The ‘descendants’ speak

I see that Ann Coulter has written a piece about the Jefferson descendant who was quoted in the New York Times as saying his ancestor’s memorial should be removed.

Lest anybody think this is a ”me-too” article, written to compete with Ann Coulter’s piece, I had already planned to write this because I was so exasperated with the Times interview with Mr. Truscott. I remembered a previous such interview with some other self-identified descendant of a Southron hero; it may even have been a descendant of General Lee, who likewise spoke against his illustrious ancestor.

First, before that previous article attempting to tarnish the memory of a good (and great) man, I never considered the possibility of a reputable newspaper trolling for someone willing to condemn his ancestor’s character. In times past this would have been considered low and shameful.

Having ancestors who were people of character and accomplishment is in a way a great burden to carry; hoping to match their levels of success and renown can be daunting and discouraging. Do some people cope with that by disparaging their ancestors’ accomplishments as Truscott or the other ‘Founding Father’ descendants have done? If so it is a poor way to react.

How many descendants could Thomas Jefferson have today? Thousands? Potentially, he could, but he was left with only one child to carry on his line, so there many not be many. But I am a Jefferson descendant (my readers have no doubt heard it enough times) and I get incensed when anyone defames my progenitor. I think that’s the natural reaction.

But the Times think they scored some kind of victory by finding one man (out of potentially thousands) to help smear his ancestor’s character. One man’s opinion is hardly the definitive word on the life and accomplishments of Thomas Jefferson.

So suppose Truscott is an actual descendant; is he a direct, lineal descendant? On which side? As far as I know he is not kin to me, and if he were I would not be proud to claim that kinship, seeing that he seems to have decided to side with the slanderers of his own forefather.

I thank Ann Coulter (though she will not see this post on an obscure, low-traffic blog) for reiterating the evidence that gives to lie to the Hemings side’s allegations. All too often those slanders are given as gospel in the media (as the original CNN story about Truscott). All too often people repeat those unfounded lies. Thanks to Ann for her refutation of the lies.

O’Rourke on the 2nd Amendment

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is now openly speaking against Second Amendment rights of citizens. I suspect he hasn’t had a change of heart, but has always held these views; the left has seldom upheld the ideas inherent in the Second Amendment. He basically says that it’s useless, and implicitly wrong, even theoretically, to consider opposing a tyrannical regime; after all, you have no chance of prevailing, even though you may be in the right, so don’t even think of defending yourself, your family, or your rights.

(By the way, O’Rourke’s name is Robert, so why again do we call him ‘Beto’? Is this not what the ”woke” left call ‘cultural appropriation’? His name is Robert, so why is he not called Bob, or in more appropriate Texas fashion, ‘Bobby’? Is he not a born Texan? He has no discernible Texan or Southern accent, but then that’s typical of his generation (since judging people by generation is somehow the ”done thing”, then let’s label him too; he’s a Gen X-er). And he is also one of those deracinated, cosmopolitan types, hence the affected ‘Beto’ nickname; I guess that explains it. He wants to show he is ‘down’ with the diversity thing; no ‘White-bread’ Texan or Southron, he.

In times past, someone like him would never have been elected; the Democrat Party. which dominated all of the South until what, the 1980s, would never have nominated him. Even the Democrat Party did not present such far-left candidates back in the time of the Solid South.

But the way in which he brushes aside any consideration of the Second Amendment, which the Founding Fathers thought crucial to preserving the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is just astounding, but then it’s typical of today’s left, who no longer pretend to honor our Founding principles.

Yes, I know it’s the thing now for even the right to deride the Founding Fathers, flippantly declaring that they didn’t know what they were doing, and that ‘muh Constitution’ is worthless, echoing G.W. Bush who reportedly said ‘it’s just a G–D—-d piece of paper‘ — but with what would you replace it? Of course no rights exist if we no longer believe in them, and dismiss the writers of our Constitution as clueless blunderers who should have somehow magically divined the ways in which future politicians would deliberately twist and warp the words and intentions of the Founders, or just blatantly ignore or defy the rights delineated in our founding documents. How could they have anticipated the developments which led to our present dire predicament? Could they have anticipated a world in which literally millions of people from the ‘have-not’ countries could somehow find the means (cheap air travel, money given by NGOs, etc.) to come en masse to our country?

And critics usually forget that our system of government was explicitly intended for a ”moral and God-fearing people’, and it was not suited to any other. Little wonder that it’s fallen to pieces; the more we forsook our traditions and became disconnected from our roots, including our religious roots, the more this country fell prey to subversion and decay. We can’t blame the Founding Fathers, who could hardly envision today’s world, nor can even the Boomers be blamed — sorry, Boomer-phobics. I won’t even blame Gen-Xers, except for the likes of ”Beto” Robert O’Rourke, though I will fault him for either his ignorance of or disregard for our inherent right to defend ourselves. It appears he thinks we should just cower in our houses if bad guys are breaking in, and give in to their demands.

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” – Aristotle

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone’s Commentaries)

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason