Finding a few selective examples doesn’t translate to ” America’s founders had “worked tirelessly” to end slavery.” That is a typical chickens*it Republican attempt at re-writing history.

Fokker News said:
Finding a few selective examples doesn’t translate to ” America’s founders had “worked tirelessly” to end slavery.” That is a typical chickens*it Republican attempt at re-writing history.

And had he given no examples you would be crying about how he gave no examples!
Yours is just a typical chickens*it liberal response.

NotALib said:
And had he given no examples you would be crying about how he gave no examples!
Yours is just a typical chickens*it liberal response.

His primary example was somebody who owned hundreds of slaves, and despite his stated public objection to the institution, did not free his slaves as an example to others. What would have been more fitting a way to show his commitment to ending slavery than to release his slaves?

Taking off on another slogan, “You might give some serious thought to thanking your lucky stars that you’re in the United States of America!”

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/06/28/july_4th/page/full/

A long and rambling essay by Time magazine’s managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.

The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution “did not know about” all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers and DNA.

This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, “When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone,”

In Mr. Stengel’s rehash of this argument, he declares: “People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today.”

Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular “events” or express opinions about the passing scene.

A constitution exists to create a framework for government — and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.

From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn’t say so.”

Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel — Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, “You could look it up.”

Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn’t, then your Freedom doesn’t matter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DOUBLE
DOWN ON IT CONS

OWN YOUR MISTAKES

HILARIOUS

WHO’S LEVIN? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAJA

FOUNDING FATHERS STILL DID NOT END SLAVERY

Fokker News said:
That is a typical chickens*it Republican attempt at re-writing history.

Unfortunately for you it was the Democratic Party that defended slavery and discrimination both prior to and after the Civil War.

Azarkhan said:
Unfortunately for you it was the Democratic Party that defended slavery and discrimination both prior to and after the Civil War.

And that doesn’t mean sh*t to me because I know the Democratic party was primarily aligned with the Southern states, and the proud descendants of those racists are now Republicans.

Fokker News said:
Finding a few selective examples doesn’t translate to ” America’s founders had “worked tirelessly” to end slavery.” That is a typical chickens*it Republican attempt at re-writing history.

Look, Lib, slavery did NOT begin nor end with the founding of the United States. Slavery is, indeed, wrong; it is immoral. It existed in the original colonies. It existed in lots of other countries and the slave trade was engaged in by one AFRICAN tribe conquering another tribe and selling their captives to ARAB slave traders who sold them to Europeans. As I recall, the PORTUGESE were the first slave traders to the New World. The SPANIARDS enslaved the indigenous population in Central and South America. The EGYPTIANS enslaved the Jews. The ROMANS enslaved everyone- they didn’t discriminate.

GET OVER IT. We haven’t had slavery in this country for over 150 years. The Founders were merely human beings, imperfect, yet brilliant in devising a document that has stood us in good stead for these many years. They knew that they were imperfect, which is why they constructed a document that could be amended- as we did in order to outlaw slavery.

Unless YOU were a slave, get over it!

TillieGlockenspiel said:
GET OVER IT.

THEN STOP BRAGGING ABOUT THIS COUNTRY BEING FOUND ON Judeo-Christian values! The people who held those values willfully engaged in the one of the greatest crimes against humanity, without apology.

Levin sounds like Michael Savage after a botched vasectomy.

Fokker News said:
The people who held those values willfully engaged in the one of the greatest crimes against humanity, without apology.

you act like slavery never existed before America…

who sold the slave traders the slaves?

Fokker, admit it, you hate western culture for whatever Lefty reason you can grasp at…

Judeo-Christian ethics are tried and true… the Left is just envolved in some peculiar self-sacrifice…

TO THE WIKI!!!!

TIME TO REWRITE HISTORY!!!

Bill Huggins said:
TIME TO REWRITE HISTORY!!!

if you’re a Lefty who learns about history from Wiki…

EVEN WIKIPEDIA has a better timeline of the history of slavery than the Lefty Libs are willing to acknowledge!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

“Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.[3] Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations as slavery depends on a system of social stratification. Slavery typically also requires a shortage of labor and a surplus of land to be viable.[4]

Slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world.[5] Mauritania abolished it in law in 1981[6] and was the last country to do so – see Abolition of slavery timeline. However, in practice slavery continues to exist.[7] For contemporary slavery see Slavery.”

Slavery in ancient cultures was known to occur in civilizations as old as Sumer, and it was found in every civilization, including Ancient Egypt, Ancient Nubia, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient Greece,[8] Rome and parts of its empire. Such institutions were a mixture of debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves.[9] In the Roman Empire, probably over 25% of the empire’s population,[10] and 30 to 40% of the population of Italy[11] was enslaved. Records of slavery in Ancient Greece go as far back as Mycenaean Greece. It is often said that the Greeks as well as philosophers such as Aristotle accepted the theory of natural slavery i.e. that some men are slaves by nature

Slavery was such an ordinary part of everyday life in ancient Greece that it was seldom commented upon.

Romans inherited the institution of slavery from the Greeks and the Phoenicians.[19] As the Roman Republic expanded outward, entire populations were enslaved, thus creating an ample supply to work inRome’s farms and households. The people subjected to Roman slavery came from all over Europe and the Mediterranean. Such oppression by an elite minority eventually led to slave revolts; the Third Servile War led by Spartacus was the most famous and severe. Greeks, Berbers, Germans, Britons, Thracians, Gauls (or Celts), Jews, Arabs, and many more were slaves used not only for labor, but also for amusement (e.g. gladiators and sex slaves). If a slave ran away, he was liable to be crucified. By the late Republican era, slavery had become a vital economic pillar in the wealth of Rome.

Celtic tribes of Europe are recorded by various Roman sources as owning slaves. The extent of slavery in prehistorical Europe is not well known however.

In the Viking era starting in approximately AD 793, the Norse raiders often captured and enslaved militarily weaker peoples they encountered.

Chaos and invasion made the taking of slaves habitual throughout Europe in the early Middle Ages. St. Patrick, himself captured and sold as a slave, protested against an attack that enslaved newly baptized Christians in his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus.

Slavery during the Early Middle Ages had several distinct sources. The Vikings raided across Europe, though their slave raids were the most destructive in the British Isles and Eastern Europe. While the Vikings kept some slaves for themselves as servants, known as thralls, most people captured by the Vikings would be sold on the Byzantine or Islamic markets.

In the West the targets of Viking slavery were primarily English, Irish, and Scottish, while in the East they were mainly Slavs. The Viking slave trade slowly ended in the 11th century, as the Vikings settled in the European territories they once raided, Christianized serfdom, and merged with the local populace. The Normans made slaves of the English gentry after invasion in 1066 and deported them to Spain. They continued taking Welsh Slaves during the Medieval period who were traded in London.

The Islamic World was also a main factor in Medieval European slavery.

The Arab slave trade lasted more than a millennium.[101][102] Slaves in the Arab World came from many different regions, including Sub-Saharan Africa(mainly Zanj), the Caucasus (mainly Circassians),[103] Central Asia (mainly Tartars), and Central and Eastern Europe (mainly Saqaliba).[104]

The medieval scholar and traveller Ibn Battuta states several times that he was given or purchased slaves.[105] The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade is thought to have originated with trans-Saharan slavery.[106][107] Arab, Indian, and Oriental traders were involved in the capture and transport of slaves northward across the Sahara desert and the Indian Ocean region into Arabia and the Middle East, Persia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.[108][109]

The slave trade from East Africa to Arabia was dominated by Arab and African traders in the coastal cities of Zanzibar, Dar Es Salaam and Mombasa.[109][110] Tens of thousands of black Zanj slaves were imported to lower Iraq, where they may have, according to Richard Hellie, constituted at least a half of the total population there in the 9th and 10th centuries. At the same time, many tens of thousands of slaves in the region were also imported from Central Asia and the Caucasus.[111]

Slavery was an important part of Ottoman society.[122] In Constantinople (today Istanbul), about 1/5 of the population consisted of slaves.[35] As late as 1908 women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire.[123

The Anti-Slavery Society estimated that there were 2,000,000 slaves in the early 1930s Ethiopia, out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million.[159]

Slavery continued in Ethiopia until the brief Second Italo-Abyssinian War in October 1935, when it was abolished by order of the Italian occupying forces.[160] In response to pressure by Western Allies of World War II Ethiopia officially abolished slavery and serfdom after regaining its independence in 1942.

On 26 August 1942 Haile Selassie issued a proclamation outlawing slavery.

Now, FOKKER, get over yourself!

Jelperman said:
Levin sounds like Michael Savage after a botched vasectomy.

Mark “High Pitch Spermy Voice” Levin.

Ah yes, you learn well from the mediaite staff Girth and Jelperman…..

“My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”

Barbara Jordan

Fokker News said:
“George Stephanopoulos: Flake

I know that facts are never convenient for Lefties like you, but the moral of Mark Levin’s piece is that if George Stephanopoulos decides he wants to play the role of an elite “know all” so called journalist who lectures conservative politicians on US History, he might as well learn a bit of it prior to lecturing.

Summary of Levin-
Some founders, including those who themselves benefited from legal enslavement, were concerned enough with rights that they drafted documents which protected the rights of some. Additionally, some of the founders were able to legislate an eventual end to the continued importation of slaves in the distant future. The three fifth’s compromise is another example of the founders attempt to limit the extension of slavery.

Bachmann’s statement:
“The very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”

Ignoring Levin’s mangling of the 3/5ths Compromise (an argument about power and representation in federal assembly, not an attempt to strike at the legal underpinnings of de jure enslavement), these two statements do not match up. Levin pulls from a small set of particulars to justify a false generalization that ignores counter particulars. Shame on him… Though I doubt such an emotion troubles him.

This is all just political wrangling. Here let me help everyone with the shorthand on this:

Liberals say: America was founded as an unjust country, so through this prism I will use pointless arguments like this to further my America-is-not-great point of view.

Conservatives say: America is founded as a near-perfect country, and so through this prism I will use pointless arguments like this to further my America-is-great point of view.

There- I just saved you the trouble of reading the next 100 comments. Your welcome.

While this was written to fisk Rich Stengel’s “Time” article, it might clarify matters for those of you who will actually read information contradicting your closely held beliefs.

http://patterico.com/2011/06/28/thirteen-clear-factual-errors-in-richard-stengel’s-essay-on-the-constitution-and-i-am-looking-for-your-help/

“False Claim #4: The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.”

“The relevant passage: Eagle-eyed readers might have seen that falsehood in the last quoted passage from Stengel. So here we go again:”

“The 14th Amendment reversed that. In drafting the 14th Amendment, Congress was definitely not thinking about illegal immigration. At the time, the country needed a lot more immigrants, legal or otherwise. Congress was thinking more practically. It wanted to emancipate blacks and allow them to vote so that white Southern Democrats would not try to reverse the gains of the Civil War.”

“(emphasis added)”

“Proof that he is wrong: The Fourteenth Amendment did not end the exclusion of African Americans from the franchise. In fact, it specifically allowed for the exclusion to continue, although with a penalty. From the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:”

“[W]hen the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

“It’s dense language, but if you work through it you realize that it is saying that if you deny men over the age of 21, etc. the vote, then you have to reduce the state’s representation accordingly. Furthermore, it is simply a fallacy to suggest (as Stengel apparently believes) that all citizens automatically vote. An American-born child is a citizen, but cannot vote until he or she reaches a certain age. And in 1868, when this amendment was ratified, women were not generally allowed to vote, and yet they were citizens.”

“Racial discrimination in the franchise was not outlawed until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870.”

“False Claim #5: The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.”

“The relevant passage:”

“The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being…”

“(emphasis added)”

“Proof that he is wrong: In fact, the infamous (and now inoperable) three-fifth clause did not declare that black people were to be counted as three-fifths, but rather slaves were to be counted that way. Here’s the relevant portion of the Constitution:”

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

“And notice how the slaves are mentioned in this very indirect way, calling them simply “other Persons.” Other than what? Other than free people, other than indentured servants, and other than Indians who were not taxed. So only by process of elimination do you realize they were talking about slaves.”

“And no, not every black person living in that time were slaves. And of course there is a deeper historical ignorance that this goes to. Stengel appears to believe this provision dehumanized the slaves by counting them as only three fifth of a person, when in fact the true outrage was that they were counted at all when calculating representation (see my last post for a fuller explanation). But I am sticking to easily verifiable inaccuracies.”

Fokker News said:
THEN STOP BRAGGING ABOUT THIS COUNTRY BEING FOUND ON Judeo-Christian values!

Yeah, you’re right, the USA was founded by atheists and muzlims.

Ladies and gentlemen,Hello everybody,
input this URL: ( http://globalsell.org/)
shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff (jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)
and so on..welcome to our website:
( http://globalsell.org/)
we sincerely hope to establish the business relation with you.
Looking forward your visit.

Girth Brick said:
Mark “High Pitch Spermy Voice” Levin.

Wow, such intelligence coming from the left! You’re obviously the pride of the progressive movement with such quick wit.

Yes, indeed, there’s four basic tiers to progressivism / communism:

1) The well educated but power hungry douchebags that feel compelled to try and control other people’s lives. Obama fits into this tier.

2) Educated people who feel that if the top tier elitists ever assume Marxist style control, they’ll be rewarded with power and money of their own if they lick elitist bung along the way. These are journalists, college professors, and the like. These are the “useful idiots” you’ve heard about, and very few of them will keep their profession.

3) Regular working mooks, not too well educated, and intellectually dim. These are the folks who can be easily persuaded to hate those who’re better off then they are, be jealous of those who work harder and have more. The union douchebags are a good example of these folks, and will be lucky to wind up on the production line at the ball bearing factory, and oh, there will be no union.

4) Lazy mofo’s who don’t work and don’t intend to. They can be relied upon for leftist votes, but should the top tier elitists ever assume total control, their usefulness will have expired, and most will end up as expendable coal miners.

So the unhinged crackpot Levin has crawled out of the bunker to honor ourselves with his buffoonery.

Levin is by far the most brilliant legal mind out there. Yeah, he takes on some childish humor like the dubbing the papers of record the New York Slimes and Washington Compost, but don’t let that fool you. The man is brilliant and has offered 50,000 smackers to the Obama re-election campaign if the Muslim in Chief will debate him.

On matters constitutional:

Levin>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama

Fokker News said:
THEN STOP BRAGGING ABOUT THIS COUNTRY BEING FOUND ON Judeo-Christian values! The people who held those values willfully engaged in the one of the greatest crimes against humanity, without apology.

Honesty, humility, charity, responsibility, gratitude, hard work, family, respect. These are Judeo-Christian values. Exactly which of those do you disagree with and think we should throw out because some of the founders had slaves? Who exactly would the founders be apologizing to? The rest if the slave owning population? Slavery wasn’t a dark time in American history, it was a dark time in Human history and you should note it was a Judeo-Christian movement that resulted in the abolition of slavery.

Mark Levin does not know his constitutional history. Bachman is falsely claiming that John Quincy Adams was a founding father. He was born July 11, 1767. He was 8 years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed. He was president from 1825-1829.

Adam’s became an ardent opposer of slavery only when h
e was elected to congress, long after leaving the presidency in 1850-1867. He did not work at all to end slavery during his presidency and was clearly not a founding father at the age of eight.

Conservative, Republican evangelical politicians all seem to have a few things in common; dishonesty, a child like ignorance and a disdain for rigorous study and factual evidence couple with racism.

Bachman graduated from the low rated, evangelical Oral Roberts University ( now Regents University) Law School which might explain in part her ignorance of American history. She received and advanced LLM degree from William & Mary School of Law, a slightly better school.

She should and does know better but she continues to lie.

The constitution does not reflect any compromises concerning slavery the only mention . There is no mention of the institution. Anyone who has studied constitutional law know that the Southern states were afraid of being numerically dominated by the larger states so they waned their slaves counted as persons for voting purposes, This was where the 3/5s of a person language comes from. It was not limiting apportionment it was increasing it. Slaves could not vote. On;y land owning white men could vote, Read the constitution. It also mentions Indians in this context who could not vote.. Levin is not telling the truth.

George Mason was a slave holder. He never fought for the abolition of slavery. I have read the Virginia Declaration of Rights many times. No where in it does it mention the abolition of slavery. Levin, like Bachman may fool some naive poorly read Americans but he will not fool Americans who have taken time to study American history, something few of Bachman’s supports have done.

Fokker News said:
Finding a few selective examples doesn’t translate to ” America’s founders had “worked tirelessly” to end slavery.” That is a typical chickens*it Republican attempt at re-writing history.

well you should know. the libs spend their lives rewriting history.

Resistance Is Futile said:
Mark Levin does not know his constitutional history

you should know one third of what he knows, moron.

Who the hell is Mark Levin?

Sanders Youth said:
Who the hell is Mark Levin?

Better that you not know.

this is a very good website…you can go and see it

http://www.shoes4world.com

I’m pleased to see that even politicians, who are accustomed to duking it out for the prize of the most voters, are waking up to what the media truly is:  a bunch of snarling jackals out for blood.  They can justify their behavior all they want, but the truth is, they lie in wait for the next victim, be it a misbehaving politician, a murder suspect, a high profile person…doesn’t matter. Whatever they can weave into a “scandal,” then create the ubiquitous media frenzy around it…well, that’s the business of media.  It’s a constant drive for more sold newspapers and more clicks on the news outlet’s website. 

Journalism around the world, but particularly in the United States, is in a chaotic, fragmented, unethical, and largely anti-social state.  Its future does not look bright. Journalism has lost its appeal to serious, moral persons and is becoming simply another business enterprise. The “bottom line” has become the objective in the media world—not public enlightenment and social progress.  It has become evident that the gulf between freedom and responsibility is as wide as ever. 

Most of the people who report the news can’t even be called “journalists.” I’ve got a new name for them:  JEERNALISTS.  Certainly people who shove microphones in other people’s faces and demand answers are nothing more than jeernalists.

I’m with you, Ms. Bachmann. I’m sick of media.

TillieGlockenspiel said:
Taking off on another slogan, “You might give some serious thought to thanking your lucky stars that you’re in the United States of America!”

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/06/28/july_4th/page/full/

If you liked that, then you’ll love this take-down of Stengel:
http://patterico.com/2011/06/23/richard-stengel’s-illiterate-reading-of-the-constitution-and-other-laws/

Fokker News said:
And that doesn’t mean sh*t to me because I know the Democratic party was primarily aligned with the Southern states, and the proud descendants of those racists are now Republicans.

The descendants of those racists are not, themselves, racists. The racists themselves are dead, but while they lived they were Democrats. Only one of the segregationist Southern Democratic senators switched parties — Strom Thurmond. All the rest, including Albert Gore Sr, J William Fulbright, Sam Ervin, even Lyndon Johnson, they all stayed with the Democrats until the end of their lives.

The Democrat Party of today is a hard-left anti-capitalist party that favors the appeasement of our enemies and the insulting of our historical allies. No rational person would belong to such a party, so maybe that is why Republicans are in the majority everywhere except in the big cities and on the college campuses.

justanotherconservative says
well you should know. the libs spend their lives rewriting history.
……………………………………………
I take it you mean to say: “teas” spend their lives rewriting history. What example to a lib rewrite would there be?
I think by Bachmanns standard of “teas” accepting her spin views, (since there is no limit to children or anyone being a founding father) Bush was a founder also, since there is limit of time, as long we make Bachmann correct!

Resistance Is Futile said:
Mark Levin does not know his constitutional history. Bachman is falsely claiming that John Quincy Adams was a founding father. He was born July 11, 1767. He was 8 years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed. He was president from 1825-1829.

JQA served as secretary to his father while in his teens and early 20s, then as as an ambassador to Holland and Portugal during the Washington administration. That makes him a Founder, and the son of a Founding Father, though of course not one of the Framers.

It was Talking Points Memo who said JQA was not a Founder, and it was the first to argue that Bachmann misspoke. It is easy to refute TPM, a leftwing blog.

Additionally, many other of the Founders worked to abolish slavery — slavery was gradually abolished in all the northern states through their efforts. Remember the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, that banned slavery north of the Ohio River? Who do you think was responsible for that! Slavery was abolished in:
Vermont — 1777
Pennsylvania — 1780
Massachusetts — 1783
New Hampshire — 1783
Connecticut and Rhode Island — 1784
New York — 1799
New Jersey — 1804
Import and export of slaves prohibited — 1808

The founding generation was responsible for these actions, and more.

Adam’s became an ardent opposer of slavery only when he was elected to congress, long after leaving the presidency in 1850-1867. He did not work at all to end slavery during his presidency and was clearly not a founding father at the age of eight.

Since he came from from a family that worked to end slavery, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, it would be absurd to suppose that he was not an abolitionist.

Conservative, Republican evangelical politicians all seem to have a few things in common; dishonesty, a child like ignorance and a disdain for rigorous study and factual evidence couple with racism.

No, what Bachmann and others have is a disdain for Democrat propaganda, such as Democrats’ selective memory regarding slavery, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, and lynching. These were all institutions associated with the Democratic Party.

Bachman graduated from the low rated, evangelical Oral Roberts University ( now Regents University) Law School which might explain in part her ignorance of American history. She received and advanced LLM degree from William & Mary School of Law, a slightly better school.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Bachmann passed the bar exam on her first attempt. So I guess she learned what she needed to know at the Oral Roberts School of Law. As for American history, that is mostly taught in primary and secondary school, and some people add to their knowledge in college; but American history is not part of the curriculum in law schools.

To conclude: Mark Levin is mostly right, as is Michele Bachmann. It is absurd for Democrats to argue that their alternative interpretations are the truth and so Bachmann is wrong, when their own president has so many problems with historical truth. For instance, who believes that America was not a great country until the creation of Medicare?

J Baustian says
To conclude: Mark Levin is mostly right, as is Michele Bachmann. It is absurd for Democrats to argue that their alternative interpretations are the truth and so Bachmann is wrong,
…………………………………………………..
Alternative interpretations,… Willie Mays couldn’t go deep enough into left field to salvage these historical spin slants, to uphold Bachmann from being wrong. History at times may not be totally clear, however it is much closer to fact than opinion and clearly not Bachmann’s views!

I thought the framers were mostly Diests. They had to profess a believe in God at the very least in order to get the religious citizens to go along with the VIDs (very important documents). Many were descendants of super-religious Puritans and would not have accepted a country that didn’t recognize God. I think the planners of the new nation t knew how to appeal to the masses. Just as the Republicans do today. Back then we were lucky, and avoided a theocracy, but this time i think we’ll not be so lucky. We will have a theocracy just as soon as The Family can manage it and of course their version of religious fervor will be mandatory. Just remember I warned you in time to expatriate yourselves.

Sorry, I meant that many citizens, not the founders, were descendants of Puritans.

winning said:
Wow, such intelligence coming from the left! You’re obviously the pride of the progressive movement with such quick wit.

Yes, indeed, there’s four basic tiers to progressivism / communism:

1) The well educated but power hungry douchebags that feel compelled to try and control other people’s lives. Obama fits into this tier.

2) Educated people who feel that if the top tier elitists ever assume Marxist style control, they’ll be rewarded with power and money of their own if they lick elitist bung along the way. These are journalists, college professors, and the like. These are the “useful idiots” you’ve heard about, and very few of them will keep their profession.

3) Regular working mooks, not too well educated, and intellectually dim. These are the folks who can be easily persuaded to hate those who’re better off then they are, be jealous of those who work harder and have more. The union douchebags are a good example of these folks, and will be lucky to wind up on the production line at the ball bearing factory, and oh, there will be no union.

4) Lazy mofo’s who don’t work and don’t intend to. They can be relied upon for leftist votes, but should the top tier elitists ever assume total control, their usefulness will have expired, and most will end up as expendable coal miners.

This assessment sounds remarkably like what I imagine Mao wrote during his terrible tenure. Send the educated people (and those who wear spectacles, which indicate one reads) to the country to do stoop labor. Use denigrating language to persuade the masses that the re-education camps out in the countryside are a good thing and project one’s own anti-social beliefs and tendencies onto the opposition. Yep, I’d say “winning” has the program imprinted on his brain and will wonder what the aitch happened when he ends up in the camp being trained to hate whomever his Marxist rightwing handlers tell him to hate. One doesn’t need to think to thrive, just learn to spew the party line.

Fokker News said:
Finding a few selective examples doesn’t translate to ” America’s founders had “worked tirelessly” to end slavery.” That is a typical chickens*it Republican attempt at re-writing history.

I just got here, and look what I find.

FOKKER, I just went through this COBRA. I assert that YOU and your Racist ilk are the one’s who are subverting HIstory. “You have become the very monster, you pursue”

However, just for fun, would you enlighten us as to your version of the eradication of the “peculiar institution?” I’d really like to know who and how they got into your head, whereby you espouse such an aversion to your Homeland?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

Resistance Is Futile said:
Mark Levin does not know his constitutional history.

You do know that Mark Levin is a former White House Attorney and is Constitutional scholar?

Don’t you think, RESISTANCE, you are being just a tad presumptuous?

purveyor says:
You do know that Mark Levin is a former White House Attorney and is Constitutional scholar?

Don’t you think, RESISTANCE, you are being just a tad presumptuous?
…………………………………………………………..
You have the same scholar in the whitehouse,…. sooo why should we accept a paid “tea” hit man’s slanted opinion?

winning said:
Wow, such intelligence coming from the left! You’re obviously the pride of the progressive movement with such quick wit.

Yes, indeed, there’s four basic tiers to progressivism / communism:

1) The well educated but power hungry douchebags that feel compelled to try and control other people’s lives. Obama fits into this tier.

2) Educated people who feel that if the top tier elitists ever assume Marxist style control, they’ll be rewarded with power and money of their own if they lick elitist bung along the way. These are journalists, college professors, and the like. These are the “useful idiots” you’ve heard about, and very few of them will keep their profession.

3) Regular working mooks, not too well educated, and intellectually dim. These are the folks who can be easily persuaded to hate those who’re better off then they are, be jealous of those who work harder and have more. The union douchebags are a good example of these folks, and will be lucky to wind up on the production line at the ball bearing factory, and oh, there will be no union.

4) Lazy mofo’s who don’t work and don’t intend to. They can be relied upon for leftist votes, but should the top tier elitists ever assume total control, their usefulness will have expired, and most will end up as expendable coal miners.

Sounds like some vintage John Birch mixed in with some low brow “eleetest” bashing to me. Keep posting such rubbish.

Go to the ugly little man’s website, and after FOUR years, he still brags about how he and his saps nominated Rush Limbo for the Nobel Peace Prize. And people still call that clown the “Great One”?

White Ninja said:
Honesty, humility, charity, responsibility, gratitude, hard work, family, respect. These are Judeo-Christian values. Exactly which of those do you disagree with and think we should throw out because some of the founders had slaves? Who exactly would the founders be apologizing to? The rest if the slave owning population? Slavery wasn’t a dark time in American history, it was a dark time in Human history and you should note it was a Judeo-Christian movement that resulted in the abolition of slavery.

What about the English common law and cultural traditions, or the Classical Roman and Greek influence in America, or the Age of Enlightenment. You little theocons act like all they did was pray and read the bible before they wrote the Constitution. Where in the Bible does it talk about freedom of religion and speech or no warrantless searches? If it was all about the Bible, then all of Europe would be almost the same back then.

timcajun said:
purveyor says:
You do know that Mark Levin is a former White House Attorney and is Constitutional scholar?

Don’t you think, RESISTANCE, you are being just a tad presumptuous?
…………………………………………………………..
You have the same scholar in the whitehouse,…. sooo why should we accept a paid “tea” hit man’s slanted opinion?

First: I don’t understand your colloquialism: “accept a paid “tea” hit man’s slanted opinion? In fact, I don’t even understand your Post. “Same scholar in the whitehouse(sic)?”

Second: You left out the original quote which changed the context. (“argument of omission”)

Three: RESISTANCEISFUTILE made a relatively disjointed argument in the original Post, and started such by writing that Levin, a respected Constitutional Author “doesn’t know much about Con-Law”

It occurred to me that it was like a plumber disparaging a Lawyers knowledge and vice versa.

Or, hadn’t that occurred to you?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

JAKESTER,

YES! That is me, giving you, thumbs down. You obviously have intelligence and broad interests. It is as if you prefer to be an iconoclast, as opposed to erudition.

Purveyor

Khyber Pass said:

I thought the framers were mostly Diests. They had to profess a believe in God at the very least in order to get the religious citizens to go along with the VIDs (very important documents). Many were descendants of super-religious Puritans and would not have accepted a country that didn’t recognize God. I think the planners of the new nation t knew how to appeal to the masses. Just as the Republicans do today. Back then we were lucky, and avoided a theocracy, but this time i think we’ll not be so lucky. We will have a theocracy just as soon as The Family can manage it and of course their version of religious fervor will be mandatory. Just remember I warned you in time to expatriate yourselves.

No, that is basically a myth. They were all Men of their time, and Men of their time believed in God, some more than others.

However, Many of the Founders understood that Law should be the product of Reason, (ethics) not moral or Religious caprice. Thus the term was coined: “separation of church and State”

The pre-amble to the Declaration mentions “self evident truths,” and “unalienable rights.” Which suggests the influence of the age of reason coupled with Religious consideration.

Purveyor

“One summer night, while going to the pier, I ran into two young girls.

The blond was called Freedom, the dark one, Enterprise.

We talked, and they told me a story…”

The fact is that a number of prominent Founders did attempt to end or at least take on the issue of slavery, including Virginia’s George Mason, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. The inability to end slavery was among the reasons he refused to support the Constitution. While he was a slave-owner, he nonetheless opposed the institution going forward. Mason was no light-weight, either. He had authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which later served as the basis for James Madison’s draft of the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution itself reflects some of the hard-fought compromises over slavery, resulting from the demands of anti-slavery delegates, including ending the importation of slaves on a date certain and diminishing the influence of the southern slave states in the federal House of Representatives with the three-fifth’s limit respecting apportionment.

One does not successfully argue the Constitution with Dr. Levin.

X3

I don’t think I could add anything more. Well done.

jakester said:
Where in the Bible does it talk about freedom of religion and speech or no warrantless searches? If it was all about the Bible, then all of Europe would be almost the same back then.

I’m gonna go with Genesis on. The ENTIRE basis of Christianity is the individual freedom choice, individual conversion. Using the European top down religious model as an example doesn’t help your case when comparing it to the religious awakening when the Bible became accessible to the common man and George Whitfield was on the scene.

The question “Did the founding fathers tireless fight to end slavery” is one that takes a little explaining to answer.

It is true that a good deal of the Founders ( if by Founders we mean signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as Revolutionary War leaders and officials of the US Government in its first years) were set against slavery. Adams and Franklin were good examples of this, and Jefferson and Hamilton, although they hated each other, both expressed reservations about the institution and voiced opposition to it. And of course the Northwest Ordinance has already been mentioned by Levin.

However, Washington and Jefferson were both slaveholders, and Washington had no problem signing the Fugitive Slave Act and keeping his slaves until the end of his life. The proslavery Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention were also Founding Fathers, and included such men as Charles Pickney and John Rutledge.

So what can be most accurately stated is that while some of the founding fathers took a stand against slavery and opposed it in word and/or deed, others tried to defend the institution. And the Constitution (sans amendments, of course), never had the word “slavery” or “slaves”. The euphemistic term “other persons” was used when mentioning slaves, and the founding fathers as a group were content to pass the issue on down to the next generations of Americans.

jakester said:
Go to the ugly little man’s website, and after FOUR years, he still brags about how he and his saps nominated Rush Limbo for the Nobel Peace Prize. And people still call that clown the “Great One”?

Why don’t you call him up on his show, and tell him that man to man? I would LOVE to listen The Great One rip you to shreds.

But of course you will not, because you are a sniveling pussy.

;-)