"Washington Post" columnist, "The GOP Goes South"

Another article on the Republican party becoming a sectional party by David S. Broder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601129.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Trent Lott said in a Southern Partisan interview that the Republican party was the party for the descendants of Jefferson Davis. It seems that it is becoming truer by the day. This is an extract from the Southern Partisan interview, Vol. 4 No. 4 Fall 1984.

Page 44

Partisan: At the convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Mississippi you made the statement that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform." What did you mean by that?

Lott: I think that a lot of the fundamental principals that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important today to people all across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party. .... After the War between the States, a lot of Southerners identified with the Democrat Party because of the radical Republicans we had at the time, particularly in the Senate. The South was wedded to that party for years and years and years. But we have seen the Republican Party become more conservative and more oriented toward traditional family values, the religious values that we hold dear in the South. And the Democratic party has been going in the other direction. As a result of that, more and more of The South's sons, Jefferson Davis' descendants, direct or indirect, are becoming involved in the Republican Party. The platform we had in Dallas, the 1984 Republican platform, all the ideas we supported there --- from tax policy, to foriegn policy: from individual rights, to neighborhood security --- are things that Jefferson Davis believed in.

Obama Appoints Ron Kirk, pro-Confederate African American

Obama has appointed Ron Kirk to the post of U.S. Trade Representative. Ron Kirk declared a Confederate heritage day for the City of Dallas. He was able to do this, but never get a human rights commission started for Dallas. You can read about his dubious past by pulling up articles from his term of mayor at the Dallas Observer website. http://www.dallasobserver.com/search/archive_search

This column in the Dallas Observer details how Ron Kirk tried to take stands on both sides of the issue of the Confederacy. Weasel is the word that comes to mind.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2000-02-24/news/buzz/

I wrote this letter to Ron Kirk asking him to retract his declaration of a Confederate heritage day for Dallas. I never got a reply and there never was a retraction of the declaration.

---------------------

June 24, 2000

Mayor Ron Kirk

Dear Mayor Kirk:

As you know, you declared October 12, 1997, a Confederate heritage day for Dallas. It was reported in the UDC Magazine, Dec. 1998, page 28. I know because I do research on the neo-Confederate movement. Worse yet, you gave Edward Smith, notorious promoter of the Black Confederate myth the keys to the city.

As most everyone knows, John McCain recently publicly apologized for his support for the Confederate flag in South Carolina. I am sure it was difficult for John McCain to admit being wrong, given he is strong willed, but nevertheless he did.

I ask you to publicly retract your declaration of Confederate Heritage day for Dallas.

I have amply documented the pernicious nature of this civil religion of white supremacy at my website .

Texas Governor George W. Bush has gone from being a booster of the Museum of the Confederacy to realizing that the Confederacy should not be part of our civic faith. I think you can consider coming to a similar realization and help make this a city with a democratic civic tradition, not a Confederate one.


Sincerely Yours,



Edward H. Sebesta

CC: Dallas City Council members

-------------------------

GOP concerned about being too Southern.

The article is online at politico.com and is a front page article there for the moment. You can read it here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16269.html

Evidently there is a struggle within the Republican party to keep it from becoming the party of the Confederacy. The code word here is "regional." Some quotes:

"As the GOP wrestles with criticism that it is in danger of becoming a regional party rooted in the South, rather than one with broad appeal across the nation, the contest for chairman is shaping up in no small part as a referendum on just how much Southern flavor the party should have at the top in the wake of a sound electoral defeat in every other region of the country."

and

"For RNC contenders, any misgivings about the party's Southern bent may take a back seat to short-term political necessity. Every candidate running for chair would love to draw support from social conservatives, who make up a sizable proportion of the 168 voters that will select the next party chair-and many of them hail from the South."

So some Republicans are worried about the party being a Confederate party, but it seems that the former states of the Confederacy is where a lot of the political power is. No matter how Republicans try to finesse this, it seems somewhat insulting to persons with southern nationalist sensibilities. I think it could provoke a reaction in the South. This would force some southern Republicans to become more publicly southern identified.

However, it could be that nothing is really needed to force any southern Republicans to be more publicly southern identified. In a crowded field of candidates looking to be Republican party leaders, one candidate could stand out from the pack, escape from obscurity, and capture a sizable base by being southern identified. This applies to other possible political ambitions in the Republican party. Being a defeated Republican party presidential candidate in the national election is better than being nobody. Being selected as the Vice-Presidential candidate would be better than being nobody. Having a regional political base is better than being nobody. Some southern Republican will figure that out. Huckabee was picking up on that by supporting the Confederate flag in South Carolina during the Republican primary there.

If one Republican candidate or leader picks up the Confederate flag there might be a lot of pressure on other Republican leaders in the south to move in a direction of supporting the Confederate flag.

Another factor in the direction of the Republican party will be how Obama performs as president, in particular the currently crashing economy.

If the public thinks Obama is performing poorly then I think there will be a lot of discontent nationally and the Republican party will pick up outside the South and not be regionally based.

If the public thinks Obama is doing a good job with the economy the Republicans will continue to be regionally based. However, many individuals will avoid the Republican party to pursue a political career in the Democratic party leaving the Republican party to be dominated by its more hard core elements.

I am not sure what will happen if there is a mixed perception regarding Obama's handling of the economy. I think there will be conflict and discontent. This I think would radicalize the Republican party also.

I think though these thoughts I write here may be superseded by events. If real unemployment reaches 15 or 20% and an even larger fraction of the American public starts losing their homes or become homeless we will enter uncharted political territory. I can only predict that extremism will flourish. This is of course what is exciting the neo-Confederates.

I am not sure we will know which way the Republican party is moving relative to the Confederacy. Perhaps it will be in Republican primaries in the south in 2010. Perhaps it will be revealed in campaigns starting now for the Republican nomination in 2012. Perhaps it will be in local and state elections. I will just have to watch and wait.

Preview "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" online

Google books has a limited preview of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" online at this link:

http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=sebesta+hague&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=

Just search Google books with the author set to "sebesta" and "hague" and it is the online book that shows up in the search.

You can also read the introduction at this url:

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagneo.html

If you order it online at Univ. of Texas it is discounted.

Copies of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" show up in the mail.

I got a package with the author copies of the books in the mail yesterday. You know intellectually that the book is going to be published, but there is something about holding it in your hands and opening it up and reading it that makes it real.

I have spent my life reading books. Now I am the editor and an author for a book and I have joined the world of ideas. Books once in circulation circulate a long time. I purchase books from the 19th century. With this book, the contributors, and the other editors and I initiate a dialogue that goes into the future long after we are gone.

Finally, after all these years there is a book on the neo-Confederates and by a major academic press. People are going to find out what this movement is all about and once understanding what it is they will recognize it when they see it. One of neo-Confederacy's advantages has been is that it isn't recognized for what it is, so it is able to do things unopposed. That advantage will be soon gone. Also, Confederate symbols and monuments will be perceived differently once people realize that there is a neo-Confederate movement.

You can pre-order a copy at this URL. The book is released on Dec. 1, 2008 which is next Monday. http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagneo.html

Russian professor Igor Panarin predicts U.S.A. to break up, neo-Confederates excited. Real issue missed by media and bloggers.

The Drudge Report http://www.drudgereport.com/ had an item about an Igor Panarin, member of the the diplomatic academy of the Russian ministry of foreign affairs predicting that the United States would suffer financial collapse and then break up into six states.

Bloomberg has an article about Panarin's prediction here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3sayDZz.QKc&refer=us

The UK's right wing paper, The Telegraph has an article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3521671/US-will-collapse-and-break-up-Russian-analyst-predicts.html

The neo-Confederates saw this report as validating their fringe ideas. They have been promoting the idea that the United States would collapse. See this blog for a typical neo-Confederate view: http://dixienet.org/rebellion/rebellion.html

Frank James of the Chicago Tribune points out that Panarin's prediction is silly in this posting.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/us_disintegration_a_russian_fa.html

I am not interested in discussing the possibility of the United States breaking up. I think it is a very remote possibility even with a severe economic crisis. I think the media and bloggers are missing the important issue of Panarin's prediction. Why did he make it and to what purpose?

Panarin is closely associated with the Russian foreign ministry as a member of its diplomatic academy. The article was published in Izvestia, a major paper in Russia. I don't think he would say something that he thought would annoy the Russian government and neither would Izvestia likely print it. Major media in Russia we are told is beholden to the Russian government.

It might be possible that Panarin's interview published in Izvestia is to undermine foreign confidence in the United States and its abilities to make payments on its debts. Perhaps Panarin and the Russian government takes seriously American secessionists, not realizing that they are little more than web pages, excepting the neo-Confederates, and hope to encourage secessionists in the United States.

I think Panarin's article was some attempt to irritate the United States and poke fun at the United States. Of course if the Russians attempt to give aid or comfort to secessionist groups in the United States that would be another thing entirely.

It will be interesting what other media outside the United States make of it.

Nieman Marcus sells the Confederacy. Boycott Nieman Marcus. Or Nieman Marcus is dreaming of a "White" Christmas

Nieman Marcus is selling the Confederacy. Boycott Nieman Marcus.

It turns out that Nieman Marcus is selling the Confederate Fighter Motorcycle from Confederate Motor Works.

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/sitelets/christmasbook/fantasy.jhtml?cid=OCBF9_NMO3594&cmcat=Christmas

http://dailyabsurdities.com/2008/11/18/confederate-fighter-bike/

This is very Dallas, where the upper class wouldn't see any problem in celebrating the Confederacy. Dallas, unlike most major cities in America, and unlike Fort Worth, doesn't have a human rights commission.

This also should inform the reader that the love of the Confederacy isn't confined to lower income whites, who I think are maligned by stereotypes, but extends to educated upper class whites.

There are still companies that sell consumer goods with a Confederate identity.

Boycott Nieman Marcus

Fear of a Black President

A fraternity was penalized for flying a Confederate flag at a North Carolina University. The story is here.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/11/10/the_president_is_black,_hide_the_confederate_flag

This puts Mr. Adams in a rage. What is interesting is that he relates this university matter to the election of an African American president. It is a fear of the loss of white privilege.

It is the theme of the article also, that whites are being persecuted by having separate standards applied to them versus African Americans. It is the loss of white privilege and worse yet in Adams' mind, subordination of whites. Adams is thinking "the bottom rail is on top."

Adams' approach could have been that the university should not have Rap music with such obviously offensive lyrics. It would be an article about his visit and the lyrics and how the lyrics are contrary to the values of Obama and feminism. However, Adam's discussion of the Rap music is just a device to defend the fraternity's flying the Confederate flag and express through his column a fear of a loss of white privilege with the election of Obama.

Republican Party becoming a Confederate Party?

An interesting article in the New York Times, titled "For South, a Waning Hold on National Politics." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?hp

Discusses how the Republican party is becoming a regional party of the South.

Some comments from the article:

"The Republicans, meanwhile, have “become a Southernized party,” said Mr. Schaller, who teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “They have completely marginalized themselves to a mostly regional party,” he said, pointing out that nearly half of the current Republican House delegation is now Southern."

And

"Even the Democrats made use of the Southern strategy, as the party’s two presidents in the last 40 years, Jimmy Carter and Mr. Clinton, were Southerners whose presence on the ticket served to assuage regional anxieties. Mr. Obama has now proved it is no longer necessary to include a Southerner on the national ticket — to quiet racial fears, for example — in order to win, in the view of analysts."

It will be interesting to observe and see if the Republican Party continues to evolve into Dixiecrats.

Will Obama place a wreath at the Confederate Memorial in the Arlington Cemetery next June 2009?

Will Barack Obama place a wreath at the Confederate Memorial in the Arlington Cemetery next June 2009?

Every president has placed a wreath there since the Woodrow Wilson administration. Wilson both started sending wreaths to the memorial and started segregation in the Federal government and went after African American federal employees. I have started to read "Jim Crow and the Wilson Administration: Protesting Federal Segregation in the Early Twentieth Century," by Nicholas Patler.

As to the question, I am not sure whether Obama will or won't send a wreath to the Confederate Memorial on or near Jefferson Davis' birthday next June 2009. I certainly plan on writing Barack Obama asking him not to send a wreath and encourage others to write him also asking that he not send a wreath.

I am also going to write some letters about some other issues, such as the UDC Confederate awards at the nation's military academies.

Obama's campaign is undoubtedly aware of this web page:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/274/274_clinton_udc.html

I don't think it is impossible that Barack Obama will send the wreath to the Confederate Memorial. However, I don't think Barack Obama will want a web page like this for himself and I am sure I will be able to find someone to do such a web page if Barack Obama proves to be indulgent of the Confederacy.

However, it may not be such an effort to get Barack Obama to stop the wreath and stop Confederate activities in the U.S. Military. An Barack Obama election victory will show that the influence of a certain reactionary crankiness, such as neo-Confederates are over as a political force in this country. In fact I may be asked as to what else needs to be done to remove neo-Confederacy from the Federal government and its programs, projects, parks, and properties. I will be willing to help out if they ask.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC

Here are some fun YouTubes of Eastern music I found which I think are quite interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldPMifPbngc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hncJzoAiAw&feature=related

I thought I would add a few fun things to the blog once in a while.

Ed Sebesta interviewed for a"National Post" article on the election of Obama

At this link is an article on the response to the likely election of Obama as president of the United States in the Canadian National Post.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/uselection/story.html?id=924369

I was interviewed regarding the neo-Confederate response to Obama's election.

This is the section relating to my interview:

Edward Sebesta, who tracks neo-Confederate groups, said that in recent weeks, he's seen a huge shift away from issues of immigration to the election of Obama. "A climate of hysteria has taken over," said Mr. Sebesata, who co-edited the book Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction.

An article in the far-right Southern Mercury pointed out that if Mr. Obama were elected, his "rhetoric and anti-white legislative proposals would stir up racial riots. If he were running for re-election, these riots would turn into an exceedingly violent nature that would seriously damage race relations in America, and leave entire sections of our cities in ruins."

What I meant exactly was that animosity against McCain on immigration become less of a focus and a sort of hysteria over Obama's election had become the dominant focus. In the interview I also said that the neo-Confederates would fuse the issues of Obama's election and immigration.

Unfortunately the article doesn't mention that the "Southern Mercury" is the publication of the Educational PAC of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

I have realized with this interview that the election of Obama is going to make the issue of neo-Confederacy more prominent. Also, I am going to have to make sure my name gets spelled correctly.

After the Election & Neo-Confederacy

I am going to assume that the election is going to go badly for the Republicans and they are going to lose the White House, the House and the Democrats are possibly going to get their 60+ majority in the Senate. I am not going to go over the polls and arguments state by state. There are other websites which do a good job of reviewing the polls and analyzing the polls and politics much better than I. I am not necessarily assured that the election will be a great Democratic party win either. I will be watching election night on the Internet to see what happens while I am doing other work around the house. I don't own a television. However, for sake of discussion let's say that it is going to be a big win for the Democrats as I assumed above.

I am not sure if it such a prize to win this election. The economy is in terrible shape and getting worse and handling the economy is going to be like trying to catch a falling anvil. Though the policies of the last 8 years or more have resulted in this economic debacle, the public will hold the current office holder accountable for results.

One consequence of the 2008 defeat of the Republicans is going to be a struggle for its future and recrimination who are to blame for the defeat. These are a few interesting articles relevant to these two topics.

"The Party of Yesterday" by Timothy Egan http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26egan.html

"Ceding the Center" by David Brooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26brooks.html

"Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party" by Tim Shipman
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3260074/Republican-fears-of-historic-Obama-landslide-unleash-civil-war-for-the-future-of-the-party.html

After the election I don't think there is going to be a coherent direction for the Republican party. They will be fighting it out. There won't be a popular Republican president and a powerful national Republican party establishment to set the direction. The most prominent Republican is going to be Sarah Palin and she is not going to be pushing the agenda of the Republican establishment, though I am sure she is willing to deal with them. Palin derives her political base on themes oppositional to the national Republican party establishment. Even prior to this coming election defeat, the Republicans have chosen a campaign plan of fear mongering, anti-intellectualism, and calling others un-American. It is not surprising that it has reminded some of George Wallace.

The surviving Republican party will be even more heavily centered in the former Confederate states than before. Palin will be driving the Republican party further to the right. Ann Coulter must by now be realizing that Palin is her competitor. Palin will be the natural person for a hard right Republican party politics to assemble around. She already has a ready made base for reactionary Republicans to base their efforts to capture the Republican party. I think that Palin would rather be the head of a Reactionary Republican party out of power, than have a moderate Republican party that sends her into retirement laughing at her.

Republican elected officials in the former Confederate states will need to consider what they need to do to survive a potential challenge in the Republican party from reactionary Republicans. The national Republican establishment is somewhat discredited and won't be able to offer as much help to a Republican facing a challenge in the Republican primary. Imagine a moderate Republican in the South running against a reactionary Republican challenger who has Palin visiting the district to support the challenger. However, even without Palin, I think Republican congressional representatives are going to be concerned about what gets them elected locally and will have little concern about the national Republican establishment agenda.

I think the election of an African American president is going to have an impact. There is a fraction of Americans who will find this galling, I think most are in the Republican party and others might leave the Democratic party for the Republican party. Obama's election will represent the end to them of white privilege, in particular what they imagine should be their own privilege in the system. They will represent a force for a reactionary politics in the Republican party. Also, I think that having an African American president will tend to racialize politics with some. If someone is upset with Obama's policy on lets say national infrastructure, bridges etc., they won't be angry with a Democratic president, for some people they will be angry with a African American president. For reactionaries that are angry with George W. Bush and Democrats in general anyways, the fact that Obama is African American will further gall them.

Then there will be the Republican base having to face defeat. I don't think they will take it very well. They are going to have an agenda that the rest of the nation is going to consider extreme and they are going to be aware of this rejection and feel very frustrated.

The very bad and worsening economy is going to drive a large fraction of the public to be very discontented. People are going to be really angry. For a lot of people this will drive the search for scape goats. Certainly there are individuals whose behavior was reprehensible and have responsibility for the present financial crisis. However, the question could be asked who put the current administration in power for the last eight years? However, telling the public that they are responsible for their own problems is hardly a plan calculated to bring political success. Instead Others will be seen to the source of problems.

I think in the former Confederate states the Republican Party will move towards being a sort of Dixiecrat party and the party of the reactionaries. The neo-Confederates might find a role in this Republican party or they might find that they are on the outside and the Republican party has stolen some of their themes. I think that the Council of Conservative Citizens will find that they
are inside the Republican party, but the League of the South (LOS) will find they are competing with a Republican Party that has taken for themselves policies from the LOS agenda. This doesn't preclude that there will be Republicans seeking their endorsement.

I don't think it is impossible that some Republicans will run for office flying Confederate flags, at least in the primaries. In 2012 I think there will be more than one Republican presidential candidate endorsing the Confederate flag in South Carolina. Barbour ran for governor of Mississippi with the Confederate flag even though there was a national Republican establishment that had real strength. On the other hand, I have a hunch that Palin won't be communicating much, if at all, with the Alaska Independence Party in the future. They won't fit into her plans unless secession becomes big in the Republican base.

In summary, I think we are going to see a Republican party going reactionary, and picking up agenda items that the neo-Confederates support. Neo-Confederates may find influence within the Republican party in the former Confederate states. In other cases neo-Confederate groups may find they are marginalized because the Republicans have picked up their agenda items. I also see in some of the former Confederate states a Republican politics that is shrill and angry.

This is of course just one possible future. If Obama and the Democrats get the economy going again soon, it will difuse a lot of discontent. The national Republican establishment does have a lot of the potential campaign money and they will be organizing to prevent a reactionary shift in the Republican party.

Max Blumenthal on Radio Program "Democracy Now" on Sarah Palin and the neo-Confederate Alaska Independence Party.

The radio interview is online at this link:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/13/max_blumenthal_on_sarah_palins_radical

Transcript of the radio interview is here:

http://maxblumenthal.com/2008/10/palintology-on-democracy-now/

Article on the Neo-Confederacy of the Alaska Independence Party

As I think almost everyone knows, Sarah Palin has spoken to the convention of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) praising them in a video she sent to their convention.

This article by Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert describes the AIP party and the beliefs of its members. They have a neo-Confederate view of the Civil War. The article is at this link.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/

This isn't surprising since the AIP is the Alaska branch of the Constitution Party which is an organization of Christian Reconstructionists and Christian Reconstructionists have a neo-Confederate view of American history. The two movements have a lot of overlap in beliefs and individual members. My co-author and I have an article on Confederate Christian nationalism at this link.

http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf

It is a milestone for mainstreaming neo-Confederacy in that a Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican party is involved with and a supporter of a neo-Confederate secessionist group.

I plan to blog on the financial crisis and the neo-Confederates, but want to get this posted first.

Why the Voting Rights Act is still needed

The following news article will make it clear why the Voting Rights Act is still needed.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5992338.html

Neo-Confederates constantly complain about the Voting Rights Act and come up with rationalizations and clever arguments as to why it isn't needed.

HP Note book screen black outs./Some recovery procedures.

I have a Hewlett-Packard notebook computer. The screen unpredictably blacks out.

Evidently there is a class-action lawsuit regarding this at this link.

http://www.download3k.com/Press-Consumer-Files-Class-Action-Alleging-Defective-HP.html

Some may ask why I bought an HP notebook computer at all, given HP's other products. The reason was that I needed a computer and at that time Dell had problems with delivery. That is you paid your money and the computer didn't show up. It seems they couldn't get the computer out the door in their factories. I think that when you purchase a computer they should actually deliver the computer.

To get out of this don't just turn off the computer. Evidently there is some dim screen lighting in some situations and you should turn off the lights in the room so you can see the screen and then reboot. Some say they can see the screen with a flashlight. So with a flashlight you could read the screen and reboot. Next time I have the HP screen black out I will try both methods and report back.

When rebooting with Vista you can do chores like wash the dishes, clean up around the room, pay bills, make coffee, fold laundry or vacuum a room.

Would I wish HP computers on my worst enemy? Well yes I would. Neo-Confederates please purchase HP computers. While you are at it purchase Vista also. Well maybe I should not recommend getting either one, I am feeling guilty already. So maybe I wouldn't wish either HP or Vista on my worst enemy.

One time I did try to call HP help. The phone call didn't get far since the person on the other end of the line really didn't seem to understand spoken English and after three or four attempts at reciting my phone number and getting it understood I gave up. I have standard American pronunciation. I am sure some spokesperson from HP will say "blah blah blah" and have some Powerpoint presentation on how their service is so great.

I work with engineers and technicians from around the world, sometimes in web conferences and I hear heavily accented speech and can get by. So I know the difference between a heavy accent and novel pronunciations and just not being able to speak English.

Sarah Palin Secessionist?

This is a rush posting of an important development.

Google Blog alert tipped me off to one blog which tipped me off to another blog which had documentation of Sarah Palin being involved with the Alaska Independence Party. They claim she was a member. I haven't had time to check all this out. However, there is a You Tube video with her talking about the Alaska Independence Party.

This is the link. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/1/4231/18477

This is another link with the videos:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_alaska_independence_party.php

This is the website for the Alaska Independence Party:

http://www.akip.org/

The conservative Telegraph in Britain reports on it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2667214/John-McCains-running-mate-Sarah-Palin-was-in-Alaskan-independence-party.html

I will be watching what this group's response will be.

http://www.vermontrepublic.org/

and this group's

http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/

John McCain's idiotic choice will encourage all these types of groups, especially if he doesn't drop her from his ticket.

"Southern Partisan" and McCain in the News.

Quick blog here.

KPFA Los Angeles has an interview with Irwin Tang about John McCain's racism.

Richard Quinn and Southern Partisan comes up in the interview as well as McCain's support for George Wallace Jr. who speaks to the Council of Conservative Citizens.

The link is here:

http://ia311226.us.archive.org/2/items/DailyDigest_08_27_08/2008_08_27_tang.mp3

I wonder who gave Irwin Tang the information about the Southern Partisan?

An amusing You Tube video.

I came across this You Tube Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQZCoA_T_zM

How the South Was Lost - Anniversary Edition

I think it is a great satirization of patriotic speech that is used to get people to go to war and get themselves killed. Also, secondarily it is a satirization of Lost Cause rationalizations.

Divisions in the Confederacy: Racism is key element of Lost Cause memory erasing memory of divisions.

This is an interesting article at the "Atlantic Constitution."

http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/stories/2008/08/24/south_confederacy_civil.html

It is titled, "Historian suggests Southerners defeated Confederacy." What the historian points out is that a lot of Southerners didn't support the Confederacy, but generations later the memory of that opposition was erased in support of white supremacy.

I wonder how many Southerners will discover their ancestors opposed the Confederacy and adopt that historical memory in defining themselves.

In reading about this book I can also see why the Sons of Confederate Veterans don't consider or review whether a Confederate ancestor was also a deserter as well as a veteran. It might thin the ranks down a lot.

I think I will purchase a copy, "Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War," by David Williamas.