Monthly Archives: January 2015

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.  

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

http://libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/index.php

So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

Seventy Years after the War—Will the Joy of Arresting, Defaming, Deporting, and Libelously-Slandering Extremely Old Men never Abate? Who really thinks this is fair? I want to know WHO???? (Yes, if you think it’s fair or just in ANY sense, please write to me!!!!)

With thanks for this story going to Paul Fromm—a great Canadian Patriot, who reports by e-mail:

One More Victim of German Bashing

The RCMP have said that 90 per cent of “refugee” claimants lie. This country is awash with refugee liars — Tamils and Somalis who return to visit the lands they claim to have fled for their lives. Canada’s ethnic-vote chasing politicians do NOTHING!
 
One More Victim of German Bashing

The RCMP have said that 90 per cent of "refugee" claimants lie. This country is awash with refugee liars -- Tamils and Somalis who return to visit the lands they claim to have fled for their lives. Canada's ethnic-vote chasing politicians do NOTHING!

Germans, however, are seen to be passive. Easy to beat up on them and win praise and donations from the vociferous, German-hating "never again" Jewish lobby.

Helmut Oberlander, unlike many of these lying "refugees", has made a major contribution to Canada. He is Volksdeutsche (an ethnic German born in the Ukraine). When National Socialist Germany made its pre-emptive strike on Communist Russia in 1041, the young Oberlander, fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and German,  was conscripted into the German army as a translator. When he came to Canada, he became a builder and developer and built a number of subdivisions around Kitchener, Ontario.

In his old age, his adopted country, egged on by that lobby that wants to continue to fight WW II, sought to strip him of his citizenship and deport him. The battle has taken many turns and cost a king's ransom in legal fees. Announced on the eve of the  70th anniversary of the Soviet "liberation" of Auschwitz (could that be a coincidence?), a Federal Court judge has dismissed his appeal that he served in the German forces under duress.

Despite the National Post (January 22, 2015) misleading label "Nazi-era war crime suspect", the 90-year-old Helmut Oberlander was never charged much less convicted of any crimes. He was a 17-year-old conscript, not a decision-maker.

Former Canadian diplomat and proud member of the Royal Canadian Air Froce (RCAF), Ian Macdonald writes some insightful comments on the latest German-bashing by the Canadian courts.

Paul Fromm
January 25, 2015

Editor
NATIONAL POST
Toronto

Dear Sir

Re: "Nazi war criminal loses appeal"  (January 23, 2015)

The Federal Court judges, colluding with the Jewish Lobby in the persecution of 90 year old  Helmut Oberlander  may know the letter of the law but they clearly know little of the history of WWII nor of Ukraine which exonerates their victim from the charges, in the absence of any criminal act.

For two decades prior to the occupation of the country by German forces, Ukraine had suffered under brutal subjugation by the psychopathic dictator Josef Stalin, who overcame resistance to dispossession and enslavement by using his predominantly Jewish Kommissars to murder 8 million good Christians , many tortured to death in the most gruesome fashion.  To Ukrainians, the Wehrmacht came as liberators, avengers and protectors, making it nonsense to suggest that there was anything reprehensible, let alone criminal, in Ukrainian-German collaboration.

Be that as it may, in the broader context, despite the rhetoric, Allied statesmen knew at the time that the atheistic Soviet Union was a far greater menace to Western Civilization than was highly cultured Nazi Germany, and that the subjects of the genocidal communist dictatorship were our potential friends..This reality, soon after the war, brought the Allies and Germany into common cause, automatically absolving those who from within had earlier opposed Stalin, from "war crimes" charges, or even criticism. 

The communist partisans, who sometimes wore German uniforms when slaughtering civilians to discredit the Wehrmacht, did not abide by the Rules of Warfare, forcing the German Sicherheitsdienst to respond with extreme measures, as would Western armies under similar circumstances.

Since the impetus for the witch hunt for German "War Criminals" comes from genetically-deceitful, vindictive, avaricious Zionist Jews, it is the essence of hypocrisy.  Israeli soldiers, settlers and airmen have murdered many thousands of Palestinians in cold blood.  Although the victims are mostly unarmed women and children, their killers are seldom brought to a court of justice - instead they are commended.and, if the number of victims is high enough, become national heroes.  The Chief Military Rabbi quoted in the Israeli Soldiers Handbook describes the killing of "enemy" civilians as a worthy act, even if they appear friendly.  Many of these racist Israeli war criminals are now living in Canada.  Why have they not been charged?  Perhaps the Learned Judges can explain.

As ever,

Ian V. Macdonald

Judge denies Nazi-era war crime suspect’s attempt to get Canadian citizenship back: ‘Never expressed any remorse’

Republish Reprint
Stewart Bell | January 22, 2015 3:27 PM ET
More from Stewart Bell | @StewartBellNP
The June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division. 
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Atlantic Foto Verlag BerlinThe June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division.
Twitter Google+ Reddit Email Typo? More
TORONTO — A Nazi-era war crime suspect stripped of his Canadian citizenship has lost his latest court appeal after a federal judge dismissed his claim he had served the Germans under duress.

Helmut Oberlander failed to show he had made any effort to leave the Nazi death squad Einsatzkommando 10a, where he was an interpreter, Justice James Russell of the Federal Court wrote in his decision.

“There was no evidence that he was mistreated and no evidence that he sought to be relieved of his duties. He served the Nazi cause for three or four years [and] surrendered at the end of the war,” he wrote.

Related
Renowned ‘Nazi hunter’ says Canada still a haven for scores of war criminals who will likely never face justice
How Jewish ‘enemy aliens’ overcame a ‘traumatic’ stint in Canadian prison camps during the Second World War
Jim Keegstra, Holocaust denier who took hate speech battle to Supreme Court, dead at 80
Anti-Semitic politician underwent an astonishing transformation after finding out he is a Jew
He also “has never expressed any remorse for being a member of Ek 10a or indicated that he found the activities of the organization abhorrent. There is no evidence that what he did for the organization was inconsistent with his will.”

Mr. Oberlander has been fighting the government’s attempts to revoke his citizenship since 1995, the year Ottawa alleged he had failed to disclose his wartime past when he became a Canadian in 1960.

The case has been in and out of the courts ever since but the 83-page ruling handed down January 13 and posted on the court website on Thursday is a decisive loss for Mr. Oberlander.

“We will revoke citizenship from individuals who obtain it fraudulently to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for fraudsters and criminals,” said Kevin Menard, spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

The Ukrainian-born Ontario resident was a 17-year-old factory worker when he was forcibly conscripted by the Germans. He said he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape.

But Justice Russell said he had not proven he would be killed for disobedience or desertion. “He gave no convincing evidence that he ever gave any real consideration to ways in which he might extricate or distance himself from the brutal purpose of the organization to which he contributed,” he wrote.

The decision was welcomed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has long lobbied for action against Nazi war criminals. Avi Benlolo, the President and CEO, encouraged the government “to immediately commence deportation proceedings against Oberlander.”

Meanwhile, his daughter, Irene Rooney, said Mr. Oberlander was “not a ‘Nazi war criminal’ … He was never a Nazi, and has not been found guilty of any war crimes.”
LATEST CANADA VIDEOS
Germans, however, are seen to be passive. Easy to beat up on them and win praise and donations from the vociferous, German-hating “never again” Jewish lobby.
Helmut Oberlander, unlike many of these lying “refugees”, has made a major contribution to Canada. He is Volksdeutsche (an ethnic German born in the Ukraine). When National Socialist Germany made its pre-emptive strike on Communist Russia in 1041, the young Oberlander, fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and German,  was conscripted into the German army as a translator. When he came to Canada, he became a builder and developer and built a number of subdivisions around Kitchener, Ontario.
In his old age, his adopted country, egged on by that lobby that wants to continue to fight WW II, sought to strip him of his citizenship and deport him. The battle has taken many turns and cost a king’s ransom in legal fees. Announced on the eve of the  70th anniversary of the Soviet “liberation” of Auschwitz (could that be a coincidence?), a Federal Court judge has dismissed his appeal that he served in the German forces under duress.
 
Despite the National Post (January 22, 2015) misleading label “Nazi-era war crime suspect”, the 90-year-old Helmut Oberlander was never charged much less convicted of any crimes. He was a 17-year-old conscript, not a decision-maker.
Former Canadian diplomat and proud member of the Royal Canadian Air Froce (RCAF), Ian Macdonald writes some insightful comments on the latest German-bashing by the Canadian courts.
Paul Fromm
January 25, 2015
 
Editor
NATIONAL POST
Toronto
 
Dear Sir
Re: “Nazi war criminal loses appeal”  (January 23, 2015)
The Federal Court judges, colluding with the Jewish Lobby in the persecution of 90 year old  Helmut Oberlander may know the letter of the law but they clearly know little of the history of WWII nor of Ukraine which exonerates their victim from the charges, in the absence of any criminal act.
 
For two decades prior to the occupation of the country by German forces, Ukraine had suffered under brutal subjugation by the psychopathic dictator Josef Stalin, who overcame resistance to dispossession and enslavement by using his predominantly Jewish Kommissars to murder 8 million good Christians , many tortured to death in the most gruesome fashion.  To Ukrainians, the Wehrmacht came as liberators, avengers and protectors, making it nonsense to suggest that there was anything reprehensible, let alone criminal, in Ukrainian-German collaboration.
 
Be that as it may, in the broader context, despite the rhetoric, Allied statesmen knew at the time that the atheistic Soviet Union was a far greater menace to Western Civilization than was highly cultured Nazi Germany, and that the subjects of the genocidal communist dictatorship were our potential friends..This reality, soon after the war, brought the Allies and Germany into common cause, automatically absolving those who from within had earlier opposed Stalin, from “war crimes” charges, or even criticism. 
 
The communist partisans, who sometimes wore German uniforms when slaughtering civilians to discredit the Wehrmacht, did not abide by the Rules of Warfare, forcing the German Sicherheitsdienst to respond with extreme measures, as would Western armies under similar circumstances.
 
Since the impetus for the witch hunt for German “War Criminals” comes from genetically-deceitful, vindictive, avaricious Zionist Jews, it is the essence of hypocrisy.  Israeli soldiers, settlers and airmen have murdered many thousands of Palestinians in cold blood.  Although the victims are mostly unarmed women and children, their killers are seldom brought to a court of justice – instead they are commended.and, if the number of victims is high enough, become national heroes.  The Chief Military Rabbi quoted in the Israeli Soldiers Handbook describes the killing of “enemy” civilians as a worthy act, even if they appear friendly.  Many of these racist Israeli war criminals are now living in Canada.  Why have they not been charged?  Perhaps the Learned Judges can explain.
As ever,
 
Ian V. Macdonald

Judge denies Nazi-era war crime suspect’s attempt to get Canadian citizenship back: ‘Never expressed any remorse’

Stewart Bell | January 22, 2015 3:27 PM ET
More from Stewart Bell | @StewartBellNP

The June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division.

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Atlantic Foto Verlag BerlinThe June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division,

TORONTO — A Nazi-era war crime suspect stripped of his Canadian citizenship has lost his latest court appeal after a federal judge dismissed his claim he had served the Germans under duress.

Helmut Oberlander failed to show he had made any effort to leave the Nazi death squad Einsatzkommando 10a, where he was an interpreter, Justice James Russell of the Federal Court wrote in his decision.

“There was no evidence that he was mistreated and no evidence that he sought to be relieved of his duties. He served the Nazi cause for three or four years [and] surrendered at the end of the war,” he wrote.

He also “has never expressed any remorse for being a member of Ek 10a or indicated that he found the activities of the organization abhorrent. There is no evidence that what he did for the organization was inconsistent with his will.”

Mr. Oberlander has been fighting the government’s attempts to revoke his citizenship since 1995, the year Ottawa alleged he had failed to disclose his wartime past when he became a Canadian in 1960.

The case has been in and out of the courts ever since but the 83-page ruling handed down January 13 and posted on the court website on Thursday is a decisive loss for Mr. Oberlander.

“We will revoke citizenship from individuals who obtain it fraudulently to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for fraudsters and criminals,” said Kevin Menard, spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

The Ukrainian-born Ontario resident was a 17-year-old factory worker when he was forcibly conscripted by the Germans. He said he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape.

But Justice Russell said he had not proven he would be killed for disobedience or desertion. “He gave no convincing evidence that he ever gave any real consideration to ways in which he might extricate or distance himself from the brutal purpose of the organization to which he contributed,” he wrote.

The decision was welcomed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has long lobbied for action against Nazi war criminals. Avi Benlolo, the President and CEO, encouraged the government “to immediately commence deportation proceedings against Oberlander.”

Meanwhile, his daughter, Irene Rooney, said Mr. Oberlander was “not a ‘Nazi war criminal’ … He was never a Nazi, and has not been found guilty of any war crimes.”

LATEST CANADA VIDEOS

Again, with my thanks to Paul Fromm—one of the most level heads in North America:

 

Alabama Attorney Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft addresses the Lunatic Fringe of the Patriot Movement

MYTHOLOGY & LAW in MODERN AMERICA

I am a great advocate of historical revisionism, but only when the revised history will be more accurate than currently “generally accepted” history….  But sometimes historical revisions are proposed which go the other way—alternative history is not always BETTER….it’s just different…. but so is smoking crack…..

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of meeting Alabama Attorney Lowell A. Becraft in person for the very first time.  He and I had exchanged e-mails before on the general subject of patriot mythology in regards to legal process and substantive.  Such mythology has horrendous consequences, including jail time, fines, and sanctions, for many good people I have known.   I have a Ph.D. from Harvard (1990) and my coursework and dissertation research spanned the fields of archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, history, mythology, religion and sociology (though not necessarily in that alphabetical order).  

One of the most basic and enduring lessons I ever learned (especially applicable to the field of law, was encapsulated in the title of a book by one of American AnthroSome myths have at least a weak basis in historical fact, even if no overarching purpose.  I learned with great interest several years ago about how principles of Admiralty Law were imported from England starting in the 1940s-50s to make off-shore oil fields insurable in Louisiana, and how these usages persist in Louisiana law even today—I had a large claim for household damage that which I sued on and settled after Hurricane Katrina.  I spend many hours with top Louisiana insurance lawyers and really enjoyed what I learned, because I was already familiar with both the British Control and Admiralty Law Mythologies of Modern American Patriot Movement. 

Basically, it seems that starting in 1930, the best land-based oil-wells in Louisiana and East Texas were already showing signs of being finite, limited, and exhaustable if not already exhausted, but everybody knew that the geology indicated more oilfields could be tapped and drilled offshore.  But in the 1920s and 1930s, nobody could drill off-shore because nobody would finance off-shore drilling, which was way more expensive than land drilling.  

And nobody would finance offshore oil-drilling until such operations could be insured, and nobody in the U.S. was willing to insure such constructions.  But the British (e.g. Lloyds of London) were willing to do so, and they imported the principles regarding the insurability of anchored ships out of port to do so.  So in a sense, the widespread myth among Southern Patriots that the British were still in charge as late as the mid-twentieth century, and that the British insisted on using Admiralty law, but both of these facts of modern history have been twisted beyond recognition. pology’s greatest figures, Marshall Sahlins of the University of Chicago (where I also studied, receiving a J.D. in law there in 1992): Historical Metaphors and Mythic Realities.  Quite simply, historical events are either selected and framed in the telling, or else sometimes engineered and staged, to create mythic realities as desired.   

There is another problem though—sometimes people just get wild ideas, and these wild ideas may be based in whole or in part on some sort of confusing real events— and the real events relevant here are: the two oldest institutions, or certainly two OF the oldest institutions, in all of Europe are (1) the Vatican (dating back to the arrival of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome, sometime in the mid-first Century A.D.) and (2) the British Monarch—dating back at least to King Alfred of Wessex, as the first to be called the “King of the English,” but really back to Cerdic or Cedric in 534 (Cerdic or Cedric stands as the first King of Anglo-Saxon Wessex from 519 to 534, in the chronological history described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the founder of the Kingdom of Wessex and (at least symbolic and mythic ancestor of all its subsequent kings in the House of Wessex right up to Henry I (“Beauclerc”) after the Norman Conquest, who reigned 1100-1135.

In any event, I suppose to the modern American mind, weakly educated in history as it is, the persistence of any institution for very close to 2000 years in the case of the Vatican in Rome and 1200-1500 years in the case of the English/British Monarchy seems almost incredible as a historical fact—and it is to be admitted that these two institutions outshine almost all others in Europe in their longevity. It may seem almost mystical that the House of Wessex, which gve rise to the Kingdom of England, and ultimately Great Britain, had itslef replaced the Roman Empire in Britain. Less than 50 years having elapsed from the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 to the accession of Cerdic or Cedric in 519 or, his possible rise as a conqueror even earlier, at 490 A.D., as celebrated in the slightly racy 1951 novel Conscience of a King by Alfred L. Duggan among others.  

OR, it could be that the people who invent these historically fictitious mythologies are all generated and propagated by government agents planted to create chaos and dissent in the Conservative, Patriotic Movement—which they certainly do.

Concession of 15 May 1213             (by Lowell A. Becraft)

There is a baseless theory floating around that King John’s “Concession of 15 May 1213″ with the Pope means that, even today, the Vatican owns both England and the United States of America. Like many groundless ideas that get promoted, advocates of arguments like this one focus on a single fact and then draw wild conclusions.

The “Concession” required payments from the English King to the Pope, but history shows that King John did not make the required payment for the following year. See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England

Where the following is found:

“Under mounting political pressure, John finally negotiated terms for a reconciliation, and the papal terms for submission were accepted in the presence of the papal legate Pandulph in May 1213 at the Templar Church at Dover.[177] As part of the deal, John offered to surrender the Kingdom of England to the papacy for a feudal service of 1,000 marks (equivalent to £666 at the time) annually: 700 marks (£466) for England and 300 marks (£200) for Ireland, as well as recompensing the church for revenue lost during the crisis.[178] The agreement was formalised in the Bulla Aurea, or Golden Bull. This resolution produced mixed responses. Although some chroniclers felt that John had been humiliated by the sequence of events, there was little public reaction.[179] Innocent benefited from the resolution of his long-standing English problem, but John probably gained more, as Innocent became a firm supporter of John for the rest of his reign, backing him in both domestic and continental policy issues.[180] Innocent immediately turned against Philip, calling upon him to reject plans to invade England and to sue for peace.[180] John paid some of the compensation money he had promised the church, but he ceased making payments in late 1214, leaving two-thirds of the sum unpaid; Innocent appears to have conveniently forgotten this debt for the good of the wider relationship.[181]”

Some payments to the Pope were made pursuant to this agreement off and on for a little more than the next 100 years, eventually ending. “The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.” See: http://www.historyextra.com/qa/when-did-pope-rule-england

It is alleged that this concession was a treaty, but if it was, it is subject to another fact regarding treaties: they are often broken. King Henry VIII broke with the Vatican and established the Church of England, seizing Catholic properties. See:   

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/reformation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

History reveals that both Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell essentially ended the Papacy’s control over England. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation

The following is stated at the above link:

“The Act in Restraint of Appeals,” drafted by Cromwell, apart from outlawing appeals to Rome on ecclesiastical matters, declared that

 “This realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a body politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spirituality and Temporality, be bounden and owe to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience.[20]

This declared England an independent country in every respect.

The above (along with lots of other authority) demonstrates that certainly by the time of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell, the Pope did not own or control England.  The above theory is thus a false, baseless contention.

But does the English Monarchy or England have any legal control over the United States of America? Please remember that there was indeed (contrary to contentions of the revisionists) an American Revolution. And both English and American courts long ago held that the Revolution severed all legal connections between our country and the English crown/England. 

I described these cases and other matters on my website as follows:

Simple facts regarding the “we are subjects of the British Crown” issue

   Several years ago, some folks developed an argument that “we are still subjects of the British crown” and started promoting it. You are free to believe that argument which will waste your time. Here is a simple refutation of that argument:

1. The Articles of Confederation provided as follows:

 “Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

2. On February 6,  1778, the United States entered into a Treaty of Alliance with France (8 Stat. 6).  On July 16, 1782,  we borrowed substantial sums from King Louis XVI of France, via anagreement signed by French Foreign Minister Charles Gravier de Vergennes. It must be noted that there are people who erroneously assert that this loan was really secured from the Brits instead of the French (you can be the judge of their honesty). 

3. Our country and the British Crown signed the Treaty of Peace on September 3, 1783 (8 Stat. 218), the first provision of which reads as follows:

“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, to  be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, proprietary and  territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”

See also Nov. 30, 1782 Provisional Treaty and Jan. 20, 1783 Treaty of Cessation of Hostilities.

    Does this 1783 Peace Treaty still exist? All one needs to do to confirm this is to check out a government  publication entitled “Treaties in Force” which can be found in any good library, especially a university library. Under the list of our treaties with Great Britain and the United Kingdom, you will find that this 1783 treaty is still in effect, at least a part of it: “Only article 1 is in force.” Art.1 was the section of this treaty acknowledging our independence. The War of 1812 resulted in modifications of this treaty and so did later treaties.

4. The courts have not been silent regarding the effect of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Peace. For example, the consequences of independence were explained inHarcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526-27 (1827), where the Supreme Court stated:

 “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

 “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

In M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), the Supreme Court  held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

In reference to the Treaty of Peace, this same court stated:

“It contains an acknowledgment of the independence and sovereignty of the United States, in their political capacities, and a relinquishment on the part of His Britannic Majesty, of all claim to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same. These concessions amounted, no doubt, to a formal renunciation of all claim to the allegiance of the citizens of the United States.”

     Finally, in Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99, 120-122 (1830), the question squarely arose as to whether Americans are “subjects of the crown,” a proposition flatly rejected by the Court:

“It is universally admitted both in English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent State, and the acknowledgment of their independence.

 “The rule as to the point of time at which the American antenati ceased to be British subjects, differs in this country and in England, as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the Declaration of Independence.”

In support of the rule set forth in this case, the court cited an English case to demonstrate that the English courts had already decided that Americans were not subjects of the crown:

“The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is not applied by the British courts to the American antenati. This is fully shown by the late case of Doe v. Acklam, 2 Barn. & Cresw. 779. Chief Justice Abbott says: ‘James Ludlow, the father of Francis May, the lessor of the plaintiff, was undoubtedly born a subject of Great Britain. He was born in a part of America which was at the time of his birth a British colony, and parcel of the dominions of the crown of Great Britain; but upon the facts found, we are of opinion that he was not a subject of the crown of Great Britain at the time of the birth of his daughter. She was born after the independence of the colonies was recognized by the crown of Great Britain; after the colonies had become United States, and their inhabitants generally citizens of those States, and her father, by his continued residence in those States, manifestly became a citizen of them.’ He considered the Treaty of Peace as a release from their allegiance of all British subjects who remained there. A declaration, says he, that a State shall be free, sovereign and independent, is a declaration that the people composing the State shall no longer be considered as subjects of the sovereign by whom such a declaration is made.”

(Note: the linked copies of these cases highlight the important parts of these opinions for your convenience).    Notwithstanding the fact that English and American courts long ago rejected this argument, I still encounter e-mail from parties who contend that this argument is correct. For example, just recently I ran across this note which stated:

“In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King… This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union ?? any regulated financial institution carries with it ?? as an operation of law ?? the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD’s, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King ?? so says the Supreme Court. At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts (because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions), and you are very much in an EQUITY RELATIONSHIP with the King.

This note also alleged that George Mercier, who wrote an article apparently popular among those who believe the “contract theory” of government, was a retired judge, which is false. Just because you read it on the Net does not make it true.See:       http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/WeAintBrits.htm

 

27 January 2015 Ursula Haverbeck & Lady Michele Renouf on the 70th Anniversary of the “Liberation of Auschwitz”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqMfRkAzSXs&feature=youtu.be

Whatever you believe, ask yourself: why do YOU believe what YOU believe?   Because you have heard it a thousand times without contradiction?  If I gave you a dozen books against the “accepted version” of history, would you read them?  I have tried this, with several highly intelligent friends (well-versed in anthropology, hermeneutics linguistics, mythology, and structuralism) and so far, am deeply disappointed…. “Faith means believing that which you know is not true”…..  But what you call reality is really your “Faith” in that which you believe to be absolutely true….

Will you listen to Ursula Haverbeck and Mary Renouf above?  Or to Mark Weber below?

I suggest that Soviet Lies have become American and Western European Mythology, and the official religion of the “Brave New World” of the United Nations, Globalism, and “Eracism” (the erasure of “races”—especially the White Caucasian Race), articles of faith required, all amounting to a great “blood libel” (ironically enough) against the German people and their government.  If you doubt this, what would it take to convince you?  Last year I began a program of handing out books for free to friends and willing readers (not always the same people).  Ursula Haverbeck and Lady Michele Renouf are grand dames of Historical Revisionism, and I think their words and works are worthy of our attention.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqmlwMl9Cfk

I AM A LIVING, BREATHING MUGWUMP: Patriot Myths, Mythology, and Lies which Sabotage and Undermine Real Patriotic Americans

According to my mother, in the U of Chicago and Radcliffe “slang” parlance of her college days, a “MUGWUMP” was a mythological bird that flies backwards because it doesn’t know its mug from its wump…

Some “Patriot Mythmongers” just have to be government agents who infiltrate the Patriotic, Traditional, Pro-Constitutional, Anti-Communist movements and give not just misinformation but suicidally bad advice to otherwise decent people who find themselves crosswise with the law: They advise and counsel being rude, disrespectful, and “sassy” to the Court, engaging in unmannerly behavior which (not in the legal but in the common, everyday sense) shows true “CONTEMPT” (i.e. disdain and disregard) of the Court and its proceedings.  

To say this is bad advice, let me give this example:  Imagine that you are in Germany in the 1930s and summoned to a GESTAPO inquiry about whether you have lied about your status as an Aryan when you are in fact Jewish.  The “Patriot Mythmongers'” to which I refer here give the equivalent of the following advice: “Just tell the GESTAPO Gauleiter that your Rabbi tells you that that fact that you were circumcised and Bar-Mitzvahed by him does not make you any less of an Aryan.”  That would have gone over like a lead balloon and probably led to immediate deportation, and what some “Sovereign Citizen” Patriots advise people to do in Court is absolutely no better.

Case in point that just came to my attention in an official transcript from Florida (but it is a tragic scene that is played out OVER and OVER again all around the USA):

(1)     Court called to Order at 9:00 AM

(2)     The Court: “We’re here in the case of the State of Florida vs. (Defendant’s Full Legal name).  Is there a Mr. (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present? If there are [sic, even judges apparently use bad grammatical constructions, mixing singular and plural, come forward, please, sir.  

(3)    The Defedant: “No Audible Response.”

(4)    The Court: Is there a (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present?  If there is, come forward please, sir.  

(5)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m here to speak to that matter.”

(6)    The Court: Are you Mr. (Defendant’s Full Name)

(7)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m a living, breathing—”

(8)    The Court:  Is there a (Defendant’s Full Name) present?

(9)    The Defendant:  “No audible response”  

(10)   The Court:  If there is a (Defendant’s Full Name) present, have him come forward.  If not, I will be issuing a capias for his arrest.  Is there a (Defendant’s last name) here?  

(11)    Unidentified Speaker: “For the Record—”  

(12)   The Court:  Let the record reflect—

(13)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter

(14)   The Court: Let the record reflect—

(15)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter.

(16)   The Court: Let the record reflect (Defendant’s last name) has not appeared.  Capias will be issued for his arrest to be returned to the Court, no bond.  If there’s a surety bond — was the bondsman noticed?

What the judge did here was: he put the “Defendant” in jail for 21 days without hearing or bond.  This was arguably an overreaction, but why did the Defendant do what he did?  Why did he try to open up with the ridiculous formulaic statement “I am a living, breathing person?”  It’s because s/he got idiotic advice from a Patriot Mythmonger—“Defendant” who told me this story would not tell me who (perhaps because I offered to put said Patriot Mythmonger on my “to kill” or at least “deserves to die later” list).  

Now what were the Judge’s options here: (1) well he could have said, “I’m glad to hear you’re a living and breathing person, but what’s your name you stupid Mo-Fo?”; (2) the Judge could have said, “Will the bailiff please cause Mr. (Defendant’s full name) to enter and stand before the court?  You may use all such force as appears to you reasonable and necessary to cause (the Defendant) to do so (that would have been the same as the CAPIAS, but with more immediate results); (3) the Judge could do what he did, which was to have the Defendant arrested and jailed (effectively punishing him for Contempt of Court, although nominally it was merely an order compelling the Defendant to appear by admitting his name in Court where he had already appeared by body in person); (4) the Judge could have let the Defendant ramble on about being a living breathing person and not a fictitious ALL CAPS Corporation created without his consent.  

But as my great-grandfather, a Louisiana State Court Judge and later Justice used to say, “We are brought into this world without our knowledge and taken without our consent.”  This is relevant, because another one of the Patriot Myths is that “All Law Proceeds by Contract”—sometimes specifically under the U.C.C., or else under Admiralty Law—and these are the most misleading and pernicious lies of all….. and have cause many, including but not limited to my dear old Texas friends Daniel Marion Swank, Drs. Kamil Kreit and Jacques S. Jaikaran, to lose some liberty and a great deal of property in what should have been very important cases.

Anyhow, in the transcript excerpt above, the lines attributed to an “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were spoken in open Court by the same person.  About twenty-five people witnesses this.

The “Unidentified Speaker’s” comments may be quite mystifying to anyone who has not kept up with certain quasi-underground legal-activist elements of the (Mostly Conservative, Traditionalist, Constitutionalist) “Patriot” movement in the United States of America  over the past 25-30 years.

A certain brand of “Patriot” believes that we do not own our names, especially if they are written in capital letters.  If this sounds absurd to you, it sounds absurder to me, because I have seen the consequences.

If the “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were in fact the same person in the exchange above, it is pretty clear that “neither of these individuals” admitted to having the Defendant’s full name (even if that was his/her/its legal name).  

Now I despise bad Judges who disregard civil rights and the Constitution.  You might say I’ve dedicated my life to fighting them. But listen people: A JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AT THE VERY LEAST, IS DESIGNED TO BE A CIVILIZED ALTERNATIVE TO FIGHTING IN THE STREETS AS A WAY OF RESOLVING DISPUTES.  

Whatever information we have about judicial corruption or disregard for law, rules of procedure, or the constitution, it does NOT justify being rude to a judge in Court.

When I was 11 I left Dallas to go to school in Los Angeles.  When I came back to Dallas at 14, at the local Highland Park Swimming Pool, I saw a guy I thought was my friend from 5th grade and earlier, three years before, but at that age, kids are growing up fast and changing very quickly.  So I wasn’t sure.  I asked my friend, “Hey, are you John T.?”  He looked at me like I was crazy, as teenage boys kind of like to do, and said, “No Charlie, I’m Michael Jackson of the Jackson Five, don’t you recognize me?”  (It’s irrelevant to this discussion that I could truthfully respond, “No, I was in school with Mikey out in LA, and you don’t look anything like him, ’cause he was kind of black…”)  This kind of behavior might be perfectly appropriate among teenagers at a public pool, but it has no place in Court.  And adults should know that.

Being polite is the first step towards being respected—because we all know that to get respect you have to show respect.  Kind of a “Golden Rule” type of thing.  But still the Patriot Mythmongers go around telling people to show their CONTEMPT OF COURT and COURT RULES visibly and audibly—and they should all be taken out by friendly fire.  

It is NOT appropriate in ANY legal proceeding to say, “I am a living, breathing, person.”  It is NEITHER true in any sense nor appropriate to say that your name WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS (e.g.: CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN III) is not the same legal individual as your name written in Title Format (Charles Edward Lincoln III).  

BUT NOT ONLY IS IT NOT TRUE TO SAY THESE THINGS, WHEN YOU SAY THEM, YOU PAINT A RED BULLSEYE ON YOURSELF AND TELL THE COPS AND THE COURTS “OK, SHOOT ME, BECAUSE I AM A REAL MUGWUMP”—by which I mean, you are (like the bird) so stupid you really don’t know your mug from your wump, you don’t know which way is up, and you basically deserve to die (ok, not really—I’m not advocating shooting of ALL people who believe this stuff–though I am advocating their radical re-education).

For all the corruption in this country, I have seen no evidence in the 30 years since I first became acquainted with the “Republic of Texas” and other “sovereign citizen” movements, that we have special corporate accounts set up at birth by the government matching our social security numbers and these (non-existent) accounts cannot be accessed by writing weird negotiable instruments.  I have seen people go to jail for trying.  I have seen other people get by with such things, at least temporarily.  

But I ask you, in the spirit of our founding fathers:  what can there possibly be that is legitimate or patriotic about (1) being rude in court, (2) refusing to acknowledge the name which your parents gave you, and by which you presumably have lived all of your life, (3) trying to get something for nothing, i.e. by trying to draw on these non-existent social security birth accounts, filing 1099-OIDS, using Fred & Nina Gutierrez EFT process, or anything else that passes for “brilliant insight” in the Patriot Movement?  

NO, let’s stick to the Constitution AND Civilized Manners of our Grandparents and Great-Grandparents, and let’s NOT act like MUGWUMPS in Court or anywhere else…

Robert Edward Lee’s Birthday—this Janus Faced Holiday—Why it Matters that Love Makes Memory Eternal

Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida

The Confederate Soldiers of 1861-1865

My son Charlie (Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV) and I used to celebrate this day every year….he’s grown up and is pursuing his own Law Degree at a distinctly proletarian law school (“Texas A & M in Fort Worth”), and I guess he feels weighed down by social pressures not to waive the same flags and carry on the same battles as his old man.  He has quite a collection of both history books and flags, I guarantee you that.  So far as I know, he’s never been to the White House in Washington, but he has been to Beauvoir, last home of President Jefferson Davis, in Biloxi, Mississippi.  The Confederate Soldier—a humble man not wearing a real army uniform carrying the rifle he used back home to hunt rabbit and deer, apparently is not a potent symbol for career development in modern America.

United Daughters of the Confederacy---50 years after the War

Love Makes Memory Eternal—

Love and Memory seem to me the key elements missing from modern lives and conventional history.  Well, truth and objectivity is pretty much missing, also….but without love and memory, who is there to enforce more than the one hateful version which supports the present Administration as a Marxist power-play to abolish private property and render us all slaves on a government plantation, once and for all? (http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation/page/full)(http://www.unclesamsplantation.com)
The story of the American War of 1861-1865 is very complex and very confusing.  Was it the Second American Revolution against Centralized Government and Oppression/Suppression of the Constitution, as the CSA President Jefferson Davis said in his “retirement” in Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881) (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Confederate-Government-Volume/dp/0306804182).  
Most would agree that “the War Between the American States” is best understood as the first “Modern” war in a great many ways: culturally, economically, politically, technologically, and socially.  The way the history is taught in American Schools—this war, under the false name of “The American Civil War” (if deciphered thoughtfully), is truly the story of the first of three important Marxist-inspired wars designed to cause and implement social change.  This year is the sesquicentennial of the bloody ending of that war.  There have been a lot of reenactments and books and conferences.  
I think of Isaiah 59:

Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.

10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.

Accordingly, during Most of the 20th and all of the 21st Century the war is not taught as anything but a war against Slavery.  The history of the period 1861-1865 is not remembered as the time when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was established to standardize agriculture nationwide according to the Communist Manifesto published so recently in London.  
Nor do our schools teach Cousin Abe’s War as the war during which the President illegally established the very first American Income Tax, also mandated by the Communist Manifesto of February 1848 (just 13 years and two months before the War broke out in America) or the War during which the Sixteenth President illegally re-established the National Banking System which Andrew Jackson had abolished. (Nor is it noted that Centralized, Nationalized or Internationalized Banking lies at the heart of the Communist Manifesto and Program).  Our schools likewise mostly omit mention of the First Republican President’s (1996 AEDPA, 2001 Patriot Act, and 2009 NDAA Predecessor) suspension of Habeas Corpus, the suppression of Freedom of Speech, and the accompanying the mass hangings and fixed elections which permitted Cousin Abe to win the war against his cousins, who were my direct ancestors.  It is indeed a short trip from what the First Republican President did to the Constitution during his first term, to what Newt Gingerich and his Republican Majority did to the Bill of Rights in 1996, what George W. Bush did after 9-11 in 2001, and what Obama has done to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in 2009-2015….it’s a straight line progression, with very few hesitations or hickups along the way….. you might even call it “the Highway to Hell.”……
United Daughters of the Confederacy

The Battle Flag and the Historical Frame

And it’s just way too confusing to have to admit that the Native American Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes all together, but especially the Cherokee and Creek, fought on the side of the Confederacy, in part because Native Americans had traditions of slavery that pre-dated the Spanish Entrada of De Soto and the Foundation of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Colony of Virginia in the Sixteenth Century.  But in part because the Southern Tribes had survived, albeit displaced, where none of the Northern Tribes had survived at all, from Massachusetts and Maine all the way to Michigan and Minnesota….
Hernando County, Florida

Mixing Memory and Desire in the isolated backwaters of Florida, in June of 1916

Of what value are the stories of the wounded and dead on bloody battlefields if we do not make it all a part of our own blood, soul and acknowledge our kinship with the fallen heroes? 
 This Confederate Monument stands in front of the Hernando County Courthouse in Brooksville, Florida, where I attended a celebration of Robert E. Lee’s birthday last night (Saturday January 17, 2015, even though Lee’s real birthday is on the Federal Holiday Celebrated on Monday….. a true Janus-like irony, looking past and forward).
Hernando County, Florida

17 January 2015 a modern band played on the Courthouse Steps

So Charlie, Do you remember how we used to celebrate in Dallas, Lago Vista, Galveston, and New Orleans?   Do you remember Jefferson Davis’ home at Beauvoir near Biloxi?  The Confederate Memorial Hall just off Lee Circle in New Orleans?  Do you remember taking Taylor to these places before and after Audubon Zoo Camp and then to the Battlefield Monuments at Vicksburg?  The Mounds at Poverty Point or the Houses in Natchez and the Natchez Trace Parkway up to Shiloh? That was all in the summer of 1999.
What the world needs now is renewed faith and divine guidance so may God Vindicate Historical Truth—Deo Vindice!!!
We need to remember Robert Edward Lee’s sterling personal integrity—and is it rude to ask how his politics or personal integrity compares with that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in whose honor today is a Federal Holiday (http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html)
Even normally blindly liberal Salon.com covers these facts:
So what does January mean?  Like the Roman God from whose name this month takes its (little today considered) identity (since nobody reads Latin in School anymore), January is a time for looking backward in history and forward in time.  
Looking backwards: Robert Edward Lee represents, I suppose, “the old dead white man’s America”, the America of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, John Davis, Theodore Bilbo, Strom Thurmond, Sam Ervin, John Stennis, James Eastland, George Corley Wallace…..
Looking Forwards: Martin Luther King, Jr., represents “the new America, not white, not moral, basically communist”—well, that’s exactly the America Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., also wants…
Is the spirit of the humble Confederate Soldier crushed yet?  Charlie, my Whelp, what do YOU think?
Mixing Memory and Desire

Not Generals, Not Politicians, but Rural Enlisted Men who Fought and Died…for the Constitution? Freedom? Their homes?