When did white nationalism become a constitutionally protected class?

The League of the South meets in a Faulkner County Public Library meeting room. (Image courtesy of Facebook)




That's right folks. Apparently, white nationalism is the newest constitutionally protected class. At least it would appear so, as the white nationalist hate group, the League of the South took advantage of the meeting rooms at the Faulkner County Public Library in Arkansas this weekend.




(Image courtesy of the Faulkner-Van Buren Regional Library System)




According to the Libraries webpage, "the library will not discriminate on the basis of any constitutionally protected classes." Thank goodness. White nationalism clearly needs to be afforded all of the same rights as any other legitimate community organization (heavy sarcasm). See a copy of the Application for Facility Reservation below.





(All images courtesy of the Faulkner-Van Buren Regional Library System)





Keep in mind that the "library board reserves the right to review, accept, or reject any or all applications that fail to comply with the above rules." It is unclear at this time if hate group status is taken into consideration during the approval process or not. It is also unclear if the library system takes into consideration the personal character of attendees, such as Jeremy Walls, of Guntown, Mississippi, before approving meeting spaces for events.






Jeremy Walls of Guntown, Mississippi, at left, unhooded. (Image courtesy of Twitter)





Take it from Auntie Ruckus, these people have legal rights!






(Image courtesy of Facebook)




LOSers do love their libraries...






Restoring the honor!









Comments

  1. Don't worry, Jacob. White-skinned blonds are being marginalized and dehumanized in Germany, in preparation for Europe being "no longer white" (that's called genocide, Jacob, like it or not. Whether an ethnic group is targeted for elimination by mass murder, or replacement by immigration, it's still genocide.) How long before it travels across the pond to the USA? Can't wait, can you?

    From an ultra-leftwing publication that nevertheless influences the German government....

    Some of the warnings about white, blond "right-wingers" in this article are ludicrous. They are "inconspicuous, blond, cute and engaged”, it sez. They are "nice and dedicated” (gasp! How eeeeeee-villle!) They "seem normal." Children from rightwing families are “'very obedient' and might not talk much." "... a sinister aspect of right-wing parenting is that they instil self-confidence in their progeny." "They do this ... in hope that 'their offspring will later confidently carry their ideology into the world'”.

    "...'right-wing kids' are aware that they should keep their family lives private, but she adds that a telltale sign of right-wing extremism is that there are usually no American logos on their parents’ clothing." (Leftism turns brains to mush ... this is proof.)

    “'accurate braids and long skirts' serve as a warning sign that a child has right-wing parents."

    "The body (Antonio Amadeus Foundation), was founded, and is run by, ex-Stasi agent Anetta Kahane who has declared it vital for the European Union to change its immigration policy in order to turn the continent non-white."

    (Why? Why must white people be wiped out in Europe? They evolved there naturally. They have a right to exist. Do you agree, or not, Jacob? Dimmy? Scott? Do you think the existence of white people, especially if they are "right wing" -- however these idiots in Germany define that -- is "white supremacy and should be wiped out by replacing them non-white population?)

    This "foundation runs the government’s crackdown on people who criticise open door mass migration and the violent behaviour of migrants towards the German people."

    It's wrong to criticize violence toward Germans in Germany ...

    This is why I oppose leftism. No, we can't have intelligent and compassionate opposition to race-based bigotry. We have to have totally insane "anti-racist jackassery."

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/25/blond-cheerful-families-dangerous-right/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm pretty sure open talk of rebellion (even putting a SECEDE sign up), which is exactly what LoSers do, isn't constitutionally protected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get yer popcorn ready:

      http://thecabin.net/latest-news/2016-09-26/library-employee-threatens-group-during-conference#

      Delete
    2. This, just in from John McGraw, Director of the Faulkner County Library System

      "The Faulkner County Library does not discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint with regard to the use of our facilities for public meetings.

      The only staff member on the clock and at the meeting is a librarian who was working the front desk and was asked to intervene in an argument in the meeting room. This she did and returned to the desk. I cannot speak to anything done by employees in their free time."

      Delete
    3. The video is under Jeremy Walls's account. Round and round we go...

      Delete
    4. Scott, most people understand the difference between rebellion (violence) and secede (political), although there is certainly an effort out there to confuse the two and indoctrinate the people with the manipulated language.

      Over the past several years, counties across the country have proposed secession in one form or another. No violence has resulted, and no armies have marched to prevent it. Unless the League is advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government, their secession talk is political, and most certainly protected speech. I don't pay much attention to the League anymore since it became a white rather than Southern nationalist organization, so I don't know if it advocates (political) secession or (violent) rebellion. But it used to be opposed to the federal governments overthrow (violent and otherwise) of the people. I'm still opposed to that....

      Delete
    5. Most people do understand the difference... except them and their secessionist heroes. But, as secession is illegal and it's treason to conspire against the US... well, y'all are the ones that just refuse to grasp it.

      Of course, the US government isn't going to go on a mission snuffing out small pockets of disgruntled white people harmlessly talking about secession. For one, they know the vast majority don't have the actual courage to act on it. Also, they know these things amount to nothing and acting against them could enflame the situation.

      But, I don't think government facilities should be allowed to be used as meeting places for these things. Go to someone's house. Go to a private facility. Our governments shouldn't be providing a platform for these groups.

      They are allowed to say what they want. But, talk of overthrowing the current government is treasonous and punishable. While I agree they won't likely face any repercussions, that doesn't legitimize what they're doing.

      Hey, wait a minute! Aren't you.... >>whoosh!!!<< I swear I know that masked heart rate monitor.

      Delete
    6. I detest the LOS but with that being said I don't think Treason means what you think it means.

      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
      (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
      Notice the word war so talking about secession in its self is not treason taking up arms to make it happen would be if they lost.

      Delete
    7. And by the way Jeremy Walls is cowardly little punk who I have called out and unlike you tough internet warriors I live in Mississippi and I yet to get a response from him.

      Delete
    8. What did you call him out for? I don't think he plays well with others.

      By the way, I owe you an apology for being such a pompous ass about the killing in Charlotte. New info is coming out. I still haven't settled on what I believe, but there is more evidence to weigh. I do typically try to wait to learn more facts before making up my mind, but after that second video was released, it looked pretty clear to me that he wasn't holding a gun. I'm still not totally convinced although as I stated before, I didn't doubt that he was in posession of a weapon, I just questioned if he was holding it when he was shot. Additionally, I do still believe that systemic racism does exist for all of the same reasons I stated before. So, please accept my apology for flying off the handle and calling you a turd.

      Delete
    9. --Part One--

      sledge, secession is illegal? Where do you imagine secession is made illegal?

      The Constitution? Please identify the Article, Section and Paragraph.
      The U.S. Code? Please identify the Title, Part, Chapter and Paragraph.

      If some groups you don't like use meeting places like libraries, it's not your prerogative to tell them they shouldn't.

      Secession is, "The action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/secession

      It is a political act. The word secession does not appear in the Constitution. A search for the word "Secession" in the U.S. Code turns up "No results matched the search criteria." http://bit.ly/2d5B7nc

      Talk of secession is not synonymous with talk of overthrowing the current government.

      Have you even read the statutes about government overthrow? See below -- and note that not only does the word "secession" not show up in these laws -- neither do the words "withdraw" or "separate" as definitions or synonyms of treason.

      So if you're going to claim that secession is illegal, you need to identify the legal document and definition that makes it illegal. You can't just up and decide, just up and make federal law, simply because you THINK something is illegal or treasonous.

      Treason is extremely well defined, over and over, in the U.S. code, and it includes an oft-repeated element or characteristic --

      Here is the search index from the U.S. Code using the search term "Treason." http://bit.ly/2dqIZLu

      ======
      §2381. Treason

      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
      ======
      LEVIES WAR -- that's force/violence.

      (Continued)

      Delete
    10. --Part Two--


      ======
      §2383. Rebellion or insurrection

      Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. http://bit.ly/2cUHOmH
      ======

      Rebellion is defined as: open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler. (Armed resistance.)

      Insurrection is: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government ... and since it is an act of rebellion, it requires armed resistance to be rebellion.

      Armed resistance = force/violence.

      ======
      "§2384. Seditious conspiracy -- If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
      ======

      ...by force ... by force ... by force ... by force ... It says BY FORCE four times in one paragraph.

      Continued...

      Delete
    11. Part Three


      =====
      §2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

      Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

      Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

      Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof-

      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

      If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

      As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
      ======

      ...by force or violence, or assassination ... by force or violence ... by force or violence

      * * * *

      The feds themselves say over and over in their own laws -- FORCE OR VIOLENCE must be a component of criticism of the government, or even of advocating separation from it, to be treason.

      Now, did this League meeting include advocating any force or violence or assassination against the government? Does the League advocate force or violence or assassination in any of its writings? I don't mean some hot-head individual's Facebook comment or whatever, but a document issued by the organization. It didn't used to. It has advocated peaceful secession/separation by a political act (voting for it) since I became aware of it in 1999. If it advocates force, violence or assassination against the government now, that's a new development, and it is indeed treasonous... but I'd have to see the proof. (And I do know the League has advocated self defense, but again, that is not treason.)

      Delete
    12. Show where it is constitutional. You can't. Show where in the ratification debates the claims were made that a state could secede. YOU CAN'T. Instead, you find where the claims were made that secession was not allowed.

      Secession is unconstitutional without the consent of the federal government. That has been decided by a SCOTUS case and the will of the American people. It will not happen again.

      Delete
    13. Not every power reserved to the states is listed, Dimmy. You should know that. You DO know that, don't you, college teacher? If it isn't prohibited to the states by the Constitution, or delegated to the feds by the Constitution, it is a power reserved to the states.

      The enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 are the powers delegated to the feds, specifically to Congress. The power to prohibit secession is not listed.

      The powers prohibited to states are listed in Article I, Section 10. Secession is not on the list, therefore it is not prohibited.

      I know that union worshippers have a huge stake in the fable of the unconstitutionality of secession, because if it is not prohibited by the Constitution (and it is not, as I just demonstrated), the union's savage, inhuman war on the South was unjustified. The union army's brutality was not justified, not even for the false, icky perfume of "freeing slaves."

      As I have stated before, nothing -- not secession, not "preserving the union," not ending slavery, not anything -- justified the union's barbaric war on the South.

      Delete
    14. Nice claim, but the ratification debates prove you to be wrong. You can't show where in the Constitution it says secession is allowed. But then you never can prove anything but your own inability to learn history or use primary sources.

      There was no savage war on the South. There was a rebellion of traitors that was put down. I expect you to continue to lie about this as you always do and make the same claims that have been proven wrong many times. It is your nature to lie and deny.

      Delete
    15. You would do well to actually learn from an expert on the Constitution like Akhil Reed Amar. He offered a free course on the Constitution, actually two of them. He rejects unilateral secession and makes his case pretty clear.

      This is from a site on his Constitution book.

      For one thing, we see that the Constitution has been far more democratic
      than is conventionally understood. Even though the document was drafted
      by white landholders, a remarkably large number of citizens (by the
      standards of 1787) were allowed to vote up or down on it, and the
      document’s later amendments eventually extended the vote to virtually all
      Americans.
      We also learn that the Founders’ Constitution was far more slavocratic
      than many would acknowledge: the “three fifths” clause gave the South
      extra political c lout for every slave it owned or acquired. As a result,
      slaveholding Virginians held the presidency all but four of the Republic’s first thirty-six years, and proslavery forces eventually came to dominate much of the federal government prior to Lincoln’s election.
      Ambitious, even-handed, eminently accessible, and often surprising,
      America’s Constitution is an indispensable work, bound to become a
      standard reference for any student of history and all citizens of the United States.
      From the Hardcover edition.
      My Personal Review:
      Amar explains in his postscript that his aim in writing this book was to offer a comprehensive account of Americas Constitution, introducing the reader both to the legal text (and its consequences) and to the political deeds that gave rise to that text. He has achieved this aim splendidly. This phrase-by-phrase guided tour through the document never fails to inform and provoke, whether or not one agrees with its author (and I don't always). It's also a very approachable book, in terms of both style and content. The knowledge base assumed here is considerable, but not forbidding: anybody with a good working knowledge of the Seven Articles and the better-known Amendments ought to be able to thread his way profitably through Amar's lucid and energetic narrative.

      Delete
    16. Part II:

      Amar considers himself a textualist, which as far as I can tell amounts to a kind of principled public-meaning originalism of the kind advocated by Oliver Wendell Holmes and Robert Bork. His (very) close reading of the
      text is always informed by a knowledge of the range of plausible meanings
      available to 18th-century users of a given word or phrase, and generally
      (with some crucial exceptions--see below) by a comprehensive familiarity
      with the historical circumstances that led to the adoption of that word or phrase. At the same time, he stresses that the source of the Constitutions meaning must be located in the stated AND UNSTATED intentions of the documents authors AND RATIFIERS, to the extent that those intentions can be reliably recovered. In itself, this is an admirable approach; it avoids both the pitfalls of crude authorial-
      intent originalism (i.e., interpreting the Constitution by pretending to read James Madison's mind) and those of loose constructionism (i.e., interpreting the Constitution to mean anything we can plausibly strong-
      arm the text into saying), and we feel we are in the presence of an honest and well-informed guide whose ideological
      commitments take a back seat to his desire to share what he knows. Its
      also refreshing to encounter a politically liberal philosopher of law who
      unabashedly cares about literal meaning and authors and ratifiers intent
      --
      thus giving the lie to the silly claim that interpretive philosophy is a mere function of political orientation. The devil is in the details, how
      ever, and Amar has his share of hits and misses. Ill give one example of each.The virtues of Amar's textualism are very muc h in evidence in his analysis of the Preamble. Contrasting the ratification process of the Articles of Confederation with that of the Constitution, Amar persuasively argues not only that the Union formed under the Constitution was legally indissoluble by unilateral secession, but that it was so understood by its authors and ratifiers. He secures this result by a close reading of the phrase more perfect union: the proposal of such a union, Amar demonstrates, was based at least in part on the legal (and legally indissoluble) union of England and Scotland in 1707. Moreover, as Amar reminds us, it was widely agreed by Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike that the new government would be impossible to back out of: for the Feds this was, if any thing, an advantage (albeit one to keep quiet about), while for Anti-Feds it was deplorable and dangerous. A nice feature of this analysis is Amar's reading of the Feds relative silence on the issue of secession: had it been generally understood that unilateral sec ession would remain as a sovereign right of states under the new Constitution, the Feds would certainly have stressed the fact in order to reassure and win over their opponents. They didn't. All of this
      --the historical background of the union of Scotland and England, the explicit pronouncements of the participants in the great debate on ratification, and the roaring silence of the Federalists on the issue of unilateral secession--is used to give dispositive content to a
      phrase normally dismissed as a rhetorical flourish. (To be sure, the Court itself appealed to the phrase more perfect union in Texas v. White, its 1869 decision disallowing secession; but the reasoning in Texas is tortuous and unpersuasive, ascribing a weirdly persisting occult validity to the Articles of Confederation except as explicitly overridden by the Constitution. Amar's account is much c leaner and more intuitive.)

      Delete
    17. Dimmy, I can't believe I have to explain this to somebody who is supposed to be an educator, but the ratification documents are ABOUT the Constitution, they are NOT the Constitution. Secession is not listed among the powers prohibited to the states, so, per the 10th Amendment, it is a power reserved to the states. The feds have no power to prohibit secession because that power was not delegated to the feds in Article I, Section 8. You, ah, educators love to make things appear to be more complex than they are, I dunno, I guess it makes you feel more important. Secession is neither unconstitutional nor illegal, and what the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists thought and wrote ABOUT it are NOT IT, and do not supersede it. Ditto some "expert." It says what it says; it doesn't say what it doesn't say... Sorry, you are wrong.

      Yes, the war was savage and uncivilized. The federals were mad, insane, psychotic, crazed with outrage because the South wanted out. Made war on civilians. Fired their cannons at church steeples. Mad as hatters....

      Delete
    18. So you believe in strict construction when it comes to interpreting the Constitution?

      By the way, the SCOTUS uses the ratification debate documents when they make decisions. The 10th Amendment does not mean what you just lied about. If you want to talk about the Constitution, you need to learn about the Constitution and use the version everyone uses, not the version that you made up using crayons.

      The South didn't want out. The slave owners did. When people objected to the really bad choice which was also blatantly illegal, the slave owners used force against them. The Confederacy started the Civil War. That's a matter of record.

      Delete
    19. "--Part One--
      sledge, secession is illegal? Where do you imagine secession is made illegal?" - It has always been illegal. Nullifying the Constitution is illegal. Secession is nullification.

      It's settled law. If you want to unilaterally, peacefully secede, you're going to have to convince the Supreme Court that you are able to do that. Otherwise, you are going to be met with resistance.

      But, rebellion doesn't just mean violence.

      Full Definition of rebellion
      1
      : opposition to one in authority or dominance
      2
      a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
      b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

      "§2384. Seditious conspiracy -- If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States..." - "Or". Not "and". So, even peaceful, political rebellion would be an attempt to conspire to overthrow, put down, or politically destroy a place under the jurisdiction of the United States.

      "§2385. Advocating overthrow of Government" - This is more clear.



      Delete
  3. Ha!
    http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/even-stormfront-thinks-hillary-clinton-won-the-debate-1787121521

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess that should actually be under the tea leaves post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, Jessie, these people owe allegiance to the US, they can't unilaterally secede, their talk of secession would make the enemies of the US as their attempt would result in harm to the Union, and they are within the US. For them to attempt unilateral secession, would mean revolution.

    But, hey I'd love to see them brought up before a court to have people with actual degrees in law debate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sledge, if their "talk of secession" is accompanied by force, violence or assassination, yes that would make them enemies of the USA. Is it? Has the League attacked the feds by force (like with guns, bombs, planes, like the Saudi terrorists attacked the Pentagon? and like Nidal Malik Hasan committed at Ft. Hood?). Has it ever committed violence against the government or assassinated anyone in government?

      Delete
    2. According to your post, they are, at the very least, guilty of seditious conspiracy.

      So, the library is required to give them space to continue this illegal movement?

      Delete
  6. Apology received and accept. I will also tone down my responses thank you for allowing me to post without edit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. All those years that Confederate flags were incorporated into the stained glass windows at the National Cathedral -- who did they hurt? How?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It kept the impression of institutional oppression alive. Is that something you believe should be promoted, Con-, I mean, Polly?

      Delete
    2. "It kept the impression of institutional oppression alive." Your opinion. I think your opinion is baloney.

      Moreover, not everyone shares your opinion. You heritage-haters are going to have to get it through your heads sooner or later. You attribute your beliefs to people who don't share them, and then condemn those people based on YOUR beliefs, not theirs, and that's just flatout wrong.

      Delete
    3. Our beliefs are based upon factual evidence. Yours are based upon fantasy. There's a big difference. You keep lying your ass off and have no facts to support your fantasies. We on the other hand do. We've proven you to be wrong so many times and you keep on lying.

      Delete
    4. By the way, do you interpret the Constitution as via the strict construction lens or the loose construction lens? You always duck answering questions or providing facts. What's the matter? Skeered?

      Delete
    5. No, Dimmy, you pick and choose what "factual evidence" you will accept, so that your "beliefs" support your leftist ideology. It's neither history nor heritage. It's ideology. The notion that the tiny battleflags in the National Cathedral's windows "kept the impression of institutional oppression alive," is ludicrous. And sledge didn't even deign to tell us who they hurt. They've evidently never been a problem until Nikki Haley's war on Confederate heritage swept across the country.

      Dimmy, you still owe me an apology. When you offer it, maybe I'll consider answering your questions.

      Have you called the Cherokee nation yet and told them the majority of Cherokee citizens aren't REAL Native Americans because they don't live on reservations?

      Ducking questions. You've already admitted you won't read certain things, presumably out of fear that they will prove you wrong. Simpson lied about his "research" into my kinsman (just one in a very long list of lies) and you were too skeered to read my proof of it. How did you get to be so cowardly? How did a college teacher grow to have such hatred of free inquiry?

      Delete
    6. Just as I thought, you are nothing but a chicken who lies about the past to suit her modern ideology.

      To you, lying means anyone who says anything you don't want to believe in. When they use facts, you reject the facts. That just makes you ignorant.

      You don't get an apology for your own stupidity, ignorance, and lies.

      Confederates were traitors who committed treason against the United States of America. Anybody today who wave a CBF and says otherwise is ignorant. You are ignorant. The facts are clear and you refuse to accept facts.

      Read what? Your usual trash? Your sputterings are useless. You keep lying and denying. Now crawl back to your blog and while you are at it, try to figure out what part of the US Constitution allowed the US government to expand the size of the US.

      Delete
    7. 'Confederates were traitors who committed treason against the United States of America. Anybody today who wave a CBF and says otherwise is ignorant. You are ignorant. The facts are clear and you refuse to accept facts".
      Jimmy I am calling you out I wave the CBF every day and my Grandfathers were not traitors no matter how many times you scream they were. You are in a minority when you say that but I guess it make you feel like a big shot so rave on.
      If you ever get down Mississippi way look me up, we can sit down and you can tell me in person why you feel that way.
      And bring some facts that before the war secession was treason .

      Delete
    8. Jesse, with all due respect but my ancestor joined the Confederate cause and I agree with Jimmy, he was a traitor. That doesn't mean I hate my family, it's about being truthful with yourself. My ancestors son was named after Jefferson Davis yet I wholeheartedly denounce the Confederate cause. While it is true, not every family owned a slave and not every soldiers intentions were to fight to protect that peculiar institution, the Confederate cause was, in part to do just that. "States rights" is code for the freedom to own other human beings.

      Delete
    9. Jesse, if you wave a CBF today you are ignorant.

      Everyone who fought for the Confederacy was a traitor.

      If you can't read the US Constitution and see that taking up arms against the US is treason, then you failed your reading comprehension test.

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

      There's your fact. The Confederate States of America attacked the United States of America with military force during an illegal rebellion against their lawful government.

      Keep calling me out. I will keep proving you wrong. If I ever get down that way I wouldn't mind sitting back and visiting with you, Jesse. The facts are clear. You may have your own beliefs, but the facts don't give a damn about your beliefs.

      Now you can do like I do and explain that the people of that period reacted in various ways according to their interests which is exactly what they did. They made their choices for their reasons, not ours. We also have to remember it was a different time period and that definitely played a huge role in what they did versus how we see things. They were traitors, but they had their reasons for taking those actions which were enough to cause them to act the way they did.

      The problem today is that far too many people wave that CBF to support their modern political ideology which the people of the past have no part in. They try to attach a legitimacy to their actions with the CBF and they can't do it. Instead, they've hijacked a flag that was furled and put away in 1865. It has no business flying today except in conjunction with historical purposes or at Confederate grave sites.

      So yes, I do think people that wave the CBF today are ignorant. Many are racists and the rest seem to think the Civil War was about state's rights which it wasn't. They seem to think the CSA was legitimate which it was not. They ignore anything that doesn't fit with their beliefs which once again brings us to facts.

      Delete
    10. "It kept the impression of institutional oppression alive." Your opinion. I think your opinion is baloney." - Really? So, when was the flag used for the betterment of minorities in this country? Oh, wait, silly question... slavery was better for them wasn't it? They had it made. Good money was paid for them. They should have stayed loyal where they would be cared for.

      Even after that, y'all tried to do what you could for them. Carefully and gingerly scaring them out of harm's way with those hoods. It's not safe out on streets at night. Better get home!

      And it's dangerous around white people. So, it's best to stay on that side of town in your schools and hospitals. But, they couldn't stop glancing across the street at the white women. They just kept running up those trees and falling neck first into those nooses. Damn shame. All those nice white people in those images were just trying to help down those poor souls.

      All the good things the Southern Cross has done for the black community!

      You can keep your opinion, there isn't any basis for it.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shaun Winkler becomes unglued over the Sons of Confederate Veterans "pet monkey"...

Virginia Flagger Hubert Wayne Cash: "I have learned that most but by no means all blacks are a worthless bunch of freeloading, dangerous, animals that should be put down like the dogs they are."

Infight The Right: Are Christopher Cantwell and Jason Kessler backstabbing buddyfuckers?