Bernie Meets Al

“Mr., Sanders first at act after his 22-point victory in predominantly white New Hampshire was to travel to Harlem in New York and have breakfast with high-profile civil-rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton.”

                        Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2016

Shame on the Wall Street Journal.  Whatever the many attributes that could be attached to Al Sharpton, a “civil rights leader” is not one of them. The “Rev.” is fake as well.  Yes, these are how the sycophant Democrats who suck up to this race hustler like to present him, but no respectable newspaper should append those descriptors to Sharpton without the use of quotation marks.  They would not need quotation marks for: huckster, fraud, slanderer and stool pigeon.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2014/08/al-sharpton-democrats-david-duke.html

But to the point.  The appeal of Bernie Sanders, particularly to the young people who seem to be among his greatest enthusiasts, is that of an “idealist”, a man of ethics and principle who remains in word and deed consistent with his political ideology, which until recently has been opined to be on the far left regions of American politics. 

And, after pulverizing the widely perceived “inauthentic”, “say anything to get elected” Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire early this week, Mr. Senator Sincere, Bernie Sanders’ first stop is with the “Reverend” Sharpton, someone who, generously speaking, might be said to embody the antithesis of idealism. That Sharpton, a sleazy, riot-fomenting opportunist, can now play a role of “king-maker” (sorry Hillary) for the Democrats is as sorry a commentary as can be imagined in contemporary American politics.  Sharpton, who should be shunned by any decent person, is warmly embraced by the Democrat establishment, including the President.  That the Jewish Sanders is eager to pow wow with this crude, race baiter with his own anti-Semitic history suggests that Sanders’ ethics and much vaunted integrity are not so different from any other Democrat who bends the knee and slobbers on Sharpton’s ring.  

    

Hillary is floundering.  She has become the Leonid Brezhnev of the Democrat party – an embalmed stiff, serially corrupt, stolid, robotic and boring, offering no coherent or compelling reason why she should be in charge.  All she lacks is a General's jacket with 40 pounds of fake medals. Like Brezhnev, what does she believe other than she should be the one to boss other people around and live like a pasha while everyone else sucks eggs? No one over 45 is interested in her, and for good reason. Her husband, no doubt, would like to be back, slouching around in the White House with access to more young interns, but again, what do the Clintons offer but more scandals and sordid dramas?

Bernie needs black votes in the upcoming southern primaries in order to push Hillary off the island, and unfortunately for him Hillary has a longer history and more “know how” in racial pandering. She has just been christened by the Congressional Black Caucus.  They have worked with Hillary over the years and know her well, as was mentioned on CNN in non-stop repetition of this completely predictable, sorry moment of Beltway collusion.  The Congressional Black Caucus endorsing Hillary is very reassuring – a bit like Al Capone vouching for Meyer Lansky. 

So then, what did Bernie and Al talk about?   Bernie needs Al, but Al doesn’t need Bernie.  Which is why Bernie is coming to Harlem seeking some sort of benediction from this Pontiff of racial resentment.  Who would not want to be a fly on the wall for this conversation, but for Sharpton to bless Bernie, he (Bernie) is going to have “out-Hillary” in smearing Republicans in their contempt for Black Americans. Not that he won’t make a serious effort but  this will be a tall order.  Recently Hillary, playing demagogue during the recent Flint water crisis fumed that: “The governor of that state (Rick Snyder, a Republican) acted as though he didn’t really care.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/michael-moore-flocks-flint-mich-poisoned-water-article-1.2499962 Why, one might ask, does Rick Snyder not care while Hillary does? Fortunately for Hillary, Synder is a Republican or the smear would be a bit more complicated for her.   One does not have to be remotely cynical or blindly partisan to find this revolting.  We know how Clinton will pander to the Black voters. Since she will say or do anything to win, it will be intriguing in the next few weeks to see how a man of integrity operates.

Limericks in Honor of Hillary Clinton

Limericks in Honor of Hillary Clinton

Hillary Dillary Rhetorical

She calls her critics deplorable

But they know she’s a phony

So full of baloney

When Trump wins she will be deportable.

 

Hillary Dillary sleeze

It’s likely she has a disease

She coughs and  she staggers

And it’s a fairly good wager

She’ll soon need to crawl on her knees.

Hillary Dillary Cork.

In her please stick a fork.

No one can trust her, and

The Feds want to bust her,

So we can all be done with this Dork.

Hillary Dillary Snoop.

Out of her mouth comes sheer poop.

She never can muster,

Any more that just bluster,

And treats everyone as a dupe.

Hillary Dillary Honey.

The Woman loves nothing but money.

She never stops trying,

And resorts to fake crying.

When its apparent to all that she’s lying.

Hillary Dillary Ream.

Her morals are from a bad dream.

She lies and she cheats,

For her pals the big treats.

For the rest, she’s a most dismal scene

Hillary Dillary Fake.

With all the warmth of a snake

All her moves are suspicious

Her talk meretricious

And her hubby an infamous rake.

Hillary Dillary Sage

She rants and raves on the stage

She talks democratic,

But lives aristocratic,

And deserves to be put in a cage.
 

Hillary Dillary Dock.

Her vaunted career is a crock.

Takes big dough from Goldman

But acts not beholden,

To Wall Street she remains in deep hock. 

The Question Hillary Cannot Answer: Thanks Donald

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declined on Monday to say if she has been in communication with any of the women involved in the sex scandals during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Asked if she has had any interactions with them, or feels empathy for any of them, Clinton told The Des Moines Register: “No, I have nothing to say and I will leave it to voters to determine whether any of that is at all relevant to their decision.   

From the January 12^th interview with Hillary Clinton and The Des Moines Register

There you have it.  She is quite a talker. She gets three hundred grand a pop for boiler plate, completely forgettable, uninspiring speeches, and currently on the campaign trail she’s rarely at a loss for words.  But the walking-talking spin machine who has a whole lot to say about a lot of things, particularly about what a “fighter” she is, particularly what a champion she is for women suddenly opts to take the “take the fifth” when someone asks her about those women who had aroused the interest of Bill and had the misfortune to find themselves alone with him.

You really cannot blame her for the dodge.  I mean, talk about a “gottcha” question.  No where to go with this one, but hey, she’ll have to hope those “voters” are as stupid as she must think they are. You’d almost feel sorry for her.  Not really.  She was deluded enough last December to make, what was that tweet?   “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL  Ah yes, those survivors of sexual assault – assaulted like, perhaps, getting raped (Juanita Broadderick) or trapped in a room with a certain Arkansas Governor exposed and not so politely insisting on a blow job (Paula Jones) or … well, it can go on a bit more but that’s all so 1990’s and as George Soros would say, lets “Move on”.  Not so fast though:  perhaps in a few years some of those underage girls who were on those flights to “Orgy Island” with Bill Clinton and one of his buddies, convicted pedophile, Jeffery Epstein, in Epstein’s plane, may want to be “heard, believed and supported.” 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/details-on-bill-clintons-ride-on-pedophiles-lolita-express-sought/article/256685
I’m sure Hillary Clinton, wherever she is will be completely supportive. You never know. 

Unfortunately for Hillary, those younger female voters who were too young to experience the reign of Clintons in the 1990s and the management of the President’s “Bimbo eruptions” as his own people so kindly put it, I suspect, will soon get very well acquainted with at least some of the names of Bill’s casualties and Hillary’s somewhat less than sympathetic response to their plight.  One of course can never predict but one does wonder if the younger female generation will be so indulgent with Bill as was Nina Burleigh, the White House correspondent for Time Magazine who covered the Clinton White House during the Lewinsky scandal.  She said, she “would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.” Read more at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/121283/nina-burleigh-back-kathryn-jean-lopez

Perhaps Hillary’s campaign should introduce a feminist “kneepad” theme in keeping with this inspiring encomium so if and when theocrat slayer Bill takes his rightful place in the White House beside Hillary, the ceremonies of “gratitude” can get underway.  I’m sure the lines will be very long with much lip service to be paid.

This touchy matter of Bill’s rough business with women used to be off-limits for reporters covering Hillary Clinton’s political campaigns but those women Bill abused are still around, and, they have the temerity to think they “deserve to be heard, believed and supported.” Imagine! Worse for Hillary, given her life long aversion to the truth and relentless self-promotion, a lot of people now are beginning to realize that she is a shameless opportunist and a terrible liar. Maybe those women were not the “sluts” and “looney tunes” Hillary said they were. Who would you believe? The more these women Bill abused and Hillary smeared talk, the more people will listen and wonder. The more reporters ask her what the Des Moines Register reporter recently asked her, the less she will look even remotely Presidential and more like, well, someone who should just go away, leave us alone and be content to have looted the White House just once.

Times do seem to have changed.  Clinton infatuation isn’t quite what it once was.  Hillary has gotten older not wiser, more insulated and, hard as it is to believe, even more entitled and arrogant.  Hence the tweet which you have to think makes even the most die hard Clintonistas cringe and say to themselves, “Are you crazy?”  Then, as if that is not walking into the middle of the ring and sticking your chin out, she decides to work the usual “sexist” angle on …. Donald Trump.  Oooo, that will put him in his place.  Well, whatever you think of Trump, this was not a real smart move.  He’s not your typical Republican punching bag, like Mitt Romney.  For whatever reasons, the Republicans have for a long time let those Lefties in their glass houses throw their stones without pitching a few back and let the mainstream media reporters run all over them, shilling for Democrats while pretending to be journalists (Candy Crowley leaps to mind).  Trump hasn’t gotten the memo, backhands the sneering reporters and suddenly Hillary has to try to change the subject.  Trump is no one’s floor mat and he seems willing to go where no Republican has gone before and should have – which is why his popularity is growing and why unlike the last two Republican candidates for President he may actually win.

“Ready for Hillary” is Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan with its barely sublimated entitlement message, but with the Clintons there is never a shortage of perverse irony. “Ready for Hillary?” formed as a question raises a lot of questions, many of them nightmarish and  unseemly, most of them relating to a lot of stuff she and Bill did that other less connected folks would have gone to jail for.  Come to think of it, a lot of their associates did end up in jail. No one was better at pitching their helpers under the bus than the Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos of Little Rock.

Trump, whatever else he does, has helped to change “Ready for Hillary” from a rally cry into an ugly question, maybe several of them.  He has played the wonderful role of the child pointing at the naked emperor and asking the obvious question, the question that for some of us has been in play for long time, but may soon be out there for a broader and more complete national rumination.  Why would any decent person in this country want to put a man with such a long and sordid history of abusing women anywhere near the White House next to a Madam President wife who smeared the women he injured?        

Two Racisms

Now, it's a known fact that racism comes in two forms: that practiced by whites— heinous and inexcusable, whatever its motives— and that practiced by blacks— quite justified, whatever its excesses, since it's merely the expression of a righteous revenge, and it's up to the whites to be patient and understanding.

Raspail, Jean (2014-12-03). The Camp of the Saints (1973) (Kindle Locations 3661-3663). Trine Day. Kindle Edition.

Over forty years ago this apothegm appeared in a prophetic novel, The Camp of the Saints, a masterpiece of acid mockery, mesmerizing in its devastating satirical scorn for the ubiquitous Leftist grandstanders with all of their preening, self-righteous rhetoric of “caring” about the oppressed, their relentless, fatuous grievance mongering, and delusion-fed hypocrisy and shameless duplicity.

Raspail’s noted double standard endures, thrives even, and gathers an increasing stench of invincible dishonesty.  Racism some forty years post-Camp has mutated into the most useful, versatile, resilient “ism” ever invented, the gift for the Left that never stops giving. 

Only whites can practice racism in its virulent, malignant form because, as the Left insists, whites are “privileged”, neo-Marxist-speak for the domination and exploitation of one advantaged class or group (white) over another (black).  Those in oppressed group, as Raspail notes above, get to be as vicious as they care to be because they have longstanding legitimate grievances to pursue and scores to settle.  Racism for the Left is really about power, and like every malady that plagues society, in Marxist social mechanics it is eliminated when the righteous oppressed overthrow the benighted oppressors (in Marxist lingo: “the expropriators are expropriated”).  For the Left the notion of racial progress in America is an illusion.  The breaking down of the barriers of segregation, the victories of civil rights movement mean nothing.  As President Obama says, discrimination is in our DNA.  It is long past time for whites relocate at back of the bus and be content as janitors.

In a simpler era before the Left had hammered the notion that “white folks” are all (collectively) and uniquely racist into one of their sacred dogmas, sorting out those who were racists from those who were not was a relatively straightforward matter.  Racists then self-identified, some, quite proudly and defiantly.  Others, perhaps neither so confident nor bold would admit privately, maybe even grudgingly and more tentatively the views of the openly bigoted. 

Then, not every white person of European origin was a racist.  Some, many whites, as even now, were actually appalled by the racists they observed.  How else, one might ask, over the years, without some renegades from this majority oppressor race did America end slavery, dismantle Jim Crow and twice elect a black man as President with a plurality of white votes? And, how else is it that now merely the threat of being labeled a racist makes most whites crumple up, scramble to apologize to anyone and everyone, and promise to do whatever it takes to show how free they are of racial prejudice.

Times indeed have changed.  No white person other than the flotsam on the far fringe wants to be labeled a racist.  No sin is less forgivable.  You can prey on young interns, be a serial philander and a phony philanthropist (Bill Clinton), abandon your girlfriend to drowned in the back seat of your car (Ted Kennedy), try to blow up the Pentagon and a lot of people in it (Bill Ayres), slander, foment riots, consort with gangsters, skip your taxes (Al Sharpton) – all in the end is forgiven and forgotten as long as you are reliably, as they say now, “progressive”.   But for those whose bonafides do not list leftward enough, when the professional overseers of racial rectitude sniff out in a word, gesture, or symbol, that has the faintest whiff of “racism”, exile and banishment follow.  Remember Jimmy the Greek? Even the slightest suspicion that one of the “privileged” whites in any position of influence and authority does not spend every spare moment ruminating on how awful it is to be black in America can kill a career.   Just recently the President of the University of Missouri capitulated (groveling and apologizing, Mao-era Cultural Revolution style) to the demands of clique of black students led by the son of a multimillionaire and resigned. His offense?  He was insufficiently tormented by the horrors endured by black students at the Missouri campus – which were?  Well, that is where you have to use your imagination.      

Racism is now an obsession of the Left and it is ubiquitous, manifesting itself in such subtle and nuanced forms that detection requires highly trained specialists in the hermeneutics of racial sensitivity.  Racism, that is, white racism, never abates.  It is a wonderful abstraction that easily mutates. It has taken on so many different forms that even the specialists can barely keep up with the inventory: institutional racism, systemic racism, economic racism, environmental racism, overt racism, covert racism, casual racism, legacy racism, etc.  The deep thinkers employed by the New York Times can be counted upon, as they usually do, to bring enlightenment to this unfortunate preoccupation and generalize about people about whom they know little and loath greatly: thus, the inimitable Nicholas Kristof and his recent column “Is Everyone a Little Bit Racist?” Perhaps Kristof should change his name to Rip Van Winkle.

Racism is now detected in the form of “micro-aggressions”, the irony somehow escaping the “diversity” and “multicultural” specialists who occupy Vice President and similar lofty positions at universities and companies.  We now have an entire industry made up of “professionals” whose job is to detect in the speech and behavior of their fellow employees these micro-aggressions that signal the racist attitudes.  They reign in a kind of dictatorship over communication legitimized somehow by the demand for “sensitivity” which seems to be unbounded and insatiable and now trumps once highly regarded values and freedoms such free speech, intellectual humility and civility.

It is safe to wager that no Multi-cultural or Diversity Vice President anywhere will ever be on record saying that under her tenure racism and bigotry have diminished and race relations have improved. Aren't they hired to make things better?  So why do we need them? Again, one marvels at the irony and it is astonishing to note how no one seems to comment on the perversity of the entire enterprise that composes the “Diversity industry”, a euphemism for an extortion machine.  These positions are created and filled by people who have every incentive to make things worse.  If the whites (privileged simply by virtue of being white) who inhabit these organizations were not the closet bigots they supposedly cannot help being, why would we need these professional scolds, intolerant and censorious to the core, to lecture us incessantly on inclusion and tolerance?  So imagine the relief they typically feel when some incident (a racial slur, real or imagined) occurs assuring them that we are permanently locked in a time where all the lunch counters and public restrooms are “Whites Only” and “We Shall Overcome” is the only choice in the hymnbook.  Everyday is “Groundhog Day” – Bull Connor is Sheriff and all Republicans are Lester Maddox. Wait! I believe he was a Democrat.  

Racism in today’s multi-racial America has little to do with race and everything to do with power. Racism is the “unity of evil under which all opponents are gathered.”  (Petr Fidelius, ‘Totalitarian Language’, The Salisbury Review 2 (2) (Winter 1984); Scruton, Roger (2015-10-08). Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (Kindle Locations 4267-4268). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.)  Racism is this “unity of evil” they see in their “enemies”, as President Obama calls his political opposition.  It is an integral part of the political modus operandi of Left used to demonize the opposition.  Racism is also an exemption for rioting, looting, murdering policemen and almost any loutish behavior you can imagine because the white power structure has made conditions intolerable.   

Black Lives Matter, Black Power, Black is Beautiful – whatever form the au currant racial chest thumping chant from the grievance industry takes – it is nothing but agitprop aimed at racial intimidation.  The Left, constantly crying racism against their opponents, supports black chauvinism no matter how crude or stupid its manifestations. If they were seriously opposed to what racism really is – targeting a racial group and disparaging it – they would they would condemn the grievance mongering and racial animosity of the likes of Al Sharpton and Barack Obama and attempt a real, as they say “honest conversation about race.”

Thomas Jefferson and the Grievance Mongers

           Download the free Slavery at Monticello App

                      

                  From the Monticello official website

Grievance = by definition: a feeling of having been treated unfairly; a reason for complaining or being unhappy with a situation; a statement in which you say you are unhappy or not satisfied with something.

We are amuck in the age of grievances, grievances of gargantuan proportions that cut vast swaths across times, places and peoples, grievances of tiny magnitude, registered these days under the heading, “micro-aggressions.” The grievance mongers lie in ambush everywhere.  Grievances multiply to open up coveted space in today’s “Pantheon of Victimhood”.  Installation in the Pantheon as a certified victim means you get to wear a permanent moral halo and remain immune from criticism of any sort. You possess the “superior virtue of the oppressed”, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell put it.  New York Times columnist David Brooks recently concluded his review of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s book, Between the World and Me, an anti-white diatribe by an angry black man by asking himself if he, “as a white man has the moral standing to question any part of it?” (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/white-america-dons-the-shroud-of-guilt/article25971483/). The answer to this absurd question is painfully obvious: David, quit writing reviews or anything else. Join a monastery. Devote yourself to good works for the poor.  Of course, you have no “moral standing”. Not because you are a white man, but because you have completely surrendered whatever slim capacity you once may have had to grasp basic facts, reason and think straight. This is the same David Brooks, by the way, who after interviewing then Presidential candidate, Barack Obama back in those halcyon days of “Hope and Change” wrote: “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant … and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/31/the-obligatory-david-brooks-really-impressed-with-obamas-pants-post/) And I’m thinking, (a) do we ever want to hear from this New York Times deep thinker again and (b) if we did, why would we take him seriously?

White guilt, like that displayed by groveling idiot-intellectuals like Brooks, gives an enormous boost of legitimacy to the blustering maestros in the thriving grievance industry, experts in the practice of the art of moral blackmail. (See my blog, The Left: Masters of Extortion)

(http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-left-masters-of-extortion.html) These guys you provoke at your own peril! They are “professionals” fermenting in the juices of resentment, always in a permanent high dudgeon, always wanting to remind you of how insensitive you are. They are the self-selected representatives of the burgeoning legions of the righteously aggrieved. They give “voice” to their feelings of being treated unfairly and their unhappiness with the raw deals that are the standard fare in America for anyone who is not a white male. They now maintain vast inventories of “micro-aggressions”, invent new ones, and make lots of demands, non-negotiable ones. 

Consider the ruminations of Desiree H. Melton, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame of Maryland University specializing in critical race theory and feminist philosophy, a fully credentialed grievance professional. She does not disappoint.

 A recent tour of Monticello aroused her critical race theory ire which then led to the appearance of “Monticello’s Whitewashed Version of History” in the Washington Post listed as an opinion piece. That the Washington Post would publish such a mindless piece of bilious, self-righteous posturing masquerading as serious thinking is evidence that for our intellectually elite gatekeepers of opinion white guilt trumps any standard of dispassionate reflection and critical insight that might be applied to the “conversations on race” they keep insisting that we have.  No connection with reality is required (David Brooks, case in point).  Equally depressing is that Ms. Melton gets paid to transmit her tendentious, resentment-laden drivel to young college students.   

For Ms. Melton, the Monticello tour was painful from the beginning as she complains that the other, “mostly white folks” on the tour were insufficiently somber. “To my surprise, I was not saddened by the experience. I did, however, get angry. I was angry at the utter lack of reverence and solemnity.”  Anger for grievance mongers is always the first reflex. You see, the critical race theorists of the world, like Ms. Melton, cannot comprehend why everyone else around them does not vibrate as they do with the same exquisite sense of moral outrage that comes from ruminating every waking moment on how awful it is to be a black person in America.  “Reverence and solemnity among its white visitors were missing from Monticello because it did not demand it of them.” It is not clear that there is an “it” behind Monticello that can make these sorts of “demands”. Aren’t reverence and solemnity supposed to come from within? Perhaps the tour guides at Monticello are supposed to replicate the sessions of quivering, angry, uncensored, unmasking of America’s fake, whitewashed heroes that the students in her in her 101 classes at Notre Dame are subjected to. No pedestal can remain occupied. ”Why,” she asks, “does Monticello allow visitors to tour the house and then skip over its related slave sites? Why? – well, maybe because visitors to historic sites might have their own priorities, interests and perspectives that don’t quite match up with those of the angry professor.  Maybe it is because the visitors to Monticello are not (yet) political prisoners to be perp walked through the grounds, reeducated and forced to confess (Chinese, Cultural Revolution style) that American history is nothing other than the ugly story of racism and the subjugation and exploitation of black people. 

Ms. Melton’s is in a great wrath over Monticello’s supposed whitewashing of Jefferson’s slaver ownership. Did she even bother to look at the official Monticello website which gives ample considerable attention to the many aspects of slavery at Monticello? (http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery) Included are a number of online exhibitions such as: Landscape of Slavery: Mulberry Row at Monticello; Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty; Getting Word: African American Families of Monticello  Also, on the website there were a number of articles relating to the reality of slavery at Monticello, Jefferson and Slavery and Jefferson and Sally Hemings.  What is lacking? Reality, it seems, makes no impression on this professor-visitor. She seems determined to enjoy her anger and bitterness.  Grievance professionals are about grievances – facts do not matter.

The problem Ms. Melton opines is that white people just don’t want to face the truth. “If white people cannot accept the awful truth that one of the nation’s cherished founders held people as property, and that slavery was indeed horrific, why would they acknowledge the covert ways in which blacks are still oppressed?”

.    

This is clearly a trick, “if-then” question. Let’s respond by turning it back around with a different “if-then” question. So:  IF black critical race theory professors are unable to grasp some simple obvious facts (a) that it makes absolutely no sense to talk about what truths white people as a single, collective race accept or do not accept because there are none, (b) that most white people do know and accept the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, (c) that most white people as well as all other people would strongly aver that slavery is horrific (d) that the ancestors of many white Americans today, those particularly in the immigrant waves of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries – Italians, Greeks, Jews from the Russian pale, etc. – had nothing to do with American slavery, many of whom were serfs and peons back where they came from, (e) that slave trading and ownership were not solely practiced by white people, (f) that white Christian abolitionists in England and America were primarily responsible for ending slavery in the western world,  THEN should critical race theorists, like Ms. Melton attempt to acquire a basic grasp of logic and critical thinking, study more history, work at becoming a little less censorious and self-righteous or perhaps, just find a more productive line of work?