The Rush to Judgment for the Confederate Flag - Feeding a Media and Political Frenzy

.

So here we are, turning a tragedy into a media circus by convincing the public that the only way to address the tragic mass murder in South Carolina is to banish that evil Confederate flag forever.  However, do our so-called media experts, social advocates, and political opportunists really have their historical facts in order?

The flag they are removing from South Carolina, Alabama, and Virginia was not the Confederate Flag.  No, this is a case of mistaken identity common within the liberal media when fact checking seems to be a lost art.  By the way, if that flag really was such a heinous and demonic symbol, why did the most popular Democrat of modern times, Bill Clinton, use it prominently in his presidential campaign?  Where was the liberal media in 1992?

No, they have it all wrong.  Yes, the flag flying over South Carolina has no business being there.  Not because it was the symbol of slavery in the South during the Civil War, which it was not, and not because it was a flag used in various forms by Confederate military regiments from the various southern states during the Civil War, which is true.

No, we should take it down because a few politicians hijacked the battle flag of courageous Southern and ultimately American soldiers.  The politicians hated the federal government, hated integration, and hated equality, and were the same politicians who tried to change history by making that flag a symbol of hatred.  By the way, those politicians were acting 100 years after the Civil War.

Ironically, the same politicians were all Democrats.

In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia as a symbol of defiance against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance?

At the time, the Democratic Party platform contained a progressive component on civil rights.  The opponents to the platform feared it gave the president far too much power over the states to enforce civil rights laws in the South.

In 1956, Georgia adopted its version of the same battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy, to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.

The flag first flew over a state capitol in 1961 when Governor George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama to defy President Kennedy and his efforts to integrate Alabama schools.

In fact his intent was quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.

Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history. Not Vietnam. Not opposition to Northern culture or values. Not tourism. Not ObamaCare. Not anything else.

What was the real Confederate Flag?

  

Designing a Confederate flag was one of the first orders of business for the new Confederate government. To take care of this, the Committee on the Flag and Seal was formed. South Carolinian William Porcher Miles was elected to chair the new committee. Miles put forward his own design for the flag, but he soon ran into opposition when the committee asked for public input on the new flag. The prevalent opinion was that the new flag should resemble the "old" United States flag. One of the designs submitted by the public began to gain some traction...

The new design had been submitted by a German-American artist named Nicola Marschall. Marschall was born in St. Wendel, Germany, and moved to Alabama in 1849. When the committee solicited suggestions for the new flag, Mary Clay Lockett, the wife of a friend, pushed Marschall to submit a design. After some consideration, Marschall submitted a design said to be largely based on the Austrian flag.

His design was adopted as the new Confederate flag over Miles's design, largely because Marschall's was recognizably similar to the U. S. flag. The new flag was soon popularly known as the "Stars and Bars" in an obvious nod to U. S. "Stars and Stripes."

The "Stars and Bars" originally had seven stars representing the seven original seceded states. More stars were added as more states were claimed by the Confederacy until the thirteenth and final star was added in late 1861. 

Similarity to the U. S. flag was what made the first Confederate flag popular, but it is also what eventually brought about its demise...

Second and Third National Flags

Eventually, the Confederacy grew tired of having a flag that could easily be confused with their enemy's flag. So, the Committee on the Flag and Seal started work on a new design. Everyone agreed that the new design should incorporate the, now popular, battle flag...

In May of 1863, the second national Confederate flag was unveiled. The new design placed the battle flag in the upper left corner of the flag, and called for the body of the flag to be white. This new flag was commonly referred to as the "Stainless Banner." Unfortunately, this flag met with problems as well.

It was soon realized that, unless there was a strong wind to keep the "Stainless Banner" outstretched, the new flag tended to look like a white flag of truce. When the flag hung limply, it was easy to miss the battle flag in the corner. In time, it was decided that this problem should be remedied...

The third national Confederate flag was unveiled in March of 1865, only weeks before Lee's surrender. This design simply called for a vertical red bar to be added to the outer end of the "Stainless Banner." The new flag was dubbed the "Bloodstained Banner," and served as the national Confederate flag until the Confederacy was dissolved.

Origin of Confederate Battle Flag

When most people think of a Confederate flag, the design that pops into their mind is more like this flag.

This flag is in fact the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, and it came about as a direct result of the similarity of the "Stars and Bars" to the "Stars and Stripes."

The battle flag design is, in fact, the original design suggested by William Miles for the national flag. Even though his committee had rejected his design, Miles did not give up hope of finding a use for his flag. That hope would be rewarded at the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run)...

This was the fist major battle of the civil war, and most of the Confederate units involved simply carried the new national flag. Here is where the problem with having a flag similar to that of your enemy was fully realized. After dealing with the confusion on the battlefield caused by his flags, the Confederate commander, General P. G. T. Beauregard, was anxious to find a solution...

William Miles just happened to be one of Beauregard's aides, and he told the General about his design that had been rejected. Beauregard liked the idea, and the Committee  on the Flag and Seal was asked to change the national flag. They rejected the idea...

Knowing the importance of this problem, General Beauregard suggested to his superiors that a uniform battle flag, that could not be confused with the U. S. flag, should be adopted. In the end, Miles's design was adopted as the official Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, and it went on to become the most popular and enduring symbol of the Confederacy.

Regarding the use of the Confederate battle flag, eleven states officially seceded and joined the Confederacy, but the battle flag also included stars for the slave states of Kentucky and Missouri because they formed Confederate governments in exile.  Each state and often each general selected their own version of a battle flag and use was restricted to the actual fighting regiments.

Today what we call the Confederate Flag was never the Confederate Flag of the Southern Confederacy, but 100 years later a version of this battle flag was hijacked and used for a far more sinister use.

.

Eric Cantor loses House Leadership & Seat in Congress - Why?

.

It is rare when a Majority Leader in Congress loses his Congressional seat in any election, but when he loses in the primary it might just be the first time in our nation's history.  Add to that the fact he was 34 points ahead in the polls the week of the election, so far ahead he scheduled a national fund raiser on election day in downtown Washington, D.C. when most candidates are busy trying to rally supporters to vote, and it gets real bizarre.

Of course that is just the tip of the iceberg.  The Republican leader, second ranking to only John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is one of the most powerful party positions in the nation.  So powerful he was able to raise 25 times more money than his primary opponent.

The opponent in Cantor's seventh congressional district of Virginia was Dave Brat, an economics and ethics professor at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Virginia, and political unknown who enjoyed support among some tea party activists.    

House Republicans, who are certain to vote a loser out of office, will drive Cantor to resign from the leadership position as well as the Congress because no one reaches the highest levels of a political party in the center of the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and wants to return as a defeated candidate for the rest of the year.  Look for this change to happen by July.

Cantor was highly publicized as one of the Republican "young guns", the future leaders of the party, and it was generally recognized he was the only one who might defeat the current Speaker Boehner.  Guess he was firing blanks.

Now the White House, Democrats and national political pundits in the media are having a field day trying to explain how all of them could have been sooo wrong about the election.  They are spinning opinions about how this will invigorate the Tea Party and threaten other senior Republican elected officials.

 A few even mentioned the truth, that no major Tea Party organization even endorsed the winner.  How could the Tea Party get credit for electing someone they did not even support?  Only Laura Ingraham, a political talk show host, successful author and real conservative openly supported the challenger out of all the political mouthpieces in America, she even campaigned with him, and she graduated from the University of Virginia.

The truth is the politicians are afraid to address the real truth so they continue to  misread the electorate just like they misread this race.

Professional politicians have lost touch with the invisible Americans.  Just like Obama did, they are spending billions and billions of special interest dollars to get elected or re-elected, much of it to going professional political pundits.  Obama spent $2 billion in just two elections thanks to Wall Street, specifically Goldman Sachs, trial lawyers, health care companies, banks, insurance, pharmaceutical and a laundry list of other special interests.

So who are the "invisible Americans"?

At least one third of all registered voters are registered Independents.  They don't trust either political party.  Probably one third of the members of each party feels alienated by their own party judging by the weakness of the party polls and collapse of credibility in our elected officials.  Add to that a massive amount of people, millions, who are so disgusted or disinterested by political gridlock they won't even register to vote and you have a massive, maybe even lethal formula for political chaos.

Look at it this way.  Of the eligible voters in America, 51 million are not even registered to vote.  But they could register and vote if they are motivated.  That means nearly one of every four eligible voters does not even register.  There are over 180 million registered voters but over 40%, over 72 million, do not typically vote, especially in non-presidential elections like this year .

That means 159 million eligible voters will not vote this year while about 129 million will vote.  A majority of eligible voters refuse to participate in the current two-party system.  So what does that tell you about our democracy?  Like all other institutions in America, it is broken.

Eric Cantor did not lose because of the Tea Party or because of any party, he lost because he is one of the Washington professional politicians who worked the system and there are those people in both parties working the system throughout the house and senate.

Virginia was the leader in the first American revolution and it may just be the leader in the second American revolution to throw out the establishment, the professional politicians, and anyone associated with the special interests that now control congress, the White House and our government.

Don't believe the media, pundits and spin masters who say this is a Republican revolt or an isolated incident, this is the beginning of the people's cure to our political problems, throw the rascals out, all of them, no matter which party has their loyalty because neither party serves the best interests of the people, just their own interest of concentration of power and hijacking of our government.

It was 57 years ago in 1957 that Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, a stunning novel of the collapse of capitalism because of greed, corruption and runaway technology.  The hero of her last novel was a mysterious stranger named John Galt.  I expect Who is John Galt signs to be popping up all over America just like in her novel and one day we will discover John Galt is the 159 million disenfranchised voters waiting in the wings to fix the mess we are in.

Perhaps Virginia was the beginning....

.

America's Newest Heroine - Lori Anne Madison

.

Lori becomes 1st 6 year old to qualify for National Spelling Bee

America loves and needs a new heroine and our newest comes in a diminutive package packed with knowledge, smarts and wit, 6 year old Lori Anne Madison from Virginia.

This week she took the long and lonely journey to the pinnacle of national competition when she became the youngest person to ever qualify for the highly regarded National Spelling Bee.

Imagine that, a competition for all elementary and secondary students in the USA, meaning kids from 8 to 18, and she is one of the 277 brightest kids in America.

I have a thing for academic pursuit ever since I started correcting my teachers in grade school so seeing one achieve such a lofty honor as qualifying for the National Spelling Bee boggles the mind when you consider at her age I was probably still playing cowboys and Indians.

If you get a chance check out her interviews as her feat was quickly picked up by the national and world press as if they could not believe America had any smart 6 year olds.  Her maturity and charm belie her years.

Did I fail to mentioned that this young genius is home schooled?

Here is what the world news had to say about Lori .

Six-year-old girl in National Spelling Bee

(Reuters) - A 6-year-old girl will become the youngest contestant ever in the Scripps National Spelling Bee after winning a regional competition in Virginia.

Lori Anne Madison, of Woodbridge, Virginia, won the Prince William County spelling contest last week, beating out 21 top elementary and middle school competitors. Her winning word: "vaquero," a word of Spanish origin meaning cowboy.

"My parents quiz me. I read lists and I have a really good memory," Madison, who is home-schooled, told Fox's WTTG-TV.

Madison was believed to be the youngest competitor ever, the Cincinnati-based National Spelling Bee said on Tuesday. Based on incomplete records, the previous youngest contestant was 8, it said.

The spelling contest has been held since 1925. This year's event will be held May 29 to June 1 in Washington with 277 spellers from the United States, U.S. territories and other countries.

Madison will be sponsored by the News & Messenger newspaper of Manassas, Virginia.

(Reporting By Ian Simpson; Editing by Daniel Trotta)

.

Pelosi a heartbeat from Presidency - but miles from Reality

-



"We won last night," said Pelosi. Only the representative from the legendary land of Oz and home of Timothy Leary could sum up the defeat of the Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia in such a bizarre manner. It is as if she has no concern for the states or the people in them or the fact that Obama won them in an avalanche last year only to lose them less than a year later.



In the wonderful world of Pelosi just how far can the truth be stretched before the mask comes off?



If I were a Democrat and this was the Speaker of the House in my party I might be looking for a new place to live. Now we know her San Francisco Bay area is so liberal that being a socialist is never far enough to the left. Still, she is third in line for the presidency and that is a very scary thought.



Pelosi has been known to act more like a valley girl or bobble head doll on occasion so we are not too shocked by her relative ignorance of current events taking place in Virginia and New Jersey but other Democrats noticed, why not her?



“Every Dem who is up in either 2010 or 2012 knows that last night was big — if the right wing hadn’t meddled in New York’s 23rd, that would have gone GOP, too,” said former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, adding that he fears Democrats may be heading for a repeat of some 1990s history. “The electorate appears restless and angry. If they begin to ‘vote the bums out’ as they did in 1994, Democrats know that the next election is going to be extremely difficult.”



Even the darling of the new Democrats Senator Mark Warner from Virginia could see the national implications of the wipeout and the need for honesty by the leadership when he said: "We got walloped!" What a shame the real leaders can't lead as well.



When it comes to the health care or energy bailout and bribery bills considered by the unholy alliance, Pelosi, Reid and Obama, both Pelosi and Senate counterpart Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, have personally let it be known they will decide what bill the Congress will vote on, what amendments will be offered, how debate will be eliminated, how to get by with no Republican input or involvement 1n the legislative process, and how to justify ignoring the increasing virulent cries of the disenfranchised American voter.



What kind of constitutional process is that? Since our president, trained in constitutional law by the revered institution Harvard Law School, has already been brainwashed in the international code of conduct and usurpation of the rights of nations and people's, I guess the three make a good match. They seem to be genuinely enjoying their private jets (the little one is the government plane for Pelosi) and VIP treatment.



Obama ivy league aloofness, detachment and arrogance will serve him well as he ignores the many campaign promises he made and continue on his doomed path toward a socialist trainwreck in America, thus justifying the long sought elitist goal of the New World Order. Sound fictional? We shall see.



-

Election 2009 - Winners and Losers - Obama family not really interested?

-



There was a little bit for everyone but an ominous warning for the establishment in the election results Tuesday as voters went to the polls and tossed out big spenders, turned on negative campaigns, and sent a clear and concise message to the rest of the elected officials that accountability will be demanded of their votes to increase the deficit, increase spending and ignore the people's priorities.

Those priorities? The economy, deficit spending and jobs according to 90% of the people voting in New Jersey and 85% of the voters in Virginia.



Now according to the White House Obama continues to display an amazing disregard for the public and for common sense as they said he was too busy to watch election results but not too busy to watch the Chicago Bulls basketball team on TV. His wife Michelle demonstrated her interest in the election results by taking the kids to a Miley Cyrus concert. The Obama family detachment from people seems to be getting worse.





Just last week our sportsman president was too busy campaigning for the eventual losers to take part in one of the most revered events in America, the World Series, where he could have thrown out the first pitch. A series between two of the most storied cities and baseball franchises with record ratings would have appealed to any sports buff but not our president. No, he sent his wife and the wife of the vice-president to the opening game of the series in NYC in the first World Series game played in the new Yankee stadium. A very dumb move by the White House staff.





The election winners: Chris Christie won the governor's race in New Jersey overcoming a spending avalanche by his Goldman Sachs opponent, millions of dollars in negative advertising by Corzine, five campaign appearances by the president in a state where his popularity remains very high, an opponents campaign taken over by the Obama White House to make sure the locals didn't screw it up, and the presence of an Independent on the ballot splitting the anti-Corzine vote.



Christie stayed out of the mud slinging and made light of the fat attacks by the Democrats. He stayed focused on the economy and jobs when the opposition message was lost in the flood of red ink being generated in our capitol. And he withstood the withering attacks and money being spent by the Washington special interests including national politicians, unions, Wall Street friends of the Democrats and the multitude of liberal causes hell bent on telling us what is good for us.



Governor-elect Robert McDonnell led a Republican sweep of all the statewide elections in Virginia, as his opponent fell to defeat with a weak campaign, lack of an economic program and undefined relationship with Obama. Though Obama campaigned for the Democrat and $10 million was pumped into the race by Democratic national committees Obama's dismal 48% approval and 51% disapproval in Virginia neutralized any benefit from the presidential efforts.

The winners: Obama won in his popularity rating as New Jersey showed him with a 57% approval rating. However, since the Democratic incumbent got only 45% support it means Obama has no control over his fans as 13% of the Obama supporters voted for the Republican or Independent, not Obama's pick.



In Virginia Obama's favorable rating dropped to 48% with 51% unfavorable, the same as the most recent Rasmussen national numbers. His nationwide numbers have settled at 48% favorable, down from his high of 69% after his election, a 21% collapse in the polls.



The losers: Obama's agenda for change was rejected across the board with no Obama issue gaining more than a low 40% approval and all had higher negative ratings than positive. The economy and taxes dominated the state agendas with health care, energy and others far behind. As confidence in Obama's handling of the economy has been in a freefall it does not bode well for the president.

Virtually all action taken on the economy by Obama and the Democratic congress is contrary to the public mood in as much as it has aided Wall Street but not Main Street, has not helped with consumer credit, credit card fees and interest rates, and has cost $250,000 to create every public sector job under the stimulus, jobs that will disappear as soon as the federal money runs out.

Confusion over the issue of the War in Afghanistan and the floundering policy of Obama, his inability to make a decision that impacts on the safety of our soldiers, his failure to fulfill promises regarding Guantanamo, Iraq and the Middle East have all contributed to a collapse of support for his foreign initiatives. However, foreign affairs had no impact on the election.



The bigger losers: Congress and leaders Pelosi and Reid who have demonstrated they are pursuing exactly the opposite priorities as the public wants. They are out of touch and obsessed with their own agenda regardless of the change wanted by the public. Unbeknownst to them, health care and the energy cap and trade bills, their two bills designed to make the congress and industry advocates wealthy, are the very budget busters the public demands be stopped.

If the congressional leadership continues their course of forcing their priorities down the throats of Americans they will see their own careers and those of many incumbents fade into oblivion, the graveyard for those who claim to protect the public trust while stealing our future blind. The mood of the voter is angry and the target of their anger is the Washington and Wall Street establishments.



Politicians and political parties can be part of the institutional problem or part of the solution but they cannot be both. Right now the national political parties, Democrat and Republican alike, are in the crosshairs of the public anger. If they fail to address the deficit, to stop social spending, and to eliminate the climate of lobbyists, campaign funding and politicians for sale dominating the corrupt Washington scene, they will be history.



The biggest winner was the independence of the Independents and the solidifying of the base of about 20% of the registered vote who now constitute the new independent economic conservatives. With no party ties this block of independent voters is growing stronger with every election. Attempts to control them by social conservatives failed though there is strong conservative support for social issues. The evolving Independent opposes a litmus test for philosophical loyalty and shares a common bond of opposing deficit spending, increasing the national debt and expanding the size of government.

The biggest loser was the news media and their incessant analysis of the election. As the media continues to take sides and push the Democratic or Republican agenda the entire Washington and Wall Street establishments from the White House to Congress, the lobbyists to contributors, special interests to the corrupt continue to treat our nation's government as their own playground. Where are the media watchdogs? Are they too busy sharing in the spoils?



-