Stephie’s had him licking his chops, making her repeat herself many times and trying to nail her on the slavery question.

Stephanopoulos:….And I wondered if you wanted to take a chance to clear up some of your past statements. For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true. Many of them including Jefferson and Washington were actually slave holders and slavery didn’t end until the Civil War.

Bachmann: Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.

Stephanopoulos: I agree with that…

Bachmann: That’s what people want…they realize our government is taking away our freedom.

Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.

Bachmann goes on to talk about John Quincy Adams, and JQ wasn’t a founding father per se, and all the left bloggers and the rest of the left media can have at that statement, big deal. But, Stephie is completely wrong about our founders and slavery, and while trying to nail Bachmann to the wall, he just looks like a foolish schoolboy.

During the Constitutional Convention, (Stephie, try to keep up, that was when they debated and formed the Constitution,) there were arguments solely focused on the practice of slavery.

The northern states for the most part opposed the practice, and there were more northern states than southern at the time. (Stephie, this was before L.A. and Midgetville or wherever you come from.)

Now, I went to the library and got my hands on a book called, The Secret Proceedings And Debates Of The Convention To Form The U.S. Constitution (bet you didn’t know they had such a thing, Stephie,) and I read it.

The arguments in question dealt with equality of suffrage (voting rights, Stephie) and taxation. You may recall that one of the beefs with King George was that the colonies suffered taxation without representation, so they wanted to get it right.

A man named Luther Martin, delegate to Maryland took to the floor of the convention and said:
“With respect to that part of the second section of the first article, which relates to the apportionment of representation and direct taxation, there were considerable objections made to it, besides the great objection of the inequality–It was urged, that no principle could justify taking slaves into computation in apportioning the number of representatives a states should have in government–That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a state in making laws for free men in proportion as that state violated the rights of freedom–That it might be proper to take slaves into consideration, when taxes were to be apportioned, because it had a tendency to discourage slavery; but to take them into account in giving representation tended to encourage the slave trade, and to make it the interest of the states to continue that infamous traffic–That slaves could not be taken into account as men, or citizens, because they were not admitted to the rights of citizens, in the states which adopted or continued slavery–If they were to be taken into account as property, it was asked, what peculiar circumstance should render this property (of all others the most odious in its nature) entitled to the high privilege of conferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors, rather than any other property: and why slaves should, as property, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules or any other species; and it was observed by and honorable member from Massachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating to enter into compact with the slaves of the southern states, as it would with the horses and mules of the eastern.”

We can stop there for now, (Stephie, you can go get a juice box and some Lunchables if you need a break while I summarize the above.)

What the Honorable Mr. Martin said was that in order to have the proper number of representatives in the proposed federal government, some suggested that slaves be counted for representation. That would mean that Georgia, presumably having the biggest number of slaves and being such a large state, that it could have undue influence in the legislature and slavery would not only continue but thrive because the number of representatives would increase as long as importation of slaves increased. Not only that, but on the other hand, many rightfully rejected the idea that black men were property. They couldn’t abide counting them as property, even though it would lessen the amount of influence slave states had on the federal government. How could they make the states free and independent while men in some states were not free?

What would people like George Stephanopoulos do? Count all slaves as they would free men, encourage the importation of more and more and more and enshrine in our lives the idea that men are equal as long as their skin color dictates their future? It’s absurd.

So the debate ensued. On Monday, June 11th, 1787, the convention convened and arguments commenced.
Mr. Sherman of Connecticut wanted representation of the people by their numbers, Governor Rutledge of South Carolina wanted representation according to state contribution, Mr. Butler of South Carolina gave support to Rutledge, saying that wealth should determine representation.

So it was argued. Should the states be represented in the federal government by wealth or by numbers?

Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania that day said he believed “that the mode of representation of each of the states ought to be from the number of its free inhabitants and of every other description three fifths to one free inhabitant.”

Slaves were counted at 3/5 because if they were counted as 1 we would never get rid of slavery, and if they weren’t counted we would never lay the proper amount of taxes to slave states. If they were counted as property, and representation depended on wealth, the slave states would have undue influence and slavery would continue.

So George Stephanopoulos is wrong, and there were mechanisms finally decided upon in the constitution to end slavery.

(Please clean off your desk George, and take a trip to the library, but first call Mrs. Bachmann and apologize.)

The argument of likening slaves to horses and mules for the purpose of showing that men cannot be treated as property was the same argument that Republican President Abraham Lincoln used in his run up to being elected, and in order to save the union, freed the slaves and underwent a most horrible Civil War.

But Stephie, we can continue some other time.

My first Republican Convention in Michigan was in 2009, and Haley Barbour was the main speaker. After listening to a real raw-meat speech by excellent political commentator Frank Beckmann, I heard Barbour say basically this: fiscal responsibility is the way of republicanism and as Republicans, we must support pro-abort candidates as well as the pro-life candidates. As I sat in the seat, surrounded by other Republican Michiganders, I wondered if I was the only one screaming inside.

As we filed out of the room after the speech, I overheard a group of Oakland County Republicans who were behind me say that, “we are from Oakland, we aren’t as conservative as people want us to be, but see, we want to win…” That view is what does not win nationally, yet they believe it does because they listen to people like Barbour.

So when I read on the Fox News website, I realized the tactic here and the word purity and I thought I’d share what I think about the game being played.

Barbour said, “In politics, purity is the enemy of victory,” and, “We can’t expect our [presidential] candidate to be pure. Winning is about unity, not purity.”

Priebus “echoed Barbour’s call to unity. “The Republican Party is not in competition with the conservative movement,” Priebus said with an almost plaintive tone. “The Republican Party is part of the conservative movement.”

The purity factor for Barbour is anything having to do with the social issues, mainly abortion. What Barbour means is that the GOP is going to have to unify behind a fiscal conservative, regardless of social ideology. In Barbour’s eye, conservatism means being responsible for the checkbook, not the culture.

This angling is music to the ears of libertarians who have decided that they are the main view of the tea party across the nation. It is what the party’s operatives have been given the assignment of doing, reaching out to the tea party (I wasn’t invited, I guess) to find out what they want, and incorporate their view into the big tent. But scattered tea party leaders across the nation who do not claim to represent every tea party person would vehemently disagree. The Republican party is hearing only what they want to hear, serving their purpose, and expressing it through Barbour and Priebus, the roadshow of conservative bastardization.

I have a question. Let’s assume Barbour gets behind a Republican candidate who is pro-abortion. How far would that candidate go when I and other bloggers write about how pro-aborts stand idly by while millions of women and black children have been and are being aborted?

Barbour has the gall to say that social issues are a purity test? If this nation continues it’s culture of death it is doomed to fail anyway. Perhaps Barbour and Priebus are satisfied with a failing nation. Conservatives are not.

What is purity? Good on fiscal and social and defense? So we are to accept someone good on fiscal issues to get the libertarians on our side, and ditch the social issues to get the establishment on our side, and be kind of middle-of-the-road on the military so both the libertarians and the establishment don’t start a flame-war on facebook? Notice how Barbour’s purity test effectively squeezes out conservatives?

Chairman Priebus, Governor Barbour, I’d like to address you gentlemen directly. I, and millions of other Americans can see right through you fellas, and you are in for one hell of a fight.

He is itching to hear this teenager have a verbal duel with Michele Bachmann, a woman who makes more of an impact on anyone who listens to her than Conor could ever hope to.

What I don’t understand is how he attempts to teach his readers what PBS taught him about actual duels where people got killed. In fact, I’m sorry I link to his story below, because it makes me feel personally responsible for those who I send to read his boring post. But alas, that is classic Conor, he always makes a big production centered around a point that he never gets to.

Conor that a 10th grader from New Jersey has sent a letter to Bachmann, challenging her to a debate on the Constitution and other topics.

“Presumably she knows the long odds against a member of Congress apologizing to a teenager or accepting a challenge to debate.”

Ok, now I think I know where Conor is going with this. So as long as Bachmann apologizes to this kid, she won’t have to be subjected to the duel, right? Gosh I feel like I’m right there in Conor’s head, visualizing an actual duel between a child and Bachmann, which would never take place since Bachmann knows children and their often delusions of grandeur. She’s a mom, Conor, she has class, Conor, she’s not at all like what you envision. He goes on:

“I lament that public figures no longer feel pressure to apologize for bad behavior, or else to meet earnest critics who call it out in a public forum. Refusing to do so ought to be discrediting! “

What bad behavior? I know Conor believes Bachmann has exhibited bad behavior, and he links to other people’s opinion of her supposed bad behavior, and he refers to the child’s charge that Bachmann is inaccurate, but is that bad behavior? The kid is not being specific, and the fact that she is offended does not warrant an apology. Under what possible pretense would a thinking person apologize because she is disagreed with? How does that go?

Michele says, “I believe x.”
Child says, “I disagree with you, we must debate.”
In Conor’s world, all Michele has to do is say, “Oh, I’m sorry you disagree with me.”
Then I guess the debate is over and the kid can say, “Ok, just don’t let it happen again.”

As much fun as it is to play imagination station with Conor, the idea that he is egging-on a debate on non-specific emotionalized offense from a pubescent toward a woman whose life has centered around understanding and parenting the young and inexperienced, shows his inadequacies as a grown man. I mean, he is a grown man who does not see past politics and his ideology to put this debate-challenge letter in perspective.

I know his intent was to applaud this young girl for really trying to show who is more of a woman, her or Bachmann, but in doing so, he disgraces and belittles motherhood, the love only a mother can have, the quiet understanding of emotional outbursts, the tender moments when a child understands tough life lessons, all this and more that Michele has been through, not only of her own flesh and blood, but of those who she chose to bring into her home and love as her own.

Conor owes Michele an apology. He is old enough to know better.

But since I see all of this as ridiculous, I couldn’t help but wonder why nobody has a problem with Obama’s Mama’s name.

It’s Stanley.

Come on. That is some kind of funny.

There will be plenty of people who will not be satisfied, and they are free to continue on their path of circular stupidity. But here is how I see it.

If it was able to be proven without a shadow of a doubt that Obama was not born in America, it will not erase what he has done via legislation, regulation, and coercion for the past two years.

So all of you birthers ought to start trying to convince people that we cannot live under his rule for another term.

Stanley! It just kills me that no one talks about that…..

The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon.

Michigan road taxes are 19 cents per gallon.

But, here in Michigan, we also pay sales tax on a gallon of gas, not including the 19 cents paid for road tax.

According to the

“The ultimate total sales tax paid by the station is calculated by taking the retail price per gallon minus 19 cents (state road tax) divided by 17.67 (the denominator that accounts for the fact that sales tax is already included in the posted retail price). “

Which comes to 22.5 cents per gallon right now since gas here is $4.17 per gallon. That tax profit is up one cent since last week, per gallon.

Where is Congressman Dingell now? C’mon Dingell, ! That is your Democrat party always on the side of big government while punishing the poor.

So,, put together in January, is inaccurate because the price of gas has risen. We are paying 59.9 cents per gallon in taxes, and our federal government is attacking the oil companies and their “record profits.”

If we confiscated all profit from say, , gas would still be around $3.90 per gallon.

But then we wouldn’t have any gas, since without profit, Exxon Mobile would not exist.

**With a profit margin of 8.89%, Exxon takes somewhere around 36 cents of every gallon of gas. That amount goes up everytime the price of crude goes up.

Take a quarter for transportation, and a quarter for refining, and Exxon’s profits are about 27 cents. I’ve heard it’s much less than that, but for arguments sake, and until I see better info, that’s what I’m going with.**see update below

The state of Michigan’s profits go up everytime the gas prices go up too, due to our 6% sales tax.

So, for every gallon of gas, we pay the State 41.5 cents.

For every gallon of gas, we pay the Federal government 18.4 cents

For every gallon of gas, we pay companies who bring it to us about 25 cents.

For every gallon of gas, we pay the people who refine it 25 cents.

What I’m saying is, we pay more in taxes than oil companies make in ‘record profits.’

It is the government making record profits, and everytime the price goes up, the State of Michigan benefits.

We get gasoline from the big oil companies, and get shafted by the government.

UPDATE Friday April 29th, 2011 at 1:13 pm:
From

“For every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. That’s not a typo. Two cents.”

So, now I have found my better info. Not 27 cents. TWO!

And not only that, our gas went up since this was first posted on Wednesday, April 27th at 6:28am to $4.21 per gallon.

So, if you are playing along at home, that means 22.75 cents is sales tax and puts taxation in Michigan on a gallon of gas is OVER 60 CENTS.

That is something to know.

If the State of Michigan got rid of the sales tax, we would be paying what we did two weeks ago, and the State would lose record profits.

If we took away the profits from oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, we would be paying more than what the price was yesterday.

There are many ways to analyze this, but any way you analyze it, ‘big oil’ isn’t the problem, and the President is lying again.

UPDATE Tuesday May 3rd, 2011 at 8:34 AM:
Gas is now $4.29 per gallon here in Northern Michigan, making the current amount of sales tax paid to the State of Michigan per gallon, 23.2 cents per gallon.

The total taxation on a gallon of gas in Northern Michigan right now is 60.06 cents per gallon. The State makes 42.2 cents and the federal government makes 18.4 cents.

I was asked yesterday where the rest of the money is going. There are too many factors, but it is clear the administration is not interested in increasing domestic supply, so I’ve made it a point to just keep an eye on the price and remind everyone that the government who is making over 60 cents per gallon is attacking the oil companies who only make 2 cents per gallon.

If I had all my credit cards maxed out and was living paycheck to paycheck, then brought home a brand new car. My husband would first cut up the credit cards and then take back the car. If he did not know our financial situation, in time, the car would be repossessed by the dealership.

When the credit card company increases the credit limit on someone who has not been responsible financially, it does not help them to become more responsible. Some perspective:

“With this bill we are putting in place some common sense reforms designed to protect consumers,” Obama said at a signing ceremony at the White House.
“We’re not going to be giving people a free pass and we expect consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe. But we also expect financial institutions to act with the same sense of responsibility that the American people aspire to in their own lives,” he said.

Change a few words in that sentence, and that statement can be used against the Democrat’s fiscal irresponsibility.

Hat tip: CJ Williams

The American People made it clear in this last election cycle that they want the credit cards shredded and the Obama car taken back. Obama and the democratic congress have refused to listen to the American People. The Republicans had better listen.

First of all, Trump seems kind of cheap. This is beside the point of my main thrust here, but I want to mention it because I was kind of put off. Friday’s show was the annual Cure-A-Thon for Leukemia/Lymphoma that Rush does every year. Rush started off the show by announcing that he and Katherine would contribute $500,000. A half a mil.

Now, Trump has been handing money out to Democrats his whole career, and all he could muster for the poor cancer folks was a measly $100,000? Awkward!

Back to work. The ladies and I listened to Trump, some of the stuff he said really jumped out. There is a lot that Trump said that is worthy of needling, but just at face value, Trump doesn’t make enough sense to make us want to vote for him.

“I’m doing great — and, by the way, if I run, then you’ll see how great I’ve done. Because I’ll put in a financial statement which will knock people’s socks off. Just knock their socks off — and, you know, I’m very proud of it. So I’ll make a decision prior to June, and we’ll see what happens.”

He’s a salesman. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you have to go on faith. Some of his deals in the past have been great, but some have been monumentally bad. I mean, really, really bad, believe me.

If you listen to him long enough, you start to talk/write like him, believe me. A lot of his sentences end with “believe me.”

“DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, you’re right, Rush, but I will say this. You know, I’ve dealt with Democrats and Republicans all my life, and somebody said, “Oh, do you have that much experience politically?” You know, I’ve dealt — and understand this better than anybody. I’ve dealt with politicians all of my life. I’ve also dealt with foreign countries. I’m doing jobs all over the world. I’ve dealt with foreign countries for a long period of time. The fact is, I think somebody that got along with the Democrats — and I do get along — now, you know, that could change instantaneously. You understand that. But the level of animosity… You know, in the old days “across the aisle” wasn’t the worst thing. People got along. Today, the level of hatred, the level of anger — and I’m the most militaristic person there is, if they treat me improperly. But I think having a little bit of a relationship on the other side of the aisle is not so bad, Rush, where deals can be made. But good deals, not the deal like Obama gave the other day.”

So what did he basically say? I deal with the dems, I deal with the Chinese, I deal with Republicans…. that’s what he is, a dealer, a wheeler dealer, a deal-maker. A negotiator. A compromise-maker. I don’t want to make a deal, compromise whatever. For me, he’s a deal-breaker, and the ladies at work think so too.

When Rush put some hard truth to the Donald, Trump reacted in a very curious way.

RUSH: But they’re not gonna want you to succeed at anything. They will stop progress for America. Your relationship with them will change once you become elected. If you become president, you might have the ability to bring them in line, but they will not start that way. They will be out to destroy you to preserve their way of life, their political ideology. Remember, their power derives from creating more and more people dependent on government for their daily needs.

DONALD TRUMP: Right.

RUSH: You don’t believe that.

DONALD TRUMP: Rush, you’re probably right and probably it won’t work out in the kind of manner which makes sense and would be good and then they’ll see the real Donald Trump, because I do much better under adversity than I do the other way. I’d love to see it work where people could actually get together and go down the line and straighten out this country. You’re probably right, and that’s fine, and then I’ll do I think an even better job.

Trump said, the best laid plans don’t work out, but then, then I’ll really shine, believe me.

No, I don’t think so. These aren’t policies and directions for the country. These are brags on the ability of a prolific builder of buildings. The first thing a salesman has to do is convince his investors that he has a plan. Trump doesn’t do that. He asks us to rely on trust and belief. How different is that from Obama’s campaign? Not much.

One other thing marked our workday conversation. Trump seems like the kind of guy that gets his mind set on big deals, and does not let go. No matter what the obstacle, the cost, the insanity of the deal, he seems like the type who will double down, and for what? Not to lead the nation, but to win the contest at becoming President. We all agreed that that egotism is dangerous.

A lot of talk has been started about Obama’s speech during Holy Week of the idea that America is not a Christian nation. While in Turkey, a Muslim country, Obama said the following:

“One of the great strengths of the United States is, ahhh.. although as I have mentioned, ah.. we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation, ahh.. we consider ourselves ahhh.. a nation of citizens who are ahh.. bound by ideals and a set of values.”

President Obama said this two years ago.

Hm. If we are not a Christian nation, then why does this administration, in it’s policies and campaign, use Christian guilt against us.

It is true our nation was built by the philosophies espoused by the founding fathers, most of which were Christian. However, using the idea that we should, through taxation, take from the haves, and give to the have-nots, is bogus.

As a nation of citizens, we are to do with our earned assets what we wish to do. If you wish to give to those less fortunate, then by all means, do so. There are churches, charities and personal ways of doing this noble deed.

But when the government of any nation forces any man to give to others for the “common good” it is using a bastardized version of what our God compels us to do.

Sarah Palin that was called “blistering” and “withering” and demonstrated what the American people want the leadership of the GOP to do. It is not just what she said, but where she said it. The union battle in Wisconsin is the hot spot for revolutionary change.

The 2011 budget battle has been spun as a “historic” deal by the GOP House Leadership, but the numbers don’t add up. The Speaker has his own talking points, and I’m sure Palin’s speech doesn’t sit too well with him, but what he thinks is not important. Like Reagan, Palin goes over the heads of the politicians, and makes a case to the American people.

“Because let me tell you what isn’t courageous: It’s politicians promising the American voters that, as we drown in $14.5 trillion debt, that they’re going to cut $100 billion out of this year’s budget. But then they cave on that and they reduce it down to $61 billion after they get elected. Then they get in there and they strike a deal and decide, nah, they will reduce that down to $38 billion. And then after some politics-as-usual and accounting gimmicks, we find out it’s not $38 billion in cuts. You know that $38 billion – we don’t have it; we’re borrowing it. We borrow from foreign countries to give to foreign countries, and that’s insanity. We find out it’s not even $38 billion; it’s less than $1 billion in real cuts. Folks, that $352 million in real cuts – that’s no more than the federal government is going to spend in the time it takes us to hold this rally today! That is not courage; that’s capitulation!”

She’s damn right–it’s capitulation. And it is plainly seen by regular folks. The performance by the leadership in the House establishes a pattern that doesn’t sit too well with moms and dads that see their children’s future going up in smoke by the actions of a far-left Democratic Party.

And speaking of girls, Michele Bachmann has been the consistent example of what the nation wants their GOP to do. Her fundraising reflects that, making more money than Romney, and with many small $5 to $10 donations, she has an army of folks willing to stand with her. What does she get from the leadership? Bupkis.

In the end, what the leadership thinks of you doesn’t matter. The folks who listen to the American people will be strongly re-elected.

More from Palin:

“We didn’t elect you just to re-arrange the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. We didn’t elect you to just stand back and watch Obama re-distribute those deck chairs. What we need is for you to stand up, GOP, and fight. Maybe I should ask some of the Badger women’s hockey team—those champions—maybe I should ask them if we should be suggesting to GOP leaders they need to learn how to fight like a girl!”

Low blow? Hell no. She’s right. We are getting insulted and abused everyday by this administration. To every action there should be an equal and opposite reaction. Fight fire with fire! We are going to be rationed! We are losing control of our everyday lives! What part of all of this does the leadership not understand?

They should be using Newton’s third law of motion: Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

And that’s the point isn’t it? We got FORCED for the last two years. Rules, laws, the constitution, nothing mattered to the Democrats. They rule by force, and they still are. Boehner and the gang should be absolutely beside themselves with anger, or at least a little incredulous, for cryin out loud!

Only half of a third doesn’t cut it when the House is where the purse is.

The GOP cannot save the red meat for campaign stops in the summer of 2012. We want you to loudly OPPOSE this President.

NewsBusters reports that Matthews, the host of HardBall on MSNBC said that Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan “is going to kill half the people who watch this show,” referring to the aged who watch his show.

So, probably in some sort of mind-controlling advertisement slated for some time in the near future, Paul Ryan will unleash his medicare death spiral that will cause the death of half of Matthew’s viewers. (Just a guess, don’t quote me.)

“I’m with the smart people here,” Matthew’s said in , nevertheless, the smart people across his table explained that everyone over 55 is exempt from any changes in medicare.

That just goes to prove that the liberal guests Howard Fineman and Richard Wolffe should definitely be wearing “I’m with stupid” t-shirts. It’s a crazy, upside-down world.