Exactly what did President Obama and his former anti-war protester, Secretary of State John Kerry, agree to with Iran? As we contemplate that, let me ask you a couple of rhetorical questions that will admittedly call for a measure of imagination and what ifs.

What if you had a next door neighbor who had thrown rocks at your house, broken windows in your car and kicked your dog? What if he continually insulted you, your kids and your wife? What if, on numerous occasions, he had promised to kill you? Then one day you see a truck parked outside his house with “guns and ammunition specialists” painted on it. Would you simply shrug it off and go about business as usual?

Let’s take it a step further: What if you have gone to the authorities – police, judges, city council – and they all just shrugged their shoulders and said, “We can do nothing about threats”? You tell them about the guns and ammunition specialists’ truck parked at your house, and they say, “It’s within their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

One more time. What if this same neighbor has family members and friends who have already been to prison for brutally assaulting and killing people? To make it even more personal, what if extended members of your family have already been killed by these same murderers?

What do you do?

This is the precisely the quandary faced by modern-day Israel and the basis for the Israeli mindset of “never again” – the cornerstone of its military, economic and political philosophy. This, in my opinion, was the basis for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. Congress – to counter the Iranian religious leadership’s publicly stated intent to “wipe Israel off the map” or “erase them from the page.”

While it is not officially stated, almost every Israeli is committed to the concept that Israel will never again allow its people to be led like lambs to the slaughter even if the rest of the world – including the U.S. – does nothing to help.

The Allied powers of World War II were aware of Hitler’s ethnic cleansing, and yet they refused to act promptly and decisively, resulting in the annihilation of more than 6 million Jews. Several modern-day Islamic nations have today vowed to eliminate the Jews, and the West seems to be wearing the same blinders it wore more than 70 years ago. It is my considered opinion that Israel will not permit a repeat scenario.

We have a tendency to think other folks think like we think, like the Arabs who are saying, “We just want our neighborhoods in a separate state. We’re willing to live side by side with Israelis if they’ll stop discriminating against us.” Right. This is not a debate about neighborhoods. The Iranian leadership – media oblivion and censorship to the contrary – has repeatedly stated its intent to “annihilate Israel.” They are not simply talking about taking over the Temple Mount or establishing a neighborhood in a “Palestinian Homeland.” They clearly intend to “cleanse/purge the land” of those who are “infecting” it, the Jews. Thus, the drive to obtain not nuclear power but nuclear weapons.

The prime minister of Israel made clear to the U.S. Congress and the world, in so many words, Israel’s officially unstated position – that it will not stand by while Iran, which has sworn publicly to destroy it, is allowed by Western powers to develop and obtain these nuclear weapons.

What if Prime Minister Netanyahu’s unstated position is, “We will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and if our actions generate World War III, so be it, but we will not permit ourselves to be annihilated”?

It would be a grave error with unimaginable consequences for the world in general, and America in particular, if we failed to have heard not a threat, but the unstated promise from Israel, “Never again.”

Now, about that agreement with Iran …

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment


According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a paradox is “something that is made up of two opposite things and that seems impossible but is actually true or possible.”

Israel is a paradox.

On the one hand, it is a literal testament to blood (wars, intifadas, terrorism), sweat (limited water supply, two-thirds of the land was desert and barren hills) and tears (citizens blown up on buses, seniors killed in rocket attacks, children murdered in classrooms).

On the other hand, Israel has absorbed and settled millions of immigrants, is one of the largest exporters of fruits and flowers, has revived a centuries-old language, ranks third in the world in the number of university graduates per capita, has produced numerous Nobel Prize winners, has the highest per-capita number of scientists in the world and its high-tech industry is second only to California’s Silicon Valley.

Despite her remarkable progress and continuing attempts to make peace with her neighbors, Israel is still the only country that not only must consistently defend to the international community of nations her right just to exist, but it is the only nation actually threatened with extinction by other countries, most notably Iran.

Terrorists’ rockets rain down on Israeli citizens regularly. According to reports, since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, more than 11,000 rockets have been fired into that country by terrorists. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is launched from Gaza.

As Israel can pinpoint the source of the rockets fired against her, it launches retaliatory strikes. However, Israel warns the residents in the targeted areas via leaflets, phone calls and electronic notifications of the impending strikes. Generally speaking, the terrorists, to generate maximum anti-Israeli press coverage, deliberately use densely populated areas as launch sites. Furthermore, Israeli soldiers wear uniforms, terrorists do not; consequently, any terrorist operative, absent a uniform, can be labeled a “civilian casualty.”

While statistics are seldom heartwarming and generally fail to convey to those reading them the pain, anguish and sense of loss experienced by the survivors, they do serve a purpose. Used correctly, they can inform the reader of certain pertinent facts.

For example, stats show that the total reported Israeli casualties from terrorist attacks between 1948 and 2014 are 3,816 killed and 15,220 injured. (These figures include terrorists.) However, what the statistics almost always fail to show is the reverse stat. For instance, last year 180,000 Palestinian citizens entered Israel to receive medical treatment; more than 3,000 were emergency patients.

Additionally, unknown to most people, Israel has something else working along its borders with those people who are sworn to its destruction. Headline: “IDF allows first peek into secret Golan Heights field hospital.”

Officials confirm that due to the growing number of injured Syrians arriving at Israel’s border, a military field hospital was built on an IDF outpost. Thus far, the facility has treated more than 700 Syrians, and the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) has also established a field hospital to treat wounded Palestinians at the Erez border crossing north of Gaza City.

In addition to the above, Israel has allowed over a thousand tons of cement and other building materials, food, fuel, medical and survival supplies and other humanitarian goods to move through checkpoints into Gaza. This despite the fact that tons of cement and building materials were used to construct tunnels specifically for the destruction of Israel and killing of Jews.

All propaganda aside, no one seems willing to comment on the fact that more than a million Arabs (Palestinians, if you will) live, work, vote and serve in the government of Israel proper.

Consider: Six million Jews are living “across the fence” from approximately 4.5 million people sworn to their destruction. While they must stay constantly alert for suicide bombers in their restaurants, on their buses and in their schools and be prepared to run for cover at a moment’s notice, they live and work side-by-side with 1.5 million Arabs on a day-to-day basis.

What was that definition of paradox again? “Something that is made up of two opposite things and that seems impossible but is actually true or possible.”

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

Why gay agenda is not about civil liberties

There is another series of contests shaping up in the Hoosier state. Indiana has not only become the site of the “Final Four” basketball playoffs, but it is now making headlines for another type of “same sex” activity. (Oh yeah, let the record show there are no all-girl teams in the playoffs and no females on any representative team; the playoffs are same-sex activities, men with men.)

The emerging and presently burgeoning discourse has nothing to do with civil rights. It is about bedroom behavior. What is being openly debatedis the manner in which people have sex. Let us make that clear: Homosexuals are demanding that everyone agree with their method of having sexual intercourse. If someone dares to disagree with their choices, that person is immediately and consistently subjected to verbal abuse, if not threats, and mischaracterized as a bigot by the mainstream media and now by the courts.

Let’s cut to the chase: Homosexuality is 1) “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex,” and 2) “of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex” (free Merriam-Webster online dictionary).

The current propaganda is that a refusal to accept one’s manner of engaging in sexual activity is the same as racial bigotry. The assertion is that gays are like blacks were – being denied civil liberties and equal rights.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and only those who are not familiar with racial bias – by reason of experience – are deceived by this false claim. Let the record show, any homosexual (male or female) can walk in to any business in any location in any state in the United States and be served, regardless of how they dress. As a member of the group then known (politely) as “negroes” or “coloreds” in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s, I can assure you all, that was most definitelynotthe case with blacks.

It did not matter how well we dressed, how well we articulated our positions or how large or small our purchases; we were not allowed in certain areas. Photographers, bakers, hotels, restauranteurs, etc., did not refuse to serve us based on private lifestyles or sexual behavior, but on our very existence. We sought acceptance simply as people.

Homosexuals are not seeking acceptance as people, but for a particular lifestyle. In every published instance, the only cases of rejection experienced by homosexuals have been based upon rejection, not of the person, but of a lifestyle. In every case, the issue has been that their demand conflicted with the moral standards held by the owner of the business. They were rejecting not the homosexual as a person but a lifestyle that conflicted with their deeply held moral and/or religious beliefs.

It must be kept in mind that we are discussing a form of behavior that was forbidden by Western civilization from its foundation. Such behavior has been, for the most part, condemned since around 1898 B.C. In fact, homosexual sexual behavior was illegal in every state here in the U.S. as recently as 1960.

A liberal-dominated Supreme Court, in overturning laws that had existed in every state, issued what seems to me (I’m not a lawyer) a ruling based on conflicting positions. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the two men involved in the case “are entitled to respect for their private lives.” He then continued: “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Homosexuals’“private lives” and “private sexual conduct” have now become the basis for forcing people to agree with and essentially endorse a behavior they find abhorrent. Shouldn’t what you do in private be your business as long as it does not abrogate or infringe on the rights and freedoms of others?

I reiterate: Homosexual “rights” and demands are incorrectly compared to the civil rights struggles of blacks. Simply stated, homosexuals are not seeking civil rights,which they already possess as citizens, but acceptance – an endorsement of a specific type of sexual behavior.

Let me be clear, as citizens of the United States of America, they are, and should be, free to engage in any practice not inimical to the safety or freedom of any other citizen. However, the U.S. Constitution, in its very First Amendment, specifically protects my freedom to disagree with any behavior that conflicts with my personal and/or religious convictions.

Congress (not local bureaucrats) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added).

And all the people said, “Amen!”

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact


Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment


Perhaps one of the most misunderstood concepts ever to strike at the mind of man is a clear understanding of individual freedom. People generally associate freedom with the traditional concepts of slavery, legal restrictions and technical restraints, and governments typically take steps to curtail the liberties of the citizenry for fear of losing powers of control.

We are seeing evidences of this in Washington as you read this. Today, taking place without solicited input from us, there are disputes and discourses by and between our elected officials and the president. We read in our free press about actions contemplated, or taken, that have not been vetted or voted on by the real power of America: We the people.

Most people have either a mistaken version, or no concept, of what it means to be free. Freedom is the essence of what makes America different from practically every other country that ever existed. This is what makes America a beacon of hope and has made it, essentially, the promised land for practically every person seeking the freedom to achieve.

The list of people waiting to enter contains the names of hopefuls who have waited 10 years or longer for permission to enter, legally. Names are added to the list daily, and the news could be (but is not) full of stories about those coming here illegally from Mexico and other nations around the world.

What is this sought-after virtue so prevalent in the U.S.? The dictionary defines freedom as “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.”

Consider that definition for a moment – “the power or right.” Power is defined as “the ability to do something or act in a particular way.” One of the primary reasons people come, or desire to come, to America is to secure the “ability to do or act in the way one desires without hindrance or restraint.” Americans, especially younger Americans, are so accustomed to this ability to act without hindrance that it is taken for granted and often abused.

Today, we have reached the point where privileges are being elevated to the level of rights. The rights of some are becoming subject to the privileges of others. Judges and elected officials who do not understand the meaning of the “unalienable rights” promised in our Constitution, are now imposing privileges over rights.

You are, and should be, free to exercise your constitutionally protected rights, as long as they do not abrogate mine. However, when your privileges trample my rights, we have crossed the line that led to the American Revolution – the right of each to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

As stated, “All men are created equal,” meaning your rights and privileges cannot interfere with, or override, mine. You are free to do as you please in your life, but we cannot allow the privileges inherent in one person’s freedom to override the rights of another. In other words, you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you recognize I, too, am free to do what I choose, including disagreeing with you.

Our constitutionally protected rights are based, in part, upon this statement from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

It is unfortunate that many have reached the stage of believing they have the moral (and are now seeking the legal) right to impose their assessments of right/wrong, moral/immoral, true/false on others. We have reached the stage where there are those who would now seek to legally deny others the right to disagree with their patterns of behavior.

It should be understood that the American system of government is based upon the concept that each of us has the right to live without having someone arbitrarily impose their values on us. The Founders of this republic were specific in their description of what they had in mind for the people they represented: “[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

It was the people who endowed the government with power for the specific purpose of ensuring the governed were imbued with the same. Furthermore, there were options given for maintaining the liberties of those voluntarily submitting themselves to this preserver/defender of their right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The declarants of the rights made clear their commitment to these rights – “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” 

They then went a step further. Not only had they declared themselves free from one form of tyranny and immediately established the grounds on which their new liberties would be based, but they clarified by whom it would be secured. They would not be at the mercy of a small group of unelected oligarchs, and the who of this concept was clearly articulated by the opening statement of this revolutionary new document:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment


On Wednesday, March 4, Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a long, racially oriented announcement regarding the U.S. Justice Department and the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department. The Justice Department, while not charging one white Ferguson police officer, did in fact, charge the entire police department with “… implicit and explicit racial bias. No other basis.”

The attorney general continued, “Detailed in what I will call our searing report – and it is searing … is an intensely charged atmosphere in which people feel under assault and under siege by the people who are supposed to protect and to serve them.” Last Friday, when asked if that included dismantling the department, he said, “If that’s what’s necessary, we’re prepared to do that.” Last week, according to ABC News, President Obama chimed in, “[T]he overwhelmingly white force was systematically biased, placing minorities under its care into an oppressive and abusive situation.”

I have a simple one-step solution.

Apparently the feds are seriously considering a program ostensibly designed to “protect black people from white cops.” That will take time and money (federal dollars equal tax dollars) to institute what will obviously be a complex, drawn-out, expensive (name a fed program that isn’t) process.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Since Attorney General Holder is reiterating his charges of racism by white Ferguson police, I should like to reiterate a simple one-step solution that would instantly and permanently eliminate all charges of “racism” in local law enforcement departments, terminate charges of “racial harassment” by police, stop black teens being killed by “racist white cops” and end the charges of “police brutality” articulated by civil rights leaders and pastors.

I wrote a column about an idea to fix this last year.

[My idea] would prevent police having rocks and Molotov cocktails hurled at them, eliminate all marches and protests against “racist” white officers and police departments, potentially save thousands (if not millions) of tax dollars and could, possibly, result in lower state and federal tax rates.

Depending on where one lives, the headlines in the local (and some national) news recently have featured various commentaries and reports on the following:

“Numerous protests have been held since the Aug. 9 killing of Michael Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson.”

“Tensions escalated last week after a white officer in St. Louis shot and killed another 18-year-old black man” (Reuters).

We have seen national and local clergy and noted civil rights leaders flying in (usually by first class or on private jets) to lead protests and “demand justice” for the “victims.” The unbiased national media have flown in camera crews, reporters and commentators while newspapers and other media have screamed at the injustices perpetrated on “black youth by racist white cops.” I have heard none of the commentators, civil rights leaders or local pastors come up with a solution; they offer only criticisms of the local constabulary.

Incidentally, every major statistical report on crime shows that cities with the highest black populations also have the highest crime rates. “Last year, among the nation’s 10 largest cities, Philadelphia had the highest murder rate. Other cities such as Baltimore, Detroit and Washington, D.C., (with large black populations) experienced the nation’s highest rates of murder and violent crime. According to most police, government, FBI and other studies, this high murder rate is, and has been, predominantly a black problem. Bureau of Justice statistics between 1976 and 2005 show that blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed more than 52 percent of the nation’s homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black as their murderer. Blacks are not only the major victims of homicide; blacks suffer high rates of all categories of serious violent crime, and another black is most often the perpetrator” (Capitalism Magazine).

Since the majority of crimes in major cities are committed in black neighborhoods by blacks, any cop going in to investigate or apprehend the criminal will most likely be looking to find a black perpetrator. Police respond to 9-1-1 calls based on availability, not race; police dispatched to a crime scene in a black neighborhood will usually confirm that the crime was committed by a black. Any situation that gets out of hand immediately leaves a white officer open to charges of “racism.”

I should like to propose a simple solution, a modified form of which has been, and is being, implemented in places like England, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, as well as in one of Europe’s most immigration-friendly countries, Sweden.

In these countries, cities and neighborhoods, there is a concept implemented by the Muslim residents of certain communities known as “no-go zones.” This means anyone unwilling to abide by the rules of the strictly enforced Muslim religious code should only enter the area at their own risk. This includes police, firemen, emergency workers, etc. In other words, if you are not Muslim, stay out – or suffer the consequences. This is what Muslims who have immigrated to European countries are demanding and, in many cases, getting, including the U.S., in Dearborn, Michigan. Only Muslims can apprehend and arrest Muslims according to Muslim law and tradition.

Would this work to resolve alleged police racial bias in American cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., with predominately black neighborhoods? (Remember, statistical evidence in America overwhelmingly substantiates black-on-black crime, so the odds are the criminal will indeed be black.)

Here is my simple easily implemented solution: Establish “white cop no-go zones.”

No more white cops responding to 9-1-1 calls in “da hood.” Only black cops would enter black neighborhoods in Ferguson, St. Louis, Chicago or other predominately black neighborhoods. Only black cops (ala Muslims) can apprehend or arrest blacks. If no black cops are available, let the residents handle the situation – or wait until one is available.

No white cops in black neighborhoods; all charges of racism immediately eliminated. Problem solved.

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment


(Editor’s note: This is Part 4 of Ben Kinchlow’s series on the history of black America. Read Part 1Part 2 and Part 3.)

America, the “promised land.” Remember, Civil Rights Acts had been passed in 1866, 1870, 1871 and 1875. Plus, the 15th Amendment, specifically granting black men the right to vote, had passed in 1870. Hurrah! The promised land!

But wait, if we had reached the “promised land” back in the 1800s, why did I, as a black man serving in the U.S. Air Force (who overseas had carried loaded weapons in support of foreign freedoms) have to wait until 1964 to get my civil rights and 1965 to obtain unrestricted voting rights? Who was responsible for the delay? The answers to these questions shocked me. One of the advantages of ignorance is that a measure of peace accompanies it; if you don’t know something, it cannot upset you. Where was the president? Where was Congress? Where was the Supreme Court?

Although there were barriers, modern blacks did vote freely in the North and with severe restrictions in almost all areas of the South. From voting 71 percent for FDR right up to 96 percent for Obama, blacks, when they did vote, cast their ballots in the Democrat bloc. There is a reason for that, and while “the truth makes free,” it can also unsettle.

As pointed out, Roosevelt scored 71 percent of the black vote in 1936; earlier, however, in 1932, he had only generated 23 percent. Had blacks voted prior to 1932? Yes, and this is where I began to uncover information that I’d not known heretofore. Remember, blacks had gotten the right to vote in the 1800s and had served in the 41st and 42nd sessions of Congress. Blacks in Congress in the 1800s? Not only so, but black Sen. Blanch Kelso Bruce from Mississippi actually received a number of votes for vice president at a presidential convention in 1888. What? So, who were blacks voting for prior to FDR?

In research for my book, “Black YellowDogs,” I came upon some revelatory information. Here’s a hint from Robert Flournoy written in 1868: “I am a considerable sort of Negro man and talk with Negroes wherever I go. I have never met in all my intercourse with the Negroes of Mississippi but one single Negro who professed to be a Democrat.”

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

What was that – a rare black Democrat? Yes, the facts of the matter are simply that from Lincoln to FDR, blacks voted exclusively for Republicans. The reason was very simple. In 1854, a political group calling itself “Democratic Republicans” was formed specifically to prevent the spread of slavery into new federal territories. Later, they changed the name to “Republican” and selected Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for president. Seven of the planks in their platform, directly or indirectly, called for the abolition of slavery. No question, the Republican Party was founded and rested squarely on its opposition to slavery.

Democrat “Redeemer” governments took over the South after the Civil War ended. Southerners were once again in power. Thanks to the “3/5th Clause,” Democrats soon controlled Congress, packed the Supreme Court and, with control of every congressional committee, they systematically refused to enact, enforce or support a single provision of any civil rights bills passed by the outgoing Republicans.

In 1883, a sympathetic Supreme Court declared the 1875 Civil Rights Act “unconstitutional,” and every single black office holder was removed and all civil rights legislation was nullified. Redeemer governments at the state level, powerful Democrats in D.C., and a packed Supreme Court ignored, circumvented or overturned every single civil right that had been guaranteed to blacks by the amended Constitution and Civil Rights Acts.

No university degree is required to ascertain that the reasons blacks voted “R” was that only Republicans would allow blacks to vote. With these Democrat redeemer governments firmly ensconced throughout the South and re-elected year after year, not one single piece of civil rights legislation remained, or was passed, until – are you ready for this – 1964!

From the time I was old enough to pay attention to voting patterns, I was aware that blacks, when they did vote, voted for Democrats. A black Republican was as rare as the aforementioned black Democrat in Mississippi. Unfortunately, owing to a biased press and left-leaning liberal educators (the reason? the ’60s conservatives went to business and Wall Street and the leftists went into media and education), blacks were ignorant of the anti-black posture of the Democratic Party.

Just review the Jim Crow days and see which party controlled the South. Seems we have forgotten it took Republican President Eisenhower to send in troops to get the Democrat governor out of the door to integrate Little Rock High School. By the way, that same political party (Democratic Party) was in power throughout the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s civil rights struggles.

Remember the aforementioned Civil Rights Acts, the 15th Amendment, up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act? All were introduced and passed by Republican majorities.

Blacks voting 93-97 percent for Democrats today apparently are not aware of the voting patterns associated with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Yes, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed them, but here’s how it went down:

1) Voting in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Senate (D) 60 percent, (R) 82 percent; House (D) 61 percent, (R) 80 percent

2) Voting in favor of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: Senate (D) 74 percent, (R) 97 percent; House (D) 80 percent, (R) 85 percent

Guess who got, and still gets, credit for the victory from our free unbiased press? Aw, you guessed, the Democrats.

The Republicans were the authors of all anti-slavery, pro-civil rights legislation from the 1800s to the 1960s. And did I forget to mention that it took threatened marches on D.C. to force Democrat Presidents Roosevelt and Truman to sign anti-discrimination legislation? Or that Republican President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to desegregate a southern high school in a Democrat-controlled state? And, oh yes, lest we forget, a Republican senator named Everett Dirksen sacrificed his health for, and Republicans voted almost in lockstep to pass (over Democrat opposition), the first civil rights legislation in over 100 years.

Apparently forgotten by, or unbeknownst to, many – especially African-Americans – it was Republicans, not Democrats, who have demonstrably been the sponsors of all pro-civil rights legislation for blacks in America.

History is defined as “the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.” We have just observed Black History Month; so lest we forget, as George Santayana wrote in “The Life of Reason”: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment


I offer this series not as condemnation or criticism of any group, but merely as evidence that injustice is, as justice should be, colorblind.

One would have to be from outer space or totally brainwashed by a liberal left-leaning learning institution, and/or media, to believe that America has not come a long way in the past centuries. There are few countries – democracies or otherwise – that can compare to the progress made by the U.S. in the last 100 years.

Beside the long list of people waiting to legally enter the U.S., tens of thousands are illegally entering and thousands of others are seeking options. Why? America offers the greatest number of opportunities for success of any country in the world, especially in the Western hemisphere. While this is true, is it the promised land for everyone?

Most people are familiar with the initials KKK. They stand for Ku Klux Klan, an organization founded in the middle 1800s by a former Confederate general, Nathan Bedford Forrest. The Klan’s oft-stated goal was to keep all blacks “in their place.” They systematically murdered black politicians and political leaders, lynched black teachers and ministers, burned black churches, and drove black landowners off their lands, murdering any who refused to leave.

However, consider another historical fact of which I was completely unaware. According to Tuskegee Institute, between the years 1882 and 1951, of the 4,730 people lynched by the KKK here in the U.S., 1,293 were white.

You read that right: Almost 30 percent of their victims were whites. The KKK was an equal-opportunity lynch mob, and politicians at almost every level of government (city, state and even members of the U.S. Congress) were members of, or owed allegiance to, the Klan.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Now 1964 is traditionally viewed as a watershed year for black civil liberties. Consider: “Be it enacted, that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.”

If some of the language, like “inns,” “public conveyances” and “previous condition of servitude,” seems a bit archaic, it’s because, judged by today’s standards, they are. You see, that is not a quote from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but from theCivil Rights Act of 1875. Yes, you read that right – that bill granting equal rights to blacks was passed by Congress in 1875!

But that was not the shocking part for me; that was coming up.

In addition to the aforementioned Civil Rights Act, Congress passed the following pieces of legislation:

1866: 13th Amendment abolished slavery

1866: Civil Rights Act

1868: 14th Amendment granted citizenship to blacks

1870: Civil Rights Act

1870: 15th Amendment granted voting rights to black men

1871: Civil Rights Act

When the Civil War ended, blacks were freed; slavery was abolished; blacks were granted citizenship and civil rights; blacks were given the right to vote, followed by another Civil Rights Act. In light of the forgoing information, it seems like we had, indeed, made it to “the promised land.”

But wait, if we reached the “promised land” back in the 1800s, why did I, as a black man serving in the U.S. Air Force, have to wait until 1964 to get my civil rights and until 1965 to vote? Who was responsible for the delay? Where was the president? Where was Congress? Where was the Supreme Court?

The answers to these questions were what shocked me.

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

The history of black America, Part 2

(Editor’s note: This is Part 2 of Ben Kinchlow’s series on the history of black America. Read Part 1 here.)

To pick up where we left off, let me reiterate: The first blacks did not come to America as slaves.

In point of fact, according to British law, every Christian was equal before the law, and judgments were based upon being Christian or non-Christian, not race. If blacks served out their indentured periods or became Christians, they were, as other Europeans, granted their freedom.

According to the historical records, the aforementioned Anthony Johnson family settled on the eastern shore of Virginia and prospered for almost 40 years. As was the custom, he indentured both black and whites. As there are conflicting reports as to the origin of the following, we will cut to the chase. One of Johnson’s indentured servants would cause a seismic shift in the relationships between blacks and whites that would last centuries.

This indentured servant, named John Casor, was black and apparently convinced a white neighbor that he was being illegally detained. Long story short, the case ended up in court.

Johnson sued – not to have Casor fulfill a debt of servitude (five to seven years) – but he insisted he had bought Casor as a slave and “hee had ye Negro for life.” Johnson was claiming that Casor, who had committed no crime, belonged to him as a slave for the rest of his life.

Despite the fact that two influential white landowners sided with Casor, the court ruled for Johnson: “… be it therefore ye judgement of ye court & ordered that sd (said) Jno. Casor, negro, shall forthwith bee turned into ye service of his sd master Anthony Johnson …” 

For the record, this is the first legal sanction of slavery (not for a crime) in America. According to historical records, Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nation’s first official slaveholder. Johnson had been previously captured in Angola and brought to America as an indentured servant in exchange for 50 acres.

Here is where my mouth fell open: Anthony Johnson was black. The father of legalized slavery in America was a black man!

Whoa! This cannot be! How could a brother do that to another bro? How could a black man take away the freedom of another black? This threw me over. I mean, “everybody knows” whites had been the one who put us in chains. And now I discover that not only was the first slave owner black, but the first anti-slavery protest came from whites! This had to be an aberration. Black people could not possibly possess the inhuman traits of the “white monsters.” No way blacks were going to enslave their own people. Could it be? Naaah!

Wait! Suppose this aberration did occur; surely that’s what it was. There could not possibly be another such case, could there? After all, if there were others, wouldn’t black slavers be headline news?

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Not according to professor John Russell, PhD. In those days, “free blacks owning black slaves was so common as to pass unnoticed, except in the case of court records.” Apparently, blacks owning blacks was a relatively common occurrence. The official U.S. Census of 1830 indicates 3,775 free blacks owned 12,740 black slaves, which brings up an interesting point.

As Einstein said, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.” Most of us have heard of something called “reparations” (the descendants of slaves being compensated for the wrongs of slavery). According to the official 1830 U.S. Census, of the 3,775 negro slave owners in New Orleans, most were light-skinned negroes; mulattoes (half black), quadroons (one-quarter black), octoroons (one-eighth black) and quintroons (one-sixteenth black). So, since light-skinned blacks owned dark-skinned blacks, should light-skinned negroes pay reparations to dark-skinned negroes?

Brudders were doing brudders in back in the day just as brothers are doing in brothers today.

Now I am certain that some of my brothers will attempt to do me in with vitriolic distain for this feeble attempt to get the white man off the hook by blaming slavery on ourselves with, “Well, blacks did it, too.” Lest I be misinterpreted, the above information is in no way to be misconstrued as justification for institutionalized slavery. I offer this merely as evidence that injustice is – as justice should be – colorblind.

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment

The history of black America, Part 1

History should be an accurate, truthful presentation of factual events. In other words, we expect historians to tell it like it is. That would include the good, the bad and the ugly, as long as it is what actually transpired. Anything more or less is propaganda: Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. An unbiased overview of black history should, therefore, include the accurate, truthful presentation of factual events.

I had always accepted certain truths, as reported by the “unbiased” media, as well as presentation from black leaders as being “the way it is.” However, education can present a danger to the status quo. In my case, it became the impetus for a personal revolution, causing me, from that point on, to question and then ascertain the facts of a matter.

It took years before I became aware that much of what was passed on as black history was biased or misleading. The Bible (not a religious book) says, “Study to show thyself approved, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing … truth.” That verse became the impetus for a personal journey into reality.

All my young life, I had been taught that the white man had been the slave master, responsible for enslaving the thousands of blacks who arrived on slave ships. I felt justified in my anger and resentment against “whitey” “honkies,” “crackers” and “peckerwoods.” I became a revolutionary, committed to the “black revolution” – a follower of Malcolm X.

Fortunately, I had a personal encounter with the Author of truth, the Lord Jesus Christ, who changed my life – didn’t make me religious (Elijah Mohammed and Malcolm X were religious) – and placed me on the road to seeking the truth that “shall make you free.”

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

The truth about truth is, it can cause dramatic changes in one’s worldview and approach to life; it can also be addictive. Once I discovered the facts about certain “truths,” I formed the habit of seeking to know how “it really is” about everything I held/hold to be important. Knowledge has a tendency to unsettle, especially when it concerns something”everybody knows.” Could I have been wrong about white people? Nah, everybody knew what went down, right? But, just in case: What really went down?

Let me briefly share what, to me, were one or two revolutionary historical facts. (For an in-depth read, see my book, “Black YellowDogs.”)

The first Africans to arrive in Jamestown, Virginia, were not slaves but indentured servants. In 1619, there were black and white indentured servants. These servants, as you know, had specified periods of servitude; they were not slaves. They voluntarily indentured themselves for a period of seven years (or less) in exchange for passage to the New World. At the conclusion of this period, they were freed and given citizenship and 50 acres of land. There was no stigma attached.

Some actually used the system as a means to prosper. For example, a father could indenture (sell) a family of four and all things being equal, qualify for 200 acres, as each family member was granted 50 acres. Anthony Johnson, by indenturing his own family members, was able to acquire 250 acres of land. His sons, utilizing the same strategy, secured an additional 650 acres, enabling them to become prosperous landowners raising crops and livestock.

Let me reiterate: Every indentured family member, black or white, was given freedom, citizenship, 50 acres and subsequently enjoyed all the rights and privileges of every other citizen. These bound servants – black or white – were considered simply a source of labor. Once the term was served, there remained no disgrace associated with the practice.

In support of the fact that blacks and whites received exactly the same treatment, here is an entry in a diary dated August 1619: “Young maids (90 white females) to make wives for so many of the former tenants (colonists) were priced by the Virginia Company at no less than “one hundredth and fiftie (pounds) of the best leafe Tobacco.”

The earliest record shows clearly that the first blacks to arrive in America were not slaves but were, as many whites, simply indentured servants who subsequently obtained their freedom with all the rights and privileges associated therewith.

As surprised as I was at what I had just found out, what I discovered next shocked me to my toes and caused a total revision of my historical perspective. It just could not be true! No way!

(I’ll have Part 2 next week.)

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact


Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment


Someone please tell me this is not a serious news story: “Al Sharpton calls for emergency meeting to address ‘appalling’ all-white Oscar nominees.”

My first reaction was laughter, as I was sure it was a media joke of sorts. “An emergency meeting by civil rights leaders” to discuss the Oscars? C’mon, man! But then I Googled it and, sure enough, there was a multitude of entries relating to the “reverend” calling for an emergency meeting to enforce real-world politics on the make believe world of filmmaking. Somebody correct me, but last time I checked, Hollywood was 98 percent about make believe.

Apparently “Reverend” Al Sharpton, et al, have so completely resolved the less serious problems in the black community that they can now focus their attention on the real problems in the make-believe world of Hollywood. Well, I guess the good news is, if we can now focus our attention on the home of Cinderella, Peter Pan and Tinker Bell, then we must have arrived in Neverland.

The real-world problems of race in America have obviously been resolved if our “civil rights” leadership can now focus on a lack of black people being acknowledged for being really good at pretending to be something or someone. If no black people are acknowledged as being good at pretending, doesn’t that immediately bring us to the question of the rights of green people not being respected by Hollywood’s treatment of the Hulk? I obviously need help here.

Growing up as the son of a school teacher who was also a Sunday school teacher, church pianist and wife of “Reverend” Kinchlow, I have a different perspective on the duties and focus of “reverends.” First and foremost, they focused on “preaching the Gospel.” They taught us life was about how we lived here to get there. It was about biblical morality, “loving thy neighbor,” “doing unto others” and living “Christ like.” “Reverends” were who we looked to for standards of behavior to live lives pleasing to God while on earth. We were taught and encouraged to live moral lives. “Reverends” taught moral standards and godly principles.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Young black men and women were taught to “keep your pants up and your dresses down.” Unfortunately, that “old-fashioned nonsense” has apparently been thrown aside by the “Reverend” Sharpton types of today, as evidenced by the facts that more than 72 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock and, according to the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report, 90 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders.

Were there some who used their “Reverend-ship” for personal gain? Yes there were, among them Daddy Grace, Father Divine and a number of “bishops.” Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority taught moral precepts taken from the Bible. The black community, despite the best efforts of racists, held together, prayed together and adhered to biblical principles that were the foundation stones of our nuclear families.

We also looked to these “reverends” for civil rights leadership in our community. We prayed to the God of Israel and sang, “We shall overcome someday.” Revs. Martin Luther King Jr., Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, Wyatt T. Walker, Joseph Lowery and Jesse Jackson were the men who led us up the paths to civil rights. They were men who seemed to embody the teachings of “turning the other cheek” and the practice of “nonviolent” protests against real, not virtual, racism. Some of us, less inclined to “turn the other cheek,” followed the oratory of people like Malcolm X, “Obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.”

Racism policies that were common “back in the day” would not be even remotely tolerated today. Black people’s problem wasn’t not being recognized for pretending, butfor not being acknowledged for pretending. Hey, on second thought, maybe “Reverend” Sharpton is right: Perhaps black people should be nominated for Oscars for “Pretense.”

We have come a long way, baby, when a “civil rights leader” can make headlines for complaints about people of color not receiving accolades for pretending. Back in the day, our reward for “pretense” was not an Oscar nomination, but often another day of life.

I pretended – “acted” – like I was not insulted when, as a member of the U.S. Air Force returning from the Middle East, I smiled when I was called “boy” and sent to a colored restroom or water fountain. We looked for colored motels and colored restaurants when we traveled. (Just as a point of information, while we paid the same price for gas, the service stations usually had three restrooms – white men, white women and colored; colored men and women used the same room.) We smiled and said “Sir” to people younger than ourselves and grinned and pretended we were not angry at being turned away from public places and being called the “N” word.

I am confident his next sermon on racist killings will be at a demonstration he will doubtless lead in Chicago, home of another “reverend,” Jesse Jackson. Why do I think this? Well, since he was so exercised about the death of Michael Brown, he has got to be even more outraged by the fact that during the days since Brown’s death, more than 250 teens have been killed in Chicago, most of them black males. I know we can all rest assured that these two “crusaders for the cause” will not be deterred from demonstrating and demanding justice just because the overwhelming majority of these black teens were killed by other blacks.

In honor of his unbiased, non-racist, apolitical stance for human rights for all, I think it would be appropriate to nominate the “reverend” for the Academy Honorary Award. After all, who has done a better job of pretending his primary concern is for black folks and not “Reverend Al”?

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact

Posted in Cultural | Leave a comment