ABC's 'This Week': Founding Fathers Were 'Guys Who Didn't Give Women the Vote and Let Slavery Stand'
ABC's "This Week" began its Independence Day weekend program with a segment that echoed Time magazine's cover story questioning whether the Constitution matters anymore.
After historian Douglas Brinkley said, "We shouldn't act like [the Founding Fathers] were somehow omnipotent," ABC's John Donvan responded, "They were not gods, they were guys - guys who didn't give women the vote and let slavery stand" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, HISTORIAN: It's a very slippery slope to start cherry-picking your favorite golden oldie from the Founding Fathers and slapping it on to political speeches today. Democrats and Republicans quote from the Founding Fathers, but we shouldn't act like they were somehow omnipotent.
JOHN DONVAN, ABC: The reality is that the framers - posed in paintings as though frozen on an American Olympus - they were not gods, they were guys - guys who didn't give women the vote and let slavery stand for the time being and who, by the way, were trying to create at the time a stronger central government, of course not too strong, leaving to us a Constitution that we could fix, as needed, - sorry, make that amend - which we've now done 27 times.
BRINKLEY: When you look at the founding documents of our country, they are elastic, they’re meant to be pulled and bent in different directions as each era dictates.
I guess the liberal media believe it will be easier for our nation to depart from the Constitution's tenets if they can diminish the reverence people have for its authors.
Nice discussion to be having as our nation celebrates its birth.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Can Douglas Brinkley...
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:24pm.
....name one European power that allowed women to vote at the time the constitution was written? Now we know Brinkley is only a crackpot revisionist historian who whines about inconvenient facts non-supportive of his latest diatribe.
DRSAM
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:44pm.
As I recall unless you were a property owner in most countries you had very few rights.
That is also true.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:32pm.
After doing some more reading, the qualifications for voting varied greatly from state to state (in the new US). The UK was infested with the "rotten boroughs" that had disproportionate voting exclusively to landowning men. I can't find any record of voting laws in the other countries, but I believe they would have been roughly equivalent to the UK or non-existent.
The point is that at the time they lived, the founding fathers were considered enlightened relative to the majority of their European ancestors. This country evolved as a result of the foundations they put into place, and not the result of constant revisionist machinations of agenda-driven liberals who ignore what social conventions existed at the time the American revolution was fought.
And let's not forget that
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:31pm.
they weren't in favor of illegal immigraton, ethanol subsidies, tax loop holes for private jets. You know, all the lib talking points by now. It's like listening to Zombies in prayer.
They didn't get deductions for corporate jets, either.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:14pm.
Just who the hell do this a$$hole liberals think they are, and who WE are?
When talking about our Constitution they say of the rules it lays out, "they’re meant to be pulled and bent."
Excuse me, but pulled and bent ain't what "amend" means in the Constitution. If those c**k suckers want to change it, then go through the process instead of pulling and bending, like Bambi is doing today with every damned law on the books.
You think your way is better, mother frockers, then go through the process and see if most of the people in most of the states feel the same way. Otherwise shut the hell up, or so help me God you will not believe the wrath the citizens of this country will bring down on you..
The president is a Fascist, the House is led by a pack of wimps, and the senate is useless. We the People will turn things around, or by God, die trying.
Happy 4th of July.
Newsbubba
Submitted by Franksam on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 4:20pm.
I agree, but you need to go get something cool to drink and enjoy the day.
Happy Fourth to you.
You wouldn't have had a country if women voted and slaves
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:31pm.
were not permitted. The Democratic Republicans of the South (who became the Democrats of the 1800's and beyond) were adamant that slavery was to be permitted and slaves were to be counted. The 3/5th rule was a result of a compromise between slave and free states. The Democrats of the 1840's were the supporters of the Missouri compromise, which only allowed a free state to be admitted if a slave state came in. It was only when the Republicans became a force in the 1860's that abolition became a force.
Today's slavery is sort of different. The slavery of the Federal plantation is what is now going on, where the weak instead of the captured become slaves to the welfare and food stamps of the Federal plantation. If we are to survive, we must end this slavery as surely as we ended that of the Constitutional convention members.
The founders compromised between themselves to forge a nation. We are thankful that the anti-slavery bunch compromised with the slavers to allow a country to be formed. Liberals, when will you compromised to dismantle the Federal plantation?
Dennis Prager
Great Comment!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:19pm.
Your comments regarding "modern day slavery" as foisted apon the weak and poor by modern day Democrats is spot on. That's how they get their political power, just as the pre-Civil War Dems got their power from a base of slavery in the South.
I will disagree with you regarding one aspect of the founding of the United States, however, and that's about slavery being a southern thing. Salvery was permitted in many northern states, (not just boarder states), including states like New York, and this slavery lasted well into the 1800's.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Dat's right, Kingfish.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:39pm.
Last time I looked it was dem New England yankee traders dat was selling all dem slaves to us dumb crackers down South.
Now they seem to be the same ones who have created the Democrat Plantation where they keep 90%+ of the black population in irons, still.
Ulysses S. Grant
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:39pm.
owned a slave. Slavery was legal in Grant's state of Ohio.
Careful, you might be called
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 2:16am.
Careful, you might be called a Southern Apologist by Unsane. /snark/
Oxymoron!
Submitted by PJMan on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 3:30am.
Democratic Republicans? I THINK, the Republicans started much later, and the 3/5ths rule was because there were to many blacks in the south that would be able to vote, so their vote was discounted to lesser value of a white, not less human, with which much people don't know, so I agree with you 100%, I just wish I would have read this before my last post, God Bless, and good wishes, Pete
Go ahead and bend it you jerk.
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:32pm.
But it must be changed by an amendment. Not a presidential executive order, an act of some congressional committee, an activist judge or one of Obama's czars.
I used to think so too, Kong.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:18pm.
The way the NLRB shuts down a company's plans to move to a right to work state; the way Bambi starts wars all alone; and the way judges on the Supreme Court rule half the time, I'm beginning to think that liberals feel that the amendment process is just too old fashioned to bother with.
We had better learn to use it or lose it.
What's next?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:38pm.
Is the news media going to pick on the shade of red used in the flag? Or try to create a: "Is a five-point star really better than a six-point star that some wanted for the earliest flags?" controversy? Maybe they can revisit that bastion of unfairness- the shape of the states. Wouldn't it be more fair if all the states were the same size and shape? Why is Rhode Island so small, and Alaska -home of that woman- so large? And can't we get just a little bit of beach for our fly-over friends in Kansas?
The more I think about it, this country really sucks. It's always sucked. The framers sucked. The Constitution sucks.
This is why we need fundimental change. Structural change. This is why we need Barack Obama for four (or more?) years.
Happy freaking Independence Day. /
BK
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:50pm.
I have lived in NC all my life and just learned the other day we are still arguing with SC over the board. This had been going on since the British split Carolina into north and south. It is supposed to be settled by 2012. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if we found that Charlotte should be in SC.
PS: I learned that watching Swamp Loggers where they were in a boundary dispute with a property owner.
My guess Rick
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:54pm.
is that Nikki Haley doesn't want Charlotte!
Here's another good one.
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:04pm.
Here's another good one. Carowinds Theme Park is split by the state line. NC is telling folks that SC doesn't require the documentation on the rides inpsectionS like they do. Our governor is a first class Obama hind tit sucker so she does not/will not get along with Nikki Haley.
Overt Anti-Constitutionalism
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:47pm.
These gus are scary. Makes me wonder if they support insurrection and the overthrow of the goverrnment by violent means if necessary. ______________________________________________________________________________
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
They're contracting it out to others, HRT.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:48pm.
They're "surrendering" to our enemies all over the planet, and hope when it all falls apart, they will get to step in and pick up the pieces.
I don't think they have a clue just how bad this will get.
What I fear is that Bambi has pulled us so far left, that when the country finally snaps back it is going to go so far right that we will end up with the same problems that being far left is bringing. A dictator is a dictator whether it is George Soros or some other Wizard of Oz. That's why all this talk about the Constitution "being outdated" scares the hell out of me because if we shred that document ANYONE can own us for their own ends.
The Founders were brilliant in their thinking because they limited government and left the power with the people. If we lose that, we lose, period. Doesn't matter which one of our idiot parties is in charge.
And so what, Doug?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:52pm.
Does this mean the Founders were Republicans, who were, you know, racists bigots and homophobes Doug?
Idiot.
It is a safe bet ...
Submitted by needle on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 8:45am.
...that people like Douglas Brinkley and his sort would never have founded this country, or indeed any country that would amount to anything.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Yes, they would. It's called
Submitted by MominMD on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 4:03pm.
Yes, they would. It's called France!
Who actually thinks that?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:00pm.
"Democrats and Republicans quote from the Founding Fathers, but we shouldn't act like they were somehow omnipotent."
Who actually thinks that the Founding Fathers were omnipotent? We all know the inherent weakness of Man. The Founding Fathers certainly knew it. That's WHY they created the Constitution, to help address the inherent weakness of Man, especially the inherent weakness of a centrally controlled society. Many people, myself included, consider the Founding Fathers to be wise, which is one of the reason that they are quoted so often. But I can't think of a single person who considers them omnipotent. They ONLY ones trying to place the Founding Fathers upon the Tower of Omnipotence are the ones who wish to destroy that Tower, and the Founding Fathers themselves in the process. In other words: it's a Strawman.
Do us all a favor, "journalists," stop creating Strawman arguments. It just makes you look that much more foolish.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Indeed
Submitted by Dave81 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:29pm.
That's WHY they create a constitution that could be amended rather than some dominating central government with complete power, because they knew they weren't perfect and didn't want to ruin things for the future of the country by getting things wrong back then. They recognized their weaknesses and founded a government that would still function despite them.
And what they did was completely radical, even if it wasn't 100% PC by 21st century standards. Some things need to change and evolve over time to meet the changing needs of the people, but the basic principles of individual freedom and liberty are timeless. THAT is why so many continue to quote the founding fathers, so that we don't blindly replace those principles with a government who wants to control our lives to the point of telling us what light bulbs to use and when/where we can/can't pray.
Excellent, C-man.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:52pm.
The Founding Fathers were just brilliant in their self awareness, and wise beyond their knowledge of the future.
The only thing that today's liberals consider omnipotent is Da One.
They were very brilliant
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:43pm.
They were very brilliant, and extremely prescient. They understood the inherent weakness of men and how power which tends to become centralized also tends to become tyrannical. That's why they had the foresight to create two different means of amending the Constitution, one by way of Congress, and one by way of the States, called a Constitutional Convention.
The Founding Fathers knew that, someday, the federal government's goals will be at odds to those of the States and that the power of the federal government would grow to such an extent that it harms our society as a whole, so they gave the States a means of amending the Constitution without the need of the approval or consent of Congress. That gives the States the direct power to restrict and limit the control the power of the federal government, if needed. I think we need to start invoking that State power and use it to limit the power of the federal government. The weak men and women in Congress doesn't seem to be able to limit themselves and their quest for ever expanding power any more. It's time for a Constitutional Convention. It's time that We, the People, take back the power that the federal government has stolen from us.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No, they weren't gods. But
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:58pm.
No, they weren't gods. But they were Divinely Inspired, and expressed that in stating the inalienable rights He endowed us with.
Never have I seen such a stark difference between left and right / progressive (so-called) and conservative. How naive I have been to assume we all at least had that fundamental understanding of and respect for the Constitution. In some respects, the Obama administration has been the best thing for this country, because he has illuminated the bereft direction his comrades have been taking this country over the past 50 years or more. Had we not been so awakened, there likely would be no TEA Party, we would not be discussing the likelihood of conservative wins in Congress and Presidency. Our liberties would still be slowly eroding until we turned into yet another failed socialist regime. Think I'll take my kids to a Fourth of July strike that Independence Day parade and celebration and create some more republicans...
It beats a day at the beach...http://www.verumserum.com/?p=26648
Amen to that
Submitted by Dave81 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:34pm.
wow...that video was so depressing.
News Flash!
Submitted by Fredy on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:00pm.
There is not one single word in the Constitution, or first 10 ammendments, regarding ANYONES voting rights!
Voting rights were added later on in ammendments,
I also notices that members of that panel think all states had slaves. This is annother false statement as most states were in fact free.
As for picture posing, that was the most insipidly absurd claims I have ever heard. The commenter apparantly thinks paintings are made in the same manner as pictures.
Yep, the Constitution did not
Submitted by wolfemanic on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:51pm.
Yep, the Constitution did not give anyone voting rights until later.
The Supreme Court also determined the Constitution did not give voting rights in Minor vs Happersett 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874). This was the first case to hold that women were equal citizens to men.
Interesting also in this case is not in the dicta, but in the direct holding of the case syllabus it is said there can be found a Supreme Court binding precedent regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
"...as each era dictates."
Submitted by Ted Clarke on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:01pm.
"...as each era dictates." Yes, any self-respecting dictator would agree with that. These people are scary.
Yeah, living document and all that.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:03pm.
So, no need for Second Amendment Rights in the current era, Si? No?
Now, now Red Jeep
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:15pm.
It seems to me the ATF is all for 2nd Amendment Rights for Mexican cartels.
True, I mean, Si, Si, Senor.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:20pm.
.
And, totally
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:47pm.
against First Amendment rights for it's employees. Unless, of course, they toe the Party line. Otherwise, off with their heads, or at least, end their careers.
And people complain about accuracy on Fox News?
Submitted by Junk Science Skeptic on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:19pm.
At the time of the founding, women were not prevented from voting.
In those days, voting rights were primarily tied to land ownership. Widows and single women who inherited their family's land, especially common in the era immediately following the Revolutionary War, held the same voting rights as a male land-owner. Another group of women land-owners/voters in that era were some of the country's earliest entrepreneurs, the madams who ran the local brothels.
It wasn't until the predecessor of the Democratic party came along that voting was limited to men.
Absolute Democracy
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:44pm.
And we are seeing now what happens when a Democracy subjugates a Republic. The have-nots vote to take the earned property away from the haves.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Democracy sucks
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:57pm.
Every since I learned what Democracy was, I've hated the idea behind it. Yeah, I know, "I hate Democracy" sounds really bad, but when you think about how easy it is for tyranny to rear its ugly head BECAUSE of Democracy, you try like hell to keep it from happening.
On the other hand, a Free Republic is so very hard to take care of. It's even more so when the Democracy advocates try to destroy the Free Republic. But the benefits of having a Republic far outweigh the problems associated with taking care of it, such as fighting off the would-be tyrants. But when you take the education system and start leaving out key components of civic studies (or eliminate them altogether), people lose the vision of the differences between a Democracy and a Republic and think that Majority rule/votes without representation is the only way to go. Further, start leaving out what Socialists, Marxists, Communists even Nationalists represent, people will not recognize the signs of someone who is running to be a president who actually is a danger to this country.
And that's what happened with the person in the White House now. Not enough people recognized the dangers of the man who talked to Joe the Plumber about a redistribution of wealth, one of the biggest warning signs of a socialist or someone raised by communists. And those that did and tried to warn people were laughed at, jeered at, even assaulted. He even said "we will fundamentally transform this country" which was a warning sign to everyone that he really did intend to change this country....from being a Republic to something worse. Again, the warnings fell on deaf ears.
And here we are today. In a tyranny.
And people STILL don't get it.
-Jon
Interesting thoughts...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:16pm.
I see a lot of wisdom in your thoughts... and a lot of truths. I guess I see it as a matter of priorities. In my my mind... inalienable rights comes first... democracy second. Any democracy that respects inalienable rights will succeed. You just have to be careful about who defines and interprets what inalienable rights are.
No democracy at all
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:18pm.
What I was getting at was that we shouldn't be a democracy at all, the Constitution gives us a Republic....if we can keep it. We aren't doing a very good job at keeping it considering where we are.
Democracy shouldn't be in there at all. A democracy would recognize a living breathing document which is what they called the Constitution(false!). The only time there should be any "living document" terms applied to it is when there are Constitutional Amendments as per the Amendment processes and not before, so long as those amendments do not violate the Constitution itself(like the health care does). Other than that, it's a fixed document with specific guidelines and rules, the law of the land. It shouldn't be changed so easily and haphazardly or ignored outright (which is what the bogus potus has done several times).
-Jon
"'REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT"
Submitted by lrgon on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:55am.
is what is stated in the Constitution under article four section four.
I recommend....
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:19pm.
...this awesome book...
http://www.amazon.com/Making-America-Substance-Meaning-Constitution/dp/0...
ABC
Submitted by jessieH on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:24pm.
ABC will be off the air before they convince anyone to follow their warped agenda. Mark my words, they are through.
Without the Founding Fathers
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:26pm.
...you wouldn't even be on the air Mr. Brinkley.
Just more proof that at best, the MSM are uneducated, ignorant idiots. At worst, they are deliberately helping to dismantle the country.
And Antoerh Thought
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:31pm.
I bet ABC wouldn't dare say this say this stuff about Muslim countries where women can't drive cars, let alone vote and slavery is still legal?
Exactly. I wonder how these
Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 1:32am.
Exactly. I wonder how these morons would react if We the people decided we were gonna "sculpt,change,modify..blah,blah,blah" the 'freedom of the press' deal? Oh, but Obama's already calling the shots for them, isn't he?
Here's what's even scarier!
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 10:30am.
You know what's really scary? Idiotic historians such as Mr. Brinkley will be writing our schools' future textbooks! Thus the trend of teaching children indoctrination and PC nonsense will continue for decades to come...
Does anyone remember reading
Submitted by george casper on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:26pm.
Does anyone remember reading history at all? Women got the right to vote under a Republican administration, and of course we all know that Lincoln was a Republican when the slaves were freed. Democrats have a very firm history of fighting againest Slavery and they only cater to womens rights and the rights of special interests when it suits them.
Uh--just the opposite?
Submitted by StarAZ on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:52pm.
When you look at the founding documents of our country, they are elastic, they’re meant to be pulled and bent in different directions as each era dictates.
Brinkley is leftist, but I always thought he was intelligent nonetheless. But the above statement--isn't the "truth" the opposite--the founding documents are a stiff framework meant NOT to be pulled and bent to the modern whim? Some "give" has been detected and won over the centuries--but they are not silly putty meant to be whipped around by every admin and person who comes into office.
FDR was in favor of segregation!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:51pm.
I have it on legitimate inside information that the next issue of this rag is going to feature a cover story on how FDR was in favor of segregation!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Dumb as a brick liberals,
Submitted by DWoSD on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:15pm.
Dumb as a brick liberals, educated in their liberally insulated worlds, illustrating in bold example just how stupid they are.
In examining history one must include all relevent context and further possess the ability to apply all variables, not just the ones that fit their already constructed outcomes. These people have their socialist conclusions pre detirmined and then pick and chose only that which they think bolsters there position.
It is clear that they either are too stupid to properly apply the lessons of history or purposely choose to ignore them. I do believe it is a combination of both. Their adherence to socialist propaganda demonstrats dim wittedness and their devotion to lies proves a willines to circumvent truth.
If these people are allowed to bend and pull at the constitution to serve their beliefs then truly the end of the uniqe experiment known as America will be lost to the unforgiving history of the forgotten. And this, all to often, is what is not understood by too many of us.....our heritage is what sets us apart from the rest of the world and no foriegn born political philosiphy can be allowed to destroy what has made us the most successful country in the history of the world.
Socialism and comminism must not be allowed to take us over.
Obama must be defeated.
Pinko Punks - That's All They Are
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:35pm.
This is another in the endless string of soft drumbeats intended to propagandize the people (saying that the Founder Fathers were bad guys; therefore, their cockamamie Constitution is bull sh*t) and shove them along into Utopia land, i.e. MARXISM.
The liberals are close to
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:06pm.
The liberals are close to also having to Include Mr Jefferson, the founder of their party into the fray. It will be interesting to see how they handle this..will they squirm, flounder about, or just what will these conceited pigs do.
ABC, determined to
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:12pm.
be irrelevant, along with the other alphabet networks.
On the Fourth of July, the History Channel, owned by AETV, which is an entity owned by, among others, NBC and ABC, will show "How the States Got Their Shapes", "Pawn Stars" and "American Pickers". So much for actual history, except for a bit of how the states boundaries were drawn. Apparently, nothing about how the country was founded is important enough to eclipse Pawn Stars.
It's just too bad we no-longer enforce the document our founders
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:24pm.
...left for us.
If we did, just perhaps Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama, or whatever the hell his real name is, would not now be destroying from within the very republic that that document helped to bring about.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
And look what happened
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:48pm.
when women got the right to vote: Clinton; o'bama; NOW; the Lifetime channel. I'd say the Founding Fathers got it right, for once. :-)
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
TnT: Talk about stirring the pot!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:17pm.
Man, brace yourself... I think heavy weather is almost upon you. LOL!
- Grump :o)
ThisnThat*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:42pm.
Don't make me start a forum in the woodshed dude!
Hey,
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 6:01am.
As long as the wife doesn't read this, I'm ok. Otherwise.....
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
The battle over our very freedom is at hand
Submitted by Don L on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 8:35am.
Discussing their particular argument is their hope. We need to ignore the nuance, the particular issue they raise and recognize that all of this is but their battle plan to take us down.
These broad attacks upon our founding fathers are nothing less than a coordinated plan to destroy our only protection against their evil-the constitution. They have used this technique many times and many places before. They are now openly using Alinsky-ite games.
Expect serious rejection of the constitution soon. Our GOP is worthless as an adversary. These things may get way out of hand, before it's over. These are not good times, when so many men are so openly and deviously evil and against the very concept of human freedom, and so many others don't really care.
They are not inept -they are organized, emboldend, and recklessly dangerous.
If men were angels...
Submitted by Question_Assumptions on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:55pm.
No, the Founding Fathers were neither gods nor angels but what made them great men was that they knew they were neither gods nor angles and that those who would follow them would be neither gods nor angels and designed a constrained government because of if:
As Madison wrote in Federalist 51:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
What makes many of today's politicians and judges less than great men is that they don't see their own shortcomings and seeks to rule without constraint.
History
Submitted by SaguaroJack on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 2:10pm.
This merely proves what we've known for some time now, that the Left knows no history and is innocent of the burden of intelligence. Unaware that the freedoms we enjoy today were arduously earned thru the long, grueling haul of mankind thru the ages, the Left gauges everything in all history by their own standards of today. Put them back 250 years and they'd have no clue whatever what the Founders were talking about. For their time, the Founders were astonishingly open to new ideas. Which is why the American Revolution happened in America and not someplace else.
The Left is beyond embarrassing. They're more like 8th graders trying to impress the grownups.
.
Brinkley is of the same ilk as Doris Kerns "Whatshername"
Submitted by tomaspain on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 3:25pm.
Visionary is exactly what they were. Providing for an amendment process since they had to compromise to get er done. Folks like Brinkley just don't get it.
This is the same "liberal" historian that was complaining
Submitted by lrgon on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:21am.
about the federal government following Katrina:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcl8Dc0NBsA
Specifically critical of FEMA.
Brinkley doesn't learn a thing about history
Brinkley wants a "Marshall plan" for New Orleans, ie, more federal infusion ala TVA and the feds involved in "tourism" in Key West, Florida. Forget the central planning schtick and stick to free market principles which those "founding fathers" bequeathed to us. Honor them by resisting the Brinkleys of the history departments at all the universities. http://www.campuslibertyalliance.com/