Current Events PAGE

HARRIS POLL  Should southern states have the right to fly confederate flags over their statehouses?

Yes

62%  =>  34160 votes

No

34%  =>  18887 votes

From the Atlanta Constitution on the Georgia Flag:   this may be a dumb question, but why do you sound so consistently hostile to the legitimate feelings of people who find the confederate emblem offensive? if the confederacy had defended the enslavement of your ancestors, how would you feel about that? -- colin campbell.

Colin,
Those lazy people should strive to learn about the history of the country they love.  Then they would know that it was their people that either killed or captured, enslaved, and sold them to the Yankees. They would learn that the Yankees later found them unsuitable and unprofitable for their factories, and sold them to Plantation owners (Yankees included) in the Southern states. They would learn that no one was placed into slavery by the Southern States.

They would learn that Lincoln's War was about tariffs, that only 6% of the Southern defenders actually owned a slave. That the Confederate constitution was the one that forbade the importation of slaves. That the flag they have been taught to hate was never a Government
flag and it never flew over slavery. It was the flag of the soldiers which included Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans, and many other groups.

Therefore, my feelings are not for those too lazy to study. My feelings are for my Grandfathers who gave their all for their families, their homes, and their State of Georgia when invaded by Lincoln's paid invaders: murderers, looters, rapists, and arsonists. We Southerners will always honor our brave ancestors and the flags they fought under, so either go home or get used to us following the fifth commandment of God's law.

P.S. It was the USA flag that defended slavery for 89 years. When do you suggest we trash it? And do the Native Americans have feelings? Why would you not be as concerned about their feelings?
Elijah Coleman

(December 12, 2002)

It would have been much easier to have believed that all of the denunciations of Trent Lott were being spewed from the old Soviet Union’s entrenched communists than to have to come to grips with the fact that this is the dangerous climate now existing in the United States. Not only do we have Democrats, hoping they can flush Republican integrity down the drain - which paltry amount would not put a strain on the sewer pipes - but we also have Republicans in toto trouncing Senator Lott as roundly as the Democrats. (No wonder Samuel Francis calls them the Stupid Party.) Add to that the subversive media, which is virtually a carbon copy of Pravda, the official newspaper of the old Soviet Union, and you realize that we here have become what the Soviets once were.

What Trent Lott said was true. If the country had elected Strom Thurmond in 1948, we "wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years." Instead, this country’s voters gave us Harry Truman, who had already negotiated away the rights of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Rumania, handing them over to the Soviet Union after World II. In further concession to the Soviets, Truman helped cut up Europe to the great distress of all concerned in that part of the world. Had voters elected Thurmond, there would never have been a North Korea with which we have to deal very seriously now that they have nuclear weapons.

But it is none of these arguments which captured the attention of the "thought police." It was the new American taboo of saying anything blacks do not wish to hear. Lott may never have meant, as happily charged in the press, that we would have been better off with a segregationist President, but I wish he had. It is true, and it is time someone says so.

Flippant feminist columnist Kathleen Parker went into hysterics, asking just what kind of "problems" Lott meant. Using silly references to Hitler, she wrote, "Wonder which problems Herr Lott had in mind? That darned black vote? Those integrated public schools? Hip-hop? White flight? Black crime? The blind date that darkens the door of the white family room?" Not bright enough to realize it, she was giving all the correct answers. To think that white parents are not concerned about the racial makeup of their families and passing down inherited traits from generations back, as deeply as Jews are concerned about inter-faith marriage which nearly always results in a non-Jewish household, is to exhibit a profound ignorance of the importance of race in this country and in the world.

Blacks, who are very clever, have discovered a formula which has neutralized every public official in this country. It involves intimidation, threats, retribution, incessant demands, extorting money from corporations, attempting to bankrupt companies in court, and in general making themselves as obnoxious as possible so that no one will say or do anything which might displease a black man or woman. Politicians, who make the laws, have submitted to the black agenda, and we see an increasingly socialistic government as a result. In other words, give up your liberties quietly or be prepared to suffer ignominy. There is no fight left in the white public sector. That is why we saw immediate disavowals and apologies from Trent Lott. Would that Trent Lott cared more for his integrity than his position as Senate leader. If he really believed in the things embodied in the compliment given to a 100-year-old man on his birthday, then Lott would be worth a whole lot more to Mississippi and the rest of us as a simple Senator who just might be representing a majority of white people who have no one to speak for them.

Even those who call themselves conservative were among the Lott detractors, and Armstrong Williams, considered among some as a "leading black conservative," tore into Lott in savage rhetoric. Which brings me to an observation: Some blacks find advantage in masquerading as conservatives, but when it comes to race, they are not conservative with YOUR views. You better bury your own deeply held beliefs and subscribe to their odd racial opinions or have your whole existence become a nightmare. In other words, white men should "shut up." And that is basically what we have learned from the Trent Lott Affair.

Michael Andrew Grissom

www.michaelandrewgrissom.com <http://www.michaelandrewgrissom.com>

(This column may be used for reprint free of fees and charges.)

A TRIBUTE TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF GEORGIA

By Graham C. Owen, Commander, Sgt. Charlie Dickison Camp 534,

Florida Division December 7, 2002

"TAKE DOWN THE FLAG" GOVERNOR BARNES HAD SAID,

AND JOINING IN THE CHORUS, OTHER POLITICIANS PLED,

TO REMOVE GEORGIA'S OLD FLAG FROM ON ITS POLE,

BUT THE PEOPLE SPOKE "NAY, NOT THAT FLAG FOLD."

THE SCALIWAGS HEEDED NOT THE WORD,

THEY REMOVED THE FLAG, THE PEOPLE WERE NOT HEARD,

THEN CAME ELECTION AND ON THAT DAY,

THE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA FINALLY HAD THEIR SAY.

NOW SITTING AT HOME, THEIR POWER IS GONE,

THEY HAVE LEARNED A LESSON, ONE THAT IS STRONG.

WHENEVER A GOVERNOR OR REPRESENTATIVE STRAYS

SEND THEM HOME FROM OFFICE, TILL THEY MEND THEIR WAYS.

SO IN THE FUTURE, OUR COURSE IS CLEAR.

HOLD TO OUR VALUES AND HERITAGE DEAR.

LET NOT THE TURN-COATS ERASE OUR CAUSE

TURN THEM OUT OF OFFICE, AND CLIP THEIR CLAWS.

Blacks, Jews fight on side of the South
By Thomas C. Mandes
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

     The term "Johnny Reb" evokes an image of a white soldier, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant and from an agrarian background. Many Southern soldiers, however, did not fit this mold. A number of ethnic backgrounds were represented during the conflict.

      For example, thousands of black Americans fought as Johnny Rebs. Dr. Lewis Steiner of the U.S. Sanitary Commission observed that while the Confederate army marched through Maryland during the 1862 Sharpsburg (Antietam) campaign, "over 3,000 negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie knives, dirks, etc. And were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
      There also were Hispanic Confederates. Col. Santos Benavides, a former Texas Ranger, city attorney and mayor of Laredo, Texas, commanded the 33rd Texas Cavalry, while Gen. Refugio Benavides protected what was known as the Confederacy of the Rio Grande. Recent Irish Catholic immigrants also chose to fight for the South, as did a few stalwart Chinese who served nobly in Louisiana.
     The largest ethnic group to serve the Confederacy, however, was made up of first-, second- and third-generation Jewish lads. Old Jewish families, initially Sephardic and later Ashkenazic, had settled in the South generations before the war. Jews had lived in Charleston, S.C., since 1695. By 1800, the largest Jewish community in America lived in Charleston, where the oldest synagogue in America, K.K. Beth Elohim, was founded. By 1861, a third of all the Jews in America lived in Louisiana.
      More than 10,000 Jews fought for the Confederacy. As Rabbi Korn of Charleston related, "Nowhere else in America — certainly not in the Antebellum North — had Jews been accorded such an opportunity to be complete equals as in the old South." Gen. Robert E. Lee allowed his Jewish soldiers to observe all holy days, while Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman issued anti-Jewish orders.
     Many young Jews served in the ranks. There were a number of Jewish officers who were part and parcel of Southern society. They had spent their formative years in the South defensive about slavery and hostile about what they perceived as Northern aggression and condescension toward the South. Some of the more notable among the officer corps included Abraham Myers, a West Point graduate and a classmate of Lee's in the class of 1832. Myers served as quartermaster general and, before the war, fought the Indians in Florida. The city of Fort Myers was named after him.
     Another Jewish officer, Maj. Adolph Proskauer of Mobile, Ala., was wounded several times. One of his subordinate officers wrote, "I can see him now as he nobly carried himself at Gettysburg, standing coolly and calmly with a cigar in his mouth at the head of the 12th Alabama amid a perfect rain of bullets, shot, and shell. He was the personification of intrepid gallantry and imperturbable courage."
     In North Carolina, the six Cohen brothers fought in the 40th Infantry. The first Confederate Jew killed in the war was Albert Lurie Moses of Charlotte, N.C. All-Jewish companies reported to the fray from Macon and Savannah in Georgia. In Louisiana, three Jews reached the rank of colonel: S.M. Hymans, Edwin Kunsheedt and Ira Moses.
     Many Southern Jews became world-renowned during this period. Moses Jacob Ezekiel from Richmond fought at New Market with his fellow cadets from the Virginia Military Institute and became a noted sculptor. His mother, Catherine Ezekiel, said she would not tolerate a son who declined to fight for the Confederacy.
     He wrote in his memoirs, "We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded." In tribute to Ezekiel, it was written, "The eye that saw is closed, the hand that executed is still, the soldier lad who fought so well was knighted and lauded in foreign land, but dying, his last request was that he might rest among his old comrades in Arlington Cemetery."
     The most famous Southern Jew of the era was Judah Benjamin. He was the first Jewish U.S. senator and declined a seat on the Supreme Court and an offer to be ambassador to Spain. Educated in law at Yale, he was at one time or another during the war the Confederacy's attorney general, secretary of war and secretary of state. After the war, he settled in England, where he became a lawyer and wrote a seminal legal text.
     Simon Baruch, a Prussian immigrant, settled in Camden, S.C. He received his degree from the Medical College of Virginia and entered the conflict as a physician in the 3rd South Carolina Battalion, where he joined the fighting before the Battle of Second Manassas. He eventually became surgeon general of the Confederacy.
     While he was away during the war, his fiancee, Isabelle Wolfe, painted his portrait in the family home in South Carolina. It was at this time that Sherman began his March to the Sea. His raiders set the Wolfe house afire, and as she rescued the portrait, a Yankee ripped it with his bayonet and slapped her. Witnessing this, a Union officer gave the attacker a beating with his sword.
     From this, a romance began to blossom — quickly squelched by the young woman's father, who remarked: "Marriage to a gentile is bad enough, but marriage to a Yankee, never, ever, it is out of the question." Isabelle Wolfe eventually married Baruch. After the war, they moved to New York City, where he set up what became a prominent medical practice on West 57th Street.
      Mrs. Baruch became a member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and the couple raised their children with pro-Southern views. If a band struck up "Dixie," Dr. Baruch would jump up and give the Rebel yell, much to the chagrin of the family. A man of usual reserve and dignity, Dr. Baruch nevertheless would let loose with the piercing yell even in the Metropolitan Opera House.
     Their son Bernard became the most successful financier of his time and one of the best-known American Jews of the 20th century. Bernard Baruch was an adviser to presidents from World War I to World War II and became a confidant of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
     Today, little remains of the Jewish Confederate South. With the mass migrations from Russia and Eastern Europe, new immigrants knew little if anything of the struggle that had ensued during the preceding half-century. Confederate Southern Jewry eventually disappeared.
     
     • Thomas C. Mandes is a physician in Vienna, Va.

 

---

MFUME QUOTE

From: nwaller@carol.net

 

For those not fully convinced of the corruption of our "compromising" state legis-traitors, consider that well before the fateful flag vote in SC the national NAACP had written a pro-flag SC organization to say the proposed compromise would not be acceptable to the hate group. It was reprinted in a recent edition of the TRUTH AT LAST newspaper (POB 1211, Marietta GA 30061):

NAACP head Kweisi Mfume wrote a letter to Oren Smith of the Southern Heritage Assn. in Columbia, S.C., dated Jan. 2, 2000. A copy is in our possession. It reads, in part:

"Our principal litigate (sic) effort has been directed to the Confederate flag as an official symbol. However, we feel we are at a crossroad and feel that a compromise would not be beneficial to anyone. In the near future, efforts will be aimed at the removal of racist names, mascots, monuments, and ending the glorification of confederate soldiers through what is termed 'reenactments.'

We also feel there could be better use of State and Federal resources by the closing of museums and battlefields, which are dedicated to the preservation of slavery. . .

 

While this may appear to be one sided, it is a start toward the injustice of the Afro-American. Once the introduction and passage of a slavery compensation bill is accomplished a serious step will have been made toward reparations. This will reflect America's stance of equality, justice and freedom to the entire world. Signed, Kweisi Mfume, Executive Director, NAACP -- TTAL early 2002

Thus we see afresh that utter fraud of the "closure" and "finality" the pols promised us as they voted to bring the flag down where the Rev. Slave could burn it. There was never to be any closure, and they knew it, the politicians knew it, the leftist pressure groups knew it, the media knew it, the Chambers of Commerce/Communism knew it, above all the black supremacists knew it. WHO ARE THESE POLITICIANS REALLY

WORKING FOR?   It doesn't add up. /\/.\/\/.

Gentlemen,
Watch out for the Police State. It's almost here.
Lijah

War on terrorism a threat to liberty?
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020321-90276020.htm


Paul Craig Roberts

The war on terror is creating media attention and fund-raising opportunities for conservative organizations. It is also creating confusion of thought among conservatives and, thereby, opportunities for more centralized government power and a police state.
Too many Americans are coming to accept that a successful war on terror requires a police state in whole or part.
For example, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act would give state governors the power to order people from their homes and force them into quarantines, separate parents from children, impose price controls and rationing, and confiscate guns and other property.
Supposedly, this is to protect us from germ warfare, but herding people into confined spaces is the best way to spread disease.
The Emergency Health Powers Act is sponsored by the federal agency, Centers for Disease Control. According to Phyllis Schlafly, the bill, conveying dictatorial powers upon governors, is already moving through state legislatures.
We are in far more danger from the belief that the ends justify the means than we are from terrorists.

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo  

Every February 12 Americans think they are celebrating Lincoln’s birthday. But what they are really celebrating is the birth of the Leviathan state that Lincoln, more than anyone else, is responsible for bringing about. No wonder federal politicos have made his birth date a national holiday, engraved his face is on Mount Rushmore, built a Venus-like statue of him in Washington, D.C., and put his mugshot on the five dollar bill.

More than 130 years of government propaganda has hidden this fact from the American people by creating a Mythical Lincoln that never existed. Take, for instance, the fact that everyone supposedly knows – that Lincoln was an abolitionist. This would be a surprise to the preeminent Lincoln scholar, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, who in his 1961 book, Lincoln Reconsidered, wrote that "Lincoln was not an abolitionist." And he wasn’t. He was glad to accept on behalf of the Republican Party any votes from abolitionists, but real abolitionists despised him. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."

Garrison knew Lincoln well. He knew that Lincoln stated over and over again for his entire adult life that he did not believe in social or political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriage, supported the Illinois constitution’s prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, once defended in court a slaveowner seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended a runaway, and that he was a lifelong advocate of colonization – of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America – anywhere but in the U.S.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. His latest book is The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, March 2002).

Copyright 2002 LewRockwell.com

We really cannot blame Americans too much for holding on to their myths, even though they can only achieve pride by putting us down. If Americans had to take a look at the real Constitution, the real Declaration of Independence, the real Abraham Lincoln, the real war for Union and emancipation, which was neither noble nor necessary, their whole national morale would start to fall apart. That is why the anti-South people have been talking less about slavery lately and starting to dismiss the Confederacy with nasty and summary charges of "treason," as if the right to secede was not what the war was all about. What else have Americans got to sustain their society which has pretensions to world domination while disintegrating from within. The Melting Pot? – only a half-truth at best. Global Democracy? – a pernicious abstraction.

Still, it is true that until a very few years ago, the Confederacy was an accepted and honored part of the American national heritage. The current jihad against our forebears indicates a radical forward step in the movement toward government suppression of free thought and expression.Dr. Clyde Wilson

Fool’s Gold

For more than a year our Southern Heritage defenders in Texas 

have protested every week day the attack on our Confederate 

monument plaques which Gov. George Bush removed 

cowardly in the middle of the night.   Read more on this

here:  http://www.geocities.com/texansfordixie/

Appeals Court Rules On Second Amendment
BELLEVUE, WA - In a stunning decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
in New Orleans has crushed over 60 years of judicial misinterpretation
and anti-gun rhetoric by finding that the Second Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution protects an individual right.
Go here for story and links:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=10358

At the U.N. conference, some African leaders said that since slaves were forcibly taken from Africa, they deserve compensation for this loss. Among many problems with this argument are two that are particularly relevant. First, very few slaves were kidnapped by European slave traders. The vast majority were sold into slavery by African leaders of the time.
Second, these African leaders were paid very well for the slaves they sold. So to compensate them a second time for their loss is like paying compensation to a thief for robbing you.

A survey of slaves taken by one Sigismund Koelle in Sierra Leone in the 1850s. According to his research, which may not be typical for the whole slavery era, 34 percent of slaves had been taken prisoner in war, 30 percent had been kidnapped by Africans, 11 percent suffered enslavement as punishment for a crime, 7 percent had been sold to pay debts, and another 7 percent had been sold by relatives or friends. The rest fell into multiple categories.

Finally, it is worth noting that the U.S., against which reparations demands have been strongest, only got about 4 percent of the slaves taken from Africa. According to a careful calculation by historian P.D. Curtin, between 1500 and 1870, 399,000 slaves were brought to the U.S. Almost 10 times this number went to the Caribbean and about the same to Brazil.

Open Letter To Liberals Favoring Gun Confiscation

by Liz Michael

LizMichael.com, www.lizmichael.com

Released August 3, 2001 for immediate release

I know a lot of liberals. Hell, some of my best friends are liberals. And to those liberals, who so often favor gun control and gun confiscation, I have just one simple question....

 

Have you lost your bloody minds?

 

Let me tell 'ya a little story 'bout a man named Adolf. In the 20's the National Socialists were heavily armed (heavily for that day, anyway). The Bolsheviks were also somewhat armed, not to the degree of the Nazis. They were both probably better armed than the regular army, which was through the Treaty of Versailles, rendered next to useless.

 

German gun control didn't begin under the Nazis. It began in large measure because of the Nazis. They did not demand it, though. It was being aimed AT them. Yes. You heard me right. Check your history. The political establishment of the Weimar Republic wanted gun control to control undesirables in the population. To disarm them. They all thought it was a peachy idea.

 

It didn't work. German gun control was aimed at the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, the radical parties of the day. Because the National Socialists weren't about to obey laws that were not in their interest, gun control only wound up disarming what little armory was already in public hands.

 

What happened? One of the groups who refused to disarm ultimately took over the country. And there was absolutely nothing their opponents could do about it. Because they were without an army and without many firearms.

 

Now, the Weimar Republic is not a direct comparison to today's United States. But fast forward to today. There are a lot of people, most of them liberals of some type, who say one of the major reasons they want to disarm Americans is because of guns in the hands of "them crazy rednecks", like me. (Even though I'm Black, Indian and Jewish) Well, let's assume for a minute you get your wish. Let's say that HCI and the Brady bunch get everything they want in their political agenda passed into law. Who is and is not willing to obey those laws is of prime strategic importance to the liberal agenda.

 

Under a gun confiscation, who will likely surrender arms and who will utterly refuse to, cuts sharply across political lines. The liberals will probably cooperate, for the "good of the children", or "the environment", or whatever pabulum of the day they're being fed. Maybe a few radical anarchists won't. But most of your mainstream Democrats will comply. After all, they TRUST the government to take care of them.

 

However, the groups who will not are the conservatives and the libertarians. The conservatives, who prominently feature the Religious Right caucus. The Patrick Buchanan anti-immigration caucus. The anti-gay caucus. And the libertarians who plain and simply represent the "leave me the hell alone" caucus. The libertarians who would if they had their way gut as many liberal government programs as they possibly could.

 

Of course, the criminals will not comply. Not ever. They never do. They will, of course, profit from the illicit traffic from those who feel the need to have a weapon without the permission of a government bureaucrat or local police official. But I'm not really talking about the criminals here.

 

So what would happen under strict gun control is that the political groups most likely to be armed to the teeth are the conservatives and the libertarians, and the Religious Right and Buchananites with them. To a distinctly disproportionate degree.

 

Now, if you are a liberal, ask yourself this question.... do you really feel comfortable about that. Do you really WANT the conservatives to have significantly more guns than you? Because that group of armed individuals will be able to throw out any election they wish: you all complain Bush stole the 2000 election. Well, son, under strict gun control, you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet!!!

 

And they would likely, in the case of an armed insurrection of any serious import, be the people who take over the government. Either that, or a very organized somewhat fascist element within the government will defeat them, and take power themselves. Where would the liberals fit in the picture? Disarmed, with no power, no agenda and no voice, with their pet programs likely in shambles, with both camps of a civil war who hate them.

 

The SINGLE STUPIDEST thing that liberals could do for their causes is pass gun control. They would be writing their own death warrant, just as the Weimar Republic did.

 

I reiterate the question. Does anyone here want their activist movement fully disarmed, and completely trusting the other side in power without the check and balance of the potential for armed revolt?

 

Let me guess: some of you reading this right now, are thinking with your gut. And your gut is telling you: "the more I read of your essays, Liz, the more I see the need for strict gun control. So people like YOU won't have guns."

 

People like ME won't have guns.

 

That's a real belly laugh.

 

People like me, understand, as Mao understood, that power flows from the barrel of a gun. So people like me will NEVER not have guns.

 

Your gut feeling is the same gut feeling the Weimar Republic had about the Nazis. I'm not going to challenge your feeling. If you understand my politics, REALLY, it's in fact, nearly laughable, as someone like Hitler or Stalin is practically the diametric opposite of myself.. But let's go with your feeling for a sec. Say I am the danger. Me and my "conservative libertarian anarchist radical antigovernment whatever" thugs are going to march down and destroy America. So what then.... "WE GOTTA TAKE EVERYBODY'S GUNS!", you say. And let's pretend for a bit that you manage to get legislation to that effect. Who will obey it and who won't?

 

I'll tell ya, who, my liberal friends. You will obey it. The liberals will dutifully obey.

 

I won't obey it. The libertarians won't. The radicals won't. The conservatives won't. The religious right won't. The gayhaters won't. You may think they will but you don't know them like I do.

 

I won't obey it because in the end, in addition to saving my own ass, and the asses of people who think like me, I may have to save YOUR asses as well.

 

Who will have more power, liberal friend, at that point? Who will have more power? The liberals or the conservatives? The left or the right? Because at that point, my side, and whoever happen to be my allies, whatever you think of my side, will have all the guns. Yes, the government will have them, too. But do you really think that the government agencies with the most arms give a rat's ass about the liberal agenda? Do you REALLY think the GOVERNMENT... do you really think that government agents at this point in time, care about benign things such as gay rights, women's rights, racial minority rights and human dignity?

 

At that point in time, the only real battle left will be between the government and the conservatives and their allies. Unless, the conservatives take the government and consolidate absolute power, which Hitler did. So you either will have a government dominated by the conservatives, or dominated by FBI-CIA-DEA types.... or you will have a government in shambles due to a domestic rebellion.... and remember that libertarians LIKE to see governments in shambles. And you will have encouraged the only Americans willing to oppose these people to disarm themselves.

 

At that point in the equation, liberal friend, unless your side is armed, your side won't count. Your side will not only be irrelevant, but to quote former California Governor Pete Wilson, it will be "f***ing irrelevant". And if you disarm Americans, remembering that we won't disarm, you will have no power, and we might very well have all of it.

 

In the light of what I've just written, liberal friend, let me ask you again. Do you want to disarm the American people so that they will not be able to fight back against a tyrannical government? Or do you want to trust whomever comes to power to not be a tyrant. Germany did the latter and got the Third Reich. What will YOU get?

 

By the way, lest anyone have a cow, I do not believe conservatives and libertarians can possibly be equated with the Nazis. But I'm comparing the Weimar Republic to America of today, in one aspect, and one aspect only, and that is exposing the fallacy that the political enemies of the ruling government can be successfully disarmed by disarming the society at large, which is what we're really talking about. I am responding specifically to people who say that the NRA, the GOA, myself, and many of our allies are so dangerous that we need to be disarmed, and that that could be accomplished by disarming the populace as a whole.

 

Targeting the most military styled political enemy you have in a nation with general gun control against everyone actually strengthens the political enemy.

 

I can also use Weimar Germany and probably a 100 other examples to demonstrate that in most conflicts, that when the "gunphobics" decide to square off against the "gun lovers", the gun lovers almost always win. To beat us, you have to become just like us. Ultimately, to successfully disarm us, you will have to pick up a gun and make it so. Or hire someone and pay them to do the same.

 

This is why I am so adamantly against the gun controllers. Because I know that. I know ultimately that for them to win, they will have to turn into far worse than whatever they perceive we are. You still think you all will simply talk us out of it or legislate us out of it, but I know better. I know that either you will lose to us or you will beat us by becoming monsters. And I know there will be no other choices.

 

Remember what I said, people. Nothing you do will cause the hardcore conservatives and libertarians to disarm. Probably, gun control will only cause more of us TO arm. Because we know what happens next if we don't.

 

Governments in the 20th century have killed 100 million people. Almost all of those governments had one thing in common..... they stripped their eventual victims of firearms. Almost every people who have tried to appease a tyrant have lived to regret it. There is a more important spiritual lesson, in your zest to avoid the sword, that some of you have forgotten.... "Put not your trust in princes". By disarming, you are trusting the princes.

 

I don't trust the princes. Do you?

 

Hitler probably would have come to power anyway in Germany. However, with a disarmed populace, he came to power with a minority of the vote, and without a check and balance against his power. Had there been an armed populace, he might not have been able to consolidate absolute power. Probably no World War II. Probably no Holocaust. Guns in the right hands could have stopped it all.

 

Anyone in today's political climate personally strike you as dangerous?

 

It doesn't really matter who it is, or what party they belong to. Just understand this: gun control strengthens their hand. YOU personally disarming strengthens their hand.

 

Again, I'll reask the question of those who support gun control. Have you lost your minds?

 

Copyright, 2001, LizMichael.com, www.lizmichael.com Permission to reprint granted so long as the website and the copyright remains referenced. No exclusivity may be retained by any individual or press entity which reprints.

Val Finnell  wrote

`Conservatives react to these things [liberal shenanigans] with horror and
cite the law, objectivity, fairness, and the "facts." Guess what? The
liberal Democrats and their political henchmen don't care about such
antiquated notions....
`Because theological conservatives have the correct worldview (even though
they do not consistently apply it), they tend to be honest and uphold the
rule of law. Not only that, they tend to abhor confrontation and thus
embrace compromise to make the liberals go away. On the other hand, the
liberals have no barriers to lying because in their worldview the end
justifies the means. They embrace confrontation and will do whatever is
necessary to achieve their goals whether it is legal/moral or not. 

`Senator H. L. Richardson (retired) of California summarizes this dilemma:
`"Traditional Americans dislike conflict and withdraw from it as a matter
of habit and training. On the other hand, the humanist looks upon
confrontation as a necessity, a positive ingredient in advancing humanistic
programs. They expect confrontation, plan for it and anticipate the
predictable, negative reaction from their opposition, often using the
reaction to further promote their cause. Conflict, therefore, is expected,
welcomed, analyzed and then used to advance their goals. Momentum is
obviously on the side of the aggressors since they have the tactical
advantage of initiating the attack. Once the conflict is engaged, the
Leftists anticipate the opposition's response and judge their effectiveness
accordingly. The issue is pursued until the Conservative resistance becomes
formidable and an overall negative result could occur. At that time, a
dialectic step, a backward move, is in order. A strategic retreat, giving
up some ground.6"
`Senator Richardson goes on to say that this dialectical step backwards
leads to a compromise solution with the conservatives. The conservatives
agree in order to placate the Leftists. The liberals then pick up where
they left off with the next legislative or judicial initiative starting the
cycle all over again. This is why conservatives must always lose.
Conservatives are caught in a vicious cycle of "attack-compromise-retreat"
that steadily erodes our civil liberties. 
`If conservatives want to win, they must play hardball and move from
defense to offense. They must be willing to advance their agenda to create
their own dialectical moves in the political process. They must abandon the
"Democrat Lite" philosophy for a fully-orbed conservative program....
`When the liberal Democrats (and liberal Republicans) slash and burn,
conservatives must not only put out the fires, but initiate their own
conflagrations inside the enemy camp. Politics is like war without the
guns. It's dirty. It's cruel. And someone is going to get hurt. It's high
time for conservatives to start creating some casualties in the liberal
camp. If conservatives don't change their paradigm, it will only be a
matter of time before Christian principles are totally defeated in the
United States.'

CONFEDERATE FLAG CLAIMS FILED AGAINST GRADY Co. GEORGIA SCHOOLS

Black Mountain, NC - The Southern Legal Resource Center Inc, announces that it has filed civil rights claims against the Grady County Schools on behalf of 9 area students whose civil and constitutional rights were violated when Washington Middle School and Cairo High School officials banned Confederate symbols last February.

The claims were filed with the Department of Education, office of Civil

Rights alleging discrimination based on race and national origin.

Investigation and arbitration has been requested. Claims were also filed

with the Department of Justice, Equal Opportunity Section alleging

discrimination based on religion.

Constitutional claims and civil rights claims will be filed in Federal court

after the DOE & DOJ investigations.

The SLRC is coordinating its legal efforts with the Southern Heritage

Defense Organization, a local family support group for the Grady County students wishing to display pride in their Confederate heritage.

"This case is about justice and liberty," said SLRC Board Chairman Lourie A. Salley, III, a Lexington, SC attorney.

"This school needs to clean up its civil liberties act," said SLRC Chief

Trial Counsel Kirk D. Lyons. Lyons was referring to a quote by Cairo High School Principal Wayne Tootle who, when asked why the Confederate flag could not be worn on a shirt replied that: "the flag is racist" and " I’ve kept these niggers in line for 25 years and I’m not about to let you white boys have an uprising!"

Many felt the schools banned the Confederate flag because of the recent change in the Georgia state flag.

The claims will hopefully be arbitrated this summer.

The Southern Legal Resource Center, Inc. is a non-profit tax exempt Civil Rights Law Firm that specializes in Southern Heritage violations.

Please visit the Southern Legal Resource Center's web site at

<http://www.cheta.net/slrc>http://www.cheta.net/slrc .

Our address is SLRC, P.O. Box 1235, Black Mountain, NC 28711. Phone:

828-669-5189

Dr. Payne and Atty. Lyons

SCV members, I.N. Giffen,758

Black Mountain, NC

Gentleman,
This move will show the naacp as the hate mongers they really are, and the
people of Mississippi will surely stand up to their tactics now more than ever.
Actually, the boycott has increased revenue in S. Carolina.

NAACP officials have indicated that the civil
rights organization may be coming closer to a South Carolina-styled
economic boycott in Mississippi.

This after a mid-April state referendum in which citizens voted 2-1 to officially 

adopt the state's flag which bears the Confederate Saint Andrews Cross.

The oath which all commanding officers of UN deployments must take:

"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

Florida Division Headquarters
PRESS RELEASE
February 8, 2001

On February 5, 2001, the four flags that have flown over Florida were
removed from a historical display on the Capitol grounds in Tallahassee.
The Spanish, British, French, and Confederate flags have flown for many
years in this Capital display.

Inquires by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other organizations to the
offices of Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris,
concerning authorization for the removal of these flags have been met with
vague and contradictory statements. No state official or agency has advised
the citizens of Florida concerning the removal of these flags.

A non-profit organization, "Heritage Fountain 2000, Inc." has plans to
construct a fountain near the site of the flag display. However,
representatives of that group stated that they were not aware of any reason
to remove the flags or poles. 

Information provided to the SCV by Legislative and Executive branch
employees, indicates that these historic flags will not be returned to
their present location. 

The Sons of Confederate Veterans urge Governor Bush and Secretary Harris to
immediately advise the citizens of Florida on the status of this historic
flag display. The SCV also requests that the flags be returned to their
original site or a similarly visible outdoor location on the Capitol grounds.

Our organization is dismayed that our elected officials have acted in this
manner to remove symbols of the history, heritage, and culture of our state
with no notification to the citizens of Florida. 

The Sons of Confederate Veterans have advised diplomatic representatives of
Spain, France, and the United Kingdom concerning removal of the flags of
these sovereign nations.

For additional information contact:

John W. Adams
Commander, Florida Division
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Altamonte Springs, Florida
877-473-5237

SCV license plates have been under attack on several fronts in Virginia 
during the last few weeks. The Virginia Division was given less than 24 
hours to celebrate their Federal District Court victory when Attorney 
General Mark Earley, a Republican candidate for Governor, decided to 
appeal the decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Many papers in 
Virginia speculated on his reasoning for such a quick appeal and most 
centered on his pandering for black votes in his future election. Most 
legal pundits felt that an appeal would be both costly and ineffective 
since the lst Amendment will not be overcome by Earley's arguments that 
the state of Virginia has the right as a government to control the 
contents of speech on vanity license plates. Earley has made it known 
which side of the issue he comes down on. Many SCV, reenactors and other 
Virginians sick of this political correctness have turned to his 
adversary in the Governor's race, John Hager, who has endorsed both 
Confederate History Month and SCV license plates during his campaign. 
People are lining up to be Hager Delegates to the June Republican 
Convention in Richmond.
Probably sensing the futility of Earley's appeal, Donald McEachin, 
a black Richmond area member of the House of Delegates, sponsored a bill 
which would repeal the SCV license plates entirely. During a televised 
interview, McEachin generously said he would withdraw his bill if the 
SCV would put a different logo on their tags. The Virginia Division 
lobbied heavily with legislators to defeat this measure and when it came 
up in front of the House Transportation Committee, McEachin withdrew the 
bill sensing that he did not have enough votes to get it through.
The Rutherford Institute has advised the Virginia Division to 
proceed with the applications for SCV license plates.
Brag Bowling       lst Lt. Commander     Virginia Division

A Judge in Maryland just ruled that the [U.S.] 

government's "continual reference to the 
Confederate flag as a symbol of racial intolerance and divisiveness 
clearly demonstrates that [those in the government] are choosing, and 
advancing, the viewpoint of those offended by the flag over the 
viewpoint of those proud of the flag."   A Southern Victory!

Reply to the Joy Franklin anti-Southern article.

Asheville Citizen-Times

Editors,

You do not tell fifty million people that you believe in inclusion or putting planks in

the bridge of fellowship while at the same time you are destroying our songs,

street names, school names, monuments, Southern history in text books, bridge

names, and memorial flags that honor our ancestors.

Our children can't wear to school pictures of Confederate American heroes without

a law suit being filed to protect them.

Add to that the Federal government's refusal to allow Battleflags in our Confederate

cemeteries, or Confederate American exhibits included on government property.

Or their refusal to recognize hate crimes and assaults on Confederate Americans.

We Confederate Americans are closing down our Southern hospitality to all you

Yankee refugees and our own Scalawags who can't honor their Confederate Fathers

and their Confederate Mothers as directed in the Christian commandments.

As far as our Georgia flag, and our other Southern flags go, they will outnumber

those being flown to further attack our heritage while calling our heroes traitors

and vile names such as Nazis. Most fools do not realize that Confederate Americans

helped defeat the Nazis, and that Confederates fought for the original Constitution

against the invaders from the North who managed to destroy our Bill of Rights.

Confederately,

Elijah S. Coleman

 

Report from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals


The Southern heritage battle was fought in the halls of federal court today,
as the 6th Circuit heard oral arguments on the case of Castorina vs Madison
County School Board. It was a proud day for us, and our ancestors, I
believe. Chad Sayre, a Ky SCV member, presented the oral arguments to the
3-judge panel this morning. We have worked for 3 years to get to this point,
and this case is now the only Southern heritage case that is well along in
the legal system.

Trying to read the tea leaves of what the judges' questions mean is a
guessing game, so understand that most of the following are my impressions,
but who knows what will be ruled.

Our case boils down to three constitutional complaints; due process (the
parents and students were never allowed to take their grievance before the
school council or school board), freedom of speech, and equal protection
(students with Malcom X and other shirts that could be construed as racially
based were not disciplined). Primarily we are citing a case known as Tinker,
in which the 1st amendment and equal protection rights of students were
upheld. The Tinker decision recognizes that schools must maintain order and
fulfill their mission of education, which sometimes may involve curbing
first amendment rights, but those curbs must be applied evenly.

The school systems' case is based in two areas. They claim, under Tinker,
that there was an imminent potential disruption in the school due to the
t-shirts, and thus they acted appropriately. They also claim (and the
district court judge ruled in his summary judgment) that the t-shirts'
images are not protected speech. They claim that the t-shirts aren't
protected speech because they "don't carry a message". This seems to me to
be a terrible argument, because the school says that the Confederate flag is
racist and that is why they want them removed. How can they be construed as
racist if they "don't carry a message"? Even Judge Kennedy, whose questions
usually seemed to be "against" us, pointed out that the students came back
to school after their suspension wearing the shirts again specifically as a
protest. "How could that not be a message?" she asked.

Chief Judge Merritt seemed to be very sympathetic to our "equal protection"
argument. He came back to it several times, even tossing it out as a
"softball" question for our side to respond to. He explicitly pointed out
that Tinker required a neutral application of dress code rules, and that
allowing Malcom X shirts while not allowing Hank Williams shirts with flags
could not be considered neutral. "What's good for the goose under the first
amendment, must be good for the gander" he said at one point. It's
interesting to me that we've been making this argument repeatedly with
school and other officials and it's often considered a joke by the
powers-that-be. They don't seem to see the hypocrisy of banning Southern
symbols while allowing other cultural and racial symbols. It was very
refreshing to see a judge who is in a position to give our position some
"teeth" seeming to take the same side.

The judges, especially Judge Merritt, were also very interested in our first
amendment argument. Frankly, this is an argument which we have not been
prevailing on in other cases, but Judge Merritt came back to it over and
over. Judge Merritt also seemed quite perturbed that this case had been
decided in a summary judgment. He seemed to want to use that against the
opposition, by saying that he had to accept the testimony of the students as
truth, since there had only been deposition and no trial. Using that as a
basis, Judge Merritt posed a series of questions to the school board's
attorney which ended with the judge saying "it seems to me that you violated
their first amendment rights, isn't that so?". The attorney gave a vaguely
positive answer, so the judge repeated the question more directly, to which
the attorney replied, "Yes...in a general sense". To me, this was quite a
"Perry Mason" moment. We had the opposing attorney admitting that the school
system violated the student's rights!!

The judges also asked our attorney what remedy we would like, seeming to
indicate a preference for remanding the case back to the district court for
a trial. Our response was that we wanted that "at a minimum".

Interestingly, the "due process" argument wasn't touched on very much,
though it seemed to me that this was one of our strongest. Does that mean
that the judges didn't care about this aspect, or perhaps they bought our
argument in the briefs without needing further questions? Or perhaps (my
theory) the judges saw this as an interesting "equal protection" case, and
an interesting revisit to the first amendment hair-splitting of the Tinker
decision. Compared to those two, maybe the obvious lack of due process isn't
as "sexy".

Overall, the feeling was very positive for our side. I realize that the
judges could have been playing "devil's advocate", but at several points
they didn't ask questions but made statements of their opinion ("I think
that violates equal protection", etc.). Guessing what judges might