Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Maryland's code: the truth does not matter


Maryland’s code: the truth does not matter

 

Ethics, morality and truth have little meaning in a state that has codified deceit as a means to an end. Civil dysfunction rules both Maryland State Government and the judicial arm that anoints its misdirected decisions. Yearly Annapolis releases hundreds of laws, regulations and edicts designed to confiscate money, immobilize businesses or inflict pain on its residents. Dismemberment of social systems is a Maryland State Legislature specialty. Placing the needs of our friends from foreign lands ahead of those who foot the bills should not shock anyone whose mind crosses in the middle of the road. Schools districts are notoriously overcrowded which are excused from improving to make way for more uninvited guests. Welfare programs deliver truckloads of money to the undeserving who crave more each year. This addiction to state sponsored handouts was encouraged by our former Democrat Governor and is continued by the ancients in the state legislature. Cronyism’s tentacles continue to enable the elite to maintain their edge at the expense of more deserving individuals whose only crime is they live within this State’s borders. The greatest challenge is to avoid criminal land mines established to capture the state’s subordinated population.

 

Trenchant incivility will be focused on anyone who is marked by lawyers in the Maryland state system who desire to move up the food chain. Given too much authority to prosecute with too few protections for the prosecuted the legal system in Maryland has been in need of a tune up for over thirty years. Decades ago I bumped into a political wall with the purchase of a health facility. A neophyte to the legal system and an ignorantly trusting individual that I am those who held the reins of power then trampled all over me and my family. One learns very quickly that Maryland Law is unidirectional allowing little due process when an agenda needs to be enforced. As an observer to the system of jurisprudence in Maryland, over the last twenty years, I have seen many people ripped apart for the most trivial occurrences. Needless to state the ethics of Maryland’s courts and its rented public lawyers need close inspection. Government in Maryland is no longer for the people who charge its batteries. Instead current elected officials work in a self-perpetuating mode which stands outside the desires of the electorate. Next article will discuss the mechanisms allowed by Maryland Law to decimate the lives of those who empower the system.

 

Mark Davis, M. D. President of Davis Media and Writing Services, www.daviswritingservices.com platomd@gmail.com Author of Demons of Democracy and Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

News media decline in credibility took less than a hundred years

Some recent media meltdowns call attention in the worst way to the continuing failures of much of the American news and information media. Bad judgment and abandonment of basic principles in three recent cases call attention to a long-standing slide from respectability to corruption for the nation’s news purveyors. Some examples from the recent past include: 

First, the Rolling Stone rape story, in which contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote about a female freshman at the University of Virginia identified as “Jackie,” detailing an alleged sexual assault by seven members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.

Ms. Erdely did a poor job of fact-checking the story and failed to interview key individuals involved in the episode. The story was unfit to be printed in any credible publication, and caused quite a bit of turmoil at UVA. 

In defense of this journalistic malfeasance, the following notion has been floated: “Just because it wasn’t true in the Rolling Stone case doesn’t mean it isn’t true somewhere.” Such foolishness is a common defense of beliefs thought to be so important that truth takes second place.

Although Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine, not a “real” news source, it is not excused from following the rules.

The New York Daily News, however, is a real news source, and has no excuse for this failure:
“Sarah Palin has gone rogue again - this time, giving her fans a fleshy surprise as a holiday gift,” wrote Adam Edelman in the Daily News, describing a video of Ms. Palin.

“In the episode, Palin demonstrates how to make her favorite iteration of blueberry pie, but as she delicately kneads the dough, her sweater falls down to her arms, revealing a whole lot of sun-kissed Alaskan skin and a sexy black undergarment,” wrote Mr. Edelman, a political writer for the paper.

Clearly implying that Ms. Palin was deliberately provocative, the headline blared: “Ho, ho, ho! Sarah Palin wishes fans holiday cheer as sweater falls down,” alleging she “gifted them with the naughtiest Christmas present of all – flesh.”

Perhaps Ms. Palin’s good looks dazed Mr. Edelman, confusing him about what he saw. Or didn’t see. She wasn’t wearing a sweater, as anyone who watched the video knows. The political writer’s imagination ran wild, and visions of underthings danced in his head.
It appears the delicious opportunity to ridicule Ms. Palin easily overpowered whatever journalistic ethics he and the newspaper might once have had.

For the third example, when a white police officer in Ferguson, MO shot and killed an 18 year-old black youth, the media widely portrayed the black youth as a gentle giant who had his hands up in surrender, saying “don’t shoot.”

The reaction to this seemingly tragic event was swift and angry. And wrong.

You see, it never happened. The “gentle giant,” Michael Brown, who was a giant, but was anything but gentle, had just minutes before the confrontation with officer Darren Wilson stolen cigars from a store and assaulted a store worker, disobeyed the police officer’s lawful instructions to move out of the middle of the street, attacked the police officer in his car and attempted to take his gun, then ran from the police officer. An autopsy revealed that he had marijuana in his blood, and according to grand jury testimony, never put his hands up and never said, “don’t shoot.” Instead, he attacked the officer again and died from gunshot wounds in response to his attack.

The media rushed to judgment, accepting without examination the idea that an innocent 18 year-old black youth was murdered while he was surrendering to police with his hands up. Was it because this scenario fit the preconceived notions of much of the mainstream media?
It is the reporter’s duty to scrupulously avoid injecting opinion in his or her reporting, and to carefully label unverified information, so that those in the audience have reliable information from which to form their opinions. 

American journalist and educator Walter Williams founded the world's first journalism school at the University of Missouri in 1908, and in 1914 created the Journalist’s Creed. Among the elements of the Creed are the following:

**I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that all acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.

**I believe that clear thinking, clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

Now, one hundred years after its creation, after witnessing so much news coverage that falls so far short of the lofty standards of the Journalist’s Creed, one may justifiably wonder whether the Creed was ever a part of the training of so many practitioners, or has merely been forsaken by them, and is as carefully concealed from journalism students as so much information is hidden from the public by our government.

The three examples listed previously only scratch the surface of the of the failure of modern news journalism to adhere to its moral and ethical mandate. Like our nation’s founding principles, journalism’s ethics and morality need to be restored.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

More crazy stuff from the world of “You can’t make this stuff up!”

 Commentary by James Shott

Everyone says something dumb once in a while, some more than others, of course, but some people in prominent positions have a real knack for it, and others seem to think they can say whatever they want to, and people will believe them. Worse, though, is that for some of these people, like politicians, there are millions of folks who do believe what they say, no matter how weird it may be, how unlikely to happen it is, or how simply unbelievable it is.

In the most recent example, you may remember that IRS official Lois Lerner was called to testify by three Congressional committees looking into the abuse of IRS power in the intimidation of conservative applicants for 501(c)(3) status, and after making a lengthy statement declaring her innocence then availed herself of the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and then refused to answer any questions. She apparently forgot that as a hired government worker, she is accountable for her actions to the American people.

The committees had requested Ms. Lerner’s emails months ago, but, Shazam!, the IRS announced the other day that, darn the luck, those emails have just disappeared.

Adding considerable interest to this much-too-convenient occurrence is that Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen testified in March that Lois Lerner’s emails were archived.

Oh, well. Maybe the NSA or Edward Snowden has copies.

Just a couple of days earlier, Hillary Clinton, told the world that when hubby Bill finished his eight years as President of the United States they were broke and in debt.

That fails both the smell test and the laugh test. Is it possible? Yes, but doubtful.

The American taxpayers paid President Clinton $200,000 a year in wages, $1.6 million over his eight years in the White House. Presidents may have to pay for some of their normal expenses, like food, clothes, and such, but there are several expense accounts that enter into the picture, so it is difficult to imagine exhausting $1.6 million in only eight years with all the help presidents get through expense accounts.

On the other hand, given the liberal penchant for spending money they don’t have, it is entirely possible they really were broke and in debt, and if that is true, maybe we ought to remember that if Mrs. Clinton decides to seek the presidency.

Outlandish statements sometimes serve to cover up misdeeds of government employees and burnish the bona fides of politicos. Sometimes it’s difficult to make up things that are more ridiculous than what reality gives us, as we have just seen, while other times making stuff up is precisely what people do to mislead the public for some narrow political end, as the next example shows.

“Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 74 school shootings in America.” So states the Website for “Everytown for Gun Safety,” which explains, “Everytown is a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities.”

If you are wondering why you haven’t heard about 74 more Sandy Hooks or Newtowns, it’s because there haven’t been 74 of them. In fact, CNN investigated these claims, and found that only 15 percent of them – 11 incidents – involved “a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school.”

Politifact “quotes a former member of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit as stating ‘[t]here is an ocean of difference’ between what average people consider a school shooting and various episodes in the Everytown accounting.”

Stipulated: Even one shooting in a school is one too many. But the dishonest use of data to try to scare people is intolerable.

Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) shows that the annual number of school-associated violent deaths, and the annual number of homicides and suicides of students ages 5-18 at school, were lower during the 2010-2011 school year than at any time in the last 20 years. And, in fact, they had been reduced by almost half.

Five of the 74 incidents involved accidental non-fatal shootings; and two other incidents were apparent acts of self-defense. Again, any shooting at a school, other than in self-defense or to stop someone from hurting or killing people, is unacceptable. But that is a very different matter than when someone intentionally shoots and kills or wounds kids.

It appears the anti-gun fanatics will stop at nothing, even creating fairy tales to try to persuade people to their point of view. In doing so, however, they prove that their point of view is unworthy of public attention.

“Everytown” is the brainchild of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and unfortunately contains the same absurdities as Mr. Bloomberg’s other manias, like his war on sodas.

If making things illegal actually worked, we’d have no drug problems, robberies, murders or rapes. If limiting the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons as powerful as those criminals possess made any sense, people would support it.

Does anything say, “Come on in” to a criminal more succinctly than posting a “No Guns Allowed” sign on the door?

Gun violence is the result of the desire to commit violence, not the gun.

Cross-posted from Observations

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

"Left" v. "Right" and the West Point "Far-Right Extremist" Paper

The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists."  This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.

In November 2012, the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:
"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)
As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized (implied: false, unobtainable) past.  The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection.  Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."

In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past.  Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*
Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.

Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built.  Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.

America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:
  • The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
  • Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
  • The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
  • Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
  • Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
  • The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
  • The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
  • The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse 
Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:
"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)
"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)
Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity.  What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth."  This is what must be protected in America because diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.

America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God.  It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding.  That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.

To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq.  But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view.  It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.

The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:
"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)
The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States.  That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.

More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands.  This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.

Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views.  One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God.  The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power.  This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.

This paper,"Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.

First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.

Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.

On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around.  Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.

That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as described by F.A. Hayek).  At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole.  They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers.  They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat.  For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted.  The Constitution and Truth must be defended.

By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center.  This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.

If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
--Against All Enemies

*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition. 

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Where are the Men of Moral Courage?

Courage comes in two basic forms--physical and moral.  Physical courage is putting your life on the line to achieve some perceived good, such as running in front of a car to save a child, or charging a machine gun nest to prevent it from killing your fellow soldiers.  Moral courage, on the other hand, is standing up for what is right in the face of adversity as well as when no one is looking.

I ask my fellow Americans--where are the men of moral courage?

Where are the men who honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic?

Where are the men who understand there is an essential word between "Duty" and "Country?"

Where are the men who honor the vows to their wives?

Where are the men who stand against the heresies in our Churches?

Where are the men who teach their children Truth instead of leaving them to the ravenous lies spread by the public education system?  Where are the men who stand up and oppose these very same lies in public?

Where are the men who understand that this life is not about them and their own personal glory?

Where are the men who reject earthly treasures for eternal ones?

Where are the men who reject the philosophy of "do as I say, not as I do?"

Where are the men who will choose the harder right over the easier wrong?

Where are the men who will speak the truth in every situation?

America...where are these men?  Have we been cursed with a paucity of them?
At this late hour we need men of moral courage, or all we have been blessed with will be lost.

(I have chosen to use the term 'men' in this discussion to help highlight the recent moral failings in America, which are mostly committed by men.  However, I cannot state strongly enough how America needs every last man and woman of moral courage to stand for what is right and get us back on track with our founding.)

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Contemplating the Future After the Election

Friends,

As a boy, I greatly admired the leadership of Ronald Reagan.  I watched him take an heroic stand against the evil ideology of communism, and his example was one of the main reasons why I joined the military to defend our great nation and its people.  It was a nation that rewarded achievement, protected individual liberties, and stood against the evils of the world.  However, I see a very different nation today than the one when Reagan left office.

After Tuesday's election, like many of you, I stood bewildered.  How could the people I defended all these years vote for the very ideology that I picked up a rifle to defend against?  Honestly, I cannot say I was surprised by the outcome.  However, I am deeply disturbed by what it said about our country and its people.

I have spent the last several days searching my soul for the right path to take following the reality that became apparent on Tuesday.  I have reached out to the Internet, my friends, my family, my pastors, and most importantly God and his Word.  I have been internally conflicted, bouncing back and forth from considering extreme defiance to peaceful submission.  However, neither extreme sat well with me.

Considering those calling for extreme defiance, there does not appear to be a legitimate reason to follow this course.  I believe we would be fools to secede or take up arms against the government at this point, for they hold the power of coercion and are most likely waiting for action from homegrown "terrorists" or "separatists" to silence them--permanently.  The question then becomes, at what point do citizens need to take up arms against their government?  Frankly, I cannot answer that at this time, but now is not appropriate.

Peaceful submission would mean the tacit acceptance of evil.  However, I cannot be complicit to legalized murder, the celebration of immoral behavior, or the government acting outside the rule of law.   Should I choose submission, I would be acknowledging the victory of Satan and become complicit in his actions.

Instead, I have found different ground.  With the coming darkness resulting from man's belief in a multitude of lies, there will be Americans who will be looking for the light of Truth to escape such darkness.  We Christians must be the light of Christ in the world.  We must demonstrate how Christians live the Word amidst extreme adversity by loving each another, caring for our neighbors, and spreading His Word.  Only through the Word of God can we fight against the darkness.  Any solution that lacks God's Truth will only bring more suffering.

We as followers of Christ must stand up for what is right in our families, schools, churches, cities, states, courts, and the nation.  We must defend our rights under the Constitution.  We must never compromise Truth and Liberty for Lies and Tyranny.

Finally, some declare that we are quickly approaching the End Times as prophesied in the Bible.  Perhaps they are right, but I do not know.

What I do know is that Americans needs God.  Only if Christians read the Word, pray, and live by the Word will America have any hope.  If America is now under divine judgment for its wickedness and depravity, it has certainly earned it.  However, this does not mean we need to run away from the problem (to the point of fleeing the United States).  We need to put on the full armor of God, proclaim His Truth, and confront evil.  We should be more concerned with the soul next door rather than whether or not America is going to survive as a nation.  For by saving the people, we could save the nation.

There is no victory without God.

Honor God.

--Against All Enemies

Against All Enemies blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The War For Southern Independence Began Today – 150 years ago.


The War For Southern Independence Began Today – 150 years ago.
Fort Sumter Fired On!  It’s War!

*************

The predawn darkness of an early spring morning, 150 years ago today, bore witness to the birth of a conflict which would tear this nation apart, bring death and destruction, on a scale never before seen nor even dreamed of in the worst nightmares of the leaders of the two nations who, at this precise moment, committed themselves to a life and death struggle to preserve what each believed was a just cause, a righteous cause, a cause for which Providence had appointed each of them to prosecute and see through to the bitter end.

The result of that conflict finds Southerners, today, brimming with pride while we still wrestle with the sorrow, pain, and tears, that war wrought. 

Even though the South lost the war we still hold those southern cavaliers in honor and awe.  We respect them, not only for their prowess in battle, but because they are our ancestors, our family.  The blood of those “Southern Knights” still flows in our veins to this very day.   

In the early morning darkness of April 12th, 1861, at precisely 4:29 AM, the restless waves of the Atlantic lapped gently and peacefully against the sandy shoreline of Charleston Harbor. 

The first hint of daylight could be seen at the eastern horizon where the demarcation line between sea and sky could just be made out as the upper half took on a lighter hue of velvety purple.  Boats rocked sluggishly in the gently swells as their lines stretched and loosened, stretched and loosened, as the waters surface rose and fell.

An uneasy silence lay like a heavy blanket all along the waterfront and the battery as one of the oldest and most beautiful cities on the continent waited… waited on history.

The long minute hand of the clock in one of the tallest church steeples in the city ratcheted one more notch and then… dropped into it’s notch at the bottom of the clock’s face.

It was 4:30 AM.

For one more second the uneasy silence continued.  Then the Angel of Death spread her wings and leapt silently from her perch to glide quietly over the men huddled in clumps of blue and gray in a semi-circle around that beautiful harbor and charming city.  It would be 4 years before that beautiful Dark Angel regained her perch.

Suddenly, the quiet was ripped apart by the ‘BOOM’ and ‘CRASH’ and ‘WHISTLE’ of no less than 43 big guns placed in a ring around the harbor. 

The hot barrels of those guns were all turned to a single spot just a little darker than the surrounding water.  It was a man-made island near the middle of the harbor upon which a fort had been built to provide protection for the harbor and city of Charleston, South Carolina.  It was Fort Sumter.

The unfinished fort was named for South Carolina Revolutionary War patriot Thomas Sumter.  Eighty-five Union soldiers, and their Commander Major Robert Anderson, held their collective breathes as the cannon balls began their iron hailstorm upon their fortress.  With only ten casement guns on the fort they would return fire only occasionally. 
 

The Boom of the big guns soon became a ROAR, and then a RUMBLE, and finally one long unceasing MOAN of shot and shell as the muzzle flashes of the big guns created a “false dawn” around the harbor and vibrated the cobbles in the streets and rattled the glass in the windows of the gracious homes lining the streets of the old city. 

Smoke from the spent gunpowder would hang low on the water in the early morning dampness.  The stink of the sulfur and saltpeter would burden the air with a rank odor and foul taste.  It was the taste, and odor, of Hell. 

Those guns would continue to lob destruction onto that fort for 34 hours before the order to “Cease Fire” was given. 

The Dogs of War had been loosed, slipping their bonds and snarling into history.

Four years later, 700,000 American men would be dead!  Consumed by the scythe of the Grim Reaper, the constant companion of the Dark Angel.  Their work would become legend. 

Families all over this land would be touched by the agony of that conflict.

The cream of an entire generation of Americans was wiped from the face of the earth.  Gone from this world.  Gone from their families.  Gone from a society, which needed them so much.

Who knows what accomplishments were lost to the shot and shell and cold steel of the bayonet.  How can we know that one of these men could not have advanced medicine to find a cure for the diseases that ravage us today?  How can we know that one of those young men wouldn’t have written the Great American novel, or preached the sermon that would change the lives of murderous convicts, or painted the next Mona Lisa, or become the greatest President to ever lead this nation, and on and on?

We can’t know.  We will never know.  Any chance of that happening died with those men on some bloody battlefield as two great nations, the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, tore each other apart.

The firing on Fort Sumter took place only after numerous warnings for Major Anderson to remove his troops under a flag of truce.  He chose instead, to notify Washington, and was ordered not to give up the fort and, he was told, that Union reinforcements were on the way. 

Before those reinforcements arrived the South’s warning and patience ran out.  Lincoln, himself, denied an audience to a peace delegation sent to him from the Southern Government.  He would not see them, nor hear them.   He would rather, it seems have war.  That is what he got.

Beginning today, and for the next four years, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and many of the southern states of America will memorialize the “War for Southern Independence.” We will attempt to correct much of the revisionist history of the war and we will celebrate the men who went to war wearing the southern gray.

We expect much opposition.  In fact, it has already begun.  But we WILL press forward. 

Over the next four years the American public and, indeed, the world, will be afforded an opportunity to learn the truth behind the war that still stokes bitterness, discord, and even rage in the hearts of Americans -- both North and South.

The scars of that war remain sensitive to the southern people who feel their Confederate ancestors have been maligned by historians with an agenda less about the truth and more about political correctness and politics.

It is time the truth was told – past time – and we intend to tell it over the next four years.

J. D. Longstreet     

Monday, February 28, 2011

Why Democrats Hate “Fair And Balanced” News


Why Democrats Hate “Fair And Balanced” News
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Around two thousand years ago, a man said: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” A relatively short while ago, someone added a few words to it and said: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free – but first, it will pi*s you off!” That’s all you need to know about the democrats and the fair and balanced news channel – Fox News.

However, I still have blank paper to write upon and an ink cart not quite dry, so I shall plod on in the seemingly endless task of defining the love of democrats for the politically correct over fact and/or truth.

Facts and truth are two of the most stubborn things in existence. It does not matter whether you believe a fact, or refuse to accept a fact; it remains a fact, nonetheless. The same is true for the truth. It makes not one whit of difference whether you believe the truth, or not. It remains the truth – period.

On the other hand, politically correct facts and/or truth(s) can mean anything you want them to mean. Often they are based on fact or truth but, in reality, that is the only thing valid about politically correct fact and truth. To my way of thinking, a politically correct fact, or truth, is an oxymoron. In the southern vernacular: “There ain’t no such thang!”

The political left is entirely too emotional for me. It has often been said that if American political parties had gender, the democrats would be female and the republicans would be male. All one needs to do to see evidence of that is to observe the pathetic union demonstrations in Wisconsin and other states.

Those demonstrations are a public display of an emotion, called anger, because they lost control of the US government last November. It is the reaction that a child displays when a favorite toy is taken away as punishment.

The electorate sent the democrats to the woodshed, and they don’t like it, no, not even a little bit. They are P.O’ed and, like a child, they are throwing a tantrum.

When I “threw a fit,” as a child, my parents snatched my skinny butt up and applied a 2-inch leather belt to my gluteus maximus until my cerebral cortex sparked and my mind was changed, my attitude was adjusted, and my general demeanor was acceptable in polite southern society. Of course, that meant eating from the mantle board for a few days. (For those uneducated in southern colloquialism, that means: “eating while standing up.”)

Look. When grown people, adults, make fools of themselves, on purpose, normal people just have to wonder: “What ails those folks?”

OK, so it is just me. See, I have a heck of a time dealing with anyone having authority over me. While in the US Army, I was on “KP,” as punishment, 13 times in eight weeks, at Fort Jackson, SC, because I had a problem with authority figures. I simply do not like, and will not tolerate, anyone or anything having absolute control over me. It ain’t gonna happen. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not particularly proud of it – but neither am I shamed by it. It is the way I am wired.

(Stay with me – I am about to make a point – or, at least, TRY!)

Unions, and the Democrat Party, are all about control. I could never be a member of either. I tend to think for myself, indeed, I LIKE thinking for myself. I am self-motivating, and I darn sure don’t like some one trying to motivate me -- covertly or overtly. (Again – it is the way I am wired.) You can imagine – I was a pain in the collective posteriors of my former employers.

The communists used to refer to THEIR minions as “useful idiots.” They manipulated them anyway they wanted and those minions did the will of the Communist Party. Much like Pavlov’s dog, the party would ring the bell -- and the “little commies” would come running.

Now. Compare that to what you see in the union demonstrations. The unions ring the bell(s) and the union members come running. See? Understand? It is “conditioning.” It is “control.”

There would be a heat wave in Hades before I would stand in the snow and shout that a news organization, which actually makes an effort to present BOTH sides of an issue, is a liar – for anyone!
But, then again, they have been so conditioned by the union’s propaganda and the Democratic Party’s propaganda that they seem to actually have great difficulty discerning truth from fiction, fairness from partiality, fact from lie. Its called: “CONTROL.”

It is important that America understands that those “conditioned” union members and Democratic Party members are a prototype for a liberal-socialist Democrat Party/labor union controlled America. Should they ever gain total control of America – they will OWN you – much like the people of the old Soviet Union, only worse.

It would seem their problem with Fox News is – the truth. They can’t stand it. And since the truth remains – unchanged – they must attempt to divert America’s attention elsewhere. They try to besmirch the purveyors of the truth. If it were not so serious, it would be hilariously funny.
Don’t hate them. No. They are to be pitied. They can’t quite grasp the meaning of a representative republic. They seem to believe that socialism is not evil and will not lead directly to communism, and ultimately to slavery. Sadly, they don’t have a clue that they would be the very first targets their socialist masters would seek to round up and annihilate!
J. D. Longstreet
Follow faultlineusa on Twitter