The Washington Post's sekrit plan to discredit the right by giving airtime to Ben Domenech continues to roll forward.
Today we find that Ben Domenech of the Washington Post is pissed that George W. Bush went to the funeral of that "Communist" Coretta Scott King:
|| RedState: The President visits the funeral of a Communist... and phones in a message to the March for Life. I think we can get a little pissed about this...
And that Ben likes Jefferson Davis a whole lot:
Bendomenech.com: June 26, 2005 - July 02, 2005 Archives: Shelby Foote begins his Civil War trilogy with [a chapter on] the story of Jefferson Davis.... This all goes to explain why Foote ended his [entire] trilogy this way:...Jefferson Davis could never match [Lincoln's] music, or perhaps even catch its tone. His was a different style, though it too had its beauty and its uses: as in his response to a recent Beauvoir visitor, a reporter who hoped to leave with something that would help explain to readers the underlying motivation of those crucial years of bloodshed and division. Davis pondered briefly, then replied. "Tell them--" He paused as if to sort the words. "Tell the world that I only loved America," he said.
Here's how much Jefferson Davis loved America:
From Davis's farewell speech to the U.S. Senate:
Jefferson Davis 1861: Mississippi... has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions.... The Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were asserting that no man was born... booted and spurred, to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal, meaning the men of the political community... [that] all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced.... They have no reference to the slave...
Jefferson Davis during the debate over the Compromise of 1850:
Jefferson Davis 1850: [S]ir, I have an allegiance to the State which I represent here. I have an allegiance to those who have entrusted their interests to me, which every consideration of faith and of duty, which every feeling of honor, tells me is above all other political considerations. I trust I shall never find my allegiance there and here in conflict. God forbid that the day should ever come when to be true to my constituents is to be hostile to the Union. If, sir, we have reached that hour in the progress of our institutions, it is past the age to which the Union should have lived. If we have got to the point when it is treason to the United States to protect the rights and interests of our constituents, I ask why should they longer be represented here? why longer remain a part of the Union? If there is a dominant party in this Union which can deny to us equality, and the rights we derive through the Constitution; if we are no longer the freemen our fathers left us; if we are to be crushed by the power of an unrestrained majority, this is not the Union for which the blood of the Revolution was shed; this is not the Union I was taught from my cradle to revere; this is not the Union in the service of which a large portion of my life has been passed; this is not the Union for which our fathers pledged their property, their lives, and sacred honor. No, sir, this would be a central Government, raised on the destruction of all the principles of the Constitution, and the first, the highest obligation of every man who has sworn to support that Constitution would be resistance to such usurpation. This is my position.
My colleague has truly represented the people of Mississippi as ardently attached to the Union. I think he has not gone beyond the truth when he has placed Mississippi one of the first, if not the first, of the States of the Confederation in attachment to it. But, sir, even that deep attachment and habitual reverence for the Union, common to us all--even that, it may become necessary to try by the touchstone of reason. It is not impossible that they should unfurl the flag of disunion. It is not impossible that violations of the Constitution and of their rights, should drive them to that dread extremity. I feel well assured that they will never reach it until it has been twice and three times justified. If, when thus fully warranted, they want a standard bearer, in default of a better, I am at their command.
Truly this is a gift that keeps on giving.