Confederate Society
By Laurence M. Vance

Another Columbus Day has come and gone, but not without protests and calls to change the name and focus of the holiday. But if we are going to get rid of Columbus Day, there are some other federal holidays that ought to be eliminated as well.

Columbus Day was made a federal holiday in the United States in 1936. The original date was October 12—the date in 1492 that a sailor on the Pinta sighted an island in the Bahamas that Christopher Columbus would name San Salvador. By the Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968 (effective 1971), the Columbus Day holiday was moved to the second Monday in October so federal employees could always have a three-day weekend. The Monday observance of Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Veterans Day was also instituted, although the observance of Veterans Day was later returned to the fixed date of November 11.

Although Columbus Day is a federal holiday, it is the least celebrated one. Columbus Day is not even observed in some states. Some companies include it as a paid holiday, but most do not.

If some Americans had their way, there would be no Columbus Day at all. There is a growing movement to change Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day or some other designation because of the “evils” perpetrated by Columbus on the native peoples he encountered. But the merits and demerits of Columbus and Columbus Day are not my concern here.

Why no protest over other federal holidays—especially ones that have been turned into military appreciation days?

If we are going to change or eliminate Columbus Day because Columbus brought death to natives, then Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day ought to be changed or eliminated as well.

Memorial Day is celebrated on the last Monday in May. It was first observed in honor of Union soldiers who died during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. It was initially called Decoration Day because the tombs of dead soldiers were decorated. After World War I, the holiday was expanded to include U. S. soldiers who died in any war.

Independence Day is celebrated on July 4. It commemorates the adoption in 1776 of the Declaration of Independence when the thirteen original American colonies seceded from the British Empire and declared themselves to be “free and independent states.”

Veterans Day is celebrated on November 11. It began as Armistice Day—a day to commemorate the signing of the armistice on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month that ended fighting on the Western Front in World War I. A few years after World War II, the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a tribute to all soldiers who had fought for their country.

The focus of all three of these holidays has changed considerably over the years. All three of these holidays are now just days to honor, reverence, and worship all things military. They ought to be called Military Appreciation Day 1, Military Appreciation Day 2, and Military Appreciation Day 3. Or perhaps May Military Appreciation Day, July Military Appreciation Day, and November Military Appreciation Day.

Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day are now just days, more than usual, to:

  • Thank veterans and active-duty military personnel for their service.
  • Encourage young people to join the military.
  • Give veterans and active-duty military personnel special discounts.
  • Express support for the troops.
  • Give veterans and active-duty military personnel free meals.
  • Equate patriotism with admiration for the military.
  • Call every veteran and an active-duty member of the military heroes.
  • Express pity, sympathy, and empathy for soldiers stationed overseas.
  • Fly military flying jets over sporting events.
  • Solicit donations for wounded warriors or military families.
  • Stage patriotism at sporting events.
  • Thank U.S. soldiers for fighting “over there” so we don’t have to fight “over here.”
  • Put on “salute to the military” celebrations and musical “all-star salutes” to the troops.
  • Insist that the military defends our freedoms.
  • Have commercials for the military on television.
  • Have parades to honor the military.
  • Post signs outside of businesses that implore customers to support the troops.
Many churches also use these days to honor, reverence and worship all things military. On the Sunday before Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day, many churches:

  • Having special military appreciation days.
  • Post on their church signs: Pray for Our Troops.
  • Post on their church signs statements about U.S. troops dying for our freedoms like Christ died for our sins.
  • Sing patriotic hymns instead of hymns of worship about the person and work of Christ.
  • Have veterans and active-duty military personnel wear their uniforms to church.
  • Recognize veterans and active-duty military personnel during the church service.
  • Print the names of veterans and active-duty military personnel in the church bulletin.
  • Have veterans and active-duty military personnel stand during the church services.
  • Decorate the church buildings and grounds with American flags.
  • Ask God to bless the troops.
  • Pray for the troops to be kept out of harm’s way.
  • Applaud veterans and active-duty military personnel during the church services.
  • Show video tributes to the troops during the church services.
  • Recite the Pledge of Allegiance during the church services.
  • Have the pianist play the song of each branch of the military during the offering.
  • Ask military chaplains to speak.
  • Have a military color guard parade down the main aisle of the church to open the service.
And woe be to the unsuspecting soul who ventures into a church that does these things when Independence Day happens to fall on a Sunday.

So, you want to abolish Columbus Day because you believe Columbus killed, enslaved, and committed genocide? Okay fine. Just make sure you likewise protest the transforming of Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day into military appreciation days.

Laurence M. Vance writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on FreedomWar, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian MilitarismWar, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; and many other books. His newest book is the second edition of King James, His Bible, and Its Translators. Visit his website.

By Philip Leigh

Since most modern historians agree that the South seceded to protect slavery they often conclude that the Civil War was “all about” slavery. The inference, however, overlooks the possibility that the Southern states could have been allowed to depart in peace. Within the lifetimes of most readers, for example, the Soviet Union peacefully disintegrated into its constituent countries as did Czechoslovakia.

Even though it was partly motivated to defend slavery, one secession example from American history demonstrates that secession need not have led to war. Moreover, it questions the underlying assumption that the immorality of slavery alone was sufficiently repellent to Northerners to prompt them into fighting secessionists for trying to maintain slavery.

In 1846 about one third of the District of Columbia seceded. Originally the District was a ten-mile-by-ten-mile square. About a third of the one hundred square miles were southwest of the Potomac River in what was originally—and presently—Virginia. Most of the sector’s residents wanted to secede from the District for two reasons. First, they were not treated fairly from an economic perspective. Public buildings, for example, could only be erected on the “Maryland” side of the Potomac. Second, they correctly anticipated that the District might someday outlaw slavery.

In February 1846 the Virginia legislature agreed to absorb the District’s southwest sector if Congress approved. Five months later Congress authorized that the region could be returned to Virginia if its voters agreed by referendum. The referendum vote was affirmative and the land returned to Virginia in September 1846.

The principal reason that the Virginia retrocession gained congressional approval and did not result in war is that the economic consequences to the Northern states were immaterial. Such was not the case fifteen years later after the first seven Gulf states seceded to form the Confederacy. The main reason that Lincoln and other Northerners wanted to “save the Union” lies in economics, not abolitionism.

If the Confederacy were to survive as a separate country, there is no doubt that its import tariffs would be much lower than those of the United States. President Jefferson Davis announced in his inaugural address, “Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit. It is…[in] our interest, [and those of our trading partners] that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities.” Later Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin offered France a special tariff exemption “for a certain defined period” in exchange for diplomatic recognition. During the entire war Confederate tariffs raised less than $4 million as compared to other war taxes of over $120 million.

A low Confederate tariff presented the remaining states of the truncated Union with two consequences. First, the Federal government would lose the great majority of its tax revenue. Articles imported into the Confederacy from Europe would divert tariff revenue from the USA to the CSA. Additionally, the Confederacy’s low duties would encourage Northern-bound European imports to enter in the South where they could be smuggled across the Ohio River, or the other vast boundaries of the Northwestern states, to evade U. S. duties. Tariff compliance would become minimal thereby causing the Federal tax structure to collapse. Second, as a result of its lower tariff, residents of a Southern Confederacy would likely buy most of their manufactured goods from Europe as opposed to the Northern states where prices were inflated by protective tariffs.

Thus, after the opening shots at Fort Sumter the Northern states chose to fight to “preserve the Union” because they wanted to avoid the anticipated economic consequences of disunion. “Preserving the Union” as an abstraction is simply not a satisfying explanation. In January 1861 The Philadelphia Press editorialized, “It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, not the coercion of the state that is the question of the hour. If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone.” Author Charles Adams reasons:

If trade were to shift to the Southern ports because of a free trade zone, or extremely low duties relative to the North, then [the] great cities [of the Northeast] would go into decline and suffer economic disaster. The image painted by these editorials [from newspapers of Northeastern cities] is one of massive unemployment, the closing of factories and businesses, followed by unrest, riots, and possibly revolution. The inland cities of the North would also go into decline, like Pittsburg, where duty-free British steel and iron products would cripple the American steel industry.

Ward Hill Lamon who was Lincoln’s legal partner for five years before the war and his personal bodyguard during the presidency explained why Southern secession was such a frightening threat to Northerners:

[Cotton] formed the bulk of our exchanges with Europe; paid our foreign indebtedness; maintained a great marine; built towns, cities, and railways; enriched factors, brokers, and bankers; filled the federal treasury to overflowing, and made the foremost nations of the world commercially our tributaries and politically our dependents. A short crop embarrassed and distressed all Western Europe; a total failure, a war, or non-intercourse, would reduce whole communities to famine, and probably precipitate them into revolution.

On the eve of the Civil War New England based cotton textile manufacturing was America’s single biggest industry. In 1860 its goods were valued at $115 million as compared about $73 million for wool and iron, which were the number two and three ranking manufacturing industries respectively.

A valid study of the causes of the Civil War requires an examination of the reasons the Northern states chose to fight instead of letting the cotton states seceded peacefully. The North’s economic self-interest is too often minimized and even ignored by modern historians. If the chief explanation for the war was a non-negotiable moral opposition to slavery among Northerners, then they would not have permitted Virginia’s retro-cession of one third of the District of Columbia…but they did.

About Philip LeighPhilip Leigh contributed twenty-four articles to The New York Times Disunion blog, which commemorated the Civil War Sesquicentennial. Westholme Publishing released three of Phil’s Civil War books to date: Lee’s Lost Dispatch and Other Civil War Controversies (2015) Trading With the Enemy (2014) Co. Aytch: Illustrated and Annotated (2013) Phil has lectured a various Civil War forums, including the 23rd Annual Sarasota Conference of the Civil War Education Association and various Civil War Roundtables. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Florida Institute of Technology and an MBA from Northwestern University


Last week marked the fifteenth anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan, the longest war in US history. There weren’t any victory parades or photo-ops with Afghanistan’s post-liberation leaders. That is because the war is ongoing. In fact, 15 years after launching a war against Afghanistan’s Taliban government in retaliation for an attack by Saudi-backed al-Qaeda, the US-backed forces are steadily losing territory back to the Taliban.

What President Obama called “the good war” before took office in 2008, has become the “forgotten war” some eight years later. How many Americans know that we still have nearly 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan? Do any Americans know that the Taliban was never defeated, but now holds more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001? Do they know the Taliban overran the provincial capital of Kunduz last week for the second time in a year and they threaten several other provincial capitals?

Do Americans know that we are still wasting billions on “reconstruction” and other projects in Afghanistan that are, at best, boondoggles? According to a recent audit by the independent US government body overseeing Afghan reconstruction, half a billion dollars was wasted on a contract for a US company to maintain Afghan military vehicles. The contractor “fail[ed] to meet program objectives,” the audit found. Of course, they still got paid, like thousands of others getting rich off of this failed war.

Do Americans know that their government has spent at least $60 billion on training and equipping Afghan security forces, yet these forces are still not capable of fighting on their own against the Taliban? We recently learned that an unknown but not an insignificant number of those troops brought to the US for training have deserted and are living illegally somewhere in the US. In the recent Taliban attack on Kunduz, it was reported that thousands of Afghan security personnel fled without firing a shot.

According to a recent study by Brown University, the direct costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars thus far are nearly five trillion dollars. The indirect costs are virtually incalculable.

Perhaps Afghanistan is the “forgotten war” because to mention it would reveal how schizophrenic is US foreign policy. After all, we have been fighting for 15 years in Afghanistan in the name of defeating al-Qaeda, while we are directly and indirectly assisting a franchise of al-Qaeda to overthrow the Syrian government. How many Americans would applaud such a foreign policy? If they only knew, but thanks to a media only interested in promoting Washington’s propaganda, far too many Americans don’t know.

I have written several of these columns on the various anniversaries of the Afghan (and Iraq) wars, pointing out that the wars are ongoing and that the result of the wars has been less stable countries, a less stable region, a devastated local population, and an increasing probability of more blowback. I would be very happy to never have to write one of these again. We should just march home.

By: James W. King
SCV Camp 141 Commander
Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson's Rangers
Albany Georgia

The fact that all Causes of Secession Declarations by the seceding Southern states list slavery as a cause of secession has led liberals and Marxist Socialists to claim that the South seceded solely for the purpose of keeping and defending slavery. The declaration by Georgia was the most thorough presentation of abuses by the North that justified secession. Those who make such claims berating and disparaging the seceding Southern states for secession do not have a thorough understanding of the political situation that existed prior to and at the time of Southern secession.
Most Southerners were in favor of gradual orderly emancipation of slaves and it was occurring. Prior to the war there was an estimated five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves. The Northern colonies, later states, of New England--Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York- were primarily responsible for the development of slavery in America. The port cities of New England had grown wealthy from profits derived from the slave trade. Initially the South had resisted slavery but as time went by they succumbed to the encouragement and pressure from New England to purchase and use slave labor on the plantations of the South.
The use of slave labor in the industrial cities of the North had not been successful as it had been in the agricultural South. Therefore the Northern states began emancipating slaves and in 1808 the further importation of slaves was outlawed by the United States of America. But Yankee slave traders, in violation of the law, continued transporting slaves up until the time of the War for Southern Independence (Civil War).
By 1820 to 1830 the slave trade had became unprofitable to most Northerners and agitation began against the Southern states demanding instant abolition of slaves as opposed to the orderly graduated emancipation that was already taking place in the Southern states. Initially the Northern abolitionists were a small but very vocal and militant group. But abolition sentiment continued to grow and lies and propaganda based on ignorance began to slander the Southern people. The English historian Cecil Chesterman is quoted as saying "what can exceed the hypocrisy of the New England men who accuse the South of grave moral sin while the profits made from the slave trade are still in their pocket".
The Northern abolitionists were radicals, fanatics, zealots, and criminals and they offered no plan for the compensation of freed slaves to Southerners. Instead they demanded instant abolition and supported and worked to foment a massive slave revolt that would cause the deaths of thousands of Southern men, women, and children similar to that which had occurred in Santa Domingo (Haiti) in the 1790-1803 era. The Marxist Socialist Republican Party that was formed in 1854 had many of these radicals, fanatics, zealots, and criminals as members. The Republican Party passed a resolution that was signed by 68 of 117 members advocating violence against the South as outlined in the 1857 book by Hinton Helper "The Impending Crisis of the South". Then they financed and outfitted criminal and murderer John Brown to go to Virginia and implement a slave rebellion. All through the North the psychopathic murderous criminal John Brown was perceived as a hero and saint who had gone straight to heaven after he was hung in Virginia following his failed attempt to instigate servile insurrection and the planned massive slave rebellion.
Lincoln was a member of this radical group  and after he was elected president the South refused to voluntarily be ruled by Northern radicals, fanatics, zealots, and criminals. Southerners determined that the best way to avoid more impending criminal actions by the North was to separate so seven Southern states seceded and this was followed by four more after Lincoln initiated aggression against the seceded states.
The extremely high tariff rate of 47-50% in the upcoming Morrill Tariff was also a major factor in Southern secession. The South was being forced to pay 75-85% of the money to operate the Federal Government and 80-90% of that tax money was being kept and spent in the North.

The Northern industrialists were forcing the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no cost to themselves. The machinery of the Federal Government, which was designed for the common benefit, was made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North".  The workings of the iniquitous tariffs had reduced the South to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls nearly 2000 years ago. A coalition of Northern economic interests with the Northern radicals, fanatics, zealots, and criminals forced Southern secession. The Robber had joined hands with the incendiary and the South was their target.
I recommend reading pages 30 thru 38 of the booklet "A Southern View of the Invasion of the Southern States and War of 1861-65” by Capt. Samuel A. Ashe in 1935 titled “Secession, Insurrection of the Negroes, and Northern Incendiarism”. He was the last surviving commissioned officer of the Confederate States Army and a highly educated man who presents a concise and scholarly explanation of the events leading to the war and the lasting consequences. I also recommend reading the 1894 speech given by former Confederate general Joseph Wheeler to the U.S. congress in which he presents the facts concerning the development of slavery in America and the causes of the War for Southern Independence. He places the blame where it belongs--on the North. Also I recommend reading the book “Truths of History” by Mildred Lewis Rutherford who was a historian for the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Altogether there were 10 causes of Southern secession. Contact me at to receive an e-mail copy of my article "The 10 Causes of Southern Secession".

By Joan Hough

If one approves the removal/destruction of historical Confederate monuments, historical street
names, historical names of schools, historical names of Confederate benefactors of million dollar buildings, historically beloved Confederate songs, and the historical, beautiful Confederate Battle flag with its Christian emblem, then it must be agreed that everything and anything smacking of or evoking a memory of the Confederate States of America should definitely be erased.

Hip, Hip Hooray! —Let’s demand the erasures be taken all the way and not tomorrow, but today!

Of course this means much of the United States has to be erased.  First to be erased must be 
Washington, D.C. which was named after the first U.S. President, a proud Southerner, a plantation 
owner, a slave owner and one of the few American Presidents adored by Confederates and generations 
since of Confederate offspring—by, quite likely, about 300 million of us alive today.  Confederate 
descendants far and wide are decidedly inspired by the many truths about George Washington of 
Virginia, so Washington D. C. and Washington state must be erased.

Erasing Confederate everything means erasing the U.S. Constitution. It must be erased because 
Southerners, who were Confederates’ ancestors helped write it.  In fact, some Confederates actually 
learned about the Constitution from their very own Great Grandfathers who ratified it. They even 
learned about the right of secession from those same old relatives.  Southerners ratified the 
Constitution. Southerners loved it.

Southerners impressed on their descendants the importance of the Constitution and the meanings of 
its words. They were proud that the word “Democracy” appeared nowhere in the Constitution, the 
Declaration of Independence, in the Articles of Confederation or in any of the original State 
Constitutions before the Yankee Republicans changed them all.

Southern descendants left the Union because they knew the Constitution had been junked by the 
Republican Party when it took over the government in 1861 and began Empire building. Many 
Southerners since have grown up knowing that the north invaded the South because the South valued 
the Constitution.

The erasing of everything Confederate means erasing every single place in the north that has ever 
heard the voice of a Southern Confederate or even of a Southern Confederate descendant—whether in 
conversation or in song.  It means the erasing of any place that ever felt the presence of a 
Confederate descendant as he passed through it. These places must bite the dirt, so to speak, 
because Confederates breathed away some of the stench of northern air and left their footprints in 
the filth of the north’s streets.

Every remaining fragment of Confederate history must be eliminated; the U.S. flag of stars and 
stripes must be erased—for if the legend is true that it was designed by a friend of George 
Washington’s (Betsy Ross Robinson), it cannot continue on. The U.S. flag was contaminated by 
Southern friendship.

Maybe the fact can be ignored that New Englanders fought for the flag in the American Revolution 
while owning black slaves, but the flag must be erased because Southerners who fought for it in 
1776, owned slaves and birthed children and grandkids who fought for Southern Independence in 1861. 

These Southerners learned the art and science of secession from their Southern grandpas who seceded
from another all-powerful central government—that of Great Britain.

Southerners produced by those first American Secessionist Southerners fought against the 1800s 
empire builders in the United States who were Yankees determined to change the Republic into an 
empire and finance it with all they could steal from Southern soil.  Even more importantly, 
Southerners fought against the U.S. flag which was the one and only American flag that ever flew 
over a nasty slave ship. But this truth has been erased from all the politically correct history 
books, so it is irrelevant.

The fact is that the U.S.  flag has undoubtedly been besmirched, so must be erased because 
Confederate descendants fought under and for it in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and all of the “non 
wars” and the present unending police actions since—thus Southerners have contaminated the stars 
and stripes with Southernism.

Because Southerners fought the Yankees and the hired European soldiers who were invading this South 
to make war on Southern women and babies, Southerners themselves must all be 
erased/eradicated/eliminated/  and replaced with loyal Marxist- Republicans. This was just what was 
wanted by Lincoln and his brave, but stay at home New Englanders. They hired foreigners to 
substitute for their sons and fight the war for them, It mattered little to rich New England papas how many 
foreign boys served as Yankee cannon fodder; the South’s goodies must be looted for righteous 

Looting and robbing of the South and extermination of Southerners was also just what General 
William Tecumseh Sherman and his Radical Marxist Republican Senator Sherman brother wanted.  The 
road to riches for Yankees ran directly through the South. This is what the so-called righteous, 
but no longer Trinity-believing Unitarian and Protestant preachers of the north wanted—just what 
the rabid U.S. Senators in Lincoln’s Republican Congress wanted.  No doubt about it, the only good 
Southerner was a dead Southerner according to the wanting to be richer merchant princes of 
Lincoln’s north and their political puppets.

Back to the erasures: The Declaration of Independence needs to be erased because its words declare 
men have the right to throw off the chains of any government and replace it with something 
better—and because those words were written by a slave-owning Southerner in a time when slaves 
throughout the world were not to be considered “citizens.”

The main reason the Declaration must be erased is because its words inspired Southern traitors to 
secede from the Republican-Radical-Marxist controlled U.S. government which gained control of the 
United States in 1861. Only by the dedicated efforts of men of the Marxist philosophy –and a 
successful victory over the South did Republicans manage to get every single one of the planks in 
the Communist Manifesto made into U.S. law—and even make Americans believe that the Founding 
Fathers created for us, a “Democracy” instead of a Republic.

We are told that black folks, a mere fifteen percent segment today of the U.S. populace, believe 
that it is only right that everything smacking of Confederate history is erased. So, erased must be 
the memory of every man who ever quoted any Southern writing or any Southern saying—unless that 
guy’s purpose was to vilify the source or ridicule the quote.

Golly bum! Oh my goodness, oh my soul! —There goes Saint Abe Lincoln right down the good old 
erasure hole. He’s gotta go, for it cannot be denied by Republicans or present day Democrats—honest 
Abe once actually quoted and paraphrased the famous words written by a plantation owning, slave
owning Southerner—a Southerner adored by all Confederates. Yes, Lincoln quoted the U.S. Declaration
of Independence, a document which like the U.S. Constitution and the original state constitutions 
does not contain the word “democracy."

Here are the words Southerner Thomas Jefferson wrote in that document which captured
Lincoln’s attention:

. . . that to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers 
from the consent of the governed. That whenever a Form of Government becomes destructive of these 
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, 
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall 
see most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
. . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same Object evinces a 
design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off 
such government.
. . .

Giving the listeners the impression that he said what he meant and meant what he said, a dozen 
years before he stepped foot into the Oval Office,  U.S. Representative, Abraham Lincoln 
paraphrased these liberty words on January 12, 1848 in a speech he presented before the U.S. House 
of Representatives.  Lincoln boldly claimed:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off 
the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most 
sacred right--a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right 
confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. 
Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the 
territory as they inhabit.”
(Lochlainn Seabrook, The Unquotable Abraham Lincoln.)

Certainly the Southern states must all be erased. Louisiana is one of them requiring erasure. It 
came into the Union with slave-owning French men whose King sold it to the U.S. with the clear 
requirement that his French Louisianans must be allowed to keep their slaves.  Louisiana, besides 
being loaded with Confederate slave owners—some black and some white—was filled with black folks as 
well as white folks who fought for the South.

The truth has long been buried that some of the largest of Plantation and slave owners were black 
people.  Louisiana has another Yankee mark against it because it was added to the United States by 
Southern slave-owning President, Thomas Jefferson.

The New England States should all be erased because the people there were the biggest, grandest 
slave purchasers in this hemisphere. They were rich, Yankee shopkeepers and manufacturers; they 
were slave buyers and owners. They owned the U.S. flag topped clipper ship that brought slaves to 
America. They owned all slaves brought to America until they could replace the expensive things 
with cheap, no maintenance Irish or Scot children and adults. They were all slaves, but never 
called such.

New York City must be erased because it was discovered in fairly recent years that a plantation 
containing slaves had once existed right in the very heart of New York City. The national anthem 
must be erased because the son of the author was so horrified by the Republican Yankees' invasion 
of our South that Yankees considered him an enemy and imprisoned him.

Kate Smith’s “God Bless America” song must be erased because so many Confederate Southern 
descendants loved it and loved that it asked God’s blessings. Southerners wanted its easy to sing 
tune and beautiful lyrics to become the national anthem.

The Holy Bible must be erased because in the 1800's the words in it were held sacred by the 
Confederates and, because, despite the words of any U.S. President, those words still hold a 
position of great importance in the hearts of many Confederate descendants. In the 1800s 
Southerners, unlike a vast number of northerners, still believed in the Trinity.  (In Lincoln’s 
“burnt over” New England area occultism and Unitarianism, had erased the Trinity by the time of the 
War of Northern Aggression; The new German immigrants filling the north were not noted for adhering 
to the Christian religion; the “old” Germans, especially those in the South, held on to their 

The cowboy West needs to be erased—because Confederate men, fleeing Reconstruction’s hell, went 
west with their “Yes mams” and their “No mams” and made the West their own.  Many Southerners, 
contrary to what politically correct historians would have you believe, deplored the murderous 
attacks of Mr. Sherman and Mr. Sheridan on sleeping Indian women and kids.

At least 80 million Americans now scattered all over the continent are cursed with Confederate 
genes. Erase these folks. And do this even if those people are black folks because they, if 
Southern bred and Southern born, may have black Confederate ancestors. Confederate is Confederate.

So what is left— the very people who tell us that no one must malign Martin L. King for being a 
Communist—must ignore the photos of him at Commie school classes, must not make a negative comment 
about the fact that the court investigation of his life and his death has all the records 
pertaining King locked away from the public for how many years—75?  (Whatever could be so damaging 
to American people requiring such a horrendous length of time for hiding the truth?  And who has 
the right to hide the truth from us—the same people who insist that truth must be erased?)

And who has the right to arrange things so that a man is placed in the U.S. Presidency with so many 
truths erased that one cannot even be sure if he is a he or a she—or if he is actually married and 
is married to a he or she?  Who can tell if the man even exists or if a present Democrat candidate 
for the Oval Office is alive or dead?   Who has the power to create a presidential creature and 
erase all the information that has been expected concerning Presidents since Southerner and Planter 
George Washington refused to become America’s King?

Perhaps comprehending all that has been presented herein will only result in the reader concluding 
that the entire U.S. government really needs to be erased, because correcting its many problems is 
a hopeless task.  Perhaps the hatred of the people of the north for the South has never been 
eradicated.  Perhaps it is as so many people are now heard saying, “time to separate.”

Our present form of U.S. government is nothing like the originally creation of the brilliant 
scholar-statesmen who gave us a Republic. We allowed the Republic to be mutated into an Empire, and 
then into a Democracy which is now in the process of being altered into nothing more than a tiny 
segment of the Bush-Clinton-Obama’s New World Order of Global Government.

Our United States government was not originally designed by the founding fathers to be an all- 
powerful central government, but a weak central government under the control of sovereign states. 
In the War Against Southern Liberty, Lincoln’s Republicans —adhering to the desires of the 1848er 
German veterans of the failed Socialist War in Europe—just as commanded in the Communist Manifesto, 
took all rights away from each Confederate state—and eventually from every state in America.  In 
order for war and the horror known as Reconstruction to occur—in order for one third of Southern 
manhood to die and most survivors to be left missing eyes, missing arms, and legs, in order for 
thousands of women and children to be left to die of exposure/starvation/ or lack of medicine, in 
order for the central government
to become the monster it now is,  a new Political Party had to be created.  It was.

America’s new political party was the handiwork of Horace Greeley, the Editor of America’s most 
widely read newspaper, the New York Tribune and of Alvin E. Bovay, a known Communist.  It was born 
in the ashes of one of Greeley’s failed Communist communes –the one located in Ripon, Wisconsin. It 
is still with us.  It is the Republican Party.  Its original plans for the U.S. government are now 
plans loved and agreed to by the Democratic Party.  Communism has added to it the cloak of the New 
World Order, but still Communism is what it is—a totalitarian form of government masquerading as a 
Democracy.  It is the enemy of Liberty, of Christianity, of the Jewish religion, of the U.S. 
Constitution, of individual freedom, and most certainly of our Republic.

In merry old England in the lands around Liverpool there are still streets and towns with Viking 
names. And this is in England where the English regularly prayed to God for protection against the 
wicked Vikings who terrorized their coast.  And yet the English have maintained the names the 
Vikings left behind. The English do not possess a “throw away” society—although it may develop now 
that the ethnicity of their population is changing so rapidly.

Normally, the English, like the people in Germany, in Italy, in France and elsewhere in Europe, 
place great value on their public displays of art. They do not destroy their monuments, the 
beautifully inscribed words on their buildings or hide away their historical past. Only in the 
Communist nations have we seen the destruction of the statues of former leaders—and vast episodes 
of name changing of streets, towns and cities-and the rewriting of history according to the latest 
ruling party.

In civilized nations, people do not tolerate those with sick minds who chop up historical 
monuments. Men are honored down through the generations for their accomplishments.  Their names are 
maintained on great buildings and in great art.  Streets and cities are named after them, parks, 
hospitals, mountains, lakes and schools.

What does the present revolting attack on historical truths, on Southern culture—what does the 
hacking up of our statues, the demonizing of our flags and our heroes tell us about America and 
Americans today?  What should be done with the brainwashed among us who persist in supporting the 
lies of the enemies of truth who persist in inflicting cultural genocide on Southerners?

Is it not a bizarre truth, a direct result of skillful propaganda, that today that which was 
abnormal for centuries is now declared “normal” and desirable.  That which was always normal is now 
labeled “bigoted,” “homophobic,” “sinful,”“ xenophobic .” “racist,” etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad 

The attack that should amuse as well as horrify the most is one hurled only at the South’s 
antebellum planters –only those, mind you, in the South. It is said that they were sinners of the 
greatest magnitude because they had –oh my dear God!  They actually had slaves. And, of course, 
nobody else ever had slaves --despite the truth that in the lineage of every man, one finds both 
Kings and slaves. And “what made the Planter’s sins the most horrific was that their slaves were 
black—and whoever had ever heard of slaves that WEREN’T BLACK? ’’

What I find so laughingly ridiculous about this type of viewpoint is the ignorance revealed on the 
part of the sanctified labeler. He, obviously, is one who always sees life from only his own, 
time” eyes. In his abysmal ignorance, he determines no truths because, he sees only through those 
myopic eyes. Sadly, he is incapable of comprehending the significance of the origin of the word 
“slave.”  Even sadder, he is convinced that he is the best judge of what is and what is not 
sin—that all those priests, preachers and rabbis who preceded him down through the centuries were 
such horrific sinners that their judgments concerning sin and slavery were all horrifically 

Only he, the only fully capable judge, knows the truth. Only his is the power to render the correct 
judgment concerning the terrible, terrible, terrible sins of Southerners who held slaves.  His 
intellectual silliness is as great as that of his female intellectual counterpart who teaches 
hundreds of young, rather stupid students that all the mixed race people in America are the 
products of wicked white plantation owners.

Mixed race people, according to that learned professor, could only be the work of sin-filled WHITE 
plantation owners because the white soldiers of the magnificent Republican army could not have 
sired a single mixed race baby. The north’s soldier boys never, not ever availed themselves of the 
sexual delights found in the willing or unwilling arms of a black former slave female-why, they 
fought to free the blacks, not attack them.

So the Yankee sycophants conclude that the imported, straight from the jails of Europe teen- aged, 
hormonal driven “boys” of Sherman’s really cared as to the color or willingness of persons of the 
opposite sex?

Oddly, all real truths had long been thrown away even before the present day attacks on the 
Christian Southerners who had streets named after them and are remembered in gorgeous works of art— 
sculpture, monuments, paintings, buildings, streets, highways, etc.

Some folks might contend that, rather than Confederate names, it is the Bushy names on things that 
should be erased. Bushy libraries—Bushy Airports—will those names soon disappear?   Will the now 
Republican adored Connecticut Yankees themselves soon be erased?  Every aspect of historical truths 
concerning the horrors perpetrated by the War’s villainous bunch of Connecticut Yankees has been
erased. And now all the good things about the South is being erased.  But does not what comes 
around eventually “go around?”

Secession itself continues to be denied as a right—by numerous poorly educated Southerners and many 
more well-educated, of course, northerners.  Certain Southern descendants in 1963 perhaps to avoid 
unpleasantness or even tax problems contended that the War was a war between the states, rather 
than a war between two nations. The War Between the States title supposedly was chosen to supplant 
the “Civil War” name given by the Republican winners.  It should be, however, brought  to the 
attention of persons using this title that it denies the legitimacy of the South’s secession from 
the United States and denies the truth that the war was NOT a war between states, but was instead a 
War Between Two American Nations

The War was not a bunch of noble northern states fighting a group of rebellious sin-filled Southern 
states in order for the noble Yankees to free a bunch of black slaves. The Yankee’s war caused the  
legally seceded, separate Confederate NATION to fight for its liberty, to defend itself again 
invaders sent into it by a government named the United States of America –a government ruled by 
Radical, Marxist Republicans.

Instead of choosing to recognize the legitimacy of a nation composed of states which had legally 
and morally seceded from the United States, instead of naming the war what it really was—a war 
between two American nations, some Southerners declared that the war a contest between THE STATES. 
The name, The War Between the States, was seen by other Southerners as a form of surrender and a
“cowardly cop out” –just as is seen the failure of any Southerner to defend the Confederate Battle 
flag from attacks against it.  Such a name for the war is seen by some as support for the Yankee 
Propagandized lie that secession is treason—that Southerners were all traitors and deserved every
inflicted punishment dealt them by the valiant armies of the United States of America.  Some 
were convinced that only someone with Union sympathies orchestrated that kind of a new name change.

In reality, Mr. Lincoln’s War and his Invasion of the South was and still is “The War Between
Two American Nations of the North and the South,”and “The Continued Marxist European War of
1848.”and  “The War for Southern Liberty,” and “The War of Northern Aggression.”

It was a war followed by a hideous Yankee creation called “Reconstruction, a Time wherein the 
possessions of all Southerners would be redistributed, Marxist style, to noble Republicans—when 
Southern minds, especially those in their children, would be reconstructed—remodeled—rebuilt  so as 
to fit the New England Yankee model.  It was a time in which there would be guaranteed by the 
Republican government the total looting of the South’s land and people. Forever more would be 
prevented any bit of Southern influence on the central U.S. government. Never more would a true 
Southerner take a place on the Supreme Court, or hold the office of U.S. President or have any real 
impact in the U.S. Congress.

During Reconstruction and its continuation, most of the rights guaranteed in the U.S.
Constitution were eliminated as the meanings of the words were redefined or ignored by the Congress 
and the Courts and those in the Executive office. Illegal, unconstitutional additions of 
amendments, not even legally ratified, came to obliterate the Republican form of government, erase 
the rights of the states, and further all the wondrous Communist goals aimed at the development of 
the New World Order of global control.

In numerous instances Congress took it upon itself to alter the meaning of the U.S. Constitution 
illegally—and the people, too dumbed down educationally to resist, accepted lies as truth.  
Congressmen, Presidents, and Court justices raised their right hands, swore to God to support the 
U.S. Constitution, to defend it against all enemies whether foreign or domestic—and lied. The 
people, mesmerized by the new joys of sex, of drugs, of pornography, of freedom from religion, saw 
no wrong in anything the U.S. government did.

The South continues on as the whipping boy of the Republicans and the Democrats, treaties are 
created and gullible citizens are told that treaties supplant the Constitution. “Hurrah,”  says 
Congress, “the North American Treaty is signed. We really didn’t know about it, but that’s ok.”  A 
marriage goes forth between Commerce and the Military.  Potty Politics create messes in bathrooms.  
Secret organizations controlling the U.S. government have no further need to remain secret.  
Billionaires, worldwide, gloat!  The United Nations sends its poll watchers throughout the U.S. 
while Fema waxes strong.  National security is an excuse for murders and pretend murders.

The Republicans and Democrats become one. They choose to keep the borders open, load the land with 
obedient non-white, ignorant, easily managed, here just because they want to work (sure!) natives 
from the third world.

Hurrah! Just as Poppy Bush so said.  THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS HERE!

by Al Benson Jr.

Frequently in recent years I have commented on the fact that the cultural American South and the cultural American West have the very same Federal adversaries. Therefore it seems reasonable to me that Southern and Western Americans that wish to preserve their unique cultures should sit down and talk with one another and seek ways to help one another prevent the planned destruction of both of our cultures.

There has been a lot in the past couple years in the news media (if such it can be called) about problems in the West with the Feds basically, if the truth were known, trying to run ranchers off their land because they seem to have a “more compelling” use for that land than the folks who have ranched and farmed it for the past 150 years, and please let’s don’t kid ourselves–the Feds are out to destroy the ranching culture in the Far West. It is one small residue of authentic American culture that they absolutely loathe because it breeds an independent spirit and the Feds hate independence, especially for ordinary folks, when we should all be getting programmed for the United Nations Agenda 21 scenario where no one has any independence. Anyone that has followed even the crooked news media has to realize that, in the West, the Feds are laboring mightily to crush any local independence.

While this problem might not be quite as openly apparent in the South it is still there, and beginning to manifest itself more and more, both with the ethnic cleansing campaign in regard to anything Confederate, and also with what people can and can’t do with their own land (which the Feds really consider to be theirs).

I recently got an article off the Kennedy Twins web site written by my good friend and co-author Donnie Kennedy entitled Crows, Slimy Frogs and Federal Tyranny. Donnie’s article points up several areas in which the problems of the Southerner and Westerner are just about identical.

Donnie observes: “From Point (Louisiana) we turn to the other end of the once sovereign State of Louisiana, where a land owner in St. Tammany Parish has run afoul of the Federal Registry, the EPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It seems that fifty years ago his land was the habitat of the Mississippi Gopher Frog. The Federal Government in its ‘wisdom’ had determined to reintroduce this frog onto its ancient habitat–landowner be damned, the frogs and the Feds come first! Of course the Federal Government is assuring everyone  that it has no desire to disabuse the landowner of his property and everything will be done to make sure they can co-exist peacefully. Just stop and think. How much value has this man lost because his land is now under the ‘oversight’ of the Federal Government?  Before any change can be made on his property, it must pass Federal scrutiny. The value of his property has been greatly reduced and he must stand and obey the edicts of the supreme Federal Government.” Sound familiar to any of you folks in the West?  Can anyone say “desert tortoise”?

Years ago a man in the John Birch Society gave a speech I never forgot. He talked for over two hours with no notes. He had it all in his head. I heard him give the same speech on two different occasions. One thing he said always stuck with me. He said “It’s not really who owns the property that’s important. It’s who controls it.” The one who controls what can or can’t be done with the property, in essence, “owns” it no matter whose name is on the deed.

Same situation with property taxes. You may own property and have your name on the deed, but if you fail to pay your yearly rent for the use of that property then some governing body will come along and take “your” property and you can light your cigar with your deed because all it will be worth is the price of a good match.

We really need to begin rethinking our concepts of property, of taxes, of Federal regulations and a whole lot more because implicit in all government taxes, both West and South, is the concept that government really owns it all and we are only there by their sufferance. You may not like that thought. I may not like it but we really need to start thinking about it because, in Federal eyes, that’s the way it really is.

By Brion McClanahan

As the first leg of the American invasion force rolled through Iraq in 2003, Sergeant Brad Colbert of the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion of the United States Marine Corps leaned out the window of his Humvee and urged the Iraqi people to “vote Republican.” This moment was captured by the embedded reporter, Evan Wright, and made famous in a series of articles that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine and later in the HBO mini-series Generation Kill. (I recommend this series to anyone who wants a realistic view of the early stages of the war in Iraq. It is not for the faint of heart, however. The vulgarity and violence may turn some viewers off, but it also helps explain why people in other parts of the world hate the United States.) Wright later recounted that Colbert was not making a joke; he firmly believed what he was saying. While this surprised Wright, it typifies the “stupid empire” of the Republican Party and progressives in general.

From the war to “end slavery” to the war to “liberate Iraq,” the United States has been waging war for the last one-hundred and fifty years to theoretically bring “liberty and democracy” to “heathen” parts of the world. These are, rhetorically, wars for “humanity’s sake,” but more than anything they bring a perverted form of empire, one in which United States taxpayers are on the hook for trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it except more war, higher taxes, inflation, and resentment from many of the people the military sought to “liberate.” Liberation becomes a relative term, and most of the people “freed” by the United States become dependents of the federal government or are betrayed by the loose promises of “freedom and democracy.”

On 18 December 1865, the Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania made the following remark before the House of Representatives: “The future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror. They [the Southern states] must come in as new states or remain as conquered provinces.” In one sentence, Stevens clearly articulated the intent of the Republican Party during the War Between the States. Southerners were a conquered people subject to the will of the Republican Party. Former slaves, the “liberated,” were the pawns by which to keep the South “loyal” to the Union.

It is easy to imagine a Union soldier insisting that Southern blacks “vote Republican,” just as Colbert called on Iraqis to “vote Republican.” And, of course, most freedmen and their descendants did vote Republican until the 1960s. Grant would have been hard pressed to win the 1868 presidential election without them and the concurrent disfranchisement of most “evil” Southern whites through the illegally passed 14th Amendment. The Republican war machine spent four years destroying homes, property, lives, and infrastructure and now planned on rebuilding, or more accurately remaking, the South with the help of the “liberated.” As Radical Republican Lot Morrill of Maine said following the war, “The ballot in the hands of the negro became as much the necessity of reconstruction of the republican States and their restoration as the bayonet in his hands was the necessity of the war.”

Abraham Lincoln made the war a “humanitarian” effort with the pithy though incorrect Gettysburg Address in 1863, but where was the humanitarianism of William T. Sherman’s army as they plundered their way to the sea in 1864 or Philip Sheridan’s army as it commenced with the burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the same year? And how was the Republican Party being “humanitarian” when it used the military to enforce carpetbag rule, higher taxes, and both direct and indirect confiscation of property following the war? It seems the blueprint for the United States Empire was written in the years after the unnecessary carnage of the War Between the States: “liberate” a group of people and make them dependent on your continued rule; disfranchise those who oppose you and destroy their property and culture, but tell the world you are doing this for the good of the “liberated.” The South, personified as the woman in the following political cartoon, could easily be any other culture who has faced the burden of the American empire in the last 150 years.

As the Democrats consistently pointed out during the years following Reconstruction, the Republican Party did not change. Without evil Southerners to fight, the Union army turned its attention to the West, and under the direction of Sherman and Sheridan, the western Indian tribes faced the onslaught of the new American foreign policy of “liberty and equality.” Tribes that supported the Confederacy during the War Between the States felt the hammer of the federal government or were intentionally deceived in order to secure land for the railroads. Others who opposed the “blessings” of the Republican Party and the Union army were often slaughtered. Lincoln, in fact, ordered the largest mass execution in American history. 38 Dakota warriors were executed in 1862 after a Sioux revolt against Minnesota residents who continually breached treaties between the tribes and the federal government. Republican benevolence had limits, particularly in regard to those who could not help the Party win elections.

The frontier was “closed” during the administration of Republican Benjamin Harrison with the land runs in Oklahoma beginning in 1889. Again, the government, under Republican leadership, mainly through the corrupt Radical Republican Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, reneged on promises to the Five Civilized Tribes and seized their land through “re-allotment.” The Dawes Act of 1887 divided Oklahoma into small homestead farms, often too small to be productive. Dawes and other Republicans insisted that the re-allotment process would “help” the tribes and provide them with the blessings of liberty and prosperity, but without question, the Act destroyed tribal culture and through corruption and intimidation, most of the tribal members who received land eventually sold it for less than what it was worth or lost it. Dawes had shown a propensity for scheming before—he had been part of the infamous Credit Mobiler Scandal of 1872—and his actions toward tribal lands did him no justice. This should not have been a surprise, however. It was the M.O. for the Republican Party, the same men who pillaged the South following the War in the name of humanity and who ran roughshod over the Constitution during Radical Reconstruction.

The election of Republican William McKinley in 1896 ushered in a new age of American imperialism, but one directly tied to the ideas of Reconstruction. Less than two years after taking office, McKinley asked congress for a declaration of war against Spain. This “Splendid Little War,” known as the Spanish-American War of 1898, netted the United States Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The United States went to war, in part, to “liberate” the Cubans and the Filipino people from evil Spanish rule. Without question, Cuban revolutionaries fighting for independence from Spain before the war began were harshly treated by the Spanish governor of Cuba, but opponents wondered whether that justified American involvement. And, since the United States occupied Cuba after the war and inserted the infamous Platt Amendment into the Cuban Constitution in 1901, what had Cubans gained by cozying up to the United States? Authored by Connecticut Republican Orville Platt, the Amendment made Cuba a virtual protectorate of the United States, and the big brother to the north could intervene at any time to “save” Cuba from itself.

In the Pacific, the United States became involved in a guerrilla war against Filipino insurrectionary forces after they refused to submit to American rule. Teddy Roosevelt, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, had instructed Admiral George Dewey to invade the Philippines once war was declared in 1898 (How that related to the poor, downtrodden Cubans no one could answer). Dewey steamed into Manila Bay, defeated a larger Spanish Fleet, and helped protect the American expeditionary force led by Wesley Merritt, a Union War veteran and participant in Sheridan’s burning of the Shenandoah Valley in 1864. The Philippines were placed under an American military governor—at first all Republican Civil War vets starting with Merritt—in an effort to bring the blessing of “liberty” their “little brown brothers,” but not all of them accepted American gestures of “humanity” and “liberty.”

Filipino Emilio Aguinaldo harassed American combat forces for three years. This was the first American Vietnam. William H. Taft was eventually appointed governor of the Philippines by McKinley, and to his credit reluctantly accepted the position because he did not support the acquisition in the first place, but Taft did oversee some of the fiercest combat of the Philippine-American War and ultimately supported American occupation.

By the time Teddy Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1901, the Republicans had firmly established themselves as the Party of international empire, and no better articulation of this principle can be found than Roosevelt’s 1904 annual address. In this message, Roosevelt rolled out the principles of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine: “Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” So, the United States determines good conduct and “decency in social and political matters,” and if you fail, the United States will become an “international police power” to keep you in line. This has since been extended to the globe. Ask the people of the Middle East.

Successive presidents used Roosevelt’s logic to intervene in Latin American affairs, and interventionism found new flavor under Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Imperialism was no longer confined to the Republican Party; progressives had co-opted the message and used it to bring “liberty and democracy” to “unenlightened” or “hopeless” people around the globe. Wilson re-organized Europe after World War I (to the detriment of many cultures in Europe), and Roosevelt helped jump start fifty years of American “police power” by involving the United States in World War II, by appeasing Josef Stalin at Yalta and by insisting on a United Nations. This led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives during the Cold War.

All of these actions had their roots in the Radical Reconstruction of the South. Republicans conquered and subjugated the South and found new votes in the Freedmen. They extended their “humanitarian” efforts by crushing the Plains Indian tribes and in the process opened thousands of acres for their railroads. The Party brought “liberty” to the Cubans and Filipinos and became the police force of the Western Hemisphere under Teddy Roosevelt. “Vote Republican!” Of course, by World War I, you no longer had to vote Republican; voting for either major party sufficed.

So, why is the United States the “stupid empire?” Simple. Unlike other empires in history, the United States expects the conquered to love the conqueror. The Romans did not expect their conquered subjects to love them. They ruled and the conquered accepted. The Athenians crushed several attempts to jettison their rule during the height of their empire, and the British did not care for the plight of their “subjects.” A subject in each case was part of the best and most fee state in the world. Resistance was preposterous (and deadly). Americans, however, believe that our efforts are the result of a simple dichotomy of good vs. evil. We freed you from evil and “gave” you your country back (conditionally), so love us! Reconstruction is taught that way, so is the American push to “liberate” other parts of the world. Certainly, the hypocrisy of the Spanish-American War and the misfortunes of the Plains Indian tribes have been documented, but no one connects the dots between the Republicans who looted the South during Reconstruction and the Republicans who raided the West, the Pacific, and Latin American during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century.

History has been unjustly kind to the conquerors and many mainstream historians have defended the conquering under idiotic moralistic pretenses. Slavery was bad so white Southerners deserved a beating; the railroads and western homesteaders needed property and Indians were vicious, so the tribes (somewhat) deserved a beating; the Spanish brutalized the Cubans and the Filipinos so the Spanish deserved a beating; Saddam was bad so he deserved a beating. Of course, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and others were brutal madmen, but it had never been American foreign policy to make “corrections” in the name of “liberty and democracy” until after the War Between the States. Like grizzly bears, the Republicans tasted human blood and had to continue their feeding. It has never stopped. Unfortunately, now voting for either major party perpetuates the “stupid empire.” Love us or die! [But we’ll give you everything back anyway with our strings attached because Americans are the “good guys.”]

About Brion McClanahanBrion McClanahan is the author or co-author of five books, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her (Regnery History, 2016), The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, (Regnery, 2009), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012), Forgotten Conservatives in American History (Pelican, 2012), andThe Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes, (Regnery, 2012). He received a B.A. in History from Salisbury University in 1997 and an M.A. in History from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He finished his Ph.D. in History at the University of South Carolina in 2006, and had the privilege of being Clyde Wilson’s last doctoral student. He lives in Alabama with his wife and three daughters.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Reposted from Lew

Alerting the press that he would deal with the birther issue at the opening of his new hotel, the Donald, after treating them to an hour of tributes to himself from Medal of Honor recipients, delivered.

“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. … President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”

The press went orbital.

“Trump Gives Up a Lie But Refuses to Repent” howled the headline over the lead story in The New York Times.

Its editorial called Donald Trump a “reckless, cynical bully” spreading political poison in an “absurdist presidential campaign,” adding that Trump is the “ultimate mountebank” using a “Big Lie” that “made him the darling of the wingnuts and racists” and “nativist hallucinators.”

You get the drift.

While Trump’s depiction of the birther controversy was … inexact … there was truth in it. Obama’s campaign did charge the Clinton campaign withdrawing press attention to that photo of Obama in traditional Somali garb. Apparently, Sid Blumenthal did push a McClatchy bureau chief to search for Obama’s birth records in Kenya.

Tim Kaine was wailing on Sunday about how “painful” Trump’s birtherism has been to African-Americans. And Democrats and the media are pledging not to let it go, but to exploit Trump’s attempt to “delegitimize” Obama’s presidency.

These are crocodile tears. Obama gave the game away Saturday night. At the Black Caucus’s annual gala, says The Washington Post, a “beaming” Obama “gleefully” had the attendees rolling in “laughter” over Trump’s concession. “With just 124 days to go,” mocked Obama, “we got that thing resolved.”

Many news organizations will go along with the game. For many appear to be all in on Clinton’s depiction of half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … haters.”

Yet one wonders. Do the major media understand that in their determination, bordering on desperation, to kill Trump, they are killing their credibility? And as they are losing credibility they are losing the country.

According to a new Gallup poll, distrust of the press has hit an all-time high. Half the nation’s Democrats still trust the media, but only one-in-three independents and one-in-seven Republicans, 14 percent, believe the media are truthful, honest and fair.

When, early in his presidency, Obama jokingly referred to the White House Correspondents Association dinner as his political base, Americans now believe he was not exaggerating the case.

And the more the media vent their detestation of Trump, the more Trump’s supporters revel in their discomfort. “We love him most of all for the enemies he has made,” said backers of Grover Cleveland in 1884. Trump’s folks feel that way about the national press.

America’s media seem utterly lacking in introspection. Do they understand why so many people hate them so? Do they care? Are they so smugly self-righteous and self-regarding they cannot see?

Take the birther issue again. According to a January HuffPost/YouGov poll, an astonishing 53 percent of all Republicans, 30 percent of all independents, and even 10 percent of Democrats still believe Barack Obama was born outside the USA.

What does this say about the persuasiveness of the press?

Indeed, what does it say about the idea that universal suffrage is the best way to determine the leadership of a republic?

In 2016, America faces serious issues — a rising deficit and escalating debt, the explosion of entitlements, the resurgence of Russian power, Chinese military expansionism in the South and East China seas, North Korea’s development of nuclear missiles, and Afghanistan.

Now consider the issues that have transfixed the media this election season:

The birther issue, David Duke, the KKK, a Mexican-American judge, Black Lives Matter, white cops, the “Muslim ban,” the Battle Flag, the “alt-right,” the national anthem, Trump’s refusals to recant his blasphemies against the dogmas of political correctness, or to “apologize.”

What does the continual elevation of such issues, and the acrimony attendant to them, tell us?

America is bitterly and irreparably divided over race, ideology faith, history and culture, and Trump’s half of the nation rejects the modernist gospel that America’s diversity and multiculturalism are her greatest treasures.

To the contrary, Trump’s half wants secure borders, “extreme vetting” of immigrants, especially from the Mideast, and foreign and trade policies marked by an “Americanism” that seems to be an antonym for globalism.

They want America to be “great again,” and they believe she was once and is not now.

No matter who wins in November, America is going to face a divide unseen in decades. If Donald Trump wins, he will confront a resident media more hateful than that which confronted Richard Nixon in 1968.

If Hillary Clinton wins, she will come to office distrusted and disbelieved by most of her countrymen, half of whom she has maligned either as “deplorables” or pitiful souls in need of empathy.

Not for half a century has the idea of “one nation under God, indivisible,” seemed so distant.

By Antonius Aquinas

On May 19, the House of Reprehensibles passed a proposal that would essentially ban the display of Confederate flags from national cemeteries.  The amendment was added to a Veteran Affairs spending bill.

Not surprisingly, House Speaker Paul Ryan allowed the measure to be voted upon in hopes of not disrupting the appropriations process.  Yes, by all means Paul, the redistribution of taxpayers’ confiscated wealth should take precedent over a draconian attempt to eradicate a heroic symbol of the country’s past.  Hopefully, Ryan will be ousted this November as both Speaker and Congressman for not only his consistent sell out to Obummer and the Democrats on the budget, but his lack of understanding and appreciation of what is arguably the most important period of American history.

In a certain sense, the Confederate flag should not be displayed in national cemeteries or for that matter flown alongside those of the Union.  The two are representations of dramatically opposed political ideologies.  Liberals and political opportunists of all sorts have deliberately smeared the South’s attempt at secession as being entirely over the issue of slavery.  The “Civil War” (which that struggle has become known by) is now seen through Politically Correct hindsight.

A civil war, in the truest sense, is a conflict between factions attempting to gain control of a government typically for their own aggrandizement.  The bloody conflict between the North and South was not that, nor was it solely over slavery although the institution played a role in it.

The Confederacy wanted no part of the Washington establishment at the time, which it believed had become too tyrannical, and attempted to secede from it.  The remaining states of the North, under the “leadership” of Abraham Lincoln, prevented this at the cost of more than 600,000 lives, the vast destruction of property, and the impoverishment of a people who simply sought to rule themselves.

The South’s action was nearly identical to what the colonies, North and South, did some 80 years previously in breaking away from the British Empire and becoming free and independent states under the benign rule of the Articles of Confederation.

As America’s Founding Fathers saw their liberties violated by King and Parliament, Southerners witnessed similar tyrannies and wisely anticipated more federal oppression with the election of Lincoln.

This interpretation has been ably supported by scholarship, though the view is rarely acknowledged in academia or in the mainstream media.  In an essay from an insightful collection titled Secession, State and Liberty, Donald Livingston persuasively describes the ideological content of the Declaration of Independence, the revolution it inspired, and its influence on the South’s leadership.

He writes: “Overall, the Declaration is an argument designed to justify the secession of the new self-proclaimed American states from the British state. . .  [It] is a document justifying the territorial dismemberment of a modern state in the name of the moral right of a people to self-government.”*

The South, imbued with such logic and the example of the Revolutionary generation’s break with Great Britain, attempted to separate from the Union on similar grounds and, in Livingston’s view, had a much stronger claim than the Founding Fathers had for independence:

[T]he colonies were not and never had been recognized as sovereign states, either by others or even by themselves.  At the time of the Civil War, however, the southern states had been and still were sovereign states, and so they could mount not only a moral argument but a legal one as well.  And it was the legal argument they primarily insisted upon.  Each state used the same legal form to secede from the Union that it has used to enter, namely, ratification in a convention of people.**

Although slavery was a part of the South’s final break with the North, the Confederacy could never have been built on such a narrow foundation.  Those who seek to paint Southern secession as a movement solely designed to protect their “peculiar institution” have either misunderstood the genesis of that struggle or do so for political gain.

While Southern secession is mercilessly condemned by the Establishment, scholars like Professor Livingston see it and the War for Southern Independence in a much different and far nobler light: “With the orderly, legal secession of the southern states, the American genius for self-government reached its highest moral expression.”***

The Northern and Southern flags which fly in national cemeteries across the land are indeed representative of different traditions, but not what the Politically Correct crowd would have everyone to believe.

The defenders of Dixie and the flags that commemorate their courageous actions have long since been morally justified.  The Union flag, on the other hand, has been one of aggression and domination, at first, brutally directed at its fellow countrymen who simply sought self-determination, and afterwards against millions of peoples from Vietnam to Iraq.

Hopefully, in the not too distant future as economic conditions worsen and American hegemony can no longer be maintained, the Union flag and the empire in which it represents will receive greater vitriol than the Confederate flag has gotten for its innumerable mass murders, destruction, crimes, and chaos which it has wantonly brought to every corner of the planet.

*David Gordon, ed., Secession, State & Liberty. Donald W. Livingston, “The Secession Tradition in America.” New Brunswick (U.S.A.), Transaction Publishers, 1997, p. 7

** Ibid., 18.

*** Ibid., 19.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

by Al Benson Jr.

Ahhh, yet another “unilateral” action by our beloved ruler! Those people that were ignorant enough to vote for him apparently did not grasp the salient fact that they were electing a dictator who was going to do whatever he wanted to do in the face of a do-nothing Congress. On the other hand maybe some of them (especially those at the top) did and that’s why they voted for him and promoted him.

I recently red an article on  that stated: “The Veterans Affairs Department quietly moved this month to ban the flying of Confederate flags from fixed flagpoles at the cemeteries it runs, striking yet another blow against the controversial emblem. Congress had debated and rejected that change, but the Obama administration decided to move forward anyway, saying that it was unilaterally imposing the restrictions.”

We are more and more being confronted with a leftist rogue administration that, if Congress votes against what it wants, it goes ahead and does it anyway–and the Congress sits there like a bunch of dumb dogs and does nothing, says nothing, hears nothing and sees nothing–like the proverbial brass monkey.

It’s long past the time when we should have awakened and realized that what we have in Washington is one single political bird with two wings, a real left(ist) wing and a phony right wing so that when the bird flies he can only turn to the left. You would think that if Congress voted against something and our beloved ruler decided he’d just go ahead and do it anyway that they would call him on it, but no, if he decides he’s going to spit in their faces they will spend all their time before the next election telling their constituents back home that they’d try to spend more time at local town hall meetings if they weren’t so busy in Washington wiping all that dew off their faces!

But our beloved ruler is not only spitting in the faces of our erstwhile elected representatives, he is also spitting in the face of every genuine Southern patriot and everyone who had an ancestor who fought under that flag in the War of Northern Aggression, myself included.

And the political spittle isn’t only flowing from Washington. In the last year it has emanated from many state capitols, too many of them in the South, and from many city and town councils in the South that are presently peopled by individuals that came either from somewhere up north, or worse yet, from foreign countries  and have not the vaguest concept of our faith, history and heritage and hence they have no trouble trashing it on a regular basis because they have realized that most Southern folks are just not going to say all that much.

Why good Southern people continue to elect such creatures to rule over them is beyond me. Maybe it’s the fluoride they are pumping into most of our water supplies now, or the government (public) schools that have taught generations of Southern folks so now they have gotten to where they can’t tell upside down from inside out!

However you slice the bread or cut the mustard, Southern and Confederate heritage is being routinely denigrated on a daily basis and most Southern folks couldn’t seem to care less anymore.

Rep. Jared Huffman, a “progressive” (socialist) from California posing as a Democrat (there really isn’t a dimes worth of difference) had pushed for this. He calls those of us who revere Confederate flags and symbols “racists” and he labels the flag an “anachronistic symbol of hatred.” It’s quite clear that Mr. Huffman has not bothered to do the history homework,. He doesn’t really need to.  As long as he can brand all those that dare to oppose his opinions as “racists” that’s all he needs. No history, no documentation, no proof for his position, just an epithet thrown at those who dare to disagree with his exalted views. Problem is, most of us just sit back and take it.

The Freedom Outpost article makes a telling statement, one that should sting most of us. It says: “Rep. Huffman is right about one thing:  the Battle Flag is out of time. It is dated and out of place. Not because of what he thinks it stands for, but because the cause that it stood for has long left the memory of the people it was fought for–America.

Your heritage is like anything else–if you don’t cherish it and rightly use and promote it–you lose it. Enough said.