As a thought exercise, let’s pretend that Denver’s 9th District City Council member Candi CdeBaca had just proposed the following idea. That Denver should tax black and brown businesses and give that money to white businesses.

“Instead of a bid collecting extra taxation from the white businesses that are struggling, you could be collecting those extra taxes from black and brown-led businesses all over the city and redistributing them to white-owned businesses, who are not part of the bid, or who are simply just white owned,” she said. “And that’s one way to give back in the business form fashion. I think when we talk about resources being returned, this is where consumer-owned or municipally-owned resources are important.”

Sounds racist. Here’s what she actually said.

“Instead of a bid collecting extra taxation from the black and brown businesses that are struggling, you could be collecting those extra taxes from white-led businesses all over the city and redistributing them to black and brown-owned businesses, who are not part of the bid, or who are simply just black or brown owned,” she said. “And that’s one way to give back in the business form fashion. I think when we talk about resources being returned, this is where consumer-owned or municipally-owned resources are important.”

In a colorblind world of equity, this is also racist, but the term colorblind has been deemed racist by racist supremacists of color. These folks are convinced that the correct response to past injustice, real or imagined, is a radical pendulum swing to the other extreme.

Sorry, I’m not down with the struggle unless the struggle is getting back to a world where what you say and do defines you.

Human rights, and natural rights, are colorblind. Those rights don’t care about your history or politics, and the minute you add color, you are no longer talking about either. You are the problem, not the solution, no matter the color, and increasingly Democrat.

The worst outcomes in America in education, employment, and even business are found in and around the Democrat-ruled urban plantations we call cities. All that money taxed over decades has done nothing for people of color and everything for the Democrats of all colors who have trapped them in a perennial misery they blame on everyone but themselves.

Broken families, poverty, crime, and the welfare cycle are all deliberate outcomes of Left-Wing policy. So yes, there are people of all colors who have been wronged by the past, but in the present, their biggest enemy is the Democrat party which is doing everything it can to get us all so pissed off at each other that we don’t notice they are to blame.

The post It’s Not Racism to Tax People Based on Skin Color if You Give That Money to Brown People appeared first on Granite Grok.

Gun control advocates in Texas are excited because a House panel has advanced a bill to raise the age at which you can buy an AR-15 from 18 to 21.

Of course, even if passed and signed into law, the law would be struck down. As Justice Thomas asked in Bruen, is there another fundamental right where we could require this kind of restriction on its exercise?

Could we keep you from attending church until you turn 18?

Could we set the age at which you can exercise free speech to 21?

Could we say that government agents are free to search your person, papers, or effects without a warrant until you reach age 30?

For that matter, do you lose any of those rights just because you have been convicted of a felony?

A huge amount of crime is committed by children born to young mothers out of wedlock and by the children of people who have committed crimes themselves.

So could we say that you are not allowed to have a child unless you’re 25 years old, married, have passed a training course, and have never been convicted of a felony?  Could we limit the number of children you have to eliminate ‘high capacity households’?  Could we make you surrender your children to the authorities in case of divorce or conviction?

Some legislator should introduce that last set of restrictions as a bill — the Assault Children Ban — just to collect sound bites from the people who would oppose it.  Especially when you mirror their own arguments back to them:

Why should we care about your rights, when you’ve been very clear about articulating your belief that safety is more important than rights?  Keep in mind that one hundred percent of crimes are committed by people whose parents had children.  Even if most children are never convicted of a crime, can we afford, as a society, to have people bearing and keeping assault children without proper safeguards in place?

Then we could play those sound bites as testimony at future hearings on new gun control laws.

The post The Assault Children Ban appeared first on Granite Grok.