Here is the agenda for CPAC on Thursday.
http://66.147.244.188/~conserz8/cpac/
There is an article on CPAC and the neo-Confederate extremists by Max Blumenthal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/feeling-the-hate-at-cpac_b_474077.html
At CPAC there was Thomas DiLorenzo on Lincoln. Thomas Woods, leading neo-Confederate, had a session on nullification. Andrew Napolitano was their also.
Ron Paul, of the Libertarian wing of the neo-Confederate moment won the straw poll, though it is questioned what this straw poll represents. However, the fact that Ron Paul could win any poll at a political event says something about the event.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The 2010 Letter to President Obama is online now.
The contents of the letter can be reached through the Arlington Confederate Monument blog at this URL.
http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/
Look for it at the side bar on the blog as well as a blog entry.
http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/
Look for it at the side bar on the blog as well as a blog entry.
New post at the Arlington Confederate Monument blog
http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/
It is about an excellent book that I am about finished reading.
It is about an excellent book that I am about finished reading.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Was Lincoln a Communist? SCV Neo-Confederates think so.
The Southern Mercury was published by FPAC, "the educational foundation of the Sons of Confederate Veterans." They stopped publishing since they ran out of funds to do so. The Southern Mercury published many extremist articles. The material they published in this periodical was material they thought would educate their members.
One of the cover articles for the March/April 2008 issue of the Southern Mercury is "Republican Party: Red From the Start," by Alan Stang, ( http://www.alanstang.com/), and the article asserts that the Republican party was a communist conspiracy from the beginning. [Southern Mercury, Vol. 6 No. 2, March/April 2008, pages 26-29.]
The article is a review of "Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln's Marxists," by Al Benson and Walter D. Kennedy, leading neo-Confederate. (http://olesouthbooks.com/kennedy_brothers/red_republicans.php) or (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm). It is a book that asserts that there was some type of communist conspiracy. As Stang explains [Page 27]:
"Even a brief perusal through Red Republicans will verify the idea that the Republican party has been Communist since its inception."
Another excerpts from page 27:
"... Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a 'Civil' War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals."
We learn on page 28 that "The GOP Convention of 1860 took place in Chicago, a flaming center of German Communism."
On page 29 Stang explains that:
"So again, the Republican Party did not 'go wrong.' It was rotten from the start. It has never been anything else but red. The the characterization of Republican states as 'red states' is quite appropriate"
Somehow this leads to Alan Stang discussing that Ron Paul isn't a communist, but has to run as a Republican and but that Ron Paul is against Red Republicanism. Dr. Paul is alleged to be a true Democrat but not a modern communist Democrat as he explains on page 29.
"Dr. Paul is much more a traditional Democrat. I refer of course to the Democrat Party before the Communist takeover, which began with the election of Woodrow (Federal Reserve -Income Tax-World War I) Wilson and was consummated with the election of liar, swindler, thief, traitor, and mass murderer Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
In the end notes for the article, the reader is urged to visit http://www.alanstang.com/ for additional articles.
So I did and looked at the books he writes and has for sale.
Alan Stang sees many conspiracies in the Republican party and is the author of a book, "Not Holier Than Though" (http://alanstang.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=15&zenid=8345353ecd6ab41c78def320548c1822) which asserts that George W. Bush and Karl Rove "have colluded to make the Republican Party a sodomite organization from the top down."
One of the cover articles for the March/April 2008 issue of the Southern Mercury is "Republican Party: Red From the Start," by Alan Stang, ( http://www.alanstang.com/), and the article asserts that the Republican party was a communist conspiracy from the beginning. [Southern Mercury, Vol. 6 No. 2, March/April 2008, pages 26-29.]
The article is a review of "Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln's Marxists," by Al Benson and Walter D. Kennedy, leading neo-Confederate. (http://olesouthbooks.com/kennedy_brothers/red_republicans.php) or (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm). It is a book that asserts that there was some type of communist conspiracy. As Stang explains [Page 27]:
"Even a brief perusal through Red Republicans will verify the idea that the Republican party has been Communist since its inception."
Another excerpts from page 27:
"... Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a 'Civil' War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals."
We learn on page 28 that "The GOP Convention of 1860 took place in Chicago, a flaming center of German Communism."
On page 29 Stang explains that:
"So again, the Republican Party did not 'go wrong.' It was rotten from the start. It has never been anything else but red. The the characterization of Republican states as 'red states' is quite appropriate"
Somehow this leads to Alan Stang discussing that Ron Paul isn't a communist, but has to run as a Republican and but that Ron Paul is against Red Republicanism. Dr. Paul is alleged to be a true Democrat but not a modern communist Democrat as he explains on page 29.
"Dr. Paul is much more a traditional Democrat. I refer of course to the Democrat Party before the Communist takeover, which began with the election of Woodrow (Federal Reserve -Income Tax-World War I) Wilson and was consummated with the election of liar, swindler, thief, traitor, and mass murderer Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
In the end notes for the article, the reader is urged to visit http://www.alanstang.com/ for additional articles.
So I did and looked at the books he writes and has for sale.
Alan Stang sees many conspiracies in the Republican party and is the author of a book, "Not Holier Than Though" (http://alanstang.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=15&zenid=8345353ecd6ab41c78def320548c1822) which asserts that George W. Bush and Karl Rove "have colluded to make the Republican Party a sodomite organization from the top down."
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Sons of Confederate Veterans on Obama as a candidate
The Southern Mercury was published by FPAC, "the educational foundation of the Sons of Confederate Veterans." They stopped publishing since they ran out of funds to do so. The Southern Mercury published many extremist articles. The material they published in this periodical was material they thought would educate their members.
One of these articles is, "Americans Face The Worst Presidential Candidate in History," by Robert Slimp [Southern Mercury, Vol. 6 No. 3, May/June 2008, pages 28-33]. Robert Slimp is a leading figure in the Council of Conservative Citizens, http://www.cofcc.org/.
In the article Slimp is dismayed by all three then presidential contenders, McCain, Clinton and Obama, as he he states towards the conclusion, "I will not attempt here to suggest for whom we should vote in this truly horrible choice of candidates."
Slimp's comments on Obama from pages 32-33 give you an idea of the temper of the whole article. [Errors in the original]
"It is very clear to me that if Barack Obama should be elected President, he would be extremely anti-white and would demand reparations for slavery and press hard for affirmative action to the degree that it would hurt young whites who were seeking jobs or admission to College and Graduate Schools. Even if he were elected, I would think he would be a one term President and the Congressional Republicans with a "corporal's guard' of Democrats would stop most of the radical and unjust laws he would propose. However, I believe that 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 extremely violent nature that would seriously damage race relations in America, and leave entire sections of some of our cities in ruins."
The article concludes with an exhortation to the reader to hold true to the values of Southern heritage which for Slimp includes racial purity as follows in these two excerpts. [Page 33]
"We who have a Southern heritage cannot afford to surrender our history and symbols. One of our greatest United States Senators, Richard Russell of Georgia, said during the debate over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "I believe that we should love all people, regardless of race. We must respect one another. However, we must all be proud of our race and will fight to preserve it. I am not ashamed of my beloved Southland. If there has ever been a land worth saving, in Dixieland, I'll take my stand to live or die for Dixie." [Russell was an opponent of civil rights legislation.]
"'There is a race,' cried Giradeau 'which coming down through the centuries enveloped with antagonistic influences and hostile nationalities, has stood out in perpetual protest against surrendering our principles by amalgamating with other peoples.'" [Giradeau was a famous pro-slavery antebellum theologian.]
This article was followed by another article in the Southern Mercury by Robert Slimp, titled, "Will the 2008 Election Bring the End of the America We Know?" [Southern Mercury, Vol. 6 No. 4, July/August 2008, pages 34-37]
A notable excerpts [page 34]:
"Behind the scenes, the insiders who are paying for the election of both the Republican and Democratic candidates for president and some of the members of Congress, are One Worlders. These are the big international bankers, members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, and others who believe that the quickest way to achieve their aims ..."
Also, unlike the previous article, where Obama is referred to as Senator Obama or Barack Obama, in this article it is always Barack Hussein Obama. Maybe there are two Barack Obama's in the Chicago phone book and Slimp wanted to be clear. The rest of the article is the promotion of other third party Presidential candidates, such as Bob Barr with the libertarians, an extensive discussion of Ron Paul, and Charles Baldwin of the Constitutional Party.
One of these articles is, "Americans Face The Worst Presidential Candidate in History," by Robert Slimp [Southern Mercury, Vol. 6 No. 3, May/June 2008, pages 28-33]. Robert Slimp is a leading figure in the Council of Conservative Citizens, http://www.cofcc.org/.
In the article Slimp is dismayed by all three then presidential contenders, McCain, Clinton and Obama, as he he states towards the conclusion, "I will not attempt here to suggest for whom we should vote in this truly horrible choice of candidates."
Slimp's comments on Obama from pages 32-33 give you an idea of the temper of the whole article. [Errors in the original]
"It is very clear to me that if Barack Obama should be elected President, he would be extremely anti-white and would demand reparations for slavery and press hard for affirmative action to the degree that it would hurt young whites who were seeking jobs or admission to College and Graduate Schools. Even if he were elected, I would think he would be a one term President and the Congressional Republicans with a "corporal's guard' of Democrats would stop most of the radical and unjust laws he would propose. However, I believe that 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 extremely violent nature that would seriously damage race relations in America, and leave entire sections of some of our cities in ruins."
The article concludes with an exhortation to the reader to hold true to the values of Southern heritage which for Slimp includes racial purity as follows in these two excerpts. [Page 33]
"We who have a Southern heritage cannot afford to surrender our history and symbols. One of our greatest United States Senators, Richard Russell of Georgia, said during the debate over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "I believe that we should love all people, regardless of race. We must respect one another. However, we must all be proud of our race and will fight to preserve it. I am not ashamed of my beloved Southland. If there has ever been a land worth saving, in Dixieland, I'll take my stand to live or die for Dixie." [Russell was an opponent of civil rights legislation.]
"'There is a race,' cried Giradeau 'which coming down through the centuries enveloped with antagonistic influences and hostile nationalities, has stood out in perpetual protest against surrendering our principles by amalgamating with other peoples.'" [Giradeau was a famous pro-slavery antebellum theologian.]
This article was followed by another article in the Southern Mercury by Robert Slimp, titled, "Will the 2008 Election Bring the End of the America We Know?" [Southern Mercury, Vol. 6 No. 4, July/August 2008, pages 34-37]
A notable excerpts [page 34]:
"Behind the scenes, the insiders who are paying for the election of both the Republican and Democratic candidates for president and some of the members of Congress, are One Worlders. These are the big international bankers, members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, and others who believe that the quickest way to achieve their aims ..."
Also, unlike the previous article, where Obama is referred to as Senator Obama or Barack Obama, in this article it is always Barack Hussein Obama. Maybe there are two Barack Obama's in the Chicago phone book and Slimp wanted to be clear. The rest of the article is the promotion of other third party Presidential candidates, such as Bob Barr with the libertarians, an extensive discussion of Ron Paul, and Charles Baldwin of the Constitutional Party.
'"You Lie!' United States Congressman Joe Wilson" Confederate Veteran article
Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Lt. Commander-in-Chief R. Michael Givens, in his "Report of the Lt. Commander-in-Chief," has an article in the Jan./Feb. 2010 issue of Confederate Veteran, their official publication, on page 8-9, titled"
"You Lie!": United States Congressman Joe Wilson.
The introduction to the article is as follows:
"Two words heard around the world. Former SCV Compatriot Joe Wilson may been correct in his assessment of President Obama's statements concerning health insurance for immigrants, but that is a discussion for another place and time. What interests me is the consternation caused by someone even pointing out a possible falsehood. One might have thought, by all the fuss that was made, that the Congressman had failed to notice the beautiful garments with which the emperor was clothed. But isn't it really our ancestors, and we their proud progeny, that have been the subjects of the most outlandish lies perpetrated in American history?"
The rest of the article goes on to complain that American history that disagrees with their view point is a lie and discusses Orwell and Hitler and etc.
Of course it goes without saying that the condemnation of Rep. Joe Wilson's behavior during the State of the Nation address is that it is poor manners, out of turn, and inappropriate. The U.S. Congress is where there is supposed to be deliberative discussion, and not a shouting match.
Clearly the SCV is sympathetic to Joe Wilson's action.
This is an earlier post of mine on Joe Wilson's action and what it might portend for Obama's next State of the Union speech. (Check the update where I discuss Joe Wilson's behavior.)
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2009/10/gop-party-going-neo-confederate.html
On Jan. 27, 2010 we will see how the next State of the Union Speech goes, as I posted before, since Joe Wilson's outburst resulted in him getting a torrent of campaign cash, this year there might be multiple outbursts as Republican representatives seek to establish radical credentials and raise campaign cash.
"You Lie!": United States Congressman Joe Wilson.
The introduction to the article is as follows:
"Two words heard around the world. Former SCV Compatriot Joe Wilson may been correct in his assessment of President Obama's statements concerning health insurance for immigrants, but that is a discussion for another place and time. What interests me is the consternation caused by someone even pointing out a possible falsehood. One might have thought, by all the fuss that was made, that the Congressman had failed to notice the beautiful garments with which the emperor was clothed. But isn't it really our ancestors, and we their proud progeny, that have been the subjects of the most outlandish lies perpetrated in American history?"
The rest of the article goes on to complain that American history that disagrees with their view point is a lie and discusses Orwell and Hitler and etc.
Of course it goes without saying that the condemnation of Rep. Joe Wilson's behavior during the State of the Nation address is that it is poor manners, out of turn, and inappropriate. The U.S. Congress is where there is supposed to be deliberative discussion, and not a shouting match.
Clearly the SCV is sympathetic to Joe Wilson's action.
This is an earlier post of mine on Joe Wilson's action and what it might portend for Obama's next State of the Union speech. (Check the update where I discuss Joe Wilson's behavior.)
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2009/10/gop-party-going-neo-confederate.html
On Jan. 27, 2010 we will see how the next State of the Union Speech goes, as I posted before, since Joe Wilson's outburst resulted in him getting a torrent of campaign cash, this year there might be multiple outbursts as Republican representatives seek to establish radical credentials and raise campaign cash.
Lincoln re-enactors being harrassed by the SCV
I have come across two photos and captions in my research of neo-Confederate literature which indicate that the neo-Confederate hostility towards Lincoln is being acted out at public events. In one case with a gun.
In the Jan.-Feb. 2010 issue of the Confederate Veteran, official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, (SCV).
On page 29 is a picture of a elderly Lincoln re-enactor surrounded by SCV re-enactors at the annual Blackstone, Virginia Arts and Crafts and Heritage event. The picture shows the SCV re-enactors giving the Lincoln re-enactor some tickets. The re-enactors are physically much larger than the re-enactor.
The caption explains, "Shown are members of the camp presenting Lincoln with two complimentary tickets to Ford's Theater." The picture is small, but it doesn't look like the Lincoln re-enactor is smiling. Ford's Theater is where Lincoln was assassinated.
On page 31 is a picture of an elderly Lincoln re-enactor sitting in a chair, seemingly unaware that a SCV member is standing behind him in Confederate uniform, with his right arm fully extended with a pistol pointed at the head of the Lincoln re-enactor.
The caption reads, "2nd Lieutenant Reece Clark Craven Camp 1966, Asheboro, NC, participated in a living history at Sunny Slopes Farm Heritage Day on May 2, 2009, where you could have had your picture made with Abe Lincoln (aka Ed Kirkman), Camp Adjutant P. Dwain Roberts stands behind 'Lincoln'!"
Beyond the incidents themselves is the fact that the persons doing these events want them to be known and published and that the editors of the magazine thought they were worthy of being published.
I don't remember seeing pictures like these in earlier issues. Perhaps it is some campaign against Lincoln re-enactors that has just started or perhaps it is just two isolated incidents. However, since these photos were published, I think that other SCV camps will look to emulate them.
I call it harassment since I doubt Lincoln re-enactors really appreciate this.
In the Jan.-Feb. 2010 issue of the Confederate Veteran, official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, (SCV).
On page 29 is a picture of a elderly Lincoln re-enactor surrounded by SCV re-enactors at the annual Blackstone, Virginia Arts and Crafts and Heritage event. The picture shows the SCV re-enactors giving the Lincoln re-enactor some tickets. The re-enactors are physically much larger than the re-enactor.
The caption explains, "Shown are members of the camp presenting Lincoln with two complimentary tickets to Ford's Theater." The picture is small, but it doesn't look like the Lincoln re-enactor is smiling. Ford's Theater is where Lincoln was assassinated.
On page 31 is a picture of an elderly Lincoln re-enactor sitting in a chair, seemingly unaware that a SCV member is standing behind him in Confederate uniform, with his right arm fully extended with a pistol pointed at the head of the Lincoln re-enactor.
The caption reads, "2nd Lieutenant Reece Clark Craven Camp 1966, Asheboro, NC, participated in a living history at Sunny Slopes Farm Heritage Day on May 2, 2009, where you could have had your picture made with Abe Lincoln (aka Ed Kirkman), Camp Adjutant P. Dwain Roberts stands behind 'Lincoln'!"
Beyond the incidents themselves is the fact that the persons doing these events want them to be known and published and that the editors of the magazine thought they were worthy of being published.
I don't remember seeing pictures like these in earlier issues. Perhaps it is some campaign against Lincoln re-enactors that has just started or perhaps it is just two isolated incidents. However, since these photos were published, I think that other SCV camps will look to emulate them.
I call it harassment since I doubt Lincoln re-enactors really appreciate this.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Co-signatures for letter to Obama beginning to come in.
For the rest of the 2010 campaign, I am going to mostly be blogging on the letter to President Obama at http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/. I will only occasionally be blogging on the topic at this blog, and mostly just to refer the reader to the other blog.
People are beginning to co-sign my letter to President Obama. I am not going to have it online right away for reasons that will become obvious later.
Last year the letter campaign was rushed, so we just got co-signers of professors and prominent academics. This year I am broadening it to include community leaders, journalists, and others.
Already some very prominent people have co-signed. As each person signs, I ask for referrals to other persons that they think might sign and also encourage the invididual to forward the letter to those they think might be interested.
The co-signature campaign is on a roll now, and I think we should be able to gather a remarkable number of signatures.
People are beginning to co-sign my letter to President Obama. I am not going to have it online right away for reasons that will become obvious later.
Last year the letter campaign was rushed, so we just got co-signers of professors and prominent academics. This year I am broadening it to include community leaders, journalists, and others.
Already some very prominent people have co-signed. As each person signs, I ask for referrals to other persons that they think might sign and also encourage the invididual to forward the letter to those they think might be interested.
The co-signature campaign is on a roll now, and I think we should be able to gather a remarkable number of signatures.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Update: 2010 Letter to Obama concerning the Arlington Confederate memorial almost ready
We have been going over the 2010 letter to Obama about the Arlington Confederate memorial for the last two weeks and it is going to be ready this week, maybe Tuesday might. I will be gathering signatures starting Wednesday, January 6, 2010. Getting started on this in January should provide us with the opportunity to gather many more signatures than last year.
The letter isn't a repeat of last years letter either, but a whole new approach to the issue.
For those of you who didn't see last year's letter to Obama I have it at the URL below. It mostly concerns itself with the history and meaning of the memorial.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf
Also, this is the report on the 2009 letter to Obama.
http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/2009/10/final-report-on-2009-letter-to.html
I will be tracking developments at this blog.
http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/
UPDATE:
The letter has been finished and is being distributed for signatures. It currently isn't online though. I am circulating privately and in listserves before posting it. It won't be posted in this blog, but on the Arlington Confederate Monument blog, URL given above.
The letter isn't a repeat of last years letter either, but a whole new approach to the issue.
For those of you who didn't see last year's letter to Obama I have it at the URL below. It mostly concerns itself with the history and meaning of the memorial.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf
Also, this is the report on the 2009 letter to Obama.
http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/2009/10/final-report-on-2009-letter-to.html
I will be tracking developments at this blog.
http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/
UPDATE:
The letter has been finished and is being distributed for signatures. It currently isn't online though. I am circulating privately and in listserves before posting it. It won't be posted in this blog, but on the Arlington Confederate Monument blog, URL given above.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
United Daughters of the Confederacy on Christmas Carols that aren't PC, (Politically Confederate)
One of the cover articles of the Nov. 2007, UDC Magazine, the official publication of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) is "Christmas Songs as Union Propaganda." On page 12, Sybil R. Willingham, Historian General of the UDC 2007-2008, has an article titled on that page, "Christmas Songs as Propaganda."
As Willingham explains:
"New Songs have been added over the years, and sometimes writer put their own words, opinions and political views to the Christmas story in an effort to influence the public. Some of our favorite hymns that we enjoy singing today contained controversial verses that have since been removed. Such was the case with the issue of slavery and the looming conflict that threatened to erupt between the North and the South."
Imagine that, someone might think the Christmas spirit is incompatible with slavery!
So what are these Christmas songs with their 'insidious' "Propaganda"?
One is it seems, "It Came Upon a Midnight Clear," published by a Dr. Edmond Sears in 1849 which Willingham claims out has an anti-slavery message in the 2nd verse which is no longer sung as follows:
"Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world hath suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing!
If this is an anti-slavery message, so much the better I would say. Exactly what is controversial about this verse and who would find it controversial?
Another Christmas carol which Willingham sees as Abolitionist propaganda, is "O Holy Night." Willingham refers to a 3rd verse of the song as follows:
Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His Gospel peace.
Chain shall He break for the slave is our brother
And in His Name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
Let all within us praise His holy Name!
If we aren't singing this verse, we should, in my thinking, that is, if you a Christmas singing person. Again, to whom would this be a controversial verse?
Then Willingham moves on to the song "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day" with words written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and set to music by John Baptiste Calkin. The verses she quotes are:
Then from each black, accursed mouth
the cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound the carols drowned
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men
It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn the house-holds born
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men
Then in a section of the article titled "The Songs We Loved" Willingham tells us that the previously mentioned songs were not likely to have been sung in the South during the Civil War, (Especially the one that hadn't been set to music until 1872). She then gives brief histories of songs that didn't have abolitionist backgrounds and suggests.
"As you gather 'round with friends and family this Christmas, perhaps you will join in singing some of the old favorites that our Confederate ancestors sang, too."
Which would exclude Christmas songs written by abolitionists.
Well, if you listen to Christmas carols, try to make these Christmas carols that Willingham calls propaganda to those that you listen to. See if you can find complete versions.
As Willingham explains:
"New Songs have been added over the years, and sometimes writer put their own words, opinions and political views to the Christmas story in an effort to influence the public. Some of our favorite hymns that we enjoy singing today contained controversial verses that have since been removed. Such was the case with the issue of slavery and the looming conflict that threatened to erupt between the North and the South."
Imagine that, someone might think the Christmas spirit is incompatible with slavery!
So what are these Christmas songs with their 'insidious' "Propaganda"?
One is it seems, "It Came Upon a Midnight Clear," published by a Dr. Edmond Sears in 1849 which Willingham claims out has an anti-slavery message in the 2nd verse which is no longer sung as follows:
"Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world hath suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing!
If this is an anti-slavery message, so much the better I would say. Exactly what is controversial about this verse and who would find it controversial?
Another Christmas carol which Willingham sees as Abolitionist propaganda, is "O Holy Night." Willingham refers to a 3rd verse of the song as follows:
Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His Gospel peace.
Chain shall He break for the slave is our brother
And in His Name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
Let all within us praise His holy Name!
If we aren't singing this verse, we should, in my thinking, that is, if you a Christmas singing person. Again, to whom would this be a controversial verse?
Then Willingham moves on to the song "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day" with words written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and set to music by John Baptiste Calkin. The verses she quotes are:
Then from each black, accursed mouth
the cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound the carols drowned
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men
It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn the house-holds born
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men
Then in a section of the article titled "The Songs We Loved" Willingham tells us that the previously mentioned songs were not likely to have been sung in the South during the Civil War, (Especially the one that hadn't been set to music until 1872). She then gives brief histories of songs that didn't have abolitionist backgrounds and suggests.
"As you gather 'round with friends and family this Christmas, perhaps you will join in singing some of the old favorites that our Confederate ancestors sang, too."
Which would exclude Christmas songs written by abolitionists.
Well, if you listen to Christmas carols, try to make these Christmas carols that Willingham calls propaganda to those that you listen to. See if you can find complete versions.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Further Updated, Updated Update on the GOP going neo-Confederate
I want to make it clear that I don't think any of the candidates in the NY 23rd district race are neo-Confederates, at least I haven't come across any evidence. The importance of the 23rd district is that moderates are being driven out of the Republican party and the party is going to drive to the right. In the South I believe that will be a drive into Neo-Confederacy.
This is the latest from http://www.politico.com/ on the NY 23rd District race.
"In shift, GOP leaders embrace Hoffman" at the following URL.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28899.html
This update is to my earlier post on the GOP going neo-Confederate.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2009/10/gop-party-going-neo-confederate.html
It appears that Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate is is climbing in the polls and now is ahead of the Republican party candidate, and tied with the Democratic candidate and appears to have a reasonable chance of winning. House Republicans have suddenly started to support him.
If Hoffman wins, I think that right-wing Republican grass roots, will be emboldened to go after every moderate Republican and people who are not sufficiently right-wing. A big purge may be on the way.
Update:
The moderate Republican has dropped out of the race in the 23rd Congressional District. This is the New York Times article on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01upstate.html?_r=1&hp
Further update:
The Republican party establishment has crumbled, GOP leaders rush to endorse the Conservative party candidate. Title of article is, "A profile in courage, it isn't - GOP latecomers hop on Hoffman bandwagon."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28972_Page2.html
This is the latest from http://www.politico.com/ on the NY 23rd District race.
"In shift, GOP leaders embrace Hoffman" at the following URL.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28899.html
This update is to my earlier post on the GOP going neo-Confederate.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2009/10/gop-party-going-neo-confederate.html
It appears that Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate is is climbing in the polls and now is ahead of the Republican party candidate, and tied with the Democratic candidate and appears to have a reasonable chance of winning. House Republicans have suddenly started to support him.
If Hoffman wins, I think that right-wing Republican grass roots, will be emboldened to go after every moderate Republican and people who are not sufficiently right-wing. A big purge may be on the way.
Update:
The moderate Republican has dropped out of the race in the 23rd Congressional District. This is the New York Times article on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01upstate.html?_r=1&hp
Further update:
The Republican party establishment has crumbled, GOP leaders rush to endorse the Conservative party candidate. Title of article is, "A profile in courage, it isn't - GOP latecomers hop on Hoffman bandwagon."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28972_Page2.html
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
GOP Party going neo-Confederate?, updated 10/31/09
As readers may or may not know, I have speculated about whether neo-Confederacy is going to be mainstreamed into the Republican party.
I have a post on this topic below which refers to all my earlier posts on the topic.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2009/04/republican-party-becoming-confederate.html
In an older post I discussed a possible mechanism that would drive the Republicans into extremism and neo-Confederacy. Individual Republican elected officials would have to be concerned that if they didn't shift towards extremism, they would be confronted by and defeated by primary candidates that were shifted towards extremism. The opposing force to this would be the Republican establishment who would see this trend as marginalizing the Republican party. Political parties do come to and end. They may linger for a while, but at a certain point, they cease to be of any importance.
These opposing forces are contenting in the 23rd Congressional District in New York state. I think that this congressional election is of tremendous importance of the Republican party.
These are two blogs on what is happening there.
This article is titled, "NY-23 race first test of tea party power."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28639.html
The Republican candidate there isn't conservative enough, according to a certain faction of the Republican party, so they are backing third party Conservative Candidate Hoffman. It seems it will split conservative and Republican votes and elect a Democrat to Congress. This would be very interesting in itself as a process in which non-right wing Republicans are going to be purged from the Republican party. Another interesting development could be that there would be a Conservative Party congressional representative elected, and he will have a national platform, Congress, to speak out and be heard, and push the rest of the Republicans to the far right.
However, what really caught my attention is that the Republican party establishment is breaking ranks. In this article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28671.html, titled, "Top Republicans jump ship in NY-23," leading national Republicans are listed who are endorsing the Conservative Party candidate against the Republican party candidate. The Republican Party establishment seems to be fracturing and its resistance crumbling.
I think that this fracture in the Republican establishment needs to be understood in the context of other developments. Earlier this year Joe Wilson shouted out "You Lie," at President Obama's presidential address.
Surprisingly neo-Confederates applaud Joe Wilson. They should compare Joe Wilson's behavior to Jefferson Davis "Farewell Address to the Senate." Even though Davis had had highly partisan struggles in the U.S. Senate and knew that likely that he would be at war with many of his fellow Senators shortly in the future his address was a model of courtesy. Address at this link. (http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/resources.cfm?doc_id=1507). Davis at the end of his speech says:
"In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.
Mr. President, and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains to me to bid you a final adieu."
Joe Wilson's comment has lifted him up from obscurity, made him a national conservative hero, and flooded his campaign treasury with money. I can only imagine that there are some other Republican members of Congress who regret not having shouted something during Obama's speech and yet others who plan to shout something or do something at the next presidential address to Congress. The next Obama speech could turn out to be bedlam as Republican congressional representatives shout out to fill their campaign treasuries, defeat rivals in primaries, and further their national ambitions. In fact, there may be competition to find a pretext to be the first person to shout out so as to appear to be a leader of Republicans shouters. After all if 10 or 15 or 25 Republicans shout out, the potential campaign money and national exposure, will be divided up into small slices. As the leader of the shout out, the representative might get a larger slice of the rewards.
Of course the Republican party establishment might have a counter strategy to address this insurgency and we don't yet perceive it. However, it seems that the shift to extremism is progressing at a fair pace and the 2010 elections are still a long ways away.
Some Democrats are observing this with smugness, already counting the votes that will be driven into the Democratic party by a Republican party going off to the extremes. That is a short sighted view of the matter. Having a large national extremist party could results in a very unpleasant surprise in the future.
Update:
The moderate Republican candidate has dropped out in the 23rd district in New York, leaving the Congressional election between a Democrat and a member of the Conservative Party. This is the news item at the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01upstate.html
I have a post on this topic below which refers to all my earlier posts on the topic.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2009/04/republican-party-becoming-confederate.html
In an older post I discussed a possible mechanism that would drive the Republicans into extremism and neo-Confederacy. Individual Republican elected officials would have to be concerned that if they didn't shift towards extremism, they would be confronted by and defeated by primary candidates that were shifted towards extremism. The opposing force to this would be the Republican establishment who would see this trend as marginalizing the Republican party. Political parties do come to and end. They may linger for a while, but at a certain point, they cease to be of any importance.
These opposing forces are contenting in the 23rd Congressional District in New York state. I think that this congressional election is of tremendous importance of the Republican party.
These are two blogs on what is happening there.
This article is titled, "NY-23 race first test of tea party power."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28639.html
The Republican candidate there isn't conservative enough, according to a certain faction of the Republican party, so they are backing third party Conservative Candidate Hoffman. It seems it will split conservative and Republican votes and elect a Democrat to Congress. This would be very interesting in itself as a process in which non-right wing Republicans are going to be purged from the Republican party. Another interesting development could be that there would be a Conservative Party congressional representative elected, and he will have a national platform, Congress, to speak out and be heard, and push the rest of the Republicans to the far right.
However, what really caught my attention is that the Republican party establishment is breaking ranks. In this article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28671.html, titled, "Top Republicans jump ship in NY-23," leading national Republicans are listed who are endorsing the Conservative Party candidate against the Republican party candidate. The Republican Party establishment seems to be fracturing and its resistance crumbling.
I think that this fracture in the Republican establishment needs to be understood in the context of other developments. Earlier this year Joe Wilson shouted out "You Lie," at President Obama's presidential address.
Surprisingly neo-Confederates applaud Joe Wilson. They should compare Joe Wilson's behavior to Jefferson Davis "Farewell Address to the Senate." Even though Davis had had highly partisan struggles in the U.S. Senate and knew that likely that he would be at war with many of his fellow Senators shortly in the future his address was a model of courtesy. Address at this link. (http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/resources.cfm?doc_id=1507). Davis at the end of his speech says:
"In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.
Mr. President, and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains to me to bid you a final adieu."
Joe Wilson's comment has lifted him up from obscurity, made him a national conservative hero, and flooded his campaign treasury with money. I can only imagine that there are some other Republican members of Congress who regret not having shouted something during Obama's speech and yet others who plan to shout something or do something at the next presidential address to Congress. The next Obama speech could turn out to be bedlam as Republican congressional representatives shout out to fill their campaign treasuries, defeat rivals in primaries, and further their national ambitions. In fact, there may be competition to find a pretext to be the first person to shout out so as to appear to be a leader of Republicans shouters. After all if 10 or 15 or 25 Republicans shout out, the potential campaign money and national exposure, will be divided up into small slices. As the leader of the shout out, the representative might get a larger slice of the rewards.
Of course the Republican party establishment might have a counter strategy to address this insurgency and we don't yet perceive it. However, it seems that the shift to extremism is progressing at a fair pace and the 2010 elections are still a long ways away.
Some Democrats are observing this with smugness, already counting the votes that will be driven into the Democratic party by a Republican party going off to the extremes. That is a short sighted view of the matter. Having a large national extremist party could results in a very unpleasant surprise in the future.
Update:
The moderate Republican candidate has dropped out in the 23rd district in New York, leaving the Congressional election between a Democrat and a member of the Conservative Party. This is the news item at the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01upstate.html
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mississippi Prosecutor in Curtis Flowers' trial, first got elected by campaigning at a Council of Conservative Citizens meeting.
I provided the key information about Evans and the Council of Conservative Citizens (http://www.cofcc.org/) for the Friends of Justice at this URL.
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/doug-evans-and-the-mississippi-mainstream/
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/doug-evans-and-the-mississippi-mainstream/
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Neo-Confederate myth or not?
You can find it all over the web in neo-Confederate writing about a supposed Senate Joint Resolution No. 41 passed on March 2, 1928 that supposedly is an endorsement of the expression "War Between the States." It is supposedly in the Congressional Record.
Well I checked the Congressional Record for March 2, 1928. There is a Senate Joint Resolution No. 41. It is however, about recompensing the State of Nevada for expenses it incurred as a territory during the Civil War on behalf of the national government. The text of the resolution is not in the report, just an amendment to the text.
This is the usual claim:
"On March 2, 1928, Senate Joint Resolution NO. 41 was adopted by Congress and entered in the Congressional Record. It reads as follows: A war was waged between 1861-1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties. It was not a "Civil War" as it was not fought between two parties within the same government. It was not a War of Secession, for the Southern States seceded without a thought of war. The right of a state to secede had never been questioned. It was not a War of Rebellion, for sovereign, independent states, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other. It was the War Between the States, because 22 non seceding states made war upon 11 seceding states to force them back into the Union of States""
However, the text isn't in the Congressional Record. It might be in the Joint Resolution, but it isn't in the Congressional Record, there is just an amendment to it. And the resolution is about a Nevada state claim.
I used Hein's electronic source for the Congressional Record, and looked at the previous and next Congressional session. I looked at the Statues at Large and it wasn't in it.
Perhaps something got put in the Nevada State claims resolution, but the resolution isn't in the Congressional Record as claimed by the neo-Confederates. I am beginning to wonder if the whole thing isn't made up. It would be very convenient to make a claim about a resolution that can't be found or found easily.
Well I checked the Congressional Record for March 2, 1928. There is a Senate Joint Resolution No. 41. It is however, about recompensing the State of Nevada for expenses it incurred as a territory during the Civil War on behalf of the national government. The text of the resolution is not in the report, just an amendment to the text.
This is the usual claim:
"On March 2, 1928, Senate Joint Resolution NO. 41 was adopted by Congress and entered in the Congressional Record. It reads as follows: A war was waged between 1861-1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties. It was not a "Civil War" as it was not fought between two parties within the same government. It was not a War of Secession, for the Southern States seceded without a thought of war. The right of a state to secede had never been questioned. It was not a War of Rebellion, for sovereign, independent states, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other. It was the War Between the States, because 22 non seceding states made war upon 11 seceding states to force them back into the Union of States""
However, the text isn't in the Congressional Record. It might be in the Joint Resolution, but it isn't in the Congressional Record, there is just an amendment to it. And the resolution is about a Nevada state claim.
I used Hein's electronic source for the Congressional Record, and looked at the previous and next Congressional session. I looked at the Statues at Large and it wasn't in it.
Perhaps something got put in the Nevada State claims resolution, but the resolution isn't in the Congressional Record as claimed by the neo-Confederates. I am beginning to wonder if the whole thing isn't made up. It would be very convenient to make a claim about a resolution that can't be found or found easily.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Max Blumenthal has article on Joe Wilson and the SCV
The article is online at the Daily Beast at:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-11/joe-wilsons-rebel-yell/
Yours truly is mentioned.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-11/joe-wilsons-rebel-yell/
Yours truly is mentioned.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Preston Brooks lives
During Obama's speech, Joe Wilson shouts out that Obama was a liar.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/joe.wilson/
Turns out that Joe Wilson has apologized.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/joe.wilson/
Turns out that Joe Wilson has apologized.
Monday, August 31, 2009
"White Metropolis" a history of Dallas by Michael Phillips
I finished this last weekend reading "White Metropolis," which is a history of Dallas, by Michael Phillips and published by the University of Texas Press. I strongly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the history of Dallas, and anyone who wished to understand how race can be used to pit one group against the other for the advantage of a ruling elite.
The web page for the book is at http://www.whitemetropolis.com/
The university press web page for the book is:
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/phiwhi.html
At this page you can browse the book.
I have been aware of different aspects of Dallas history as I have done my researches, but I never had the complete picture. This book gives a fairly complete picture. Also it is not a book of Dallas historical curiosities or a book of Dallas boosterism.
I especially liked his "caustic" review of some of the Dallas histories. Bad history needs to be publicly challenged and historians engaging in boosterism need to get castigated.
Since the Dallas elite has used race successfully to defeat democracy, I think that anyone living anywhere who is a supporter of democracy would find this book worth reading.
For your amusement, a local Dallas crackpot, Sharon Boyd, has her take on the book.
http://www.dallasarena.com/r060410.htm
The web page for the book is at http://www.whitemetropolis.com/
The university press web page for the book is:
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/phiwhi.html
At this page you can browse the book.
I have been aware of different aspects of Dallas history as I have done my researches, but I never had the complete picture. This book gives a fairly complete picture. Also it is not a book of Dallas historical curiosities or a book of Dallas boosterism.
I especially liked his "caustic" review of some of the Dallas histories. Bad history needs to be publicly challenged and historians engaging in boosterism need to get castigated.
Since the Dallas elite has used race successfully to defeat democracy, I think that anyone living anywhere who is a supporter of democracy would find this book worth reading.
For your amusement, a local Dallas crackpot, Sharon Boyd, has her take on the book.
http://www.dallasarena.com/r060410.htm
Monday, August 03, 2009
Birthers and Neo-Confederates, Obama's safety
I have gotten interested in tracking the Birther phenomenon recently. Mostly as an amusing freak show. My mother never allowed us to go to see the alligator boy when when we would visit the State Fair. Perhaps I am compensating in some way.
The neo-Confederate movement isn't monolithic regarding questioning Obama's birth in Hawaii.
The Council of Conservative Citizens, http://www.cofcc.org/, has been covering doubts about Obama's birthplace since early in 2008 at least. I am not surprised, they are very accepting of wild fringe theories. The League of the South hasn't covered it, but they aren't denying it either. This is the link to Tuggle's League of the South blog on the topic. http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2009/07/where-was-obama-born.html
Tuggle side steps the issue by saying it isn't important. Though in the comments for the blog, he states that Obama's birth is something that can't be proven and is a waste of time pursing. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7205107949341817795&postID=1041010766453363565
I think Tuggle is afraid of offending the birther movement which as I will document here on this blog seems to comprise a lot of his potential base, but he also doesn't want to discredit the League of the South.
I wonder if there couldn't be a contest for the wackiest birther theory. For example, someone could theorize, the REAL Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but he was replaced by an alien, and they can't release his other birth certificate since it would show some discrepancy and reveal Obama to be an alien. Here you have merged UFO conspiracy theories and birther theories.
Well, back to seriously considering the birthers. There seems to be mainstreaming of birther opinion in the South according to a Daily Kos poll: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760087/-Birthers-are-mostly-Republican-and-Southern
According to the Kos poll, break down of opinion on Obama's birth in the South is that 23% don't think he is born in Hawaii, 30% aren't sure, and 47% believe he is born in Hawaii.
The obvious further analysis has been done, since African Americans, Hispanics, and other minority voters by a very high percentage don't believe in birther theories, that means that the percentage of whites in the South who believe in birther theories or have doubts on the President's citizenship may be higher than 70%. This is again another manifestation of popular Confederate culture in the South.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53396/how-many-southern-whites-believe-obama-was-born-in-america
I think you could further argue that southern white democrats largely don't believe in birther theories, so the percentage of southern white Republicans who either doubt Obama's birth or don't believe he is born in Hawaii must be very high indeed.
Nationally the results for the Republicans break down to 42 percent who believe he was born in Hawaii, 28% how believe a birther theory, and 30% who have doubts on Obama's birth.
I think that for a large fraction of the public, they simply can't accept that there is a black president, someone who might call a white police officer's actions "stupid." They are becoming unhinged. Their banal white nationalism is surfacing. The following is my article on banal white nationalism. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm
I would like to see some other polls to confirm these percentages reported by the Daily Kos poll, I suspect that the percentages of white southerners believing in brither theories would still be substantial.
These high numbers explain why some Republican elected representatives, right wing websites, and broadcast conservatives have pandered to them. I leave you to read who and what elsewhere on the web. Though I should state that some prominent conservatives have spoken out against this. I think some conservatives calculate that the birther movement could pull down conservatism in general. These stories discuss the problem of the birthers for the Republicans.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25625.html
Here is a video of birthers taking over a town hall meeting of a Republican congressional representative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc It has been viewed at this time by nearly 800,000 people.
When talk radio, Republican congressional representatives, television commentators pander to them, it certainly must embolden the birthers.
Suddenly this birther movement isn't so funny. The birther movement with this extent of public support are no longer a tiny minority of harmless cranks, but a serious threat to the public peace.
If a person doesn't believe that Obama is legally president of the United States, what would be the possible logical consequences for that person. It might be quiet alienation from the government and the cessation of patriotic feeling for the United States of America, but I think that given who the birthers are, they will undertake an program of actions. I think birthers will be embolden by the fact that they are not a tiny fringe group, and in some places in the country a sizable fraction of the public. This could have alarming consequences.
Given the ridiculousness of the birthers arguments, many people seem to view the birthers as a great opportunity for mirth and embarrassment of the Republicans as their pandering to them is caught out, but not as a serious threat. However, just because an idea or belief system is ridiculous, don't meant that it can't be the basis of a major movement or have widespread support. Look at the percentages of people who don't believe in evolution or that the earth is immensely old, and the harassment of the school biology textbook publishers. If a significant fraction of people believe in the birther theories, then the movement is significant and can have real impact.
What are the birthers likely to do next? One thing is that they are forming "citizen grand juries" to indict Obama of various crimes and ask that officials prosecute Obama. Here is an article on these "citizen grand juries" at World Net Daily, a far right website which had been beating the drum for the birther theories. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93481 here is a You Tube "citizen grand jury."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q5VbkAFFpM.
If an attorney for a county or city or some Southern state is in the situation that he or she will certainly lose the next Republican primary election if they dismiss the claims of these "citizen grand juries" what might their actions? If they do dismiss the claims of these "citizen grand jury" and lose the election because of it, what might be the actions of an attorney who won on the basis of supporting the claims of the "citizen grand juries"?
Also, what might be the actions of Republican state representatives and state senators when they face the 2010 Republican primary in Southern states?
The neo-Confederate movement isn't monolithic regarding questioning Obama's birth in Hawaii.
The Council of Conservative Citizens, http://www.cofcc.org/, has been covering doubts about Obama's birthplace since early in 2008 at least. I am not surprised, they are very accepting of wild fringe theories. The League of the South hasn't covered it, but they aren't denying it either. This is the link to Tuggle's League of the South blog on the topic. http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2009/07/where-was-obama-born.html
Tuggle side steps the issue by saying it isn't important. Though in the comments for the blog, he states that Obama's birth is something that can't be proven and is a waste of time pursing. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7205107949341817795&postID=1041010766453363565
I think Tuggle is afraid of offending the birther movement which as I will document here on this blog seems to comprise a lot of his potential base, but he also doesn't want to discredit the League of the South.
I wonder if there couldn't be a contest for the wackiest birther theory. For example, someone could theorize, the REAL Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but he was replaced by an alien, and they can't release his other birth certificate since it would show some discrepancy and reveal Obama to be an alien. Here you have merged UFO conspiracy theories and birther theories.
Well, back to seriously considering the birthers. There seems to be mainstreaming of birther opinion in the South according to a Daily Kos poll: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760087/-Birthers-are-mostly-Republican-and-Southern
According to the Kos poll, break down of opinion on Obama's birth in the South is that 23% don't think he is born in Hawaii, 30% aren't sure, and 47% believe he is born in Hawaii.
The obvious further analysis has been done, since African Americans, Hispanics, and other minority voters by a very high percentage don't believe in birther theories, that means that the percentage of whites in the South who believe in birther theories or have doubts on the President's citizenship may be higher than 70%. This is again another manifestation of popular Confederate culture in the South.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53396/how-many-southern-whites-believe-obama-was-born-in-america
I think you could further argue that southern white democrats largely don't believe in birther theories, so the percentage of southern white Republicans who either doubt Obama's birth or don't believe he is born in Hawaii must be very high indeed.
Nationally the results for the Republicans break down to 42 percent who believe he was born in Hawaii, 28% how believe a birther theory, and 30% who have doubts on Obama's birth.
I think that for a large fraction of the public, they simply can't accept that there is a black president, someone who might call a white police officer's actions "stupid." They are becoming unhinged. Their banal white nationalism is surfacing. The following is my article on banal white nationalism. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm
I would like to see some other polls to confirm these percentages reported by the Daily Kos poll, I suspect that the percentages of white southerners believing in brither theories would still be substantial.
These high numbers explain why some Republican elected representatives, right wing websites, and broadcast conservatives have pandered to them. I leave you to read who and what elsewhere on the web. Though I should state that some prominent conservatives have spoken out against this. I think some conservatives calculate that the birther movement could pull down conservatism in general. These stories discuss the problem of the birthers for the Republicans.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25625.html
Here is a video of birthers taking over a town hall meeting of a Republican congressional representative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc It has been viewed at this time by nearly 800,000 people.
When talk radio, Republican congressional representatives, television commentators pander to them, it certainly must embolden the birthers.
Suddenly this birther movement isn't so funny. The birther movement with this extent of public support are no longer a tiny minority of harmless cranks, but a serious threat to the public peace.
If a person doesn't believe that Obama is legally president of the United States, what would be the possible logical consequences for that person. It might be quiet alienation from the government and the cessation of patriotic feeling for the United States of America, but I think that given who the birthers are, they will undertake an program of actions. I think birthers will be embolden by the fact that they are not a tiny fringe group, and in some places in the country a sizable fraction of the public. This could have alarming consequences.
Given the ridiculousness of the birthers arguments, many people seem to view the birthers as a great opportunity for mirth and embarrassment of the Republicans as their pandering to them is caught out, but not as a serious threat. However, just because an idea or belief system is ridiculous, don't meant that it can't be the basis of a major movement or have widespread support. Look at the percentages of people who don't believe in evolution or that the earth is immensely old, and the harassment of the school biology textbook publishers. If a significant fraction of people believe in the birther theories, then the movement is significant and can have real impact.
What are the birthers likely to do next? One thing is that they are forming "citizen grand juries" to indict Obama of various crimes and ask that officials prosecute Obama. Here is an article on these "citizen grand juries" at World Net Daily, a far right website which had been beating the drum for the birther theories. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93481 here is a You Tube "citizen grand jury."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q5VbkAFFpM.
If an attorney for a county or city or some Southern state is in the situation that he or she will certainly lose the next Republican primary election if they dismiss the claims of these "citizen grand juries" what might their actions? If they do dismiss the claims of these "citizen grand jury" and lose the election because of it, what might be the actions of an attorney who won on the basis of supporting the claims of the "citizen grand juries"?
Also, what might be the actions of Republican state representatives and state senators when they face the 2010 Republican primary in Southern states?
What happens if the birthers decided to send a posse of 100 or more to arrest Obama on their own authority when he is visiting their town or locality? What if they are armed? What if it happens in a town where a very high percentage have birther views? What is the safety of Obama if a majority of the police in that town have birther views? Or the mayor and city council members can expect that by opposing the birthers it will lead to their losing the next election by a sizable margin?
If this birther delusion persists over the coming months, represents a sizable fraction of the Republican base and becomes a threat to Republican office holders winning the primaries, it might be possible that the Republican party will succumb to it, as well as the conservative media. The Republican party has a shrunken base and it and the conservative movement in general is seeking a direction for the future, so it is vulnerable to movements like the birthers.
This birther movement comes at a time of national crisis and stress as unemployment continues to climb and jobless benefits will start running out for millions.
Of course it could be that the birther movement will be laughed off the national political scene and become a marginal phenomenon and largely profit the Democrats by tarnishing the reputation of the Republican party and conservatism in general. However, if it doesn't become marginal, if the Daily Kos poll numbers are largely true, and there is a mainstreaming of the birther movement among white Republican southerners, developments could be quote alarming.
I think it is time for less laughing and more apprehension. Remember what happened the last time in the South when the "Bottom rail was on top."
Monday, July 27, 2009
"Voluntary Slavery Contracts" the Buffoonery of LewRockwell.com
This silliness passes for critical thought at www.lewrockwell.com. The specific article is at this link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html
The first part is some rational for privatizing rivers and the second half is for "voluntary slavery contracts" which Block defends.
Professor Block is not some professor at some private unaccredited institution, he is a professor at Loyal University in New Orleans and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
The first part is some rational for privatizing rivers and the second half is for "voluntary slavery contracts" which Block defends.
Professor Block is not some professor at some private unaccredited institution, he is a professor at Loyal University in New Orleans and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
