Archive for April 8, 2010

Just when you thought we would only have recycled Field guides here comes Roxeanne De Luca of Haemet who I had the pleasure of sharing lunch with today.

Her take on Feminism should be required watching.

that I referred to in my earlier post that upon reflection, is even more significant that the excerpt quoted by Rich Lowry and myself to the country at large today. It concerns the state of mind of the founding fathers concerning slavery. All emphasis that follows is mine:

First he acknowledges that slavery was the immediate cause of secession:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

He notes that Jefferson saw slavery as big trouble for the future. Stephens then makes a statement that is was not controversial at the time but would be a bombshell to anyone reading a 21st century history book in a high school:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

Remember that this speech was given in 1861. The enactment of the constitution was in LIVING MEMORY. He states without hesitation that most of the founding fathers thought slavery was wrong in every sense of the word. This would shock a lot of people in the race bating business. He then drops bombshell #2:

It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.

He not only states clearly that the men of the time considered slavery evil but states they ignored it because they thought it would die out through time and the will of God (providence). He then explicitly states that this rested on the assumption of the equality of races. He is stating this as a member of congress for 16 year, a political man for a quarter of a century, top man in his class in college, and as a man known for his knowledge and intelligence. A man in a position to know .

Moreover he says it as a simple matter of fact, as a person who would have reason to know this. The concept that the men of the day, the founders, rested their opinion on racial equality was not odd to him, he just thought they were wrong.

Print out that paragraph of this speech and carry it with you. Whenever you hear someone going on about the “racist founders of the nation” or “a nation founded on racism” take it out and read it aloud to the person ranting in your face and see what they have to say. It should be very interesting.

A: What is the real net effect of Stormy Daniels running for Senate as a republican in La?

Camp of the Saints and The Classic Liberal decide the matter requires deep photographic investigation.

Nice pictures, but I’m still not convinced she’s worth $1900.

Oh and make sure you check out the comments at Bob’s site they provide some great one liners.

I might not be in front of the computer at noontime so lets take a look at the what’s happening on the blogroll:

Ruby Slippers reports on the rubes who actually think that the passage of Obamacare means they will actually get free healthcare:

Evidently not everyone heard that bit of bad news or missed it entirely while cheering the fact 26 year olds will be covered under their parents plan. Perhaps people stopped tuning in after Obama health care speech number 563. If all else fails as an excuse blame the critics for confusing this group of poor souls who just want their free health care and they want it now:

Ironically I just got a letter from our insurance company saying my 19 year old would soon be dropped from coverage, but can get in as a full time student. Maybe congress didn’t read this bill but the insurance companies sure did.

Peg at What if Has two related posts on the same subject, the first concerns why the Democrats cry “Racist” so easily:

The other day, my good friend Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson pondered why columnists like Frank Rich rail on and on about the racism of Tea Partiers – when nothing could be further from the truth. I added a comment that I thought they did so because they cannot win in the battle of ideas. So – they then resort to slurs and attacks of “racist.”

She links to Roger Simon who uses the Civil War Term “waving the bloody shirt” She then follows up with this item quoting the Washington post:

But by and large, no one I spoke with or I heard from on stage said anything that was approaching racist.

Almost everyone I met was welcoming to this African-American television news producer.

Maybe they can try, “Vote as you marched”, oops sorry the majority of votes for Civil rights were republican ones.

David Pinto at Baseball Musings is following games but also the business of Baseball:

The Yankees are now worth $1.6 billion, keeping them the most valuable franchise. The next closest team is the Boston Red Sox at $870 million. Given that Steinbrenner’s group bought the Yankees for $20 million, he made a pretty good investment. The Yankees do have a high amount of debt, but that’s due to their using the equity in the club to keep improving it, for example, by building a new stadium.

It should be interesting to see what attendance figures are at the end of the year.

Conservatives for Palin is all over yesterday’s Rally and interview with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann appearance, their focus is media reaction:

Update #2: Andy Barr from Politico affirmatively reports that Palin and Bachmann spoke “[b]efore a predominantly female crowd of more than 11,000 fans.”

Update #3: The St. Paul Pioneer Press effectively confirms the Politico number by reporting that Palin and Bachmann held “a raucous campaign rally of more than 10,000 fans that exceeded the size of many presidential whistle-stops.”…

-Three more local Minnesota newspapers effectively confirm what was reported by Politico and the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding the attendance at the Palin/Bachmann campaign rally yesterday.

Update: The St. Cloud Times reports a “crowd estimated at more than 10,000.”

I saw it last night, if you didn’t they link to video here. People who don’t think these ladies are going to be a force in the GOP are deluding themselves.