guns and gun restrictions, remember that owning and possessing arms is a constitutional right.

Now, back to the idiot who coined the phrase, “all rights come with restrictions”. Why do all rights come with restrictions? Most hide behind the argument that it’s for public safety or for the public good. The most overused example is that of free speech – you can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, when there is no fire.

So let me ask you this question. Is making it unlawful to yell “fire” in a movie theater, defined as a restriction on free speech, provide for a safer experience watching a movie? Jazz Shaw, in a post at Hot Air, asks, “Shall we cut out all of our tongues to ensure they are not used maliciously?” One might think doing such would eliminate movie theater chaos. People with a deeper understanding would know that a person bent on creating the chaos would find another way to do it.

Would restricting gun owners to smaller magazines, result in fewer people killed? In reality, we have no way of knowing that. In this instance of gun rights limitations, the result of implementing such a restriction is minimal as far as public safety may be concerned but detrimental as far as the incremental chiseling away at Second Amendment rights. If not a 30-round magazine, then what? 20 rounds? 10 rounds? No rounds? Where is the line drawn? A line that was forced to be drawn because people actually thought limiting magazine capacity would limit crime.

An argument to limit magazine size is inane. To help explain that, let’s make some comparisons that most people would laugh at. First, let’s list out a bunch of things, in addition to guns, that are used, whether intentional or not, to kill people: cars, knives, baseball bats, drugs, golf clubs, chemicals, beer bottles, rope, razor blades, electricity, and you can add to this list all you would like.

Like the idea of limiting magazine size, we should then consider limiting certain things with these items readily used to kill people. With automobiles, we have done many things in an attempt to protect passengers in a car. We all know the saying – speed kills. Shouldn’t we then, using the same rationale as the magazine limitation, restrict motor sizes in vehicles? Or perhaps equip them all with a governor that presets a maximum speed? Limit the number of passengers? Create a 30-day waiting period before you can buy a car and by all means let’s limit ownership to just one?

Knives should then be either made with shorter or duller blades, made of material that can’t be sharpened or made jagged. Baseball bats should have limits on length and size, no more than 2 to a home or Little League team; drugs containing smaller doses; chemicals in smaller containers, beer bottles all made from non shattering plastic; razor blades can only be purchased one to a pack, and electricity in reduced amperes that would limit the killing power to say, just five people. Isn’t this all just silly? What are we doing about the sick individuals who want to hurt people?

The absurdity can never end. We’ve looked at Second Amendment and one right in the First Amendment, speech. Think of the others guaranteed in the First, i.e. religion, press, assembling, petitioning. Granted there are always cries under certain situations to place restrictions on all of these rights. Most are quickly rejected, so far, by the majority. But, do we treat these guarantees in the same fashion as the right to keep and bear arms?

For those who believe a reasonable compromise on gun restrictions would be to limit magazine capacity, let me leave you with this comment I found on the above Hot Air column I linked to:

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

LawDog

Tom Remington

The other day I was having one of my talks with a modern day ‘progressive’ when they spewed out how our founders were nothing but racist white men and how we needed to move past anything they thought. I asked exactly why he believed that way and his reply was that they only considered blacks as 3/5ths of a human and they were all slave owners. Now, considering my research on our founders, I knew this to be incorrect and my reply completely confused him. This is how people get labeled as ‘shallow thinkers’ by me.

I explained to him that in fact the 3/5ths idea was an anti-slavery position, not a pro-slavery position. He would have needed an extension ladder to grasp that thought as it went so far over his head. I simply cannot believe how indoctrinated people have become and how college educated people have such a low ability to actually think or even question and research a thought. I made his head explode. Oh, I so enjoy doing this.

Following is a basic rundown of the conversation I had with him in an attempt to get him to reason beyond the first level of thought he was programmed to follow while acquiring his ‘degree’.

Slavery in the 1700’s was considered normal throughout most of the world. It wasn’t necessarily considered inhumane or immoral as the majority of slave owners of that time never considered blacks as anything more than property. Now, although most of the founding fathers did indeed own slaves at the time and it was not uncommon for those of wealth and means to do so, the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the promotion of rights that were presented in it, many of these men began to see the irony and contradiction that slavery presented.

As time passed that contradiction began to become something that was impossible to ignore. And although it was in opposition to the ‘mainstream’ back then, it began to bear fruit, if nothing more than in thought. It became a polarizing issue just as many of today’s morally based issues are.

When these men assembled in Philadelphia to convene the Constitutional Convention, most understood the implications and importance of the work at hand. The future of a country was at stake and these men were handed the responsibility of drafting the documents that would lead to the formation of the greatest and freest nation yet to be formed on this planet.

They were men from every state, with many differing opinions and agendas, and yet the underlying importance of what they were to accomplish was always at the forefront. And in order to accomplish this, compromise was always rearing its ugly head in order to succeed in the end goal.

Not one man present walked out at the conclusion of the Convention with the exact document they would have personally desired. This is very important to remember if you really want to understand such items as the 3/5ths count for slaves.

One of the greatest arguments at this Convention was the issue of proportional vs. equal representation; small states advocating for equal representation and big states advocating for proportional. This argument went on for months and at more than one time threatened to break up the Convention all together.

As most who know basic civics now realize, the compromise was a lower house with proportional representation and a higher house with equal representation. One has to remember the importance of this basic issue to really understand the 3/5ths issue.

Slavery was never going to be abolished as many wished and still be successful in ratifying the finished document. Anti-slavery states tried to have slaves not be counted at all in considering proportional representation; the pro-slavery states threatened to walk out. The pro-slavery states tried to have slaves counted in full, thus allowing them more representation within the federal system they were creating and anti-slavery states threatened to walk out.

Once again they were left with the realization that compromise was going to have to be made if success was going to be had. Through much debate, the 3/5ths compromise was agreed to; it still allowed the pro-slavery states to retain their ‘property’ and a reasonable amount of representation and the anti-slavery states saw it as a way to keep them from realizing the massive representation they would have acquired through a full counting of the slaves.

In the end it allowed for the seed to be planted against slavery, one that took almost two hundred years to fully bear fruit, but sometimes the necessity to compromise for the greater good leads to situations that are easily misunderstood by those unwilling to look at the reasons behind them. This 3/5ths issue is commonly used by today’s ‘progressive’ as what they believe to be proof that our founders were in fact racist and pro slavery, when in reality, it was an anti-slavery act.

To be unwilling to look beyond the surface and seek the truth at the foundation, will in the end lead to your being seriously mislead by those all too willing to take your power you give away and use it against you.

Barry Coe

Washington, D.C. – New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor David Paterson are asking the federal government to deny New York City residents on food stamps the ability to use aid to buy certain beverages. Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network, sees this as a warning about the limits to freedom that inevitably come with increased government dependency.

“Efforts by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson to use the power of the government to control the dietary choices of Americans on food stamps should serve as a warning that dependency leads to a loss of freedom,” said Project 21′s Borelli. “Once someone is on the government’s plantation, politicians will inevitably try to leverage this power to control every aspect of their life. They think they know what’s best for everyone else.”

Under the rules governing food stamps, there are currently only prohibitions on the purchase of certain prepared foods, alcohol, tobacco and vitamins. Bloomberg and Paterson, however, now want permission from the federal government to prohibit New York City’s 1.7 million residents using food stamps from buying certain sugary drinks. The politicians want to see how this affects obesity statistics. Such a restriction on assistance to the poor would be the first of its kind anywhere in America.

“Controlling poor peoples’ diets is likely only the first step. This attempted power-grab shows there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to government dependency,” added Borelli. “When the government pays the bills, it will use this power of the purse to control peoples’ lives. From this example, it’s not hard to see how the government can use its increasing command over the health care system to dictate additional lifestyle choices.”

“This tea party was no different from any of the others. It was like others, but not the way the left is going to want to say,” said Project 21 member Bob Parks. “I encountered a lot of the usual nice people. I was called names such as ‘hero’ and ‘patriot’ even though I think that a bit over-the-top. I was forced by this mob to shake hands and endure the hugs of well-wishers. But this obviously isn’t what tea party critics are going to say.”

Parks satirically interviewed minorities in the crowd at the Freedomworks-organized “March on D.C.” at the U.S. Capitol — poking fun at claims that “people of color” don’t attend tea party rallies. This video is available at http://tw0.us/Q70.

Project 21 members were featured speakers at the three main tea party rallies held nationwide on September 12 — in Washington, D.C., St. Louis, Missouri and Sacramento, California. The speech by Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli, who spoke at the D.C. event, can be viewed at http://tw0.us/Q71.

“Freedom-loving Americans, for the second time in a month, have brought their cause of liberty to Washington, D.C.,” said Borelli. “This most-recent rally was about Obama’s failed policies such as cap-and-trade and Obamacare. It was a fantastic experience, and I was honored to be a speaker for the second year in row.”

The NAACP recently joined with the far-left groups Think Progress, Media Matters and New Left Media to set up a web site to allegedly expose radical elements in the tea party movement. The NAACP also passed an unreleased resolution at their annual convention that reportedly condemns racism in the tea party movement and calls on tea party leaders to repudiate unspecified acts of intolerance.

Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership network question the sincerity of establishment civil rights leaders opposing talk show host Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial August 28.

That date is the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

“If this place and time is so sacred, why didn’t Al Sharpton or the NAACP already have a permit to use the Lincoln Memorial that day before Beck ever sought one?” asked Project 21 member Lisa Fritsch. “Beck’s critics will surely fail if their goal is simply to criticize him for celebrating spirituality and love of country. They may be envious of Beck and scratching their heads that they didn’t think of it first, and that’s something they’ll have to look into their own hearts to figure out.”

According its web site, Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally is intended to “celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future” and “pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Political signs are discouraged from the event. Beck, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. King and a member of Project 21) and decorated Navy veteran Marcus Luttrell are among the scheduled speakers.

While Beck stresses a positive and apolitical message, the civil rights lobby apparently refuses to exhibit the tolerance it demands of others when it comes to the “Restore Honor” rally. This concerns many Project 21 members, who see these special interests as actually harming race relations in the long term.

“Liberals are quick to ask for tolerance when it comes to putting a permanent mosque next to Ground Zero, but they were quick to oppose Beck using the Lincoln Memorial on the King anniversary or possibly ever. It’s a double-standard,” said Project 21 member Jimmie Hollis, who plans to attend the August 28 event.

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli, who is also planning to be at the Beck event, added: “During these trying times of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, Americas need to rally behind core principles of truth and honor. We need to break away from the race-baiting antics and grand standing from Al Sharpton. Glenn Beck’s ‘Restoring Honor’ rally is a great way to bring freedom-loving Americans together to instill hope and promote our core values that made America great.”

Washington, D.C. – Black activists with the Project 21 leadership network support the right of talk show host Glenn Beck to hold his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 2010. Because Beck’s event takes place on the anniversary and at the location of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1964 “March on Washington” rally, leaders of the establishment civil rights groups oppose the event.

“It’s my understanding from reading the Constitution that the First Amendment applies to all. And nothing better exemplified that than when Dr. King exercised his First Amendment rights nearly 50 years ago,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “This isn’t about Dr. King or the day and venue itself. It is about a contempt for the message. It is about those who trade on race as a means of notoriety and income fomenting discord for the sake of keeping those who are loathe to realize they are free imprisoned on a plantation of resentment and bitterness.”

Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally is described on its web site as a way to “celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.” It also states that it is a “non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” Speakers include Beck, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. King and a member of Project 21) and decorated Navy veteran Marcus Luttrell.

Among the restrictions on the event, Beck wants no political signs because “they may deter from the peaceful message we are bringing to Washington.”

Marc Morial of the National Urban League, a fierce critic of the Beck event, calls it “insulting” and a “hijacking of the imagery and symbolism of August 28 and the Lincoln Memorial.” Reverend Al Sharpton is planning a “Reclaim the Dream” rally and march that is supported by the NAACP and NUL that will end at the site of the under-construction King Memorial within several hundred feet of the Lincoln Memorial.

Project 21 members question the goals and wisdom of the Sharpton-led event.

“So, Al Sharpton essentially wants to crash Beck’s event. Has anyone noticed how the left loves to invite themselves to things for the sole purpose of smearing them? Just because the good reverend says he doesn’t plan on confrontation, would he explain the provocation of having his marchers be turned loose within yards of Beck’s rally?” asks Project 21 member Bob Parks. “You might want to ask the families of those who suffered — and died — in the 1991 Crown Heights riot or the Freddy’s Fashion Mart firebombing in Harlem in 1995 about how Sharpton’s brand of non-confrontation is working for them. The only reason for bringing marchers that close to the Glenn Beck rally is to start something.”

“Groups such as the National Urban League must realize that Martin Luther King had no monopoly on the public square — or the Lincoln Memorial. Holidays and special events are shared at various sites and on the same day,” said Project 21 member Emery McClendon. “Check the record. Find out that Glenn Beck is holding his event on this day to honor Dr. King as well as to remind all Americans that God alone can heal our Republic. It is an event aimed at restoring honor.”

This is, the EEOC says, because blacks and Hispanics are over-represented among felons.

“Blacks and Hispanics also have an unfortunate higher high school and college dropout rates than whites and Asians — surely this could be determined to be a disparate impact. Does that mean the EEOC could mandate that employers cannot consider an applicant’s education? Where will it stop?” asks Justin Danhof, general counsel of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “It is unfortunate that the EEOC is placing outdated racial politics ahead of the American workforce at a time when employers should be encouraged to hire, but this mentality will likely make businesses think twice about plans for expansion. Employers should be free to consider the full content of an applicant’s character when making hiring decisions.”

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “It does not ban discrimination based on character. Furthermore, it’s odd that an agency charged with stopping racism and sexism in hiring has adopted a policy that will help more white males than members of any other group.”

“The EEOC should not be trying to micromanage private hiring decisions beyond the authority given to it by Congress,” added Ridenour, “which this wrongheaded policy surely does. And pity the poor employer, fearful on the one hand of being charged with racism if he does not hire a felon — white though that felon might be — but fearful on the other of being sued by his other employees, should that felon commit a crime at the workplace that harms them. Certainly employers should be permitted to hire felons; even applauded when appropriate, but they should not be made to feel they could be asked to defend themselves in court if they do not.”

Washington, D.C. – Attorneys at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believe new technology that makes it easier for employers to check the criminal and credit histories of applicants also makes it harder for blacks and Hispanics to find jobs. Members of the Project 21 black leadership network fault this position, noting that it unjustly interferes with the ability of employers to build a trusted and coherent workforce.

“Background and credit checks are legitimate hiring and recruitment tools,” said Project 21 member Horace Cooper, a former visiting assistant professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law. “There is no federal law making a refusal to hire convicted felons a crime, and felon status is not a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Especially in the midst of a recession, suits like these — which charge racial discrimination — falsely serve to only make hiring decisions unnecessarily harder and lessen the impact of real allegations of racism.”

Adrienne Hudson filed a lawsuit against First Transit after she was fired from a bus driver position with the company. She alleges her firing was due to her prior conviction for welfare fraud, and that First Transit discriminates against blacks and Hispanics when it does background checks because these minority groups have higher rates of arrest and convictions than whites. First Transit representatives would not comment.

The AP reports the EEOC believes background checks can have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics, and quotes EEOC assistant legal counsel Carol Miaskoff saying “the problem is snowballing because of the technology” that is making it easier to do such checks.

Last fall, the EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit against the Freeman Companies event-planning company that claimed the company’s background checks discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and men.

“Once again, the liberal legal theory of ‘disparate impact’ is trotted out. This time, it is by the bean-counters at EEOC. They are now arguing that if an employer conducts background checks on employees they are, in effect, discriminating against black and Latino applicants. But shouldn’t employers have the right to set standards for those they seek to employ and reject those who have criminal records?” said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com “Americans strongly believe in the concept of redemption, but there must be consequences for illegal behavior. To claim otherwise suggests that employers should ignore employment standards and simply hire people based on some ideological concept of ‘social justice.’ The notion that criminal background checks disadvantage blacks and Latinos is based in the reality that blacks are 38 percent of the prison population but only 12 percent of the general population. This shouldn’t be used as an argument for eliminating employment standards, but a reason to understand and combat the dysfunction and violent criminality that’s an all-too-real part of poor black urban life.”

“There has been a mighty effort by liberals to present Shirley Sherrod as a victim — even a saint-like figure. However, after revelations that her husband, Charles, is an anti-white bigot and that she adheres to class warfare politics, it’s now being alleged that Ms. Sherrod presided over the crass exploitation of poor black workers on a southwest Georgia agricultural ‘plantation,’” said Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks.

Hicks, a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and currently host of “The Hicks File” at PJTV.com, added: “The fellow making the claim is none other than Ron Wilkins, an ex-SNCC organizer, who should know what he’s talking about. Wilkins says he once worked on the Sherrod-managed plantation in the 1970s. I know this guy from the early days of ‘Black Power’ politics in Los Angeles and he’s known to be a straight shooter. If Wilkins claims are proven to be true, Sherrod owes an explanation and an apology — not only to Wilkins but the other black farm workers she misused.”

In an article posted on the left-wing Counterpunch web site on August 2, Ron Wilkins reported that Shirley Sherrod and her husband, Charles, helped manage the New Communities, Inc. farm in Albany, Georgia in the 1970s. Wilkins claimed the Sherrods and other managers “under-paid, mistreated and fired black laborers — many of them less than 16 years of age — in the same fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery.”

Wilkins, a former organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who is now a professor at California State University – Dominguez Hills, says he infiltrated the NCI operation in 1974 on behalf of a group overseeing NCI called the Emergency Land Fund. Wilkins claims his later efforts to organize NCI workers while working there led to his firing, eviction for an NCI-owned “shack” and arrest on “bogus” charges.

Wilkins added:

Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc. store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field. The 6,000-acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse.

In 1974, 67 cents had the purchasing power of $2.91 in 2009 dollars according to the website measuringworth.com. Wilkins claims he made $40 a week ($174 in 2009 dollars) at the time he was fired. His 2010 claims about conditions at the NCI farm and managers’ anti-labor behavior are reported in a September 28, 1974 article in the United Farm Workers newspaper El Malcriado — which specifically cites Charles Sherrod as a manager of the farm.

“It truly is shocking to see someone supposedly dedicated to civil rights now exposed for her involvement in the ugly exploitation of black workers approaching their total abuse in the ante-bellum South,” said Deroy Murdock, a Project 21 member who is also a nationally-syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and media fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “Once again, those on the right are supposed to be the ‘bad guys’ who make life difficult for black Americans. Yet here we have Shirley Sherrod, hailed as a black civil rights leader, allegedly taking advantage of poor black Americans, keeping them poor and firing those who complain about mistreatment.”

Counterpunch is a web site edited by respected leftist journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Wilkins’ article can be found at http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins08022010.html, and a scan of the El Malcriado article can be found at http://tw0.us/MkZ while the entire newspaper in which the article is found is at http://tw0.us/MkU.

Wilkins reports that NCI went out of business in 1985.

On the July 17 edition of “Geraldo At Large” on the Fox News Channel, Borelli appeared on a panel discussion about race and politics with NAACP senior vice president Hilary Shelton.

During the discussion, Borelli asked Shelton if the NAACP would issue a statement condemning those who expose her to race-based abuse because she is an outspoken black female with views.

The following is the Borelli-Shelton exchange on “Geraldo At Large”:

Borelli: “I’m a black, female conservative. I’m often targeted by individuals who call me all kinds of names: racist, an Uncle Tom, a traitor – you name it. I’d like to know if the NAACP will issue a statement condemning those individuals who were doing that.”

Shelton: “Why, yes, ma’am… Just give us some details… The very broad answer is… yes, we repudiate anybody calling you a bad name in the political arena.”

Shelton added that the NAACP repudiated past assaults on Bush Administration cabinet members General Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

A video of the exchange can be seen at http://tw0.us/Kw2.

Borelli has been called the n-word by liberal critics, as well as other epithets such as “house negro,” “Stepin Fetchit,” “Sambo,” “Uncle Tom,” “Auntie Tom” and a “pitiful excuse of a human being,” among many others.

Project 21 will send a detailed letter to Shelton chronicling some of the past racist statements made against Borelli and other Project 21 members.

Last week the NAACP passed a resolution they will unveil later this year that calls on leaders of the tea party movement to denounce alleged racism in their ranks. There was no similar action regarding progressive mistreatment of black conservatives.

“I hope that Hilary Shelton’s pledge on ‘Geraldo At Large’ to have the NAACP officially repudiate racially abusive statements about black conservatives was earnest and not just a way to get out of a tight squeeze,” said Borelli. “The era of the wink-and-nod use of the race card in politics must end.”

Borelli added: “Progressives cannot hurl stones at the tea party movement for alleged racist behavior without hitting a few of their own glass houses. There is a particularly strong and sinister vitriol reserved for black conservatives, and it is wrong for the NAACP not to recognize it and demand it be stopped. I am looking forward to Hilary Shelton making good on his pledge to speak out against it.”