Black children better off as slaves…maybe

Or so implies Daily Kos blogger, Lefty Coaster, of Republican Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann in a piece titled: Michele Bachmann signs pledge that implies black children were better off under slaveryLefty cites a pdf link of “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family” from The FAMiLY Leader (UPDATE: Original FAMiLY Leader PDF).

The text in question states:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.

I suppose if one was so inclined, they could conclude that “[t]his simplistic comparison is an egregious insult to millions of Black families headed by a single parent, to imply that their parenting without a spouse is worse than slavery.”  But of course, that conclusion would be as disingenuous as it is a false comparison.

It is clear the message The FAMiLY Leader is trying to get across is that even in the horrible conditions of American slavery, the children born to slave couples–even though the couples could not marry–had the benefit of both parents by which to be raised.  The ideal home setting for children is that which contains both biological parents.  Unfortunately, the growing trend is for black children to be born–if they are born–into a single parent home.  The emphasis is on parenthood, not slavery.

Thus, the comparison is not: single parent homes:slavery.  Rather: single parent homes:full parent homes (both biological parents).  I am not so naive as to think Lefty and other liberals don’t know this.  It was an easy jab at a conservative candidate.  But it’s the kind of jab that gets repeated so often that liberals will give it credence.  These tactics are truly pathetic.


  1. I am too astonished at the subject text to assume to really know what the hell the person was thinking.

    Or what anyone would be thinking to sign off on such a thing.

    It is at best poorly worded and at worst, brutally racist and judgmental – not to mention a wholesale simplification of the multi-generational damage done to the actual slaves and their descendants.

    Instead of interpreting and making and assumption and an issue of it, it would be better to ask the signers and the crafters of the text to explain – did they really mean to say that black people were better off as a slaves because then they were forced to conform to the social norms of white people?

    Since, white people who owned slaves, had no compunction about selling and separating families.

    Did the crafters of the subject text really mean to blame black people for not forming family groups, given that background? We don’t know and the question should be asked.

    • There’s no way to say this with out it coming oit rude, so I apologize in advance.

      Whether you agree with FAMiLY Leaders or not, if you think their intention was racist or was implying anything positive about slavery, you’re off your rocker.

      • Random Ntrygg says:

        Perhaps I wasn’t clear – I was too astonished at the text to make any assumptions about their intention.

        The text itself is poor crafted that the meaning and intent is not clear, so I agree with you in one sense – it would be easy to just jump on them for being racist, but if i was a reporter, i’d go back and ask them to provide more context, because I would rather not beleive that anyone would mean what the subject text is suggesting.

      • I’ve taken a moment to glance at The Family website, I feel confident to conclude that racism and bigotry is underlaying the text.

        They are not calling for a return to slavery but they are saying that to their thinking that nuclear families headed by 1 man and 1 woman are the best and that the black community has failed to organize itself into family units, and instead are largely single people with families comprised of moms with kids.

        So to their definition of family, they are merely observing that black people met this social structure when they were slaves and had no options and that at least being in slave families is better than being free individuals.

        In a way, it’s their discrimination towards any group that doesn’t conform to their family ideal and less to do wtih skin colour, but it is difficult to get across an intellectual position, when you are dealing with highly emotional charged subject matter and combine that with judgement.

        So instead of seeing what they are writing – a group compromise of families under any condition is better than a group not compromised of families – with family being narrowly defined as one man and one woman with kids – what comes out is their other beliefs, which is entirely discriminatory in nature – since racism and homophobia are part and parcel of the same bigotry.

        • You my dear, are reaching for the stars on that one.

        • As a Christian African American mother of 7, married to the same man for 32 years, Ms. Bachman’s statement is offensive and shows a lack of understanding of the institution of slavery. Slaves were not considered human beings therefore the offspring of a male & female slave was considered cattle and subject to the whims of their owners. Marriages among slaves were not recognized by their owners, the male could be used to sire children by as many females as the “Master” saw fit. If the ‘Master’ took a notion he could sleep with a ‘married’ slave whenever he liked. Children born of the union of “master’ and slave were treated somewhat better than those born of slave unions if the ‘Master’ so desired. Seeing that slaves were considered animals and so many white slave owners had carnal relations with them the biblical mandate against beastiality should have been practiced. Marriage during slavery times within white communities was a joke, many ‘Masters’ slept with female and some male slaves. Fast forward, admittedly there is a large portion of the black community laboring in single parent homes. However, whites aren’t far behind. Crime in the US is on the rise, but whose committing them? The most heinous crimes this country has seen were committed by whites. This countries economic woes didn’t start with President Obama, remember he’s the first ‘Black’ president. All the presidents before him were white. Just as many if not more white girls are getting abortions. Blacks on the whole don’t send their children to Cancun for summer vacation-take a peek at “Girls Gone Wild” videos. White mothers murdering their children (blaming random black men), white men embezzling, scheming and destroying this nation yet Ms. Bachman has the gall to talk about black children. Please, this nation and its people (red, yellow, black & white) are in trouble because of sin. The sin of slavery remains a stain upon the honor of this nation, the sin of racism (think Japanese Americans placed in concentration camps during WW2) is a plague that will bring God’s judgment! Yes, black children have it hard. Black boys are a prey in this society. This is the sad history of the United States of America. No president, no matter his or her color can change this deplorable state. So called Christians using the Bible to berate, slander and belittle a race of people is in danger of God’s judgment. Racism is sin and Ms. Bachman’s statement reeks of racism. The answer lies in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. I realize that we are headed deeper down the rabbit hole, however, the only way for us to find our way up and out is through faith in Christ. Racism exist in America, this is a fact most all Blacks can attest to. Slavery isn’t confines to the pages of history, it exist today. We are slaves to sin and thus we are being sold lock-stock- and barrel into a global world order that threatens to destroy US sovereignty. Bible prophecy, our eyes are being diverted, our government is selling us out and it didn’t start with President Obama and it will not end with him. WAKE-UP!!!

  2. part of the problem is that when you say something kind and then follow it with a “but”, “however” (fancy but) or “yet” (a halfassed but), what follows that but erases everything that came before it as mere appeasing and ingenuine window dressing

    or basically, that “some of my best friends are” insincerity

    • I choose to agree with all of you. Really not an appropriate way to paint or interpret the spirit of the document, or what Bachmann was communicating when she signed it. That said, could there be a more patently ridiculous statement filled with loaded ideas and language as that excerpt from the FAMiLY document? I don’t think so.

      It seems to me that conservatives are happy to accept a politically loaded and logically disjointed comments like the one expressed in the signed document but not the same spirit of comment on the Left.

      Bad choices all around.

      • I think conservatives tend to link themselves with statements that could be easily twisted with out qualifying their support. Its almost naive to sign on with something like that without issuing a clarifying statement to go along with it. Unfortunately nearly every position requires a legal disclaimer explaining things lest we read blog posts like this the next day.

        My intention was not to support or reject the content of the “marriage vow” but only the nefarious misinterpretation of the Daily Kos blogger.

  3. Yeah, I saw the thinkprogress article earlier and read the FAMiLY document that both Santorum and Bachmann signed. The way thinkprogress and this blogger represents what is said is pretty pathetic. While I don’t agree with the overall principle behind the FAMilY document, I know what they were trying to say and “this ain’t it.”

    P.S. I could send you a link to the FAMiLY document when I get back to my own computer if you’re interested.

  4. John Barron,

    I found the document you claimed doesn’t exist very easily using the link you provided above for The FAMiLY Leader.

    Click to access themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf

    It is the same document as the one linked to from ThinkProgress …

    Insert ad hominem and/or hilariously condescending disdain of your choice here.

    NTRYGG, you’re a badass and a brave soul. If you didn’t respond, I wouldn’t have dropped this comment. You’re hardly reaching for the stars. After just finishing 96 hours with my father, who happens to be a very well-read and outspoken supporter of the Tea Party, conservatism and Republican Politics, he unabashedly spoke about the document above in full knowledge of what it was insinuating. As the former chair for his local Republican Party, he is fully versed in how his politics and faith are to be broadcast to the audience who receives that message.

    John Barron is loaded with pipe dreams, while the leadership of his movement knows full well what they represent.

    But reading nor zeitgeist comprehension isn’t in JB’s crosshairs, and I’m not surprised to see the comments from Oscar either.

    In hopes not to drop verbal napalm, I’m walking away from this conversation.



    • Actually Jeremy perhaps your reading comprehension may be a bit worse than mine. I noted that I could not find it at the time of my writing. Oscar said he had found it and would send it along so I could replace the thinkprogress link with the original.

      Why such venom in your responses?

    • Hey Jeremy, thanks.

      John – Unless you can provide a reason to say why my interpretation and understanding is wrong, then you’ve got no leg to stand on in dismissing my interpretation other than you support the claims, but don’t want the label.

      the first article on that Family website today is against gay people, there’s no interpretation needed – and when people don’t like gays, racism is generally a coexisting bias.

      Actually, even putting “family” and asserting family values is pretty much code for white is right and opposite gender marriage only – much like when you push someone who’s against abortion to explain themselves, more often you get a confession of them primarily being against white women having abortions because they fear being out-bred/numbered by non-whites.

      The reality is, people are entitled to their opinion no matter what – but at least be honest about what the opinion is based on and is.

      also – to have apologized first and then gone on to say what you were apologizing for isn’t an apology – apologies are to acknowledge wrong doing, correct the behaviour and not give offense – a pre-offense apology acts as self given permission to offend – and does not negate the offense – so it is another pretense of police and respectful interaction that is not at all respectful or polite

      so again, if you’re going to intentionally say something that you anticipate will offend, just own it and say, this will probably offend you and while that is not my intention, this is something I am going to say, regardless of the consequence – that is far more respectful and polite than an apology that was not asked for followed by the action, as if the apology is permission or makes the action okay.

      but you also basically said sorry I am gonna call you a name and then called me a name without actually addressing my argument or statements – or making any case as to why the name fits or why you felt entitled to call me a name

      so, by restoring to childish behaviour, you have only identified the lack of merit in your position and have not diminished or shown my position to be at all incorrect

  5. Venom? Hardly.

    You said you didn’t see the original Marriage Vow document. Was it not within a dubious tone that you wrote that? Did you express that you wanted to see the original for your own eyes to make a better judgement?

    I referenced your exchange with Oscar when I found the Marriage Vow document on the FAMiLY Leader web site linked from your blog … using my little iPhone with a few simple clicks.

    To be blunt, I am also criticizing your ignorance of being incapable of finding the original document on a site to which YOU LINKED. I am criticizing that you jumped the gun on criticizing the liberal bias of those web sites without reading the web site and document from that web site in question.

    I haven’t yet read the two liberal blogs listed above. But after a long week with my conservative, well-read and well-articulated father, I can stand behind the idea that the intention of the document is racist in intent and that it reflects the conservative agenda to create difficulty for divorce, especially within lower socio-econonmic circles (no matter what the race, but pointedly at African Americans) with the intention of improving the moral framework of society.

    I think you’ve missed the mark on what is intended by the Marriage Vow document, and that’s why I criticized your lack of reading comprehension.

    I love holding your hand through these unnecessary expositions.

    • Well then, you’re right up there with lefty coaster with your concluding abilities. My mentioning I could not find the link was intended to pre-answer the question: why didn’t you link to the original?

      You’re going to need to relax here.

  6. Mentioning that you couldn’t find the original link showed your disregard for the pursuit of honesty.

    The rest of the post — and your responses to dissent — backs up that point.

    You’ll have to share your diet with the rest of us. It has to be exhausting to defending your unyielding dishonesty with this level of gusto.

    For the record, the FAMiLY Leaders have successfully removed the bullet point in question from the first link above (click on link and click on the link for the Marriage vows). But the “slavery” bullet remains in the second link dated from two days ago.

    The level of dishonesty in the lot of you … shameful. It’s the dishonesty we expect.

    Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

    I wonder who’s ashamed over their racist views now?

    • You should get to know me before painting me dishonest. But I guess then again false accusations and vitriol is what we have come to expect from internet atheists such as yourself.

      • Oooo, squeezy cheeks good times!

        I adore this response! Darling, enchanting AND cuddly.



      • Good God!
        Would you two like to get a room and hammer this out?

        The level of discourse between you two is uncharacteristic of both of you.
        John, what Jeremy wanted to say before he was tempted to bait and mock you is that you spent several days defending a statement that FAMiLY has since thought the better of- at least enough to remove the offending text without any apology or correction. I would logically conclude from this that they felt the statement was poorly thought out.

        If you restrict your comments to these salient points, you don’t risk making statements you don’t want to stand behind, like the disastrously ill-conceived non sequitur you threw out to reciprocate Jeremy’s equally ill-conceived accusations.

        • Whether they removed it or not is irrelevant to my overall point. I don’t see it as an admission of guilt, I’d more likely view it as bowing to pressure. It was intentionally branded as racist when it was not, and being branded a racist is something people are so scared of they capitulate whether they are in the wrong or not.

          I had cleared it up in the comments, I was not condemning or commending the organization’s statement but instead the misunderstanding. But your buddy thought it was better to trash my chadracter on his page.

  7. I just read an article on cnn about this – the pledge’s other aspects that are not touched on in your blog are that it also is a pledge to the signers to not only be against extending marriage to gays, but to actively seek to remove any “anti-traditional” provisions.

    Given that marriage as a romantic based arrangement between a man and woman is a recent development, I suppose that this would mean they’d have to argue for marriage to be about concentrating wealth within their social class and creating alliances between families, business interests and so forth. Child brides and polygamy would be protected, since these are traditional arrangements in many cultures

    so the obvious anti-gay overtures, just adds to the credibility of the racist over and undertones of the subject text of this blog and the one being objected to.

    since the subject text is not at all defensible, I have to wonder, John, why are you objecting to people’s opposition to the text specifically and the pledge generally?

    don’t you support freedom of speech and 1st amendment right of expression?

    • Its not about free speech or addressing the rest of the pledge. I am addressing specificlly what the Kos blogger wrote about, not the entire pledge. See, just the hyper-extrapolation of the one portion.

      • when there’s so much rotten with the statement, that your complaining about this one aspect being “over” discussed is a bit like complaining that the hood ornament is missing from your car after the engine and wheels have been stolen.

        • It’s not about over discussion, or whether you believe the entire statement is rotten. My whole point has been, where this one citation has been lifted. And that the Kos blogger has decided to attribute an attitude of :Bachmann )or any other conservative for that matter who might sign on) believes being a single mother is as bad as slavery, or that conservatives believe black children were better off as slaves–is the issue.

          That’s why I am not interested in the rest. I posted on the single problem I addressed. You have filtered the entire “Marriage Vow” through your “code-word” filter hand have determined the document and group to be racist. No doubt I could likely read your material and decide on code words and find the very same thing.

          The issue is pretty much closed. I don’t really feel like spinning my wheels anymore trying to explain why the gross misrepresentation of the document is unwarranted, except for political expediency.

  8. “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.”.

    Read the statement. The statement clearly states that a child born into “slavery” would more than likely be raised by both parents in a “two parent household.”

    Is the statement true, or false?

    -If the statement is true, then it’s “more than likely” black slaves were not bought, nor sold for any reason other than to keep the family unit together. Honestly, what other reason would a slave holder have not to sell his slaves?

    -If the statement is true, then white slave owners were “more than likely” not to impregnate black slave women. And if a slave owner did, it was “more than likely” the slave owner would raise the slave child as his own in a “two parent household.”

    -If the statement is true, then black slaves lived and worked as independent families in a nuclear family structure. Black slave men and women had mutual responsibilities of provider and the nurture of the children respectively. So it was “more than likely” the slave man worked and the slave woman stayed home and raised the children.

    -If true, “more than likely” slaves had individual family homes to accommodate the nuclear family structure.

    -Finally, if that statement is true, the majority (meaning better that 51%) of slaves in born in America were never bought nor sold. Additionally, if a slave escaped from the plantations masters, it would be “more than likely” that he took his entire family with him!

    If you believe any of that is true, you’re “more than likely” just as stupid as Bachmann for signing such a pledge.

    • Unfortunately, though rhetorically clever, none of your conclusions follow if the statement is true. Mostly because you are comparing slavery with parenthood, when the statement is about the statistics of dual parent black families versus single parent black families.

      You people can keep making it about slavery all you want, but you aren’t convincing the people who aren’t already liberals.

      • No, we didn’t convince anyone but the FAMiLY leaders themselves who retracted the statement.

        • Sure, a lot of companies would have. See, when the left makes rediculous claims, but false extrapolations and rediculous interpretations involving the “race card”, the people inclined to lean left dont care what the truth is, they buy into what has been repeated. I.e. the quote attributed to Palin. Those are the tactics of leftist activists, lie, lie, and keep lying til it sticks.

  9. John Barron;“Mostly because you are comparing slavery with parenthood,”.

    I does appear that you are defending the FAMILY Leaders statement. Which implies that you agree with them.

    Do you seriously believe that I’m attempting to compare slavery with parenthood? Did I state a child born into “SLAVERY” would more than likely be raised in a “TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD”…or did they say it? Just to make myself clear, there is no comparison or correlation between slavery and parenthood. My comments should have made it abundantly clear that I disagreed with the FAMILY statement. Being that they made the statement, why would you accuse me of making a comparison?

    I gave my own personal analogy (based on my opinions) of why I believe the FAMILY Leaders statement lacks credibility. I gave, nor asked for any “comparisons.” I used no metaphor’s. If you think that my suggestions were making a comparison, you are way off base. I read the statement and took it for what it’s worth, and responded by asking if anyone agreed with it by asking if it was true.

    So, if you agree with the statement, why not answer the question? It’s very simple…either true, or false. However, I did stick by my final remark that if you believe there’s any truth to their statement, you’re just as stupid as they are.

  10. I’m glad to see that the Daily Kos referenced you! Hopefully some of their readers will come here and get enlightened.

    It is sadly ironic that the Kos kids pretend to care about blacks while supporting abortion on demand (kills blacks at 3x the rate of whites), wanting taxpayer-funded abortions (because 3x isn’t high enough for them), opposing voucher programs so blacks can attend better schools, supporting minimum wages that kill jobs for black youths, advancing welfare policies that destroy black families and so much more.

  11. rautakyy says:

    Neil, how would it feel for you to support your family on a vage less than a minimum income? Do you think you would simply be proud of having a job? I confess I do not know how the your system works in the US and that this is a bit of the topic, but since you brought it up, I’d be interrested to hear. Countries that do not have minimum vages are usually called the developing countries.

    It seems that the issue of race is really loaded in the US still today. On the other hand it has hardly even passed a generation from the civil rights movement. One would expect that a politician would be more carefull as to make such comparrisons as the ones mentioned here.

    The claim that blacks had it somehow better under slavery even if it is only on this particular issue, is such a ridiculous and unhistorical one, that it is no wonder, if an opposing politcal commentary makes a noise of it. This fact is backed up by the decision of the signers to remove it. Do they not support what they signed anymore? Wether the signign politicians themselves are racists remains unclear, but even if the racistic message was not intentional it was there to be read even by the dumbest of persons. Do the politicians have no staff to read through what they sign? Are they totally illeterate, not to have noticed the hidden, but obvious racistic message? So, it either represented a very vile attempt to appeal to racistic voters, while remaining somewhat (not really managing that) politically correct, or it was a sorry accident that actually revealed the true racistic attitudes of the signers. Which do you think it was John Barron Jr, or is there a third option?

    • “Neil, how would it feel for you to support your family on a vage less than a minimum income?”

      How very insightful of you to realize that, all other things being equal, people would prefer to make more money rather than less. I find your observation to be meaningless.

      A more rational question would be to ask how much the labor is worth.

      “Countries that do not have minimum vages are usually called the developing countries.”

      Confusing correlation with causation is a common error. Using your logic, Haiti just needs a minimum wage and they’ll leap to 1st world status.

      Europe is spiraling down rather quickly. I’ve been saddened and amused by the Euros bragging about how great their systems are, when they can’t see how they’re just running out the clock on their good times.

      • rautakyy says:

        Neil, how very christian of you, that you find our demise amusing. I do not find your economical decline amusing at all. Or has Obama changed it all for you allready?

        Funny that, I also find your observation of my alledged observation to be just as meaningless. And totally off topic.

        So, if minimum vage is a result of a country not being a developing country, and not the cause, is the US then a developing country, or not?

        “How much a labour is worth?” is a good question. Overpopulation of the developing countries is a good reason for the worth of labour going down even in the western world. I gues something should be done about that. Another good question is how just is the distribution of wealth in the world. I bet, if everything was equally divided, you would not have to give up anything else than maybe the most envariomentally harmfull posessions of yours. Just guessing here.

        Anyway Neil, do you think the original text signed by a couple of politicians was an attempt to create sympathy among the racistic voters, or a “Freudian slip” to reveal the true racistic ideals of the said politicians? Or maybe you could give a third option of explanation, since John Barron Jr is busy at the moment (as is his priviledge).

        After all, if what they said was: “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.” If this obviously very uninformed opinion of history does not sound as racistic, there are strange forces at work, since it for sure sounds like a racistic remark to the ears of an average imbecil (but honest) skinhead.

        • Rautakyy,

          “Neil, how very christian of you, that you find our demise amusing.”

          Please re-read what I wrote: “I’ve been saddened and amused by the Euros bragging about how great their systems are, when they can’t see how they’re just running out the clock on their good times.”

          Perhaps this time you’ll note that I was referring to your bragging, not your demise, and that I am also saddened by it.

          The rest of your comments reveal the same care in reading mine, so don’t expect replies from me. In fact, just type whatever you like then re-read my first comment. It is all there.

  12. If I may interject something here…

    Conservative think tanks have evolved their racial defense tactics. After being forced by the Civil Rights Movement into making racial discrimination illegal, the old guard (eg. southern Democrats and their supporters) have changed the narrative. A more subtle, kinder hidden racist is the cash of this new breed.

    Neil says;“Using your logic, Haiti just needs a minimum wage and they’ll leap to 1st world status”.

    Duhhh….Right! If the people of Haiti were “insured” a working wage that would; allow them to produce goods and/or services on a wage which they could support themselves and an economic base, the possibility would indeed be there. Yet your response truly speaks for itself. You don’t expect a backward little island filled with African descendants to become no more than a private resort for multi-million dollar cruise ship companies (a.k.a. Labadee).

    When they speak of “abortion” and tax payer abortion, their mantra becomes a clear dog whistle. They use false statistics such as Black children being aborted 3 to 10 times the rate of Whites. They use this falsehood as a smoke screen merely to satisfy, first, their religious convictions, and second, to prevent their own (white women) from thinning their numbers.

    I ask you Neil to honesty think for yourself and by yourself – when you think of the crime ridden streets of Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago and others, combined with the Black 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, the welfare payments draining government resources, and the prisons filled with Black men – are you really saying that you actually care if one Black baby is aborted? My White liberal friends, who believe that their own women should have the right to choose, would called you a fake.

    • “Duhhh….Right! If the people of Haiti were “insured” a working wage that would; allow them to produce goods and/or services on a wage which they could support themselves and an economic base, the possibility would indeed be there.”

      I can’t believe I have to type this, but here goes: You can “insure” any minimum wage you like, but you can’t make people hire employees at that wage. Hey, why not make the minimum wage $500,000 per year! We’ll all be rich! Go share your theory with all the black youth now unemployed because minimum wage went up.

      Liberals & economics = literal epic fail —

      “They use false statistics such as Black children being aborted 3 to 10 times the rate of Whites.”

      Check the CDC stats. It is 3x higher for blacks and 2x higher for Hispanics. And the liberal dream of taxpayer-funded abortions will only take those higher, and they know it. That’s the ultimate racism.

      “They use this falsehood as a smoke screen merely to satisfy, first, their religious convictions, and second, to prevent their own (white women) from thinning their numbers.”

      Nice try. The black and Hispanic rates are higher. Those are facts. And if I was worried about the ratio of whites going down then I’d become a liberal and be pro-abortion, donate to Planned Parenthood, etc. I love when liberals accuse me of trying to maintain my majority. If that was my goal then I’m doing a horrible job of it.

      The religious conviction thing is a straw man. Of course I know that God is anti-abortion, but I can argue the pro-life position all day long without the Bible. It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception. It is basic morality that you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortion (i.e., everything except to save the life of the mother). Simple stuff.

  13. “Hey, why not make the minimum wage $500,000 per year!”.

    If the price of a loaf of bread was $30.00, and a gallon of milk was $40.00, you’d need that much to survive.

    In most states the minimum wage is around $7.25 per hour. A loaf a bread cost’s about $2.00, a gallon of milk about $4.00. If you’re working for the minimum wage, it takes you nearly one hour’s pay just to buy just TWO essential sustenance’s. If you like butter on your bread and cereal with your milk, you’re talking nearly a days pay…and that’s before the governments taxes! Now let’s add in your rent, utilities, health insurance, auto insurance (if you’re fortunate enough to own a car) and your transportation cost’s to and from work (just to name a few expenses).

    And you’re right about not doing a good job of “maintaining your majority.” If you were doing a good job, you wouldn’t have to repeat the lies. If you knew the truth, you’d have no counter argument…

    If you look at all the different figures and statistics, common sense should tell you something, somebody or everybody is wrong. I’ve seen assertions from right-wing propaganda machines that state the numbers are as high as 45% of black babies are aborted. With out-of-wedlock births topping 73% in many black communities, I just can’t buy their numbers.

    “AGI’s figures are markedly higher than those reported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), but are more accurate”. Alan Guttmacher Institute.

    “Each year, anywhere from 3-7 states do not comply with CDC requests for abortion data”

    Here’s the most important fact you should know about abortion statistics;
    “All numbers reported are voluntary; there are no laws requiring abortionists to report to any national agency the numbers of abortions they perform.
    Look it up and see for yourself.

    That being said, it make’s it that much easier for anyone to fudge the numbers…in either direction. Particularly for those who are against abortion.

    • not to get too far off on a tangent on min. wage, the only way bread and milk could get that high is if it was being bought that high. Most jobs pay higher than min. wage as it is. It has never been intended to be a “living” wage. The kinds of job tasks which pay min. wage are not worth more than the least you can pay someone, otherwise it would be paid more. The more money a job task is paid, the more particular the employer is going to be. The unfortunate reality is many blacks in urban areas do not finish their basic education, thus taking themselves out of the competition for a decent paying job.

    • So you have no idea what the real numbers might be, but mine are definitely wrong and I’m repeating lies. Check.

      Facts are pesky things. When the minimum wage went up, employment went down. That means their wages weren’t $7.25, they were zero.

      Like I said, liberals & economics = literal failure —

    • ““Each year, anywhere from 3-7 states do not comply with CDC requests for abortion data””

      I’m glad you are reading (that is a stellar site). But just because 6% – 14% of a population doesn’t participate in a survey doesn’t mean that portion would skew the results.

      If anything, Planned Parenthood and the other abortionists would want to understate minority abortions. That would help hide the legacy of PP’s eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger.

      You might want to take a field trip to where the PP clinics are located and see if there is any correlation to minority neighborhoods.

  14. “The unfortunate reality is many blacks in urban areas do not finish their basic education, thus taking themselves out of the competition for a decent paying job”.

    Very true, unfortunate but true. You appear very open and fair minded on this subject John.

    Being an educator, I’m a very strong advocate for job training programs. Not just government sponsored programs alone, but private sector company programs also. Here in Detroit, when the auto companies were on top, GM, Chrysler and Ford all had training programs for anyone who was willing to participate. The results were phenomenal. I personally witnessed 18 and 19 year old high school drop-outs go from the training program, to sweeping floors, into drafting, supervisors, foreman’s, and a few into upper level management, within a span of ten years.

    Neil says; “Facts are pesky things. When the minimum wage went up, employment went down”.

    Yes they are Neil. They are so “pesky”, you have to make them up! I read the article you linked to, and there was no historic proofs or statistical facts presented that showed “when the minimum wage went up, employment went down.” None….zilch…nada…

    Now lets see how to find the truth. What you do is, use “factual historic information” to assess an assertion.

    Bill Clinton Raises Minimum Wage.
    Economic Growth Under Bill Clinton.

    Okay, now that you know the truth, your job is to put a right-wing spin on the facts. It’s okay to lie because (like yourself) other right-wingers will believe what ever they’re told. However, you can’t say that during the Clinton years employment went down. You also cant claim that there was no increase in the Minimum Wage. Just do what the right-wing does best…make something up! Perhaps you can do a “John Boehner” and cry your eyes out while you’re spinning your fable.

    • Historically, there is a dip in employment after min wage increases. It also has a negative effect on the economy. When the min wage increases, most other salaries then rise to keep proportionately higher than the min. This makes everything a little more expensive as the wage and salary costs increase.

      Employers need workers, just having an open market would prevent employers from rock bottom wages. The fact that the employee could always leave would keep employers paying reasonably.

    • You guys really need to study up on the basics of the causation / correlation fallacy. You imply that everything that happened in the 90’s was because of Clinton. I was there, and his plans were largely thwarted by a Republican congress. Oh, and there was the little thing called the technology boom which I had ringside seats to as a finance director at Compaq. That had a “little” to do with the economy and nothing to do with Clinton.

  15. Neil says“That would help hide the legacy of PP’s eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger”.

    First off, I am no fan of Margret Sanger. I think most of her idea’s were “kooky” to say the least.

    I hope you’re not attempting to imply that Sanger was the “founder” of eugenics. I’ve heard other right-wingers make that assertion. Margaret Sanger is not, and was not the “founder” of the so-called science of eugenics. She was 4 years old when Sir Francis Galton coined the phrase.

    And just for your information, Sanger began her research and efforts with “white women” and was indicted for it. She then left the U.S. for Europe where she expanded her works. When she returned, she was sought out by “white women” for information on her methods of birth control. Thus your assertion that the “legacy” of Sanger somehow is directly tied to “minority abortions” is spun from Sanger quotes which are contextualized to suit the right-wing agenda.

    The best thing to do for insight into Sanger’s thoughts, is to read her writing…what she wrote in her own words!
    What Every Girl Should Know.
    Of course it’s a bit cheesy, but it will give you an idea of how she viewed life in the early 20th century. It’s a relatively short read about 90 pages. There are also more of her writings available on line….look them up.

    • “I hope you’re not attempting to imply that Sanger was the “founder” of eugenics.”

      No, because that was not what I said. She was PP’s founder, and a eugenicist. And PP kills more blacks in a week than the KKK ever did (as evil as they are, they are actually pro-life, which puts them above Sanger et al in the morality food chain). And PP does it for profit. Margaret would be proud.

      P.S. If you’ll only mention the “right wing agenda” more your comments would be more persuasive.

  16. rautakyy says:

    Well, I guess I should not expect any replies from you Neil, when I ask a bit harder question. That is perfectly all right. You have no obligation to answer something you can not. Same naturally applies to me and our host John Barron Jr and everyone else. Nor are we under any obligation to answer anything we know the answer to neither. At the moment the state of the conversation here seems to be such, that I also am not going to be interrested in replying for much longer.

    I did ask the questions I see as relevant about the topic. I shall repeat them again, but you can find them from my earlier comments. I still in a diminishing way would be interrested to hear your thoughts on what went wrong about the original release. How it was released in the first place and why was it drawn from publicity? Was there a hidden intention to draw racistic voters to back up these politicians, or was it a brainfart that only revealed their racistic attitudes? Is there a possible third explanation? Do you really think this was an accurate assesment of the history of slavery in comparrison to modern times? Do you honestly think it was not meant to be racistic, even in any “hidden” way, or even that it is not such? That it does not reveal such?

    Haiti would do better if they had a minimum wage, but how naive could anyone be, if one assumed this alone would repair their trouble? No one, so the comment that anyone even suggested such (when no-one did) is just weird. Back me up here John, if you please.

    However there has to be a way to help Haiti and Haiti has to have a chance for better. Right? Eventually they will most propably need a minimum wage one day. Minimum wage is not for their economy to repair itself, but for the price of labour not to be totally controlled by the shareholders of international companies. Those companies are not in busines to help Haiti, but to rob Haiti from all it can give them. That is why Haiti and all countries need legistlature. The more poor people there are in Haiti, the less any labour is worth there. One way to stop this downward slope would be to set a minimum wage. I thought we are all adults discussing here so adolessen comments like we will all be rich if the minimum wage is set at 500 000 dollars, is really not bringing the conversation forward on a tangent or outside it.

    • Rautakyy, I don’t think its that what you wrote cannot be answered. I think it may be that your comments are so long that they are difficult to address adequately without post length rejoinders. I really like that you take the time to give your comments thought. But the length is prohibitive to responses, at least from me anyway.

  17. “You guys really need to study up on the basics of the causation / correlation fallacy.

    Really? So, if two variables do not automatically imply that one causes the other, why not apply the theory to show that the minimum wage has “NO” effect on employment? We can go round and round spouting economic theories and models all day. And no, I’m not implying, “that everything that happened in the 90′s was because of Clinton.” What I did was give you “historic facts” of what actually happened. However you’re right about the dot-com, IT, prefix investing bubble of the 90’s spurring much of the growth. Still that does not negate the fact that the Minimum Wage was raised with no adverse effects on employment. If that fly’s in the face of Econ. 101, then, so be it. Mind you, it won’t be the first time an economic theory backfired.

  18. Neil;“And PP kills more blacks in a week than the KKK ever did (as evil as they are, they are actually pro-life, which puts them”.

    With all due respect to the blogs host….

    You see… It’s this type of condescending metaphor as rhetoric that shows that, you’re either a heartless cruel sleazebag, or you’re just to stupid to know what you’re saying (or repeating).

    I don’t think I would win any friends in the Jewish community if I said; “Abortion kills more babies than Adolf Hitler killed Jews.”

    Why not use this one; “Abortion kills more White people, than White people killed Native Americans.” Yeah, I think I’ll post that one on Pro-Life web sites. Let’s see how much traction it gets.

    • “Why not use this one; “Abortion kills more White people, than White people killed Native Americans.””

      Because PP isn’t targeting whites the way they are targeting blacks. Simple stuff. Go check out the racial make-up of who is pushing and funding abortions vs. the make-up of who gets crushed and dismembered. Here’s a typical example of a nearly all-white group raising money to kill mostly blacks — .

  19. “Because PP isn’t targeting whites the way they are targeting blacks”.

    Neil, I going to say something to you that might not much sense to you.

    A pregnant woman that doesn’t want to have, nor carry a child to birth, will find a way to have an abortion… even if her life depends on it. It’s happened many times and will continue to happen. If abortion was declared illegal in the United States, determined women will still find a way….even if their life is at stake. It’s happened in the past, and will if it’s declared illegal.

    The fact is you might take away her “right to choose”, but you can’t take away her “ability to choose.” The only way to completely stop abortion is to force all women of child bearing age to submit to a pregnancy test each month. If found to be impregnated, that female must submit to daily test to insure that she is carrying the child. Penalties for self induced abortion must me stiff and strict (perhaps public stoning). Of course a miscarriage would not break any laws, although it will probably carry a stigma of debasement and contempt from the family, and public shame.

    • Allen

      We dont pass laws protecting criminals. If large numbers of armed robber suddenly were getting killed robbing gas stations because the clerks had guns, we wouldnt outlaw gas stations clerks from having guns to make robbing them safer.

      likewise we shouldnt protect abortion because women might get hurt or killed while trying to take the life of their children. And as a point of fact, when abortion was illegal the number of illegal abortions was considerably low, and the number of women who died was statistically irrelevant, not in the tens of thousands. When abortion was legalized, the number of abortions skyrocketed. When abortion was paid for by the government by subsidizing PP the number of abortions skyrocketed even more.

      Your “concern” about the risk of illegal abortion is irrelevant, and your concern about the numbers isnt born out by the historical data.

      But then again, everyone is getting a little off track.

      • Just to get this thread back on track, I’d like to take one more stab at why the comment from the FAMiLY document was so horribly ignorant.
        Regardless of how much John wants to think that it was loaded with hard truths, and a testament to solid conservative values that got pulled due to liberal oversensitivity and an agenda to frame revisionist history- I think it is best to dissect the message and try to understand what makes the comment irrelevant and racist.

        Let’s look at John’s own words in defense of the statement:

        It is clear the message The FAMiLY Leader is trying to get across is that even in the horrible conditions of American slavery, the children born to slave couples–even though the couples could not marry–had the benefit of both parents by which to be raised. The ideal home setting for children is that which contains both biological parents. Unfortunately, the growing trend is for black children to be born–if they are born–into a single parent home. The emphasis is on parenthood, not slavery.

        Thus, the comparison is not: single parent homes:slavery. Rather: single parent homes:full parent homes (both biological parents).

        What no one here has taken the time to explain to conservatives (though I think Allen took a convoluted stab at it) is that there is a whopper of a fallacy sitting right in the middle of this mindframe. Are two parent biological families better for children just because they are, or are there reasons that are generally true of two parent biological families that foster a better environment for children? I would argue that there are things that make these family units better, but that they are not better by some magical property that is always true.
        When we understand this fact, and I hope we can all agree- then looking at the FAMiLY quote exposes the fallacy.
        -Might it be true to say that among the immediate advantages of two parent families is increased economic security? How would we make the case that this was true of slaves?
        -Might it also be true that a strong and cohesive family unit is an advantage? What, then, of the ability of slaveholders to barter family members as though they were (because they WERE) property?
        – Certainly two parent families are the best environment in which to teach children values and roles specific to their gender. In what way was this end being served by slavery?

        There are many other factors that might be true in general of two parent biological families that we can be certain were nonexistent or entirely compromised by the culture of slavery. So what is it about this family unit that maintains its benefit under slavery? I don’t expect any one to be equipped to answer that question.
        The statement disregards the fact that there are things that make these family units better which would not have been available to the child of a slave. The statement idealizes marriage and two parent households at the expense of all those factors that make that ideal, well….ideal.
        It is a statement that is loaded with insensitivity and charged with racism, assuming that there was some advantage to a cultural institution that raped the family unit of security, dignity, potential, and safety.
        It is a statement that is predicated on a fallacy, that should not have been pulled merely because the outrage of the left “detracted from the greater purpose of the statement”- as John would have us believe- but because it is clearly a factoid, a statement that is useless in telling us anything, yet predicated on a fact. It is a fact that more blacks were raised in two parent households during slavery. This is not the bone of contention. What is not a fact is that one can find any benefit to a two parent biological slave family that is absent in a single parent black family in the projects today.
        I don’t expect this will stop John from continuing his defense of a ridiculous statement. Once someone commits themselves to an error, they rarely have the cajones to admit their mistake.

        • You should take a look back George, I was neither condemning nor commending the vow, but merely correcting the misattribution of racism. Candidates, Republicans in particular tend to affirm compacts like this without qualifying their decision to do so. I have never suggested thay the wording was impervious to misinterpretation, but that the racist interpretation was a reach.

          Additionally, the statement merely states a statistical fact that during slavery a black child was more likely to be born into a two parent environment than now under this president. So I’m not sure what error I am supposed to admit.

        • John,
          It is not merely that it is racist (and it certainly is, perhaps not specifically in the respect that some people have argued) it is that it is essentially a non sequitur. I have no problem with you defending the fact that the premises are true, but this doesn’t mean that it isn’t fallacious, meaningless, and absurd.
          I can concoct similarly “true” statements that would be equally unworthy of support or consideration:
          1. Similar people grouped together promotes a sense of community. How sad it is that during the holocaust, a Jew was more likely to have a large Jewish community around them then a Jew born in America today.
          2. Two Parent families are the best way to raise children. Sadly, more children lived in two parent families before it was culturally acceptable for a beaten wife to leave her husband then a child born into an abusive household today.

          Both these statements are factually accurate. There is not one thing wrong with the facts that these statements contain. What, though, happens when we consider the ideas that these statements try to convey?
          By your logic, they are both statements worthy of holding to. They are “factually accurate”. In the case of #1, it is conveying “community: no community” by the same standard you hold the FAMiLY statement to. In #2, it is conveying the exact same message as the FAMiLY statement. I cannot understand why you feel there is nothing worthy of condemning in these three statements.

          If you don’t want to admit error, then fine. You can stand by the fact that people ought to be proud to stand behind any of the three statements in question, that there is nothing “commendable” nor “condemnable” about any of those statements. Statistics are statistics. There is nothing more important than being statistically correct.
          You ought to be so proud of yourself!

  20. You’re right, it is off topic. So I’ll make this my last post on the topic….

    First off, abortion, in the legal sense, is not a crime. Thus, it renders your hypothetical statement; “We dont pass laws protecting criminals. If large numbers of armed robbers. etc,,,”, irrelevant.

    John;“likewise we shouldnt protect abortion because women might get hurt or killed”.

    The idea is not to protect “abortion”, the idea (as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court), is to protect “women.”

    John;“when abortion was illegal the number of illegal abortions was considerably low”.

    Not according to the Guttmacher Report.

    “Illegal Abortions Were Common

    Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967”.

    There are many causes of death to living (walking and talking) human beings that effects a very small segment of the entire population. Are we to “pooh-pooh” these causes of death as “statistically irrelevant” because you believe the numbers are small? Like it or not, abortion is a “woman’s” choice…no one else.

    • Now that’s funny, I’d like to retract this comment due to hasty and thus snarky response due to a misreading of statistics. To everyone who has subscribed to this comment thread, go ahead and have a laugh at my expense.

      But I still find the number to be suspect.

  21. George;“What no one here has taken the time to explain to conservatives (though I think Allen took a convoluted stab at it)”.


    George;“It is a fact that more blacks were raised in two parent households during slavery”.

    First off, there were no “two parent households.” Slaves were quartered on the plantation with their entire extended family. At times, as many as 15 people were crammed into a very small hut. The thatch roof huts they lived in were only used for sleeping and protection from the elements. There was no such thing as a structured home life for “mom, dad and the kids.” One could hardly call that a “two parent household.”

    Slavery was big business and slaves were a type of capital asset. The economic logic of selling slaves is related to free labor market practices. When families were kept together by the “massa” it was done solely for economic reasons. If conditions proved that selling a particular slave, or slave lot was profitable, the slaves were sold without regard to breaking up the families. One factor that kept a slave owner from breaking up a family, was slaves not facing the threat of being broken up and sold would be content and less likely to run away. Yet, the major cause of slave family break up was commercial auction. If a plantation owner fell upon bad economic times, bankruptcy, or if he died and the plantation went into probate, slaves were auctioned off without regard to the family unit.

    What makes that statement thoughtless and callous is that, the perception given is that SLAVERY WAS BETTER FOR BLACKS! And to the authors of that idiotic statement, “perception is reality.” They should be well aware that a slave has no choice’s and makes no decisions. So comparing slaves to the modern day Black social plight, actually asks the question, “why did we free them in the first place?”

    Is that less “convoluted” George?

    • I agree, Allen, with everything you just said. I strongly believe your first comment was trying to get the point across that “two parent family” in the context that conservatives idealize it, was entirely foreign to a slave- either in fact or in benefit.
      I think your rhetoric allowed John to handwave the point away, that is all.
      Just as I suspect that your penultimate comment will allow John the opportunity to change the subject and avoid the question again. I consider your comments on this thread to be a well articulated defense of positions that you and I share. In no way did I mean my comment to offend you.
      I apologize.

  22. Thanks George, kindly accepted, although no apology is needed.
    I also didn’t mean to appear antagonistic.
    Thanks again my friend…


  1. […] recent “pro-family” document signed by various republican politicians that suggests that black people were better off as slaves than as free people, because at least as slaves, they were in family […]

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: