Sorry mate, don't watch CNN. 

I do think that trump has tapped into the millions of Americans that are fueled by hate and plays them for their votes. And all these rascist pieces of [BLEEP] are loving that they have a new guy in charge to validate their hatred.

You just accused 63 million people of being racist. Step back from your angry rant and at least see how silly that looks.

No, he said "the millions of". That's accurate. There are millions of Americans out there who let hate guide their thoughts and actions. He did not say that everyone who voted for Trump was racist.

---

Here is a question for minorities, and all people who want these artifacts removed, and I ask this in earnest. What do you hope to accomplish by having these things taken down? What problems in minority communities will be fixed by doing this? Will the crime go away? Will the rampant drug problems suddenly disappear? To me, that is the real issue here. Slavery is a thing of the past, save the underground illegal operations.  Furthermore, a large percentage of minorities who live in poverty in this country still have it better than they do back where they came from. Now that's real poverty. Living in mud huts or shanties. No electricity or any of the modern things that we as Americans take for granted on a daily basis. So, what will removing these things accomplish?

I really want to know.

PS: for the record,  I  don't care either way whether they stay or go. I do know this though. Removing those things will cost money. Wouldn't that money be better spent on the community? That's the only thing that sways my opinion to leaving them alone.

Removing the Confederate artifacts is itself the end sought for me. 

Will removing the statues and other paraphernalia provide a panacea for all of the various problems that ail the community?  Of course not.  But that is a onerous standard that no other proposed ordinance or legislation has ever been required to meet.  You didn't require that of the various ordinances that made Jacksonville Municipal Stadium/Alltel/Everbank field a reality, even though the proponents (I am one, BTW) argued about the numerous tangible benefits having the stadium would have on the community (though many economists assert the economic benefit a stadium provided to a community is vastly overrated).  The City Council could pass an ordinance regarding parking meters. Although related to cars, nobody would reasonably anticipate improvements to all automobile related issues in a community, like the inability of drivers to comprehend safe following distances, yield, etc. to flow from the passing of the ordinance.  Such a standard certainly was not mandated of the efforts to erect those contemptible statues in the first place, nor was it required to change the name of the school that was originally to be called Valhalla high school to Nathan B. Forrest.  It's disingenuous to require that of any proposal to remove the statues while not mandating a similar panacea effect for all proposed ordinances, to say nothing of the fact a statute covering the myriad problems society has would likely violate the single subject requirement.

Your screed about the standard of living is laughable.  Aside from the fact it presumes Africa has no electricity or air conditioning or other modern amenities, it presumes that the addition of a few creature comforts is worth the price of one's freedom.  If a white guy decided to move from Kentucky, one of the poorest states in the union to California for the mere opportunity for a better standard of living, conservatives would be outraged if it meant that California reserved the right to deprive him of any and every opportunity to enjoy whatever "improvements" he may have experienced from the move.  To take this from the abstract to the more tangible and historical, George Washington and the founding fathers lived in places that were less established than England.  None of the American cities at the time were as advanced as London was.  They didn't have the creature comforts we take for granted today.  Under your rationale, they had no reason whatsoever to revolt. The suggestion that air conditioning is worth the freedom of self determination is bigoted, condescending, and insulting.

While I am in one of my rare appearances here, I am going to address some other points raised not only here, but elsewhere.

History-the assertion by Neo Confederates that taking down of Confederate statues is an attempt to change history is ludicrous on many levels.  First, it presumes that a person or event has no historical significance or educational worth if he/she/it is not commemorated via statue.  Somehow, people have managed to learn about the Teapot Dome scandal without a plethora of statues commemorating it.  Along that same point, none of you deny the Monica Lewinski scandal happened, yet none of you are clamoring for a statue memorializing it.  Granted that would be quite the depiction in granite or bronze, but as of yet, none of you have called for it.  Is there no historical or educational value to learning about an adulterous president lying about an affair while in office?  Furthermore, the Neo Confederates who take the stance that history is inviolate betray their own arguments when they ignore the history of the very people they seek to honor.  They assert that the Civil War was not about slavery and racism in their after the fact attempt at PR to make the Confederacy less malignant.  Yet somehow, the very word of the leaders of the Confederacy uttered at the time of the war, and the actions of the Confederate states etched in writing at the time of their secession are not worthy of mention in the many years I have had these debates.  Alexander Stephens was vice president of the Confederacy.  His "Cornerstone of the Confederacy" speech outlined the specific reasons and rationales fir secession.  In relevant part  "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." T(Emphasis added)

The states of Mississippi and South Carolina were among the traitorous Confederate states that seceded.  This passage was taken from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:  "
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "  (Emphasis added).

This from South Carolina...

"These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. "

(Emphasis added)

This from Alabama  "[b]Sec 2. Be it further declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled, That all powers over the Territory of said State, and over the people thereof, heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America, be and they are hereby withdrawn from said Government, and are hereby resumed and vested in the people of the State of Alabama.[/b]

[b]And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,[/b]"

(Emphasis added)


Stephens was there.  He was no fiction of people bent on maligning the good name of the south.  Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina were there too.  They knew why they seceded and said so.  No revisionist history here, except by the neo Confederates trying to Jedi mind trick the Confederacy into moral agency after the fact.  If any of you acknowledged these truths, the "history argument" might have a veneer of truth.

The argument that the assault on Confederate monuments is an assault on white history is also patently silly.  You don't have to be white to know white history long preceded the rise and defeat of the Confederacy, and cannot factually or sensibly be constrained to that four year period of time.  Yet it is conservative whites who willfully constrain the entirety of white history to that four year period marked by public pronouncements of racism, support of slavery, treason, and the physical destruction of the very culture you purport to love.  Do you mean to assert whites cannot accomplish anything unless they are oppressing non whites?  When you conflate confederate history with white history, that is EXACTLY the effect.





 

Quoted for truth. This post is the gold standard for responding to anyone claiming the Confederacy was not formed to preserve slavery.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

BLM I'll give you, but the Nazis were about as socialist as Gilgamesh, and you'll have to explain how a Klan that's openly supportive of Trump is made up of Democrats.

As far as Nazis go, yes, the were absolutely socialists.  They advocated for a strong, unquestioned centralized government.  Hell, SOCIALIST was in their party name (National Socialist German Workers Party).  Not like they were trying to hide it.  Bernie Sanders supporters would embrace the Nazi agenda if it wasn't for the whole jack booted aspect of the party.

They wanted to nationalize corporations.  They wanted to expand their social welfare programs.  They demanded profit sharing in large corporations.  They wanted the government to snap up private property for public use.  They wanted to nationalize education and make it free to all.  Their platform reads like a Bernie Sanders rally for the most part.

Absolutely right, if you replace the rage against Rich Jews with rage against the 1% it fits perfectly.

---

BLM I'll give you, but the Nazis were about as socialist as Gilgamesh, and you'll have to explain how a Klan that's openly supportive of Trump is made up of Democrats.

Ummmm....

"After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism."

[font=sans-serif]"But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one."[/font]

[font=sans-serif]"[font=sans-serif]The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth… There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism… Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers."[/font][/font]

And don't even get me started about eugenics.

---

Only diseased liberals who watch fake news.

You standing up for a nazi supporter truly sickens me. Stop ruining our country with your bigotry.

Do you really understand how ignorant you sound?

---

Only diseased liberals who watch fake news.

You standing up for a nazi supporter truly sickens me. Stop ruining our country with your bigotry.

If you can't see the difference in supporting an unpopular position versus supporting a person's right to hold and express an unpopular position then there's not much to be said.

"I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an [BLEEP] of yourself.” ― Oscar Wilde

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yeah you're right.. It's all Trump.. Worst president ever.. He even stole The Dukes of Hazard from the TV.. Has nothing to do with worthless garbage liberals who can't handle the adversity that their failure of candidate just couldn't win. Not at all...

It's not Clinton or Sanders standing behind a podium loudly defending skinheads, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

I mean, all he was missing today was a sharp rebuke to those uppity negroes to know their place in society.

The sooner Trump goes and Pence takes over, the faster these white supremacist groups shrivel back into their dusty little trailers.

Odd. I watched the presser and don't recall him defending any of the groups you mentioned.  I mustn't have had my mainstream media spoon feeding filter on.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

To those calling the president a Nazi Sympathizer, I want you to take a step back and really think about what you are saying. This is a man who proudly embraces his son in law and by extension his daughter and grand Children who are Jewish. The NAZI groups that we all decry are violently anti sematic. What company would a man keep with people who would gladly rape and kill his own daughter because of who he married or see his grand children burned on a cross or worse? That's a false narrative.

As the commander and chief of this nation he is charged with defending the constitution of the United States, part of that constitution includes the first amendment and the basic right of people to peacefully assemble and express ideas no matter how backward or indefensible. Pointing out that ALT LEFT groups were directly involved in precipitating the violence doesn't denote a moral equivalence between the counter protestors and the whole of white supremacy, it simply points out the facts on the ground for this particular conflict/riot.

There were definitely outside far left groups on the ground. ANTIFA, BLM, IWW etc. This wasn't just a case of local minorities offended that decided to counter protest. All of these groups also have a history of both inciting violence and seeking to SHUT DOWN or SILENCE their opposition. For a long time now on college campuses the safe space movement has been cultivating that idea that in some instances free speech in and of itself is hate speech and experimenting with the idea of repealing parts of the first amendment. That's not compatible with a free society.

As a person of color I could give two witts about the KKK Duke Neo Nazis and the like. I have no respect for their ideology or their desire to resurrect failed movements from the ash heap of history. At the same time, that doesn't mean that they themselves become less than deserving of their basic constitutional rights.


Determining whether or not a demonstration event or protest will be peaceful is the duty of the local jurisdiction. The question has to be asked why the local officials would grant a permit to a group to demonstrate and assemble on this scale, given this subject matter when the backlash and counter protest would be expectedly violent. Ann Coulter can't give a speech about immigration on a college campus but the KKK can demonstrate in open daylight on behalf of a confederate general? Moreover, the security for protest (and predictable counter protest) should have been much more adequate. The idea that you have police shoving people going to war with each other into confined spaces to keep having at each other is insane. You had tear gas being thrown at cops. I've seen still shots of a counter protestor using an improvised flame thrower to try and incinerate a White demonstrator. In reality its a sad miracle that we are only dealing with three deaths in this whole sad affair.

As for the confederate Flag/symbols lets think about this for a moment. What wonderful things will this accomplish? I am not talking about an onerous standard of panacea (BULLSEYE) I am talking about net balance cause and affect. Will the benefit to the people offended by the statues that they read about online outweigh the injury to those who view it as a part of their heritage? If all were going to do is piss on a bees nest and have these violent scrums every 6 months is it really worth the symbolism?

---

It's not Clinton or Sanders standing behind a podium loudly defending skinheads, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

I mean, all he was missing today was a sharp rebuke to those uppity negroes to know their place in society.

The sooner Trump goes and Pence takes over, the faster these white supremacist groups shrivel back into their dusty little trailers.

Odd. I watched the presser and don't recall him defending any of the groups you mentioned.  I mustn't have had my mainstream media spoon feeding filter on.

This is the tragedy of our current dialogue.  I heard his presser live.  I knew exactly what he was saying, I agree 100%.  As president, he can't just give a blanket of nobility to anti-American communist sympathizers (some of which are actively cultivating positive PR for North Korea believe it or not IWW).  He can't abandon the constitutional rights of certain Americans just because they are white or even because they are racist. 


But at the same time I knew exactly how the Left and the media were going to spin it. 

FL pointed it out perfectly, there is a difference between supporting someone's view point and supporting their right to make a fool of themselves.  But that's not what is going to be reported and that's not going to be the narrative from his press conference. 

"Blame on both sides" directly refers to the fact that, on that particular day, in that particular park that both sets of protesters acted violently.  That's not a global historical moral equivellance between White supremacy and counter protest.  But that's going to get lost in the MSM filter machine and it won't get flushed out until 2060 if we're lucky.

---

http://nypost.com/2017/08/15/woman-hit-w...tatue/amp/

Glad to see her get arrested. Hopefully they throw the book at her.

---

http://nypost.com/2017/08/15/woman-hit-w...tatue/amp/

Glad to see her get arrested. Hopefully they throw the book at her.

From the article

Deputies took Thompson, a member of the far-left Workers World Party and a student at N.C. Central University, into custody Tuesday shortly after she appeared at a press conference with other protesters.

This group was a part of the Charlottesville riot and has a violent past.  Among other things, they have posts propping up the regime in NK because this week the pro American President is mad with them. 

These groups are violent communist/socialist revolutionaries. 

Antifa routinely stakes out events they don't agree with and threatens gross violence should the event take place.  This goes back to Ann Coulter not being allowed to speak at Berkley. 

The answer to White supremacy isn't lionizing every far left wacko that comes down the pike promising to overthrow the country.

---

The Georgia Declaration of Secession...

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. . . .

. . . An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.


. . . In 1820 the North demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property [editor's note: "persons charged with crimes affecting slave property" means people helping slaves to escape]. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor [editor's note: "fugitives from labor" means escaped slaves]. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant [editor's note: "claimant" means slave owner], even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant [editor's note: "servant" means slave] who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property [editor's note: "property" means slaves] in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity. "

Heritage not hate my [BLEEP].

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Quoted for truth. This post is the gold standard for responding to anyone claiming the Confederacy was not formed to preserve slavery.

Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the North?

---

I feel like some are soupset that he was saying people on the left were responsible for part of the violence over the weekend that their response is that he is taking the side of the Nazi's and other hate groups.

I read the manuscript so I didn't hear the actual speech, but in reading it that was not how I took it. There were literally people on the left that showed up with helmets, riot gear and clubs ready to fight. How is that not inciting violence?

There were hateful idiots on the right that don't deserve respect from anyone that were only there to incite them and people took the bait.

The one thing I took from this weekend is hypocrisy. The left feels they are able to meet, have marches, and do whatever they want without restriction. There is typically little to no resistance from the right. When a group from the right (in this case the extreme right), even if they are the worst human kind has to offer, let them speak their mind and do whatever they want. They did everything legally they were supposed to do. I've found people are all for free speech unless they don't agree with you.

---

 

I feel like some are soupset that he was saying people on the left were responsible for part of the violence over the weekend that their response is that he is taking the side of the Nazi's and other hate groups.

I read the manuscript so I didn't hear the actual speech, but in reading it that was not how I took it.  There were literally people on the left that showed up with helmets, riot gear and clubs ready to fight.  How is that not inciting violence?

There were hateful idiots on the right that don't deserve respect from anyone that were only there to incite them and people took the bait.  

The one thing I took from this weekend is hypocrisy.  The left feels they are able to meet, have marches, and do whatever they want without restriction.  There is typically little to no resistance from the right.  When a group from the right (in this case the extreme right), even if they are the worst human kind has to offer, let them speak their mind and do whatever they want.  They did everything legally they were supposed to do.  I've found people are all for free speech unless they don't agree with you.

The left shuts down free speech with violence. Today they are kicking down statues. Tomorrow, they will be burning down homes and businesses.

---

I have to say that Charlottesville has been a wildly successful operation for those who wish to destroy America.  It was perfectly scripted, staged, framed and lighted, yet the key events are largely unknown and may be forever shrouded in mystery.  What were the motivations of the driver and why did nobody see the driver apprehended?  Was James Alex Fields the driver?  Is it even his car?  Why were there no cops anywhere around?  What about the 2 cops allegedly killed in the helicopter crash?  There is local video showing 2 guys in flight suits, one carrying a flight helmet, one skinny and one chubby, limping around near the crash sight.  

So we've got white people fighting white people over racism.  The puppeteers are laughing at us.

---

I have to say that Charlottesville has been a wildly successful operation for those who wish to destroy America.  It was perfectly scripted, staged, framed and lighted, yet the key events are largely unknown and may be forever shrouded in mystery.  What were the motivations of the driver and why did nobody see the driver apprehended?  Was James Alex Fields the driver?  Is it even his car?  Why were there no cops anywhere around?  What about the 2 cops allegedly killed in the helicopter crash?  There is local video showing 2 guys in flight suits, one carrying a flight helmet, one skinny and one chubby, limping around near the crash sight.  

So we've got white people fighting white people over racism.  The puppeteers are laughing at us.

There were no police because the Left allows their attack dogs free reign against those who oppose them. That's why Portland and Berkeley, and Ferguson all happen as they do, because they are doing the Lord's Work for the Left.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I have to say that Charlottesville has been a wildly successful operation for those who wish to destroy America.  It was perfectly scripted, staged, framed and lighted, yet the key events are largely unknown and may be forever shrouded in mystery.  What were the motivations of the driver and why did nobody see the driver apprehended?  Was James Alex Fields the driver?  Is it even his car?  Why were there no cops anywhere around?  What about the 2 cops allegedly killed in the helicopter crash?  There is local video showing 2 guys in flight suits, one carrying a flight helmet, one skinny and one chubby, limping around near the crash sight.  

So we've got white people fighting white people over racism.  The puppeteers are laughing at us.

You sure do like conspiracies.

---

You sure do like conspiracies.

It's more a matter of recognizing them than liking or not liking.  The Pavlovian response from the MSM and the political establishment is further proof of a planned operation.  Did you know that psychological operations against American citizens, including staged false flag operations, is now totally legal? 

We have few facts, but instant reactive narrative and total cover for the left to destroy all traces of the Confederacy.  City workers in Baltimore just took down all the Civil War statues overnight.  A cemetery in Hollywood, CA had to remove a plaque commemorating the Civil War soldiers buried there.  It's just the beginning.

---

Have we already forgotten a Bernie supporter tried to assassinate a republican at a baseball game?

---

Bullseye for President.

---

Quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of all of this.

President Trump (rightly so) called out both sides.

Taking down Confederate monuments and statues serves no purpose other than to appease a segment of the population.  These monuments and statues have been standing how long?  They are just now "offensive" and "must come down immediately"?

Is this really the most important thing that needs to be addressed by the current administration right now?  I mean, health care is a mess, taxes are too high, we have a crazy dictator "threatening" us with words and propaganda...  the list goes on and on.

On the State and Local front, do we really need to be spending money on removing statues and monuments?  For what reason?

Have we as a society really sunk that low?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

A minister in Chicago is now demanding that the mayor order the removal of a statue of George Washington because he owned slaves. I wonder if he damanded that the mayor do more to curb the homicides in his community, or if that isn't as important as this.

BTW, a prominent liberal organization, the Sourhern Poverty Law Center has indicated that one of the organizers of that white nationalist rally last week is a former Occupy Wall Street member and long time Obama supporter. The notion that this thing was a scripted false flag is sounding more plausible by the day.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli...r-n2369506

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.