• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!

  •  

     

    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Over at The Astute Bloggers, the CAPS LOCK-challenged Reliapundit continues to scream casually, opening with a quote from Obama which is notable for its strange, if correct, punctuation (either because he cut and pasted it from a more timid news source, or because the President’s pusillanimous words don’t DESERVE THE POWER OF THE MIGHTIEST OF ALL KEYS!  CAPS LOCK!)

“We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America — civil rights and voting rights, workers’ rights and women’s rights, and the rights of every American,” Obama said from a White House balcony with first lady Michelle Obama at his side.

This statement, so outrageous in its passivity, drives Reliapundit to simultaneously sneer and shout, which is risky, as there’s always the chance your face will freeze like that, and you’ll have to go through life looking like Conrad Veidt in The Man Who Laughs.

“MEN OF PROPERTY AND WEALTH.”

PASSIVE. [...]  AS IF THEY JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE PROPERTY AND JUST HAPPENED TO BE WEALTHY.

NOT THAT THEY TOILED FOR IT AND WERE ENTITLED TO KEEP THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR.

  • LEFTISTS THINK THE RICH GOT THEIR MONEY UNFAIRLY AND THAT MONEY GROWS ON TREES

Which unfortunately has to be harvested by slaves or illegal immigrants, because that’s one of those jobs that Americans won’t do.

      • OF COURSE THE SUBTEXT OF THIS COMMENT IS ALSO THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE WHITE SLAVEHOLDERS – ANOTHER OLD LEFTIST CHESTNUT
      • WHICH OBAMA – AS POTUS – SHOULDN’T HAVE UTTERED ON THE DAY COMMEMORATING OUR NATION’S BIRTH.

      If Congress had any balls, they’d impeach him for high crimes and subtext.

      OBAMA: WHAT A PIECE OF ANTI-AMERICAN LEFTIST CRAP.

      Later, Reliapundit notices Frank Rich, a “LARD-ASS LEFTIST PIECE OF CRAP,” who compounds the President’s felony by transforming “THIS SAME OLD LEFTIST CHESTNUT” into actual text:

      “ALL men may be created equal, but slavery, America’s original sin of inequality, was left unaddressed in the Declaration of Independence signed 234 years ago today.”

      SHEESH: AS IF LIBERATING US FROM THE TYRANNY OF BEING SUBJECTS WITHOUT RIGHTS TO A KING WASN’T ENOUGH ON THEIR PLATES!

      By “US,” I assume Mr. Pundit doesn’t refer to the more than 600,000 lucky ducky slaves who weren’t obliged to endure the “TYRANNY OF BEING SUBJECTS WITHOUT RIGHTS TO A KING” because they were merely property.  But all things being equal in American, the patriots’ gilt lacquered tea caddies and Hepplewhite pianofortes also didn’t have to suffer the indignity of being subjects.

      IN FACT, THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (WHERE IT WAS FITTING AND PROPER TO ADDRESS IT) AND SLAVERY WAS ESSENTIALLY GIVEN A DEATH SENTENCE IN IT:

      The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 is a United States federal law that stated, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States.

      This act effectively ended the legal transatlantic slave trade. However, slavery continued in the United States until the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

      The United States Constitution, Article 1 Section 9 protected the slave trade for twenty years. Only after 1808 could laws be passed to end the slave trade.

      This is why capital punishment is such a poor deterrent.  Judges can sentence a criminal to death, but then the defense lawyers will just drag out the appeals for twenty years until it reaches the Supreme Court, and then has to be settled with a war.  You makes you wonder why we even have judges.

      REPEAT: “Article 1 Section 9 protected the slave trade for twenty years.”

      AMPLIFICATION:

      THIS EFFECTIVELY WAS DEATH SENTENCE FOR THE SLAVE TRADE, ALBEIT IT ONE THAT REQUIRED A BLOODY CIVIL WAR TO ENFORCE IT:

      So the “fitting and proper” — sorry — “FITTING AND PROPER” venue of the Constitution Convention actually protected the slave trade for a generation, and slavery itself survived for another seventy years, and only ended after the most destructive war in American history.  Maybe if the Founders had addressed the question in an ill-fitting and improper arena, they might have gotten a bit more traction.

      ONLY LEFTISTS STILL DWELL ON THE “FOUNDERS AS SLAVEHOLDERS” MEME.  WHY?

      Because it’s relevant to a basic grasp of American history?   And because, you know, many of them were slaveholders, and by insisting that their right to hold fellow human beings as chattel be preserved, respected, and written into the Constitution, they guaranteed that the nation they were creating would eventually tear itself apart.

      Here’s a brief and incomplete list of Founding Fathers, including Presidents, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and delegates to the Constitutional Convention, who were slave owners:

      George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, George Mason, Robert Morris, John Dickinson, Pierce Butler, Edward Rutledge, John Rutledge, William Whipple, Stephen Hopkins, George Wythe, Charles Carroll, Joseph Hewes, Richard Bassett, Luther Martin, and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

      BECAUSE IT’S ESSENTIALLY AN ATTEMPT TO DELEGITIMIZE OUR CONSTITUTION.

      • 650,000 KILLED;
      • 650,000 WOUNDED -
      • AND THE NATION’S TREASURE DIVERTED TO WAR FOR 5 YEARS.

      Well, 4 years, but who’s counting?  And on the bright side, only 360,222 died defending the United States Constitution.  The other 258,000 died trying to “delegitimize” it.

          • THEY WANT TO DELEGITIMIZE OUR CONSTITUTION BECAUSE AS STATISTS AND COLLECTIVISTS, LEFTISTS WANT A STRONGER STATE THAN THE FOUNDERS WANTED AND CREATED;
          • LEFTISTS NEED A STRONG STATE BECAUSE TO TO INFLICT LEFTISM ON THE PEOPLE YOU MUST FORCIBLY TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS.

          Not to belabor — or even engage — Mr. Pundit’s idiotic point, but the phrase “FORCIBLY TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS” seems to better describe what slaveholding patriots did to the men, women, and children they claimed to own, rather than what a democratically elected legislature and executive is doing by passing and signing legislation.  I mean, we’re all for tropes and metaphorical language around here, and while we don’t take the Teabaggers’ slavery and Hitler allusions literally, it appears the Astute Bloggers do, so let’s compromise:  I’ll stipulate that fat and comfortable white people with the leisure time to attend Tea Parties are being enslaved by Congressional Democrats when they can doff their raggedy, homespun shirts and expose a starburst of welts and scar tissue raised by the Majority Whip’s whip.

          BY DELEGITIMIZING THE FOUNDERS AS SLAVE-HOLDERS, THE LEFT THINKS THEY LEGITIMIZE THEIR OWN USURPATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ANTI-STATISTS.

          IT’S JUSTICE IN THEIR TWISTED MINDS, TIT-FOR-TAT.

          WE CAN TEACH BARRY HUSSEIN SOETORO OBAMA JUNIOR AND FRANK RICH AND THEIR COMRADES A LESSON THIS NOVEMBER: VOTE FOR PATRIOTS; VOTE GOP!

          Perhaps you could license this image for use on your campaign posters.  Just tell people it’s Kenneth Gladney.

          15 Responses to “If Parson Weems Had Anger Management Issues”

          What’s it called when someone says something perfectly sensible and someone else takes mortal offense to it?

          Or is “blogging” pretty much the word I’m looking for here?

          Here’s how I imagine he would have taken the first couple of lines of the Gettysburg Address:

          Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

          OK! NOW THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!!1!

          Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure.

          WHAT THE FUFKIN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ABE BENEDICT WILKES BOOTH LINCOLN?! YOU EVER HEAR OF A LITTLE THING CALLED ‘STATES RIGHTS’?! GOD AND JEFFERSON SAID THE NIGGERS WERE PROPERTY AND NOT HUMAN, SO WHAT CRAWLED UP YOUR ASS? AMERICA WILL ENDURE, NO THANKS TO YOU, ASSHOLE.

          thanks for the link.

          you wrote the war lasted 4 years, but who is counting.

          er um… it lasted 5: 1861–1865

          1 – 1861
          2 – 1862
          3 – 1863
          4 – 1864
          5 – 1865

          the rest of your “commentary” is just as accurate.

          the key point is that the founders tried to end slavery but couldn’t and maintain unity within the colonies and win independence.

          so they compromised for the greater good.

          and within the consitution they planted the seeds of slavery’s destruction.

          obama acknwledged this – albeit in a way i felt was demeaning to our founders.

          i think u need to learn a great deal more than you know before you mouth off.

          among other things i was a pres of my undergraduate college’s hist. honor society, btw -

          and marched with dr mlk.

          no fuck off u leftist crap4brains.

          I MEAN CRAP4BRAINS.

          Really? That’s your objection?

          April 12, 1861 to April 9, 1865

          Try counting on your fingers this time.

          Scott, you should just declare your defeat right now, because RotorRooterPundit was a pres of his undergraduate college’s hist. honor society, and there’s no way you can best a guy like that – except maybe with the use of the shift key and the concept of punctuation.

          s.z., you’re right. And to make matters worse, he’s learned the secret of replacing prepositions with numbers — a secret previously known only to tweens with Sidekicks! — in order to increase the speed and ruthless efficiency of his responses. There’s no hope of keeping up now.

          On an interesting side note, Mr. Pundit reveals that “and within the consitution[sic] they planted the seeds of slavery’s destruction,” meaning — if I’m reading his subtext correctly — that the Fugitive Slave Clause and the 3/5ths Compromise were actually makeshift but clever time-bombs, whipped up out of chewing gum, tin foil, and involuntary servitude and planted in the consitution by unsung Founding Father Angus McGyver.

          Reliadummy writes: the rest of your “commentary” is just as accurate.

          Yes, we agree. What’s your point?

          Rarely has anyone defeated themselves so quickly in a comments thread.

          From Asstupido Bloggers:

          “CONSERVATIVES THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET WHATEVER SOFT DRINK AND HAIRCUT THEY WANT – EVEN IF THE DRINKS ARE AWFUL AND THE HAIRSTYLES WORSE.

          And even if they want a soft drink while they’re getting a haircut. So make fun of that, Mr. Liberal Humorist.

          Sure, slavery would have died out…if it weren’t for the cotton gin. The cotton gin created a huge industry for American cotton. Cotton is labor-intensive, so slave labor helped. This coupled with territorial expansion meant that slavery could only be ended with war. But hey, I was never a president of any history club.

          And anyway, the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about the rights of the states to determine their own destiny, and that goes as well for the territories that would become states.

          Issues of destiny like if they wanted slavery, and stuff. So, see? Totally unrelated to slavery. Pretty much.

          reliapundit –

          Ever try that trick when you were trying to buy beer before you were legal? You know, like this:

          You (placing 6-pack on counter): I would like to buy this.
          7-11 Guy: Let’s see some ID.
          You (whipping out some ID): Here you go.
          7-11 Guy: Sorry, pal, you’re not old enough.
          You: Whaddya mean? Of course, I’m old enough.
          7-11 Guy: Well, your ID says you were born in 1990. Since it’s now 2010, that makes you 20. Legal drinking age in this state is 21. Sorry.
          You: Whaddya mean? I’m 21 and I’ll prove it.
          1990=1
          1991=2
          1992=3

          2009=20
          2010=21
          See? QED. And besides, I’m president of my college’s hist. honor society.
          7-11 Guy: Get the fuck outta here before I call the cops.

          Get a brain, moran.

          albeit in a way i felt was demeaning to our founders.

          As Ben Franklin would have said to you, “Go fuck yourself, you anal git.”

          It’s true that there’s a difference between slavery and the slave trade. But if you have things set up so that the children of slaves are born slaves, you can keep it all running without an influx of imported slaves. Which is why banning the slave trade, as positive a step as it was, is really not giving a death sentence to slavery.

          Even in areas where slavery had been traditionally sustained only through the slave trade, West Indies in particular where life expectancy among slaves was horrifyingly low, the legal end of the slave trade didn’t mean the end of slavery.
          In the U.S. where slavery had been traditionally sustained as much through birth rate as importation, it made much less difference.
          Even so the beloved demigods of the Founders clearly choose to punt on that one. And the Constitution specifically protected the slave trade for almost 20 years, forbidding any restriction on it.

          Something to say?