The same David Duke that he has been disavowing for 20+ years. Just because someone praises Trump doesn't mean that he endorses their behavior man.
Actions speak louder then words. When fascists tacitly approve of your actions, while the military, media, and majority of the American public disapproves there is a problem.
If, in arguendo, we say that slavery had nothing to do with the monuments then what are they celebrating. The succession from the Union? The loss of almost 700,000 lives in a war that shouldn't have been fought? Traitors who could have been put to death:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Art. III Sec. III of the Constitution.
It is hard to argue with feelings. You feel like they should be honored, and others don't. I think the question is why? Why should Americans celebrate the Confederacy? Why are the Union memorials not sufficient? I cannot think of another example where the losing side of a war was memorialized for the effort.
Lastly, you quoted Lee as being against slavery. Well, he was also against erecting confederate monuments:
"I think it wiser,…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
There is no question that the Civil War should be taught in schools, read about in books, and seen in museums. The question is why should it be celebrated with publically supported monuments.
So using that line of theory, the only reason that the Wounded Knee memorial hasn't had an outcry to remove it is because the Coward Custer was outsmarted and instead of slaughtering the Indians, was overrun. Well, that and the Indians relish in seeing a reminder of that defeat. Yet, they honor him with memorials.
Oh, because he was fighting as an American? So that makes it ok?
Should it too be removed? No. Just the same as most memorials should not be removed. They serve as reminders.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
I think I am losing you there. He was killed at the Battle of Little Big Horn, and I believe there is some debate as to whether the massacre at Wounded Knee was in retaliation for that. I think you have your history backwards or I am reading it incorrectly.
Custer was also a Civil War hero who fought for the Union.
Do these KKK retards have schidt for brains? Did the Antifa come to town looking for trouble and find it? Were the cops wrong for standing there doing nothing to stop it?
If you say yes to all three, does that make you a Notsee?
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
In the eyes of the brain washed liberal it sure does!
“Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman – or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.” – George Burns
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
It is hard to argue with feelings. You feel like they should be honored, and others don't. I think the question is why? Why should Americans celebrate the Confederacy? Why are the Union memorials not sufficient? I cannot think of another example where the losing side of a war was memorialized for the effort.
I take it you've never seen the memorials to soldiers of the Deutsch Wehrmacht, Afrika Korps, Luftwaffe, etc that are erected through much of Europe. These memorails don't provoke hatred and the citizens of Europe don't protest for their removal. They are reminders to the past and memorials to family members/countrymen.
“Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman – or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.” – George Burns
I really was trying to avoid discussing **** Germany because I hate when people devolve to those comparisons. But, those memorials are for the fallen solders of the Germany and not the commanders and leaders.
First, there are no war memorials for Adolph Hitler, Josef Mengele, or Heinrich Himmler. Germany has in fact banned the use of **** memorabilia:
Secondly, those solders were fighting for Germany not against it. The Confederate army were secessionist, and arguably domestic terrorists by todays definition. Like I said in my previous post "I cannot think of another example where the losing side of a war was memorialized for the effort."
You stated that "[t]hey are reminders to the past and memorials to family members/countrymen." Is it inconceivable that the Union war memorials serve this purpose, and the history museums accurately portray the war. It is hard not to equate a bronzed statute of Jefferson Davis or General Lee with secessionism and slavery.
When people say these monuments are part of their heritage I struggle to understand what part of their heritage they are celebrating. The violent subjugation of human beings, or the violent war against their fellow countrymen.
As a corporal, Robert Lee helped lead the US Army to victory in the Spanish American War. Which ultimately led to Mexico turning over California, Utah and Nevada to the US.
The Civil War was not founded on Slavery.
Abraham Lincoln said the south is to be forgiven and it's soldiers are to be treated as United States veterans.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners.
Should we also tear down Rushmore? Should the Constitutionnow be condemned? Why arent these members of the far left destroying their currency?
Lee wasn't really against slavery. He benefited from slave labor his whole life. (And, yes, he did own slaves. That mistake gets pulled out way too often in the discussion.) He describes slavery as a moral and political evil in terms that aren't really against slavery in the immediate context of the 19th Century American South. There's nothing commendable in these words: "I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black
race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the
latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are
immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially &
physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for
their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them
to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known
& ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will
sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity,
than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy." -1856 letter from Lee
In other words, sure slavery is bad, but it's better than being free in Africa.
Nope.
Oh, and the whole Civil War not founded on slavery argument is Lost Cause Mythology at its best. South Carolina wrote in its "immediate causes for secession" about the "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery." One other example is Mississippi's declaration of secession: "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 the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow
at commerce and civilization." In reality, every state, in their declarations of secession, mention preserving slavery as a direct cause of their leaving the Union.
The state right most Southerners wanted to preserve was their right to own other humans. Are there other issues, sure, but most of them are in support of slavery in some way shape or form. They went to war (shooting first) in order to preserve their "peculiar institution" more than anything else.
And they clearly didn't think the northern states had the right to refuse returning fugitive slaves, so they were really only in favor of some states' rights if we're honest.
Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot. I will smoke anything, though.
I think I am losing you there. He was killed at the Battle of Little Big Horn, and I believe there is some debate as to whether the massacre at Wounded Knee was in retaliation for that. I think you have your history backwards or I am reading it incorrectly.
Custer was also a Civil War hero who fought for the Union.
Wounded knee was on my mind. Little Big horn is what I meant.
That's what happens when you try and multi task. LOL
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
I wonder how pissy they would be if you took down an MLK Statue since he opposed Gay Marriage. >.>
I am wondering who you are classifying as "they"? I mean this whole statement is an oversimplification of a complex issue, but it is also vague and undefined.
I am a little fuzzy on my history, but I don't believe he ever definitely stated his stance on homosexuality.
He recognized it as a culturally acquired problem in need of a solution – a habit stemming from a series of negative experiences and circumstances.
“Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman – or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.” – George Burns
Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?
Answer (King): Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.
“Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman – or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.” – George Burns
Homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder in the 1950's. That is also an opinion piece that is attacking what it sees as a leftist agenda.
Here is an article that contains the same citation your article used and comes to a different opinion.
King never actually spoke publicly about his feelings on homosexuality and you only have a snapshot of his opinion years prior to his actual activist years.
I am not saying he would or would not have supported gay rights, but I don't think there is enough information to definitively say one way or another. King's platform was built on equality and not taking basic human rights from people. I think that is where this comparison truly falls short.
It seems many of these so-called Politicians are going off the crazy train. Haven't seen this on any news as of yet either.
Representatives call for resignation or removal of Chappelle-Nadal after assassination comments
BY BENJAMIN PETERS· PUBLISHED AUGUST 17, 2017 · UPDATED AUGUST 17, 2017
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri state representatives are calling on state Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, to resign following a comment on Facebook in which she said she hoped President Donal Trump would be assassinated.
The senator had posted the comment on a Facebook conversation in response to another commenter, Christopher Gagne, who wrote about a cousin of his who he said was on Trump’s Secret Service detail.
“No. I will. I hope Trump is assassinated,” she wrote in response to the comment.
Chappelle-Nadal confirmed that she had posted the comment, which was later deleted, telling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she didn’t mean what she had put up.
Her comments come from her frustration over the events in Charlottesville, Va., in which an alleged white supremacist protester struck a number of counter-protesters with a vehicle, killing one woman.
President Donald Trump’s reaction to the event has been the center of some controversy, as he ascertained in a speech that both sides of the protests were to be blamed for the violence.
Rep. Kirk Mathews called out the state senator on Twitter, saying her comments were “disgusting” and that she should be ashamed.
The Missouri Times spoke with Rep. Mathews on Thursday regarding his response to the senator’s comment.
“It’s disgusting for anyone to call for the assassination of a President,” Mathews said. “In a time when everyone is crying for more and more calm and less violence, we have a senator say she hopes for the assassination of a president. I think that’s beyond ridiculous. For anyone to do that, it’s horrible. But for a sitting state senator to post that, I’m disgusted by it.”
The situation has only seemed to grow in intensity, as a letter circulated by Rep. Joshua Peters, D-St. Louis, called on Senate Majority Leader Mike Kehoe, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions, and Ethics, to convene a special committee hearing to consider the censure and removal of Chappelle-Nadal. That committee’s job to look into matters of ethics and the conduct of public officials.
“I believe her conduct to be reprehensible and unbecoming a member of the Missouri State Senate. While many can disagree with the actions or words of an elected official, we cannot tolerate calls for violence nor acts of treason. Even if the individual does not contemplate acting upon their own words, those words can inspire others to violence and acts of terrorism. Elected public officials must exhibit a higher standard of conduct,” Peters wrote. “Her comments have become a source of embarrassment nationally for the Missouri General Assembly and the State of Missouri and the citizens of the State of Missouri.”
Missouri Democratic Party Chair Stephen Webber called the senator’s comments “indefensible” and said he believed she should resign. U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill also condemned the statement, calling it “outrageous.”
St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger similarly disapproved.
“Hate speech is not okay, no matter who says it. Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s comment today was wrong and reprehensible. No person should wish death upon another, no matter the differences. This has no place in our country or our politics. I am saddened by the rhetoric being used in our political area today.
The President’s defense of white-nationalists and neo-Nazis is disgusting, and we must not stand for this in our country. Now is the time to listen to each other and build a stronger and united America.”
“I strongly condemn and disavow Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s horrible comments. Promoting, supporting or suggesting violence against anyone, especially our elected leaders, is never acceptable,” Walsh said. “There is too much rancor and hate in today’s political discourse, and Sen. Chappelle-Nadal should be ashamed of herself for adding her voice to this toxic environment. Sen. Chappelle-Nadal’s unacceptable behavior has no place in our caucus, the Capitol, or the Democratic Party. Let me be clear, her views in no way represent the constituents of the 14th District or the great State of Missouri.”
Former state representative Sharon Pace is currently running to fill Sen. Chappelle’s vacant seat in 2018, as the Democratic senator will be term-limited.
“The statement didn’t really need to have been made, for one, and it’s disturbing. It puts a dim light on the Party as a whole, and we don’t believe in that type of a statement, or harming anyone,” Pace said. “I’m just shocked it was even said. We have so much hatred going on in the world, and we just need to stop. Enough is enough. I condemn it as well, I don’t condone that type of conversation or that kind of hatred.”
The Missouri Times also reached out to Sen. Chappelle-Nadal, but has not received any response at this time.
“I refuse to resign for exercising my First Amendment rights, even though what I said was wrong,” she told the Associated Press.
President Trump had been rumored to be visiting Missouri for the total eclipse, but according to the Kansas City Star, he will not be attending.
Free Cuba "I ain't got no Opus's" LLA - Lancero Lovers of America 2016 Gang War (South) May I assss u a ?
Here is an article that contains the same citation your article used and comes to a different opinion.
Funny thing about opinions, they can be jaded to favor which ever side of the fence you are on. Just like news stories. They can be twisted how ever they want them to be viewed. I find it interesting how one network can take the same story and have it favored to one side, while another network takes the same story and goes the opposite route with it.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
“I refuse to resign for exercising my First Amendment rights, even though what I said was wrong,” she told the Associated Press.
Interesting that they fall back on the First Amendment. What happened to being professional. This whole term has gone to social media like crazy and the problem with social media, like tweaker and fakebook is that people, in general, don't always think before they post.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
But heaven forbid our president says both sides of alternatives were at fault. All of a sudden he's a skin head and must be exterminated.
That's the stuff, Senator. You stick it to the man about him and his white privilege, because if any of us ever said anything like that about Obummer we'd be branded racist for life.
“Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman – or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.” – George Burns
“I refuse to resign for exercising my First Amendment rights, even though what I said was wrong,” she told the Associated Press.
Interesting that they fall back on the First Amendment. What happened to being professional. This whole term has gone to social media like crazy and the problem with social media, like tweaker and fakebook is that people, in general, don't always think before they post.
I don't do Facebook and never will.
She should be removed from office Period. I make no bones about my dislike for the Cheeto Messiah but saying someone needs to be assassinated and then falling back on her 1st amendment right doesn't cut it. Especially after her rant on Violence and especially after last weekends events.
I am still waiting for someone to talk about it on the News. I have seen nothing yet except on FOX which that was already checked as yes lol.
Free Cuba "I ain't got no Opus's" LLA - Lancero Lovers of America 2016 Gang War (South) May I assss u a ?
She should be removed from office Period. I make no bones about my dislike for the Cheeto Messiah but saying someone needs to be assassinated and then falling back on her 1st amendment right doesn't cut it. Especially after her rant on Violence and especially after last weekends events.
I am still waiting for someone to talk about it on the News. I have seen nothing yet except on FOX which that was already checked as yes lol.
I would have to think that 30 years ago, a senator would have been crucified for putting something like that in writing. And if the Ethics Committee didn't have a problem with it, they'd be ostracized by every other politician. Today, it's nothing?
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
For the first time ever, the NAACP is warning others not to travel to an entire state. Missouri is not safe for minorities, leaders concluded this week.
“Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman – or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.” – George Burns
I wonder how pissy they would be if you took down an MLK Statue since he opposed Gay Marriage. >.>
I am wondering who you are classifying as "they"? I mean this whole statement is an oversimplification of a complex issue, but it is also vague and undefined.
I am a little fuzzy on my history, but I don't believe he ever definitely stated his stance on homosexuality.
The point being times change. In many Northern States during the Civil War there were tons of land owners that still wanted slaves as well. The issue itself came down to state governance outweighing federal decision. Which is an issue we still fight about, look at the Marijuana laws. In many states you can "legally" have it. But the federal government could still come in and arrest you for it since it's still classified by them as illegal.
These statues literally hurt no-one. They have been around for over 100 years and represent a time in US History, like it or not. And tearing them down, moving them to hidden away dark corners, or in some cases Democratic leaders calling for their destruction.
Yet other statues, like Lenin here in WA, MLK in many places, despite the people they represent are okay and can even be proud of someone who starved 5 million people to death in a year as well as a homophobe. Now, I could be wrong, but those are worse than honoring those who died because they happened to be on the wrong side of a line and merely did what they were ordered to do.
I've even had people tell me that ALL war memorials are "Participation Trophies". Tell those people to go to a Vietnam Memorial and tell them that.
Chicago Bishop Wants Washington's Statue Removed from Park in Black Neighborhood
Now is it getting out of hand??!!
“Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman – or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.” – George Burns
Comments
If, in arguendo, we say that slavery had nothing to do with the monuments then what are they celebrating. The succession from the Union? The loss of almost 700,000 lives in a war that shouldn't have been fought? Traitors who could have been put to death:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Art. III Sec. III of the Constitution.
Lastly, you quoted Lee as being against slavery. Well, he was also against erecting confederate monuments:
"I think it wiser,…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/
There is no question that the Civil War should be taught in schools, read about in books, and seen in museums. The question is why should it be celebrated with publically supported monuments.
Well, that and the Indians relish in seeing a reminder of that defeat.
Yet, they honor him with memorials.
Oh, because he was fighting as an American?
So that makes it ok?
Should it too be removed? No. Just the same as most memorials should not be removed. They serve as reminders.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Custer was also a Civil War hero who fought for the Union.
Did the Antifa come to town looking for trouble and find it?
Were the cops wrong for standing there doing nothing to stop it?
If you say yes to all three, does that make you a Notsee?
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
It is a logical fallacy.
First, there are no war memorials for Adolph Hitler, Josef Mengele, or Heinrich Himmler. Germany has in fact banned the use of **** memorabilia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
Secondly, those solders were fighting for Germany not against it. The Confederate army were secessionist, and arguably domestic terrorists by todays definition. Like I said in my previous post "I cannot think of another example where the losing side of a war was memorialized for the effort."
You stated that "[t]hey are reminders to the past and memorials to family members/countrymen." Is it inconceivable that the Union war memorials serve this purpose, and the history museums accurately portray the war. It is hard not to equate a bronzed statute of Jefferson Davis or General Lee with secessionism and slavery.
When people say these monuments are part of their heritage I struggle to understand what part of their heritage they are celebrating. The violent subjugation of human beings, or the violent war against their fellow countrymen.
"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy." -1856 letter from Lee
In other words, sure slavery is bad, but it's better than being free in Africa.
Nope.
Oh, and the whole Civil War not founded on slavery argument is Lost Cause Mythology at its best. South Carolina wrote in its "immediate causes for secession" about the "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery." One other example is Mississippi's declaration of secession: "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 the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In reality, every state, in their declarations of secession, mention preserving slavery as a direct cause of their leaving the Union.
The state right most Southerners wanted to preserve was their right to own other humans. Are there other issues, sure, but most of them are in support of slavery in some way shape or form. They went to war (shooting first) in order to preserve their "peculiar institution" more than anything else.
And they clearly didn't think the northern states had the right to refuse returning fugitive slaves, so they were really only in favor of some states' rights if we're honest.
I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot. I will smoke anything, though.
Little Big horn is what I meant.
That's what happens when you try and multi task. LOL
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Now performing in Tent #2 of the Great American Circus!! Michael Cohen
As the son of a holocaust survivor, I have no tolerance for #racism. Just because I support @POTUS @realDonaldTrump doesn't make me a racist
"I ain't got no Opus's"
LLA - Lancero Lovers of America
2016 Gang War (South)
May I assss u a ?
I am a little fuzzy on my history, but I don't believe he ever definitely stated his stance on homosexuality.
Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?
Answer (King): Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.
Source:https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/mlk-homosexuality-a-problem-with-a-solution
Here is an article that contains the same citation your article used and comes to a different opinion.
https://www.google.com/amp/religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people/amp/
King never actually spoke publicly about his feelings on homosexuality and you only have a snapshot of his opinion years prior to his actual activist years.
I am not saying he would or would not have supported gay rights, but I don't think there is enough information to definitively say one way or another. King's platform was built on equality and not taking basic human rights from people. I think that is where this comparison truly falls short.
Representatives call for resignation or removal of Chappelle-Nadal after assassination comments
BY BENJAMIN PETERS · PUBLISHED AUGUST 17, 2017 · UPDATED AUGUST 17, 2017
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri state representatives are calling on state Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, to resign following a comment on Facebook in which she said she hoped President Donal Trump would be assassinated.
The senator had posted the comment on a Facebook conversation in response to another commenter, Christopher Gagne, who wrote about a cousin of his who he said was on Trump’s Secret Service detail.
“No. I will. I hope Trump is assassinated,” she wrote in response to the comment.
"I ain't got no Opus's"
LLA - Lancero Lovers of America
2016 Gang War (South)
May I assss u a ?
Chappelle-Nadal confirmed that she had posted the comment, which was later deleted, telling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she didn’t mean what she had put up.
Her comments come from her frustration over the events in Charlottesville, Va., in which an alleged white supremacist protester struck a number of counter-protesters with a vehicle, killing one woman.
President Donald Trump’s reaction to the event has been the center of some controversy, as he ascertained in a speech that both sides of the protests were to be blamed for the violence.
Rep. Kirk Mathews called out the state senator on Twitter, saying her comments were “disgusting” and that she should be ashamed.
The Missouri Times spoke with Rep. Mathews on Thursday regarding his response to the senator’s comment.
“It’s disgusting for anyone to call for the assassination of a President,” Mathews said. “In a time when everyone is crying for more and more calm and less violence, we have a senator say she hopes for the assassination of a president. I think that’s beyond ridiculous. For anyone to do that, it’s horrible. But for a sitting state senator to post that, I’m disgusted by it.”
The situation has only seemed to grow in intensity, as a letter circulated by Rep. Joshua Peters, D-St. Louis, called on Senate Majority Leader Mike Kehoe, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions, and Ethics, to convene a special committee hearing to consider the censure and removal of Chappelle-Nadal. That committee’s job to look into matters of ethics and the conduct of public officials.
“I believe her conduct to be reprehensible and unbecoming a member of the Missouri State Senate. While many can disagree with the actions or words of an elected official, we cannot tolerate calls for violence nor acts of treason. Even if the individual does not contemplate acting upon their own words, those words can inspire others to violence and acts of terrorism. Elected public officials must exhibit a higher standard of conduct,” Peters wrote. “Her comments have become a source of embarrassment nationally for the Missouri General Assembly and the State of Missouri and the citizens of the State of Missouri.”
Missouri Democratic Party Chair Stephen Webber called the senator’s comments “indefensible” and said he believed she should resign. U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill also condemned the statement, calling it “outrageous.”
St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger similarly disapproved.
“Hate speech is not okay, no matter who says it. Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s comment today was wrong and reprehensible. No person should wish death upon another, no matter the differences. This has no place in our country or our politics. I am saddened by the rhetoric being used in our political area today.
The President’s defense of white-nationalists and neo-Nazis is disgusting, and we must not stand for this in our country. Now is the time to listen to each other and build a stronger and united America.”
Senate Minority Leader Gina Walsh condemned Chappelle-Nadal’s statement.
“I strongly condemn and disavow Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s horrible comments. Promoting, supporting or suggesting violence against anyone, especially our elected leaders, is never acceptable,” Walsh said. “There is too much rancor and hate in today’s political discourse, and Sen. Chappelle-Nadal should be ashamed of herself for adding her voice to this toxic environment. Sen. Chappelle-Nadal’s unacceptable behavior has no place in our caucus, the Capitol, or the Democratic Party. Let me be clear, her views in no way represent the constituents of the 14th District or the great State of Missouri.”
Former state representative Sharon Pace is currently running to fill Sen. Chappelle’s vacant seat in 2018, as the Democratic senator will be term-limited.
“The statement didn’t really need to have been made, for one, and it’s disturbing. It puts a dim light on the Party as a whole, and we don’t believe in that type of a statement, or harming anyone,” Pace said. “I’m just shocked it was even said. We have so much hatred going on in the world, and we just need to stop. Enough is enough. I condemn it as well, I don’t condone that type of conversation or that kind of hatred.”
The Missouri Times also reached out to Sen. Chappelle-Nadal, but has not received any response at this time.
“I refuse to resign for exercising my First Amendment rights, even though what I said was wrong,” she told the Associated Press.
President Trump had been rumored to be visiting Missouri for the total eclipse, but according to the Kansas City Star, he will not be attending.
"I ain't got no Opus's"
LLA - Lancero Lovers of America
2016 Gang War (South)
May I assss u a ?
Just like news stories. They can be twisted how ever they want them to be viewed.
I find it interesting how one network can take the same story and have it favored to one side, while another network takes the same story and goes the opposite route with it.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
What happened to being professional.
This whole term has gone to social media like crazy and the problem with social media, like tweaker and fakebook is that people, in general, don't always think before they post.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
That's the stuff, Senator. You stick it to the man about him and his white privilege, because if any of us ever said anything like that about Obummer we'd be branded racist for life.
She should be removed from office Period. I make no bones about my dislike for the Cheeto Messiah but saying someone needs to be assassinated and then falling back on her 1st amendment right doesn't cut it. Especially after her rant on Violence and especially after last weekends events.
I am still waiting for someone to talk about it on the News. I have seen nothing yet except on FOX which that was already checked as yes lol.
"I ain't got no Opus's"
LLA - Lancero Lovers of America
2016 Gang War (South)
May I assss u a ?
Today, it's nothing?
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
These statues literally hurt no-one. They have been around for over 100 years and represent a time in US History, like it or not. And tearing them down, moving them to hidden away dark corners, or in some cases Democratic leaders calling for their destruction.
Yet other statues, like Lenin here in WA, MLK in many places, despite the people they represent are okay and can even be proud of someone who starved 5 million people to death in a year as well as a homophobe. Now, I could be wrong, but those are worse than honoring those who died because they happened to be on the wrong side of a line and merely did what they were ordered to do.
I've even had people tell me that ALL war memorials are "Participation Trophies". Tell those people to go to a Vietnam Memorial and tell them that.
At any given time the urge to sing "In The Jungle" is just a whim away... A whim away... A whim away...
Now is it getting out of hand??!!