Quantcast

Santorum, Bachmann Sign Pledge Claiming Blacks Were Better Off as Slaves: Believe It?

Politics 2011/07/11 15:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
So far, most of the leading Republican presidential candidates have distinguished themselves with a series of historical and rhetorical gaffes. Fumbles are common at this early stage of a race with an incumbent, since the sitting president mostly gets to hang on the sidelines and let the opposition pick each other apart and trip over their own shoelaces.

But GOP candidates Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann are making it a bit too easy. Both had to make an embarrassing about face over the weekend when it was revealed that they signed an anti-gay marriage pledge called "The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family," circulated by the Christian conservative group First Leader that claimed black families were stronger during slavery.

"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," read the pledge.



Criticism inspired Family Leader officials to apologize for the phrase and take it out of the pledge's preamble, but not before both candidates had signed it.

But wait, there's more. The pledge also equates being gay to polygamy and adultery, calls for a ban on all pornography and, of course, rejects Sharia law, which some Conservatives are convinced is secretly taking over our American legal system.

Bachmann was first in line among Republican presidential candidates to sign the pledge, but she tried to step away from it after the controversy by saying she only endorsed the "candidate vow," not the preamble.

Her spokesperson said on Saturday that Bachmann still stands behind the vow – which makes no reference to slavery – but that, in no uncertain terms, the Minnesota Congresswoman "believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible."



Santorum told CNN over the weekend that he read the document very carefully before signing it and was initially "taken aback" by some of the language, but that he firmly supported the anti-gay marriage vow and agreed with the bit that asked candidates to stay faithful to their spouses.

Can you believe Bachmann and Santorum signed this pledge?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • akgold 2011/07/11 23:06:44
    Yes
    akgold
    +66
    Good work SH Politicis, could you lie and screw up much more than you did here.
    What was the question to be answered?
    Do we believe slaves were better off? That is what the heading implied.
    Or can we believe they signed it, which is at the end of the post.
    Do I think blacks were better off? NO.
    Do I believe they signed the pledge? Yes, especially after reading that nowhere did the pledge contain the outrageous claim YOU made.
    You are also lying when you say the claim was made that"blacks were better off".
    From YOUR story,

    "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,"

    WHERE DOES IT COME CLOSE TO SAYING THEY WERE BETTER OFF?
    So,
    The vow never said it.
    They did not sign a vow saying that.
    The tone on this site is deplorable and YOU think these lies don't factor in setting that tone?
    SHAME ON YOU SODAHEAD, AND YOU, SODAHEAD POLITICS.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Zamboni - Madoka Magica fan... 2011/08/18 21:17:28
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    Zamboni - Madoka Magica fan BN0
    +1
    1-Really stupid statement.
    2-''But wait, there's more. The pledge also equates being gay to polygamy and adultery, calls for a ban on all pornography and, of course, rejects Sharia law, which some Conservatives are convinced is secretly taking over our American legal system.''
    WHO ARE THEY TO BOSS AROUND!!!? LAND OFFREEDOM! NOT LAND OF ABUSE FROM ONE GROUP! NO SHARIA LAW ISTAKING OVER,AND THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS WITH WHAT OTHER DO IN THEIR LIFE!
  • Pdavid 2011/08/06 05:26:34
    Yes
    Pdavid
    I would be surprised if they hadn't done something as repulsive as this by now. For them to stand up and be counted with the lunatic fringe of the American right wing and Christian religion only shows that they are the typical current trend of Republicans. Please, for the sake of the party, won't someone have the courage to denounce these fools? These people represent nothing more than America's dark rage, it's closeted phobias, and it's unspoken (and spoken) intolerances. The angry, fearful, and previously dismissed have finally found their voice, and the Republican party has willingly chosen to side with their strange and perverse brew of misguided religion and false politics.
  • Of Thee I Sing... 2011/07/28 20:11:37 (edited)
    No
    Of Thee I Sing...
    The libs are starting with the Race Card Propaganda is all...... libs starting race card propaganda race card gif
  • Cathy 2011/07/28 00:57:56
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    Cathy
    +1
    She must be kidding....blacks were better of? The Black People had no kind of "FREEDOM" back in those day! If I was back in those days, I would rather be dead then to be a slave to anyone! Black children were separated from their mothers and fathers. They were raped by the white masters. That's why our race is all mixed up. Men, women and children were whipped, hung, and worked in the fields from sun up till sun down and so much more. This will never happen again to Black people because we are very educated now and a lot of us know just as much as the white man.....some even more! My parents were never slaves, but my great-great grandfather was one. He came from Kenya.
  • Steve 2011/07/23 16:43:46
    No
    Steve
    +1
    "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," read the pledge.

"

    This is pure BS. The standard practice in the antebellum south was to separate children from their parents (they'd be sent to other plantations) to prevent familial bonds from being formed. It is the same reason why black marriages weren't recognized. This pattern of separation pervades to today where a biased justice system continues to incarcerate black males at a higher rate than white males.

    Read "A Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas" to learn about how slavery actually played out.
  • Brian 2011/07/20 22:15:51
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    Brian
    They are just continuing to court their base which is "predominantly" white and "prodominantly" racist. The base is demanding these types of pledges and the candidates gladly give them what they demand. Not that complicated.
  • 56lady☆POTL JLA BTO-t- BCRA... 2011/07/17 16:58:10
    Yes
    56lady☆POTL JLA BTO-t- BCRA-F's
    SoDaHeaD Politics
    Title is MISleaDinG . . .
    truth deceiver . . .
  • Socialite Lola 2011/07/16 06:04:49
  • Sister Jean 2011/07/15 23:18:53
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    Sister Jean
    +1
    let them get a job as a maid or butler or picking fruit
  • dave aka lambsev 2011/07/15 13:46:26
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    dave aka lambsev
    +1
    "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," read the pledge."

    This is the basis for the idea. I believe there is some truth in it. I have lived in Baltimore MD for 34 years and seen African Americans, men, women and children suffer worse than well treated slaves. I'm not advocating a return to slavery, but I do advocate a return to faithful marriage. Divorce and out of wedlock parenting are both disasters for any person or family, regardless of skin color.
  • asiastar dave ak... 2011/07/26 13:58:28
    asiastar
    so I guess you know alot of slaves?
  • Caroline - fan of Audubon 2011/07/14 22:44:05
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    Caroline - fan of Audubon
    +2
    Better off? Like being worked to the bone, looked down upon by their "superiors", totally dependent upon their slave owners, living in subhuman conditions, No freedom.
  • John® 2011/07/14 18:28:22
    No
    John®
    +2
    And if, it wouldn't be as bad as Bill Clinton about Obama: «a few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee».
  • debrarae POTL _ PWCM 2011/07/14 14:41:13
    No
    debrarae POTL _ PWCM
    +7
    They don't support slavery, and never have. And all we have is the NY daily Post's word that the 'slavery gaffe' was ever in there. Typical of what I expect from liberal rag mags that have no basis in truth!
  • davidl 2011/07/14 10:27:23
    Yes
    davidl
    +5
    Sodahead is so biased and formulamatic. Note ALL of the highlighted questions are transparantly anti-Republican rants in the form of a push poll with unflattering editorials & anti-republican/conservative/tea party responses as one of the choices.

    Always, "Insert candidate(s) here" said/did "insert action her", then snarky comments. (If Palin is the politician, then commets are usually much worse). But that is OK, their web site.

    I'll just call this to everybody's attention and remind them that conservatives / tea party will provide another "shellacing" and Obama will be a former president and Reed will be minority leader.
  • Jackster12 davidl 2011/08/28 13:43:20
  • davidl Jackster12 2011/08/28 16:14:22
    davidl
    But the difference is that the SH staffers are the ones who put out the anti-republican ones. It is appropriate and refreshing that users can put up any polls they want. I am specifically addressing the staff. (But not a surprise, as Soros's venture capital firm helped fund sodahead, so what else do you expect).
  • Katherine 2011/07/14 00:27:27 (edited)
    Yes
    Katherine
    +5
    None of the above.. Nice way of twisting words. Others have already corrected it....

    What I find appalling is that even today people are holding blacks down. But this time it's completely... By lowering the standards of education from which they (and everyone else) can receive, by encourages abortions (thanks Margaret Sanger for PP), and by creating an entitlement system that rewards failure. There's even a "democratic" politician trying to convince straight blacks to be gay. And it's worth noting that abortion hits the black community more than any other demographic. Apparently the cause of more deaths in the black community than heart disease and gang violence combined, and then some. Oh, but if you stand on your own, you're ridiculed. Then we have a president saying he doesn't want his daughters punished with a baby and that he finds testing in schools boring? Nice. Sell your soul for votes.

    Slavery never ended, they're just so much more thorough these days. There's much better responses explaining what you apparently don't get. I just had to point out how much the Democrat Party is screwing people.
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2011/07/13 23:02:35
    Yes
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +4
    This is not to say--nor did Bachmann mean to say--that blacks were better off under slavery /per se/. Rather: the pledge was saying that /even children born into slavery had a better upbringing, in one key respect, than free-born children/. And that is by no means limited to black children.

    Few people realize that, once the planters regarded black servants as /property/, rather than as /seven-year indentured servants/, they started to treat them better than before. Indentured servants are temporary workhorses. Slaves are an investment. Take care of them; they'll work harder for you. That's how the masters thought. (Not all of them, sadly. Edward Brodas, a Maryland planter, started selling off his slaves. One of them, the future Harriet Tubman, provoked her buyer to bring her back to Edward Brodas for a refund!)

    Harriet Tubman aside, most masters did not break up slave families. A master might even buy a slave from a neighboring plantation if he knew that one of his own slaves had fallen in love with that other slave. In short, they took seriously the /rest/ of that passage in Ephesians chapter 5: that any master must remember that he will have to answer to the Top Master of them all, Jesus Christ.

    Now that pledge says nothing about consigning anyone back into slavery. It do...
    This is not to say--nor did Bachmann mean to say--that blacks were better off under slavery /per se/. Rather: the pledge was saying that /even children born into slavery had a better upbringing, in one key respect, than free-born children/. And that is by no means limited to black children.

    Few people realize that, once the planters regarded black servants as /property/, rather than as /seven-year indentured servants/, they started to treat them better than before. Indentured servants are temporary workhorses. Slaves are an investment. Take care of them; they'll work harder for you. That's how the masters thought. (Not all of them, sadly. Edward Brodas, a Maryland planter, started selling off his slaves. One of them, the future Harriet Tubman, provoked her buyer to bring her back to Edward Brodas for a refund!)

    Harriet Tubman aside, most masters did not break up slave families. A master might even buy a slave from a neighboring plantation if he knew that one of his own slaves had fallen in love with that other slave. In short, they took seriously the /rest/ of that passage in Ephesians chapter 5: that any master must remember that he will have to answer to the Top Master of them all, Jesus Christ.

    Now that pledge says nothing about consigning anyone back into slavery. It does say that our society should not have such fouled-up incentives that place free citizens at that kind of moral hazard. And again: it's not limited to blacks. Whites, and members of other races, make the same disastrous mistakes.
    (more)
  • none 2011/07/13 23:01:31
    No
    none
    +2
    More stupid made up BS, shove it please.
  • TruBluTopaz 2011/07/13 22:59:58
    No
    TruBluTopaz
    +3
    What an offensive and provocative headline. Just what are you trying to do? This question needs to be removed.
  • David W. Landes 2011/07/13 22:37:31
    No
    David W. Landes
    +2
    It is my understanding that the document that they signed was in support of the marriage act that supported marriage as a union between one woman and one man, but someone inserted the extra pages so they could create this mess. Could anyone believe that the liberals would do such a dasterdly deed? No of course not they are all gentle and peace loving and not like that violent tea party!!
  • Ken 2011/07/13 22:30:07
    Yes
    Ken
    +4
    The majority still are slaves only now they are slaves to the Government.
  • digitalDave 2011/07/13 22:22:19 (edited)
    No
    digitalDave
    +5
    SH Politics, you lack in character and honesty, perhaps you need a big belt of truth!
    Bring your BS, we'll eat your lunch and kick your sorry butt to the curb!

    http://PushBackNow.com

    belt truth bs eat lunch kick butt curb httppushbacknow PushBackNow
  • alex 2011/07/13 15:31:54
  • CharlesG BN-0 2011/07/13 12:39:41
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    CharlesG BN-0
    +7
    I'm also not surprised by anything SH Politics writes. SAY WHAT? surprised sh politics writes SAY WHAT
  • salvatore.bua 2011/07/13 09:51:35
  • Angel 2011/07/13 09:15:03
  • Sarah BN-0 2011/07/13 07:58:27
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    Sarah BN-0
    +1
    Google santorum

    I always find this funny.
  • MissJo 2011/07/13 06:16:09
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    MissJo
    +2
    "But wait, there's more. The pledge also equates being gay to polygamy and adultery, calls for a ban on all pornography and, of course, rejects Sharia law, which some Conservatives are convinced is secretly taking over our American legal system."

    Are these people aware of the First Amendment??
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
  • jesse MissJo 2011/07/13 18:32:25
    jesse
    +2
    Your not aware of the first Amendment!!
  • MissJo jesse 2011/07/13 23:16:58 (edited)
    MissJo
    +2
    Alright, then tell me all about it. How is the banning of porn not abridging the freedom of speech?
  • jesse MissJo 2011/07/14 04:10:56
    jesse
    +1
    didnt lnow sex was speech!
    speech example: Three score and seven years ago.........
  • MissJo jesse 2011/07/14 20:42:55
    MissJo
    +1
    Just because it isn't YOUR definition of what speech should be, doesn't mean it's not definition at all. The point is that we have the FREEDOM to have sex on the camera IF WE CHOOSE. Which is what America is supposed to be about, THE FREEDOM TO DO WHAT WE WANT.

    If you ban porn, what's next? All books and videos about sex that aren't pornographic? Then we go on to all what is deemed immoral to ONE group of people.

    I don't support this because I support my rights, even if I don't agree with how they're being used.
  • jesse MissJo 2011/07/15 23:42:21
    jesse
    Speech is speaking: sex is sex your right to watch sex I think is protected but thats a slipery slope,kinda like legal beer and DUI ........
  • Brian jesse 2011/07/20 22:38:58
    Brian
    So xxx rated pornographic novels by "your" definition are NOT in fact pornography? Do I understand you correctly? What about freedom of the press and pornographic magazines such as Hustler? The are created on printing presses, so they are exempt by your definition as well?

    You switch between discussing porn and discussing sex. Sex is not porn, photos of people having sex could be concidered porn depending on the person viewing it and the way it is presented. Two people having sex is not porn. The video of it "might" be. Porn should not be illegal for consenting adults to view or perform in.
  • jesse Brian 2011/07/21 01:08:45
  • Roger47 2011/07/13 05:23:37
    I'm not surprised by anything these candidates do
    Roger47
    +1
    The pledge is a bunch of nonsense written by an extremist who hopes ton bring in donations with it. He even put n footnote #9, saying past adultery is not a problem, so that all those Christian adulterers like Newt Gingrich would approve of it. It is a scam, but two stupid politicians went for it. By the way, don't google "Santorum"
  • chaoskitty123 2011/07/13 05:19:22
    Yes
    chaoskitty123
    +4
    Because, as sad as it is to admit, when it comes to family values blacks were better off under slavery. That's the point isn't it? During slavery, black families pulled together for mutual survival and were kept on plantations where if they ran they would be brought back. After slavery, the black family self destructed more greatly than any other group and black men gained a well earned reputation for running off abandoning their families which many black men are still guilty of today. That's not racist... even most black civil rights groups have addressed this problem but anyone else doing it gets attacked as racists by the political left because to criticize black Americans for actual truths is wrong... the black crime rate, an example, is huge when compared to any other group but try to address it and you are a racist even though the vast majority of the victims of black crime are black themselves.

    In fact, this seems to be an African tradition because one of the leading reasons AIDS is still spreading like crazy across Africa is that many black men culturally will have sex with multiple women before settling down with one woman or a harem having multiple wives.

    That's not racist to point out and, in fact, one of the leading reasons it's only gotten worse after AIDS emer...

































    Because, as sad as it is to admit, when it comes to family values blacks were better off under slavery. That's the point isn't it? During slavery, black families pulled together for mutual survival and were kept on plantations where if they ran they would be brought back. After slavery, the black family self destructed more greatly than any other group and black men gained a well earned reputation for running off abandoning their families which many black men are still guilty of today. That's not racist... even most black civil rights groups have addressed this problem but anyone else doing it gets attacked as racists by the political left because to criticize black Americans for actual truths is wrong... the black crime rate, an example, is huge when compared to any other group but try to address it and you are a racist even though the vast majority of the victims of black crime are black themselves.

    In fact, this seems to be an African tradition because one of the leading reasons AIDS is still spreading like crazy across Africa is that many black men culturally will have sex with multiple women before settling down with one woman or a harem having multiple wives.

    That's not racist to point out and, in fact, one of the leading reasons it's only gotten worse after AIDS emerged is that the main groups fighting to help the African people in Africa are leftwing and their ideals of political correctness will not allow them to address the central fact that culturally, many African peoples are not monogamous.

    In South Africa, it's almost a joke that rape has become almost the national pastime as rape happens there moreso than any other country in the world after the fall of Apartheid. In fact, South Africa is regarded as the crime capital in the world following the fall of Apartheid because the political left of the world made all these promises of helping South Africa after Apartheid and then walked away slapping one another on the backs breaking every promise they made when Apartheid was removed.

    Quote
    "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," read the pledge.


    End Quote

    Condemn it all you want, it is in fact truthful and factual... the fact YOU don't want to hear it doesn't make it any less true and the fact it is true is a scathing condemnation of black society that it seems the only time in US history where black families remained together and fought side by side for mutual survival was when they were enslaved and had no choice.

    Is it wrong to use a truth about many black Americans to slam all black Americans... no it's not. In fact, every black American family should sign to join this group or create one of their own addressing the same issue because the break up of the black American family is the lead problem they face in the modern world as a strong family does well against adversity whereas most who stand apart or on their own drown in adversity and succumb to hopelessness.

    While Bachmann and Santorum clearly were stupid for signing the document not understanding how their enemies would use it against them, the simple fact is there is truth to the documents statements.

    Most Liberals support issues like gay marriage grudgingly because of "political correctness" as stating they support gay marriage to "shut them up" isn't exactly support for gays... it's support for the political correctness expected of them.

    Comparing being gay to polygamy and adultery... they're obviously talking about marriage but the author of this topic didn't make that point evident. The reference is that polygamy and adultery are regarded as wrong even by most Liberals.

    Banning pornography isn't exactly a rightwing issue only as many feminists and other leftwing groups also want it banned... while many rightwingers buy it so any effort to paint this as rightwing needs a re evaluation based on facts.

    Rejecting sharia law? Unfortunately, as looney as this sounds, there are Muslims and leftwing supporters who have proposed making it legal in the US. The real question here is why are any leftwingers supporting making sharia law legal at all when it's completely anti Liberal and it's founded in religious faith which Liberals have fought against Christian influences on US law and in our schools for decades... absolutely insane and yet, it takes little effort on the internet to find there are indeed many Liberals who support this even if the majority do not. Thus, the rightwing agenda to stop this is unfortunately backed by facts because some on the left are so desperate to support Muslims as their latest cause celeb and victims group that they have thrown all common sense and intellect out the window.

    But the document is clearly religious in nature and that's where Bachmann and Santorum screwed up as it gives the left something to use against them.

    But will it hurt them?

    No it won't. It won't hurt them because in the upcoming Republican Primary, Liberals are not going to determine who becomes the Republican candidate and religion is a key element of the political right.

    So squawk all you like leftwingers... this isn't an issue which affects you and you will have no say in the outcome. All it can do is backfire and hurt you because as long as Obama keeps screwing up losing support, there's nothing you can do attacking Republicans that will help you or your candidates.

    You need to focus on Obama and start criticizing him to pull him back to where you want him and stop falling for his lip service as he's telling you what you want to hear... then does the opposite.

    In the end, this will help Bachmann and Santorum with millions of rightwing voters and leftwing attacks will only serve to get them free publicity for having done it and galvanize support behind these two no different than it benefited Glenn Beck and FOX News that you attacked them unfairly and without using your intellect.

    The person who wrote this story used a very misleading header stating Bachmann and Santorum supported that blacks were better off under slavery... in fact, the document in question addresses an issue about slavery which even many Civil Rights groups have supported for over a century that black families held together under slavery but when given their freedom, the black family largely self destructed.
    (more)
  • Steve King 2011/07/13 04:14:29
    No
    Steve King
    +5
    Bachman never signed any such document. It has also been retracted.

    I will say it should reject Shari'a Law. Shari'a is incompatible with the US Constitution.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/29 08:44:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals