Upon reading that headline you might say, of course, it was the "evil" wicked "whites" that owned the slaves and became rich on the backs of the black workers they owned. But, not so fast, all the slave owners during our history were not all white, there were over 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves. Should the ancestors of those black slave owners be part of the proposed reparations reimbursement?

Here are some facts the "reparations" promoters never tell you. The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson. He was descended from West Africa where most of the slaves originally came from. The "white" slave traders didn't go to West Africa and capture black people, they bought the slaves from other blacks who owned their own black slaves from other tribes. Should those relatives of black slave sellers be also a part of the reparations reimbursement?

In North Carolina, the largest slave holder in 1860 (right before the Civil War) was a black plantation owner named William Ellison. Another unknown fact is that American Indians owned thousands of black slaves. How ironic is that? In fact, during those pre-Civil War days, many black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate. These facts somehow never reached our history textbooks in our schools.

Even today, slavery exists in Africa and in some Muslim countries. As stated above, black on black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years. And most slaves brought to America were purchased from black slave owners.

With those facts in mind and how this "reparations" discussion is being conducted, you think that the only "evil" people involved in slavery were white people, mainly in the South. It is estimated that only 1 in 5 people in the South owned slaves (20% of the population). So, that charge that only white people participated in the business of slavery is absurd.

No one in their right mind would condone slavery, regardless who is being enslaved, whether black, yellow, red, or white. By the way, the word "slave" comes from the Slavic people from Europe who were enslaved by the Muslim hordes, who overran their countries in years past. The Muslims have a long history of capturing and using slaves in their culture, and still do today.

Today, the reparations movement is being mainly pushed by militant black groups and by certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus (including some Democrat candidates for president). It seems that their major interest in reparations is political and not really financial, as they know that most people are not in favor of it and that the whole discussion is ridiculous as slavery was abolished over 156 years ago. Their major goal is to shame the white Americans into thinking that slavery was all their ancestors fault and that reparations would be justification for giving money for descendants of slaves. Over the years we have given the black
community a form or reparations, it was called "affirmative action".

So in answer to our headline, the answer is "NO", reparations is not required to assuage the "white guilt" the promoters of reparations are falsely using to promote this unrealistic idea. The one positive thing of the wrongful practice of slavery is that the descendants of slavery now live in the greatest free country in the world where black people can become anything they want to be, including president of the United States, and not be in one of those oppressive countries from which their ancestors were sold into slavery. God bless America!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

P.S.- Check on the facts presented here by Googling up "Blacks Who Owned Slaves Prior to the Civil War"

​The push is on by the Democrat Party to have the government mandate a $15 per hour minimum wage. If there ever was a job killer proposed by our feckless politicians, this would be right at the top.

Everyone wants to make as much money as possible working at a job, but it should be determined by the free market not by a government mandate. Remember, a worker really does not get paid by the hour, he/she gets paid for the value they bring to the hour. If an employer wants to pay $10, $15, $20 or more per hour to their employees, fine, but it should not be dictated by the government it should be determined by the employer as to what he can afford and what he/she needs to attract new employees. The free market shall determine what an employer needs to pay.

This proposed increase in the minimum wage really hurts the people the promoters of the mandated minimum wage are trying to help. The minimum wage is not supposed to be a wage that will sustain a family. It is a wage used as a stepping stone for unskilled, inexperienced workers starting out in their working career. It also is geared for the senior citizens who are looking to supplement their retirement income. Most workers, who today work for the minimum wage, are teenagers starting out their working careers. Most find employment in fast food restaurants, service companies and clerks in retail stores. If the employer is forced to pay someone more than what the job is worth to the employer, then the employer most likely will not hire a worker, he may lay off workers, he may cut the hours worked by the employees, he may have to raise his prices to meet the added cost of doing business, or he may just have to go out of business, thereby creating more unemployment, especially among the young people needing to get experience by working at a job.

It seems that most all the Democrats missed that class in Economics 101 in school because of the damaging consequences of pushing to pass a $15 government mandated minimum wage. Is that showing empathy to the low skilled, inexperienced worker who will be unable to get a job and who will join the rolls of the unemployed? Many of the teenagers who cannot find a job are prone to get involved anti-social behavior or possibly turn to crime as a result.

One of the consequences of raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour for a beginner worker, is that the worker now earning $15 per hour per hour will now want a raise to $20 per hour, and the worker making $20 per hour will now want $25 per hour, on up the line. It's like a case of tipping over standing dominoes in a row. Besides the pressure to increase the employers payroll, it will mean that he will have to pay more in Social Security taxes which is an additional cost of doing business. So it is not just the worker getting paid the new minimum wage, it affects all the employees now earning above the minimum wage, and of course, the employer who will be saddled with the extra cost of doing business.

In New York City with the minimum wage raised to $15 per hour, we have 4,000 restaurant workers laid off and a few restaurants who have since went out of business, and ironically, the bar/restaurant that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez worked, before she became a Congresswoman, has closed its doors as a result. The same thing has happened in Seattle, Washington after they raised their minimum wage. You could say that the old adage of “Those that don't remember the past are bound to repeat it” certainly applies in the case of a government mandated minimum wage.

So again I ask the question, “is it better to be employed at $8.00 per hour or unemployed at $15.00 per hour”? Only an ignorant politician would not agree with that obvious answer.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

If it was, then AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) would be in extensive rehab now and in the future. To equate the conditions at our southern border with concentration camps, as in Hitler's Nazi Germany, is beyond stupid. It is downright disgusting.

But, she is looked upon by the feckless Democrats as a shining light in the Democrat Party, and therefore worthy of defense. Can the Democrat Party be that hard up for a shining light in representing them?

Whether you love President Trump or hate him, you have to admit, if you already wasn't blinded by the facts by your loony liberal ideology, that he has done the country well with his economic policies and the fact that he has fulfilled many of the promises he made while campaigning for president, much to the chagrin of the Democrats. If things in our country are better now with almost 100% resistance of the Democrats and the main street media, think of what he could accomplish if he won re-election and had a majority in the House and Senate? He doesn't fit into the stupid category.

The voters in 2016 didn't elect a Pope to lead us, they elected a leader who promised to “drain the swamp” of self-serving politicians whose only job seemed to be gaining power or holding on to power by getting re-elected, the country be damned. That's one of main reasons why the Democrats (and some RINO Republicans) don't want him to succeed. No matter how hard they try to vilify him and trash him personally, the U.S. people knew then, and today know where “their bread is buttered”. They don't want to be saddled with a Socialist president (or one that is a Socialist sympathizer) who will forgo all the good that Trump has accomplished under his pro-growth policies.

Look at what the Democrats have to offer the American people. They want to implement Medicare for all (with a price tag of over $10 trillion over a 10 year period); they want to mandate a $15 per hour minimum wage which will be a job killer; they want to undo the Trump tax cuts; they want to re-institute the harmful government regulations which Trump got rid of; they want open borders so anybody can enter our country illegally (and eventually vote Democrat); they want unlimited abortion up to the 3rd trimester; and some even want to give reparations to descendants of slavery which ended 150 years ago. And the list of nonsensical proposals go on and on. It seems that they would like for our country to be like a Venezuela or Cuba.

The Democrat Party is a party of special interests. They try to appeal to all hyphenated-Americans by pitting one group against another group. They don't follow the sage advice of our motto of “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one ). Our country, since its beginning, has been a “melting pot”, welcoming people from all over the world who want to enjoy the benefits that our free great country has to offer. All those good things would not exist if a left-wing Socialist oriented government would win our next election.

Look at the Democrats who have been chosen as the “beacons of their party”, besides AOC, there is Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders etc, etc. All they do is bad mouth our country and our economic system, and try to undermine our president, Donald
Trump.

So to reiterate our tongue-in-cheek headline – too bad stupidity isn't painful, as by being painful it might deter the anti-American rhetoric that flows out of their mouths if it made them physically uncomfortable.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

The so called ' Beautiful People'  the social media labeled for consumption to some of the wannabe nothings of the planet, whom they laughably try to emulate, are most unattractive. Many of these highly over compensated and of little talent and skills, whose mentality barely qualifies them for minimum wage, are useless narcissist, so full of themselves to feel what they think or do matters and is an asset to society.

This crop of post Woodstock celebrities and entertainers and pre-steroid athletes have diminished our moral values, decency and civility, marring the landscape and giving the gullible a distorted picture of the human condition. I don't recall who said it, "You know what God thinks of money when you see who He has given it to!"

The 'Golden Age of Hollywood' exuded glamour and macho heroes. It is lost in today's perception of what is glamour? Shocking behavior? See through clothes showing boobs? Tattoos? Promiscuity? Un-wed parenthood? 

Who are the macho heroes? Effeminate men who think by walking around with chin  stubble, shaven heads and duds designed by twinkle-toe coutures makes them look masculine?

The likes of actors and actresses like Rita Hayworth, Gene Tierney, Hedy Lamar, Grace Kelly, Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart, William Holden, John Wayne  and a slew of others from that golden age are gone. The warped deviates and others of questionable gender who now control the film industry, have failed in quality casting, save for a few. That need is not dire, when a plot is not needed, because special effects and violence fills the one or two hours from reality.

The destruction of good taste and morals transcends into the music world. Beautiful melodies played on true instruments, not plugged in guitars, electronic key boards and poetic lyrics sung by performers without gimmicks, ink, gyrations or a chorus of back-ups seem to be lost and replaced with noise, identified as Rap, Hip Hop, Rock and whatever stupid name you want to call it. Noise is noise by any other name.

No head or falsetto voices here.....Frank Sinatra, Tony Martin, Andy Williams, Nat King Cole,  Dean Martin, Mills Bros., Ames Bros., Mario Lanza. And no gaudy, skimpy costumes to detract for lack of talent from these ladies..... Sarah Vaughn, Vikki Carr, Rosemary Clooney, Dinah Shore, Edie Gorme, Ella Fitzgerald, Helen O'Connell, Lena Horn, Andrew Sisters to name a few are gone, and the music media outlets deny our young exposure to more tasteful music, by never presenting them in any venue.

Less MTV and more Andre Rieu type of programing mixed with real oldies from the 30's, 40's and early 50's that bring back a gentler tone, not noise pollution by performers who look like they need a bath and a bail bondsman is in dire need to our culture.

Today we have hundreds of channels to choose from on TV. Far too many choices, causing complacency and lack of exciting anticipation stirred in the early days of television, when crowds gathered in front of an appliance store to watch Milton Berle on a demonstration TVset in the window. Our monthly statement from the television provider is enhanced with revenue from the channels you don't watch but having to pay for. Few are worth our attention.
In its infancy, this medium offered fewer channel choices; large urban areas like New York had seven VHF and two UHF stations.

Tiddlywinks competitions, humiliating reality and Idol shows and political pundits dominate the air waves, replacing the Sid Caesars, Ed Sullivans, Jackie Gleasons, Red Skeltons, Lucille Balls, live drama, etc. Programing like, Downton Abby, Flame Trees of Thika, As Times Go By and other fare of good plots and casting are rare.

With all the new gimmicks and technology, there seems to be something missing in our choices and tastes.

Conservative Commenary by George Giftos​

The latest unemployment figures put out by the Labor Department remained at 3.6% (which is statistically full employment) and that there were more jobs available than there were workers qualified to fill them. So, why has the homeless population seem to be increasing (especially in the Democrat run cities and states)?

Some answers might include an increase in drug use (alcohol, drugs and opioids), a failure of our educational system to prepare students to be productive citizens, and the constant intrusion of the government in giving out welfare benefits. Look at what is happening to the once beautiful cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland (Oregon), and Seattle. They are being ruined by an increasing homeless population that makes living in those cities an unpleasant experience due to tent cities, rampant drug and alcohol use (with discarded hypodermic needles on the sidewalks and streets), mounds of garbage littering neighborhoods and parks and city thoroughfares. Needless to say, crime and disease is the result of these types of living conditions. I recently witnessed the demise of Venice Beach in California. This beautiful beach is now inhabited by homeless on the beach and along the boardwalk with marijuana stores open for business. It was a disgrace to let that place go to hell.

In addition to the drug and opioid users, a sizable illegal alien population has swelled their numbers due to the state and local government policies of “Sanctuary Cities”.

Where are our politicians in trying to confront this problem? Does winning the next election take priority over keeping their constituents safe and free from assault and disease? It seems most all of our politicians, mostly Democrats, are only interested in trying to impeach President Trump and to regain control of Congress and the presidency. The public be damned.

It is a shame that during these economic boom times, we have problems such as experienced and listed above. As the more we “Define Deviancy Down” (a saying coined by the late Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan), we will not get control of this lowering of the moral and life standards. The push to make legal that “benign” mind altering drug, marijuana, is a sign of “political correctness” run amok. We will rue the day that we have let our guard down to pander to the radicals in our midst.

The easing of the countries drug laws by pushing the envelope to make drugs legal, has had a dramatic effect on many cities around the country. It seems we are heading to creating a sizable number “zombies” who are walking around in a perpetual stupor, unable to work or to be a productive citizen, due to their abuse of alcohol and drug use.

You could say this homeless crisis is an addiction crisis in disguise. Many Liberals and Progressives blame a housing shortage, lack of job opportunities, cuts in mental health services, sexual abuse etc. Even if some of the above is valid, the most persuasive cause of homelessness is clear; heroin, fentanyl, and opioids, and government intervention, by making it easy for the addicts to thrive and multiply. 

Why do we put up with this inaction on the part of our elected representatives? Is it more important to press on with the ridiculous impeachment charges against the president or would it be wise address the problem of homelessness, addiction, and to some extent the infusion of illegal immigrants? The old expression of “throw the rascals out” would seem appropriate come election time. Let's do it!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann