0 comment Saturday, November 15, 2014 | admin
Abbeville, SC is the birthplace of some of my ancestors, and also the birthplace of Southern icon John C. Calhoun.
It's also known as the 'birthplace and deathbed of the Confederacy'. On November 22, 1860, there was a meeting at Abbeville which drew up a Declaration of Secession. A month later, South Carolina became the first state to secede.
From the Declaration of Secession:
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Postscript: on the webpage for Abbeville which I linked above, you may notice a ''Preserve America" graphic. It has the following text:
''Preserve America. Explore and Enjoy Our Heritage." We read that
In January of 2008, First Lady Laura Bush designated Abbeville as a Preserve America Community. This initiative recognizes those communities that demonstrate they are committed to preserving their cultural and natural heritage. The City of Abbeville was honored by this prestigious award and we will continue to make sustainable historic preservation a priority.''
A hint to our rulers in Washington: if you care about preserving America, stop fostering foreign invasion by another name, and preserve The People. Another hint: The People ARE America. You can't exchange us for Mexicans or Somalis and expect to ''preserve America'' or anything remotely resembling America.
Ironically, in 2008, it's looking more and more as if the only way to preserve America might be through --- secession.
It's also known as the 'birthplace and deathbed of the Confederacy'. On November 22, 1860, there was a meeting at Abbeville which drew up a Declaration of Secession. A month later, South Carolina became the first state to secede.
From the Declaration of Secession:
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Postscript: on the webpage for Abbeville which I linked above, you may notice a ''Preserve America" graphic. It has the following text:
''Preserve America. Explore and Enjoy Our Heritage." We read that
In January of 2008, First Lady Laura Bush designated Abbeville as a Preserve America Community. This initiative recognizes those communities that demonstrate they are committed to preserving their cultural and natural heritage. The City of Abbeville was honored by this prestigious award and we will continue to make sustainable historic preservation a priority.''
A hint to our rulers in Washington: if you care about preserving America, stop fostering foreign invasion by another name, and preserve The People. Another hint: The People ARE America. You can't exchange us for Mexicans or Somalis and expect to ''preserve America'' or anything remotely resembling America.
Ironically, in 2008, it's looking more and more as if the only way to preserve America might be through --- secession.
Labels: American History, American Identity, Confederacy, Ethnoconservatism, Secession
0 comment Monday, September 29, 2014 | admin
Over at the Confederate Colonel blog, Stephen Clay McGehee has been posting a series of videos produced by the Georgia SCV(Sons of Confederate Veterans) which were to be run on The History Channel as paid ads. Now it appears The History Channel has backed out, following a complaint by a liberal blogger. (I wish I had that much power as a blogger, that a complaint from me would stop a cable network from running ads I don't like.)
I am not surprised. Knowing the slant of The History Channel, I was, rather, surprised that they would accept any ad from a politically incorrect group (especially one Confederate-related.)
I have watched the first couple of videos and they are not offensive; they are well-done, and do not represent 'hate' or any such thing. But they do represent a point of view which, shamefully, is not permitted in this country any longer.
Over at Confederate Colonel, you can watch the ads for yourself on this page.
The History Channel, despite its authoritative and impartial-sounding name, is nothing more than a purveyor of propaganda, much like all the so-called educational channels on TV. I am an avid watcher of factual historical programming, but for some time, The History Channel, like PBS and just about all channels, traffics in political correctness, not facts. For that reason there is no longer TV in this home; life is better and more peaceful without it.
But nonetheless, millions of people still watch TV and obtain much of their ''information'' from it. That is why it is tragic that only one side of ''history'' can be heard, and only one side of the ''news'' is reported.
I am not surprised. Knowing the slant of The History Channel, I was, rather, surprised that they would accept any ad from a politically incorrect group (especially one Confederate-related.)
I have watched the first couple of videos and they are not offensive; they are well-done, and do not represent 'hate' or any such thing. But they do represent a point of view which, shamefully, is not permitted in this country any longer.
Over at Confederate Colonel, you can watch the ads for yourself on this page.
The History Channel, despite its authoritative and impartial-sounding name, is nothing more than a purveyor of propaganda, much like all the so-called educational channels on TV. I am an avid watcher of factual historical programming, but for some time, The History Channel, like PBS and just about all channels, traffics in political correctness, not facts. For that reason there is no longer TV in this home; life is better and more peaceful without it.
But nonetheless, millions of people still watch TV and obtain much of their ''information'' from it. That is why it is tragic that only one side of ''history'' can be heard, and only one side of the ''news'' is reported.
Labels: American History, Biased Media, Censorship, Confederacy, Cultural Marxism, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness, Propaganda
0 comment Sunday, September 21, 2014 | admin
Our symbols and our heritage are under attack.
And who speaks up for them, or for us?
Don't count on this man to defend us. Hear what he has to say in the short video at the link.
Is there any politician who is able to speak forthrightly, without trying to play coy and have it both ways?
This AP story gives us the PC revisionist line about General Forrest, but they don't tell you the background of the 'society' which is the focus of all the controversy. I would like to ask somebody who is ritualistically denouncing that group if they can tell me just how and why it began. I would like to hear their version of the conditions that existed in the occupied South after the "Late Unpleasantness". I suspect they would be speechless because they know next to nothing about that era, about that time and place.
Schools do not teach about that part of our history, the Reconstruction Era, a euphemism if there ever was one. And whatever little is taught is selectively biased in the usual way. Add to that the Hollywood movies and pseudo-documentaries that present a dishonest account, and people know less than nothing. What they think they know is false.
As if Barbour's evasiveness and spinelessness on the Forrest issue weren't enough, we recently learned that he was involved in lobbying on behalf of Mexico.
''Though Barbour is currently considering whether to sign an Arizona-style immigration bill that passed in the Mississippi House in January, he took a softer stance last September on what to do about immigrants illegally in the country. Barbour told Human Events that though the United States must secure its border: "Common sense tells us we're not gonna take ten or twelve or fourteen million people and put them in jail and deport them. We're not gonna do it, and we need to quit--some of the people need to quit acting like we are, and let's talk about real solutions."
Barbour also praised "the Spanish speakers that came in to help rebuild" the state after Hurricane Katrina. "There's no doubt in my mind some of them weren't here legally. Some of them were, some of them weren't. But they came in, they looked for the work--if they hadn't been there, if they hadn't come and stayed for a few months or a couple of years, we would be way, way, way behind where we are now."
I guess Barbour does not remember the stories that appeared after Katrina, in which American workers were hired for jobs rebuilding New Orleans, and were then turned away after they traveled there, being told that Mexican workers had been given the jobs. The reports said many of the men were devastated, because they needed the work. Cheap labor and capitalist greed work well together.
Anybody who says that Americans won't work or can't work as hard as the sainted immigrant is ignorant or dishonest.
So Barbour, like most of our politicians, fails the test of loyalty to his own.
That's what I am looking for first and foremost in everybody these days: loyalty. It's getting pretty scarce.
And who speaks up for them, or for us?
Don't count on this man to defend us. Hear what he has to say in the short video at the link.
Is there any politician who is able to speak forthrightly, without trying to play coy and have it both ways?
This AP story gives us the PC revisionist line about General Forrest, but they don't tell you the background of the 'society' which is the focus of all the controversy. I would like to ask somebody who is ritualistically denouncing that group if they can tell me just how and why it began. I would like to hear their version of the conditions that existed in the occupied South after the "Late Unpleasantness". I suspect they would be speechless because they know next to nothing about that era, about that time and place.
Schools do not teach about that part of our history, the Reconstruction Era, a euphemism if there ever was one. And whatever little is taught is selectively biased in the usual way. Add to that the Hollywood movies and pseudo-documentaries that present a dishonest account, and people know less than nothing. What they think they know is false.
As if Barbour's evasiveness and spinelessness on the Forrest issue weren't enough, we recently learned that he was involved in lobbying on behalf of Mexico.
''Though Barbour is currently considering whether to sign an Arizona-style immigration bill that passed in the Mississippi House in January, he took a softer stance last September on what to do about immigrants illegally in the country. Barbour told Human Events that though the United States must secure its border: "Common sense tells us we're not gonna take ten or twelve or fourteen million people and put them in jail and deport them. We're not gonna do it, and we need to quit--some of the people need to quit acting like we are, and let's talk about real solutions."
Barbour also praised "the Spanish speakers that came in to help rebuild" the state after Hurricane Katrina. "There's no doubt in my mind some of them weren't here legally. Some of them were, some of them weren't. But they came in, they looked for the work--if they hadn't been there, if they hadn't come and stayed for a few months or a couple of years, we would be way, way, way behind where we are now."
I guess Barbour does not remember the stories that appeared after Katrina, in which American workers were hired for jobs rebuilding New Orleans, and were then turned away after they traveled there, being told that Mexican workers had been given the jobs. The reports said many of the men were devastated, because they needed the work. Cheap labor and capitalist greed work well together.
Anybody who says that Americans won't work or can't work as hard as the sainted immigrant is ignorant or dishonest.
So Barbour, like most of our politicians, fails the test of loyalty to his own.
That's what I am looking for first and foremost in everybody these days: loyalty. It's getting pretty scarce.
Labels: Confederacy, Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnopatriotism, Political Classes, Political Correctness, Southron Heritage
0 comment Monday, July 7, 2014 | admin
...How is it that this man, of all others least accustomed to exercise his own fancy, or address that of others, has stimulated the imagination, not only of his countrymen, but of the civilized world, above all the sons of genius among us? How has he, the most unromantic of great men, become the hero of a living romance, the ideal of an inflamed fancy in every mind, even before his life had passed into history!-- How did that calm eye kindle the fire of so passionate a love and admiration in the heart of his people? He was brave, but not the only brave. He revealed transcendant military talent; but the diadem of his country now glows with a galaxy of such talent. He was successful; but we have more than one captain, whose banner never trailed before an enemy. I will tell you the solution. It was, chiefly the singleness, purity, and elevation of his aims. Every one who observed him was as thoroughly convinced of his unselfish devotion to duty as of his courage; as certain that no thought of personal advancement, of ambition or applause, ever for one instant divided the homage of his heart with his great cause, and that "all the ends he aimed at were his country's, his God's, and truth's," as that he was brave.The love of his countrymen is the spontaneous testimony of the common conscience, to the beauty of holiness. It is the confession of our nature that the virtue of the Sacred Scriptures, which is a virtue purer and loftier than that of philosophy, is the true greatness, grander than knowledge, talent, courage, or success. Here, then, as I believe, is God's chief lesson in his life and death, (and the belief encourages auspicious hopes concerning God's designs towards us.) He would teach us the beauty and power of pure Christianity, as an element of our social life, of our national career. Therefore he took an exemplar of Christian sincerity, as near perfection as the infirmities of our nature would permit, formed and trained in an honorable retirement; he set it in the furnace of trial, at an hour when great events and dangers had awakened the popular heart to most intense action; he illustrated it with that species of distinction which above all others, attracts the popular gaze, military glory; and held it up to the admiring inspection of a country grateful for the deliverances it had wrought for us. Thus he has taught us, how good a thing his fear is. He has made all men see and acknowledge that, in this man, his Christianity was the fountain head of the virtues and talents, which they so rapturously applauded; that it was the fear of God which made him so fearless of all else; that it was the love of God which animated his energies; that it was the singleness of his aims which caused his whole body to be so full of light, that the unerring decisions of his judgement, suggested to the unthinking, the belief in his actual inspiration; and that the lofty chivalry of his nature was but the reflex of the Spirit of Christ. Do not even the profane admit this explanation of his character?
[...] And now, with one more lesson, I leave you to the teachings of the mighty dead. If there was one trait which was eminent in him above the rest, it was determination. This was the power, before whose steady and ardent heat obstacles melted away. This was the force, which caused his battalions to breast the onsets of the enemy like ramparts of stone, or else launched them irresistibly upon their shivered lines; "the unconquerable will, the purpose never to submit or yield!" Every one who was near him felt that defeat was a result wholly excluded from his contemplation. Let us imbibe this spirit. As we visit the soil which drank his blood! or the grave where his body rests in the bosom of his beloved valley, we will adopt them as new seals to our pledge to be free or to die. Let us resolve that as the solemn mountain peaks keep their everlasting watch around the home and the tomb of Jackson, even so immovably will we guard the rights for which he died.''- R.L. Dabney, True Courage: A Discourse Commemorative of Lieut. General Thomas J. Jackson
Labels: American History, Birthdays, Confederacy, Southron Heritage
0 comment Thursday, May 15, 2014 | admin
Attorney General Gonzales leaves under pressure
This morning when the news of Alberto Gonzales' overdue resignation was announced, a friend said to me that it was about time he was gone. But then I cautioned that somebody just as bad -- or worse -- was waiting in the wings. She agreed, and it looks as though we may be right. Homeland 'Security' Secretary Chertoff is apparently ready to fill Gonzales's place. Even I had not anticipated that.
...Bush, who doggedly supported Gonzales during repeated confrontations with the Democratic-controlled Congress, said Gonzales had endured "months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department."
"It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons," Bush said.
Typical comment from the President; typical tone-deafness, typical insinuations of 'political witch-hunts.'
A senior administration official said the president had not decided on a new nominee. But speculation centered on possible candidates including Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
A new nominee could have a challenge winning support from Senate Democrats, including several presidential candidates.''
Chertoff?
Well, let's hope Chertoff is challenged if he is indeed the nominee. If this man has already decided, as he has indicated, that he cannot enforce the immigration laws, then why on earth would we want him to be the Attorney General?
Of course over at one of the GOP forums, there is dismay and consternation over Gonzo's resignation: he was "railroaded", and this means that the "Democrats win", which is a miscarriage of justice, according to many of the people there. Life must be so simple if the Republicans are always the good guys who can do no wrong. A timely reminder of why I am no longer a good Republican; whenever I need reminding, I hang out at one of those forums to refresh my memory.
And speaking of memories, it's worth looking back to Alberto Gonzales' history when Gonzales was on the Texas Supreme Court and George W. Bush was Governor of Texas. Gail Jarvis, in this piece written as Bush was elected to his second term as President in 2004, relates how Gonzales and Bush, in 2000, caved to the NAACP in their demand for the removal of two small plaques honoring Texas Confederate veterans.
The removal campaign began with a letter from the president of the Texas NAACP demanding the elimination of the two small plaques. The letter refers to the issue as "a matter of major importance" and said of the Confederate flag: "It is immoral, given its connection to slavery, and more recently, neo-nazi and other hate groups" and "We should not be so shortsighted to pass it off as merely a valued symbol associated with someone's heritage."
Governor Bush's Executive Assistant responded to the NAACP's letter, hoping that his reasoned explanation would placate the organization. He said: "These symbols and emblems reflect the history and diversity that make Texas unique." Then he presented a brief background on the plaques.
"The small plaque outside the Supreme Court you mentioned is not an official State symbol. As you may know, the people of Texas overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment in 1954 to transfer the Confederate Pension Fund to the State Building Fund for the purpose of constructing a Courts Building. The 1955 Legislature then passed enabling legislation to reflect the will of the people. The law in part stipulated that the building should be designated as a memorial to Texans who served in the Armed Services of the Confederate States of America and that a suitable cornerstone or plaque should be integrated into the construction of the building for this memorial purpose."
But, trying to reason with the NAACP is like trying to undo a knot with one hand. Knowing it held the winning cards as a result of its earlier victories, the NAACP ignored the response from the Governor's office and decided to do what it does best; engage in civic disobedience. It voted to hold a rally at the state Capitol to protest the two plaques on the Supreme Court building.
Now get this: While these events were taking place, a clandestine plan to remove the plaques was already being coordinated by a clique including Texas Supreme Court Justice Al Gonzales with the blessing of Governor Bush. Two replacement plaques were ordered, containing language that was negotiated with the NAACP behind closed doors. These two plaques were the same size as the offending plaques so they could be easily exchanged. Then, on a weekend when the Court was closed, the plaques were quietly swapped. The proposed swap was not discussed with Confederate groups. They only learned of it shortly before it took place. The general public was not notified of the exchange either and obviously was not allowed to vote on it.
Gonzales replaced the plaque with the Robert E. Lee quote with one that read: "The courts of Texas are entrusted with providing equal justice under the law to all persons regardless of race, creed or color." This incredibly bland statement would make even the writers of grade school text books blush but it satisfied the NAACP. As a replacement for the plaque that bore the Confederate Seal, Gonzales approved language that was as close to an apology as possible: "Because this building was built with monies from the Confederate Pension Fund, it was, at that time, designated as a memorial to the Texans who served the Confederacy." Can you imagine a commemorative plaque containing such a tone of repentance? Why didn't Gonzales add: "Please forgive us!" ?''
This may seem like a trivial matter to anybody who is not a Confederate descendant or even a Southerner or a Texan proud of their heritage. But the way in which it was done, so underhandedly and without any regard to the will of the majority of citizens of Texas is illustrative, and in a way a preview of the kind of dealings we have come to expect from Gonzales and this administration. Either they were disgustingly craven in their 'negotiations' with the NAACP, or they were in sympathy with the anti-Confederate side all along; I tend to think the latter is true. After all, does George W. Bush have any Confederate ancestry? The answer is no; and the same can be said, obviously, for Gonzales, whose own parents are of Mexican origin and whose immigration status (was he an anchor baby?) has been kept ambiguous.
High-handedness and a tendency to be secretive have characterized this administration. And unfortunately even though Gonzales, who was essentially a jumped-up gofer for the President, is gone, as I said, there is somebody of the same calibre waiting to take his place.
This morning when the news of Alberto Gonzales' overdue resignation was announced, a friend said to me that it was about time he was gone. But then I cautioned that somebody just as bad -- or worse -- was waiting in the wings. She agreed, and it looks as though we may be right. Homeland 'Security' Secretary Chertoff is apparently ready to fill Gonzales's place. Even I had not anticipated that.
...Bush, who doggedly supported Gonzales during repeated confrontations with the Democratic-controlled Congress, said Gonzales had endured "months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department."
"It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons," Bush said.
Typical comment from the President; typical tone-deafness, typical insinuations of 'political witch-hunts.'
A senior administration official said the president had not decided on a new nominee. But speculation centered on possible candidates including Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
A new nominee could have a challenge winning support from Senate Democrats, including several presidential candidates.''
Chertoff?
Well, let's hope Chertoff is challenged if he is indeed the nominee. If this man has already decided, as he has indicated, that he cannot enforce the immigration laws, then why on earth would we want him to be the Attorney General?
Of course over at one of the GOP forums, there is dismay and consternation over Gonzo's resignation: he was "railroaded", and this means that the "Democrats win", which is a miscarriage of justice, according to many of the people there. Life must be so simple if the Republicans are always the good guys who can do no wrong. A timely reminder of why I am no longer a good Republican; whenever I need reminding, I hang out at one of those forums to refresh my memory.
And speaking of memories, it's worth looking back to Alberto Gonzales' history when Gonzales was on the Texas Supreme Court and George W. Bush was Governor of Texas. Gail Jarvis, in this piece written as Bush was elected to his second term as President in 2004, relates how Gonzales and Bush, in 2000, caved to the NAACP in their demand for the removal of two small plaques honoring Texas Confederate veterans.
The removal campaign began with a letter from the president of the Texas NAACP demanding the elimination of the two small plaques. The letter refers to the issue as "a matter of major importance" and said of the Confederate flag: "It is immoral, given its connection to slavery, and more recently, neo-nazi and other hate groups" and "We should not be so shortsighted to pass it off as merely a valued symbol associated with someone's heritage."
Governor Bush's Executive Assistant responded to the NAACP's letter, hoping that his reasoned explanation would placate the organization. He said: "These symbols and emblems reflect the history and diversity that make Texas unique." Then he presented a brief background on the plaques.
"The small plaque outside the Supreme Court you mentioned is not an official State symbol. As you may know, the people of Texas overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment in 1954 to transfer the Confederate Pension Fund to the State Building Fund for the purpose of constructing a Courts Building. The 1955 Legislature then passed enabling legislation to reflect the will of the people. The law in part stipulated that the building should be designated as a memorial to Texans who served in the Armed Services of the Confederate States of America and that a suitable cornerstone or plaque should be integrated into the construction of the building for this memorial purpose."
But, trying to reason with the NAACP is like trying to undo a knot with one hand. Knowing it held the winning cards as a result of its earlier victories, the NAACP ignored the response from the Governor's office and decided to do what it does best; engage in civic disobedience. It voted to hold a rally at the state Capitol to protest the two plaques on the Supreme Court building.
Now get this: While these events were taking place, a clandestine plan to remove the plaques was already being coordinated by a clique including Texas Supreme Court Justice Al Gonzales with the blessing of Governor Bush. Two replacement plaques were ordered, containing language that was negotiated with the NAACP behind closed doors. These two plaques were the same size as the offending plaques so they could be easily exchanged. Then, on a weekend when the Court was closed, the plaques were quietly swapped. The proposed swap was not discussed with Confederate groups. They only learned of it shortly before it took place. The general public was not notified of the exchange either and obviously was not allowed to vote on it.
Gonzales replaced the plaque with the Robert E. Lee quote with one that read: "The courts of Texas are entrusted with providing equal justice under the law to all persons regardless of race, creed or color." This incredibly bland statement would make even the writers of grade school text books blush but it satisfied the NAACP. As a replacement for the plaque that bore the Confederate Seal, Gonzales approved language that was as close to an apology as possible: "Because this building was built with monies from the Confederate Pension Fund, it was, at that time, designated as a memorial to the Texans who served the Confederacy." Can you imagine a commemorative plaque containing such a tone of repentance? Why didn't Gonzales add: "Please forgive us!" ?''
This may seem like a trivial matter to anybody who is not a Confederate descendant or even a Southerner or a Texan proud of their heritage. But the way in which it was done, so underhandedly and without any regard to the will of the majority of citizens of Texas is illustrative, and in a way a preview of the kind of dealings we have come to expect from Gonzales and this administration. Either they were disgustingly craven in their 'negotiations' with the NAACP, or they were in sympathy with the anti-Confederate side all along; I tend to think the latter is true. After all, does George W. Bush have any Confederate ancestry? The answer is no; and the same can be said, obviously, for Gonzales, whose own parents are of Mexican origin and whose immigration status (was he an anchor baby?) has been kept ambiguous.
High-handedness and a tendency to be secretive have characterized this administration. And unfortunately even though Gonzales, who was essentially a jumped-up gofer for the President, is gone, as I said, there is somebody of the same calibre waiting to take his place.
Labels: Attorney General, Confederacy, Politics, Republicans