From: Fred Feyertag
Subject: Liberty from Socialism (9 March 2009)
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I read your article "The Ten Causes of the War Between the States" and I agree with it. You might have wanted to add was Karl Marx organized a strike in the textile mills in England to reduce the trade of cotton from the South; under the auspices of the First International.
I'd though I'd put my 10 cents into what you are doing and I hope you have some time to reflect on what I'm about to say to you. First of all I want to give you a little bit of my background so that you'll know where I'm coming from.
First I am an Hassidic Jew and second I'm a mechanical engineer. Part of the mission of Judaism and the reason why we are the chosen people isn't all because we witnessed the revelation on Mount Sinai; with it comes some responsibilities. The primary responsibility is to be priests of the Seven Noahide Laws and to spread them across the globe. That is why we are designated as a separate nation; with this G-dly responsibility (and one of the reasons why we are hated).
The Seven Noahide Laws have a 350 year history in North America. They were introduced into the English speaking world by Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel after Oliver Cromwell allowed the Jews to resettle in England in 1655. These laws and Judaism, in general, was first studied in Oxford University that was part of the course curriculum in Harvard University when it was a divinity school (and I think up through the 1850's). What is important about these laws is that they are a means for the divine presence to enter your life and the life of the country. In practible terms; they are expansionist (to build civilization and commerce through capitalism - not zero economic or population growth and genocide as popularized by the UN) and allows the individual to have the discipline to do the right things morally when no one is looking (if the individual works on him or herself). These are the primary ingredients for individual liberty and a self sustaining republic.
The USA is the only country in history to be founded based on the Seven Noahide Laws.
You will see, after you examine them, the opponents of Liberty are completely against them and have tried to eradicate them from public life by replacing them with the opposite. The vehicle they use is cultural and moral relativism.
Here are the seven laws:
1. Prohibition against idolatry. (Not to worship idols, making one, convincing others to worship one (like the press with Obama), profiting from idol worship, ghosts, spirits, witchcraft, divination, astrology, charmers and necromancers).
2. Blasphemy. (Not to curse G-d)
3. Prohibition against murder. (This includes premeditate murder, abortion, suicide, man-slaughter and masturbation.)
4. Prohibition against Immoral Sexual Relationships. (Incest, homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, bestiality)
5. Prohibition against theft. (kidnapping, land conquest, seduction, usury, overpricing, permissible profit margins, physical abuse, coveting others possessions, usurping land, withholding wages)
6. Prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal.
7. Establishing Courts of Law to enforce and adjudicate according to the Seven Noahide Laws.
There are many more details to the these laws as well as other meritorious acts like charity, praying to G-d and Honoring Parents. Here are a couple of references: The Path of the Righteous Gentile (by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky) and The Seven Laws of Noah by Aaron Lichtenstein.
I think that if your project is going to be a success you have to explicitly be upfront about these laws. The people in this country are very hungry for leadership. It also has to be done soon. Intuitively, I know that this crew in Washington are looking for a Reichstag Fire to get rid of the Constitution and provoke chaos and civil war.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
From: Eric Chu
While I strongly disagree withmany of your politicalopinions, I can accept them when they are just that. However, when you express certain opinions based on incorrect or one-sided facts, my problems begin. On certain points you are stretching a fact almost to the point of absurdity.
Many of the facts you state are correct, however you offer only a one-sided argument, something unhelpful for people who believe everything they read. Yes, slavery was only one reasonthat led tothe civil war (and yes there was a civil war, as opposed to the song you posted) and yes, democrats did once oppress African-Americans, but Republicans were no help either. The Republicans were a party of free working white men; the only reason they were opposed to the spread of slavery was because they did not want to compete against unpaid labor in the newly opening lands in the West. They were no particular friends of black people, either enslaved or free.
Further, you put Republicans in a positive light, which is perfectly fine, but you tend to skate overmistakes made by that party, instead focusing your negative attacks ondemocrats.The Republicans were purely a sectional party; they did not attempt to run candidates in the slave states. Their plan was to gain complete political control in the North; if they did, they would have sufficient electoral strength to elect a president.
Another thing as I was wondering about: what exactly are you proposing about African-American pride in their heritage by wearing traditional clothing? Wearing traditional clothes is a sign of pride in African roots, because that is the clothing worn in parts of Africa. You insinuate that the wearing of traditional clothing has to do with white slave traders capturing them from the jungle, which certainly is not true. Ifind thatmany of your facts are accurate, butthe false facts stick out like a sore thumb. You say that African slaves were purchased fromtheir African Masters. This may be true,but Iam not aware of it. One thing I certainly am aware of, however, is the fact that slave traders did go into the jungle and kidnap slaves, mostly children, and cram them into ships, contrary to what you have stated. The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Or Gustavus Vassa, The African, by the first widely read African-American Olaudah Equiano, states the exact condition of his, and many others', capture at the hands of white slave traders. While he lived in Africa, one of the main jobs of the children was tostand watch ina tree for oncoming kidnappers.
You certainly feel strongly aboutthe Confederate flag not being used a symbol of racism, comparing it to the American flag and the Democratic Party,saying it instead represents ramantic chivalry of the south. However, you neglect to be empathetic towards people who feel differently. It sounds, in my opinion, that the confederate flag, to you,represents good qualities instead of ignorant ones, which I can respect, however, it is the stated truth that it in some cases represents ignorant, racist thoughts. It's just a fact. Racist lunatics today still use it as a symbol and there is just no ignoring it.Theconfederate flag represents to youmany admirable things, but it is used by others as a symbol of hate, which is why it is avoided. One odd perspective, in my opinion, that you hold is the delusion that if the founding fathers were still alive, they would support your thesis of holding wealth and pro-southern ideals. However, the founding fatherslived in a time period with there only being northern, middle, and southern colonies, and they went north. Your are completely correct, however, in stating that the founding fathers would diasagree with an oppressional national government. (Then again that is why they created the great compromise of a bicameral legislature, but that's another subect entirely) During that time period, the north and south were like polar opposites in ways. The north is where the cities, jobs, and urban/pro-enlightenment people lived. The south was consisted of many rich land owners that traveled from England and inherited wealth.
One fact you state that it not entirely true is that Africans-were treated very well. They were only treated well after importing slaves from Africa was made illegal. When they realized that there were not going to get any more slaves, they started treating their slaves better, not for some moral reason, but rather they knew they would receive no more. Before then, slaves were often treated apallingly, especially on the ships on the way over from Africa. While it might be true that some freed slaves stayed with their previous masters, this was certainly notsomething the majority of freed slaves did.
In colonial times, the north and south depended on each other. The south had the agricultural economy based on slave labor while the north had industry based on paid labor, with the exception of indentured servants. Today, America still depends on many different areas of the country to survive. You question why many politicians, both democrat and republican, sometimes may treat the south as a separate entity (which I am not aware of. Quite the opposite, the upcoming election stresses unity). Meanwhile you support a cecession of the south from the United States. I sense something amiss. This would never work, both in an economical and just basic sense. If you are just stating your dislike for politcal parties, that's fine, but a divided US would never work, it seems idiotic.You claim dislike for a strong federal power, so would you have the southern states just rule themselves? What about foreign threats? American leadership in the world? Economical backfalls? Foreign affairs? Foreign trading?
I'm going to be blunt about this: your whole thesis seems moronic. I've just read a few more paragraphs, and my respect for you has just dropped considerably. You are very egocentric in your ideas, seeing only your side of things and not considering an alternative or offering one to your readers. When I began reading, you seemed like a very well-spoken, respectable person, though I may not have agreed with any of you statements, but the more I read, the more my opinion of you drops. On the surface you appear knowledgable, but when you read between the lines of your website adorned with pro-right wing propaganda, very little is accurate. "All I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11"? On one hand you denounce ignorance, on the other you stereotype a whole religion based on the acts of lunatic terrorists. What if the glove was on the other hand and a radical Christian group (because America is predominantly Christian) bombed an Islamic country and the Muslims thought every Christian was a crazy terrorist? You appeared like a respectable person, but the hypocritical nonsense you spout is complete garbage. I'm so tired of pro-left wing and pro-right wing nuts going off on one another and just offering their side of a situation and then taking quotes out of context to attack the opposing side. Peace be with you.
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for taking the time to write, I always appreciate hearing from visitors so I can improve my website and correct mistakes or clarify parts that don't read well and may be confusing. The website contains my opinions and since there are so many other websites with opposite opinions I feel that I do not have to be "fair and balanced" but I do strive for accuracy and because of critical visitors like you I have made major revisions to some parts and have deleted other parts because the facts I cited could not be backed up. As you have pointed out many of my facts are correct.
The issue of slavery has been a sore point between North and South since the founding of the republic. For example in the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause was originally "life, liberty, and property" and was changed because the Northern delegates thought it would justify slavery and its expansion. A clause was removed that said something like the King taking persons against their will to Great Britain because slave traders were doing the same to Africans. The Constitution also has several references to slavery without using the word "slaves" or "slavery" so it would have a better chance of being ratified in the North. Don't take my word for it, look it up.
I just saw a recent estimate that only 7% of all slaves taken in Africa came to the United States and about 500,000 Africans were landed in the United States; after the War Between the States the Freemen Bureau counted about 4,000,000 ex-slaves. If slaves were not well treated how could their numbers increase eight fold in less than 50 years after importation was prohibited? Healthy and well treated slaves were in the master's best interest and the slave States did have laws on the books protecting slaves against excessive abuse and neglect by taking them away. Don't take my word for it, look it up.
I don't understand what you mean your sentence "Another thing as I was wondering about: what exactly are you proposing about African-American pride in their heritage by wearing traditional clothing?". I will need to search for what you are talking about but I don't begrudge anyone to be proud of their heritage and celebrate it provided that I can celebrate my white heritage and confederate history and that we do not put our heritage before that of being good citizens of our nation.
I agree that not all Islamics are terrorists but all the 911 terrorists were Islamics and the vast majority of terrorists attacks overseas were committed by Islamics. Until the good Islamics step up and remove these terrorists from their neighborhoods and Mosques I will not trust any of them. I do not take terrorism lightly at all; I live in Oklahoma City and was present when the Murrah Building was bombed by radical anti-government types who called themselves Christians. My house shook from the explosion and I was a witness to the removal of bodies and the broken lives. When I was watching 911 unfold live on television I was having flashbacks and extreme empathy with the people of New York because I knew exactly what they were going through. I do not want to see that happen again in any American city.
I definitely do not love republicans over democrats but despise them less and feel that they will do less damage in the long run that the democrats to our freedoms, wealth, and property. I have looked at republicans as the lesser of two evils but every election it seems that the difference between the GOP and the democrats are getting lesser and lesser. That brings me to secession.
As I have stated in the webpages I think we are at the point that the Congress, the court, and the government are just ignoring the American people and something has to give. We are a righteous people that when pushed far enough will push back. Short of a revolution where our country is taken back by force of arms (and who knows what the final results will be) the only other option is a peaceful secession of like minded persons from the United States and create a country with a government of their own choosing. Then what is left of the United States can then govern the way they please with all the "troublemakers" now running their own affairs.
Again thanks for writing and I will go over the other observations you made to correct and clarify any errors that may still be lurking there.
John
From: Mark Mouser
Subject: The Confederacy Project (21 June 2008)
Dear Sir,
I am on "The Confederacy Project" web site and have a few questions. I hope this is the e-mail to the creatoror founder of the project. If not please disregard.
I am intrigued by the concept of The Confederate Project. I am saddened and sickened by the state of our country. The left wing liberals have taken over my beloved state of Oregon and have effectively banished God. My wife is a Southern Belle and since marrying her I have received quite an education on the South and the true reasons behind the war of the states.
When did you present this plan on the internet, and do you much of a following?
A couple of concerns I have: 1. How would you assure that no radical organizations would become involved with the project?
2. If there were a mass exodus to the 5 states mentioned, wouldn't that wreak havoc with the economy of the entire U.S.?
3. What would happen to real estate prices in said exodus?
Thank you,
Mark
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for your e-mail, I am always pleased to reply to any good questions which may be asked.
1. To insure that no radical organizations becomes involved is to screen all members the best we can and insure that only authorized spokesmen speak for the organization and create a code of ethics and due process. If we find that an individual member or members breaks this code they will be subject to due process to insure that the violation was not intentional. If it was and they violate it continually they would be expelled. This (or any movement) must be open, honest, and ethnical to be taken seriously because loose cannons will just taint public opinion, cause fractions within the movement, dishearten the membership, and give an excuse for the government to shut us down.
2. I do not think there would be a mass exodus at first because true conservatives/libertarians are a minority in this country. I do expect to see a mass exodus out of the target States of illegal aliens and persons on government assistance since the Constitution has strict restrictions on illegal aliens and no welfare, social security, or health entitlements at the federal level. When the new country is founded and the major corporations and investors find out that there are no income taxes or regulation at the federal level (except fraud) then you will see mass capital flight and the US could see a serious recession. On top of that most United States domestic oil production (and the offices of the oil companies) is also within this area and so the new CSA would become energy independent overnight with no restrictions on exploration, production, or usage at the federal level. Oil availability would have a severe economic and political effect on the rest of the US as the needs of the CSA would be filled first.
3. As for real estate within the CSA I do not see much effect at first because the population shift will be gradual at first as supporters move in to the target States; I see many real estate brokers start to service this class of client matching those who are leaving with those arriving. The target States still has much inexpensive open land and when the lands owned or restricted unconstitutionally by the United States is returned to the CSA and the States they can choose to leave it as is or sell it to developers; supply outside of the major cities should not be much of a problem. Property rights of all persons, regardless of which country they live in, will be protected.
From: George Hunsicker
Subject: Slavery (5 June 2008)
I would be open to believing that the confederacy was not fighting to protect the rights of slave owners if it were not for the fact that slavery is very clearly defined and protected by the confederate constitution. If it wasn't what they were fighting for why did they mention it 6 times in their constitution? (and I may have missed some!) No, the war was definitely all about the rights of slave holders, no doubt about it! It is, except for the inclusion of slavery, pretty much the same as the United States Constitution and (interesting in and of itself) gives no rights to the states that they didn't already have!?! So the oft heard claim that the whole war was over "States Rights" doesn't really wash, does it, or to use a real Southern expression, "That dog won't hunt". I say the war was started by rich planters who feared that the fall of slavery would strip them of their slaves, wealth and power. In the South's case it really was, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" since you were exempt from conscription if you owned (I think it was) 20 slaves. The real states rights question was really decided in 1912 with the direct election of US Senators. Now there the states really did lose a lot of their power and influence. The real tragedy was that the South didn't make any effort what so ever to separate legally from the United States. They just up and started a war, without giving legal process and debate any chance at all. Makes you wonder, probably a few good lawyers could have avoided the whole thing and come up with a much better solution.
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Yes, slavery was a part of the War Between the States but if you do a search you will find economic, tax, protective tariff and other reasons why the Confederacy seceded. My website has some words about this but don't take my word for it, do the research. The Confederate Constitution did mention slavery explicitly but the US Constitution also indirectly mentioned slavery as to make ratification more palatable to the anti-slavery factions such as:
Article One, Section 2, Clause 3 "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.…"
Article Two, Section 9, Clause 1 "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
Article Four, Section 2, Clause 3 "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Article Five "… other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; …"
The biggest complaint was that the anti-slave states and many federal agents and judges ignored Article Four, Section 2, Clause 3 and did not return escaped slaves to their owners thus denying them their property rights as per the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court.
First/Provisional Government Constitution stated in Article 4, Clause 2 "The Government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their other late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them; these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liability, and common obligations of that Union, upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith. "
It is not true that the South "just up and started a war, without giving legal process and debate any chance at all" . Check the history; this debate was going on even before the Constitution was written and the indirect clause mentioned above as a compromise. The open fighting in the Kansas/Nebraska territory pushed the debate to the forefront in Congress. There were even a couple of constitutional amendments that pertained to protect slavery including one signed by Lincoln. When the argument could not be resolved it was then that the South left the Union. Lincoln refused to meet with the peace emissaries sent by President Jefferson Davis to negotiate a peaceful separation and provoked an armed response by not peacefully leaving the forts the North still controlled along the southern coasts and fortified them. Fort Sumter just happened to be where the first shots were fired.
The Second Permanent Constitution did have some States Rights clauses such as:
Preamble "We, the people of the Confederate States, ..."
Article One, Section 2, Clause 5 "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof."
Article Five "Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made …"
And of course the US and both Confederate Constitutions had:
"The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People"
"The powers not delegated to the United (Confederate) States by this Constitution; nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
The 20 slave rule that was put into practice because of the practical fears that the slaves would revolt if too many whites were in the army and the open encouragement by the North to the slaves to rise up and kill their "oppressors" with promises of freedom, money, and land.
The bottom line was that the industrial revolution was moving into the South and slavery was starting to die out and more than likely would have disappeared in a couple more decades. I have always thought that this War could have been avoided if a few hotheads on both sides were ignored by the people at large. The War set back the people of the South that it took decades for it to recover its economic and political power. I whole heartily agree with you that not only the 17th but the 16th amendment killed what States rights that were left after the War but our individual rights also. The States are fast becoming lines on a map we are slowly being changed from Citizens to subjects.
From: James Stewart
Subject: A missing Point (4 February 2008)
John,
I looked at your website because of the Green Dragon Tavern reference. I work on 18th C items and am always looking into what has happened in historic sites. I have looked at your website and see you are missing a point that is essential to finding the way...
A mother asked President Bush,
"Why did my son have to die in Iraq ?"
Another mother asked President Kennedy,
"Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam?"
Another mother asked President Truman,
"Why did my son have to die in Korea ?
Another mother asked President F.D. Roosevelt,
"Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima?"
Another mother asked President W. Wilson,
"Why did my son have to die on the battlefield of France?"
Yet another mother asked President Lincoln,
"Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg?"
And yet another mother asked President G. Washington,
"Why did my son have to die near Valley Forge?"
Then long, long ago, a mother asked...
"Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"
The answers to all these are similar --
"So that others may have life and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."
War ONLY makes more war. It doesn't resolve the problems but makes new ones. When will we ever learn to live in PEACE with our neighbor? It is what Jesus told us to do… Love your neighbor as you do yourself. Remember the "War to end all Wars" has only made more wars as a result of the peace it allegedly had achieved.
"'Love the Lord Your God....
...with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - Matthew 22:37-40
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting live." - John 3:16
What Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."
What Gandhi said: "The law of an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
In this world of God's, we should have been working to help the world instead of raping it of it's riches for our gains. We need to work to peaceful conflict resolution if we are to be God's people and let them see God's love through us... This is one of the hardest tasks to do. We can always justify our actions of aggression except with God...
I believe and am walking in the steps of PEACE that want ALL people to reconcile to God. It says nothing about killing those neighbors that we don't like or disagree with. Maybe someday you will come to know the PEACE of the Lord...
Remember that freedom is never free. We have to work at it. It is hard work to love our neighbor to achieve the tranquility God promises us as faithful servants...
Peace,
James
Woods Unlimited by James Stewart
Ye Olde Sign Carver
18 Scenic Circle
Rochester, New York 14624-1008
585-594-9663
www.woodsunltd.com
james@woodsunltd.com
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for your input, I always welcome constructive and intelligent criticism of my website for it helps me make it better and find mistakes that I may have mixed. Let me add a quote:
"When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)
Ask any soldier of any country in any historical period and they will tell you that they are the first ones who pray for peace and would like nothing better than to turn their swords into plowshears. Working for the US Air Force all my adult life as an active duty member, reservist, and civil service employee I would love to see nothing better than to scrap all nukes and war material. It is a waste of the world's people and resources to create these massive war machines.
But there are too many people, religions, and countries that wish to conquer their neighbors, to make them into slaves, or to slaughter them like so many cattle. Do you think that we should not have done anything after Pearl Harbor? Just let the Soviet Union roll over all of Europe after the defeat of Germany? Or just ignore 911? Should we have just turned the other cheek and let the Japanese, Germans, and Soviet armed forces cross our shores and conquer our nation without a fight? Do we let the Islamic Terrorists dictate that we worship their version of God or be put to death?
You are absolutely right, freedom is not free. Many times it has to be paid in blood and treasure. It has to be paid in the form of huge armies that we pray will never be used. When It has to be used it needs to be fought completely and without surrender or quarter until the enemy is completely beaten. Only complete victory over our enemies can guarantee peace, not only for the enemy we defeated but as an example for those who are thinking of taking us on. The best wars are those that are never fought.
From: Twa Allen
Subject: The Confederacy Project Fallacies (17 October 2007)
I would like to begin by first commending you, or whomever is the deserving party, for developing a thoroughly planned strategy for a peaceful secession from the United States of America. The idea is very convincing, yet I disagree with a couple aspects of your article.
First, the way in which the article is written is obviously in direct correlation with your intelligence, which can be a negative thing. Honestly, I can tell you're a very smart person, but your abilities don't just apply to writing. Propaganda, I've observed, is another skill of yours. This includes the horrible picture of the already ugly Hillary Clinton with statements taken out of context. Blatantly do you label Democrats as "rats" by capitalizing those respective letters in the word. There are several others that all contributed to the debasing your argument. If your cause is so "just" why aren't the pure facts laid out without adulterations? I know your not a fan of the Liberal Media, but you sure do take on the same qualities.
Secondly, I would like to discuss the way in which citizens of the United States are stereotyped. Practically everyone is categorized into two political parties. You're either a Republican or a Democrat. Of course, this is entirely false in that the middle ground is eliminated. George Washington once said that political parties would one day destroy our nation. I couldn't agree more because the base of your argument has to do with the separation of an entire nation into two sections. My mind has been designed to see diversity and to have an opinion that is based solely on proven facts. I am, therefore, Republican nor Democrat.
In conclusion, I encourage you to continue with your work. This solution may be viable someday, and I wish for you to stay truthful and practical until then.
-Anonymous Critic
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for your message, I always welcome comments, good and bad, to try to make this the best political website on the net. I always find critical comments the best to find flaws in my logic and writing to correct the discrepancies or clarify some points.
First off, I got the "RAT" in "Democrat" from the Democrats themselves in the last election. They made a big fuss about a Republican television ad where the word "Democrat" moved across the screen from left to right so viewers would see the full word "rat" first as the letters scrolled onto the screen. So I have used it ever since. I should change it now because that happened a long time ago when it was relevant to the political debate but now it gives visitors like you the wrong idea.
Are you talking about the Hillary pic with the quotes "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good?" Unlike the way taken-out-of-context "phony soldier" quote by Rush Limbaugh this is a stand alone quote which shows what Hillary really thinks about capitalism and the people of this country, that the answer to all of our problems is more socialism. Watch her latest speeches; all she talks about is allowing government to take more and more of our wealth, property, and freedom in the form of baby bonds, government contributions to 401Ks/IRAs, socialized medicine, gun control, benefits to illegal aliens, and open borders. How does she plan to pay for it besides raising taxes? Just today I heard her propose that the unpaid Family Leave Act should become a paid benefit. If that ain't taking away our things to pay for socialist programs then what is?
This type of talk helps the cause of secession in that this country is, in my opinion, way beyond saving unless the people and the politicians stop thinking about themselves in the here and now and what kind of country we are giving our yet unborn grandchildren.
As for political views I consider myself a constitutional-libertarian in that the government should carry out only those duties and responsibilities authorized by the Constitution with all other powers reserved to the States and the people. In my proposed Constitution along with "Congress shall have the power" section there is also a "Congress shall not have the power" section. Unfortunately in this day and age the big dogs on the block are the Republicans and Democrats, both of which are selling out the people in this country for political and personal gain, and now I am forced to vote not for the best candidate but the lesser of two evils.
I am biased; my whole website is my opinion or opinions of those I agree with. And yes, it looks like propaganda to a first time visitor. I differ from the media in one important way, I admit my bias and state my unblemished positions as I see it. The liberal media pretends to be unbiased but the result is that there is really not any difference between the news pages and the editorial pages. They do this mostly by ignoring those facts that get in the way of their reporting.
Well, that's about it, hope you become a regular visitor and please keep me honest with critical comments.
Subject: Your Website (27 February 2007)
I have spent the last couple of hours viewing your website and I totally agree with the statements you have made.
Too many countries have lost their way in the so-called "modern" world, my country of Australia included, and it's about time that so-called "old world" values are once again propergated to the masses as a viable alternative to what the world has become. I am from old family and I was raised to live up to certain values, such as keeping my word, honoring those worthy of honor, etc.
Unfortunately such values are no longer considered to be a valid choice by most people out in the world.
You however are an exception to the rule and I am proud to see it.
I myself have tried to emmigrate to the US, a land I see as a place where I am free to express my rights and views freely, but as a white european decended and thinking male I have met obsticles at every turn, yet I see on MANY websites how many people just arrive in your great nation and are given a "get out of jail free card" to stay, it makes me wonder if I shouldn't just come over as a tourist and stay like so many others I have seen do?
Atleast I would not be a parasite, I would be a hard working person, unlike so many couch potatoes.
But anyway I thought you might like some positive feedback about your site.
"The South is not dead, it is waiting to rise again"
Dan C
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for your interest in my website and your letter. It is hard to believe that Australia and the United States have the same forefathers from the Magna Charta to John Locke to Adam Smith and the right, through British common law, of self protection for ourselves, family, and property. Our common mother country, Great Britain, has decided to throw all that out and embrace socialism and disarming their subjects leaving them at the mercy of criminals, a more oppressive government, and forced into the EU.
Australia, a solid ally of the United States in war and peace, has started on that same road. There are those in the United States who want to travel with you. But it is not too late for you and us. Canada, which also started down that road, is turning around under the pressure of the western, conservative Provinces. We can fight back also, it is never to late fight for freedom and our God given rights that no government can legally take away.
That is the idea behind the Confederacy project, socialism and a planned economy, and freedom and capitalism cannot exist in the same place at the same time. One or the other is going to win with or without bloodshed. The only sure bloodless method is a peaceful separation of the country with each going its own way, one part European type socialism and the other with the value and freedoms that our founding fathers has given us.
----------> This is his reply:
I am ashamed today to call myself an Australian.
With the gun control measures in place out here, it's even to the point where we are not allowed under the law to have a handgun to protect life and property inside the home, and it's getting stronger and harder every day. I should not say this but I have several guns, including military grade firearms, and the only way they will ever get them is to pry them out of my cold, dead and bloody hands.
Australia does not even have a "Bill of Rights" we lost the rights to all freedoms long ago, the Government simply never gave us any. They crow about third world dictatorships, but Australia is a Dictatorship in ALL but NAME.
I understand that the US states that as far as Natural Rights are concerned everyone is entitled to them even if they live in a country that fails to acknowledge those right?
If that is true then Australians have the right to self protection and freedom from fear and yet the Government out here is doing more to encourage fear than allowing people to protect themselves from it.
Throughout every war the US has been involved in Australians have been there, it is rumoured that even during the war of 1812 some Australian convicts who had escaped to the US aided in that fight, right through until today, we have always stood shoulder to shoulder together come what may. For example in the Battle of the Coral Sea, Australian and US warships were side by side to destroy the Japanese invasion fleet.
I am proud to say that I had a relative, Richard D'Charne, who fought with the Confederacy in the Civil War. He was there from the first days of the war and was there when Lee surrendered. I don't know if that makes me a son of the Old South but I would like to think so. I still have his saber and spurs.
I feel Australia is becoming more and more "communistic" in it's every day attitudes and what I am trying to fight a one man battle it seems like at times is the attitude of "it's the government, what can I do?" when all it would take would be 10% of the population to rise up and shout "enough!" and do something about it, yes, armed if necessary, and start us back on the road to true freedom and democracy.
Dan
----------> This is his reply:
The U.S. Constitution starts with "We The People" and that is true where ever men strive to be free. The Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The words are just as true today as it was over 200 years ago.
From: aaaawindshields
Subject: 1st Amendment (21 January 2007)
1st Amendment is a prohibiton against Congress from establishing a one nation religion. Does not prohibit prayer in public schools, display of ten commandments in public places. or even using tax dollars for Christain books etc. It only prohibits congress from taking action one way or another, and congress only.
The myth of seperation of church and state is just that a myth created by a liberal supreme court in 1947. Did you know not one of those liberal court justices was a sitting judge until politically appointed to the court. Not one! They re wrote the consitution and stole our heitage. Lets take it back.
----------> This is my reply:
You are right, Thomas Jefferson wrote some obscure reference to separation of church and state that has been completly twisted out of context. He was referring to a combined church/state government exactly like what today's radical Islamic terrorists are striving for. It is too bad that the left uses that one thing he wrote about religion but ignores everything he wrote having to do with freedom, right to keep and bear arms, etc. including the Declaration of Independence, which states:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
----------> This is his reply:
Don't forget our nations creed. Which clearly indicates Creator as in Genesis.
All men are created equal and endowered by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There are many false gods but only one Creator! Jefferson wrote on the front of his bible "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a cisciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator." Notice the words Christain and Creator, thus, one must conclude he was and is talking about the Creator found in Genesis. Since he authored the Declaration of Independence our founding document and used the word God and Creator one again must agree he is talking about Creator as found in Genesis. Therefore, America was founded upon Judeo/Christain principals not seperation of church and state as stated by the 1947 5-4 vote by a liberal Supreme Court with no Constitutional experience prior to their appointment to the Court.
America is now living a lie, and a myth. Our heritage and history have been stolen by that Warren Court of liberal secular judges.
How do you interrupt seperation of church and state from "Congress shall not...." that only prohibits congress and congress alone. Hence, prayer which is freedom of speech and the right to assemble, attend church also appear in the 1st amendment, not to mention freedom of the press, printing bibles.
I agree we must once again serve notice on the goverment which derives its just powers from the governed. "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Those events happened in 1947 and Americans should dissovle the Supreme Court ruling and return to our Judeo Christain foundations.
Subject: Re: Your Courageous Efforts (6 December 2006)
John,
I can most certainly agree with your commentaries, and the direction you are going with the "John's Politically Incorrect Page" and the "CONFEDERACY PROJECT."
Being over age 60, I have seen the downfall of America coming for a very long time now. The far left has beaten us down with the age-old strategy of "Divide and Conquer."
They have divided us with "diversity" and political correctness... not to mention affirmative action, and "hate crime" laws. And living in a conservatively challenged state like Ohio, only adds to my frustration.
One of my e-mail partners is a Christian pastor and scholar who has studied the Civil War era, and has come to the same conclusion that I arrived at many years ago... The WRONG SIDE won the war!!!
With your ties to the CONFEDERACY PROJECT, have you received any demographic data as to a trend of conservative voters actually moving to the southern and southwest target states yet where we hope to accomplish our united goals? Or is it too early to tell?
The only fault I would find in your strategy is that in your total honesty and public posting of the design framework of the Confederacy Project, there is the possibility that our leftist enemies may sabotage the program by flooding the target states with their immoral and corrupt leftist voters.
I will continue to pray for the success of this most viable solution to America's moral/political dilemma.
Gary Miller, Jesus Calling For America editor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Help Restore America as "One Nation Under God!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for your visit and comments. I am 53 myself and agree that I am less free than my parents were and my grandsons will have less freedom than I have now. I believe deeply that the United States is too far gone to ever return to the republic the founding fathers and the only way to save a part of it is for like minded freedom loving Americans to create a new country.
I have not ever gotten into demographics but the League of the South has complied several tables comparing how an independent Southern nation would fare against the rest of the world.
I am not too worried about the left trying to flood the target states with their people because I think that they will secretly approve of this plan to get rid of the great unwashed trouble makers to make it easier to finally void that pesky constitution that keeps getting in their way, especially the bill of rights. This movement needs to be kept as open as possible so the government and the liberal press can't lie about the movement.
Dear John,
In my malaise the past few days I have considered many things. Not because the Repulsives lost, but because the American people again were hoodwinked. The U.S. is finished. That's a given. What to do is the question. And that has been part of my malaise. Leave? For where? Argentina? Singapore? Alaska? The analysis is. There is no where to go that provides the freedoms I demand and expect under The Contract with the founders. Then in the middle of the night, last night, November 11, 2006, it came to me.
NOW, and at no time in the last 141 years has it been a better time than right now, for The South to Rise Again. Based on The principles of those magnificent men of 1776-1789 their teachers and their inspiration and those that followed. You may laugh at the obvious, to you , and why it took so long, however, NOW is the time and I recognize it. Now I know why I really moved to Virginia. So I will start the ball rolling. I will start the flags waving. For years I have said, I will not be enslaved. And now I know how to fulfill this.
The last hope for freedom and mankind is a rebirth of The Confederate States of America. This rebirth is about saving The Contract and it's rights and re-establishing those freedoms in The Southern States and any others that chose the course.
God Bless The New Confederate States of America and to the New Republic for which it stands.
… .
Cordially,
Peter Courtenay Stephens
The New Confederate States of America; Across from Yorktown Where it all began And where it will again Be A free country.
From: Shad Dahlgren
Subject: Re: Thanks (19 October 2006)
Hi,
I just found your web site and I had to write to tell you that I love it. Please keep up the good work.
I don't have the time right now to read everything on your site however I would love to able to take the time to do so. In browsing around the site I've seen a few articles where you think that south is going to be (for lack of a better phrase) the place to be when the breakup of the U.S. happens. I admit I haven't had the time to take your site all in so forgive me if I'm wrong in that statement. Before tonight I have thought about this very same subject many times and I agree with you in that it is coming. So that begs the question where will the lines be physically drawn? As a native Nebraskan I believe that this state and the many of its neighbors would be part of this new country. So I respectfully disagree with you somewhat. My reasoning is this. I think that the real Demarats are on the coasts. In other words I believe most of the people in the middle states are sound in reason, logic, and are for the most part fiercely independent. I believe this is mainly because geography, culture and history, resources.
Geography: The people on the coast call us the fly over states. In their minds they would not stoop to going to these places they simply want to get to the other coast where the so called real action happens. What these people neglect to acknowledge is that this is the business end of the country. This is where the food is produced. This is where a large majority of the natural resources are located. This is where we still enjoy the right and freedom to do with our land as we see fit and thus it is still productive. This part of the country makes their country club lifestyle possible.
Culture and History: Yes the southern boarder of Nebraska was the Mason-Dixson line. At that time this state really didn't know what it wanted to be. I think it just kind of happened that the line stopped at this territory (not state). However today most people are the type that would typically be found in the old south. They are independent, they don't believe in bigger government; in short they are good ole boys (incidentally I don't regard being a "good ole boy" a bad thing. But then again it means something different to me than most). Also (this is just a side note) I'll have you know that at Civil War reenactments here in Nebraska most people choose to be on the South side.
Resources: As stated before this is where the real resources are located. With out us the coast would crumble. Case in point a person might think that Nebraska has nothing to offer however Nebraska has the absolute greatest resource of all mankind. Fresh Water. Their is an ocean under Nebraska. The Ogallala aquifer. The war for that water is just beginning and I predict its going to get nasty. If a person doesn't believe that it's important than try going a day without it. Not to mention the surrounding middle states from North Dakota all the way to Texas including Wyoming. Why Wyoming? That's where the coal, gas, and minerals are. Texas of course with oil.
Ok I could write all night about this subject but I must get some rest. The point of this email is that I don't want you to underestimate us in the middle north.
In closing how may help you in your cause?
Respectfully and Thankfully,
Shad Dahlgren, Lincoln, Nebraska
----------> This is my reply:
Thank your for your message, I am always interested in what people say about my website so I can improve it and correct any mistakes that someone finds. There were other States that were torn during the War Between the States such as California. Like Maryland an occupying army keep eastern California in the Union against the wish of the people there.
As for the final borders of a reborn Republic, as the founding fathers envisioned, there are no final borders, any State can join. A good guide would be to look at the 2000 and 2004 presidential election map of the red areas to get an idea of what a new confederacy would like. I also envision some western and central Canadian Provinces and border Mexican States joining up when they also get fed up with their national governments.
I have read that the east and left coast elites say that "fly over country" is backward and could not survive without them. It is actually the other way around; we have the greatest share of raw materials and farm/ranch land in the US. Water not so important, they have us beat on that. For the central and western States water has been and is still a hot issue as these States pick up more and more immigrants from the liberal east and west coasts. Combine the breadbasket great plain States with the oil producing States like Oklahoma, Texas, and the Gulf States the Confederacy (or what ever name the new country takes on) can be very self supporting with no need or assistance from the United States or any other country.
As for helping me I don't really lead any type of secession group however there are some secession organizations listed in my links page that you can check out.
John
From: Craig Gibson
Subject: Limits On Federal Power Amendments (9 August 2006)
I found your Web page yesterday and read through much of your proposed amendments. I like where you are going with many of the provisions; I am often dismayed by how far we have drifted from the original understanding of the Constitution as a whole and many of its specific provisions.
If you don't mind, I'd be greatly interested in your answers to a few specific questions:
1. I noticed you largely left the war powers clauses untouched. I wondered if this is because you believe the war powers are currently properly partitioned and functioning.
2. There are several provisions explicitly stripping the federal government of authority to conduct welfare programs and insurance programs. This is very good, in my opinion. Though I am more cautious about provisions limiting the role of the federal government to engage in internal improvements (this is more of a practical concern rather than a philosophical disgareement). I didn't see any reference, however, to the Federal Reserve. I assume by language restricting the executive departments to Defense, Justice, Treasury etc, that it would the Federal Reserve System would be eliminated?
3. What would be the fate of organizations like the FBI and CIA?
Thanks for your time. You have a great Web site with many good ideas!
--
Craig
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for your comments and questions, I always like to receive them both good and back.
1. I kept the law powers clauses in the Constitution as they were because Congress can always rein in a president's war making ability by simply cutting off the money and in this amendment Congress also has to power to disband a standing army by simply voting against it. I am like the founding fathers who believe that have a standing army only encourages military adventurism like President Clinton did to draw attention from his many scandals. For national defense the National Guard (which is actually part of the national Armed Forces) will be abolished and their resources transferred to the State militias as the founding fathers intended.
For I record I do support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as just parts of the larger war against Islamic Terrorism and world domination. You may have noticed that I cleared up the murky status of terrorist, POWs, and illegal and enemy aliens by not extending to them the same Constitutional rights as citizens and foreign residents and the president has the power to establish special or military courts to try them.
2. The clause against internal improvements came from the Confederate States Constitution. Each State now has the responsibility for its own internal improvements up to three miles off their ocean shores. That will put a stop to members of congress bringing home the pork to buy reelection and reduce the influence of lobbyists. If a State wants to create welfare systems and universal health care they are free to do so if a States' Citizens allow it and the State pays for it, no more federal funds.
As for the Federal Reserve every country has a central bank and in these days of worldwide commence and money transfers I do believe that a central bank is needed to insure that federal currency and the rules of trade are uniform. As for the Fed itself I don not believe that it is run by a cartel of Jewish Bankers in league with the one-worlders and the UN. The Constitution does give monetary and regulation of international trade power to the Congress and they elected to set up the Federal Reserve. Being a student of history and finance the Fed has done a good job of keeping the money supply stable both at home and aboard. I have been looking at what the Fed does and I do not see the need for any Constitutional reforms. That can be handled by Congress as needed and gives the Fed more flexibility than constitutional clauses can.
The amendment sets up for now certain departments because I think that HUD and the Departments of Energy and Education, and many other departments really need to go because the constitution does authorize them, those departments so named were the first ones created by congress. But the congress still can set up or delete departments and agencies as needed.
3. As for all existing federal agencies like the FBI and the CIA there are so many agencies that it would be practically impossible for me to go through each one and decide if it can go or stay. Each one would have to be looked at by people smarter than me and if their duties are authorized by the Constitution then they can continue. Any federal agency that does not would be either be abolished or devolved to the States.
John
From: RG Miller
Subject: John`s Politically Incorrect Web Page..........AWSOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (24 March 2006)
Hey!!! Finally someone with the same ProSouth ProChristian ProConservative and ProConstitutional Ideals as me and most of my friends and extended family! I'm gunna send your site to every one I know. Me and my older cousin kitty have been formulating a plan VERY simaler to yours for a while but were considering the southeastern coast for secession but now that I think about it I reallized that you are right bout OK TX and LA. I didnt take into perspective the oil problem as much as I should of. How far along are you with organizing it or are you pretty much alone with the idea and cant really get it started? It would have to be soon so we can still semi-legally stockpile weapons and ammo.(Also it would help if we did it before we become the UCNA, The United chinese colonys of north america.) Any way me and probably 4 other familys will support you 101%.and I will also help as much as possible.
In the name of God, Jesus, and The South,
RG Miller
----------> This is my reply:
Thank you for e-mail, I always appreciate messages, good and bad, because it helps make my websites better. Oil is the lifeblood of any modern country and the target States are all oil rich. That, unfettered capitalism, and direct access to world ports would make a new CSA a world economic leader right off the starting block.
From: Brian D. Bell
Subject: Comments About Your Website (30 August 2005)
Dear John,
I just spent a good deal of time reading through your website, and though I am nowhere near finished, I just wanted to take a few moments to pass a compliment on to you. It's clear that you've taken a lot of time and hard work, and I felt you deserved my gratitude. It is indeed an excellent and informative site!
Unfortunately, I am a natural born northerner, but someday (hopefully soon) I will become a southerner. I've visited many times, and perhaps the first thing I noticed (in contrast to my home state, Rhode Island) is how nice and friendly people are. I've never seen so many complete strangers take an ounce of effort and greet me, or smile at me. You just don't find that in RI or MA.
I'm considered almost totally polictally incorrect up here, and over the years it's become very clear to me that I just don't fit in, and it would be nice to get away from the weather, too. To make matters worse, the economy up here is terrible, the laws are getting out of control (try buying a handgun in Massachusetts), the politicians are even worse, and I won't get started on how many bleeding-hearts there are around here.
When I was a schoolboy learning about the war of northern aggression (as I've come to call it), it didn't seem right to me, what they were teaching... It was almost as though I could detect the lies! Being a history buff (albeit not a very good one), I've done my fair share of research on the subject and found lie after lie after lie.
Soon, it became clear to me who really got the short end of the stick, and it's also become clear to me that we, today, are actually living the nightmare the confederate fathers saw coming. All this (and more) has been compelling me for several years to relocate to the south, and today I feel the same way... so much so that I'd even call myself homesick for it.
Anyway, I apologize for rambling so much, so I'll just finish off by saying thanks again for having such an informative website, and it's nice to know there are other people that think along the same lines as I do.
Hope to get a reply!
Yours with Best Regards,
Brian D. Bell
----------> This is my reply:
Ramble on. I am glad you enjoyed your on-line visit. I do try to keep things truthful and interesting and why I do not think that we will see a new confederacy in our lifetimes it is coming in a generation or so. Either a separate country or a rebirth of the United States as the founding fathers intended. I think this because many of the children of the baby boomers are more conservative than their parents and they notice the failing of the socialist leaning society they are living in such as political correctness, the demonization of Christian of Christian religion, and the pocket book issues of taxes and social security. Keep on thinking as you do and fight those you tell you that you are wrong because you are alone.
Be sure to visit the The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Message And Political Comment Board that is linked to my website.
From: Ryan Giles
Subject: A request (26 April 2004)
Dear John,
I would like to first start off by saying that you have an amazing website. You obviously can look outside what moronic college professors and deluded high school indoctrination artist(teachers) preach, and see the real world. I am glad that your site is out there and I hope that some people who today ignorantly vote for the destruction of our greate nation, read you site and take what you write to heart. Now, I would like to help your cause. I would love to donate money to you for you efforts in this noble endeavor of enlightening the world, but sadly I am barley paying my rent and have no money to spare. I would like to, however, help you out by creating a forum where members and fans(like myself) can get together and discuss the issues that you address on your site as well as politics in general. I will, of course create and manage it to whatever standards you would like, and it will very much be your forum. I beleive that a forum where your loyalist(and perhaps opponents) can discuss politics with you and each other will be an excellent thing for both your site and your fans. If you agree to let me create this, then please E-mail me as soon as you can with anything you want specificaly.
Once again, thank you for your efforts to teach our nation what they didn't learn in college and God bless you and the USA.
Sincerly,
Ryan
From: Tom Beyer
Subject: Some questions from Europe (21 April 2004)
Hi there,
My name's Tom. I'm from Belgium, and I was browsing the internet, looking to learn more about the history of the civil war, and the Confederate States especially, and that is how i accessed your site. To be honest, at first i thought the Confederacy Project was a joke. But after having read most of the material on your site, its clear that you have thought this project out thoroughly. And, I must concede, it actually sounds like a plausible plan. Personally, I think the sescesion of the United States wont be happening any time soon, if ever. But then again, my trips to the USA so far have been confined to Michigan and New York...not really states that are sesecion minded. Having never visited the southern states, I dont know how strong sescesionist feeling really are in these states. But, your project has awoken my interest, and I was wondering if you'd mind answering some questions that would allow me to gain a better picture of the Confederacy Project, and its feasibility.
1. It is obvious that you hope for the sescesion to occur, but do you truly belive it actually will?
2. I have always been impressed by America's iron patriotism, especially since 9/11. Its unlike anything you find in Belgium. In fact, I may very well be the only patriotic Belgian. Do you feel that the differences of opinions between the southern republicans and northern liberals will ever be profound enough to overpower the south's sense of pro-US patriotism?
3. I know that techincally it is legal for states to scescede from the Union, but do you really feel that the rest of the United States would stand idly by while over half a dozen of their states sceseded? I'm sure the US president would find a legal way or loophole to send in troops to prevent the scesion. I mean, it ended up in conflict during the first civil war, dont you feel that the Confederacy Project would lead to a second?
4. Do you think it is really realistic for the southern states to prosper without the northern states? As far i know, the majority of high-tech companies and suppliers in the United States are located in the northern states, whilst the south's economy is more built around agriculture and manual labor. In todays economic environment, could the suothern states be economically viable on their own?
These are the only questions that come to mind about your project, and I'd apreciate to hear your views on them. I doubt you'll ever really be able to convince me that the Confederacy Project could work, and will be implemented, but I'm always interested in hearing about other peoples visions and ideas. Thanks a bunch,
Tom
----------> This is my reply:
Tom, thank you for your letter.
To answer your questions I have written that secession is a last resort after all else has failed. If it does come, it will be in a generation or so. Right now the selfish baby boomers who are in charge were spoiled by their parents and look upon government as their substitute parents. Good example is Social Security. If Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements are not curbed our children are looking at tax rates of 80% to keep it going. I do not see them standing for it and that could be a cause of secession.
Despite the fact that we are all Americans there are some groups divided along racial lines that would love to get a chunk of the USA for themselves. The Black Muslins has for many years demanded land for an African-American People’s Republic and the growing numbers of Mexicans in the Southwest and California want to also become an independent nation or annex these lands back to Mexico. There are also movements among the natives in Puerto Rico, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, and other regions of the country. My page of links has some of these groups listed and a quick look at any internet search engine will find others. But the main reason for the Confederacy Project is political, a free republic of the people vs. a socialist state.
The Soviet Union used patriotism as a tool to control its peoples, but gave nothing in return but fear and oppression. True patriotism is a two way street, the people and the nation must be loyal and stand up for each other. When the government sells out its citizens to the UN or other international organizations or fails to control its international borders then it has failed to protect its citizen's interests and the people, according the Declaration of Independence, have the God-given right to change or create their form of government.
The Constitution does not prohibit secession. My argument is that the States created the United States and the States has the power to dissolve it or leave it. Whether it is done peacefully or not depends on how hard the government wants to keep them in. This is a different time then when Lincoln was president. All over the world, starting with the late Soviet Union, the people thereof has created new countries, many with the blessing and help by the United States. Therefore how could the United States deny the right of self-determination by its own people? I would hope that this can be done peacefully but if there is to be a revolution, let it start here.
For information of the economic power of the South go check the League of the South website. In summary the industrial power of the United States is much less centralized now than in the past and, most importantly, almost all the oil in the United States is now pumped in the South.
From: Gregory B. Gregory
Subject: a question (19 April 2004)
Is Negro slavery a Conservative value? I was intrigued by your text on the Bricker Amendment, but trying to read the information on a "stationery" of the Confederate Stars and Bars gave me a headache.
----------> This is my reply:
No, Negro slavery is a value of liberal Democrats past and present. It was the southern Democrats who owned the slaves and founded the confederacy. After the war it was the Democrats who passed the black codes to keep them darkies in their place, turned the fire hoses and attack dogs on them, and filibustered for weeks most of the civil rights legislation before congress in the 1960s including Senator Al Gore, Sr.
Today the Democrats are still keeping them darkies on the welfare plantation using the Je$$e Jack$on types as their house niggers to keep them in line to deliver the votes.
As for the Bricker Amendment I think it is solely needed else the Democrats will, by treaty, make all of us - black, white, red, yellow - into slaves by the United Nations.
----------> This is his reply:
If you don't like "black, white, red, yellow" being slaves, why make such blatant use of the Confederate flag on your website? It's off-putting to people who are interested in facts, not emotional opinions.
P.s.: I agree with you that no treaty should supersede U.S. sovereignity, on condition that the U.S. takes and maintains the lead in respect for human rights, lest citizens and non-citizens alike be enslaved by the U.S.
----------> This is my reply:
I am glad that we agree on the subject of U.S. sovereignty.
The historical facts are that the Confederate Flag flew over a slave-holding nation for four years; the United States Flag flew over a slave-holding nation for eighty years. To use your logic then we should not fly the flag of the United States either because it would also offend some people. All slaves were not freed until 1866, one year after the War Between the States ended.
Unfortunately the Confederate Flag has become linked with empty headed morons who defiled it with their hate and racism. The KKK carried both the USA and CSA flag at their rallies and burned crosses. So I guess that we should tear down all crosses also because somebody might be offended.
I would like to invite you to The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Message Board where many persons smarter than I post and discuss various political subjects. I think you would fit in just fine.
|
|
