The Harsh Reality of Federal Supremacy

James Ronald Kennedy

California, Arizona, & Louisiana

We the people of the once sovereign states live in the shadow of Federal tyranny. For example; when the people of California expressed their sovereign will in an open plebiscite a Federal judge nullified the will of the people; when the elected legislature of Arizona passed a law to defend the people of that once sovereign state against armed criminal invasion originating from a foreign country, the Federal President filed a suit in the Federal court to prevent Arizona from executing its inalienable right of self-defense; and when the elected governor of Louisiana attempted to protect his state from a man-made disaster in the Gulf of Mexico the Federal bureaucracy stepped in and halted his efforts—the central theme of all of these examples is the fact of the harsh, oppressive, and unconstitutional reality of America’s current system of Federal supremacy.

At the Federal level in contemporary America there is a great divide between the unrepresented taxpaying class and the Federally represented (and Federally protected) tax consuming class. Those tax consumers who support the political status quo in Washington, D. C. and their political hirelings find nothing unusual, and actually celebrate the outcomes of the three examples above. The perks, privileges, and powers that are derived from the status quo, or the close connections they enjoy with the status quo, benefits the tax consuming class and they therefore find great incentive to encourage the expansion of Federal supremacy. Politicians such as Peter Stark who recently declared that the Federal government could do anything it wanted; or Nancy Pelosi who declared that questions regarding constitutional authority for congressional actions were “not a serious question;” or President Obama’s declaration while running for office that the Federal government had a right to redistribute Joe the Plumber’s wealth demonstrate a thorough repudiation of the Constitution. Whereas our founding fathers created a limited Federal government, today’s “status quo” politicians see only unlimited power to promote their socialists agenda. In their very words and by their actions Stark, Pelosi, and Obama demonstrate the pervasive acceptance by America’s political status quo of the notion that the Constitution, as an instrument to limit Federal powers and protect individual rights reserved to we the people of once sovereign states, is no longer relevant in modern America.

The concept of Federal supremacy is not new; it did not originate with the Obama administration or with the Democratic Party, but is something that began early in America’s constitutional history. The adoption and enthusiastic acceptance of Federal supremacy by the political status quo reflects a strategic shift in the manner in which American liberty is defined. Prior to Appomattox, even in many Northern States, it was accepted as a tenant of American political faith that the States created the Federal government and that we the people of the sovereign states were the final judge as to the constitutionality of the actions of our agent—the Federal government. But as Governor Yates of Illinois noted in 1865 the War for Southern Independence had “tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian idea that the best government is that which governs least.”

Too many modern day “conservatives” take great hope in the upcoming November elections—seeing the possibility of Republicans reclaiming control of Congress as a solution to the harsh reality of Federal supremacy. Unfortunately this is a false hope! As in a military campaign mere tactical victories may be impressive but they do not procure final victory. The heroic victory of Manassas (that’s Bull Run for those schooled in mere Yankee history) did not stave off the final sad reality of Appomattox—tactical victories regardless of how exciting are no substitute for a strategic victory. Yet one more false promise of a Republican “Contract for America” will produce nothing more than possibly one more exciting “conservative” tactical victory—at the end of the day, however, the political status quo in Washington, D.C. and Federal supremacy will remain intact and ready to be harshly applied when next called upon. We the people of the sovereign states do not need tactical victories we need a strategic victory—a victory that permanently deprives the power elite of the unconstitutional perks, privileges, and powers inherent in their system of Federal supremacy!

The only way to gain a strategic victory over the current system of Federal supremacy is to pass a constitutional amendment acknowledging the inalienable right of we the people within our sovereign state to nullify acts of our agent, the Federal government which we judge to be beyond its constitutional authority. How many more times will the we the people of once sovereign states allow our agent, i.e., the Federal government, to act as our master rather than our servant? How much more liberty will we allow the agents of the status quo to trample upon before we demand a REAL change in how we are governed? Going to Washington, D.C., hat in hand, every four years and imploring our masters to “play nice according to the rules of the game” will never defend, let alone reclaim, our liberty. Real state’s rights including the right of nullification and/or secession are the only remedies an otherwise unresponsive Federal government will respond too. For a full explanation of how this can be done, see Nullification: Why and How. A free copy of this book can be downloaded at www.kennedytwins.com
 
Copyright © 2010 Southern National Congress

On The Web:   http://southernnationalcongress.org/truths/federal_supremacy.shtml

 

Taking the South Out of the Kids

By Al Benson Jr.

It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt in many schools around the country to “take the South” out of Southern young people.

You can look at such things as courses at some colleges that are designed to help Southern students lose their “Southern accents.” A Southern accent is perceived by many as a terrible liability to making it in the “real world” and so the kids need to be encouraged to dispose of their Y’alls and all the rest of the language that makes the South such a colorful place to live and converse in. Do I consider this a form of discrimination? Absolutely!

Have the folks that are so anxious to rid the world of Southern accents ever taken the time to listen to someone from New Jersey talk? If not they should. Or someone from Maine or certain parts of Massachusetts? I grew up in the northeast and so had a golden opportunity to listen to a variety of accents there, and believe me, when push comes to shove, I will take a good Mississippi drawl anytime over what passes for the English language in Hoboken.

Some northeastern accents are verifiably horrendous, and yet no one bothers to sponsor courses in colleges that will enable New Jersey students rid themselves of their accents. I remember one time, years ago, I was riding with a friend from New Jersey (he spoke respectable English) and we chanced to give a ride to someone else from New Jersey. When he got into the car he noticed the New Jersey tags on my friend’s  car and he said “Is youse guys from Joisey?” At least that’s what it sounded like he said. Since most of it seemed to come through his nose I was never completely sure. I have often thought, since that time, that some of the folks from Jersey could use a college course or two to teach them a better brand of English, but there don’t seem to be any such around. Such courses only seem to exist for Southern kids. Besides which, you all is grammatically correct when referring to more than one person. “Youse guys” is not.

And it seems to be the object of many schools, even in the South, to make kids ashamed of being Southerners. The kids are harangued about the evils of slavery, as though the white South were the only place in the world that slavery ever existed. Well, I have news for some of these self-righteous Northern professors--you had slavery up there too, you just got rid of it a little earlier that’s all. There are places on the Internet where you can check out information about slavery in the North.

I realize there are many good Northern folks that have no idea that slavery ever existed in their part of the country, but all the original thirteen colonies had slavery at one time or another. Lots of New England ship owners got wealthy off the slave trade. If you want to read a little about it I would recommend The Myths of American Slavery by Walter D. Kennedy  (Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, Louisiana 2003). Another bigger book comes to mind also, but this is an excellent place to start.

Young folks from other areas are taught to be proud of their heritage. Southern kids are taught to be ashamed of theirs. I’m sorry, but speaking as a Northerner who now lives in the South, that’s just not right.

The Southern kids have every bit as much right to be proud, and thankful, for their heritage as anyone else does. Slavery was not the sole product of evil Southerners and secession in 1861 was not treason, no matter how much some professors and uninformed newspaper columnists spout that it was. Those people that carry on about the South only seceding so she could keep her slaves do little except betray their abysmal lack of historical knowledge.

Sadly, many uninformed Christians go along with this foolishness. There is even a blog spot out there, run by someone who claims to be a Christian, which advertises a “Burn the Confederate Flag Day” for September 12th, to coincide with the upcoming Tea Party rallies. The Southern Heritage News & Views blog spot has noted that: “he manages to cram Confederate heritage, the Tea Party platform and racism into a single muddled object of his sophomoric jeering.” Yes, folks, thanks to our government school educations, there are some folks out there who honestly don’t know the difference. Actually, I’d like to see some Confederate flags out there at the Tea Party rallies, waving along side all those Gadsden flags. They do, after all, complement one another.

What we need, rather than cutting young folks off from their Southern heritage, are some schools that will teach it without apology. And we need informed Christian young people that will realize the biblical basis for their culture rather than back down at the false charge of “racism” because they’ve been taught not to “offend” anyone.

Content ©2010  Al Benson Jr.

On The Web:   http://www.cakewalkblogs.com/antiestablishmenthistory/taking-south-out-kids.aspx

 

Monday, August 30, 2010

Sarah Palin at Beck's "Love Leviathan" rally

Yesterday, I wrote that Beck's rally at the Lincoln shrine was a snare and delusion; instead of a call to restore liberty by downsizing the central government, it cheered on the aggressive, unrestrained use of force at home and abroad under the fig leaf of promoting civil rights.

Sarah Palin's speech at that rally confirms my view. Here's a partial transcript:

There in the distance stands the monument to the Father of Our Country. And behind me, the towering presence of the Great Emancipator -- he secured our union at the moment of its most perilous time and freed those whose captivity was our greatest shame.

And over these grounds where we are so honored to stand today, we feel the spirit of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He, who on this very day two score and seven years ago, gave voice to a dream that would challenge us to honor the sacred charters of our liberty that all men are created equal.

Now in honoring these giants, these giants who are linked by a solid rock foundation of faith in the one true God of justice - in honoring them, we must not forget the ordinary men and women on whose shoulders they stood. The ordinary called for extraordinary bravery. I'm speaking, of course, of America's finest, our men and women in uniform, a force for good in this country and that is nothing to apologize for.

Abraham Lincoln once spoke of the mystic chords of memory stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land. And for over two hundred years, those mystic chords have bound us in gratitude to those who are willing to sacrifice, to restrain evil, to protect God-given liberty, to sacrifice all in defense of our country.

They fought for its freedom at Bunker Hill, they fought for its survival at Gettysburg and for the ideals on which it stands - liberty and justice for all - on a thousand battlefields far from home.

"Fought for its survival at Gettysburg"? H. L. Mencken debunked that lie decades ago.

In other words, if we are to believe the Beck-Palin view of history, Leviathan is the source of all good, and those who oppose it deserve to be crushed. If you're a patriotic American in the Beck-Palin mold, you understand that citizen surveillance, reconstruction at home, and militarism abroad are noble endeavors we must support with our blood and treasure.

I'm calling game, set, and match.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

On The Web:   http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2010/08/sarah-palin-at-becks-love-leviathan.html

 

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Glenn Beck is unclear on the concept

87,000 showed up at the Lincoln Memorial for Beck's rally:

Forty-seven years after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream Speech,” Fox News host Glenn Beck stood Saturday close to the spot at the Lincoln Memorial where the civil rights leader called for racial equality, urging the nation to return to "faith, hope and charity."

Now let me get this straight -- Beck stands at a monument that deifies the man who transformed the voluntary union of States into a centralized behemoth, and invokes the legacy of a man tied closely to communists -- for the purpose of restoring liberty and small government?

One of us is realllllly missing something.

On The Web:   http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2010/08/glenn-beck-is-unclear-on-concept.html

 

Tuesday, August 31, 2010
When America was God’s Country

By Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.,
Speaker and Author of the book “When America Stood for God, Family and Country.” cjohnson1861@bellsouth.net

The United States of America is a vast melting pot of many people of different origins and religions….And, thank God, we are still free to worship at the church, synagogue or mosque of our choice as our nation celebrates her 234th birthday as an American-Christian Republic.

But, today, some folks are questioning the wisdom, or lack of, in building a Mosque and Islamic Center near “Ground Zero” the sacred site where the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists on September 11, 2001. This is sacred-honored ground that some compare to the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii where thousands were also senselessly killed.

Is this the same America of forty-five “45” years ago, when our nation celebrated the Civil War Centennial or over two-hundred “200” years ago, when our founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence? Are children still taught the words to the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights?

Why do some of our Washington representatives, who are sworn to defend the Constitution and American people, criticize the State of Arizona for upholding the Constitution and protecting their people?

If only we had the values of the 1960s when….

Mothers, Fathers, Grandmas and Grandpas shared stories and words of wisdom with their children. The young folks were encouraged to live more constructive and fruitful lives by avoiding cigarettes, alcohol and drugs and obeying the laws of God—that are the Ten Commandments and the laws of man.

During 1961-65, America remembered the men of the Union Blue and Confederate Gray of the War Between the States and….

In 1965 people enjoyed quality time at the drive-in or in-door picture show to see such great movies as: “Shenandoah” starring James Stewart, “A High Wind in Jamaica” starring Anthony Quinn, “Von Ryan’s Express” starring Frank Sinatra, “The Sons of Katie Elder” starring John Wayne and the academy award winner “The Sound of Music” starring Julie Andrews. Veteran Movie Director Henry Koster was still making family film classics like: Dear Brigitte starring James Stewart and Glynis Johns.

Television shows during the autumn of 1965 were magnificently transcending from black and white to color, that included such shows as: “The Lawrence Welk Show” on ABC, “Daniel Boone” staring Fess Parker on NBC and “The Andy Griffith Show” also starring Don Knotts on CBS.

During the 1960s, presidents hardly ever apologized for America, the family attended church on Sunday and streets were safer even though firearms were easier to purchase.

The music scene of 1965 exploited with excitement with such entertainers as: the Beatles, the Supremes, the Dixie Cups, Elvis Presley, the Beach Boys, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, Louis Armstrong, Tennessee Ernie Ford, George Jones and Loretta Lynn—to name a few.

In 1965, a Mother could safely leave her front door unlocked to go the store, school bands still played “Dixie” and everyone respected the fireman, policeman, paramedic, school teacher and soldier.

America has never been perfect but Capitalism, not Communism, has endured the test of time. When I was growing up, no one quoted former Communist or Socialist leaders. Americans quoted from great men like: George Washington, Sir Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee.

The world looks toward America as the last hope for the free world. But, are we still the land of the free and home of the brave and is our motto still “In God We Trust?”

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2010/08/when-america-was-gods-country.html

 

Trial Likely For Fredericksburg Confederate Monument Case
By Scott C. Boyd
(September 2010 Civil War News)

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. – Barring out-of-court negotiations, which have been unsuccessful so far, a Fredericksburg Circuit Court judge has cleared the way for a trial over the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ (SCV) lawsuit to prevent the city from moving a monument to a cemetery for 51 Confederate soldiers.

At an Aug. 9 hearing, Judge Gordon F. Willis rejected the city’s June 16 motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the suit. No trial date was set.

At issue is a 3.5-foot-high granite stone topped with a bronze plaque listing the 51 Confederate soldiers buried nearby in the unmarked cemetery along Barton Street in front of the former Maury School.

The Confederate monument sits on one corner of a large traffic island where the Fredericksburg Area War Memorial was dedicated in 2008. That memorial honors the dead from the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.

According to Matthew Fontaine Maury Camp 1722, they placed the monument on April 16, 2009, at a location designated by city zoning and building officials. The city disputes that the camp was authorized to place the monument.

Two days later the camp hosted a dedication ceremony to which the seven city council members were invited. (See article in June 2009 CWN.)

At the request of the Fredericksburg Area Veterans’ Council (FAVC), which sponsored the war monument, the city council voted in September 2009 to approve a memorandum of understanding with the veterans’ group that included relocating the Confederate monument to an unspecified location.

Camp 1722 was not consulted. The city council’s vote prompted the lawsuit filed last Nov. 19.

The complaint filed by the SCV’s attorney, Patrick M. McSweeney (with McSweeney, Crump, Childress & Temple in Richmond, Va.), stated that the monument was covered by Virginia Code Section 15.2-1812, which protects war monuments from being disturbed once they have been erected. He said it could not be moved by city council vote.

At the recent hearing, City Attorney Kathleen Dooley argued that the power to “authorize and permit” the erection of war monuments in Section 15.2-1812 was a “non-delegable legislative duty.” The city council had to authorize the Confederate monument, which it did not, she said.

Dooley said there were no “issues of genuine fact” in dispute. She asked Judge Willis for a summary judgment, or decision without a trial.

McSweeney said there were material facts in dispute over the delegation of authority by city council to city officials. The function of approving monuments can be delegated by the governing authority, such as the city council, to city officials, and was applicable in this case, the SCV’s lawyer said.

He noted the council did not approve a monument to the 7th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment’s amphibious assault across the Rappahannock River during the Battle of Fredericksburg. It was erected in 2003 on the city easement on National Park Service property along the river.

He added that the city council did not approve a historical marker placed on the same traffic island in January 2010 that refers to nearby sites, including the Liberty Town African-American neighborhood, the Potter’s Field graveyard and the unmarked Barton Street Confederate cemetery.

Judge Willis questioned McSweeney about the building permit signed by Camp 1722 monument project leader Roy B. Perry Jr. as “authorized agent.” According to McSweeney city officials prepared the building application and advised Perry to sign it.

If the locality can delegate the authority to its officials, who can authorize local officials to authorize a local citizen, like Perry, to act as an agent for the city, Willis asked McSweeney.

“No one has told the building official [who advised Perry] that he broke the law,” McSweeney said.

“Does it require council approval to erect anything on city property?” Willis asked Dooley. She did not respond.

“Can it be done without direct action by city council, or can it be delegated?” Willis asked.

Dooley said that council has authorized Public Works to put up things like stop signs as well as temporary traffic signs. She said she was not familiar with the 7th Michigan monument, having been handed an affidavit about it minutes before the hearing.

Judge Willis asked Dooley whether two city officials, senior planner Erik F. Nelson and his boss, zoning administrator Raymond P. Ocel Jr., had the authority to authorize Perry to seek the building permit for the monument.

Dooley said they did not have the authority to do what they did. “Perry’s building permit is invalid,” she said.

“It is disputed whether Mr. Perry was authorized by the city to build. I think that is a material fact to be determined,” Willis said, denying the city’s motion for a summary judgment.

He added, “Just because the permit was issued doesn’t make it valid.” He said that such a determination was up to the finder-of-fact at a trial.

The judge reminded the parties that at their last court session in March he recommended they use Virginia’s Judicial Settlement Conference Program, where retired judges help parties negotiate cases outside of court.

McSweeney asked if the negotiations were voluntary. Willis said they were, “I’d be happy if it was ordered,” McSweeney replied.

In informal negotiations the city proposed, and Camp 1722 rejected, two alternate locations for the Confederate monument, both much farther from the cemetery it memorializes.

Billing information obtained by Civil War News indicates that the city paid outside attorney Jennifer Parrish, who is assisting Dooley, $14,253.50 for the period March through July 2010. The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star in an Aug. 15 editorial questioned whether the legal cost is money well spent and urged the city to let the Confederate monument remain where it is.

On The Web:   http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/2010/sept/fburgconfed_091006.html

 

GOP says graphics firm's error led to use of Confederate image in handout

Saturday, August 28, 2010

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – Democrats this election season like to argue that Republicans want to take the country back to bad days, and, in Texas, they poke fun at Gov. Rick Perry for flirting with secession.

So the Texas GOP made itself a target when it handed reporters a document using an image of Texas' Confederate-era state constitution at a Thursday event designed to raise questions about state House Democratic leader Jim Dunnam. A party spokesman said the flub was unintentional, the result of in-house miscues and a graphic arts contractor's "laziness."

"No, categorically no," Republican Party spokesman Bryan Preston said, when asked if secessionist views permeate Perry's party.

At the Thursday event in Waco, state Republican Chairman Steve Munisteri charged that Dunnam doesn't live in his district and should step down. Munisteri spoke after Preston gave out a 47-page press packet with photos and real estate records on Dunnam's two Waco-area homes.

The packet included a graphic showing language in the current state constitution, ratified in 1876, about qualifications for state representatives. The text was linked to an image of the cover of the state's Confederate constitution, adopted shortly before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

Dunnam – who insists he has been and still is an eligible candidate, although his children attend school outside his district – called the cover's inclusion "bizarre." Dunnam will face Republican Marva Beck on the November ballot.

Asked if he thought the use of the Confederate image was intentional, Dunnam said, "Frankly, these days the GOP continues to talk about secession and going back to 'the way it used to be,' so heck if I know."

Preston, however, said it was anything but.

"The graphic artist made a big old screw-up," he said, describing a decision Monday not to show the constitutional qualifications, just the photos and maps, set up on easels at Munisteri's press conference. In Thursday's rush of preparations, no one noticed the artist included the graphic – or noticed the Confederate charter's cover, Preston said.

"Dunnam has spent years in deceit and even bought a house to game the electoral system," he said. "We had one graphic that was just a dumb mistake." Still, Preston blamed himself for "letting one get past the goalie."

As for the graphic arts firm, he said: "They're not going to get hired again."

© 2010, The Dallas Morning News, Inc.

On The Web:   http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-dunnam_28tex.ART.State.Edition1.358ba6d.html

 

Confederate Flag. Racism or Heritage? (poll)
News Type: Opinion
Tue Aug 3, 2010

I've never been a big "flag waving" kinda guy. But it is my position that the Confederate Flag is not racist.

Sure it has a spotted history and some of the worse sort of people wave it. But, to an overwhelming majority today, it is more pop culture than social statement. I don't see it any different then an Italian flag in Little Italy or a Mexican flag in New Mexico.

When I see it painted huge on a pickup-truck...well, ok I don't quite understand that either; it looks ridiculous. But, when I see it on TV or flying in somebodies front yard I think of a much more specific home than I do when I see the American Flag. It reminds me of family and friends and southern cooking.

Also, it is kind of a bad boy thing to do for "Good Ole' Boys". Seeing a rebel flag bumper sticker; the thoughts that pop in my head are: Hunting, Fishing, NASCAR and Beer. It would be the equivalent of wearing your favorite teams jersey out. People would look at you think: "I agree". Or they might think: "What a jackass." (I'm looking at you, Cowboy fans).

I'm sure there are other reasons people display it, to be honest I'm not a very good southern boy, but I don't think it's about race. I think it is about regional pride. Ask a New Yorker how great New York is or ask a Texan about Texas. We all have it.

© 2005-2010 Newsvine, Inc.

On The web:   http://consider-it.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/03/4806102-confederate-flag-racism-or-heritage-poll

 

Who’s Really Running This Show? (Subtle hint: it ain’t the president)

By Al Benson Jr.

Have you ever had the impression that, in politics, what you see isn’t really what you get? Ever get the feeling that whoever the current occupant of the White House is, no matter which party he’s from, he’s little more than a talking head? He may not have an original thought of his own but there is someone behind the scenes passing him an agenda they want enacted and telling him “Okay Dim Bulb, this is what we want done. Get it done for us and you’ll be okay. Mess up and you’re in big trouble.”

All you have to do is look at our last two or three presidents and you have to realize this scenario is more and more a strong possibility.

Ever look at the media, even the so-called “conservative” media, and feel you re not quite getting the whole story? I remember, years ago, reading a book called “I was an NKVD Agent.” It was written by a former Soviet secret policeman who had been dropped behind allied lines during the Second World War to gain information. He was to give the appearance of a refugee from Communism and to do that he had to say some things about how bad it was in the Soviet Union. He was told by his handlers before he came over that he could criticize his country for its poor people--every country has them. He could criticize it for its prisons--everyone has those, too, but the minute he criticized the principles of Marxism/Leninism and they found out, they would come and get him. And so he told enough truth to get by, but by no means all of it.

After reading that book I watched all the so-called refugees from the Soviet Union that I heard about in the news to see just what they said. Most of them told us how bad it was over there, how corrupt the government was, and all the rest, but very few ever contradicted the principles of Marxism. That told me something.

We have the same situation in this country now with much of our “conservative” media. Oh, they will rant about how bad Obama is and how bad his health care program is and they will even take an occasional pot shot at the New World Order. That’s all good as far as it goes, but what are their solutions to the problems we face? Some of them say, we need to elect more Republicans to Congress. That was tried in the mid-1990s and it didn’t work. All we got then were Newt Gingrich and a whole batch of other phony conservatives who did nothing to slow down the socialist trend in Washington. Oh they talked a good fight but the action didn’t match the rhetoric. They’d learned long ago that you could fool people with the right words and they’d never pay attention to what you did. So they talked the talk and didn’t walk the walk.

Over the years, I watched William F. Buckley and Rush Limbaugh do their thing. They both gave you a certain amount of truth, but it seemed to me that they stopped way short of where you really needed to go and their solutions to the country’s problems were rather truncated. There were certain areas they never dealt with. What’s more, they discouraged others from dealing in them. One was groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and other such groups. Most conservative commentators today won’t deal with such groups. You have to wonder why. They certainly have to be aware of them, yet they ignore them. Yet these groups have, over the decades, played a monumental role in the governing of this country. How many cabinet positions in the administrations of the last 3 or 4 presidents we’ve had have been filled by CFR retreads? More than you want to know about. If you don’t know about the CFR you might be tempted to wonder why your favorite conservative talk show host hasn’t bothered to mention it. It is one of the foremost engines for world government in this hemisphere. It’s been around since about 1919. Check it out on the Internet.  How many people in the media, education, politics, entertainment and other areas have been and are in the CFR? How many religious leaders?

Recently, James Perloff, author of the book “Shadows of Power” was interviewed on an Internet radio show. Someone called in with a question for him and asked: “I was curious if Fox News is owned by the Council on Foreign Relations.” Mr. Perloff’s answer was “Any major media organ that is allowed to reach the public’s ear is under control of the CFR and its allies.” A sobering thought for the devotees of Fox News.

In the interview it was noted that Glenn Beck, on Fox News, has slammed world government, and Mr. Perloff was asked how he reconciled that fact to his comments. Perloff replied: “Over the years they (Illuminati) have recognized that they need to control every stripe of oppositions, and therefore they have channeled money into anarchist publications, into conservative publications, and certainly William F. Buckley was their white collar conservative, he was a member of the CFR, a member of the Yale skull and bones fraternity. William F. Buckley was sort  of given to conservatives, so they can think they have a voice within the media… and I sort of look of Rush Limbaugh, to a certain extent…as their blue collar conservative…” Mr. Perloff’s thoughts in that area echoed mine. And in case you don’t know who the Illuminati that he mentioned were, they were a group of world government advocates back in the 1800s and before, that hired a lazy, shiftless hack writer named Karl Marx to write “The Communist Manifesto.” If you chance to get to look at a copy of the first edition of that document you will note that Marx’s name is not even on it. It was their agenda, not his, but they let him put his name on the later editions. So you see we are not dealing with a new problem here. The Marxist Obama may be a major problem, but he’s not our first major problem. In this country, one of our first major problems in government was Abraham Lincoln (unless you go all the way back to Alexander Hamilton).

Many astute observers have noted that the Illuminati--the One World government freaks--have long ago recognized that Bible believing Christians and genuine patriotic conservatives have desired to have a voice in national affairs that we think represents our side of the story. So, in order that we not have a real voice of reason for our position, they promote and finance what we call “false flags”--people who will give us a little of the truth but will give us false solutions to the problems we face so that we are sidetracked from real solutions. This is one reason the establishment will promote phony conservatives like Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John McCain and others of like stripe and will studiously avoid people like Ron Paul, or if they do mention him, they will paint him as some sort of extremist.

They recognize that Christians want conservative voices to be raised and so they give us people like Richard Land, one of the main officers in the Southern Baptist Convention--who just happens to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is the man who is telling everyone that Christians really want amnesty for all the illegal aliens in this country when actually the opposite is mostly true. The vast majority of the Christians I talk to are opposed to amnesty for those people. So, instead of promoting pastors like Chuck Baldwin, who tells people the truth about what is going on, they try to ignore him and promote “conservatives” like Richard Land who will say what they want us to hear.

We need to be much more discerning about the so-called “conservatives” we listen to and support. If they rant about One World Government then we should ask them for specifics--who controls these One World efforts? What can they tell us about the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberger group and others. Will they be willing to expose members of these groups that serve currently and have served in government in the past and tell us about some of their leftist connections? If they refuse to deal with these kinds of issues then we have reason to question just where they are really coming from.

If they rant about Obama’s Marxist connections (and there are many) ask them about Jimmy Carter’s Rockefeller connections and where the Rockefellers are in relation to One World Government.

I have been supportive of the Tea Party Movement, but these folks need to start doing some homework. When they do, they will find out that we have had the problems they protest against for decades. This is not new with Obama. He’s just the tip of the collectivist-socialist iceberg.

If you want a little background in these areas try to get hold of two books by Gary Allen, (now deceased) called “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” and ‘The Rockefeller File.” These were originally published back in the 1970s but I think some of the material in them may be on line. Check it out and do a little homework.

Content ©2010  Al Benson Jr.

On The Web:   http://www.cakewalkblogs.com/antiestablishmenthistory/whos-really-running-show-subtle-hint-aint.aspx

 

The 1861 Magnolia Flag

August 17, 2010

Last week, I noted that the Mississippi NAACP will ask the Southeastern Conference to rule out Pearl as a host site for their annual baseball tournament because of the state flag. Rep. Greg Snowden wrote about the issue on his Clarion-Ledger blog yesterday, and I strongly recommend you check it out.

He makes this very valid point about the 2001 flag vote: “It is my personal opinion that the ‘new’ flag proposed in 2001 was rejected so handily not because Mississippians necessarily are so wedded to the 1894 flag, but because we have a real sense of our history and heritage. We can spot the genuine from the fake, as it were. If you want to replace the old flag, don’t just create an artificial alternative from scratch; rather, find something real from our past to embrace and build upon.”

His solution? How about a return to the ‘Magnolia Flag,’ which was established in 1861, and was the state flag until 1894 when the state adopted the current flag. His point is two-fold: despite being created by a Confederate convention, it does not contain the emblem offensive to the NAACP, but it also has history tied in with- as opposed to the 2001 proposal which was a joke.
 

From what I have seen, groups who oppose the battle flag don’t seem to have the same concern about less recognizable Confederate flags (even the Confederate national flag). The current Georgia flag is based entirely off of the first national flag of the Confederacy, with the only addition being the state seal in the canton of the flag. This replaced the miserable two-year run of this flag, which actually makes Mississippi’s 2001 flag proposal look decent. Previous to that, the 1956 Georgia flag prominently displayed the battle flag (and somehow Atlanta still got the Olympics in 1996).

As for the politics of this, it’s tough to predict the future, but I don’t see too many Mississippi politicians delving into this issue. The memory of Ronnie Musgrove is still there- and fresh in their minds. Simply put: its political suicide. Will that change? Like I said, it’s tough to predict the future. We have seen the consequences in Mississippi, but the same exact story lines played out in Georgia as well. In 2002, Gov. Roy Barnes (D-GA) was defeated by Sonny Perdue who became the first Republican to hold the office since Reconstruction. By 2004, Republicans had taken over control of the state legislature in the Peach State.

But as Snowden says, the NAACP can’t do a whole lot about the situation, and the truth is they probably turn more people toward the flag just because of their polarizing nature. If and when Mississippians want a new flag, they will get it.

On The Web:   http://majorityinms.com/2010/08/17/the-1861-magnolia-flag/

 

South rebel flag to remain

By Bill Christian
August 16, 2010

Students at Sullivan South High School will be allowed to fly the rebel flag during football games and other sporting events this year. After numerous complaints to Sullivan County schools, a committee was formed to look at the concerns.

"We felt like that our school has a perception issue that other people from other areas might perceive that flag in a way different from how our kids perceive it," said Greg Harvey, Sullivan South Principal.

The committee determined that banning the rebel flag would create even more issues, like so they came up with a compromise. New flags, called spirit flags will be flown along side the rebel flag.

"Our main goal is to try and get the perception changed from how people maybe view that flag and our school," Harvey said.

The new flags include the Bonnie Blue, and four others. So far they are a hit with students.

"I like them, they are really cool, they have our school colors in them," said Heath Haden, student.

But will this solution to the problem be enough to quiet critics of the flag?

"I can't speak for everybody, but I feel this is the best for our students," Harvey said.

©2010 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC.

On The Web:   http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/aug/16/south-rebel-flag-remain-ar-456875/

Why Texas Joined the Confederacy

August 16th, 2010
Wick Allison

Julia Barton at the Texas Observer has a fascinating post about a little-known incident (at least to me) that pushed Texas into the Confederate column. In 1858, Texas had elected a pro-Union slate of officials, including the venerable Sam Houston. Two years later, mass hysteria swept the state about a possible abolitionist plot. Known as the “Texas Troubles,” it led to slave lynchings and pushed the state firmly to the rebel side. Here’s how it started:

“…a drought and heat wave scorched much of the South in the summer of 1860, exacerbating the tense political atmosphere. Water wells dried up and crops withered in the fields as temperatures reached above 100 degrees for days on end. On July 8, most of Dallas’s 678 residents were sweating out their siestas indoors when a fire broke out at Wallace Peak’s drugstore downtown. The townspeople could do little but run outdoors as hot winds blew the flames from one dry wooden building to the next. By the time the fire burned out, half the town’s business district was destroyed.”

Above 100 degrees for days on end? Sounds familiar. And it gets even more familiar:

Similar fires happened at almost the same time in Denton and the hamlet of Pilot Point. The excitable editor of the (burned-down) Dallas Herald, Charles Pryor, sent letters to several newspapers about an alleged abolitionist plot afoot in Texas that aimed to burn the state down.

(Terror babies, anyone?)

On The Web:   http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2010/08/16/why-texas-joined-the-confederacy/

 

Saturday, August 14, 2010

No more SPLC for me!

That's what this ex-supporter said after defending his local Tea Party:

I have attended eight meetings of the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party near my home town as well as one or two in my home town of Olive, New York. I did not detect a single instance of racism. There is more racism on the CUNY faculty than in the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party. I very much doubt that Professor Tabb or the NAACP have done any research as to whether there is actual racism. I am a former contributer to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which made similar kinds of irresponsible allegations. I voiced my concerns to Morris Dees, the founder, directly, and have ceased any involvement with that organization.

Let's hope this is a trend!

On The Web:   http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2010/08/no-more-splc-for-me.html

 

Saturday, August 14, 2010

FAIR Exposes Unscrupulous Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center

Finally! Now this is a job that needed to be done! Hats off to FAIR for putting this together:

The Media Department at the Federation for American Immigration Reform has just published a "Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Immigration Debate." The guide was designed to help journalists better understand the unscrupulous methods used by the SPLC to discredit organizations, like FAIR, and to attack the American people who support enforcing the immigration laws already on the books and oppose efforts to pass a mass-amnesty for illegal aliens.

On The Web:   http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2010/08/fair-exposes-unscrupulous-tactics-of.html

 

Monday, August 16, 2010

Growing up Southern

How did we survive without the nanny state? And what kept us from degenerating into anarchy without strict government supervision? Fred Reed was alive and on the move in those days, and knows the answer:

In today’s world of over-policing by militarized hostile cops, of metal-detectors and police in schools and compulsory anger-management classes and enforced ingestion of Ritalin or Prozac, King George sounds, well, dangerous. I mean, how can you let kids run around as they like, with…with….guns, (eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!) and beer, and unregistered canoes without supervision by a caring adult, and…?

The answer of course is that we supervised ourselves. Within limits, anyway. I do remember lying on the roof of my father’s station wagon and looking up at the brake pedal because I hadn’t taken that unbanked downhill S-turn on Indian Town Road quite as well as I had planned.

But, being Southern kids, we boys knew how to handle guns, and the girls knew how to handle us, and though the country boys were physically tough from doing real work (consult a history book), we were not crazy in the head, as the phrase was. To the extent that adolescents are willing to be, I guess we were happy. We just didn’t know it.

The wretechedness we see today – the kid who shoots ten classmates to death, the alleged students strung out on crystal meth, the suicides, the frequent pregnancies – just didn’t happen. Why? Because (I strongly suspect) we were left the hell alone. The boys were allowed to be boys and the girls, girls. We grew like weeds, as our natures directed, and so did not have anorexia or bulimia or the sullen smoldering anger that comes of being a guy kid forced to be a girl or androgyne or flower.

Yes, we had guns. Remember in "Red Dawn," when Cuban and Russian paratroopers took over a small Colorado town, a group of kids (led by Patrick Swayze) armed themselves and fought as guerillas under the name of "The Wolverines"? Well, if our high school had been invaded, we wouldn't have had to go home to arm ourselves; we would only have had to retrieve our deer hunting rifles from the parking lot. Lots of us boys carried pocket knives in class. And guess how many shootings and stabbings we had? Zero. It would've been unthinkable. As Reed says, we supervised ourselves.

Richard Weaver had a name for the social mechanism that keeps us orderly, polite, and disdainful of external controls. He called it the tyrannizing image, and by that, he meant an internalized cultural ideal that provides a model for individual behavior. Think of Robert E. Lee and the ideal of the Southern fighting man as a role model for young people. Then ask yourself what's replaced them -- 50 Cent and Lady Gaga.

That's what the managerial state has taken from today's young people. By depriving young people of a stabilizing culture, our handlers are destroying our capacity for self-control and self-government, which creates more dependence on the government.

Think about that the next time you read an hysterical attack on Robert E. Lee or any other Southern hero. The target of such attacks isn't a hero of a vanished age -- the target is you.

On The Web:   http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2010/08/growing-up-southern.html

 

Thursday, 12 August 2010

A Convenient Doctrine

Out of Power, the Republicans Suddenly Discover States' Rights

By Paul E. Gottfried

A young libertarian friend of mine Thomas Woods is, no doubt, making a fortune on his latest book, Nullification: How to Resist Tyranny in the 21st Century, recently published by the Republican-affiliated Regnery Press. Those who are promoting this work are for the most part GOP publicists and FOX-news celebrities. The relevant historical part can be summed up as follows. At the time of the founding, such statesmen as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that states retained residual powers beyond those specified in the Constitution. Among these non-enunciated powers was the right of state legislatures to interpose themselves between the people and a federal law they believed to be improper. The interposing legislature could then nullify what it considered to be an arbitrary assertion of federal power.

Not all of our early leaders believed in such a right; and advocates of a strong federal union such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams clearly opposed the nullification doctrine. Still it persisted -- and not only in the slave-holding South but even more conspicuously in New England. There the pro-English Federalists, once having lost power to the Jeffersonian Democrats in 1800, warmed to the idea of greater state power, and particularly after the Democrats propelled Americans into the (at least in New England) unpopular War of 1812. Those who appeal to the nullification doctrine have generally been regions or groups that have lost in their bid for control over the federal government, and that generalization is as true now as it was in the past.

Although I personally wish there were more power-sharing among levels of government, I consider the current appeal to nullification to be a childish ploy. Unlike the early Democrats, the GOP has never been a states-rights party.  It became a national force for decades as the party that crushed Southern secession in the Civil War, and then it pushed the federal government toward overseas expansion, high tariffs, and Prohibition. I can’t think of any Republican president in my lifetime who worked to increase state power at the expense of the federal government, due allowance being made for toothless tax-sharing gimmicks put forth by some Republican presidents. Now we have a Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, who invokes the Tenth Amendment and who speaks about state power that should never have been ceded to the federal union. But Thomas’s presence on the court is not the result of his predilection for the Tenth Amendment. He is there because George Bush Sr. wished to appoint a Black who would not be on the judicial left.

Thomas is therefore not in his position because Republicans have consistently embraced a states right position. Until Obama became president, they probably didn’t even know they were going to move in this direction. But once the healthcare plan passed, the GOP suddenly rediscovered Jefferson and other anti-Federalists of the 1790s. If the GOP is out of power long enough, it may even rediscover the virtues of the Holy Roman Empire. But if the GOP succeeds in taking back federal power, then Tom’s book may land up as a strictly libertarian reading choice.

What makes the current appeal to nullification sound particularly ridiculous is the condition of the state governments that are being encouraged to demand independence. Most states have become wards of the federal government, which deal with their cost overruns by taking federal largess. Not only have these states happily yielded their power to the federal government. They solicit federal grants for their unwieldy public sectors and deeply indebted counties, while also milking state taxpayers. Among the GOP dignitaries I hear preaching states rights is the governor of Texas Rick Perry. While his friend George W. Bush was the chief executive, Perry showed no particular concern about the power that the feds were grabbing. His administration has fallen into the hole (with an 18 billion dollar shortfall). Like Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, the Texas governor has not effectively controlled the public sector. But with Obama and the Democrats ruling the roost, Perry has become a second Thomas Jefferson, demanding that we shackle federal politicians and restore rule to the states.

Now let’s turn to New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is taking on public sector unions with a vengeance. My grandson, who attends school in West Orange, tells me that unionized teachers hate the new governor, who ran as a Republican in Name Only. Teachers rail against him for insisting on slashing the pensions of public employees. This controversial figure, who looks like an extra from the Sopranos, is exactly the kind of chief executive New Jersey needs. And he persists in his course although his popularity is plummeting in a very leftist state, in which he may be a one-term governor. In sum, Christie is a principled opponent of a bloated, arrogant public sector. And I doubt that he’s heard of that eighteenth-century doctrine his fellow-Republicans are rediscovering while out of power.

© Copyright 2010 AlternativeRight.com

On The Web:   http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/a-convenient-docrtine/

Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Community and Heritage

by David Ware

“The South was always proud and independent and believed with the Founding Fathers, that centralized and powerful government invariably slides into tyranny. But the North, less proud, less conscious of national tradition, less independent, less manly in many ways, craves the dictator’s hand, the tyrants force, for many of its people have come from nations whose people were subjected to and dependent on government. It may be, in the future, that it will be the South who will prevent, for many long decades, the collapse of American Freedom into Caesarism.” Taylor Caldwell, from “Captains and the Kings”

It has been said that the Southerner is the last of America’s people to know who they are and where they come from. This is because the people of the South have a deep and devout attachment to their heritage and community. They are able to trace their ancestry back to the War to Prevent Southern Independence, the Revolutionary War and beyond. Their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great-great grandparents and great-great-great grandparents knew one another. They loved their land and home place. Names were given to the homes of Southerners: My family had Windsor, Sunnyside, Hard Bargain, Plumsite, Lombardy, Pinewoods, Bellevue and others. These were the places where our ancestors raised their families with other like minded people to be self responsible, productive members of a cohesive community.

This relationship is a complex connection between people, their land and nature. All neighbors are included in an intense personal bond to ancestors, the self, family, the land and its inhabitants. Arts to the Southern people more to do with hospitality, hunting, fishing, conversation and vegetable gardening than with rock concerts and the signing bonuses of professional athletes . Their definition of “mind your own business” is forged by a mutual respect for the rights and property of the individual.

Tied to the love of the dollar, the Yankees are Nomads wandering to advance “careers” and to always position themselves to make as much and spend as little money as possible. They typically have no heritage that they know of, bluster on about forgetting the past and “planning” for the future. They are self proclaimed soothsayers who predict their future based on government programs, laws and bailouts. To them, a community is complete because they are in it. They believe that the tyrannical forces of planning, zoning, building regulations, taxes and laws perpetuate true community. They prefer to live in a subdivision with a guard at the gate craving the “dictators hand” of homeowners associations , their idea of connection to nature has to do with lawn care and walking the dog. Freedom, to the Yankee mentality, is the elimination of self responsibility and worry and a plethora of fast food choices, Costcos and WalMarts.

Their mindset wants cell phones with no cell towers, electricity with no generating plants, gasoline with no oil refineries, airplanes with no airports and less taxes with more government spending. This makes perfect sense to their culture that teaches that you spend to save, borrow to get out of debt and kill for peace.

We Southern people must cure ourselves of Republican and Democrat Part thinking. We have no friends in either major party. We do our ancestors a disservice to pay homage to these people as they and their policies run counter to everything our ancestors stood for. We need to pay more attention to our complete heritage starting with the hospitality of Pocahontas, the brilliance of Jefferson, the example of Washington, the perseverance of Calhoun, the chivalry of Lee, the determination and valor of Jackson and most of all to the idea that we are descended from the heirs of limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

We should cease supporting wars of foreign aggression. Our ancestors fought to be left alone and we, of all people, should respect that desire when it unfolds against our military and political presence. We are descended from people that knew the pain and dismay of having our homes and families devastated by an unprincipled aggressor. How can we support efforts to bend foreign countries under the heavy foot of the U. S. might while lamenting the same thing when it was done by the same mentality against our people?

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2010/08/community-and-heritage.html

 

MEXICAN TEXANS IN THE CIVIL WAR.

Secession and the Civil War deeply divided the Mexican Americans  of Texas (Tejanos). Accusations of subversion and disloyalty before the war resulted in a reluctance by many of them to become involved in the conflict. Those who joined militia units in South Texas and on the frontier frequently did so out of a fear of being sent out of the state and away from their families. Some were able to avoid conscription by claiming to be residents of Mexico. Tejano frustrations during the Civil War are exemplified by the case of Capt. Adrián J. Vidal, who joined the Confederacy but deserted and enlisted in the Union Army, only to desert again and join the liberals in Mexico, where he was captured by the French and executed.

At least 2,500 Mexican Texans joined the Confederate Army. The most famous was Santos Benavides, who rose to command the Thirty-third Texas Cavalry as a colonel, and thus became the highest ranking Tejano to serve the Confederacy. Though it was ill equipped, frequently without food, and forced to march across vast expanses of South Texas and northern Mexico, the Thirty-third was never defeated in battle. Colonel Benavides, along with his two brothers, Refugio and Cristóbal, who both became captains in the regiment, compiled a brilliant record of border defense and were widely heralded as heroes throughout the Lone Star State. The Benavides brothers defeated a band of anti-Confederate revolutionaries commanded by Juan N. Cortina at Carrizo (Zapata) in May 1861 and on three separate occasions invaded northern Mexico in retaliation for Unionist-inspired guerilla raids into Texas. The Benavides brothers were also successful in driving off a small Union force that attacked Laredo in March 1864.

Many Tejanos who enlisted in the Confederate Army saw combat far from home. A few who joined Hood's Texas Brigade marched off to Virginia and fought in the battles of Gaines' Mill, Second Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, and Appomattox Court House. Thirty Tejanos who enlisted from San Antonio, Eagle Pass, and the Fort Clark area joined Trevanion T. Teel's artillery company, and thirty-one more joined Charles L. Pyron's company, both in John R. Baylor's Second Texas Mounted Rifles, which marched across the deserts of West Texas to secure the Mesilla valley. These units were later incorporated into Gen. Henry Hopkins Sibley's Confederate Army of New Mexico and fought bravely at the battle of Valverde.

Other Mexican Texans from San Antonio served in the Sixth Texas Infantry and fought in several of the eastern campaigns, including the battles of Chattanooga, Chickamauga, Atlanta, and at Franklin and Nashville in John Bell Hood's calamitous invasion of Tennessee. Two of the better known Tejanos in the regiment were Antonio Bustillos and Eugenio Navarro. Others who served the Confederacy included the younger Manuel Yturri, a Kentucky teacher and scholar, who rose to the rank of captain in the Third Texas Infantry; and Lt. Joseph de la Garza, also from San Antonio, who died at Mansfield, Louisiana, in 1864 during the Red River Campaign. More than 300 Texas Mexicans from Refugio and Bexar counties joined the Eighth Texas Infantry. Two companies commanded by Joseph M. Peñaloza and José Ángel Navarro were almost entirely Tejano.

Other Texas Mexicans, resentful of growing non-Hispanic political dominance of their communities, enlisted in federal blue. Many joined the Union Army for the bounty money offered upon enlistment, but some enlisted because they opposed slavery or to satisfy grudges against landowners, attorneys, and politicians who had used the American legal system to take valuable land from Tejanos during the preceding decade. The federal Second Texas Cavalry, commanded by Col. John L. Haynes, a resident of Rio Grande City, was composed almost entirely of Tejanos and Mexican nationals recruited from the small villages along the banks of the Rio Grande. The regiment, which suffered an exceptionally high desertion rate, fought in the Rio Grande valley and later in Louisiana. Company commanders included George Treviño, Clemente Zapata, Cesario Falcón, and Mónico de Abrego. A number of Tejanos, acting as Union consorts, were actively engaged in the Nueces Strip. The most famous of the Union guerillas were Cecilio Balerio and his son Juan, who fought a bloody skirmish with Confederates at Los Patricios, fifty miles southwest of Banquete, on March 13, 1864.

Copyright © Texas State Historical Association

On The Web:   http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/MM/pom2.html

Women aided Confederates in Civil War

By Johnny Vardeman
vardeman1956@att.net

August 8, 2010  

The American home front is well known for supporting its fighting men and women in its wars. Local organizations in all wars have prepared bandages, food, stationery, shaving and other personal items especially during World Wars I and II. It continued through the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Many individuals and groups back home send "care packages" to American troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

The tradition might have started during the Civil War. In the South, though times were tough and provisions scarce, ladies aid societies scrounged together what they could to help Confederate soldiers, especially those wounded in action.

The Southern Confederacy newspaper carried lists of donations from all over Georgia. The Atlanta Hospital Association received gifts and distributed them where needed.

An 1862 edition of the paper noted the "ladies of Hall County" had contributed "one box nicely packed with sheets, shirts, etc., one sack of meal, one sack of flour and one jar of butter."

The county's Ladies' Aid Association had collected $50 from Gen. H.W. Riley, $50 from M.W. Brown and $5 from the Rev. J.R. Rives. In addition, Harvey Hall had donated $25 to the effort to aid the sick and wounded of the war.

Other organizations around the state had sent vegetables, fruit, clothes and eggs.

A Whelchel story from the Civil War:

Valentine Whelchel of New Bridge in northwest Hall County enlisted in the Confederate Army even though his father was one of seven delegates who opposed Georgia's secession from the Union. On June 3, 1863, Valentine was trying to recapture some artillery guarded by the 9th Michigan Cavalry at Brandywine. He got into a sword fight with a Union soldier, Louis Metzger, and was slashed on the head and hand. Though wounded, he eventually was able to capture Metzger and sent him to the rear as a prisoner before getting treated for his injuries.

After the war, Whelchel moved to Texas and was looking for a surveyor to survey his farm. He came across his next door neighbor, who turned out to be Metzger, the former Union soldier whom he had fought with and captured. They became best friends and lived side by side for five years until Whelchel returned to Hall County. He left his Texas farm under the watch of Metzger.

Whelchel told the Atlanta Constitution in July 1892, "The politicians made the war while the jeans and butternuts did the fighting. There are no better friends than those who wore the Blue and Gray from 1861 to 1865 fighting the politicians' battles."

Whelchel said he still had the scars to prove his skirmish with Metzger.

Footnote on Whelchel/Wilkie: Hayne Thomas, a Murrayville area historian, says New Bridge once was a post office at Leather's Ford on the Chestatee River. It was important because it was on the main route to the gold fields of Auraria and Dahlonega.

The Wilkies or Whelchels, he said, once owned most of the land on the east side of the Chestatee from Leather's Ford south to Grant's Ford. His neighbor, the late Jim Brown Wilkie, used to joke that the only difference between the Whelchels and the Wilkies was that the Whelchels were the rich ones.

Thelma Little, 84, who grew up about a mile from Wilkie Bridge said Jim Brown told her father that the Whelchel name sounded "high-falutin'," and he was just a plain old country boy who wanted to be called "Wilkie." The Whelchels and Wilkies fell from the same family tree; it was mostly just a difference in pronunciation of the names.

Mrs. Little remembers playing in the Chestatee River before the original Wilkie Bridge was built. She now lives in Walnut Grove subdivision off Price Road. The subdivision was developed on the former farm where she grew up.

Her two older sisters attended Grange Hall School, but the year she was supposed to attend the school it consolidated with Price School into Murrayville. She is seeking information on the old Grange Hall School.

© Copyright 2010 The Times, Gainesville, GA.

On The Web:   http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/101/article/36227/

 

Confederate sub Hunley to offer researchers a new view next year

BY BRIAN HICKS
postandcourier.com
Friday, August 6, 2010

CHARLESTON -- Scientists hope to soon see a new side of the Hunley.

The starboard side, that is.

On Friday, officials at the Warren Lasch Conservation Center announced plans to rotate the Civil War-era submarine into an upright position early next year.

That move will allow scientists their first look at an entire flank of the submarine that has remained covered by the lifting straps used to hoist it out of the Atlantic Ocean 10 years ago this weekend. The sub's rotation might help solve the mystery of why the Hunley disappeared in the waning days of the war.

"In its current position, we have no way to access the surface of the submarine," said Paul Mardikian, senior conservator on the project. "This is going to be the moment of truth when we look at the skin of the sub."

The Hunley, which became the first successful combat sub when it sank the USS Housatonic off the coast of Charleston in February 1864, was lost at sea for more than a century. In 1995, it was discovered four miles off the coast by Clive Cussler and his dive team. The Hunley was found five feet beneath the ocean floor, listing at a 45-degree angle. Scientists insisted the sub be raised in that position so the location of artifacts inside the sub would not be disturbed.

It has rested at that angle ever since.

Now the sub has to be removed from its lifting truss so that scientists can begin to remove the concretion -- hardened sand, sediment and shell -- that cocooned the hull in its 136 years under the sea. Removing that concretion is the final step before restoration of the hull begins, using chemicals and electrical currents. But it will be delicate work, and in some places, that shell is stronger than the iron hull beneath it.

"It is like pouring concrete on an egg and then trying to remove it without breaking the egg," Mardikian said.

Rotating the submarine will also be a delicate procedure, one scientists have studied for the past few years. Some parts of the hull are weaker than others and that has concerned scientists and slowed the process. Mardikian and his team has built a model to test the slow rotation process and are now convinced it can be done without damaging the sub.

"People have asked why it has taken 10 years to get to this point," said Sen. Glenn McConnell, chairman of the state Hunley Commission. "Because we get it right."

The rotation is the biggest news out of the Hunley lab in a while, and could potentially lead to important new discoveries. The starboard side of the sub has remained largely unseen, even in Conrad Wise Chapman's painting of the sub, the most detailed contemporary portrait of the Hunley. Officials hope that side of the sub will hold clues to what happened to the sub on Feb. 17, 1864, in the hours after the Hunley sunk a Union blockade ship. Some theories say the sub could have been hit by a ship coming to the aid of the Housatonic. If so, the clues may be hidden on the unseen side of the Hunley.

"There is a good chance they'll find the final pieces of the jigsaw puzzle buried under that concretion," McConnell said.

© 2010 The Island Packet & The Beaufort Gazette  

On The Web:   http://www.islandpacket.com/2010/08/06/1331299/confederate-sub-hunley-to-offer.html

 

Confederate Monument rededicated at Franklin County Courthouse

The monument was destroyed in 2007 when a car slammed into it

Matthew Moran
Web Staff

August 7, 2010

ROCKY MOUNT, Va —

A confederate monument destroyed last year at the Franklin County Courthouse has been re-dedicated.

A ceremony was held outside the courthouse in Rocky Mount Saturday.

The monument was destroyed in June of 2007 when John Ozmore, Jr. crashed into the base. Ozmore was charged initally with DUI, but the charge was reduced to reckless driving.

The monument was originally dedicated in the early 1900s as a tribute to confederate soliders in Franklin County.

Copyright © 2010, WDBJ7-TV

On The Web:   http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-story-confederate-mounument-080710,0,1945646.story

 

Spartanburg County Confederate soldiers to be honored

By Linda Conley

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Spartanburg County Confederate soldiers will be honored in a ceremony next weekend by their descendants.

The S.C. Division of the Children of the Confederacy and a chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and a camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans are holding a monument rededication at 5 p.m. Aug. 14 in Duncan Park. If it rains, the event will move to the American Legion on West Park Drive.

Activities include placing a wreath at the 40-foot marker, presenting the history of the monument and reading soldiers’ letters.

“The UDC (United Daughters of Confederacy) places a wreath at the monument every year on Confederate Memorial Day, but it isn’t usually a public event,” said Anne Elliott, a member of the UDC. “Spartanburg has one of the largest Confederate monuments.”

Historical groups are making the program a public event because this is the 100th anniversary of the marker erected in Spartanburg County. In January 1910, city and county leaders joined with business merchants and school children to sign a contract to build it.

Work was completed by summer and the cornerstone laid in August 1910. The structure was located on South Henry Street in the intersection between the post office and Bethel United Methodist Church. The S.C. Division of United Confederate Veterans held a two-day annual reunion in Spartanburg and the marker dedication was done in conjunction with the event.

“People came from around the Carolinas to attend,” said local historian Doyle Boggs. “Three thousand people and 2,500 Confederate veterans attended.”

As the soldiers got older, Boggs said reunions were common. The monument was built 45 years after the Civil War and done at a time when descendants wanted to preserve their memory. Most towns built monuments shortly after the war.

“Spartanburg’s monument is impressive,” Boggs said. “The granite column was originally intended to be used in the Statehouse building in Columbia.”

The monument stood in the heart of South Church Street for 56 years until plans were made to widen the street. One historical account indicates the marker was considered a traffic hazard and moved to its present location in Duncan Park in 1966. The project was done without any fanfare possibly because it came at the height of racial integration and no Confederate soldiers were living.

Honoring Confederate soldiers always creates controversy because of the debates surrounding slavery and the Civil War. Groups involved in the rededication said the event is to honor their heritage and help people learn something about their ancestors who fought in the war.

“Most people don’t know there is a monument and others don’t know where it is,” said Bill Geen, a camp commander in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. “If you don’t remind people of their heritage, they will lose it.”

Copyright © 2010 GoUpstate.com

On The Web:   http://www.goupstate.com/article/20100808/ARTICLES/8081031/1088/SPORTS?Title=Spartanburg-County-Confederate-soldiers-to-be-honored

 

More liberal double standards?

August 3
Wilmington Conservative Examiner
Kevin Whiteman

In a July 23, 2010 op/ed piece, columnist Leonard Pitts comes out in favor of the controversial mosque that is proposed for construction at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

As Pitts wrote; (emphasis mine) "... the Constitution does not carry an escape clause. We do not get to jettison our national ideals just because they cause pain or provoke. To the contrary, that is the time they are most severely tested and most desperately in need of defending."

Interestingly enough, less than two months prior, Pitts equates the Confederate flag with a swastika. As Pitts wrote; (emphasis mine) "conservative Southern Republicans fought affirmative action, poverty programs and attempts to ban the American swastika, i.e., the Confederate battle flag, from public lands."

Interesting.

On The Web:   http://www.examiner.com/x-47869-Wilmington-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m8d3-More-liberal-double-standards

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

"Is It Wrong to Display a Picture of Robert E. Lee?" My Response

Back before I went on this extended hiatus (finishing up this new book), I received a question from a reader about whether it was ethical and neighbor-loving to display a picture of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. You can read his query here, along with comments from other readers about what he should do. Below are my thoughts on the situation.

Dear Not-a-Neoconfederate,

As I write this, I can see on my wall the flag of my home state of Mississippi, and I'm deeply conflicted about it. The flag represents home for me. I love Christ, church, and family more than Mississippi, but that's about it. Still, the flag makes me wince because emblazoned on it is the Confederate Battle Flag, which was used so often in my home state, and elsewhere, as an emblem of backlash in support of the ugly epoch of Jim Crow. I supported a referendum changing the flag in 2001, but the voters of the state kept the old flag design by a vote of 65 to 35 percent. The more I think of it, the more I believe my conflicted feelings about that flag aren't all that unusual for a Christian.

When it comes to Robert E. Lee, I can't agree with those who would equate this picture with one of Adolf Hitler. Virtually every biography, by his contemporaries and future historians, would commend the General for his personal character and his sacrificial leadership. As biographer Roy Blount Jr. demonstrates Lee's views on race were, in some ways, much more progressive than those of Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and other Northerners.

Lee, like many in the army he led, saw himself as fighting, not for slavery, but for home. This doesn't mean they were right, but it does mean that an easy caricature isn't possible. Based on Lee's own writings, he sounds much like an antiwar American who, nonetheless, when drafted, fights for his country.

The question is complicated more by the home for which Lee was fighting. As a localist Agrarian-leaning political type, I agree with a good bit the Vanderbilt scholars of I'll Take My Stand found commendable in some isolated economic/cultural aspects of the antebellum South, especially compared to the whirl of the industrial rootlessness that came after. But the agrarians, right as they were on so much, were still too close, I think, to the Civil War to see the moral enormity of the slavery question.

But the Confederate States of America was constitutionally committed to the continuation, with protections in law, of a great evil.

The idea of a human being attempting to "own" another human being is abhorrent in a Christian view of humanity. That hardly needs to be said these days, thankfully, but we ought to remember just what was at stake. In the Scriptures, humanity is given dominion over created things but he is not given dominion over his fellow image-bearing humans (Gen. 1:27-30). The southern system of chattel slavery was built off of things the Scripture condemns as wicked: "man-stealing" (1 Tim. 1:10), the theft of another's labor, the destroying of family ties, and on and on and on.

In order to prop up this system, a system that benefited the Mammonism mostly of wealthy planters, Southern religion had to carefully weave a counter-biblical theology that could justify it (the spurious "curse of Ham" concept, for instance). The abolitionists were right.

So what should a pro-civil rights son of the Confederacy do with the memory of those who fought for a Lost (in more ways than one) Cause?

Several comments on the original post pointed out how tainted virtually all history is. Yes, Lee fought for slavery, but so did the American Founders, in writing in allowances for it into the American Constitution. Does the picture of Thomas Jefferson I have in my study endorse his theological liberalism and his slave-holding or does it recognize his far-sighted commitments to human dignity and religious liberty? Does the bust of Theodore Roosevelt endorse his Darwnism or his awful views on eugenics?

The problem with a simple view of history is that it leads to a totemic use of historical figures. Some have romanticized, for instance, the American Founders in a way that doesn't allow an honest conversation about the real problems there. Fourth of July sermons that treat Jefferson and Franklin and Adams as exemplars of evangelical Christianity aren't really defending the gospel, nor are they honoring those founders. They are simply not treating persons as persons, turning them into slogan-supporting icons instead. The same thing is true with the cult of the Confederacy that has emerged in the last century, except often in much more malevolent forms. The Confederate dead have become a kind of cultural short-hand for white supremacy and racial resentment. It is a long drop indeed from Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson to George Wallace and David Duke.

The fetishistic use of historical figures is precisely what leads to the kind of "absolute good vs. absolute evil" characterizations we often see among Christians in the way they view current leaders. Why did so many evangelicals send around email forwards with the urban myth that the then-President of the United States had led a little girl to pray to receive Christ on a rope line? It's because so many wanted to think of this political leader as a spiritual leader too.

That's the kind of hagiography that led to George Washington's cherry tree inability to tell a lie. Well, George Washington was a great man, but he was also a liar. And so am I, and so are you. Unless there was a star shining over Washington's birthplace (and there wasn't), then Romans 3:10-19 applies to him as well as to all of us.

But this messy historical ambiguity ought not to surprise those who are being shaped by the Bible. Think of the brutal honesty with which the Scriptures give us the sins and foibles of our fathers in the faith, while honoring them just the same. Think of the very sinful, conniving picture we get of Jacob in Genesis and then think of the fact that he is commended in Hebrews 11 as a man of faith. Think of the genealogy of our Lord Jesus, filled as it is with scoundrels. And we know they were scoundrels because the Bible tells us so.

The Christian isn't called to a rootless, ahistorical existence. We are commanded to show honor to our fathers and mothers (Exod. 20:12). That doesn't mean hagiography. Jesus pointed out that his fathers had died in the folly in the wilderness (Jn. 6:49). Peter pointed out that the revered David was now just a pile of bones, and thus at least one sin short of a Messiah (Acts 2:29-35). This means we have a skeptical honor that recognizes both the good graces God has given to sinful men and women, and the fact that even the best among us is a sinner.

Should you keep up that picture of Lee, with his quote about what it means to be a gentleman? I don't know. I can't tell you one way or the other because what's more important than a single picture is the general ethos of a home. Years ago, I had an African-American civil rights activist friend with a portrait of Lee in his home, and I never questioned whether he might be a Klansman. I have a portrait in my office of Fannie Lou Hamer, who supported the Equal Rights Amendment (I think), but I don't think anyone sees that picture as an apologetic for feminism.

The issue is love of neighbor and the mission of Christ. That's why the Apostle Paul refuses to lay down simple rules about eating vegetables or eating meat (Rom. 14:1-23). If that picture would hinder your being able to show hospitality and love with your brothers and sisters of every background and race, take it down.

But, if you keep it up on the wall, let it be, like every historical portrait, a warning.

I'd like to think that if I'd been born in 1841 Mississippi instead of 1971 Mississippi that I'd have been leading slave escapes. I'd like to think that if I'd been born in 1941 Mississippi that I'd have been singing "We Shall Overcome" at the 1963 March on Washington. And maybe I would have.

But a gentleman as devoted to character as Robert E. Lee, who had thought long and hard about the evils of slavery, was so conditioned by his time that he couldn't see past his blind spot. So what makes me think that I could have escaped a similar blind spot? And what is so common in our culture right now that we can't even see it, as we think we're serving the Lord?

Jesus addresses something of this when he says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrite! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets'" (Matt. 23:29). Those are chilling words for one whose bloodline has come down from the slave-holding South through the Jim Crow oppression to the present day.

As I look at that Mississippi flag, I can't demonize it. I'm grateful for the people, the family, the place it represents. But I wince at the symbol that was used to enslave the little brothers and sisters of Jesus, to bomb little girls in church buildings, to terrorize preachers of the gospel and their families with burning crosses on front lawns by night.

All that ought not to prompt a pretending that you come from somewhere other than where you've come. That would be ingratitude. It ought instead simply to lead you to say, "I am a man of unclean lips, and I come from a people of unclean lips" (Isa. 6:5).

None of us is free from a sketchy background, and none of our backgrounds are wholly evil. The blood of Jesus has ransomed us all "from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers" (1 Pet. 1:18), whether your forefathers were Yankees, Rebels, Vikings, or whatever. The gospel also then frees us to give honor to whom honor is due (Rom. 13:7), without the pretense that any human being is without sin or dishonor.

Robert E. Lee was a complicated figure, a sinful rebel (in more ways than one) who bore the image of God. And so are we. Lee was gifted in commendable ways even as he used those gifts sometimes in ways that ought to horrify. So do we. We ought to be honest, in both directions, about Lee and about our neighbors and ourselves. And that ought to cause us to search out our own lives for that hidden sin, that secret hatred, that conforming to the pattern of this age that we don't see and don't think to ask about. Ultimately, no matter how we seek to whitewash our heritage or our personal stories, we'll only conquer it all at the resurrection from the dead. Until then, we watch our hearts, pray for wisdom, work for justice, and love our neighbor.

Deep in my heart, I do believe that we shall overcome some day.

Copyright © 2010, Crosswalk.com

On The Web:   http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/russellmoore/11635879/

 

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

CHRB investigating case involving Confederate colors aboard Mute Rudulph

by Larry Stewart

A California caper that could involve racism and, at the very least, involves the misreporting of the carrying of silks in a race spurred an investigation that could lead to license revocations or suspensions following a stewards hearing on the issue August 7.

The controversy involves jockey silks in the colors of the Confederate flag and a two-year-old colt named Mute Rudulph—an admitted play on the name of Television Games on-air personality Ken Rudulph, an African-American.

The horse, owned by Bill Wilbur, Chris Carpenter, and trainer Bill McLean and ridden by jockey Michael Martinez, won his career debut, a $12,5000 maiden claimer on July 15 at the Cal Expo state fair meet in Sacramento. Wilbur had acquired the colt for $4,700 at the 2009 Northern California August yearling sale.

Wilbur’s registered silks are purple with a white “B” on a black and white background, but Mute Rudulph won carrying the silks of Wilbur’s friend, Jim Robinson, who loaned his silks to the colt’s connections because Wilbur had ordered new silks that were not available in time for the race. Robinson’s silks are red with a blue cross that include white stars.

TVG executive producer Tony Allevato complained about the silks to California Horse Racing Board Chairman Keith Brackpool, who assigned senior investigator Carol Nolan to the case.

In his complaint, Allevato alleged that silks custodian Tony Baze “received financial consideration and conspired to aid and abet” with Wilbur to substitute the “Southern Cross” for the horse’s designated colors. The technical issue is that none of the connections reported the change to Clerk of the Course Tina Walker.

Allevato said he and Rudulph could not comment until the stewards hearing.

Wilbur, a longtime Northern California horse owner, also is not talking but his attorney, Pat McCarthy, did comment.

“There was never any intention to connect the silks with the horse or the namesake of the horse,” McCarthy said. “It was a combination of events that are now getting blown way out of proportion.

“Bill is a big supporter of the Sacramento Kings [of the National Basketball Association], and his colors were always the same as the team colors—black, white, and purple. After he and his wife Karen separated, Bill wanted to get new colors.

“He liked the silks used by his friend Jim Robinson and got permission to get something similar.”

McCarthy said that he told Wilbur that Robinson’s silks look like the Confederate flag.

“He wasn’t even aware of the Confederate flag,” said McCarthy, who did acknowledge that the name of the horse comes from the fact that Wilbur does not like Rudulph’s on-air style and that he “always mutes Rudulph” when he comes on the air.

“His race has nothing to do with it,” McCarthy added.

Wilbur ordered new silks in late June from Stephanie Searle, who owns Classic Silks based at Golden Gate Fields in Albany, California, and has been in the silks design business for 24 years.

“I told Bill I could do them very similar (to Robinson’s ) but not alike,” Searle said. “We agreed on red, white stars on blue cross sashes front and back with a white B and a W on the back and a red cap. The B and the W is what is different. There was no mention ever made by Bill about a Confederate flag.”

The Classic Silks website promises to make the jockey proud, the owner happy, and racing look its best.

“I would never have gotten involved if I thought this was anything that could be construed as detrimental to racing,” Searle said.

Searle said that after making a deal with Wilbur she never heard back as to when he needed the new silks. McCarthy said Wilbur lost her cell phone number. The new silks had not arrived by July 15, so Wilbur borrowed Robinson’s silks.

The rub is Baze forgot to notify the Clerk of the Course of the change from black, white, and purple silks to red with white stars on blue cross sashes. As for the charge of financial consideration for Baze, McCarthy said Wilbur gave him a routine $20 tip.

In addition to silks considerations, the colt’s name could also end up being of some concern to The Jockey Club, which has strict rules regarding names of Thoroughbreds.

Specifically, The Jockey Club prohibits
• Names of living persons unless written permission to use their name is on file with The Jockey Club;
• Names that are suggestive or have a vulgar or obscene meaning; names considered in poor taste; or names that may be offensive to religious, political or ethnic groups;
• Names that appear to be designed to harass, humiliate or disparage a specific individual, group of individuals or entity

© Copyright 2010, Thoroughbred Times

On The Web:   http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2010/August/04/CHRB-investigating-case-involving-Confederate-colors-aboard-Mute-Rudulph.aspx

Staying true to rebel roots

Lynyrd Skynyrd remains defiant with new 'Gods & Guns'

August 06, 2010
By John J. Moser, OF THE MORNING CALL

In an era of the Tea Party movement, southern rock icon Lynyrd Skynyrd is finding a new popularity with a new album that not only rousingly defends the First and Second Amendments, but seems tells President Obama: "You can take your change on down the road."

But don't call the lyrics on "God & Guns" political, Skynyrd guitarist Rickey Medlocke says in a recent telephone call.

"I'm an artist that doesn't like to get on the podium and speak politically," Medlock says from a stop in Ontario, Canada, on a tour that brings the band to Bethlehem to headline Musikfest's Riverplace stage Monday. "I use my platform to play guitar and entertain people."

Whatever the songs' motivation, "God & Guns" has given Skynyrd its best-selling disc in 18 years and highest-charting (No. 18 on Billboard) in more than three decades, since 1977's "Street Survivors," with its hits "That Smell" and "What's Your Name?"

Medlocke says "God & Guns" simply states what's on the minds of Skynyrd's members.

"Do we wear our heart on our sleeve? Yes," he says. "Do we believe in doing things a certain way in this country? Yes. I am quite disturbed, maybe, about how relaxed everything has gotten in this country."

But he says, "I don't follow either side as far as being political. I know people would look at me and say I have conservative points and maybe people would look at me and say maybe I even have liberal points. I look at myself as a patriot. I'm for this country."

For example, Medlocke says the band's members "all have spiritual beliefs" and "believe in protecting ourselves with our what our Second Amendment has provided us with in this country."

But he also says, "I don't believe every knucklehead out there should be allowed to have a gun. I don't preach that. It's idiots out here running around with the weapons that should have the background check."

Forthright lyrics should be no surprise to Lynyrd Skynyrd fans. The group's signature song, "Sweet Home Alabama," has lyrics that say, "Watergate does not bother me," and the band still flies the Confederate flag at its concerts.

Medlocke says complaints about the Confederate flag are unfounded.

"We're not racist," says Medlocke, who is two-thirds Native American. "If there was any racism in this band, I'd tell you about it. But there's not."

The flag, he says, is "just about the band starting out that way; as just tradition. The rebel flag was a battle flag, it was nothing else. But now you've got groups that feel like they need to adopt that as their symbol. And those groups, I don't agree with them."

"I guess after all these years, younger people could look at me and go, 'Oh, he's just an old son of a bitch. He doesn't know what he's talking about,'" Medlocke says. "Well, that's OK. You know, I've walked a lot of miles in the moccasins I've got on. Whether you agree with it or not, that's your own choice. We live in a country where we have choices."

Medlocke, 60, says he doesn't foresee an end to Skynyrd, or its independent spirit — especially if it's able to make successful records like "God & Guns."

But he also says it's a surprise the disc, only the band's second album of new material in 10 years, was made at all.

Despite having new songs, the band delayed recording because it was in a dispute with its record company and wanted to wait until its contract ran out, he says.

Then, after Skynyrd signed with a new label and started to record "God & Guns," tragedy struck. Original keyboardist Billy Powell and eight-year bassist Ean Evans died less than four months apart last year — Powell, 56, of a heart attack and Evans, 48, of lung cancer.

That left the band questioning whether it should continue, Medlocke says.

"We were deeply affected," Medlocke says. "It's like a big family. … And if you've lived long enough to lose family members, then you know what it feels like."

Skynyrd, of course, knows exactly what it feels like. At the peak of the band's popularity in 1977, a plane crash killed three of its members — singer Ronnie Van Zant, guitarist Steve Gaines and back-up singer Cassie Gaines — and led to a 10-year hiatus before surviving members reunited in 1987 with Van Zant's brother, Johnny, as vocalist.

"There's been so many tragedies this band has faced," Medlock says. "And we really thought about calling it a day."

But he says fans urged them to continue; one e-mail even resulted in the song "Skynyrd Nation."

"Somebody wrote in to the website: 'With Billy passing away, does that mean the Skynyrd Nation won't continue?'" Medlocke says. "And so we felt that was a good idea for a song."

The band decided to finish the record "because those guys had already started working on it with us, and I think they would have been very disappointed in their efforts to help get something out. And we put the record out, and we've been touring on it ever since then."

Similarly, Skynyrd decided to release "Live from Freedom Hall," a CD/DVD of a 2007 concert with both Evans and Powell. "It was the last bit of film footage that we had of Billy and Ean," Medlocke says. "And we really felt strongly we should put it out so fans could see those guys and have an old film of those guys rolling about."

Since the reunion, original Skynyrd bassisr Leon Wilkeson also died in 2001, leaving guitarist Gary Rossington as the only original member of the band.

But Medlocke, who played with the group in its early years before leaving to form the successful group Blackfoot, rejoined in 1996. With his 17 years in the band, he's behind only Rossington and Johnny Van Zant's 23 years for member longevity.

"We're also not stupid; we know that everything comes to an end," Medlocke says. "But look at The Rolling Stones, they're still going. … You got to roll with it and take it as it comes. And then one day when it's time to lay it down, we'll do a farewell tour."

On The Web:   http://articles.mcall.com/2010-08-06/entertainment/mc-musikfest-lynyrd-skynyrd-20100806_1_confederate-flag-battle-flag-rebel-flag

Confederate flag flies briefly at school

Times Staff Reports

Monday, August 9, 2010

Glencoe High School administrators said a Confederate flag that reportedly flew on the school’s flagpole Monday quickly was taken down.

“From my understanding it was not up there but just a few minutes or so,” Principal Charlton Giles said Monday afternoon. “We believe somebody from an opposing school thought it would be funny, so we have taken it down and contacted that school and given them a suspect’s name so they can deal with it.”

Giles declined to name the opposing school he mentioned.

Copyright © 2010 GadsdenTimes.com

On The Web:   http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100809/NEWS/100809862/-1/SPORTS02?Title=Confederate-flag-flies-briefly-at-school

 

Dispute over marker goes on

Confederate soldiers' memorial feud bound for trial

Date published: 8/10/2010
By CLINT SCHEMMER

Fredericksburg's legal battle over the location of a memorial to Confederate dead can go to trial, a judge decided yesterday.

Circuit Judge Gordon F. Willis rejected the city's motion for summary judgment to dismiss a lawsuit by the Sons of Confederate Veterans' local camp, saying the court must decide some of the facts disputed by both sides.

The City Council wants the SCV's Matthew Fontaine Maury Camp No. 1722 to remove a granite-and-bronze memorial it erected in early 2009 to honor 51 Confederate soldiers who were buried nearby on what is now the Maury Commons condominiums.

The small monument sits on one corner of the grassy triangle at Barton and George streets that's better known as site of the much-larger Fredericksburg Area War Memorial.

Last fall, the City Council said the SCV monument must move. It enacted an ordinance declaring the triangle the exclusive site of the War Memorial, donated by the Fredericksburg Area Veterans Council, that honors local military personnel killed in World War I and later conflicts.

The Maury camp contends that state law bars the city from moving its monument, and that the SCV had city building and zoning officials' permission to put it there on municipal property. It claims that elsewhere on city land, markers and monuments to the Union's Irish Brigade and the 7th Michigan Infantry were recently permitted by the same process.

But City Attorney Kathleen Dooley argued in court yesterday that staff weren't authorized to allow the SCV memorial. Permission must come expressly from the City Council, she said.

The SCV camp obtained a building permit for the monument's base from the city zoning administrator.

Since it has that document and the memorial is built, the council cannot retroactively move or alter the monument, the group's Richmond attorney, Patrick McSweeney, told the court.

"After the fact, the city can't change the rules," McSweeney argued.

Judge Willis said he wants to hear testimony on why Roy B. Perry Jr., the SCV camp's first lieutenant commander--who obtained the building permit--believed he had the city's approval for the monument.

And as he did last spring when the case arrived in his courtroom, Willis urged the two sides to settle the issue out of court, through mediation overseen by a retired judge.

In interviews afterward, Dooley and McSweeney said their clients are open to such an agreement, if they can find common ground.

"If there's a will, it could be worked out," McSweeney said. "The monument could be located where everybody would be satisfied."

But the legal dispute may grow, not go away.

William E. Glover, the local attorney for the Veterans Council, said the group will file a brief asking the court to let it be a party to the case, on the city's side.

The City Council has retained Fredericksburg trial lawyer Jennifer Lee Parrish to assist Dooley in the case.

And while McSweeney and Dooley declined to describe their clients' bargaining positions for a potential deal, it's not clear that the city and the SCV camp are even on the same page.

Ironically, it was the City Council which--in 1861--approved burial of Confederate troops from seven states at what later became the home of Maury School.

Copyright 2010, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Virginia

On The Web:   http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08102010/567545