Bruce Bartlett: On July 4, let’s remember Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owning hypocrite

It’s Independence Day, and for columnist Bruce Bartlett that’s a great time to remember the hypocrisy and racism of the founding fathers.

We get it, Bruce. America isn’t perfect and parts of our history are shameful.

Nevertheless, some of us still think American independence is worth celebrating.

We wonder if Bartlett would be happier if we were still subjects of the British monarch.

  • littletxlady

    @Bruce Bartlett and you are a race baiting idiot!

  • CatHerder

    That Bartlett guy sure has a pear, don’t he?

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      You hadda go fer the low hanging fruit.

      • CatHerder

        I didn’t know that about him! Hmm…

        • angeleyez

          .
          Doesn’t Obama’s oldest brother, Malik Obama, beat his many polygamist
          wives and children ?
          .

          • objectivefactsmatter

            His wife-slaves? Yes he does. Today. 21st century.

    • Clete Torres

      A shriveled pear.
      Did someone remind Bruce that the black African-descent slaves were sold into said slavery by…their own people?

      • trixiewoobeans

        And the Muslims enslaved them also?

        • v1cious

          Always with the Muslims, you guys.

          • trixiewoobeans

            I was referring to the African peoples, and who, besides American slave owners and their own people, had enslaved them through history. Truth, and history, aren’t always pretty, or PC.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Truth is definitely not always PC. Nobody can argue with that.

            The future must not belong to those that slander the prophet of Islam, even with the facts.

            I learned that last year from the great messiah of Washington, born in…never mind.

          • Ronald Green

            Are you saying it isn’t true? Considering that Saudi Arabia was the last Nation on the planet to out law slavery and they didn’t do until 1965, kinds puts a hole in your theory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s outlawed…sort of. Not really. Sharia always prevails. So, there are plenty of slaves there still.

          • Ronald Green

            Saudi Arabia, while being The Muslim country, is also a monarchy and the King’s laws are the laws of the land. Now saying that does not mean that those laws are always followed. The same goes for the rest of the planet’s nations… again, not saying that those laws are always followed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The kings laws are supposedly derived from sharia. And everyone there knows about takkiya and the need to mollify Western powers some times.

            They’ll understand many of his laws as being for show only. Slavery is one of them. Hell, their ambassadors in the USA keep slaves.

            http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/federal-agents-raid-saudi-diplomatic-compound-free-slaves/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Always with salient facts.

        • Hugh_Jass

          The Muslims STILL do…

          • screamingmad

            Right you are!

        • screamingmad

          Many countries still have slaves.

          • Hugh_Jass

            Especially The Sudan and Maurittania (sp?), who along with Lybia gave money to Louis Farrakhan for his Million Man March…

          • Hugh_Jass

            Especially The Sudan and Maurittania (sp?), who along with Lybia gave money to Louis Farrakhan for his Million Man March…

      • R.C.

        Human life traded by their own people for simple furs and assorted shiny object to the slaver Spanish and Mooselimbs.

        But who needs to know stuff like that?

      • Bathing Suit Area

        Guess that absolves the buyers of any guilt then! Phew.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Well that depends.

          If I lived in those times and wanted to destroy slavery, it wouldn’t prevent me from “owning” slaves if that was the best way for me to protect those “owned” individuals. If they could plausibly live lives as free people then one could set them free. That might even include continuing the legal status as owner of record.

          It’s not like any one person could have changed the laws and cultures of the world the moment he objected to slavery.

          OMG. Leftists hate actual context.

  • AaronHarrisinAlaska

    Oh dear, you mean to say Jefferson was a product of his time? You don’t say!?

    • TocksNedlog

      Yes, but Robert “KKK” Byrd’s views ‘evolved’.

    • grais

      He had SLAVES !! Who knew?!
      ( how old is this Bartlett fella, anyhow?)

  • Jefferson Tea Party

    this is complete BS. Jefferson wanted to free his slaves, but since that was against the law, he paid them wages. I hate liberals.

    • John Brown

      Wow, I am certainly not a liberal, but this statement is not true at all. There were quite a few free African Americans at the time of the Revolution, even in Virginia. Jefferson was largely behind making the laws, ya know? So, if he really, really wanted to free his slaves, don’t you think he could have? You know, like Washington did when he died in 1799.

      I would recommend reading Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia to see what he *really* thought about black people.

      • Jefferson Tea Party

        Go read my link below. He couldn’t sell them because he didn’t want to break up families and didn’t know what kind of new owners they’d go to. He and Washington both hated slavery because they themselves were fighting as slaves to the Crown. Go read the link.

        • Megan Walsh

          Totally fascinating! I wish more people would actually study history instead of taking one fact and assuming the rest. You should write a book. Maybe you have?

      • R.C.

        http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=122

        and there is tons more. Jefferson was in debt to many people and freeing the slave would not have actually freed them, but transferred ownership to those he was in debt. which quite possibly could have been much worse than what they experienced under Jeffersons “ownership”

        I suggest conservatives and liberals alike spend a few hours reading the information at Wallbuilders. Like David Barton or not, the man has an extensive collection of our Founders Original Documents

      • jacksonjay

        Yep! Very disturbing! Today is not the day!

      • Dana

        Thank you John Brown!! At last a person who knows what he is writing about. Jefferson just like most folks of his time did not think highly of African people. 3/5th that’s what he said.

        • R.C.

          Because you want to believe, have been taught to believe, does not make it so.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          What did they mean by “3/5s?”

          Perhaps that was a rough estimate in their collective education status due to historic slavery.

          Were any blacks free? Was “blacks must be slaves” an absolute, ever?

          Or were people grappling with this in a new society trying to balance rights of individuals where citizens had the power, even though some times these citizens abused that power against non-citizens? You do realize that people had arrived before they fully developed the constitution. They couldn’t undo many things they didn’t approve of and tried to negotiate their way through it. Some people had ugly ideas but today what we have is thanks to our constitution as originally written. The original document is the foundation for all of the goodness we’ve enjoyed.

          Or maybe the USA is the most evil nation ever. Sure.

    • Joe W.

      Liberals are, indeed, the enemy of all thinking Americans. And they are about to get their collective azzes kicked when the new civil conflict erupts. And it is coming sooner, rather than later.

      • James Atkins

        Yup, we win simply because we have guns, they don’t :)

      • Bathing Suit Area

        Nice to hear you openly admitting your plans for treason.

        • CatHerder

          I believe the correct term is insurrection.

          • rinodino

            No he had it right, treason cause the “Muslim” is in the WHITE house

          • CatHerder

            And I believe the correct term for that is non sequitur.

          • michael s

            Speaking of Muslim,let us remember who Rep Ellison brilliantly brought out what president had a quran.

          • Adela Wagner

            And I have a copy of “Mein Kampf”.

          • michael s

            enjoy reading it. doesn’t change the humilation Rep Ellison brought to that shmendrik Dennis Prager regarding a quran of a certain founding father.

          • buzzsawmonkey

            Keith Ellison, by his presence in Congress, humiliates the people who voted for him.

          • buzzsawmonkey

            Keith Ellison, by his presence in Congress, humiliates the people who voted for him.

          • Adela Wagner

            That is not what you said above. How did he humiliate a columnist? And just to be transparent here, the President you are referring to is Jefferson. And while you seem tickled pink to find out he had a quran, I am sure you got the whole reason behind the ownership wrong also.

          • michael s

            You know how Rep Ellison humiliated Prager.Prager did what many white conservatives do,question a black person’s patriotism.Prager started a debate he’d lose,justifiably so.Rep Ellison when he first got elected announced he wanted to take his oath on a quran.Prager said how dare he,this is a christian nations he should swear on a bible is Ellison anti American etc.Rep Ellison took Prager’s comments and came back with the brilliant move of swearing in with a quran,not any quran but THOMAS JEFFERSON’S QURAN. What can you say when a founding father of a christian nation had a quran? Prager being the shmendrik he is ,couldn’t say anything.I will always remember and applaud Ellison for this.

          • Adela Wagner

            And that is where you AND Prager ARE BOTH WRONG….read grasshopper and LEARN.
            He did not take any OATH on the Quran.
            House members are sworn in en mass. The whole Quran thing was a PHOTO OP. Even Nancy “ur gonna love Ocare” Pelosi joined in the festivities and got her traitor face photoed with her slimy hands on it.
            Read your political process.

            Now see how” brilliantly” I got you to answer me with the WRONG INFORMATION. I waited and true to form……

          • michael s

            enjoy reading it. doesn’t change the humilation Rep Ellison brought to that shmendrik Dennis Prager regarding a quran of a certain founding father.

          • Acajoe

            Right and immediately after becoming president, he began building the
            navy that would deliver the Marines to Tripoli. The book informed him of
            the nature of the enemy and convinced that war would be necessary and
            we would no longer be paying tribute to the Barbary pirates. At the
            time, 1/7 of the U.S. GDP was being paid to keep the pirates from
            hijacking U.S. merchant ships and crews.

          • Acajoe

            Right and immediately after becoming president, he began building the
            navy that would deliver the Marines to Tripoli. The book informed him of
            the nature of the enemy and convinced that war would be necessary and
            we would no longer be paying tribute to the Barbary pirates. At the
            time, 1/7 of the U.S. GDP was being paid to keep the pirates from
            hijacking U.S. merchant ships and crews.

          • Jay Stevens

            Unfortunately, he either did not know why Jefferson had one or he avoided the question.

            Jefferson’s Qur’an was reference material to help him decide whether or not to go to war with the (Muslim) Barbary Coast pirates. And we know how that turned out.

          • Adela Wagner

            Jefferson was indded a wise man, and a wise man does everything he can to know his enemies. He also did not get analogy. Just because you own a book religious or otherwise does not mean you adhere to what it tries to advance.

          • Pali Pavone

            The name of the Muslim god is Allah. The name of Obama’s god is Barack.

          • Adela Wagner

            Just totally laughed out loud…the truth does that to me sometimes.

        • alanstorm

          Still having reading comprehension issues, are you? Try re-reading the comment. Here’s a hint for the slow, i.e. you: Nowhere in Joe’s comment is anything to suggest that he is planning to start a conflict – only that one is coming, and he intends to win.

          You’ll make more points responding to the actual comment than the voices in your head.

          For extra credit: explain how resisting the attempts from the left to return us to an all-powerful state could be “treason”.

        • Joe W.

          Hey there Bikini Hair Line…..Care to tell me just what in the hell was “teasonous” about my post?? I see reading comprehension is still not your forte’, eh Sonny?

          • trixiewoobeans

            No, trolling is, albeit badly.

          • Rightturn

            That would have been a great quip if you hadn’t shown linguistic issues yourself with the attempted use of the word ‘treasonous.’ It’s extra unfortunate for you too because it’s in quotes.

        • Clete Torres

          bathwater, you wouldn’t know the proper definition of treason if you had a dictionary.

        • Adela Wagner

          “Having guns” is a Constitutional protected right. Are you like, 12 or thereabouts?
          Never mind, one of the reasons I took my kids out of public school years ago is tragically evident in your post.

    • Sons Thunder

      Bruce Bartlett got his start working for Ron Paul. He also worked for Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He’s hardly a liberal.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Ding ding ding!

      We have a winner.

  • EWRoss

    No human being is without flaws; however, defining any individual only by them is myopic at best. Jefferson contributed immensly to the human condition. He was a great American and a great human being. EWRoss.com

  • adam

    Happy 4th of July everyone…. now let me list reasons why i hate this country, the constitution and the founding fathers…….

    This days is going to be filled with self-hating comments made by Americans who begrudge the freedoms they have.

    • trixiewoobeans

      They’ll miss it when it’s gone. No other Country will spoil them and put up with their antics.

  • Jack Deth

    Really?

    White Guilt much?

    • Ntr

      And/or his closet racism…

  • Jefferson Tea Party

    Both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington fought to end slavery!

    Jefferson had gone well above and beyond other slave owners in that era
    in that he actually paid his slaves for the vegetables they raised and for the
    meat they obtained while hunting and fishing. Additionally, he paid them for
    extra tasks they performed outside their normal working hours and even offered a
    revolutionary profit sharing plan for the products that his enslaved artisans
    produced in their shops. 4
    http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=99

    • R.C.

      The “great thinkers and problem solvers” we have in congress today, with the exception of one or two, would be as significant as a flea fart in a hurricane 237 years ago.

      • Jefferson Tea Party

        That’s the truth!

        • R.C.

          I picture Nancy and Harry, if they were alive back then, cowering under a bed, pointing their decrepit fingers toward their neighbors house, John Adams and Ben Franklin, saying : “those are the traitors you want!”

          • Jefferson Tea Party

            they’d turn in their own grandkids today, to ensure a little more “security”. No doubt about it.

      • Clete Torres

        You give them far too much credit, RC.

    • rinodino

      Paid them, but never made them free persons, so awesome!!!!

      • Jefferson Tea Party

        Perhaps you missed the part where it was illegal for him to do so?

        • Clete Torres

          dino’s not bright enough to connect the dots.

          • Jefferson Tea Party

            It’s a damned shame, I tell ya.

          • TocksNedlog

            He had to repeat “finger-painting”.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And *still* couldn’t pass the class.

      • $13524272

        Neither did their African countrymen ( who sold them into slavery) attempt to free them or to care about them in any way, shape or form! It is, however, time to right the wrong by granting repatriation, to the African Country of their choice, to every black person that can prove he/she is a descendant of African slaves. Relocation costs to be shared equally by the buyers and the sellers!

  • Stephen L. Hall

    So his argument is that if the writer of words is not himself perfect, then the words have no meaning? Is he saying that all men are not created equal? Bruce Bartlett does not believe in equality? One must be careful how one casts aspersions.

  • froggy19510

    Bruce Bartlett is a race-bating, spiteful, hateful little worm.

  • notenoughtime

    Have a burger, my friend, and leave the politicking to another day!

  • $30423294

    If we had the contempt for Martin Luther King Jr. that the Democrat Party has for America, we would crap all over Martin Luther King day like they crap all over patriotic holidays.

    And make no mistake, the Democrat Party believes as a matter of faith that we have contempt for Martin Luther King Jr.

    Yet we honor MLK day. Isn’t that interesting?

    The left is wrong about us, but we are not wrong about them. They hate America.

    • Megan Walsh

      How about everyone is wrong sometimes since we are all human? If we can all agree that we don’t know everything and can all be open to learning something new, maybe we can get rid of some of this hate. Btw, I’m liberal and don’t hate America and don’t assume you hate MLK…

    • Divineconnection7

      Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, and the dems today condemn all black Republican’s. What’s that about?

      • trixiewoobeans

        LibLogik101.

      • michael s

        The republicans of his day condemened MLK. I take that back republicans like J edgar Hoover Joe McCarthy agreed with their democratic counterparts to vilify him. MLk would be called a race baiting alinskyite communist if he were alive by republicans today. Yes democrats condemn all black republicans,but republicans would view MLK today the same way republicans view POTUS and FLOTUS Rev Sharpton Rev Jackson Ben Crump Melissa Harris Perry Toure etc.if he were alive.

        • grais

          POTUS, FLOTUS, Sharpton, Jackson, Harris Perry, and Tooray are not REMOTELY like Dr. King.

          JFK and RFK were not “democratic counterparts” of Hoover and McCarthy.

          What a steaming load you just offered up.

        • buzzsawmonkey

          Joe McCarthy had drunk himself to death before Martin Luther King ever became prominent.

        • Joe_USA

          MLK was targeted by the kkk/democrates, it was, and is the Republicans that helped STOP slavery.

          • Divineconnection7

            Yes, it is really sad that these people show so much hate when confronted with “true history.

          • Joe_USA

            So true, sadly so true.

      • Joe_USA

        Yes, you are correct, the Republicans did stop slavery, however the dems/kkk continue their evil ways today. They want to make us all slaves to them.

        • Divineconnection7

          Abraham Lincoln a Republican.

          • Joe_USA

            Yes, Lincoln did fight to end slavery.

    • michael s

      you do have contempt for MLK. this we and MLK are allies because of the word republican is just dishonest. I understand why its done ,but its still dishonest.

      • $30423294

        Here’s conservatives on MLK day: Happy MLK day.

        Here’s democrats on the 4th of July: F-America.

        I know you don’t want to believe it, but you wrote your bizarre comment in the comment section of a thread in which democrats are on parade saying F-America.

        You get that, right?

        For the love of God tell us you read the article you commented under. You understand that the point is that democrats are immoral. Right?

    • michael s

      you do have contempt for MLK. this we and MLK are allies because of the word republican is just dishonest. I understand why its done ,but its still dishonest.

  • R.C.

    This isn’t a revisionist history link; this is the Founders in their own words, link.

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=122

  • ChampionCapua

    Cracker say what?

  • yviemarie88

    There is no more disconnected a people than liberals, and I mean even those not associated politically. That mindset is perverted. As Savage says, liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

  • Ntr

    Another old white liberal bringing up race, what a surprise. And then they post “Why the whites-only party is unlikely to change” which, in itself, is a racist statement practically saying that Republican politicians and Republican voters, who are minorities, don’t ‘count’.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      It’s not that they don’t count, it’s that you can count them on the fingers of one hand.

      • CatHerder

        Not unless you’re Dr. T.

      • Joe W.

        You need to pull yours out of your nose before you can begin counting, Bikini Hair Line.

      • tops116

        Y’know, now that Massachusetts’ special election is done with (where Democrats elected an old white guy), Mo Cowan will stepping down–leaving only one black Senator in the Senate. Now, which party does Tim Scott belong to again?

      • TocksNedlog

        We can count you on the finger of one hand.

      • mike_in_kosovo

        it’s that you can count them on the fingers of one hand.

        The number of liberals who aren’t racist?

      • grais

        So, you think there are only 5 “Uncle Toms,” “oreos,” and “race traitors?”
        Funny, I’ve heard leftnuts use those terms do often, I thought there were more.

  • Manny Laureano

    Bruce who?

  • Jack Deth

    Isn’t Bruce Bartlett an old, affluent White Guy?

    Just asking.

  • JR

    Does anyone read the NYT anymore??? Their motto once was (might still be, for all I know) “All the news that’s fit to print”. Their motto should now be “All the S*** that Fits”.

    Be Thankful for your Freedoms, and be Mindful that they do not come Free.

    • AtomicMountain

      I’ve always thought it should be “For entertainment purposes only.”

  • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

    Yep, Jefferson owned slaves. Just like everyone else back then who needed them. But please, let’s apply modern morality to the past because and judge historical figures based on it because that always makes sense.

    • rinodino

      We only judge them on it because they made such a great document talking about the right of man to be free, OH WAIT but black men were only considered 3/4ths, kind of hypocritical don’t ya think?….. It is what it is, and the past can’t be changed, I get that….. but just like everything recent with the right, trying to make excuses for the wrongs of people who didn’t or don’t think much of African Americans and Native Americans for that matter

      • CatHerder

        I swear, I really need to catch up on the news. I completely missed where people were being enslaved here and now, or tribes being rounded up and massacred. History is to be learned from, not lived in.

        • Clete Torres

          Oh, it’s all over the MSM, Catherder. They talk about the coming catastrophe that is 0bamacare all the time. Though now it’s ever more frequently referred to as The Affordable Care Act to distance their hero Zero from the upcoming train wreck.
          Slaves to the liberal utopia that is Socialized Medicine. That’s us, soon enough.

        • Jay Stevens

          You need to study history to learn from it. Memorizing dates and facts that you forget after passing the course does not count.

      • tops116

        “trying to make excuses for the wrongs of people”

        Like, say, Democrats who bemoaned George Bush’s wire-tapping program, but embraced Barack Obama’s exponentially increased version of said program because… well, they never really explained why, did they? Oh, something about “defending the country from terrorists”–y’know, the kind of argument Democrats scoffed at when Bush was president.

        To say nothing of the defenses of KKK Robert Byrd, drunk driver Ted Kennedy, John “hell, he even called himself a war criminal” Kerry and so forth.

        This is the part where you try to deflect, and we all get a big laugh from you flailing about like a fish out of water.

      • Spinmamma

        You are completely hopeless and ignorant beyond belief. That 3/4ths thing (actually it was 3/5ths) was put into the Constitution for an anti-slavery reasons. Why don’t you go read some actual documents instead of spouting what you half remember from your poly sci class lecture?

        • rinodino

          So tell me what’s the difference between 3/4ths and 3/5ths??? Nothing!!! when you are talking about human beings…. and to whitewash our history like the crap never happened or really “wasn’t that bad” because it was actually a anti-slavery detail… maybe you should actually go do some serious research on what was thought of black folks during that time.

          • Spinmamma

            Thought of by whom? And, FYI nobody is whitewashing history like it “never happened.” You leap to conclusions at the drop of a hat, which makes me wonder if you have any grounding in logic at all.

          • Ronald Green

            He really doesn’t, all he’s got a liberal talking points.

          • screamingmad

            No one is saying slavery should be excused! We are just saying don’t make it something it wasn’t. You are getting all upset over something that didn’t happen. We shouldn’t argue about something like that. We all hate slavery! OK? We do not think black people are inferior. Lighten up.

          • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

            Nobody denies it ever happened. Just some of us are able to let go and move on. But then, some people LIKE holding on to it because it makes such a handy blunt instrument for self-hating white folk to beat themselves up with.

      • TocksNedlog

        *YAWN*

      • Jay Stevens

        It was actually 3/5’s. Do you know where the “3/5” came from?

        Evidently not, or you would not have gotten the “3/4” wrong.

        Constitution 099 (Remedial Constitution):
        Representatives (as opposed to Senators) are apportioned by state population. The northern states did not want to count Southern slaves because they were not citizens. The southern states wanted to count their slaves because that would increase their representation.

        It was a political compromise to gain support for the initial ratification of the U. S. Constitution.

        See, if the public schools systems were still teaching high school civics everywhere as a required course, you would know this.

      • Guest

        Rino, pay attention now. Slaves, not free blacks, were counted as 3/4ths for tax purposes only. NOT all black men. It was a way to cut taxes owed on their property. Got it?

    • Bathing Suit Area

      “needed them”
      No.

  • PatrioticDissent

    I suggest Bartlett go read the actually words of the founders about slavery.

    • Clete Torres

      Doesn’t fit his narrative.

  • LinTaylor

    Sure Bruce, let’s let one act of less-than-positive behavior completely destroy all the good works a person did. But I guess not every “bad boy” move is equal; if Jefferson had just porked everything that moved like JFK or smoked mind-altering drugs like Obama instead of holding slaves at a time when it was not considered an issue (never mind that he reportedly treated them very well), you’d probably be out there waving the flag like everybody else.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Sex and drugs… worse than slavery?

      • Ronald Green

        Pathetic.

  • NixTyranny

    I suggest Bartlett move to a country the forefathers of which he could hold in higher esteem. Would want a courtesy tweet as to what country that would be.

  • LegalizeShemp

    No surprise, Jefferson founded the Democrat Party, which has a long history of racism and oppression (ask Robert Byrd).

    • rinodino

      This makes more sense, except for basically how the base of each party has literally switched, but good point all the same

      • journogal

        And yet, you can’t provide any proof of such, can you? You are just a bitter person filled with hate, refusing to see how things have changed and improved. The only person holding you back is you, but it is easier to blame others than to take responsibility for your choices and consequences.
        If you are so miserable here, then move to somewhere else. Of course you might have a problem finding another nation where you can be constantly coddle, told that it is never your fault but the fault of others you’ve never accomplished anything in your life and have someone else pay for your existence simply because you breathe.

        • V the K

          Leftists are always long on vitriol, but short on actual facts to back it up.

      • Clete Torres

        You do, of course, have proof to back this oft-proffered hypothesis, don’t you?
        No?
        We didn’t think so.

      • tops116

        As evidenced by Robert Byrd, right?

      • Spinmamma

        Yada yada yada. This pathetic meme must be taught in all the current poly sci classes since it pops up so much. It’s the only way intellectually dishonest persons can make themselves feel better about belonging to a deeply racist political party.

      • TocksNedlog

        Seriously, do you know ANY other songs?

      • Bathing Suit Area

        Just don’t mention that thing that rhymes with “blouthern blategy”, it gets these crazies all riled up.

      • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

        So in 1960, JFK was really the evil racist tool of elitist white privilege, and Richard Nixon was the progressive liberal crusader? Gotcha. Thanks.

    • michael s

      He was also a republican at the same time. Which is just one of several examples on how duplicitous TJ was.

      • David Raineri-Maldonado

        So, “republican=duplicitous”?

    • michael s

      He was also a republican at the same time. Which is just one of several examples on how duplicitous TJ was.

  • KansasGirl

    How could we…since your type remind us constantly.

  • LegalizeShemp

    Yes Bruce, thank God the Republican party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement to counter the entrenched racism of the Demonrats.

  • jlenoreb

    And today’s politicians with all their perks, and excusing themselves from what they pass for us, are any better HOW??????????????????????????????????????

  • Steve_J

    If he wants to judge the past by todays standards he’d do well to remember in 200+ years he and Obama will be judged by the standards of that era.

  • Bathing Suit Area

    It’s ridiculous that someone would try to discredit a modern institution just because its founders held racist beliefs that were common to their era in history, like Margaret Sanger did.

    • Joe W.

      Margaret Sanger advocated the systematic extermination of blacks. You think that was “common” for her era?? You are a pathetic idiot.

      • V the K

        Also, slavery is abolished, but Planned Parenthood is still butchering black babies at a pace that would make Maggie Sanger proud.

    • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

      Margaret Sanger was common for her era? Then that means Ruth Bader Ginsburg is common for our era?

      U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” [The legacy of Margaret Sanger.]

      • V the K

        Pssst. And by “populations that we don’t want too many of,” she meant blacks.

        Before Bill Clinton (a protege of the southern racist senator William Fulbright) appointed RBG to the Supremes, she worked as an attorney in a black-majority city without ever once hiring a black person as a clerk, an assistant, or even a secretary.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          Oh so NOW you’re in favor of quota hires.

          • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

            No, just pointing out typical leftard hypocricy. But thank you for acknowledging the fact of “quota hiring.”

    • TocksNedlog

      You’re right. Planned Parenthood can be discredited just fine without bringing up its founder’s fondness for GENOCIDE.

      But then, you know, ‘icing on the cake’ and all that.

    • Damien Johnson

      Slavery was about keeping blacks in servitude with no choice and under abusive conditions, sometimes ending in death.
      Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to kill black babies and other races. Planned Parenthood is still doing this today, including under abusive conditions, including no choice given to the babies, and always ending in death for the babies, and sometimes death of the mother.

      • screamingmad

        Sanger wasn’t too fond of the Irish either. They “breed like rats” I believe is how she put it.

        • Damien Johnson

          She’d probably say that about hispanics, if she were still alive today. The truth behind Planned Parenthood must be exposed.

    • buzzsawmonkey

      It’s ridiculous that someone would try to discredit a modern institution just because its founders held racist beliefs that were common to their era in history, like Margaret Sanger did.

      Absolutely. The fact she founded the organization to further her beliefs, and it’s doing precisely what she espoused, is merely an interesting coincidence.

  • jaun456

    Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!

  • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

    President Obama’s Bunch ancestor’s on his mother’s side of the family, owned slaves and fought for the confederacy during the civil war. So what’s Bruce Bartlett point?

    There is more on Barack Obama’s ancestor Samuel Bunch and his “Mulatto” father John Bunch here:

    The interesting thing is that some of the VA Bunch family owned slaves.

    There is an African connection here since Nathaniel Bunch of Arkansas’s cousin Nathaniel Bunch of Virginia requested that upon his death his slaves be freed with the option of going to Liberia.

    http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/Bunch/pats

  • radjahshelduck

    I highly recommend the book “Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves” by Henry Wiencek.

  • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

    On May 25, 2009, President Barack Obama garnered praise from SCV (Sons of the Confederacy Veterans) Commander Chuck McMichael, who stated, “He upheld the tradition of the office to which he was elected. I do intend to send him a thank you letter. This is the kind of thing that transcends politics.” This statement was in response to Obama’s decision to continue the tradition going back sixteen presidents of the U.S. President sending a wreath to the Confederate Monument at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day.

  • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

    Regardless of whether Jefferson Davis is in his family background, Barack Obama does have ancestors with links to the Confederate cause.

    Obama’s great-great-great-great-great grandparents Nathaniel and Sarah Bunch had a son who served the Confederacy as a captain in the Arkansas Infantry during the Civil War.

    So tell me more about how Thomas Jefferson owned slaves Mr Bartlett.

    http://genforum.genealogy.com/ray/messages/10360.html

  • rouxdsla

    Actually there were plenty of white indentured servants.

  • Dana

    Truly, I have never seen a group of more misguided, ill informed people. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, so did most of the Founders and anyone else who could afford to feed them at that period of our history. IF you whiners knew anything about Jefferson and what he believed, along with many people back then, he also went on to describe blacks as “3/5th of a person”. Obviously, when he wrote “all men are created equal” he was not including Africans who he did not even believe were complete people. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just setting the record straight about him and what he intended to say in the declaration!!! Do some thinking people, use your brain space, I promise it doesn’t hurt

    • buzzsawmonkey

      Blacks were not described as “3/5ths of a person.” Not in the Declaration of Independence, which we are celebrating today, and not in the Constitution, either.

      First, you have to remember that not all blacks were slaves, and not all slaves were black. Slaves—the Constitution nowhere says “blacks”—were counted as 3/5ths of a free person, for the purpose of apportionment, i.e., determining who got how many Representatives. This was done in order to minimize the representation granted to the slaveholding states, and to maximize the representation granted to the free states. It was a compromise entered into to enable the Constitution to be ratified by all the states with the expectation (wrong, as it turned out) that this would enable the slavery issue to be settled peacefully down the road.

      If the 3/5ths rule had not been inserted, to minimize the tally of slaves when deciding how many Representatives each state would get, the slave states would have had a complete lock on power in the federal government by virtue of their larger population. It would have ensured that slavery would have continued longer.

      The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about the “personhood” or “complete peopleness” of slaves, or blacks, in the modern touchy-feely sense. That’s simply idiocy.

      • Clete Torres

        The three-fifths argument, made incorrectly, AGAIN.
        I was assembling much of the same information to educate Dana, buzzsaw. Thanks for getting to it first.

        • buzzsawmonkey

          Thanks. My pleasure.

          Note, BTW, that aside from getting the 3/5ths rule entirely wrong, Dana doesn’t seem to know the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution.

      • tcvegas

        3/5 compromise does not mention “slaves” either.

        • buzzsawmonkey

          Not as such, but it is clear what the condition is of those who are left after “free Persons” and “Indians not taxed” are removed.

          • tcvegas

            Not really. The framers said exactly what they meant to say. This wasn’t some casual phrase thrown in without much debate. This was worded as it is because a large segment of the framers wished to dispose of slavery, yet did not have the power to do so. There is no way the anti-slavery framers would have included the word “slaves” in any form which might appear to legitimize the institution in a document which they hoped could be used to abolish it. The pro-slavery segment understood that 3/5 representation was better for their cause than none and they weren’t going to convince the other side to include any reference to slavery in the document other than to abolish it. It was a compromise on more than just enumeration for representation purposes.

          • buzzsawmonkey

            Of course. No argument there. I’m merely saying that once you take away “free Persons” and non-taxed Indians, slaves are the only people left. It was clear what they were referring to, even though they didn’t use the Magic Word.

      • Dana

        Geez all of this time I thought seeing it was called “Independence day” that we were celebrating our independence. I have read all of the writings of the founders, Buzz and right now so early in the morning, I will have to go and find where I saw it because I can’t do it off the top of my head without having coffee first! I DO know that he did indeed say that and for what reason, I couldnt say. He did say it though. I never said it was in the Bill of Rights but he did say that which is why he would think it’s ok to own slaves as most folks did back then. Just another sad chapter of our history. This one we are living now, is the saddest of them all. However who knows what’s to come.

        • buzzsawmonkey

          If you have “read all the writings of the Founders,” you clearly have retained little. You have now introduced the Bill of Rights—which, though part of the Constitution, does not contain what is called “the 3/5ths rule.” That appears in Article 1, Section 2 of the body of the Constitution.

          Neither Jefferson nor anyone else at that time described “black people” or “slaves” as being “3/5ths of a person,” in the sense of their being “less than human” on a proportional/numeric scale. If you believe otherwise you are woefully ignorant.

    • Derrick Murray

      “Do some thinking people, use your brain space, I promise it doesn’t hurt”

      Obviously, you didn’t try hard enough.

    • tops116

      “Do some thinking people, use your brain space, I promise it doesn’t hurt”

      As if you have any experience in that area.

    • tcvegas

      Please explain what role Jefferson had in writing the constitution and specifically the 3/5 compromise.

    • R.C.

      where do you people get your bullsh!t information from?

      • buzzsawmonkey

        Probably the Wilderness of Zinn.

        • R.C.

          I tell ya, I HATED it as a kid that my parents sent me to a private school. Every day I become more thankful and even more so today after reading so much tripe. I am sure this is the garbage being disseminated on a regular basis in the tax payer funded “edukasion fasilatees”

      • Dana

        The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the of the united states constitution. It had to do with the amount of reps each state would have. Since blacks could not vote, they were counted as 3/5th. However there are many books out there that tell you what jefferson thought about blacks as some of the other founders too. Check out their letters to each other and their musings. They were brilliant men. Too bad we didnt have some like them today. I did make an error though so I see the validity of your anger. I did not mean to say that it was said in the declaration. That was my error and please forgive me for it. I was in a hurry to get out of the door and celebrate. I don’t know why though because we are not free anymore and won’t ever be again unless we have another revolution which I don’t see happening anytime soon.

    • aegean1

      Take your own advice. You clearly have no understanding of the 3/5 compromise.

      • Dana

        I most certainly do aegean. However, in my haste to begin the 4th celebrations, I posted it as being in the declaration. My husband was outside beeping the horn at me and I just kept writing and made a big mistake for not waiting until later. However, it is said in the constitution when the states were meeting in Virginia to decide how many reps each state got. It was decided that blacks would comprise 3/5ths of a person. It’s in Article 1 Section 2 paragragh 3. However, if you want to read more about what Jefferson thought of blacks, read Jefferson’s notes on the state of Virginia and also the letters exchanged between the Founders, their autobiographies, and other fair books written by real biographers and folks who are not revisionist historians.

        • buzzsawmonkey

          Again, that is not “blacks”; the word nowhere appears there. The section refers to persons other than free persons or non-taxed Indians—in other words, slaves and indentured servants. Some of these were white; some black people owned slaves. It is not a color marker.

          Nor has it anything to do with “personhood” as we think of the term today. It refers to how human beings who could not, by their legal status, be able to vote, should be enumerated for the purpose of apportioning representatives. Do you even understand what “apportionment” means, and why the 3/5ths rule was an anti-slavery measure?

    • michael s

      Don’t you understand,you’re not supposed to talk about a icon like that. Facts get in the way of their racism. Now if you were to put up lies on Pres Obama it would be heralded here. The 3/5 clause wasn’t racist,but affirmative action is. Pretzel Logic isn’t just a Steely Dan album,its in full effect here.

      • Dana

        HALAHAHA Very good comment Michael and I couldnt agree more. BTW that was a good album wasnt it? I still have it somewhere in my collections of albums that in hindsight I wished I bought 2 copies of because then I could have sold one unopened for big bucks, especially my old Beatles allbums and my Doors collection which is my favorite band. If only I knew how popular they would be forever!! Oh well I digress, there are a lot of crazy know it alls here and I just came here the other day because of the satanist thing!! Good Grief ,talk about revionist history!! LOL

  • neoface

    And remember that all human supposedly came from Adam and Eve. Aren’t we all result of incest?

    • David Raineri-Maldonado

      THAT particular commandment wasn’t in effect yet, as the human genome hadn’t yet degraded to where most, if not all, children of incest were sterile.
      EDIT:corrected grammar

      • Bathing Suit Area

        Lol, trying to apply science to bible stories.

        • David Raineri-Maldonado

          What’s wrong with that?

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Gross!

    • Ronald Green

      Nope you need to read Genesis again, and carefully this time.

  • tops116

    “Some people apparently don’t like being reminded that Jefferson obviously did not think blacks had the same rights as whites in 1776.”

    Some people apparently don’t like being reminded that Democrats fought a civil war to maintain slavery.

    • buzzsawmonkey

      The problem with people of Dana’s stripe is not that they do not believe in God, or even that they falsely believe that Man is God. It is that, hating the very idea of a Creator who endows us with unalienable rights, and and being utterly ignorant of how people who hold this idea think, they cannot fathom how someone can, without the slightest hypocrisy, write that “all men are created equal” and yet hold slaves.

      It is not, however, difficult to understand. In traditional Judaism, there is a relevant line at the beginning of morning prayers, where the man praying thanks God “Who did not make me a slave.” This line has been changed by the more “progressive” wings of Judaism to thanking God “Who made me a free person”—but this makes nonsense of the prayer. The person who thanks God for not making him a slave thanks Him whether or not he is (physically) enslaved—because that enslavement was done by man, not God. But to thank God for “making him free” when he may, in fact, be physically enslaved is to pray a lie.

      By the same token, saying that “all men are created equal” does not deny the existence of slavery; it is saying, rather, that slavery is an institution of men, not of the God that created them all. That slavery existed, and was unjust, was a problem which, at the time of the Declaration, remained for man to solve.

      • screamingmad

        Very good, thank you.

  • DiscontentWithLiars

    And remember that African’s owned slaves too, so did Egypt, Rome. As countries grew, so did their beliefs, or they went by the wayside. Only radicals that want to continue influencing people would want to cause such descent. They act like children in the back seat of the car causing trouble.

  • tcvegas

    Of course the historical ignoramuses act as if the final Declaration was that which was originally penned by Jefferson. I suggest that before anybody comment on Jefferson that they take a few minutes and read Jefferson’s original draft. It contained a stinging and unassailable rebuke to the institution of slavery. His words on the subject were removed during the process of putting together the final document that all could agree upon. Jefferson deplored slavery and I’ll go even farther here…I defy anybody to provide evidence of any founder or even any single individual of the time who did more to peacefully end slavery than Jefferson! He spent nearly half a century actively working to undermine the institution and its spread.

    If you want, you can head over to some link and read quotes or documents which are totally seperated from their historical context. The actual history would take more time than most are willing to research or read. That’s how such idiotic condemnations of people like Jefferson come about. Jefferson knew history and understood human nature. He knew quite well the perils that would be presented by some sort of mass freeing of slaves in this country and tried to find a solution. His fears regarding the slave population were played out on many occassions in his time as well. He was quite aware of the situation in Haiti in 1791 and that such a blood letting must be avoided in America. He was arguably the single most influencial person in this country who minimized the spread of slavery. He spent his own money and secretly recruited agents to influence various populations to resist pro-slavery factions on the continent. He used his legislative influence to stonewall and defeat popular pro-slavery legislation as well.

    The institution of slavery had been present among Europeans on the continent for a century and a half before Jefferson. It had been on the continent among the native populations for thousands of years. Slavery was more or less everywhere else in the world at the time as well and continued long after in various forms. African populations had been capturing their own slaves and selling slaves to other populations for thousands of years before Jefferson. Most importantly, the institution of slavery exists today among the exact populations which Jefferson decried in his original draft….

    • americandavey

      With the Liberal mind that LOVES to Change History all the time. They forget Jefferson original draft. And the fact Jefferson paid his slaves because Virginia made it illegal to set slaves free after George Washington did when he died.

  • http://www.davidsmusings.com/ David

    I’m curious of Bartlett expressed the same outrage toward a late Democratic Senator who was a KKK member early in his life. Probably not.

  • lhogan

    Of course Thomas Jefferson wsa born in 1960 or something, right? I mean we can hold him to those standards, right? Like, it wasn’t expected to run a business using slave labor in 1760, 200 years before, so Jefferson would be expected to fire them all, so they would not have a home or food or job, right? Or should he have paid them? And therefore gone out of business because his expenses could not be covered, so they would not have food or housing or medical care, because see Jefferson was broke.
    I mean it’s all so simple right Bruce? Things tend to be simple, to the simple minded.

  • Ginger Whetstine

    He inherited the slaves and it was illegal to free them, as he wished to do. Ignorance is useful to the left, they remain ignorant by choice.

  • allenbarr

    These so called slave owners were Christians. I am of this thought that the slaves maybe had not had it better in any part of their life ever. So when a reporter goes out on a limb to tweet such garbage it is for self seeking glory and his hatetred toward the USA. His mind would be a peanut next to T.Jefferson.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Slavery is good… when it’s Christians enslaving you. Brilliant.

      • allenbarr

        Actually you are just another dumbass.

  • michael s

    Was his tweet inaccurate? I hope the tweet of Bruce Bartlett receives the same scrutiny on FNC and CNN that Chris Rock’s tweet of last yr. received.

  • Riordan Kynes

    Bruce Bartlett is one strange cat.

  • stuckinIL4now

    And let’s also not forget that long before July 4, 1776 and even thereafter slaves were being bought and sold, traded and sent all over the world. So imagine how extensive slavery might be had there been no Declaration of Independence.

  • 96leroy

    On this Independence Day, let’s remember that slave holder Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic-Republican party (with Madison in 1791) which then became the Democrat party (circa 1800’s).

    Yup. The Democrats are the party of slavery through and through. Thanks Demonrats!

  • cscape

    @bruce bartlett…… 237 years from now someone will wonder how any of your ilk could be taken seriously since (after all) you believed in and supported INFANTICIDE

    • American_by_Choice

      I’d just like to go on record: I have NEVER taken ANY socialist seriously, except the threat they represent to my freedom, as a collective.

      Individually, they’re just a nuisance… steamy intellectual piles at the tattered edge of my life’s otherwise lush green lawn.

      • cscape

        in other words, they exist in an alternate reality, just south of the Twilight Zone

  • cscape

    These people really don’t know how to connect the dots, do they……. “All Men are Created Equal”….. right,…. and then something happens along the way, where they are NO LONGER EQUAL (for whatever reason)…… THANK GOD for the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who gave us a system of government which (if allowed to work properly) PERFECTS ITSELF, as it strives to make EQUALITY a living reality, through our FREEDOM and OPPORTUNITIES here in America

    • cscape

      that wasn’t too hard, was it?…… and i’m not even a PHD

  • AZWarrior

    Incredible idiots.

    Jefferson also didn’t …

    – Own a cell phone. TECHIPHOBE!

    – Own a Prius. ENVIRONMENTAL VILLAIN!

    – Own a shelter puppy. ANIMAL ABUSER

    – Own personal lubricant. HOMOPHOBE!

    – Own morning after pills. MALE PIG!

    Well, you get the idea.

  • $27789750

    He did not free them at his death either except for Sally Hemmings and descendants of them both. I have often wondered why myself. He seems to have been a mass of contradictions.

    • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

      (D)

      • $27789750

        Do not know what that means.

  • American_by_Choice

    So it’s true? Bruce Bartlett IS an actual, certified Idiot?

    Well, fair enough… I guess sooner or later the evidence was HAD to sum up.

    • kenai

      Certified idiot? Nah, just another liberal certified maggot.

  • Southern fried

    what does he suggest we do? start over? Remember this if not for slavery there probably wouldnt be many “African Americans” in this country. I guess thats what he really wants. BTW if this guy lived during that time he would of thought he was superior to blacks also and probably everyone else for that matter. Hell, he probably thinks that now. I am not condoning what happened then. I am just saying how it was.

  • sodakhic

    It seems like most Africans would love to suffer in the USA

  • SophieRo3

    OK, but since it is the 4th of July, let’s recall the man, who owned the first slaves in the American Colonies…

    http://tinyurl.com/louo4y8

  • SophieRo3

    Who Was The First Slave Owner In America?
    http://tinyurl.com/louo4y8

    • buzzsawmonkey

      Maybe he was importing quaint native customs from the African motherland.

  • Mark81150

    So we celibate our national birthday, and this moron wants us to dwell on our past wrongs instead of our glories?

    so on his birthday, does he pause to remember all the times he was a shameless a**hole and repent?

    I kinda doubt it.

    This nation despite it’s flaws, redeemed in a war which killed over 600,000 Americans on both sides.. saved mankind from the Nazi’s and Fascists along with our allies.. freed more people of every sect and color than any in the history of mankind.. gave man powered flight, the machine age, the communications age.. we shared our values with all who would accept them.. stumbling sometimes, but never maliciously harming any if we could help it..

    The ONE nation which has fought purely to set others free.. expecting no reward..

    and he…

    wants us to wallow in the mistakes long corrected by the blood of our families..

    ………….

    forget him… he’ll never get the dream that is America.. another self ridiculing fool, set on wallowing in guilt at what mistakes were made without ever remembering, what a dark place this world is, without the light that a free people can give.

  • michael s

    I don’t have a problem with his tweet. Its accurate.

    • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

      So is the fact that JFK ffkked anything in a skirt that held still for longer than 30 seconds. What’s the point, though?

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    “Although we keep forgiving, Bruce is living in the past…”#JethroTull #IanAnderson #MusicTriviaTime And, uh… Wasn’t it a Republican (Lincoln) who freed them? Just sayin’… Jawamax 8<{D}

  • chetnapier

    Does Mr Bartlett not know that Jefferson had originally included a phrase about the slave trade that had to be removed in order to pass the declaration this is just another liberal attempt to rewrite history

  • Dane Gunderson

    Democrats fought Civil war Slaves, founded KKK, legislated Jim Crow

  • Brad

    Who Cares? Hillary doesn’t care about the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi, why should I care about Jefferson.

  • Kathy Fugitt Price Skaggs

    So because Jefferson owed slaves, what, we shouldn’t be a country or does he just hate this country. What he doesn’t understand is that none of us are responsible for the founding fathers did nor should we just throw out everything they said because they were wrong on slavery. Maybe he thinks because he owned slaves that nothing he did was worthwild. But that’s ok the democrat party was the ones responsible for the Jim Crow laws, the KKK, they were against civil rights and equal rights for black.

  • Ken Alan Draper

    this turd should google “Anthony Johnson” . Johnson was the first man to own slaves in America & he sued the British Colonial Government to do it. & that’s not the most amazing part of the story, Mr. Johnson wasn’t your average Colonial citizen.

  • Ironhawk86

    Once upon I team I used to deeply respect this man, now he’s just being an attention whore to stay relevant.

  • Ironhawk86

    Once upon I team I used to deeply respect this man, now he’s just being an attention whore to stay relevant.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Did Jefferson create slaves or buy them? How did he treat them?

    Did he go on “safari” to capture his own?

  • Dan L

    Heck the Chicago Democrats keep over a million black African Americans in ghettos as little more than slaves. They barely survive. When Calypso Louie is the guy making sense, you know you’re in Chicago.

  • BrotherMatthias

    Poor Bruce went nuts a long time ago.

  • Clete Torres

    Another well thought-out and cogent argument, dino.
    …not.

  • Jefferson Tea Party

    Either read history or remain ignorant. Your current slave owners (Dem Party) would prefer the latter, for you.

  • Adela Wagner

    So next MLK day let’s all bring up the history of the Democrats in the south…..you know, we can sit around on the veranda and reminisce about Robert Byrd (D-KKK) and George Wallace and just who filibustered the civil rights bill, we can play a game of trivia and see who knows where this quote came from “I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”…oh, we’ll sit back and laugh and drink sweet tea and have a great time.

    Also, would you have rather been in Africa for the past..however many years you’ve been able to be an American citizen?

    Instead of disparaging the opportunities afforded you by the suffering of your ancestors, you should be honoring them by living the best life you can.

    I think slavery is disgusting. But I also believe if you asked, the majority of people descended from those slaves, if they wish they had grown up in Africa instead of the United States they would choose here. If not, why has there NEVER been a mass exodus BACK to Africa? And yes, while there were cruel people who whipped and beat slaves into submission, there were also kind people who fought to end slavery and provided slaves with land and money to begin a new way of life.

    Your ancestors may not have come here from their own choosing, but don’t be a disgrace to their sacrifice and memory by remaining on the plantation of the party that indeed is keeping slavery alive. Just look at any of you that stray from your masters platform, they come after you and do their best to shame lash you into complying. So WHO is the slave now?

  • trixiewoobeans

    THINK about what Adela said, Rino. By continuing the way you are, you’re playing right into the Democratic Party’s hands.

  • mike_in_kosovo

    idiot

    Look, everyone….rino *can* display self-awareness!

  • Dana

    rino, I am assuming that you are a black person correct? If so, would you have preferred that strong black tribes did not enslave your ancestors and sell them to slave owners and that you would have been born on your own families uh whatever they lived in and never came to America?? Do you think that life on that continent is preferable to life in America? I wonder if people like Michael Jordan or Kanye West or all of the very wealthy stars out there wish they had never came to America. How well is basketball played in Africa? Do they pay millions os dollars to watch a big man drop a ball in a basket? OR do they pay crazy mad money to someone who steals the licks from other people’s songs and says crazy things to that music? via rap? Do you think Kanye wishes that his family never came here? Somehow I doubt that. Besides, you never hear about Kim Kardashian going man hunting in Africa although she should, that seems to be her thing.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    Tomorrow you can go back to celebrating the “Liberal” traitors who are destroying the freedom that was won, and who are stigmatizing, demonizing, and attacking the conservative patriots who are seeking to preserve it.

  • TocksNedlog

    “Liberal” in the libertarian sense of the word, not the ‘progressive’ sense.

  • tcvegas

    You couldn’t be more wrong. Conservative John Dickenson (author of the Letters From a Philidelphia Farmer series) agitated against the Townsend acts and the Pennsylvania loyalists and Tories who supported them. I wrote a more detailed correction further down. You are confused as to terminology and philosophy of various groups. The Oxford Dictionary description of the origin and loyalties of “Conservatives” was an error from the 1830’s that still exists today.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    I did not bother to “deny” your post because the divisions of “liberal” and “conservative” which you perceive are clearly a modern template which has no application to the Revolutionary period—but it is equally clear, by your using that template, that that distinction is not worth discussing with you.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    The “progressive” revolution of that period occurred in France, and it was a horror.

  • TocksNedlog

    Did I accuse you of doing so?

    Nope.

  • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

    Actually, their original complaint was that they were being deprived of what they called their “traditional English liberties.” If you look up a document called the English Bill of Rights, dating from the 17th century, you will find some remarkably familiar language. The Founding Fathers were demanding nothing new, they wanted the lawful government to fulfill its obligations under the constitution. In that sense, the Founding Fathers were the very definition of “conservatives.”

    It was only when the government refused to enforce constitutional protections that they decided to change the government to one which would better enforce the ideals of liberty.

  • mike_in_kosovo

    You absolutely *did* refer to an era with the mention of Tories and redcoats.

    I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    Quite wrong. It may interest you to learn that the signers of the Declaration were for the most part wealthy merchants and landowners, who did not like being taxed by a distant and repressive government.

    One of their protests against this behavior was a little incident in Boston known as “the Tea Party,” which is a name used today by people who do not like being taxed by a distant and repressive government.

    The Tories were the people who were just fine with that distant and repressive government. They were loyal to the King and they had theirs—sort of like the people who are blindly loyal to the current President and happy with their crony capitalism and their Obamaphones, depending on their station in life.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    The French revolutionaries were the “uptwinkles” crowd of their day.

  • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

    See my above re: what conservatives they really were, also, the use of the word “liberal” in the 18th c. had a different meaning than the one attached to it since about 1965. Instead of indulging in word games, try reading some things the Founding Fathers actually said and wrote about liberty, God, and Man.

    Nice try though, thanks for playing.

  • mike_in_kosovo

    You were plenty clear enough…unless you think that Tories and redcoats are historically applicable at some OTHER time than the Revolutionary War.

    Nobody is claiming that history DOESN’T state what you said…so leave the scarecrow out in the cornfield, eh? On the other hand, attempting to claim that liberals and conservative hold the same role now as they did then is either completely naive or incredibly disingenuous.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    No, I’m just showing you that your initial post was garbage.

    Oh—and the Dixiecrats were a third-party breakaway from the Democrats, because the Democrats were not racist enough.

  • tcvegas

    That is untrue. Your “dicitionary version” of the word “conservative” and its origins is wrong. “Jacob Wagner (Mass Federalist) first used “conservative” in its modern political sense in a letter dated May 13, 1808. The word “conservative” did not attain its current meaning until several decades after independence….but the ideas behind the word came into existence during the revolution….America’s founding conservatives supported neither aristocracy nor monarchy..rather they represented a new type of political creed based upon a reverence for tradition……their aim is not trying to turn back the clock, it is to prevent change from galloping out of control by preserving custom, defending inherited institutions and championing prudence……the fundamental question of conservatism was formed and articulated in the early years of the revolution: how does one preserve cherished values and traditions in the face of social upehaval? The founding conservatives’ attempt to answer this question represents their most enduring gift to the present……” “The Founding Conservatives” – David Lefer. Conservatives saved the Revolution and were absolutely NOT wearing red coats. You can read an entire book on the subject, recently released and written by Mr. Lefer, a self described Democrat. This is however a history book and not a book regarding political partisanship.

  • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

    Pfft. Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

  • mike_in_kosovo

    What i think is irrelevant to the statement.

    Which, of course, is why you not only specifically make reference to liberal and conservative in your OP, but reinforce it with other posts…because you’re not saying anything about the ideologies of the two positions.

    Peddle that snake oil somewhere else, chief…it won’t sell around here.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    You celebrate the distortion of history, and being snotty.
    Got it.

  • mike_in_kosovo

    Yes… why do you think my location matters? Do I not get to have a voice or an opinion since I’m out of country?

  • mike_in_kosovo

    LOL naa you can out of defense mode.

    Sorry – too many instances of idiots saying “Why is someone in Kosovo talking about the US.”

    I was going to say my cousin is in Peja right now.

    I’m not familiar with the area, I’m in the southern region – there’s some beautiful mountains here, that’s for sure.

  • Bathing Suit Area

    Even if he didn’t, best to enslave a race just to be careful.

  • Pali Pavone

    Lyndon B. Johnson

  • Jay Stevens

    “It may interest you to learn that the signers of the Declaration were for the most part wealthy merchants and landowners, …”

    And many went broke funding the Revolutionary War.

  • screamingmad

    Oh go poke your nose somewhere else.

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    Their lives, their fortunes, their Sacred Honors… #RushLimbaugh I think BD, BSA, and all you other trolls should read his article on what these people gave up, in order to win their freedom from the Oppressive British Government. Jawamax 8<{D}.

  • buzzsawmonkey

    True. That whole “lives, fortunes, sacred honor” thing. They meant it; they weren’t just mouthing words off a Teleprompter like Certain Modern-Day Political Figures.

  • Adela Wagner

    DING DING A WINNER! Yes, he was goaded into signing it, but looked at it clearly as an opportunity that has indeed come to fruition. I want to run up and just hug those of color that STAND UP to this modern day hypocritical platform. It does take guts. And I fear it will get worse for us all who say we have had enough of our rights being trampled.