Black Founders: The Four-Part Series

In honor of Black History Month, Glenn featured a four-part series on America’s black founders. America has a rich tradition of strong men and women playing prominent roles in the founding of our country — including patriotic black Americans. But you won’t hear about them in school. It simply doesn’t fit with the progressive narrative. Political correctness has watered down and left out the stories of these patriots with strong moral character and courage. It’s past time to set the record straight.

You want to heal our land? It starts with telling the truth. This four-part series puts a laser focus on Americans that might otherwise be lost to history, highlighting how they stood shoulder to shoulder with fellow patriots. Join Glenn as he cracks open the history books to give these great founders their due and helps preserve the amazing stories of America’s black founders.

The four-part series is compiled below for your convenience.

Part I: Crispus Attucks

In the mid-1700’s, people living in the American Colonies were British subjects, still loyal to the crown. However, as the one million people spread across 13 colonies became more and more industrious, they also became more and more frustrated with the lack of input they had over taxation and the laws that came down from Great Britain.

These were the things that governed their lives, and they didn't like it.  In fact, it seemed every time they started to gain an economic foothold in the new world, the British Parliament or the king would pull it out from under them. The Sugar Act, the Currency Act, the Stamp Act, and the Townsend Act all added to a growing disenfranchisement from 1750-1770, and also built a sense of American patriotism.

One such patriot was a young runaway slave from Boston, Massachusetts --- Crispus Attucks.

Forgotten over the centuries is that the British institution of slavery, while much more prevalent in the southern colonies was also practiced in 18th century Massachusetts. In 1750, an ad taken out in the Boston Gazette described the escape of a ‘mulatto’ slave named Crispus Attucks, and offered a 10 pound reward for his return, about $2,000 in today’s currency.

Crispus was never captured and lived the next 27 years loving life as a sailor and a free man in the American Colonies.

Tensions were growing among British soldiers and colonists during this time. In addition to taxation without representation, the British Parliament issued writs of assistance that gave British officers the power to search any residence or building without warning or supervision and to confiscate whatever they deemed to be smuggled or otherwise improperly obtained goods. They cracked down on any protest or dissent and gave immunity to corrupt or abusive British officials. There was no right to trial by jury. And the colonials were forced to house British soldiers.  

The tensions between British soldiers and colonists did not go unnoticed by Crispus Attucks, and one day Attucks and his sailor friends had finally had enough. They engaged some British soldiers in an altercation. A few days later, a soldier looking for work entered a Boston pub and came across Attucks. Recognizing him from the previous altercation, things escalated quickly. A scuffle ensued, and Attucks was shot and killed. In what became known as the ‘Boston Massacre’, Crispus Attucks died a martyr and became an American Hero.

Not only was Attucks the first black man to die during the American Revolution, he was also the first American to die for his country.

Part II: Peter Salem

Patriotism was on the rise and the sentiment was no respecter of station or color, just ask Peter Salem. Born into slavery in 1750 in Framingham, Massachusetts to Jeremiah Belknap, Salem was later sold to Lawson Bruckminster --- a man who would become a major in the Continental Army.

Taxation without representation took its toll on everyone, causing a shift in loyalties --- and sometimes the act of a few can inspire the masses. One such event for Peter Salem was the Boston Tea Party. So moved by what he had witnessed, Salem pleaded with Bruckminster to let him to fight alongside his fellow patriots. Touched by Salem's devotion, Bruckminster granted the slave his freedom, immediately allowing him to join the Massachusetts Minutemen.

Salem had proven himself a capable spy and learned weeks in advance that the British were planning to attack and take rebel supplies. Because of this intelligence, the rebels moved their supplies and were ready and waiting when the British showed up. The ensuing battle in Lexington marked the beginning of the revolution where the ‘shot heard round the world’ was fired.

Salem later fought at Bunker Hill and the battle of Saratoga Springs, becoming a revolutionary war hero. He lived out his days in Framingham as a free man and cane weaver. Peter Salem was so revered that his final resting place was among white people at the Framingham cemetery, an unheard of honor for a one-time slave.

The town also placed a memorial stone over Salem's gravesite, calling him "a soldier of the Revolution."

At a time when we are so divided, how much of a difference would it make in places like Baltimore, Ferguson and Chicago to know the truth of our Black Founders? To know we have stood shoulder to shoulder as brothers and sisters before, even back to the founding of this great nation?

The story of Peter Salem adds further evidence that the founding of America was truly revolutionary.

Part III: Prince Whipple

Prince Whipple is a name that virtually no American has ever heard. But ask nearly all of those Americans if they know the name of Mr. Whipple from the 1980s Charmin toilet paper commercials, and the answer will most certainly be yes.

Who is Prince Whipple? Tragically, he is one of America's great patriots, erased from recorded history. His last name came from William Whipple, the man who purchased him as a slave, and his first name came from his royal title in Ghana, Africa. Prince Whipple was a man of royal birth sold into slavery.

Prince came to America to study and learn but was instead kidnapped and forced into slavery. He resisted the hate and anger that most would have harbored, and distinguished himself with exceptional manners and hard work. Prince gained the trust and favor of William Whipple. In fact, he was at the side of William Whipple when, as a member of the Continental Congress, he signed the Declaration of Independence.

In 1777, William was made a general in the Continental Army, and he once again took his trusted slave, asking Prince to fight if called upon. In exchange for his freedom, Prince agreed to fight until his last drop of blood. Prince fought valiantly at Saratoga for the American forces. While he honored his word, it wasn’t until 1784 that William Whipple finally fulfilled his promise and freed Prince, who lived out the rest of his days as a free man.

In 1851, a German-born painter who had grown up in the United States, but went back to Germany as an adult, was in despair over his homeland's revolutions of 1848. So he painted the scene of George Washington crossing the Delaware to inspire his fellow countrymen to remember the principles of the American Revolution.

In the painting, at the front of the boat with Washington as he crossed the Delaware, is a young black man. At the the time, many thought that black man was Prince Whipple. Historians have since discovered that Prince Whipple did not participate in the Battle of Trenton, but was instead with William Whipple back in Baltimore, Maryland. It is now believed that the painting is no more than a composite of all the blacks who helped America gain her independence, including Prince Whipple.

The fact that historians now say the man in the boat is not specifically Prince Whipple in no way diminishes his role in American history. Prince Whipple certainly believed in, stood for, fought for and eventually experienced those rights. He is indelibly etched into the fabric of this great nation and its history.

Part IV: James Armistead

Long before there was a CIA, NSA, MI5 or KGB, a long time before there was James Bond or even movies at all, there was a 33-year-old slave named James Armistead. Despite having lived his entire life in slavery, James Armistead wanted to help his country. In 1781, James asked for permission to join the revolutionary cause, and it was granted.

James joined the army and landed in the service of the Marquis de Lafayette. What Lafayette needed most was information --- and a spy. James Armistead was more than willing to oblige, becoming what well may be the first double agent in our nation's history.

Posing as an escaped slave, James entered Benedict Arnold's camp as a waiter and a guide, sending information back to Lafayette. He later returned north with Arnold, earning the British commander's confidence, traveling freely between both sides. In addition to gaining knowledge about the British, he also fed them inaccurate data. It was incredibly dangerous work that would surely bring the death penalty should he be discovered.

One day, there was a huge breakthrough when Armistead discovered that the British naval fleet was moving 10,000 troops to Yorktown, Virginia, making it a central post for their operation. Lafayette and General George Washington were stunned by the news, recognizing this could be a big break for the Continental Army.

Using the intricate and detailed data Armistead provided, Washington lay siege to the town. A massive and devastating American victory at Yorktown resulted in the surrender of Great Britain on October 19th, 1781, essentially ending the war. The colonies had won, thanks to Armistead's intelligence, defeating the greatest military might on the planet.

In 1783, as a reward to the slaves who fought for American independence, Congress passed the Emancipation Act. Unfortunately, the act applied only to soldiers, not spies. Thus, James was considered ineligible for emancipation. It was a tough ruling under the circumstances, but Virginia law dictated that slaves could not be freed from their owners --- even upon the death of that owner. And the Emancipation Act did nothing to change that for James. That same Virginia law is the reason Thomas Jefferson was never able to free his slaves.

Given the heroic service James Armistead had devoted to his country, Lafayette found the ruling unacceptable. The marquess wrote a testimonial for James' freedom. On November 30th, 1786, James with his owner's support, used Lafayette's testimonial to support his petition to the Virginia Assembly that he be granted freedom. On January 9th, 1787, the Virginia General Assembly finally granted emancipation to James Armistead.

As a free man, James purchased 40 acres of land, became a farmer, married and raised a family. Many years later, the Virginia legislature granted him a pension of $40 a year for his heroic service.

Forty years after he had last seen Lafayette, James heard the news that his old friend and commander was returning to visit the United States. Lacking the funds to travel, the white townspeople took up a collection to help. In 1824, the Richmond Enquirer reported that James was recognized by the marquess who called him by name and embraced him. The years had done nothing to diminish their respect, admiration and friendship.

Six years later, on August 9th, 1830, at the age of 82, our first war spy, the revolutionary war spy and former slave, James Armistead Lafayette died a free man on his farm in New Kent County, Virginia.

Featured Image: The Frederick Douglass Statue in Emancipation Hall at the Capitol Visitors Center, at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

America's comeback: Trump is crushing crime in the Capitol

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s DC crackdown is about more than controlling crime — it’s about restoring America’s strength and credibility on the world stage.

Donald Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to restore law and order. This move is long overdue.

D.C.’s crime problem has been spiraling for years as local authorities and Democratic leadership have abandoned the nation’s capital to the consequences of their own failed policies. The city’s murder rate is about three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-led Havana, Cuba.

When DC is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak.

Theft, assaults, and carjackings have transformed many of its streets into war zones. D.C. saw a 32% increase in homicides from 2022 to 2023, marking the highest number in two decades and surpassing both New York and Los Angeles. Even if crime rates dropped to 2019 levels, that wouldn’t be good enough.

Local leaders have downplayed the crisis, manipulating crime stats to preserve their image. Felony assault, for example, is no longer considered a “violent crime” in their crime stats. Same with carjacking. But the reality on the streets is different. People in D.C. are living in constant fear.

Trump isn’t waiting for the crime rate to improve on its own. He’s taking action.

Broken windows theory in action

Trump’s takeover of D.C. puts the “broken windows theory” into action — the idea that ignoring minor crimes invites bigger ones. When authorities look the other way on turnstile-jumping or graffiti, they signal that lawbreaking carries no real consequence.

Rudy Giuliani used this approach in the 1990s to clean up New York, cracking down on small offenses before they escalated. Trump is doing the same in the capital, drawing a hard line and declaring enough is enough. Letting crime fester in Washington tells the world that the seat of American power tolerates lawlessness.

What Trump is doing for D.C. isn’t just about law enforcement — it’s about national identity. When D.C. is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak. The capital city represents the soul of the country. If we can’t even keep our own capital safe, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Reversing the decline

Anyone who has visited D.C. regularly over the past several years has witnessed its rapid decline. Homeless people bathe in the fountains outside Union Station. People are tripping out in Dupont Circle. The left’s negligence is a disgrace, enabling drug use and homelessness to explode on our capital’s streets while depriving these individuals of desperately needed care and help.

Restoring law and order to D.C. is not about politics or scoring points. It’s about doing what’s right for the people. It’s about protecting communities, taking the vulnerable off the streets, and sending the message to both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens alike that the rule of law matters.

D.C. should be a lesson to the rest of America. If we want to take our cities back, we need leadership willing to take bold action. Trump is showing how to do it.

Now, it’s time for other cities to step up and follow his lead. We can restore law and order. We can make our cities something to be proud of again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Can Trump make D.C. great again?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

For years, Washington, D.C., has been a symbol of everything wrong with big government—riddled with crime, manipulated stats, and soft-on-crime policies that let gangs terrorize innocent citizens while the elite turn a blind eye. Now, President Trump is stepping up, deploying federal agents after a savage attack on a hero like Edward Coristine, vowing no more "Mr. Nice Guy" as he promises to jail criminals, clear out the homeless encampments, and restore order just like he sealed the border. This isn't just a crackdown; it's a reclamation of our capital from the chaos liberals have unleashed.

Glenn has already covered this on his radio show, exposing how legacy media and Democrats twist crime numbers. They claim that there was a 35% drop in crime while ignoring FBI data showing only a 10% decline, and murders are still sky-high compared to pre-pandemic days. Trump's policies draw parallels to the 1990s, when Congress took control and turned things around, proving that strong leadership can counteract progressive failures. With Democratic mayors crying "power grab" in failing cities like Chicago and Baltimore, it's clear: Trump's bold move is a lifeline for liberty, not a threat. Our capital should be a shining example of America, where leaders can work in peace and foreign representatives can see what this nation stands for without fearing for their lives.

Our nation's heart is at risk from the gaslighting establishment that benefits from disorder, absurdly framing Trump's actions as a "military takeover." Is this the leadership America needs, or will we let the swamp dictate the narrative?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Can we trust the media's spin? Should Trump expand this fight? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you support President Trump's deployment of federal agents to crack down on D.C. crime?

Do you believe liberal media and Democrats are manipulating crime stats to undermine Trump's efforts?

Is Trump's plan to jail criminals and relocate the homeless a necessary step to restore order in our capital?

Do you see Democratic policies as the root cause of rising violence in cities like D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore?

Should Trump extend this federal intervention to other failing blue cities to protect American liberty?

Durham annex exposes Hillary’s hand in Russiagate deception

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Newly declassified documents show that Hillary Clinton approved the Russia hoax strategy — and that the Obama White House was briefed from the beginning.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last week declassified a 29-page document known as the Durham annex. Its publication has received remarkably little attention from major media outlets, despite containing one of the most significant intelligence disclosures since the origins of the Russiagate investigation.

The Durham annex is not conjecture, analysis, or political spin. It is a collection of sensitive intelligence reports, internal memos, and declassified emails compiled by the intelligence community and withheld from public view for years under the pretext of “source protection.”

The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence in 2015 and 2016 suggesting that foreign governments were attempting to collude not with Trump, but with Clinton.

The declassified document offers a clearer view of what many Americans have long suspected: that the narrative surrounding Trump-Russia collusion was not only politically motivated but deliberately constructed by the Clinton campaign, facilitated by sympathetic actors within U.S. intelligence agencies, and ultimately endorsed by senior members of the Obama administration.

This trove of documents does not merely reinforce existing criticisms of the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election. It provides evidence that the Clinton campaign approved a strategy to discredit Donald Trump by promoting a false association with Vladimir Putin. And it does so using intelligence collected from foreign surveillance of American political actors — surveillance that the CIA deemed credible enough to brief President Barack Obama directly.

The cover-up unraveled

Central to the Durham annex is a source codenamed “T1” — a foreign intelligence asset who intercepted Russian cyber-espionage activity targeting American entities, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Clinton campaign, and U.S. think tanks. The reports T1 relayed to U.S. intelligence included detailed assessments of internal American political strategy. In effect, T1 was watching Russian spies watch us — and reporting back.

T1’s identity remains classified, but strong circumstantial evidence points to a Dutch intelligence source. The Netherlands reportedly gained access to Russian cyber operations as early as 2014. Regardless of who provided it, U.S. agencies treated the intelligence from T1 as credible.

Then-CIA Director John Brennan quickly briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Those briefings included memos indicating Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan to tie Donald Trump to Russian election interference.

One memo, dated 2016 and reportedly obtained through Russian surveillance of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, outlined a Clinton campaign strategy: “Smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal” over Russia’s preference for Trump. That memo laid the groundwork for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax now known as Russiagate.

Intelligence running Clinton’s interference

The CIA labeled the intelligence “sensitive” and credible. The FBI rejected it. Agents claimed it relied on hearsay, appeared exaggerated, and might have suffered from translation errors.

That kind of skepticism might seem reasonable — if the FBI had applied the same scrutiny to the Steele dossier. Instead, they accepted that now-debunked document without verification and used it to justify surveillance warrants.

The inconsistency runs deeper than analysis. The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence from 2015 and 2016 showing that foreign governments weren’t courting Trump — they were cozying up to Clinton.

One memo, written before Trump even announced his candidacy, described a foreign intelligence operative preparing to meet with a Clinton associate to discuss a “plan.” The operative was acting on direct orders from a foreign head of state

Gilbert Carrasquillo / Contributor | Getty Images

The precise content of the plan is redacted, but the FBI’s field office viewed it as serious enough to request a FISA warrant. That request, however, was left to “languish in limbo” by senior FBI officials, who subsequently warned Clinton in a defensive briefing.

Frayed trust, no accountability

The documents suggest a coordinated operation — one in which political, bureaucratic, and media institutions aligned to discredit a political opponent using information they had strong reasons to believe was false. The CIA deemed the intelligence worth a presidential briefing. The FBI discarded it. The media ignored it. And Clinton operatives implemented it.

This is not merely a scandal of partisan excess. Nearly 10 years after the first Hillary Clinton email leaks, and eight years after Trump’s unexpected victory, we are only now beginning to see the scope of institutional complicity in the Russiagate deception. The political cost may never be fully calculated, but the institutional damage — to the FBI, to the intelligence community, and to the trust of the American people — is already done.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.