By Frances Rice
Since a black man owned the first slave in the colonies and
Africans sold their fellow blacks into slavery, must there now be a demand to
remove all statutes of black people in the United States?
See "The Truth About Slavery"
video at: https://vimeo.com/161376819
Below is a follow up article about the disturbing effort
by the black author Ta-Nehesi Coates to further divide our country along racial
lines and destroy the Trump presidency.
Also below is a message from an average American who’s also fed up with the race mongering of left-wingers who hate our country and the president we elected protect our national security and lead our nation back to economic prosperity.
Further below is an article about how Hillary Clinton is
still making excuses for losing the 2016 election.
__________________
Coates Versus Douglass
By Steven Hayward
Ta-Nehesi Coates has a new essay out about Trump that is
generating a lot of buzz, entitled “The
First White President.” Here are a couple of excerpts about what he has to
say about Trump:
He is preeminently the white man’s President,
entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He is ready and willing at any
time during the first year of his administration to deny, postpone, and
sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare
of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he is an
American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one
principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of immigration. His
arguments in furtherance of this policy have their motive and mainspring in his
patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and
perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Donald Trump is not less
ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. . . Knowing
this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this
worship at once full and supreme.
Oh wait a minute. That’s not Coates; that’s Frederick
Douglass, speaking about Abraham Lincoln at the dedication of the Freedman’s
Monument in Washington DC on April 14, 1876.
I took the small liberty of
changing the verb tenses, swapping out “immigration” for “slavery” in the
fourth sentence, and swapping “Trump” for “Lincoln” in the last sentence. None
of these changes alter the argument of the passage. In other words, we have
here Douglass arguing that Lincoln is pre-eminently a “white president,” and
not the first by any means.
Of course, if you read the
whole of Douglass’s oration, he makes out the case of why Lincoln should be
honored, and by extension why the country he led is good and just, despite its
obvious failings and mistakes.
By comparison Douglass reveals Coates to be the
superficial thinker that he is.
Because of course many contemporary black
thinkers—I suspect Coates is among them—believe Lincoln was a “white
supremacist” pure and simple, no better or different than the Confederate
leaders whose statues are being removed.
A “Black Lives Matter” protest a
couple years back featured signs proclaiming “Lincoln was a racist,” and
demanding that Lincoln be removed from the five-dollar bill. This is not a
brand new charge. Ebony magazine in 1968 published an article entitled
“Was Lincoln a White Supremacist?” (Answer: yes.)
Let’s take in a bit more of Douglass:
Despite the mist and haze that surrounded
him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to
take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance
for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated
him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often
tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by
any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a
broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of
that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the
conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the
person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might
employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him,
whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that
Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and
earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on
until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States. . .
I have said that President Lincoln was a
white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the
colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we
are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely
set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal
American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them
safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things:
first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free
his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both,
he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal
fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his
efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of
slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from
him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to
rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln
seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment
of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift,
zealous, radical, and determined.
I doubt Coates would ever concede any part of Douglass’s
argument. Just as environmentalists delight in every apocalyptic claim that
comes along, Coates delights in the bitterness that descends from the view that
America’s failings define the totality of America’s history and meaning. You
might call it a different kind of supremacy.
NB: See Damon Linker’s dissent about Coates here.
_________________
A Message From: Mark Hughes, An American Citizen
New Mental Illness.
Do You Know Someone Suffering From
Trump Un-acceptance & Resistance Disorder (TURD)?
Know the signs, spot the
symptoms, and save a life.
TURD is a pattern of pathologically dissociative and
psychotic behavior, first observed in the late hours of November 8th 2016, and
increasing in severity with passing time.
Sufferers of TURD often exhibit
pronounced cognitive dissonance, sudden bouts of rage, rioting, uncontrollable
crying and “unfriending” on Facebook.
TURD is caused by the election of Donald
Trump as President of the United States of America.
For many, both in America
and worldwide, this was a shocking and unexpected outcome; their preferred news
sources having failed to inform them that the alternative candidate was a
criminal, Socialist parasite in such ill health she got chucked into the back
of a van like a kidnap victim.
Research is ongoing, but TURD appears to
correlate closely with the following environmental and behavioral factors:
Membership in the Democratic Party
Identifies as an Actor or Artist
Exposure to
a Liberal Arts college professor
Works for the Federal, State or Local
government
Living in a densely populated metropolitan area
Massive student debt
Spotty or non-existent work history
Patients with TURD are very resistant to
treatment, and dangerous in large groups.
Any possibility of treatment requires
that they be separated from their hive-mind support apparatus; they cannot
begin the process of accepting reality in the presence of encouragement towards
delusion and irrationality.
Separation may require the assistance of law
enforcement.
If you have a friend or loved one suffering from TURD, urge them
to seek treatment.
Together we can beat this scourge, and Make America Great
Again.
______________
“WHAT HAPPENED” IN
A NUTSHELL
Hillary Clinton’s book about her 2016 defeat is called What
Happened.
Her answer, apparently, is that Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein,
Barack Obama, the Russians, Joe Biden, James Comey, Anthony Weiner, the
Electoral College, apathetic voters, and assorted misogynists behaved badly
and/or let her down.
A better answer can be gleaned from this
account by Maureen Callahan of a book signing event in New
York City. Callahan writes:
Among the enduring criticisms of Hillary
Clinton: Her sense of entitlement is limitless. She’s tone-deaf and
doesn’t understand the average American — nor does she care to. Her greed is
insatiable.
Add to this a gaping lack of self-awareness,
and you have all the ingredients for the New York City launch of Hillary’s
nationwide book tour Tuesday morning.
Callahan reports that thousands of people lined up
outside the Barnes & Noble at Union Square hoping to meet their idol. Some
even slept outside the night before.
They were willing to follow whatever directives were
handed down by the apparatchiks. Here, in part, is what they were told:
A limited number of wristbands for entry will
be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis with purchase of the featured
title at Barnes & Noble Union Square. Hillary Rodham Clinton will sign
copies of her new release, “What Happened” and the 2017 illustrated children’s
edition of “It Takes a Village,” no exceptions or personalizing. She will sign
up to two books per customer, one of which must be “What Happened.”
No other books or memorabilia please. Posed
photos or selfies will not be taking place . . . Book purchase and wristbands
are both required to meet the author, no exceptions. Customers without
wristbands will not be allowed to participate in any capacity.
In other words, observes Callahan, attendees were to
serve two purposes: To make sure What Happened debuts at No. 1
on the bestseller list and to line Hillary’s pockets. But at least she wasn’t
charging $89 to $3,000 per head, as she is at upcoming events.
Clinton’s announced arrival time was 11:00 a.m. She
arrived just before noon. According to Callahan:
[There was] no hello to the crowd, no thanks
for the hours of waiting — let alone decades of support — no apology for or
acknowledgment of being an hour late, or losing the most consequential election
in American history. Not a single word. She just started signing.
I have a hard time imagining Donald Trump behaving this
way. No apology, yes. Not a single word, no.
The wheelchair bound seniors near the stage were forced
to move or, in some cases, wheeled away by staff. “We’re going for a ride,” one
staffer explained.
If Donald Trump had treated his admirers the way Clinton
treats hers, he wouldn’t have won a single primary. If Trump were as
people-averse as Clinton, he would have lost the general election as badly as
many of us expected him to.
What happened in 2016? The electorate rejected, albeit
narrowly, a candidate who professes love for “the people” but doesn’t seem to
like people much and has no idea how to connect with them.
