Monday, April 17, 2017

On Willis Hart's Belief That Blacks (Circa The Lincoln Presidency) Were Thankful For The Free Boat Ride To America (How Their Ancestors Got Here)

Apparently this is something the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart agrees with Pat Buchannon on. That a "free boat ride" to America was something slaves should have been (Buchanan) - or actually were (Hart) - grateful for.

Willis Hart: On the Strong Possibility that a Large Chunk of the Blacks that Lincoln, Beecher-Stowe, Stevens, and the Rest of the Colonization Crowd Wanted to Deep-Six Back to Africa Would Have Been Re-Enslaved by the Far More Virulent African Slavers and Worked to Death... Yeah, Lincoln and company didn't seem all that concerned (as long as the black folks were gone, I guess). (4/16/2017 at 11:26am).

So, I guess Hart has never heard of Liberia? A country in Africa that "began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed blacks would face better chances for freedom in Africa than in the United States". This was a country that "declared its independence on 7/26/1847", which was before the beginning of the Civil War. Former slaves journeying to Liberia didn't go there to be re-enslaved, as far as I know.

And, for the record, Lincoln was a supporter of VOLUNTARY colonization (resettling freed Blacks outside the United States, including in Liberia). Although to hear Willis tell it the resettlement was involuntary ("deep-six back to Africa").

Obviously, given these two facts, the Hartster's post is pure bullshit. Free Blacks returning to Africa (which some did) were not re-enslaved by "the far more virulent African slavers". Nor was any free Black "deep sixed" (sent back to Africa involuntarily). Or, I'm not aware of any large scale effort to send any Black person back to Africa against their will.

Wikipedia/Abraham Lincoln and slavery: Lincoln pursued various plans to voluntarily colonize free blacks outside the United States, but none of these had a major effect. ...he firmly opposed compulsory colonization... Historians disagree over whether or not his plans to colonize blacks were sincere or political posturing. Regardless, by the end of his life, Lincoln had come to support black suffrage. ... In his second term as president, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave a speech in which he promoted voting rights for blacks.

It was because "Lincoln in 1865 firmly denied that racial harmony would be possible in the United States" that he supported colonization. As opposed to wanting to "deep six" Blacks back to Africa because he hated them. He just didn't see a future in which Whites and Blacks lived together in harmony.

Clearly Hart's intense hatred for Abe Lincoln is the driving force behind all his posts about how horrible our 16th president was. Not any anti-racist sentiments. Ironic, given the fact that (on 9/23/2011) Willis wrote that Abe occupied the number 1 slot on the list of "Greatest Presidents in U.S. History" (OST #130).

Also ironic given the fact that Hart is himself quite racist. In fact - what he writes about how horrible it would be for Blacks returning to Africa - sounds to me a LOT like what Pat Buchanan wrote about African Americans who are Americans as a result of their ancestors being kidnapped and brought here as slaves.

Pat Buchanan: First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. (A Brief for Whitey by Pat Buchanan. Patrick J. Buchanan Official Website, 3/21/2008).

This was a post Buchanan wrote in response to President Obama's 3/18/2008 A More Perfect Union speech ("Wright" is a reference to Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright). A commentary that many have interpreted as Buchanan telling descendents of slaves in America that they should be saying "thanks for the free boat ride" their ancestors got (despite the fact that "about 12.5 percent of slaves transported died in the Middle Passage, 4.5 percent died on shore before the date of sale, and one-third died in the process of acclimating to the Americas - a total mortality of about 50 percent").

[Pat Buchanan's commentary said] In essence: Be grateful to God (with his beautiful, piercing blue eyes) that we offered you a free boat ride to paradise, you Black savages. (Re: A Brief for Whitey by Michael Arceneaux, 3/25/2008).

America is a paradise that Blacks would not want to leave - AKA be "deep-sixed" to an African hell where they would be worked to death? That sounds a LOT to me like "thanks for the free boat ride". "Thanks for the free boat ride to paradise. I don't want to go back". Even though some did.

But (in the Hartster's mind) Lincoln wanted them gone (and didn't care what happened to them after they were forcibly resettled), because he (Lincoln) was so racist. As opposed to Hart being the racist. Which isn't to say that I agree with re-colonization or resettlement of Blacks. Regardless of how they got here, they had been here for multiple generations (at this point) and this was (and is) their country as well.

I just don't believe that Lincoln's belief/worry that there could never be racial harmony is proof of intense racism. And that Lincoln just wanted Blacks gone and was therefore quite willing to "deep-six" them to an African hell. Hart's guesses are all completely wrong. Or largely wrong. I mean, given the fact that Libera existed at the time and some free Blacks had already left America to return to Africa.

And there is the fact that this idea of Blacks leaving America en masse never really went anywhere. So why the obsession? Just something to bash Lincoln over, I guess.

OST #205

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

On WTNPH's Allegation That It Isn't Trump, But Hillary Clinton Who Has Russia Connections

The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart thinks it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has "Russian Connections". Connections that indicate corruption.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that at or Around the Same Time that Mrs. Clinton's State Department Was Signing Off on the Transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate, Tens of Millions of Dollars Were Flowing in to the Clinton Foundation from Numerous Associates in this Project AND Bill Clinton Received $500,000 for Belting Out Some Bullshit and Platitudinous Speech In Moscow [Link].

No, it isn't a smoking-gun but the fact that Mrs. Clinton didn't report at least $2.35 million of this largess (this money coming from the head-honcho of the project, no less) indicates to me that she was at least concerned about the appearance of it. Speaking of "Russian connections". (3/6/2017 at 5:24pm).

That it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has Russia connections is the exact same allegation that Donald Trump has been making. Most recently via twitter.

I wonder if the Trump-defending Hart LIKED either or both of these tweets? Anyway, the House Intelligence Committee isn't looking into the "Bill and Hillary deal" because it wasn't a Bill and Hillary Deal". According to Newsweek "we really don't need to investigate [the] Uranium deal" because the charges are bogus.

...allegations, first aired in 2015, that the Clinton family benefited from a "pay for play" scheme, whereby U.S. uranium reserves were supposedly transferred to the Russian owners of a mining corporation in return for donations to the Clinton foundation [are] false.

[in] 2010... Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake in mining company Uranium One. Clinton, as [Secretary of State] had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which Clinton sat.

Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.

But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption... First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.

Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state. (Why We Really Don't Need To Investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Uranium Deal" by Josh Lowe. 3/28/2017).

Hillary Clinton might have been "at least concerned about the appearance of it", given the fact that Hillary hating Trump defenders like Willis (who is also a fan of the lying scumbag Peter Schweizer) are so eager to defend Trump and indict her.

Poltifact disputes the suggestion that Bill Clinton being paid 500k by Renaissance Capital (a Russian investment bank) in 2010 was a payoff to get HRC to approve the Uranium One deal. Given the fact that "then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent State on CFIUS, said Clinton herself never intervened in committee matters" [quote via Snopes].

Regarding Willis' claim that the deal would "transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate"... Uranium One is a Canadian company (although the "Russian Conglomerate" Rosatom does now own a 51% controlling share in it). But "Russia cannot export the material from the United States". They're getting the profit, and NOT the uranium. It isn't being "transferred" anywhere (it's staying in the United States).

The real reason for the purchase (as per Politifact) was likely that Russia was "interested in Uranium One's assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium producer". BTW, I'm not saying approving the deal was the right way to go. I'm thinking that it should NOT have been approved. But is as usually is the case when it comes to those who have money and power... they get what they want.

What I am saying is that there is no evidence of Clinton corruption via "pay-for-play" or "quid pro quo". As Snopes and Politifact point out. And as the scumbag Peter Schweizer himself admits (Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes).

Which isn't to say HRC isn't guilty of "glaring conflicts of interest". But there is a difference between ignoring conflicts of interest and outright naked corruption, for which there exists the opposite of a "smoking gun" (facts that show HRC wasn't involved/couldn't approve the deal).

Video: Peter Schweizer appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss Clinton Cash, 4/26/2015. GS: " independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote ... 'there's no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation'. ... Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?" to which PS replied "no, we don't have direct evidence". (8:04).

OST #204