Arab "Palestinian" Racism http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/paracism.htm
Posted on 08/17/2017 3:33:19 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Come on, Condi! You disappoint me. Surely you know the true basis of that three-fifths stuff. The free states required that southern slaves only be counted as 3/5 of a person in the Census, to prevent the south having their population inflated by all the slaves, thereby giving the south an unfair advantage in congressional voting. It was NOT a slur against black people. They wanted them FREED.
She is smart enough to know that but apparently she doesn’t.
Personally, I don't think black folk are as well off now as they were in the 40's and 50's... Their future doesn't look very bright... The culture of hate, bigotry and all the animosity they feel toward whitey is going to be their undoing...
It seems they have an absolute disgust with western values... But I will say this, most all of their problems was caused by a white man... And his name was Lyndon Johnson...
“”I want us to have to look at those names, and realize what they did, and be able to tell our kids what they did and for them to have a sense of their own history.””
I’m sorry but I don’t take that statement as a “positive”!! It sounds more like - “I want them to see what they did to us PERIOD!”
“... most all of their problems was caused by a white man... And his name was Lyndon Johnson... “
Well said......
I took it as she meant it...See what they did developing our country....
Interesting that England celebrates rebels William Wallace and Guy Fawkes. Canada celebrates the treasonous murderer Louis Riel.
But in the USA, the leftists tear down history as if the bronze itself was evil.
In the future, people will look back at the destroyed statues and say “What in the world were they thinking!”
Thank you for that crystal clear explanation. I was getting ready to respond similarly to her remark about 3/5, but nailed it. I hate the liberal effort to completely distort the 3/5 enumeration into something it wasn’t. It was a way to reduce the electoral power of the slave states to enable eventual abolition. So it was a strong PRO-BLACK compromise.
She’s an idiot, you say. Just remember that when you pointed your finger at her with that statement, 3 fingers were pointing back at you.
Your statement regarding her grasp of the Constitution is disgusting.
That’s Clarity!
Of special interest in that regard is Jefferson's “Autobiography,” especially that portion which states:
"The first establishment in Virginia which became permanent was made in 1607. I have found no mention of negroes in the colony until about 1650. The first brought here as slaves were by a Dutch ship; after which the English commenced the trade and continued it until the revolutionary war. That suspended...their future importation for the present, and the business of the war pressing constantly on the (Virginia) legislature, this subject was not acted on finally until the year 1778, when I brought a bill to prevent their further importation. This passed without opposition, leaving to future efforts its final eradication."
Jefferson also observed:
"Where the disease [slavery] is most deeply seated, there it will be slowest in eradication. In the northern States, it was merely superficial and easily corrected. In the southern, it is incorporated with the whole system and requires time, patience, and perseverance in the curative process."
He explained that, "In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county in which I live [Albemarle County, Virginia], and so continued until it was closed by the Revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the regal [crown] government, nothing [like this] could expect success."
Here is another quotation, cited in David Barton's work on the subject of the Founders and slavery, which also cites the fact that there were laws in the State of Virginia which prevented citizens from emancipating slaves:
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. . . . The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded who permits one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep for ever. . . . The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. . . . [T]he way, I hone [is] preparing under the auspices of Heaven for a total emancipation."
A visit to David Barton’s web site (www.wallbuilders.com) provides an essential, excellent and factual written record of the Founders' views on the matter of slavery. One source he does not quote, I believe, is the famous 1775 Edmund Burke "Speech on Conciliation" before the British Parliament, wherein he admonished the Parliament for its Proposal to declare a general enfranchisement of the slaves in America.
Burke rather sarcastically observed that should the Parliament carry through with the Proposal before it: "Slaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are from slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from that very nation (England) which has sold them to their present masters? from that nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters is their refusal to deal any more in that inhuman traffic?"
He continued: "An offer of freedom from England would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African vessel, which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes. It would be curious to see the Guinea captain attempting at the same instant to publish his proclamation of liberty and to advertise his sale of slaves."
Ahhh, how knowledge of the facts can alter one's opinion of the revisionist history that has been taught for generations in American schools (including its so-called "law schools"!!)
Human beings are allotted ONLY A TINY SLIVER OF TIME ON THIS EARTH. (Pardon shouting) Each finds the world and his/her own community/nation existing as it is.
If lawyers and judges cared enough to educate themselves (in this day of the Internet) on the history of civilization and America's real history, and if they used that knowledge and the resulting understanding, to do as much on behalf of liberty for ALL people as did Thomas Jefferson and America's other Founders, the world in the next century would be a better place.
Remember, Thomas Jefferson was only 33 years old when he penned our Declaration of Independence which capsulized a truly revolutionary idea into a simple statement that survives to this day to inspire people all over the world to strive for liberty!
All liberals are pigs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.