Another Anti-Confederate Flag Boycott

The NAACP is at it again, this time threatening a boycott (big surprise) of Florida businesses that display the Confederate flag. From the South Florida Times:

Civil rights groups on Thursday put city and business leaders here on a 30-day notice that unless they meet a list of demands -- including a ban on the display of the Confederate flag at taxpayer-funded events -- they will be subjected to protests and boycotts.

More than 100 people converged on the steps of Homestead City Hall for a press conference organized by clerical, civil rights and community groups who submitted the list of demands.

"We are ready to talk with the city of Homestead and the Homestead Chamber of Commerce concerning our action items. And our issues are with them, and not with the Sons of the Confederacy," said Bishop Victor T. Curry, president of the Miami-Dade branch of the NAACP. "If the Sons of the Confederacy want to have their own parade, we are not trying to stifle freedom of speech or freedom of expression. We just don't want to see racism walking down the streets of Homestead, being funded by the taxpayers."

Curry warned business leaders that if their demands are not met by the 30-day deadline, the controversy would escalate to another level.

"We want the mayor and the council, and the chamber, to do the right thing. We hope that we could start this with a positive dialogue. But we're also ready to move from dialogue to demonstration," Curry said.

"We are also prepared to say to the businesses that support the chamber, that if you want to offend the people of this great county and community, then we will seek other places to spend our dollars," Curry said. "We will not pay you to offend us."

It's a wonder the NAACP has any shred of credibility left.

Citizenship Requires a Knowledge of (State-Approved) History

Another Perspective on the Confederate Flag Issue

My second article for Examiner.com.

Ron Paul on Secession

It's a legitimate, constitutional, and necessary option. Dr. Paul writes:

America was born from an act of secession. When King George's rule trampled on the rights of the colonies, we successfully seceded from England. It took a war, but we were well within our rights. We applauded when former soviet states seceded from the USSR and declared their sovereignty. And hopefully the United States will eventually secede from the United Nations. We pay most of the bills of the UN, yet do not have the commensurate votes, so someday we will wake up and realize that membership, for these and other reasons, does not serve our interests.

On a personal level, contracts you enter into can be terminated if one side unilaterally changes the terms. If a credit card company jacks up your interest rate, you have every right to fulfill your obligations and close the account. Imagine if you were forced to stay with a credit card company forever no matter what just because you previously signed up! The principle of self-determination applies to political unions as well. In the cases I mentioned above, governing organizations transformed into much more overbearing entities than originally agreed upon. Several state constitutions originally had clauses explicitly allowing them to opt out of the Union down the road if they so chose. I doubt our country would have ever come together if this were not the case. Just because the north successfully kept the union together by force with the Civil War does not mean that enslaving the states is a legitimate alternative.

Secession is the last resort of states whose sovereignty is over-ridden by an overreaching federal government. The federal government has only itself to blame for this talk. Recently, some states have enacted laws allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana, yet these laws are basically voided by the continuing raids by the DEA, sanctioned by the administration. The federal government is also strong-arming states with stimulus money, forcing them to expand programs they know they will not be able to afford in the future, at a time when many states' budgets are already in the red. This is not a new problem. No Child Left Behind burdened the states' education systems and forced them through many hoops designed by federal bureaucrats in distant Washington DC rather than allowing communities to tailor education to their children's unique needs. There are numerous other examples of the erosion of state sovereignty and many governors are frustrated, not just ours in Texas. Without the right to secede, state's rights are meaningless.

Secession Is an American Principle

Montana Supports the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Chuck Baldwin writes:

The Montana resolution recalls, "When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to 'any person.'"

The resolution continues, "To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, "There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating sternly, "A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation."

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens' right to keep and bear arms. I don't think I'm reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I've just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Good News for Alabama Gun Owners

Alabama legislators are hoping to prevent the kind of chaos Louisiana saw during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. From the Press-Register:

A bill to prevent state or local government from seizing lawfully owned guns during emergencies sailed through the Alabama House on Thursday and now heads to the Senate, where it was approved last year.

Rep. Mark Keahey, D-Grove Hill, said his measure is aimed at ensuring the chaos that comes with disasters, such as hurricanes, is not made worse by overzealous government officials.

"The Second Amendment gives us a constitutional right to bear arms, and this bill is just an effort, on Alabama's part, to help us maintain that right," Keahey said.

Congressman Keahey isn't entirely correct. The Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to anything; it is there to prevent the federal government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. But good for Keahey and the citizens of Alabama!

More Good States' Rights News

Eight states have already introduced resolutions to reclaim their sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. WorldNetDaily reports that "another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year."

Only 48 to Go...

First it was New Hampshire. Now Arizona would like to reclaim its status as a free and independent state, resolving:

• That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
  
  
• That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
  
  
• That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

Full resolution here.

New Hampshire to Put the Feds on Notice?

A resolution affirming "states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles" has been introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. It resolves, in part:

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.

Read the full resolution here.

Believe it or not, this was once the general consensus among the various states, even when it came time to ratify the U.S. Constitution. In fact, several states made it clear during the ratification process that they retained the right to break away from the new Union if it was ever deemed necessary to preserve the liberty of their citizens. For example, the delegates from Virginia stated that "the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." New York followed suit, claiming the same power for its citizens if and when "it shall become necessary to their happiness."

Let's hope this resolutions passes and sets an example for the other 49 states.

Confederate Flag Makes a Comeback

Some encouraging news from Florida:

Despite years of boycotts, schoolyard bans, and banishment from capitol domes, the Southern battle colors are flying, higher than ever.

Indeed, the Tampa Confederate Veterans Memorial and its 139-foot flagpole features one of at least four giant "soldier's flags" flying over bumper-to-bumper interstates in Florida and Alabama. With more planned in Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, and possibly South Carolina, the interstate show of force, experts say, highlights the potential backlash from banning nostalgic symbols from the public square. ...

... [T]here's some evidence that flag proponents have the wind at their back. An attempt last week to reenergize the flag boycott in South Carolina faltered at the NAACP, with one member concluding the effort had lost its steam. Moreover, the NCAA recently got flak from some newspapers for banning championship games in South Carolina and Mississippi, but not in Alabama, which also has Confederate regalia as part of its official symbols.

"A flag may be a simple piece of cloth, but it's much more powerful than that," says John Clark, a political science professor at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. "[And] if you start turning people away, you're talking about a substantial investment in the local economy that's going to disappear."

Still, it's not clear whether the flag is actually that sensitive a topic. The economic effect of NAACP and NCAA boycotts in South Carolina has been minimal, according to state officials.

More recently, a Florida newspaper poll revealed that few drivers found the Tampa flag offensive, which surprised many officials.

Slaves Fought for the South

This is the kind of story you won't learn from a government school textbook:

At first glance, it's an unlikely combination. A black family seated under a tent facing a line of Civil War re-enactors, proudly holding Confederate flags and gripping their weapons.

But what lies between these two groups is what brought them together: An unmarked grave about to get its due, belonging to a slave who fought for the Confederacy.

Weary Clyburn was best friends with his master's son, Frank. When Frank left the plantation to fight in the Civil War, Clyburn followed him.

He fought alongside Frank and even saved his life on two occasions.

On July 18, the city of Monroe proclaimed Weary Clyburn Day; an event that coincided with the Sons of Confederate Veterans convention in Concord.

The N.C. Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans (James Miller Camp 2116) honored Clyburn, who died March 30, 1930, with a memorial program at Hillcrest Cemetery in Monroe and unveiled a new headstone for his unmarked grave.

Read the full story from the Charlotte Post here.

Our New Declaration of Independence

(Originally drafted on July 3, 2002)

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another; a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to make that separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations reduces them to despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patience of these fifty states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their system of government. The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all working toward the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

It has refused to abide by the strict guidelines of the United States Constitution, and has instead decided that it alone will decide what is necessary for the public good.

It has forbidden state legislatures to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, and has allowed the federal judiciary to strike down countless state laws as unconstitutional, in clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

It has refused all states the proper control of land within their respective borders and has instead used its power to confiscate even more property.

It has enacted legislation, on issues ranging from alcohol consumption to the ownership of firearms, for the sole purpose of forcing states and individual citizens into compliance with its wishes.

It has unlawfully persecuted, under various administrations, citizens and organizations for opposing its invasions on the rights of the people.

It has continued to pass laws affecting campaign financing and election procedures that have only served to exclude ordinary citizens from the political process.

It has endeavored to prevent states from taking steps to curb illegal immigration and has refused to protect the sovereign borders of this nation.

It has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing to equally apply the laws it passes to members of the federal government.

It has allowed judges to become dependent upon their own political ideology without any regard for the Constitution.

It has established a multitude of new bureaucracies, and has sent out swarms of officers to harass the people.

It has maintained, in times of peace, standing armies both here on our shores and overseas.

It has effectively rendered the military independent of and superior to the civil authority.

It has subjected us to things foreign to our Constitution, giving its assent to burdensome acts of legislation:

For forcing states to quarter illegal immigrants.

For protecting them and refusing to deport even those convicted of serious crimes.

For implementing protectionist measures that have limited our ability to engage in free trade with all parts of the world.

For imposing taxes, hidden or otherwise, without our consent.

For threatening to deprive us, in times of perceived crisis, of the benefits of trial by jury.

For federalizing offenses that should remain under the jurisdiction of the states.

For implementing a foreign policy that has this nation engaged in costly and unnecessary entanglements overseas.

For taking away state sovereignty, abolishing federalism, and altering fundamentally our entire system of government.

For superseding state legislatures, and investing in Congress the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever; including areas such as employment, health care, education, and housing, among others.

It has waged war against citizens of the United States by using armed troops to enforce unconstitutional laws.

It has denied states the control over valuable natural resources within their own borders.

It is, at this time, engaged in armed conflict overseas without a formal and constitutional declaration of war.

It has turned businesses into government agencies, forcing workers to report the "suspicious" activities of their fellow citizens to authorities.

It has succeeded, through its interventionist policies, in funding and arming enemies of the United States of America.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is marked by every act which may define a tyranny, is unfit to be the government of a free people.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by Congress, the president, and the judiciary to extend an unwarranted jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of the founding of our nation. We have appealed to their sense of justice and fair play, and we have appealed to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of reason. We must, therefore, hold them as we hold the rest of mankind - enemies in war, friends in peace.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the existing federal government, and that as free and independent states, they have full authority to reassume those powers guaranteed to the states and the people by the Constitution. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

If you haven't already done so, check out Michael S. Rozeff's essay entitled "On Dissolving the United States of America." It cuts through all the tired, stale political rhetoric and gets right down to the essential discussion we should be having right now as a nation of states:

If those individuals who favor retaining the national government think that it is such a good idea, then let them debate it. Let them show why the Union should be our form of government. Let them show how wonderful the Union has been for us. Let them go toe-to-toe with those of us who think the opposite. Of course, they do not want to debate this matter at such a basic level. To concede that the Union could even have serious and uncorrectable flaws would be to yield too much ground. It would grant the possibility that the Union is a detriment to the American people. Merely entertaining this possibility in public might make too many people stop and think. It might make them question the existing system, and such doubts might threaten the power, wealth, privilege, and position of those who benefit from the Union.

Rather than debate Union, the supporters of the national government have a better strategy. It goes way beyond stonewalling, which is not even on the horizon. It is to build support for the Union incessantly, to hammer the need for more and more laws passed within the Union's ambit, and to pass these laws by constantly appealing to the fears of Americans. Rocking the boat, even if that boat is sinking, even if we are all swallowing sea water, is damned as a course that we all must avoid as a risk to our very lives and well-being. Almost any action of government, however ridiculous, stupid, or counter-productive, is painted as enhancing our security, even when it is obvious that the opposite is the case. The security theme is implicit in the notion of unity. We are always asked to obey the laws, pull together after votes are taken, end our dissent, be as one, and be as one nation. We are always asked to accept the laws, for fear that if we do not, we will be attacked, or not have medical care, or not have gasoline, or not have income in our old age. Unity and security are objectives interlarded with the element of fear. Even in the Federalist papers, written in support of the national Union, the appeals for unity were frequently based on heightening fears of European countries attacking the defenseless states and of states fighting with one another.

Let the discussion commence among the various states. As Rozeff concludes, "Dissolving the U.S.A. is becoming more and more an urgent and visible matter. Let us do a favor for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. Let us place dissolving the U.S.A. at the top of our political agenda."

States' Rights (July 4, 1776 - April 9, 1865)

Let us pause for a moment of silence.


"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand."

- Robert E. Lee to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (September 1870)

Lincoln Proposed Purchasing Slaves

About a year into his illegal war against the South, President Lincoln suggested buying slaves for $400 apiece as part of a "gradual emancipation" plan. Fox News reports that Lincoln's "proposal was outlined in one of 72 letters penned by Lincoln that ended up in the University of Rochester's archives." That idea never panned out.

The fact that such a plan wasn't seriously considered before the invasion of the South further demonstrates that the conflict wasn't over slavery. It also betrays the mindset of the anti-secessionist bigots in Washington, who were much happier pursuing the war at a cost of billions of dollars and over 600,000 American lives in order to save their precious Union.

Another Confederate Flag Flap

Yes, believe it or not, there's another Confederate flag flap in the news. This time, the NAACP wants it removed from a businessman's private property.

Why is it no one is ever offended when someone flies the American flag? After all, slavery existed under that flag for 89 years (1776-1865) and under the Confederate flag for only four (1861-1865).

But I guess you can't please everyone -- especially when so many people seem to go out of their way to be offended by just about anything.

The South Still Under Attack

Big surprise. There continues to be controversy in South Carolina surrounding Confederate Memorial Day:

In May 2000, Hodges signed the bill to create the Confederate holiday for state workers on May 10 while also recognizing the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. with a state holiday. The law eliminated the Election Day holiday and a floating holiday for state workers.

With the passage of the bill, South Carolina was the last state in the nation to recognize fully the King holiday as a day off for state workers.

The NAACP, which was seeking to have the Confederate flag removed from the Statehouse dome at the time, wanted Hodges to veto the bill.

Opponents continue to say the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and slavery, while proponents say the flag is a symbol of Southern heritage.

It's been over 140 years since the end of Lincoln's illegal war, and yet there are still people who seek to reconstruct not only the South, but American history itself.

Slavery existed under the U.S. flag for almost 90 years (1776-1865), but under the Confederate flag for only four (1861-1865). And Old Glory has its own history of being desecrated by the dregs of society:

Can someone please explain to me why the Confederate flag is always the one singled out for demonization? Maybe those who think it is a racist symbol should take a look at this video.

Confederate Tribute

In honor of Confederate Memorial Day (the exact date of which varies from state to state), here's H. K. Edgerton reciting Michael Bradley's poem "I Am Their Flag":

Remembering "Dishonest Abe"

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on Good Friday, April 14, 1865. Because of that, he went down in history as one of America's noblest heroes and is remembered as a great man of God. But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to this murderous tyrant.