Democrats Should Pay Reparations for Slavery and Abuse of Blacks
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democratic presidential candidates Julián Castro, Sen. Kamala Harris, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently pushed their party even further left with their latest radical scheme —slavery reparations. This is beyond ironic, of course, since Democrats have tortured blacks for centuries and hammer us even today.
Slavery spread agony across the South, under the watchful eyes of Democrats, such as President Andrew Jackson, since the party’s 1828 launch. It was not until 1860’s election of Republican Abraham Lincoln that the final, decisive push toward abolition began.
The GOP-led Union Army crushed the Democrat-led Confederacy in 1865. That’s when Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation came into full force, as Republicans freed the slaves.
The Republicans Radical Reconstruction empowered newly liberated blacks. Overriding the vetoes of Democrat Andrew Johnson, congressional Republicans pressured Southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing blacks equal protection under law.
"Blacks won election to southern state governments and even to the U.S. Congress during this period," History.com recalls. Alas, by 1877, the Democratically-launched " Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organizations targeted local Republican leaders , white and black, and other African Americans who challenged white authority."
Tightening Democratic control of state legislatures and Congress rubbed out Reconstruction and swept in Jim Crow segregation. Democrats adopted and enforced these statutes across Dixie and even in Washington.
Democratic President Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the previously integrated bathrooms in the then-State, War, and Navy Department Building, adjacent to the White House.
The order to create separate toilets for "women, white men, and Colored" was signed on Aug. 7, 1916 by none other than Assistant Navy Secretary Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
FDR became, arguably, the most influential Democratic president ever.
His actions included the 1937 nomination of former Klansman Hugo Black to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before defeating Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo, FDR forced some 112,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry into World War II internment camps .
Democrat President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces in 1948. This was about the first good thing a Democrat ever did for black Americans.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, decision ruled separate-but-equal government education unconstitutional in 1954.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, previously California’s three-term Republican governor, delivered the Court’s unanimous, pro-integration opinion. Warren rejected the oral arguments of John W. Davis, the 1924 Democratic presidential nominee, who defended separate-but-equal classrooms.
U.S. Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK who recruited some 150 new Klansmen) Albert Gore, Sr. of Tennessee, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, and other Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 60 legislative days. Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois finally broke the filibuster and clinched the measure’s passage.
Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the bill, which was a beautiful thing.
He also approved the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush each re-authorized for 25 years in 1982 and 2006.
Reagan also signed into law the Martin Luther King national holiday.
Today, teachers-union-funded Democrats tirelessly battle school choice, thus stranding black children in classrooms where, too often, too little learning occurs. Obama struggled mightily to kill the Washington, D.C. School Voucher Program, which G.W. Bush signed.
Then-U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and former Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., secured the funds to keep this sliver of hope alive.
Republican President Donald J. Trump has championed school choice, not least by signing Senator Ted Cruz’s, R-Texas, language to let "529" savings accounts accept tax-free deposits for K-12 studies , not just university tuition. Trump also approved a new criminal-justice- reform law that will reduce mass incarceration, largely benefiting black prisoners.
So, if Democrats want reparations to atone for their nearly 200 years of anti-black sins, they should finance them. From Barbra Streisand to George Clooney to Tom Steyer to George Soros, the Democratic 1 percenters should shove their billions into a huge pile and then show us the money!
Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with National Review Online. He has been a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
“Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush each re-authorized for 25 years in 1982 and 2006.
Reagan also signed into law the Martin Luther King national holiday.
Today, teachers-union-funded Democrats tirelessly battle school choice, thus stranding black children in classrooms where, too often, too little learning occurs. Obama struggled mightily to kill the Washington, D.C. School Voucher Program, which G.W. Bush signed.
Then-U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and former Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., secured the funds to keep this sliver of hope alive.
Republican President Donald J. Trump has championed school choice, not least by signing Senator Ted Cruz’s, R-Texas, language to let "529" savings accounts accept tax-free deposits for K-12 studies , not just university tuition. Trump also approved a new criminal-justice- reform law that will reduce mass incarceration, largely benefiting black prisoners.”
So what you're saying is that you want Democrats to take responsibility for everything the Confederate states did?
No, the African American author of the seeded article wants the democrats to pay for all that they have done from 1801 when they first had the presidency to the present day. Not just for what confederate democrats did. The seeded article is clear as to who he feels owe his fellow African Americans reparations and why and he’s right.
Well then the Democrats can start with taking all of the Confederate monuments down so that AA don't have to be reminded of their oppression.
Feel free after the reparations are paid up.
I consider removing the Confederate monuments as part of the reparations.
Though the author of the seeded article is obviously from African decent, he is only a second generation American, his parents are from Costa Rica and therefore HE would not qualify for 'reparations'. So his demand that Democrats "shove their billions into a huge pile and then show us the money!", he is claiming membership in a group to which he does NOT belong.
Well...
But that's just...
Really not what the goal was here.
It was about fighting Democrats, not racism.
As your comment and KAG's response revealed.
It will be interesting how African Americans are divided up by the Dems to determine which get reparations and which don’t. It’s likely that the ancestors of African Americans from the Caribbean Islands also were slaves as well in excess of 90% of all slaves brought from Africa on ships did not come to the territory that became the United States. Also one African American certain to be ineligible is Barack Obama.
Racism is a democrat problem far more than an overall American issue. Most of us are ready to share in MLKJr’s wonderful dream for all of our country.
Sure, sure. David Duke probably says the same thing.
Yet with all that blathering, you still fail to recognize that US reparations would ONLY go to Ancestors of people who were enslaved in the US.
And YES, that would mean that Obama would not be eligible.
When he was a democrat? The GOP has always rejected him.
Duke was a democrat from 1975 to 1988, and a GOP Louisiana State House Rep from 1989 to 1992.
He was unaligned from 2001 until 2016 when he primaryed as a Republican for the US Senate.
Did they? He wasn't a Republican when he was a Louisiana State Representative from 1989 until 1992?
Oh, wait, he was.
GOP leadership may have rejected him. GOP voters haven't always.
Take all those monuments, melt them down and sell the scrap metal to help pay for the reparations
The Democrat voters haven't rejected him either, nor the Democrat Party when he was one of their bunch.
Apparently, he felt that the Dem ideology didn't mesh with his own. I wonder why that was?
No, this is the same old trick they try to keep playing...
They love using the Democrat/Republican lables when it can be used to escape the actual facts which were the conservatives were the writers of Jim Crow, and they were the one's that always had enough rope to string to a tree
When civil rights were introduced, the conservatives couldn't run away fast enough.
The Civil Rights Act could never have been passed without the GOP. Percentage wise more Republicans voted for it than democrats and the roadblock for JFK WAS southern democrats.
They are revisionists, no question about it!
Which were the liberals at the time.
Again, it was the southern conservatives that was the roadblock for JFK.
No, you can't but learning history would be mandatory if you're going to make misinformed and snarky comments.
The conservatives were the Dem party then...and you're correct...they had to be dragged back kicking and screaming.
It's the conservatives that walked out of congress when the civil right bills were introduced.
You have to learn history first...
But this is not your first rodeo of being wrong...your record of disapearance is common knowledge.
Wrong! You had the southern segregationists & liberals in the democratic party at the same time. The Conservatives were Republicans and it was they who came on board to pass the Civil Rights Act.
The democratic party has always been the party of hate. The segregationists were the haters of that time. The liberals are the haters of today.
Okay....explain the mass exodus of Black people from the Republican to the Democrats?
They knew where the bigots were and still are.
"No, the African American author of the seeded article "
Notice how that had to be thrown in?
Democrats never, ever, do that.
Why would they need to? Diversity is common to liberals and Democrats, jumping up and down saying "we have blacks!" Or "There's my African American" would really look stupid at a Democrat rally, or even publicized.
Yet it took what 7 or 9 votes for them to get it across that the handlers wanted a black guy to prop up as the head of the GOP? "We have one too!"
And when that novel trick didn't work they slandered him and shoved him out the back door.
Yeah, just more "facts be damned" huh?
Democrats are perfect holy beings, the very ground they walk upon we’re to hold in reverence of their sheer awesomeness. /s
It's one of those things people talk about when they want to sound morally superior. It's never going to happen and there's no way to implement it in a way that's fair and reasonable.
Exactly right. It is democrat presidential candidates who are talking about it now. Murdock and Rush Limbaugh are right that if reparations are ever paid out it is the democrat party and it’s financial backers who should have to pay them.
It's one of those things democrats talk about when they fear they are losing their hold on minorities. So, they spread some divisive goodies to get out the minority vote. The problem is that minorities begin to believe that BS and we have more & more racial animosity!
At least now there are conservative and libertarian African Americans who can call out that type of nonsense and point to where the real blame belongs.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that. Not that I'm opposed to agreeing with you, sadly because there is no amount of money that is going to affect the ones who were slaves, the ones who really suffered even after they were freed, they're very much dead.
They're the ones that deserved compensation it's sort of late and meaningless now since the only slaves nowadays are wage slaves and you don't have to be black to be one.
The other injustices and bigotry against black people and every other minority is a different subject, where it would be most helpful if people would just stop it. Impossible, of course.
Wait right here while I go get my checkbook.
While you are at it, Trout said something about an ostrich and high heels.
There were other things involved, will not bring it all up right now.
I wasn't there butt it all seemed pretty serious.
I know it was a while ago, I figure it hasn't fallen under limitations.
Well, lo and behold, we were talking about how that bitch ostrich just up and left the BHN clubhouse with Trouts high heels, Jen's blouses, CB's glasses
and Fargo's Mini Cooper, never to be heard from again, until the other night.
now she's masquerading as an emu
Add identity theft to her long list of character flaws, lol
If I recall right, trout said you were ALSO there with a dozen Pomeranians and a 5lb bucket of axel grease. She said you looked cute in your spedos and that sexy leather mask. (trout's words, not mine.)
(I'm not one to spread rumors so you didn't hear it from me, sister Mary Agnes,) but..
GET'M SISTER!!!
Just remember not to hurt nightwalker the squealer, ok? Not that I was there, but the rumors...oh my...
They were Veronikka's heels and CB's tiara.
Pomeranians and axel grease? Sounds kinky
If I said that I'm pleading the fifth....
One of them was half Pomeranian half Shih Tzu.
I call it a Pomshit.
My current drunken stupor must be interfering with my excellent recall abilities, but did I do something shitty on NV that I forgot about?
You? Never. I was just taking advantage of your generosity.
Did you say a dozen big palmed Iranians and a 5lb. bucket of grease?
SIGN ME UP!!
Not so fast, sister Mary Agnes. Everyone knows all sisters carry a metal engineers' ruler (3 edges of katana-grade steel) up their sleeves and when someone reaches for the check....POW!!!! right across the knuckles.
You vicious brutette, you.
Ruler schmuler.
LOLOL, The BAD SISTER MARY AGNES.....The photo reminds me of the quote of De Niro....''You talking to me''.....
Well, I expected you were the machete type, but that'd sure work.
While Attorney General of California and then as Governor of CA. Warren was a strong advocate of Japanese interment. No one from either party voiced an opposition to the illegal interment of the Japanese Americans with the exception of the Governor of Colorado.
Since Trump has a painting of the most racist president of all time hanging in his office (Andrew Jackson) I guess that Trump is a racist as well and should get out his checkbook and and start writing.
Since Trump has a painting of the most racist president of all time hanging in his office
I thought that was paid for by Trump’s ‘charitable foundation’ and found hanging at Mar-a-Lago.
Why do people assume that to the extent Jackson was racist, that must be the thing anyone admires about him in the 20th or 21st centuries? Was his picture put on the $20 bill because he was such an outstanding racist? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
FWIW, this list here has Thomas Jefferson as the most racist president of all time:
Guess we'll have to redo the nickel and the $2 bill, too.
You are aware of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 signed and enforced by Jackson aren't you....The end result was that nine tribes lost millions of acres of land and were forced onto what is known as ''The Trail of Tears'' which resulted in the death of thousands of Natives.
Of course they were his war's with the Creek and Seminole before 1830 that resulted in the dead of thousands and the lost of hundreds of thousands of acres of their land.
Of course he was also a proponent of slavery...
I'm aware of Jefferson being number one is some articles while Andrew Jackson rates usually 1 or 2...But why split hairs over 1 or 2..They were both racist.
Two reasons.
First, the outrage is selective and arbitrary. You could point a sanctimonious finger at any number of prominent political figures in our early history. Why Jackson? Not because he was so much worse than everyone else. It is modern politics that drives the outrage. Jackson had a kind of populist appeal that Trump identifies with. So, if Trump likes him, he must be the most evil person who ever walked the Earth. Before Trump was elected, no one cared about Andrew Jackson.
Second, getting all judgy and holier-than-thou about people who lived 2 1/2 centuries ago is just dumb, particularly when those people were seen as fine people by their contemporaries. (And by scholars: a series of scholarly polls consistently rank Jackson as one of our best presidents .)
Different societies in different eras have different values and priorities. Two or three hundred years from now, our descendants may well look back with disgust at the things we did as part of everyday life.
This latter point is particularly hypocritical because in so many other contexts, we speak of cultural relativism and how unfair it is to hate or judge the practices and beliefs of cultures other than out own.
Then you cite MODERN poll rankings for Jackson.
The irony is that all too many insist that the bedrock of our PRESENT culture was set by the very Founders that insist should be viewed as having 'different values and priorities'. They demand that the Judges on our highest court make rulings on the 'values and priorities' of over 2 hundred years ago. They demand that our society remain unchanged and we retain it's 'historically European' demographics as a matter of patriotism.
All too often, instead of empathy for other cultures, we hold them to standards that took us generations to realize and/or in some cases, we have failed to achieve ourselves.
Even worse, we demand that other cultures 'assimilate' to ours without recognizing that we are ignoring the qualities of the culture they would be giving up.
Oh, I'm sorry. Was the distinction between scholarly perspectives over the last 70 years and political perspectives over the last two years too subtle for you?
It seems we discuss Jackson a lot around here and it has nada to do with trmp. I think a lot of us care about Andrew Jackson. I want to see his image come off the 20 dollar bill
Oh, is that all you're doing? Got any other facts? I got one. The atomic weight of nickel is 58.6934u. I'm just pointing it out.
Is that helpful? Or can we dispense with disingenuous claims like "I'm just pointing out a fact" and acknowledge that you're pointing out a fact . . . for a reason.
You mean the world where generations of historians thought he was a pretty good president? Sure, ok. I don't think it's "my" world. It's just the world.
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my comment...Good try though...I'll keep that fact for the next game of Trivia Pursuit.
The reason has been clearly pointed out to you a couple of times. Because you're not capable of understanding it isn't my problem.
There are many historians that do not see Jackson as pretty good. In fact many see him as a racist and abuser of the power of the Presidency..
So there you go Tacos.
Feel free to get in the last word.
Why yes, it was so subtle as to be nonexistent.
Oh wait, it WAS non-existent since the 'scholarly perspectives' you linked were dated as recently as 2018.
It’s sad when current modern people hold people who lived long ago to our standards now and defame them if they weren’t perfect reflections of the way we think they should have been.
What is really sad is that as a supposed Christian you cannot see the injustice and crimes that were committed. Jackson even defied SCOTUS on the Indian Removal Act.
Are you aware that 4,000 Cherokee died on the ''Trail of Tears'', and there were a number of other tribes that suffered the same fate....Did God think that was OK?
The Jackson administration was very corrupt, it was with Jackson that the ''spoils system'' was started and it took decades to get rid most of it. I wasn't aware that corruption was looked at differently in the 1830 then it is today...
No.....but a large portion of Christians did. And many think there is a good excuse for the sins committed against Native Americans even today.
I’m not going to defend the trail of tears as that was by far the biggest mistake of his presidency. I would have voted for Adams had I been around then.
And as old as 1948. 71 years ago. It's kinda crappy that you want to act like that isn't so. I notice you also aren't acknowledging the scholarly versus political perspectives. There seems little point in trying to talk to someone like that. Have a nice day.
Yes I know. That's the point. You're the one who claimed you weren't outraged at all and were just pointing out a fact - as if it were to no purpose other than trivia.
I don't know how you define "many." I have no doubt that somebody who is a historian thinks that. After all, it's a big world and anything is possible.
But here's the difference between us: I claimed that a consensus of scholars concerned with this topic thought highly of Jackson and thought so over a period of decades. I backed that claim up with a link.
By contrast, you disregarded that claim for no reason and then made your own claim that "many" historians see him as racist and an abuser of the presidency. You made this claim with no support and as far as anyone can tell you pulled it out of the aether, your imagination, or someplace else. Again, I don't doubt somebody thinks those things about Jackson, but based on the evidence I have supplied, I think it's fair to say that enough intelligent experts were ok enough with Jackson that Trump is not some kind of racist outlier for hanging his picture on the wall.
For that matter, America isn't racist just for spending $20 bills which have displayed Andrew Jackson's face for 90 years.
Why do you keep trying to pawn off that I'm outraged. I'm not outraged, what I've done is presented the facts about Jackson.
I said he was a racist, even your own link shows him as the 3rd most racist president of all time. There are many other links that will show the same thing. Look them up.
He initiated ''The Indian Removal Act'' championed it and made it happen. It resulted in the deaths of thousands of natives. He defied SCOTUS decision on the Indian Removal Act. Additionally his administration was corrupt and he was the originator of the ''spoils system''
Why is he on the $20 bill, not even the Treasury department knows.
Again, I said he was a racist president, and that he was.
There is a big difference between us. I see the death of thousands of natives and the defying SCOTUS as a real problem and ''Trail of Tears'' as a racist act. You don't and that's sad.
One of the 20. When you post data, members should view it in it's entirety, no just what YOU want to recognize.
Almost as crappy as you pretending that the vast majority of the 'scholarly perspective' isn't from after 1990.
I notice that you aren't acknowledging that the methodoglogy of the scholars takes political perspectives into consideration.
Perhaps it was too subtle a perspective for you.
Yes Tacos!, cogency does get in the way for some doesn't it...
Always a nice day here on NT...
Well Jackson is certainly a political jackpot.
He believed that the preservation of the Union by any means, was paramount.
On one hand a hot head involved with many many duels; mostly over insults to his wife.
He defeated the Creek Indians.
He defeated the British in 1812
He thought he was the hero and spokesman for the common ( white) man
and started the Democratic party.
He increased the number of men who could vote; White men.
He increased trade while shrinking the government and government 'corruption'.
He sent explorers west to map the continent.
But he also
passed the heaviest protectionist tariffs in US history providing some seed for the Civil War.
The Nullifacation Proclamation provided the rest of the bile that would result in Lincoln's bloody war.
he removed American Indians from treatied territories that he had already purchased years before
in order to benefit personally and expand slavery.
His career as a general included numerous actions which would absolutely warrant criminal action today.
he executed prisoners, imposed martial law on NO and defied writs of habeus corpus and courts alike, jailing judges and members of the local governments.
he also executed 6 of his own militia men weeks after the Battle of NO for petty infractions when everyone except Jackson believed the war was over.
But mostly he's know for, and despised by almost every American Indian for forcing almost all AI tribes, but particularly the Cherokee of Georgia,
enemies and allies alike from their lands all over the Southern States, reneging on his word and government treaties alike, in spite of the rulings of SCOTUS and Georgia,
and forcing them to Trans Mississippi/the Indian territories/ eventually called Oklahoma.
From rich temperate farms to the desert.
As Presidents go, almost any other President Mr. Trump chose to admire would be an improvement by many magnitudes.
Wow, that is some utter bullshit right there.
Oh I apologize. So you approve of Trump hanging Jackson on the wall of the Oval Office. My mistake.
Not at all. I disagree with many things that many of our leaders have done over the last two and half centuries or so. I just don't think hanging Jackson's picture on the wall makes the hanger a racist.
I get that and I get why, but I think it's naive to imagine that native Americans weren't going to be displaced by the expanding United States. The government certainly could have done many things better, but the Indians - as tribes - were never going to be allowed to remain on prime farm or ranching land - no matter who was president.
You don't even see your hypocrisy, do you?
Jackson was indeed a hardass among hardasses, and I think that's who trump wants to be. Get what he wants and smash everything in his way.
He shoulda picked a better idol, Jackson's methods worked for him at that time but trump is no Jackson and it's not the 19th century.
You don't ever fail to devolve to personal comments, do you?
Pointing out hypocrisy is an attack on your argument, not you. If you don't like it, try being less hypocritical.
You said 'your hypocrisy', NOT 'the hypocrisy of your argument'.
BTFW, you didn't point out hypocrisy, you made a personal comment.
Then to prove that you still can't comment to me without making it personal, you make another personal comment.
Well done...
Pot, kettle, black?
No.
Boy, anything to avoid addressing your hypocrisy that you presented with your hypocritical comments, eh? I mean where else would the hypocrisy in your comments come from but you? Is someone else writing your material? But getting back to the subject, let's review your hypocrisy as presented in your hypocritical argument. You said,
You said this right after being shown a list of surveys dating from the 1940s to the present day and characterizing that list as follows:
That is called hypocrisy, my friend. Hypocrisy is when you insist on a certain standard but violate that standard yourself. And it's no one's hypocrisy but yours. That makes it "your hypocrisy."
You can face these facts or continue to tap dance and spin. Your choice.
Then it's YOUR hypocrisy because as I said and YOUR link will prove that the vast majority of the surveys on that list are from AFTER 1990 which means they are unequivocally MODERN. Truth be told, since YOU cited Jackson's 'populist appeal' while POTUS the fucking 1948 survey is MODERN in comparison.
So 'present day' isn't MODERN. Got ya.
Yet EVERY one of my comments PROVE that I DID look at ALL of the data from the ONE link you provided.
Actually as I've just stated, it's YOUR comments that are hypocritical.
Your personal comments aren't facts, they're opinions.
I always pictured you as white...
i think he's
ducking you
The sound that the image makes in nature is the nature of the typical progressive position on the issue.
And there Jackson is, in a place of honor in Trumps office....
"Before the Jackson Administration, the right to vote was extremely limited. Even if you were a white man, there was a property qualification written into the law. If you didn’t own property (some states required a specific type of property), then you could not vote. The fight for the “common” man to vote became the foundation of what would become known as Jacksonian Democracy. It would become a coalition of laborers, farmers, and Irish Catholics that would eventually call themselves the Democratic Party."
Every President had Pros & Cons. If you have a grievance you won't like many.
I find it disgusting that your link considers this a 'PRO'.
I don't like being called a [Deleted]
My comment in total was:
Claiming that my comment was about YOU merely shows a deep need to play the victim card...
Please proceed...
Perhaps we should remind democrats of all their Jefferson Jackson day events and dinners they have had celebrating the two founders of their party.
Perhaps we should remind the conservatives which party the majority of minorities belong to....Now, of course, you can fall back on the ''free stuff'' or the ''lemming'' defense but every time you do you insult millions of minorities. That is not the way to garner our vote.
You may want to review the make up of the current congress.....
Has nothing to do with paying reparations for past injustices which is the issue. The Party of Lincoln that was formed to oppose slavery and that freed the slaves lost hundreds of thousands of troops in the civil war and created the 13th to 15th amendments and who counted Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass and many others as members or supporters certainly is not liable for slavery nor did the GOP engage in Jim Crow laws or have the kkk as a paramilitary wing of our party. It is strictly an issue between the descendants of slaves and those affected by segregation and the democrat party which perpetrated both.
Which was the LIBERAL political position.
Republicans even then were not liberal. The Republicans position is the American position since they won the civil war against the democrats. Pay 💰 up!
False. That ridiculous statement proves an ignorance of the facts.
You really believe this trash?
I'm a polack....I want the royalties from all those jokes.
Well I’m part Italian so we get some of that too.