Monthly Archives: August 2015

Bank of America Slammed For Pursuing Nonexistent Debt and Filing False Foreclosure: Judgment for Borrower $204,000

Goodin v Bank of America N.A.

(with many thanks to J. Larry Nemec who forwarded this to me).

A Jacksonville federal judge has issued a sharp critique of Bank of America in a case involving a Jacksonville couple where the bank mishandled court filings and began a years-long process of trying to collect a non-existent debt and falsely filing for foreclosure.

Bank of America ruined their retirement, Deborah and Ronald Goodin testified, and it may have ruined their marriage, too.

The Goodins, like many American families, made a bad business decision just as the Great Recession began. By 2009, they filed for bankruptcy. They never missed a payment into a bankruptcy trust that was supposed to take care of their mortgage.

But then a year after taxpayers gave Bank of America a $45 billion bailout, that bank took over the mortgage from another lender in August 2009, and Bank of America, which handles trillions of dollars of deposits, failed to file a routine legal motion that would give it access to the bankruptcy trust.

BOA like the other banks is in pursuit of foreclosures for many reasons. They have no right to foreclosure and the real creditor is being blocked out of the equation. The so-called investor doesn’t even know the foreclosure was filed. And they are contractually stopped from even inquiring, just as the Trustees of the REMIC Trusts don’t know anything, don’t have anything and are not allowed to do anything or ask anything.

The plain truth is that BOA and other banks are pursuing foreclosures not because they are the lender or a successor to a lender or even an authorized representative of the real creditor. They are actually using the illusion of a default and foreclosure to cover up the fact that they are really suing for themselves — even if they are not the lender, the successor or authorized representatives. They are getting title to homes in which they have no investment.

SO THE FREE HOUSE IS GOING TO BOA AND OTHER BANKS, NOT THE BORROWER.

ORDERED:

1. Bank of America’s Motion to Amend Pleadings is DENIED.

2. The Court intends to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Ronald and Deborah Goodin and against Bank of America in the amount of $204,000 once attorneys’ fees have been decided. The Goodins have until July 15, 2015 to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and Bank of America has until August 10, 2015 to respond.

DONE AND ORDERED

23 June 2015 Timothy J Corrigan Goodin v Bank of America Jacksonville Florida

Reference Info:Federal, 11th Circuit, Florida | United States

Truth and Conspiracy Theories: “Power trumps truth, Truth is important, but…”—A Cynical Machiavellian View by Matt Parrott

Do Conservatives still believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way?  Or is it all just…a matter of strategy of how we gain influence on the streets?  As every reader of this blog knows, I’m a 9-11 truther… And furthermore that I do not believe Oswald acted alone, that the Warren Commission made an unbiased investigation, or that any other “lone gunmen” attacks are anything other than Government Propaganda, from the Batman Shootings in Colorado to Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon (here we have a lone bomber—oh that reminds me, Oklahoma City 1995) or most lately—Charleston Emanuel AME—does truth matter?  Well, without it, we have no right to exist…. no business speaking, really, no business at all….

By: Matt Parrott (9 responses.)

http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/08/maybe-street-activism-aint-your-cup-of-tea/#more-51090


About a week ago, HipsterRacist lobbed an unprovoked attack on me because I’m not a Truther and I don’t believe Trutherism is all that politically relevant even if it were true. Consider that Harvard researchers (March 2006 The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy University of Chicago & Harvard KSG) have exhaustively confirmed with tons of credible sources that the Jewish Lobby tricked America with fabricated intelligence into a disastrous war on Iraq which cost trillions of dollars, more American lives than were lost on 9/11, and imperiled our nation’s geopolitical security. And, yet, the smoking gun didn’t matter, because “truth” doesn’t matter the way Hipster Racist and the rest of the conspiracy theory community presume that it matters.

It doesn’t matter how many documents you have if you can’t stand your ground on the street.

At this point, well over a decade after the incident, even if the smoking gun proving that Jews did WTC were uncovered, it would amount to little more than perhaps an official apology, some prominent retirements, and a few gallons of editorial squid ink framing away the incident. Power trumps truth. Truth is important, but even then one must be agile about which truths we focus on and wage battles over. There are too many fresh new battles bubbling up in the news every week to be wasting time and energy on historical revisionism.

I teased him in the comment thread of the post he ribbed me on for implying that all the different White Advocates who disagree about the details of 9/11 are themselves in on a conspiracy to discredit White Advocacy, and he goes on to attack the entire group and all of its work because I don’t personally share his Truther hobby. Most of our members and supporters reject the official story about 9/11. Even I sorta do, believing that high-ranking Western and Israeli intelligence services were probably aware of the plot and passively allowed it to happen because the incident served their agenda.

HipsterRacist has been on a jihad on par with the one Osama Bin Laden may or may not have been on ever since I poked him, posting multiple hit pieces on our entire group within the past week to get back at me. Heck, I heartily agree with some of his charges against us. Our “Lynch [abstraction]” signs included in a protest a few years ago were in poor taste, and we’ve been working on tightening up our messaging. We’ve certainly made a few mistakes in our several years of activism, spanning dozens of pro-white events and campaigns. Other issues he raises, such as our emphasis on religiosity and traditionalism are the sorts of things that I expect intelligent folks to differ on. Whatever.

But the primary thesis of his most recent hit piece, “Right in Front of Your Face,” is that street action is not merely pointless but downright counter-productive. He believes, along with most Whites, that street activism is a deeply uncool and shameful activity that’s beneath him. According to him (and most of our people unfortunately agree with his position here), people who advocate our views at public protests are all basically unsavory and narcissistic attention whores.

Often in the “White Nationalist movement” you hear certain people saying “we” need to “take it to the streets.” By this, they mean to engage in a bit of street theater called “protesting.” In this form of theater, you go out in public with a big sign and wave it around, hoping that people will look at you and your sign. The people who like to do this will tell you what they want is for people to read their sign, and agree with their “message” but if you are over the age of, say, 30, you realize that what these people really want is for people to look at *them*.

We should certainly be mindful of the need to always be improving our public activism and messaging, and to be watchful for narcissistic types who wish to make the event about themselves instead of their ideas. But politics is a public affair, and we categorically must have a robust street presence or we cease to exist. Street politics are certainly not the most important aspect of a balanced activist strategy, but they’re indispensable. All of the Internet activists and bloggers are doing great work, but there’s added value in confronting Tim Wise, in directly challenging Leftist radicals to their faces, and in intelligently participating in the timeless primate ritual of competing for territorial dominance in public spaces.

White Advocacy isn’t a conspiracy hobby, it’s a political struggle. Spreading the “truth” of our position is just one component of our struggle. It’s a critical one, but HipsterRacist doesn’t even get that right. While RamZPaul, Andrew Anglin, Paul Kersey, and numerous other identitarians are frantically scrambling to keep on top of an increasingly fruitful news cycle, HipsterRacist is stuck back in 2001. There are new conspiracies and scandals hatching every month or so.

Historical inquiry is fine and all, and historians should keep digging for the truth. But it’s decidedly more historical than political in nature, and shouldn’t be mistaken for targeted activism. As with Holocaust Revisionism, the underpants gnome logic goes that if we can spread the truth, people will care about the truth, people will be mobilized by the truth, and people will rally to our side because of the truth. Has that ever been how it works?

Unlike with 9/11, I’m pretty much a Holocaust Denier. I believe there’s a startling amount of fabrication and exaggeration that’s been demonstrated relating to the German persecution of Jewish civilians in WWII. But I don’t believe it politically matters because we don’t have the power to support our position. The Lavon Affair and USS Liberty are smoking guns, and have been exceedingly well documented, but proving they happened hasn’t achieved much for our cause.

The truth is useless if the men wielding it are powerless and politically invisible. In order for our truths to matter, we have to organize on the street. We have to build relationships of trust with normal folks at the local level. We have to physically engage the political process, demonstrate real courage, and win real fights. HipsterRacist implies that our protests are all about wasting our time protesting the antifa subculture, something we’ve never done. We challenge prominent anti-whites and stand up for white folks on contemporary issues; then the antifa show up to protest us. Organizing street resistance is profoundly difficult, but it’s important work, and we’ve been iteratively improving at managing the complete lifecycle of street action with each successive demonstration.

According to HipsterRacist, we make unsavory fools of ourselves at street actions. “I’m going to find unattractive and angry looking men and cover them harassing normal looking women.” We’ve never harassed normal looking women, and we’re even generally polite to the abnormal leftist women who show up to oppose us. At the SlutWalk Protest he’s referring to, our protesters were specifically ordered to be mild and friendly in their approach, and they remained so. He’s just making stuff up about the nature and tone of our street action.

He’s correct that the street action achieves media coverage, but his inference that we’re somehow stealing attention from well-spoken academics like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald is false. We’re creating new attention for our cause which eventually leads people to learn more about Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. Our campus activism has successfully created news stories about White resistance to discrimination which wouldn’t have otherwise existed, and we’ll continue doing that, because it works.

Brilliant professors and scholarly ideologues eloquently stating our position are great, and they should receive as much attention as possible, but the news cycle is something we must be actively injecting ourselves into, not a force of nature we must passively wait around for, hoping for it to include us. We must make news. Heimbach is indeed more controversial and polarizing than most other advocates, and that’s a feature, not a bug. Showmanship and boldness matter in politics, and the academics and engineers in the Truther movement would be nowhere without Alex Jones, his confrontational style, and his street confrontations.

Ultimately, HipsterRacist is guilty of what I call “exclusivism,” the notion that there’s one exclusive message which must be delivered by one exclusive faction in one exclusive manner, to the exclusion of all else. He can’t merely settle for not signing up for or supporting TradYouth because he prefers a more secular and conspiratorial tone. No. We must be stopped, because we’re supposedly ruining it for everybody else.

Exclusivism is especially insidious because it prescribes investing the majority of our time and energy in doing what he’s doing, which is attacking and defaming fellow White Advocates. Personally, I don’t think 9/11 Truth is all that useful, but I leave them be and I even respect that there’s an audience out there for whom that messaging resonates. Our religiosity gives him the creeps, and he claims to speak for everybody when he insists that the traditionalist tone gives people the creeps. Personally, I’m creeped out by conspiracy culture, its penis pills, water filters, hokey Illuminati imagery, and wild-eyed paranoid disposition.

It ain’t my cup of tea, but I’m not going to knock it out of his hand.

More Episcopal Betrayals of the the Southern Anglo-Saxon People, their Heritage & Heroes

As I have written many times, I am a “cradle to the grave” Episcopalian, but I am constantly shocked and scandalized by the treachery my Church’s clergy and leadership.  Ours was the first “National Church” ever established, and it should respect those of us whose lives and whose parents, grandparents, and ancestors’ lives created it.

DEAR ALL:
ATTACHED IS AN ARTICLE FROM THE WASHINGTON NATIONAL CATHEDRAL REMOVING THE THE WINDOWS THAT HONORS CONFEDERATE HISTORY. THE PHONE # FOR THE CATHEDRAL IS (202)537-6200. I CALLED THEM THIS MORNING AND GOT AN ANSWER. I DID NOT MENTION MY NAME OR SCV (EXCEPT I WAS A FORMER EPISCOPALIAN) THIS ALLOWED ME MORE FREEDOM TO GET A NON RELATED POINT. THIS SAME CHURCH HAD A MUSLIM PRAYER SERVICE A FEW MONTHS A GO. BEING AFFILIATED WITH THE NATION EPISCOPAL CHURCH IS ALSO A SODOMITE CHURCH. TOLD THEM THE FOLLOWING’\, THE NATIONAL CATHEDRAL CLAIMS TO BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE PEOPLE? THE LADY SAID YES. THEN I SAID FOR EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE SOUTHERN AND ADMIRE ROBERT E LEE & STONEWALL JACKSON. I TOLD THEM IF YOU STUDIED YOUR HISTORY YOU WOULD OF FOUND THAT ROBERT E. LEE AND STONEWALL JACKSON WERE SOME OF THE FINEST CHRISTIANS ON THE EARTH. LEE & JACKSON BOTH OPPOSED SLAVERY AND STONEWALL FOUNDED A MISSION FOR SLAVES AND FREE PERSONS OF COLOR AND IN SOME FORM THAT IS EXISTENCE TODAY. THIS THING TO REMOVE EVERYTHING CONFEDERATE IS MISGUIDED. WITH FREEDOM I LOST IT BEING A FORMER EPISCOPALIAN IT MAYBE NOT SUCH A BAD THING THAT THESE FINE CHRISTIAN MEN DO NOT HAVE TO BE HONORED IN A CHURCH THAT NOW EMBRACES SODOMY. BUT THIS IS WRONG WHEN YOU ALSO HAVE A BUST OF ADOLPH HITLER WITH A SNAKE. I APOLOGIZE FOR SOUNDING ANGRY BUT I AM BECAUSE THIS ISIS STYLE HATRED TO REMOVE EVERYTHING CONFEDERATE WHILE YOUR CHURCH ALLOWS MUSLIM PRAYER SERVICES WHILE TURNING ITS BACK ON CHRIST.
IF YOU WANT TO HELP FLOOD THIS CHURCH WITH CALLS AT LEAST CALL THEM ON IT. IF YOU PLAN TO SAY YOU ARE A SON OF CONFEDERATE VETERAN FOR GOD’S SAKE USE THE GENTLEMAN AND PROFESSIONAL APPROACH.

THE BEST,

JOHN B WARING

NATIONAL CATHEDRAL PHONE # (202) 537-6200

WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 25, 2015
Washington National Cathedral Dean Gary Hall: It’s Time to Remove Stained Glass Windows That Honor Confederate History

“We do not seek to eliminate reminders of a painful past. Rather, we seek to represent that past honestly in a manner that matches our shared aspirations for a diverse, just, and compassionate nation.” – The Very Rev. Gary Hall
WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 25, 2015) Following is a statement from the Very Rev. Gary Hall, dean of Washington National Cathedral:
“In 1953, Washington National Cathedral installed stained glass windows honoring the lives and legacies of Confederate Generals Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. Both windows display the image of the Confederate battle flag.
“The Cathedral installed these windows, in part, because its leadership at the time hoped they would foster reconciliation between parts of the nation that had been divided by the Civil War. Because this Cathedral is the “national” cathedral, it sought to depict America’s history in a way that promoted healing and reconciliation.
“It is time to take those windows out. Here, in 2015, we know that celebrating the lives of these two men, and the flag under which they fought, promotes neither healing nor reconciliation, especially for our African-American sisters and brothers.
“While the impetus behind the windows’ installation was a good and noble one at the time, the Cathedral has changed, and so has the America it seeks to represent. There is no place for the Confederate battle flag in the iconography of the nation’s most visible faith community. We cannot in good conscience justify the presence of the Confederate flag in this house of prayer for all people, nor can we honor the systematic oppression of African-Americans for which these two men fought and died.
“In the aftermath of a year of racial tensions and violence—from killings of unarmed black men by police to the shootings of nine members of Emanuel AME Church in Charleston—the Confederate battle flag has emerged as the primary symbol of a culture of white supremacy that we and all Americans of good will must repudiate.
“That’s why I’m calling on the Cathedral’s governing bodies to remove these windows, and to initiate a process by which we may discern what kind of contemporary stained glass windows could adequately represent the history of race, slavery, and division in America.
“Let me be clear: We do not seek to eliminate reminders of a painful past. Rather, we seek to represent that past honestly in a manner that matches our shared aspirations for a diverse, just and compassionate nation.
“Because changing windows in a Gothic building takes time, energy and money, the Cathedral will begin by mounting a display adjacent to the windows to explain them in their historical context. We will gather a representative group to work with us to imagine how new windows can best represent our shared history of war and peace, racial division and reconciliation. We will also discuss the future of the Jackson and Lee windows.
“I express my own personal sorrow at learning of the existence of windows that I and so many others find offensive. And I pledge our willingness to examine our own history in a way that helps our nation come to terms with its own history in healing and reconciling ways.”
Editors: High-resolution images of the two windows are available upon request. Video of Dean Hall addressing the stained glass windows in his sermon at the Cathedral on Sunday, June 28, 2015 is available via the Cathedral’s YouTube Channel.

See also my own previous post:

https://charleslincoln3.com/2015/04/02/episcopal-judases-betray-church-heritage/

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-right-anchor-babies-do-not.html

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”
 

Is Banning Hoop Skirts Something Worse than Southern Cultural Genocide? Yes, it is an attack on all our 19th Century ancestors’ values….and quite Ironically, it is an attack on the Status of Women as anything other than “Sex Objects”—Hoop Skirts defy the Hyper-sexualization demanded of all modern women and girls….”the world of Miley Cyrus has no room for hoop skirts”—I guess!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/removing-the-southern-belle-from-her-inglorious-perch/2015/08/14/ea929b2a-3f96-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html

This ban on Hoop Skirts at the University of Georgia is a very interesting attempt to ban “expressive clothing or costume.” For one thing, as a State University, this is subject to an immediate First Amendment challenge. But this is not just “more Southern Confederate heritage” bashing—it is an attack on the grace and gentility of a different, pre-modern, morality in which women were treated as something other than “Sex Objects”, both culturally, artistically, and stylistically.

Now, quite aside from the fact that the hoop skirt was neither uniquely Southern or even American… it was very much a Victorian rejection of expressly sexual garb for women. No dress form ever adopted hides the female figure more than a hoop skirt does.

The grace of a hoop skirt is undeniable, and worn properly it is extremely feminine and graceful, but it is not at all “sexual”. The Modern (I would call it) Marxist norm is to hypersexualize all aspects of life and especially expressive aspects of clothing and costume, so as to reject “Civilization and its Discontents” and all associate neuroses and repressions, as Sigmund Freud categorized everything Victorian, Christian, and otherwide traditional or pertaining to European (and “Upper Class”) American Civilization.

The South was indeed uniquely devoted to the preservation of the concepts of “Ladies and Gentleman”. But the modern world is equally devoted to promoting “Sex Everywhere, all the time”. For one thing, it makes people feel good and so distracts them from the fact that they are, in fact, much more politically repressed than the inhabitants of the Victorian world would ever have tolerated.

The modern Marxist hypersexualization of the “feminine mystique” and the rejection of traditional norms of marriage and family—these cannot tolerate a fashion which says that women can be beautiful without showing even the outline of their hips and legs.

So this move in Georgia is much more than an attack on the heritage of the South—it is an attack on the remnants of Christian morality and traditional values, closely related to the Rainbow movement for “LGBT Liberation”—which can have no possible effect other than the final burial of the traditional family in an unmarked tomb somewhere near the largest of city dumps and landfills…

And so I earnestly hope that the ladies, young and old, of a traditional Southern or Victorian mindset will do everything in their power to launch a First Amendment Lawsuit to preserve the right to express themselves in a feminine but non-sexual manner, at least on special occasions….for old time’s sake…

Scary White People in New Orleans ……(BOO!)

Do “Scary White People” in New Orleans support “the deification of Robert E. Lee” as part and parcel of “the false history of the Lost Cause?”

No? Well, I don’t think so either, but those were some of the more memorably idiotic lines uttered (the first by only one speaker that I heard, but the second two were repeated several times by different speakers) at the twin meetings on Confederate Monuments in New Orleans earlier today, Thursday, 13 August 2015 at City Hall, 1300 Perdido.

The whole day was frustrating and infuriating. I stayed for all of the first meeting but not the procedural votes afterwards, went over to Tulane to do some library work and returned in the evening for the second session.

I finally walked out after an hour and a half of the second meeting that started at 6:00 p.m. (New Orleans Human Relations Committee) when some hopelessly misguided and unintelligent white woman was explaining how she told her second grade son that Robert E. Lee was a traitor. The same woman had just said that she wouldn’t dream of buying a house on Jefferson Davis Parkway and that Lee’s statue had always made her uncomfortable since she moved to the City in 2001.

Many (mostly black) people said that they felt the same way around statues of Beauregard, Davis, and Lee that a Jew might feel around statues of Hitler, Himmler, or Goebbels. These and other statements of those in favor of the removal of the Confederate Heroes’ and Battle of Liberty Place Monuments were so completely asinine as to qualify most of the speakers for the booby hatch.

But what the day was really about was the despicable level of historical IGNORANCE and cultural PREJUDICE, coupled with Political Opportunism, of the American People, or at least those who showed up at City Hall in New Orleans today seeking removal of the monuments to the Old South’s greatest generals and leaders….

First prize for best speech among the “Pro Southern Heritage” side of the argument goes to a beautiful lady with a French Creole name—who claims a 300 year old family lineage going back to some of the greatest names in New Orleans and Louisiana history all the way back to before the founding of the city.  This was exactly the kind of lady my Natchitoches-born grandmother had always hoped I would marry when I went to Tulane, but, alas, it didn’t happen, I went “Greek” instead). But this particular lady was full of fire and passion—and if she wants to run for Mayor I promise her 1000% support…

That was the short version of what I saw. What I felt was that a real race war, or at the very least a new and very hostile period between Stalinist mind control and historical manipulators and traditional Southerners.
 
The Stalinists were about 3/4 black and 1/4 white, while the traditionalists were overwhelmingly white with two or three reasonable black people daring to speak out.
 
I guess that “Stalinists” are predictably a nasty bunch, but these particular Stalinists were much more hateful than I expected—the lady “Latoya” who spoke about “Scary White People” was merely the most preposterous of them all. (The white people in presence were not scary at all—I wish they had shown a little more backbone—much too much apologizing and saying they hated the thought of offending anybody. If any word applies to the white crowd, it was “Scared.”
But Latoya was part of a “Take them all down” poster bearing click that was seated right behind me on the second row center behind the main public speaker’s podium, and they were vocally demonstrative and disruptive throughout, and I felt a great deal of hate from them and all who spoke against the moments.
 
I felt absolutely no hate among the white supporters of “maintaining the monuments,” just varying degrees of frustration for the most part, but I did feel a great fear on the part of the white people—fear of being called Racist or White Supremacist, fear of being called “traitors” perhaps.
 
Only one white person (and I can’t even say it was me), talked about the Stalinist mood of the event…..
As the evening ended, one bright clarion bell of hope sounded: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has declared his opposition to taking down New Orleans’ Confederate Monuments—it would be strange indeed for Hindu-American ethnic Bobby Jindal to turn out to be the savior for the monuments repeatedly decried today as monuments to White Supremacy and White Racism….and to the suppression of all black and brown peoples….
So who knows?  Maybe, just maybe, like Dinesh d’Souza, Indians have a better perspective on the cycles of caste, conquest, and colonialism even than do most Americans, black or white….  though that certainly would NOT explain the offensive behavior of Nikki Haley, the Governor of South Carolina, another Hindu-American…….

Public Meetings on Confederate Monuments in New Orleans on Thursday 13 August

Removal of Confederate Monument Public Hearing

http://www.nola.gov/hdlc/

The New Orleans HDLC will hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2015 from 1:00 PM to 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 1300 Perdido Street on code section 146-611 – Removal from public property by request from the New Orleans City Council, evaluation and recommendation: Robert E. Lee Statue, PGT Beauregard statue, Battle of Liberty Place monument, Jefferson Davis statue. The deadline for comment submissions has passed.

Removal of Confederate Monument Public Hearing

The New Orleans Human Relations Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 1300 Perdido Street on code section 146-611 – Removal from public property by request from the New Orleans City Council, evaluation and recommendation: Robert E. Lee Statue, PGT Beauregard statue, Battle of Liberty Place monument, Jefferson Davis statue. If you would like to submit a comment, please complete the feedback form below. The deadline for comment submissions has passed.

My position is as follows:

New Orleans, as a city, embodies the Old South, and it was the greatest City of the Old South AND the Confederate States of America.  Removing Robert E. Lee’s statue, or any of the other monuments, would be amount to a Stalinist attempt to rewrite history, to alter the nature and character of this city, and to falsify reality. IF this City really wants to disown the legacy of slavery and the cultural economy of the Old South—what really needs to happen is that (1) the French Quarter, (2) the Garden District, especially the houses along Jackson and Washington Avenues and First-Seventh Street, and Prytania and much of Magazine, need to be razed. These houses and Antebellum Greek Revival architecture ALL owe their origins to Slave Labor—they are MONUMENTS to the wealth of the South Created by Slave Labor—and it’s just too hypocritical to remove the Statues but not the Homes, not the neighborhoods or the street names—because these are reflective of the deeply ingrained nature of slave-based, Antebellum culture… which produced, whether we like it or not, most of the gloriously beautiful city which is the New Orleans of today.
The magnificence of Victorian Era, with monuments like the oldest buildings of Tulane University and “Uptown” around Audubon Park and “Up-River” St. Charles and Prytania Avenues…these are the monuments to the survivors and first Children of the Confederate States of America.  Tulane University itself is named for one of the South’s Chief Financiers, who donated more money to the Confederate States Government and Army than any private individual in history had ever done to any war, even compared to George Washington’s personal contributions to and investment in the American Revolution.  While the oldest building at Tulane (the administrative hub of the University, Gibson Hall) is named after another Confederate General, Randall Gibson.
And please don’t forget the hypocrisy implied by taking Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and Jefferson Davis down, but leaving the Statue of Andrew Jackson standing. 
By any standards of International Human Rights or U.S. Civil Rights law, Andrew Jackson was genuinely guilty of “Genocidal War Crimes” but by those same standards, Robert E. Lee, Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard, and Jefferson Davis were not.  The 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans was celebrated here in January without major controversy, but this is simply a perversion of history.  The Battle of New Orleans was in fact without any real military or political significance, certainly no ideology was at stake.  It was all about the glorification of Old Hickory.  And I have no problem with that a priori, except that, by comparison, Jackson was a monster and we are vilifying Confederates who fought for liberty and the Constitution.

Jackson, of course, made war, both on the battlefield and in the Courts of the United States, and generally abused and oppressed the American Indians—the Five Civilized Tribes, but he also owned slaves.  Accordingly HIS statue, at the very center of New Orleans, should come down BEFORE LEE’s or DAVIS’ or BEAUREGARD’s, IF that’s the real issue….  But I question whether it is the heritage of slavery, or the heritage of Constitutional Liberty and Limited Government, which is the real target of those who seek to denigrate the heritage of the Confederate States of America…

It would be a MASSIVE miscalculation and great historical hypocrisy to take down the monuments to the Confederate (and post-Confederate) leaders.  Even the layout of the city along the river, and the street names (e.g. “the Muses”, Prytania), are testaments to the importance of the Greek Revival and Classical heritage of Athenian Democracy in this City—if you want to obliterate the Southern Legacy in the history of New Orleans, you just need to NUKE THIS CITY, maybe twice, and then think about nuking the rest of the State and the whole of the South—everything of any historical importance comes back to one major truth—Cotton was King and the Mississippi was its Royal Road….

https://charleslincoln3.com/2015/07/16/banning-the-confederate-flag-monuments-is-genocide/
https://charleslincoln3.com/just-nuke-new-orleans-now/