Page 5 of 7 First 1234567 Last
  1. #45
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Jolie Rouge For This Useful Post:

    pepperpot (07-10-2015)

  3. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Confederate Battle Flag
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  4. #46
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Posted on July 9, 2015 by Megyn Kelly

    The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

    Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

    In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost,
    “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”
    No truer words were ever spoken.

    History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

    Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

    In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession.

    After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons.


    There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

    And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

    People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union.

    Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

    People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

    Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

    One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said: “Good help is hard to find these days.”

    The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

    Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment:
    “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
    You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

    The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

    Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln; and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

    The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

    This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

    In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861:
    “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
    What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

    Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

    Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens, who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this:
    “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
    Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

    Hear Lincoln again:
    “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.”
    He also said:
    “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
    http://megynkelly.org/179680/the-con...d-not-lowered/
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 07-10-2015 at 04:34 PM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #47
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    The idea that the Confederate flag (actually, there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

    On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks:
    “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
    Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

    Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech: “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. 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; 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 from living together on social or 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.”

    Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

    It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

    By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

    I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

    That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”


    http://megynkelly.org/179680/the-con...d-not-lowered/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #48
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Allahu Akbar: What the lowering of the Confederate flag is REALLY about

    Written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor on July 10, 2015

    Today, many are cheering the end of an era in the South. As The New York Times reports, many see the lowering of the Confederate flag from outside South Carolina’s State House as “closing a chapter on a symbol of the Deep South and its history of resistance and racial animus.” Whatever your views on the flag itself — symbol of racism and oppression vs. historical symbol of Southern pride — few would argue that the end of racial animus is a worthy cause for celebration.

    However — chillingly — others see today’s lowering of the flag as closing a chapter on something most fundamental and dear to our great nation: states’ rights, as enumerated in the 10th Amendment of our Constitution. And, more chillingly, they may be onto something.

    Unbelievably — though, sadly, less surprising these days in Obama’s America — the person undermining our nation’s foundation is one who served under our president until just last year.

    With a hat tip to Weasel Zippers, see what former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisor Mohamed Elibiary had to say about today’s lowering of the Confederate flag:







    You remember Elibiary, right? He was appointed by President Obama and retained a position with the Department of Homeland Security Council until he was sent packing after some unfortunate turns of events regarding things like the Muslim Brotherhood, tweeting that the return of Sharia law is inevitable, and getting caught borrowing classified materials and downloading them to his own computer. Even though he is gone from DHS, he’s still keeping a grip on America!

    As Weasel Zippers continues:

    Let no one mistake what is being said here, and what this controversy is about, as the former advisor spells out the point very simply. It’s not about the flag, but about federal control.

    Anyone else sensing a trend these days, with the recent Supreme Court decision to force gay marriage on all 50 states and now this? (Never mind the small detail that it was, in this case, the state legislature that voted to remove the flag; Elibiary, nonetheless, points to a dangerous momentum sweeping our nation.)

    Unfortunately, Mr. Elibiary (not to mention President Obama) seems to have skipped a lesson on the Constitution which accords to the federal government only those rights or powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

    Also unfortunate is the fact that our general citizenry seems to have forgotten — or in some cases, never learned — about the importance of the 10th Amendment in preserving our freedoms from an overbearing federal government. Which is exactly what we’re seeing these days.

    Indeed, that is one of the main points in the 10th Amendment, that all other powers remain with the states or the people. It is a specific and purposeful limitation of the powers of the federal government, that limitation being one of the main points of the Constitution.


    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Basic Constitution. But hey, his former boss doesn’t pay attention to the Constitution, so why should he?

    Ronald Reagan’s famous quote seems more prescient and urgent today than ever:

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

    It’s time to cut through the smoke of politically correct outrage and see clearly that what’s going on here is an attack by the political left — and our government — on one of the most fundamental pillars of our freedom. It’s time we start seeing what’s emerging as a common thread in the issues du jour: the attack on states rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. It’s time states rights becomes a cause célèbre — before it’s too late and we are left to tell future generations what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
    http://allenbwest.com/2015/07/allahu...-really-about/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #49
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Kid Rock smacks Al Sharpton's group after demand to drop Confederate flag
    July 10, 2015


    Kid Rock had a short, simple message for Al Sharpton's National Action Network after the group demanded he denounce the Confederate battle flag, Entertainment Weekly reported Friday. The short message was read on air by Fox News' Megyn Kelly.

    “Please tell the people who are protesting to kiss my a**," he said. Kelly said she had to modify the message somewhat for her cable TV audience.

    According to EW, the Detroit chapter of Sharpton's group met at the Detroit Historical Museum to protest Kid Rock's use of the flag, which became a focal point after nine people were murdered in a historic black church in Charleston. Rev. Charles Williams II, president of the local chapter, called Kid Rock “the home-town hero who is a zero with the Confederate flag,” EW added.

    “How in the hell can Kid Rock represent Detroit and wave that flag just generating millions and millions in ticket sales – a flag that represents genocide to most of Detroit?” asked National Action Network political director Sam Riddle. Protesters promised to boycott the museum if Kid Rock did not drop the flag.

    Former GOP Rep. Allen West gave Kelly what he called a "quick shout-out" for "pointing out Sharpton’s hypocrisy." He also agreed with Kelly's characterization of Kid Rock's response.

    Kelly and her guest, Dana Loesch, pointed out that Kid Rock has done more for Detroit than Sharpton's organization. She also noted that Kid Rock's son happens to be black, making it unlikely that he is a racist.

    It's not the first time Sharpton's organization has targeted Confederate symbols. As we reported in late June, his group demanded the military remove all Confederate references from bases. They also demanded the military rename bases named after Confederate figures. The military, however, said there are no plans to comply with Sharpton's ultimatum.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/kid-...nfederate-flag







    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 07-10-2015 at 06:24 PM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #50
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    9,440
    Thanks
    4,653
    Thanked 4,062 Times in 2,259 Posts
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  9. #51
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Minnesota's Flag Is Now Racist
    Ashley Rae Goldenberg | July 7, 2015 2:53pm ET



    There is a new target in the war against flags that can be interpreted as having racist implications: the Minnesota state flag.

    The Minnesota flag features a man using a plow on a field, while, in the background, another man is seen riding a horse while wearing a headdress and holding a spear. But, today's "sensibilities" have made it racist, she argues.

    In a Star Tribune article, Professor Judith Harrington takes offense to hidden racist undertones in the flag:

    “The contrast in the images of the figures is interesting: The image of the pioneer, a peaceful man who has laid down his gun and is plowing his field, is juxtaposed with the image of the Indian, who may still want to fight (his spear is at the ready) but who seems to be riding away. The pioneer/farmer is using a plow, a symbol of civilization. The white man is depicted as a ‘doer’ who is entitled to the land, trees and water, empowered by the concept of Manifest Destiny. The Indian is the vacating tenant.”
    She admits, “a peaceful transition is suggested” in the flag’s imagery, however, “this ignores the tense and problematic history of conflict between European settlers and Indians.”

    Harrington claims the biggest problem with the flag is the “depiction of a racist, stereotyped Indian, who wears only a loin cloth and a feather.”

    According to Harrington, the Minnesota flag “does not reflect the values and sensibilities of Minnesotans today.”

    Harrington is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/professor-...ta-flag-racist
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #52
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwiches Are Now…. RACIST?

    With so many sensitive “politically correct” problems now, we’re now living in a society where even FOOD can be deemed racist. I’m not kidding!





    Principal Verenice Guiterrez, who certainly voted for Obama, runs the Harvey Scott School (K-8) in Portland, Oregon. And she has made an announcement that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist!

    Why? Because, as Principal Guiterrez explained, this effort was made to, “improve education for students of color.” She noted that some students – such as those from Mexico or Somalia – haven’t eaten bread in their culture. Instead, they eat pitas, tortas, and other bread substitutes.

    Therefore, the serving of delicious PB&Js is a brazen display of white privilege. The Principal wants to cancel out this supposed racial privilege and “change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.”

    How is this possible? Food can’t make racial comments… And a sandwich can’t even watch The Dukes of Hazzard. It is two slices of bread, with your favorite jelly and crunchy or creamy peanut butter. Most children think they are delicious, and I bet you probably still eat them.

    They are nutritious, full of energy, and are cheap. That’s why millions of people eat PB&Js every day!

    I wonder if I should rush to the store and buy whole grain wheat bread. Perhaps that would boost my kitchen’s racial diversity?

    This has gone too far. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are not racist and children should be allowed to eat them.


    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/p...#ixzz3fXpPVC00
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #53
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    New Orleans will soon never be the same.

    Since the Charleston, South Carolina shooting, where a white man shot and killed nine black men and women, Mayor Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans has mentioned that he planned to replace Robert E. Lee Circle with another public figure.

    Landrieu’s rationale? The Confederacy is racist and therefore, in order to be politically correct, anything in the city of New Orleans remotely related to the Confederacy must be removed immediately.

    Today, Landrieu has called for the removal and replacement of these four Confederacy-related monuments throughout the city: General Robert E. Lee Monument, known as Lee Circle, the General P.G.T. Beauregard Equestrian Statue, the Jefferson Davis Monument and the Liberty Monument.

    According to Landrieu, public monuments in the city “inspire, include, & celebrate life, liberty & pursuit of happiness. Should show world we thrive on diversity.”

    But, that is not what these public spaces are for. Though Landrieu sees the Confederacy as racist and anything related to it as offensive, Lee Circle and the other monuments are historical pieces that will forever be ingrained in the city’s history.

    These monuments have nothing to do with racism. They have to do with history.

    When we first said goodbye to Lee Circle and PGT Beauregard, we asked where Landrieu would stop in his effort for everything politically correct?

    What about the street names in the city that are named after Catholic saints? Should those be renamed because many in the city are not even Catholic or maybe they do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic church?

    Or the rainbow gay pride flag that flies throughout the city. Should the city ban these flags because many Christians see them as offensive to their religious convictions?

    The slippery-slope with political correctness will never end once public officials try to erase history and distort it in a way in which historical figures are not seen as men of their time, but rather racist, bigoted individuals who should have been more progressive.

    Furthermore, what about Landrieu’s party affiliation? He and the rest of his political dynasty family are Democrats, which is the family that began the Ku Klux Klan, the most famous white-supremacist hate group in American history.

    Should not Landrieu rebuke his party affiliation, considering the Democratic party could be offensive to anyone who is not a racist, hateful individual?

    Also, Landrieu is largely out-of-touch with the city, which has been plagued by violent crime and a rising murder rate.

    Just last week, we reported how there were four homicides in just six hours. Every week, we hear about how understaffed and underpaid the New Orleans Police Department is.

    Even last month, NOPD Officer Daryle Holloway was shot and killed by a violent criminal. Now, we are finding out that another NOPD officer allegedly withheld evidence on the case from investigators.

    All of this and yet Landrieu’s priorities are solely set on removing some statues that the NAACP finds offensive.

    The fact, is that Robert E. Lee and the rest of these monuments are New Orleans. The city is the epitome of the deep South in a way. New Orleans is filled with culture, its historical roots are incredible and it thrives on the life and spirit of the Southern people.

    With the removal of these monuments, that culture and history will be forever stripped, white-washed and the city will never be the same. Landrieu can change out the statues all he wants, but the history of the city can not change and we hope it will not be forgotten.

    Say goodbye to New Orleans as we know it.

    http://thehayride.com/2015/07/say-go...as-we-know-it/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #54
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Liberal talker Thom Hartmann wonders: Should 'Union' forces reoccupy the South?

    It seems that for some on the left, the Civil War never really ended. Citing a Politico story slamming southern states, liberal talk show host Thom Hartmann wondered if the United States should "reoccupy the South with Union forces" to restart Reconstruction, Newsbusters reported Saturday.

    "Now listen to this in the context of my question -- should we, a) reoccupy the South with Union forces and restart Reconstruction which came to a screeching halt in 187- whatever it was, '74 I think, the election of Rutherford B. Hayes," he said. "He needed one vote in the House of Representatives to win, it was one of those contested elections that went to the House, and the deal he made with the Southern legislators was that if he became president he would pull the Union troops out of the South and basically end Reconstruction."

    His other choice was to "just" let Southern states secede from the Union. "Let the Confederate states say you can fly that flag, you can have your own country," he said.

    "Just a hunch, but if a person was also inclined to crunch crime stats and unflattering demographics from major cities run by Democrats and compare them to the nation as a whole, the cities would undoubtedly 'skew' America," Newsbusters' Jack Coleman said. In his article at Politico, Michael Lind claimed that "apart from California and New York, where statistics reflect the wealth of Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, the South is the region with the greatest income inequality. Southern exceptionalism has helped to ensure that the American Dream is more likely to be realized in the Old World than in the New."

    California and New York, Coleman observed, are the two bluest states in the country. "Seems like a rather conspicuous exception," he added.

    Lind also cited immigration in his take-down of southern states. A post at the conservative Gateway Pundit took issue with Lind's article, boldly calling it a "bigoted screed" that essentially advocates ethnic and cultural cleansing of the South -- particularly white Christian conservatives.

    "The northern progressives who joke about the U.S. jettisoning 'Jesusland' and merging with Canada will not get their wish," Lind wrote. "But there is hope: A combination of demographic change and generational change is weakening the ability of the old-fashioned South to skew American politics and culture in the future. Peripheral Southern states like Florida and Virginia are increasingly competitive, and the Deep South may join them in time. In Texas once-reactionary cities like Houston and Dallas are competing with Austin as tolerant meccas for transplants who prefer the Sun Belt to the Old South. Immigration into the South from other countries and American regions is breaking down local oligarchies and old folkways."

    "The decline in Southern exceptionalism in time may lead to more of a convergence among the U.S. and other modern democracies," Lind said in conclusion. "Let us hope so. We have had enough of the wrong kind of American exceptionalism."

    As for sending the military to the South, Coleman said that "many of our soldiers sent there would feel right at home, seeing how the South enlists more of its sons and daughters to serve in the military than does any region in the country." Hartmann also seems to forget that many of the nation's finest military bases are already located in the South.

    Citing examples of violence from the radical left, a former intelligence officer asked in 2011 if America is headed for another bloody civil war. Given the irresponsible rhetoric from leftists like Hartmann, one cannot help but wonder if liberals really do want a redo of the conflict that cost some 600,000 lives.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/libe...cupy-the-south
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  13. #55
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    63,396
    Thanks
    2,810
    Thanked 5,707 Times in 3,765 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge View Post
    New Orleans will soon never be the same.

    Since the Charleston, South Carolina shooting, where a white man shot and killed nine black men and women, Mayor Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans has mentioned that he planned to replace Robert E. Lee Circle with another public figure.

    Landrieu’s rationale? The Confederacy is racist and therefore, in order to be politically correct, anything in the city of New Orleans remotely related to the Confederacy must be removed immediately.

    Today, Landrieu has called for the removal and replacement of these four Confederacy-related monuments throughout the city: General Robert E. Lee Monument, known as Lee Circle, the General P.G.T. Beauregard Equestrian Statue, the Jefferson Davis Monument and the Liberty Monument.

    According to Landrieu, public monuments in the city “inspire, include, & celebrate life, liberty & pursuit of happiness. Should show world we thrive on diversity.”

    But, that is not what these public spaces are for. Though Landrieu sees the Confederacy as racist and anything related to it as offensive, Lee Circle and the other monuments are historical pieces that will forever be ingrained in the city’s history.

    These monuments have nothing to do with racism. They have to do with history.

    When we first said goodbye to Lee Circle and PGT Beauregard, we asked where Landrieu would stop in his effort for everything politically correct?

    What about the street names in the city that are named after Catholic saints? Should those be renamed because many in the city are not even Catholic or maybe they do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic church?

    Or the rainbow gay pride flag that flies throughout the city. Should the city ban these flags because many Christians see them as offensive to their religious convictions?

    The slippery-slope with political correctness will never end once public officials try to erase history and distort it in a way in which historical figures are not seen as men of their time, but rather racist, bigoted individuals who should have been more progressive.

    Furthermore, what about Landrieu’s party affiliation? He and the rest of his political dynasty family are Democrats, which is the family that began the Ku Klux Klan, the most famous white-supremacist hate group in American history.

    Should not Landrieu rebuke his party affiliation, considering the Democratic party could be offensive to anyone who is not a racist, hateful individual?

    Also, Landrieu is largely out-of-touch with the city, which has been plagued by violent crime and a rising murder rate.

    Just last week, we reported how there were four homicides in just six hours. Every week, we hear about how understaffed and underpaid the New Orleans Police Department is.


    Even last month, NOPD Officer Daryle Holloway was shot and killed by a violent criminal. Now, we are finding out that another NOPD officer allegedly withheld evidence on the case from investigators.

    All of this and yet Landrieu’s priorities are solely set on removing some statues that the NAACP finds offensive.

    The fact, is that Robert E. Lee and the rest of these monuments are New Orleans. The city is the epitome of the deep South in a way. New Orleans is filled with culture, its historical roots are incredible and it thrives on the life and spirit of the Southern people.

    With the removal of these monuments, that culture and history will be forever stripped, white-washed and the city will never be the same. Landrieu can change out the statues all he wants, but the history of the city can not change and we hope it will not be forgotten.

    Say goodbye to New Orleans as we know it.

    http://thehayride.com/2015/07/say-go...as-we-know-it/
    New Orleans Saints Logo RACIST?
    Posted Saturday, July 11th 2015 @ 2pm

    I'm not making this up. What do y'all think of this?

    http://bcove.me/m1kkdrym

    http://www.downtown977.com/onair/sco...#ixzz3fh86hpKy

    Is the New Orleans Saints Fleur-de-Lis Logo Offensive?

    By Dave Cariello  @PodcastSaints on July 11, 2015


    n the wake of the recent Confederate flag controversy currently dividing our country, it seems another historic symbol also conjures feelings of hurt for some. A symbol near and dear to New Orleanians everywhere: the fleur-de-lis.

    "As an African I find it painful, and I think people whose ancestors were enslaved here may feel it even harder than I do as an African," Seck said.
    That's right. The iconic symbol of our beloved city and our Saints actually has a troubled history, according to some historians.

    The black code was a set of regulations adopted in Louisiana in 1724 from other French colonies around the world, meant to govern the state's slave population. Seck said those rules included branding slaves with the fleur de lis as punishment for running away.

    "He would be taken before a court and the sentence would be being branded on one shoulder and with the fleur de lis, and then they would crop their ears," Seck said.
    n the wake of the recent Confederate flag controversy currently dividing our country, it seems another historic symbol also conjures feelings of hurt for some. A symbol near and dear to New Orleanians everywhere: the fleur-de-lis.


    "As an African I find it painful, and I think people whose ancestors were enslaved here may feel it even harder than I do as an African," Seck said.

    As New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu pushes for newly-offensive statues and symbols to be removed and/or renamed from prominent urban places, I can't help but wonder if the slippery slope leads all the way to our team's logo. It's crazy to think it would ever get to that point, but I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

    The good news is that both historians quoted in the WWL-TV story don't consider the fleur-de-lis nearly as offensive as the Confederate flag. It's still offensive, but just a little bit, apparently. Not enough to break out the pitchforks. As New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu pushes for newly-offensive statues and symbols to be removed and/or renamed from prominent urban places, I can't help but wonder if the slippery slope leads all the way to our team's logo. It's crazy to think it would ever get to that point, but I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

    The good news is that both historians quoted in the WWL-TV story don't consider the fleur-de-lis nearly as offensive as the Confederate flag. It's still offensive, but just a little bit, apparently. Not enough to break out the pitchforks. It is officially not Confederate-flag-offensive. So the Saints, and every single retail store in New Orleans, are probably safe.
    .
    .
    http://www.canalstreetchronicles.com...logo-offensive

    It is officially not Confederate-flag-offensive. So the Saints, and every single retail store in New Orleans, are probably safe.
    So far ....
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in