FreakRepublic Teabagger in chief Jim "RimJob" Robinson has meltdown over Mittens

[FORD]

Purpose of FR and why we can never support Mitt Romney
vanity | Oct 15, 2011 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 10/15/2011 1:51:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 10/15/2011 1:54:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Our purpose and goal on FR is to restore, defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity!!

The goal of the domestic enemy (the left), i.e., the statist liberals, Marxists and progressives is just the opposite.

The goal of the establishment RINO is to gain control of political power, but not to otherwise rock the boat. The boat continues taking on water and listing sharper to port every time the left takes over, but the unprincipled RINOs do absolutely nothing to right her when they get a chance. In fact, the RINOs actually tack on plenty of their own unconstitutional baggage when they're in power and so our ship of state today is in pretty bad shape.

RINO Romney is one of the worst. We can thank him for being the chief architect of ObamaCare, which if we cannot get overturned and repealed, will finally accomplish the left's major objective of shredding the final remnants of our tattered constitution and ending our God-given Liberty forever (they think).

The liberals believe our constitution is a flawed document written in a different time for different circumstances by rich old racist white men and no longer applies to today's circumstances. They're now even trying to promote the idea that the constitution was never intended to limit or restrict the powers of government.

Like hell! That was and is its primary intent! And we who have sworn an oath to defend it, will defend it--from all enemies, foreign and domestic!

And that's FR's purpose and reason for being.

Romney may be a Republican, and that's questionable, because he's violated nearly every plank in the Republican party's official pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Constitution, pro-Liberty platform, but he's definitely no conservative. In fact his record is that of a statist liberal progressive. And he's a total fraud to boot, with a nasty habit of lying--about everything. He'll do and say anything if he thinks it will help him get elected. He's a two-bit, unprincipled political whore.

Here's Romney's record on some of our primary issues of concern compared to Obama's:

Issue: Obama Romney
Pro-Abortion check check
Gun-grabber check check
Gay rights check check
Gov forced healthcare check check
Tax payer funded abortion check check
Man-made global warming check check
Liberal judges check check
Liberal appointees check check
Ted Kennedy pal check check
Proven liar check check
Fraud check check
Liberal Progressive check check
Enemy of Reagan/Bush check check
Enemy of the tea party check check
Enemy of Liberty check check
Defender of the Constitution no no
Conservative no no
Works across the aisle no yes
Architect of ObamaCare no yes
Domestic Enemy check check
Useful idiot check check

All of the above plus much more is documented in the RomneyTruth files on FR. Click the RomneyTruthFile keyword at the top of the main page. Also watch the "New Romney Campaign Video" also linked at the top of the main page. Watch it all the way through. I even saw some clips I'd never seen before. Pretty damning stuff for anyone running for president as a Republican.

Let's face it folks, the elite establishment RINO corps hates the tea party, hates conservatives, are afraid and even ashamed to have us identify ourselves as Republicans, feel we are dangerous extremist, racist, bigoted bible thumping, gun-toting, flag-waving neanderthals. The tea party is the best thing to happen for America since 1776 and our tea party candidates are the best thing for the GOP since Ronald Reagan, but what do the elite establishment RINOs do? They declare us the enemy! They went after Sarah Palin and some of our other tea party candidates with bared fangs and talons. Karl Rove and company were and continue to be as nasty and shameless on the attack as the nastiest lying liberal. Sarah Palin was the most exciting new face in GOP politics in a century and would have been a landslide 57 state victory over the corrupt, lying Marxist/progressive Obama. But the good ol' boys, i.e., the elite establishment corrupt crony capitalist GOP bastards could have none of that. Instead, they've opted to go all in with a corrupt, lying statist/progressive of their own: Willard (the Rat) Romney.

Well, good luck getting the Rat elected without the committed grassroots, pro-life, pro-constitution conservatives or the majority of the tea party.

FR, for one, will not play that game. NO MORE RINOS!!

No Romney. NOT ON FR!! NOT ON MY WATCH!!

Should Romney be "the one," I'll vote for the down-ticket conservatives on the ballot, but I will not vote for an abortionist, gay-rights pushing, gun-grabbing, global-warming advocating, big government healthcare mandating statist/progressive for president!! I'd rather write-in the name of the tea party conservative who best matches my beliefs. Romney is no 80 percenter. Not even close! He's the backstabbing enemy within.

God bless America!!

Long live the Republic!! :meinsmiley:

Link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2793300/posts)

[FORD]

Should RimJob's fellow Freepers take him seriously? Not for one goddamn second. Here's what he said about Chimpy in 1999.....




"So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?

Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!

And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!

Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson

By the time McCain entered the 2000 primary, RimJob had done a complete 360 in his position on the Chimp. And once the Idiot Son of an Asshole was installed as pResident by the Supreme Court, he banned anyone who dared to criticize him on the website.

So will RimJob support Romney too? Sure he will, probably right about the time Ann The Man tells him it's OK to do so.. :biggrin:

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8490/ac080121b.jpg

[Nitro Express]

Mitt gave my niece her first job out of design school. She decorated his vacation home. He was her first client. The funny thing is she isn't going to vote for him either. LOL!

[sadaist]

I will vote for Mitt over Obama. But I will not vote for Mitt in the primaries. He is not my first choice to run against Barack.

[Nitro Express]

I think Ron Paul is going to do better than the press is making it look. Too many Republicans are fed up with their party and too many Democrats are fed up with theirs. The Republican Party want to get rid of Ron Paul and that makes him all the more appealing. Everyone knows the only reason he's even on the Republican ticket is to get on the ballots. You have to run in a major party or you spend all your money just on the ballot process. The next president will not be Obama and I don't think it will be Mitt. Obama and Mitt have a similar problem. Both are too connected to Wall Street which as you can see, is not winning any popularity contests right now.

The 2012 election could very well be the first election decided by alternative media and the internet vs the traditional media and the old way of doing things. I think we are going to see more reform and system busting past this point in history. We all know too much power has been in the control of too few and that is what everyone wants to change at this point.

[FORD]

Ron Paul as President would only work with solid Liberal majorities in both houses of Congress.

And I mean Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich/Russ Feingold/Alan Grayson actual Liberals, not Reid/Pelosi/Baucus/Lieberman frauds. Granted, a President Paul would probably veto much of their agenda, which would suck, but they wouldn't pass his Randtard bullshit either, so it would be a true balance of power, with the few good things they have in common actually getting passed

Ron Paul with a teabagger congress would be worse than Cain, Perry or Bachmann, because they would never allow the GOOD things that Ron Paul believes in, such as ending imperialism, possibly the war on drugs, and putting the dollar in the Treasury where it belongs. Instead, it would be an orgy of radical extremism that would make the current economic disaster look like a goddamn holiday, by comparison.

And until we get rid of Shittizens United, neither a Paul nomination OR a useful Congress is likely :(

[Nitro Express]

A friend of mine is actually helping with Ron Paul's campaign. Here's the strategy. Save money by running on the Republican ticket. Perform well in the debates. Run on a open record open to public scrutiny (you won't see any flip flopping). Using alternative media than traditional media to spread image. It will be an election based more on who you can trust opposed to who is the big celebrity. Obama is no longer a celebrity and non of the Republicans will be a celebrity. Advertising hits diminishing returns. Having lots of money only goes so far before you over saturate your image and people get sick of seeing you.

Paul is running a gorilla war against a full on traditional army using old tactics. The new weapon is the internet. That's the strategy.

The main issue for the next president will be quality of life in the US. Prices on healthcare and education need to come way down. People need career opportunities. We need to stop the reckless waste and spending. Ron Paul is the only candidate that will take a big chunk out of the military budget.

I don't agree with him on abortion. I think the government needs to stay out of legislating morals and making those kind of personal choices for people. I'm pro choice but with Ron Paul the benefits still outnumber the cons in my opinion.

Someone needs to slam the breaks on the runaway train called the US Government before it can be fixed. We need to get the money under the control of the elected government, we need to stop the wars for profit and cut the military budget, and we need to bring the manufacturing base back. People need to learn to work again and work towards bettering their situation than just sitting there collecting a welfare subsidy. The cost of living needs to be affordable. Prices need to adjust to what people are making and can afford. Due to the Federal Reserve and government subsidies like on college tuition, the prices are too damn high.

[Nitro Express]

All getting the nomination means is you get the full resources of the party behind you. I always figured my vote for president never really mattered because the state I reside in always gives it's electoral votes to the Republican nominated candidate. I have never voted for the Republican nominated candidate. In the 2012 election I'm not so sure. Ron Paul is a very popular candidate here in Wyoming and people are pretty disappointed in the Republican party. They view it as a fake, bought off organization that will only run candidates who support the corporations and not the grass roots people. I think the whole frustration in the nation is the average person feels there is nobody running who will support them. I think the old ways of doing things is coming to an end. It's deeper than just Republicans vs Democrats. It's who really gives a ratt's ass about me and everyone knows the party in general could care less about you. So maybe we will go into a situation where we will actually vote candidates instead of parties because you no longer need the mainstream media to get your message out. What has been tightly controlled in the past is access to the media and Ron Paul is doing quite well by being completely ignored by his party and the media. It's an interesting situation.

[Seshmeister]

The goal of the domestic enemy (the left), i.e., the statist liberals, Marxists and progressives is just the opposite.


The 'domestic enemy?'

Pretty odd language.

I'm also kind of confused at his implication that you can be a slave owner without being racist.

Mental.

[BigBadBrian]

Mitt gave my niece her first job out of design school. She decorated his vacation home.

Who would have thought?

[Blaze]

The 'domestic enemy?'

Pretty odd language.

I'm also kind of confused at his implication that you can be a slave owner without being racist.

Mental.


Not odd language considering the source. There are certain sorts that will use language as a means to justifying actions and to sooth the souls of the populace, in other words To ease the burden of guilt of those they fear loosing, a form of brain washing, Double speak I think it was called in 1984.

Nevertheless, concerning slavery as purely racial, in USAmerica, ultimately yes, indeed it did become a racist (supremacy) to the justification of the vile treatment and use of chattel slavery.

To quickly explain, I will quote a passage from another:

I am by no means a historian, but I seem to remember that the origins of slavery, at least as far as we know, lay in the conquering of one group by another, with no racial implications whatsoever in most instances. This suggests to me that the racism that existed and that exists to this day in the Western world, and most particularly in the United States, was a rationalization created after the fact to try to justify enslavement. In very early instances of slavery in which there were no racial implications, the mere act of conquering served as a justification. I wonder to what degree, the stigma of slavery has remained against a group where there is no external and immutable characteristic, i.e., race, to alert people to a prior, stigmatizing status.

Though he is partly correct, he is leaving out the indebtedness and class slavery that is still practiced today. It should be noted that not all slave holders are vile and corrupt. I met a "slave" from Qatar who was receiving his higher education abroad, however to remain connected to Qatar, thus his family, most of what he knew, and Qatar's and his "holder's" affluence he had to abide by his holder's wishes, a Qatar citizen.

http://www.enotes.com/history/discuss/relationship-between-slavery-racism-89343?start=10

Party leads to vicious, corrupt and unprofitable legislation, for the sole purpose of defeating party.
James F. Cooper

Behavior which appears superficially correct but is intrinsically corrupt always irritates those who see below the surface.
James Bryant Conant

[Blaze]

Addendum:
What caused slavery to become based on race?

There are many different views on this subject.

One view holds that slavery became racialized simply because having slavery limited to blacks was convenient. Blacks were seen as more convenient slaves for a number of reasons. They were conspicuous, for one thing. If people could assume that almost all blacks (and only blacks) were slaves, it would be much easier to keep control over the slave populations. In addition, blacks imported from Africa would be much less likely to demand rights than white indentured servants would be.

Another view is more of a Marxist one. This one can be seen, for example, in the writings of Ronald Takaki. Takaki argues that it was in the interests of the upper class to keep the lower/slave classes divided. If slavery and/or wage labor were a multi-racial thing, that class might develop solidarity and throw off their oppressors. By defining slavery in racial terms, the upper class was able to use race to divide the lower classes against one another and rule them. To this way of thinking, slavery became racialized because it helped the upper classes maintain their dominance over the lower classes.

http://www.enotes.com/history/discuss/what-caused-slavery-become-based-race-93065

[Seshmeister]

I find it fascinating that Abraham Lincoln was against slavery because of it's economic effect on the white workers not because he felt sorry for the slaves.

Pretty sure this quote isn't on any of the memorials.



"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

[sadaist]

Addendum:
What caused slavery to become based on race?

There are many different views on this subject.


I thought it was because blacks were thought of as a lower species of human, if human at all.

[sadaist]

I find it fascinating that Abraham Lincoln was against slavery because of it's economic effect on the white workers not because he felt sorry for the slaves.

Pretty sure this quote isn't on any of the memorials.



Once you open any door a little, you still have opened the door. This is the exact argument that people against gay marriage are using (but not pointing to Lincolns quote here).

Not only can blacks & whites marry each other now....but they can do it within the same sex in many states as well.

Once you open that door.......................


And really, that quote was only 150 years ago almost exactly from when Barack was elected to President. This is what illegal immigrant advocate groups are doing. The just passed the Dream Act in CA that allows government financial aid for college to illegal immigrant students. Just another very small step in their ultimate goal of amnesty. Just making them a little more legal, a little more accepted, a little more, a little more, a little more.........until an illegal immigrant becomes President (some say that's already happened) :)

Once you open that door..........................

baby steps folks, baby steps

[Blaze]

I thought it was because blacks were thought of as a lower species of human, if human at all.
No, Not even Dr. Duke ascribes to that inane and plainly false statement.

As I know you do not tolerate reading long passages here. I will save writing a discourse and give to you a link that is black on white, though not vetted, appears to cover, for the most extent, the main highlights of how racial slavery came to be an USAmerican phenomenon.

I would like to clarify there are such things as race, as clearly we look up each other and see differences. However, supremacy is not establish among the races or sub-races and is a whole other discourse.


CLASS STRUGGLE
and the
ORIGIN OF RACIAL SLAVERY:
The Invention of the White Race
http://clogic.eserver.org/2006/allen.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Theodore-W-Allen/113055408705216

[sadaist]

No, Not even Dr. Duke ascribes to that inane and plainly false statement.



I meant that supremacy at it's very base is the feeling that whatever you are is supreme to whatever the other is. That you feel higher, more elevated, more intelligent,more refined, more evolved. I have seen a lot of racist propaganda where they refer to people of color (any color so long as it isn't white) as a lower form of human than the pure white man. It's a disgusting way to think, but I was under the impression that it had a lot to do with slavery. I realize other factors were at play as well.

[Nitro Express]

If you think racism is bad in the US try living in parts of Asia for awhile. It's brutal there. I think the anti-US crowd like to exaggerate the racist situation here more than it really is. I've never seen it better. My mom's side of the family has a history of being racist. I went to my aunts funeral and saw this black guy there and thought "Oh my, I hope he isn't dating anyone on my mom's side of the family because he's going to catch shit.." It turns out he was engaged to my cousin and everyone really liked him. He was in real estate and was from St. Louis but everyone felt sorry for him because my cousin is a real piece of work and was probably only marrying him for his money. The people who would have given him shit were all dead. My uncle would have thrown a royal fit over a mixed marriage. None of his children cared and actually felt sorry because he was marrying a real shark. LOL!

[Nitro Express]

And really, that quote was only 150 years ago almost exactly from when Barack was elected to President. This is what illegal immigrant advocate groups are doing. The just passed the Dream Act in CA that allows government financial aid for college to illegal immigrant students. Just another very small step in their ultimate goal of amnesty. Just making them a little more legal, a little more accepted, a little more, a little more, a little more.........until an illegal immigrant becomes President (some say that's already happened)

Once you open that door..........................

baby steps folks, baby steps

All perpetrated by very rich people who own assets globally. They don't care about borders and countries like the US have always been in the way of them having a global government of trade unions ran by corporations. How you destroy a country is let it be flooded with people who never join anything and are divided on language. Legal immigration means you join the citizenship of the country and understand that there is an official language of that country. When all you want is cheap slaves you don't want citizens with a sense of identity. It's not about bringing people up it's about bringing everyone down. Bankrupt the government on purpose and then after people are desperate you toss your program on them. The only people who gain anything from illegal immigration is the rich 1%. It's a dream for them.

[Blaze]

I find it fascinating that Abraham Lincoln was against slavery because of it's economic effect on the white workers not because he felt sorry for the slaves.

Pretty sure this quote isn't on any of the memorials.

It was a double edge sword. And plainly the Corporate class was not concerned with society as a whole, shown by their manipulation to contrive the least possible labor dollar.

To save me time writing, shown here in this passage:
T. J. Randolph, nephew and namesake of the author of the Declaration of Independence, put the rhetorical question to his fellow legislators: ". . . upon whom is to fall the burden of this defense (against slave- Hoi polloi revolts): not upon the lordly masters of their hundred slaves, who will never turn out except to retire with their families when danger threatens. No sir, it is to fall . . . chiefly upon the non-slaveholders . . . patrolling under a compulsory process, for a pittance of seventy-five cents per twelve hours. . . ."

George W. Summers of Kanawha County made many in the House of Delegates wince. "In the character of Patroles," he said, the poor white ". . . is thus made to fold to his bosom, the adder that stings him." Summers, of course, was as opposed as all the rest of the members to freeing the poor white of "the adder" by establishing equality of black and white labor in Virginia.

"Civis," an Eastern Virginia slaveholder, pointed out that in his part of the state more than half the white minority had "little but their complexion to console them for being born into a higher caste." The editor of the Richmond Enquirer spoke more wisely than he intended of the status of the white workers: ". . . forced to wander vagabonds around the confines of society, finding no class which they can enter, because for the one they should have entered, there is substituted an ARTIFICIAL SYSTEM of labor to which they cannot attach themselves."


- And as you see when I reply to Sadist, most "whites" that were not of the political class or corporate class had been bonded-servants (slaves) themselves. There was very little middle class within that time frame of USAmerica, both north and south.

[Blaze]

I meant that supremacy at it's very base is the feeling that whatever you are is supreme to whatever the other is. That you feel higher, more elevated, more intelligent,more refined, more evolved. I have seen a lot of racist propaganda where they refer to people of color (any color so long as it isn't white) as a lower form of human than the pure white man. It's a disgusting way to think, but I was under the impression that it had a lot to do with slavery. I realize other factors were at play as well.

Bourgeoisie
Hardened
I meant that supremacy at it's very base is the feeling that whatever you are is supreme to whatever the other is. That you feel higher, more elevated, more intelligent, more refined, more evolved. I have seen a lot of racist propaganda where they refer to people of color (any color so long as it isn't white) as a lower form of human than the pure white man. It's a disgusting way to think, but I was under the impression that it had a lot to do with slavery. I realize other factors were at play as well.

The word you are looking for is Supremacism.
Supremacism is the belief that
a particular race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.

This is different than:
Triumphalism - the attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, religion, culture, or social system is superior to ________.

But both are a belief.

A supremacist is

Noun:
An advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, esp. one determined by race or sex:

Supremacy is a state of being or condition.
Noun:
The state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status: "the supremacy of the king".

Racist or Racism the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others.

Races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences.

--------------

Your impression of slavery is partially wrong. In USAmerica, as I have previously stated, did ultimately became Racial Slavery. However, Bacon’s Rebellion hardens the racial lines in USAmerican slavery. Note that is USAmerican slavery, not slavery globally.

To get an understanding:
I would begin reading at V – VIII, Realizing that the word bourgeoisie in this instance means ruling class - as there was little middle class and negating Allen's possible Triumphalism.

To easily find chapter V use the "Find" feature of your browser located under tools or CTRL+F and input VII that will allow you to get within quick scrolling distance to chapter V

http://clogic.eserver.org/2006/allen.html



Pulled for Sesh:
IV
Domestic political and economic considerations would have made it impossible to impose such a policy as a general thing in England. But, a policy of forced transportation to perpetual servitude, restricted to convicts only, in England, and to Irish and Scottish rebels, "vagrants," and "rogues," and the extension to life of the terms of all such categories of servants already in the colonies, would not have imperiled the fundamental ruling power of the bourgeoisie in England. If this course was not followed, it was not for reasons of social order in England, but of the establishment of a system of social control in the unique conditions of the plantation colonies. The Anglo-American bourgeoisie did not make slaves of black and white together because it was not in its power to do so in the historical context. To have attempted to do so would have put in mortal jeopardy what power it did have, considerable as that power was. The non-slavery of white labor was the indispensable condition for the slavery of black labor. This is no mere conjecture; it is a fact that the events of Bacon's Rebellion, and of the whole turbulent quarter-century following 1660, made unmistakably clear.

...
However, special repressive measures for specific acts of solidarity by whites with blacks were not sufficient. The social turbulence of the time showed that the unifying effect of the common lot of bond-servants was stronger than the divisive effect of the penalties for specific illegal acts. Edmund S. Morgan makes a perceptive comment in this connection: "It is questionable (he writes) how far Virginia could safely have continued . . . meeting discontent with repression and manning her plantations with annual importations of servants who would later add to the unruly ranks of the free . . . There was another solution which allowed Virginia's magnates to keep their lands, yet arrested the discontent and repression of other Englishmen. . . .

...

Turn, and turn again. First prefer white labor, then black labor, now white labor again. Why? Of course these European bond-servants were to be exploited, and heavily exploited, on the plantations. That point was made repeatedly. To cite one example, in 1682, "Sundry merchants possessing estates in America" were anxious lest the enforcement of the anti-kidnapping laws in England inhibit the flow of bond-servants to the colonies. They urged consideration of the fact that "every white man's work at tobacco for a year is worth £7 (seven pounds sterling) to the king."49 That was just the part of the profit that went to the king, and did not include the profits of the planters, shipmasters and merchants. When we note that European bond-servants were selling at less than three pounds per year of unexpired term and that their maintenance came to practically nothing, we can see how remunerative their exploitation was for the owners.50

But labor is labor, smoke the pipe or sniff the snuff; taste the sugar or rice. You cannot tell whether African, English or Irish labor made it for you. The renewal of interest in white men for bond-servants was, therefore, not due to any special qualities of their labor power, in which they were the same as the Africans.

VII
The reason was simple. The special demand for white servants was now primarily to "people the country," to serve in the militia, to serve as a basic means of social control based on the perpetual and hereditary bond-servitude of Africans and Afro-Americans. There are literally scores of documents in the records of the time which attest to this fact. I mention a few

...