WHEN INSANITY PULLS SOCIETY OUT OF ORBIT

There have been plenty of times when insanity has pulled earth out of its normal orbit.  It happened in Nazi Germany, in Stalinist Russia, and during the French Revolution, as a few examples.  I want to explore the French Revolution a little more.

The basic idea of the French Revolution was to change people's beliefs, identities and values.  It was also to re-educate people and to eradicate traditional ways of thinking so a new cultural normal could be introduced.  While it evoked a fondness for decimalization and metrication, it went a lot further than decimals and metrics.  It had a great deal to do with secularization, the removal of religion from society or, at least, marginalizing religion so that it had no influence on the state or national life.  And it causes us to think about some of what is happening in Post Modern America.

After the French Revolution, the traditional 7-day week was changed to a week with 10 days.  Sunday was replaced with the tenth day, called "decadi."  This disrupted worship on Sunday and it was intended to.  (Spelling was even changed, e.g., Bible became bible).

The traditional 24-hour day was changed.  The new day had 10 hours.  Each hour had 100 minutes.  Each minute contained 100 seconds.

So, the new French hour contained 144 conventional minutes (making it over twice as long).  The new minute contained 86.4 conventional seconds (44% longer).  The new second equaled only 0.864 conventional seconds (13.6% shorter).  

I assume that this was so confusing that nobody was on time because nobody knew what time it was.  Workers didn't like the system because now they got one day off every 10 days instead of 1 day off every 7 days.  (No, the national domestic product did not increase correspondingly).

If the clock situation isn't confusing enough, the French radicals messed with the calendar, too.  They kept a 12 month year but changed the names of everything.  Weeks had 10 days.  And the New Year began in the Autumn.  Here are the names of the months (all new, of 
 course):

Autumn

vendemiaire - "grape harvest"
bromaire - "midst"
frimaire - "frost"

Winter

nivose - "snowy"
pluviose - "rainy"
ventose - "windy"

Spring

germinal - from "germination"
florial - "flower"
prairial - "meadow"

Summer

messidor - "harvest"
thermidor - "summer heat"
fructidor - "fruit"

In other parts of the world, Britain in particular, they poked fun at the new months, calling them: "Wheezy, Sneezy and Breezy; Flippy, Drippy and Nippy; Showery, Flowery and Bowery; and Hoppy, Croppy and Poppy."

As I said, the goofy French extremists invented a new week that contained 10 days instead of seven.  They were very creative in naming the new days of the week, as you will see.

primidi - first day
duodi - second day
tridi - third day
quartidi - fourth day
quintidi - fifth day
sextidi - sixth day
septidi - seventh day
octidi - eighth day
nonidi - ninth day
decadi - tenth day (replacing Sunday, the traditional day of rest or worship)

Many "enlightened" secularists today will tell you that the French Revolution changed the world and ushered in the beautiful new world of human rights that followed.  But there is much they won't admit about the French Revolution:

Instability was rampant. There were eleven new constitutions since 1789.  France experimented with every form of government, including dictatorship, absolute monarchy, republican, democratic, and monarchy again.

Rights came to be seen as abstractions bestowed by a powerful, coercive state which often undercut tradition, custom, law or traditional liberties.

Wars.  The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars convulsed and changed the entire map of Europe and began the colonization process.  The Revolution also brought the rise of nationalism and with it the rise of national hatred and conflict, never more prominent than in Germany, ultimately realized under Bismark.  The French Revolution poisoned Europe for the entire century which followed and indirectly set the stage for World Wars I and II.

Violence.  Not only wars, but political violence followed.  Anticlericalism led to the repudiation of Christian values and sentiments and injected hate into the political process in France.  We would do well to remember that hate was first ushered into the political process by liberal extremists during the French Revolution.

In fact, our term "right wing" and "left wing" as used in modern times comes from the French Revolution.  It referred to the seating arrangements of the two major groups in the Constituent Assembly.  

The Revolution took traditional Christian values out of public life.  Citizenship or nationalism became the only sort of identity recognized by the French State, making it harder for France to integrate religious minorities such as Muslims, who find their identities elsewhere (certainly outside of France, as we have seen).

Defenders of the French Revolution will point out that it ended absolute monarchies in Europe.  It did that.  However, Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA regards the Revolution as an enormous dysfunctional family haunted by patricide:  Louis as the father, Marie-Antoinette as the mother, and the revolutionaries as the unruly mob of brothers. 

So, we can see a great deal of ourselves in the French Revolution:  social unrest, revolt against authority, questioning of all traditions or customs, secularization, violence, political hatred, rampant political correctness, terror, instability, government indecisiveness, destruction of culture and tradition, increase of central state power, underpinning of moral principles, experimentation-- change just for the sake of change.  (You will continue to see "CHANGE" as a key political word in upcoming campaigns, even after you might think that Obama has ruined the word).
   

REASON FOR THE CONFEDERATE UPROAR?

What's the real reason for all the uproar about the Confederate flag a while back, anyway?  I think I know.

It's about turning out the black vote in the South (and elsewhere).  Rebel rousing (no pun intended) fires up the voters.  It turns them out.  In the close 2016 presidential election, it may all hinge on who comes out to vote, especially in the Southern states.

How does a Democratic Party that lost so bad in the mid-terms turn out its base?  By rebel rousing, that's how.  Make the voters mad.  Infuriate them.  Give them a cause. Put Jesse, "Rev." Al, Obama and Hillary on TV gripping about the Confederate flag or Nathan B. Forrest, Jim Crow, police brutality--anything!  Just make 'em mad and get 'em to the polls.

Turning out the vote in 2016.  "Don't let them do it to us again in 2016 like they did in the Mid-terms."

Expect more and more of the 8-cylinder potty mouthing as the election approaches.

1. The other rebel rousing topic, of course, is alleged police brutality.  Keep that pot stirred, too.  In fact, the anti-police pot will have more longevity than the flag issue.  It's already working in Ferguson, Chicago and Baltimore.  Will it work in Atlanta, Memphis or Charleston, too?  I bet it will if two things happen:  

One, they bring in the heavy hitters to seize the opportunity, and 

Two, the media plays along. 

 Aw, forget number 2, that's a given.

SALESMAN OF THE YEAR: WHO SOLD MORE GUNS AND CONFEDERATE FLAGS?

President Obama, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are tied as the best sales force in America.  Between the 3 of them, they sold more guns and Confederate flags in 2015 than all the other salesmen combined!  If you want something sold, and sold with passion and determination, get Obama, Sharpton or one of their crack sales people on board.  

When Obama yelps "More gun control," people rush to the gun store and get in line.

When the radical left censors the Confederate flag, the red and blue yarn begins to fly and producers just can't make Confederate flags fast enough.

Keep it up, fellas!  Good job!

WHY LEFTIST ATTACKS ON THE CONFEDERATE FLAG HARMS MINORITY RIGHTS

Extremist attacks on the Confederate flag harms minority rights.  Here are reasons.

1.  It trivializes major gains in minority rights by making a fuss over a non-important dead symbol of a by-gone era.

2.  It draws focus to a very minor skirmish when important battles could be won elsewhere.

3.  It attracts political opportunists like honey draws flies.

4.  It unnecessarily opens all the old wounds that festered during the Civil Rights movement and prevents consolidation of gains and enjoyment of benefits that have already been earned.

5.  It attracts the crazed, odd, insane and unbalanced elements of our society and inflames them to do harm--much like the idiot in Charleston who murdered innocent people simply because he was crazy or evil, or both.

6.  It plays into the hands of a few idiots who call for a "race war."  Nobody wins a war like that.  Everyone loses. Let's stop pouring gasoline on the flames.  (Can you see any similarity between hatred for the Confederate flag and hatred for law enforcement officers?  At least a lot of the rhetoric is the same--and many of the political opportunists are the same; we see their faces on TV every night--pouring gas on the fires).  See points 3 and 5 again.
  
6.  It has no object, no purpose, no definitive end.  How do we know when victory is to be declared?  It's like commitment to a war with an unknown objective.

7.  It destroys credibility.  Do you mean you have no concerns greater than someone flying a Confederate flag?  If that is the only battle left, you have no battle.

FINAL SALUTE TO THE WALKING DEAD

The final salute to General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia came from a most surprising source--Brigadier Lt. General Joshua Chamberlain.  Chamberlain was a Union hero of the Battle of Gettysburg who was also placed in charge of accepting the arms surrendered by Lee's army at Appomattox on April 10, 1865, the day following Lee's formal meeting with Grant.

As the surrendering Confederate regiments were passing in review before the assembled Union troops, Gen. Chamberlain ordered Federal troops to present arms as a token of respect for the defeated Confederates.  Chamberlain's writing records the reaction of Confederate General John Gordon and the rest of the Confederate army:

 "Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier's salutation, from the "order arms" to the old "carry"—the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly, making with himself and his horse one uplifted figure, with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual,—honor answering honor. On our part not a sound of trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding, as if it were the passing of the dead!:

— Joshua L. Chamberlain, The Passing of the Armies, pp. 260-61

_____________
Then Lt. Col. Chamberlain of Maine, had been instrumental in turning back Lee's attack on Little Round Top in the Battle of Gettysburg on July 2, 1865. He had been severely wounded in action at Gettysburg and was high decorated. There is probably no Union officer who personally saw more action against his Confederate enemy than Chamberlain. He had engaged in practically hand-to-hand combat on Little Round Top and had led the bayonet charge that repealed the final Confederate advance on the Union's left flank on July 2. In spite of that, or perhaps because of it, Chamberlain recognized the valor and bravery of his former Confederate adversaries and honored them once they had been defeated. 

Politicians today have no such honor.

I am disheartened, 150 years later, that the political Left (and some on the Right) wish to denigrate all who wore the Confederate gray--something that Chamberlain and other Union soldiers and officers had no stomach for at the immediate end of the war.  However, as time passes, those who never had the honor of facing brave men on the battlefields feel free to assassinate the character of Southern soldiers simply because it is politically permissible to do so.  Chamberlain certainly never sympathized with Confederate politics and he made that very clear.  He did, however, recognize their honor and  bravery and he had a magnanimous character which seems to have been lost on our present political generation altogether.  In a modern PC culture, someone would have grabbed Lt. Gen. Chamberlain by the coattails and said, "Look, General, these people supported slavery and few the Confederate battle flag.  You must not be seen as doing anything which might fail to condemn them."  If anyone had done this, I suspect Chamberlain would have punched them in the face.  He was quite a brave and honorable gentleman.

CIVIL WAR HISTORY IS MOST COMPELLING OF ALL

I recently re-read The Killer Angels by author Michael Shaara, easily one of the best historical novels of recent times.  It is non-partisan in that it is told from the viewpoint of the people who participate in the Battle of Gettysburg and favors neither North or South.  The novel is breathtaking for its action, its character development and for telling of the horrors of war, suffered by both sides.  In my view, the book is better than the movie ("Gettysburg") - simply because the essence of Shaara's prose cannot be captured entirely on film.  The first book in the trilogy, Gods and Generals, was also quite good.

Shaara's son, Jeff, authored The Last Full Measure, the epic about the final two years of the War Between the States.  Again, moving and historically realistic without favoring South or North.

Reading Civil War history should be required, not discouraged.  If the works explored are truthful, colorful and accurate, as Shaara's books are, the readers will be truly educated about America's past and will gain much needed insight into the present.  Unfortunately, I don't think high school students spend much time, perhaps almost no time, on real American history, let alone the Civil War.  It seems to me, and I was one a history teacher, that curriculum now days major in the minors.  

The average American high school student cannot tell you in which century the Civil War was fought.  Many cannot discuss the reasons for the war beyond the patent answer, "Slavery."  If you asked students, even in college, to state 5 results of the Civil War, my guess is that they would be hard pressed.  

It can only be hoped, probably in vain, that the richness and depth of experience that comes from reading Civil War history will be fostered by our educational system.  I don't want us to become a society of technicians who fail to appreciate who we are, where we came from and where we are headed.  On second thought, when I look at our mathematics and science scores, I don't think I have to be concerned about technicians, either.

WHY LEE LOST THE WAR

Modern liberals make much of the fact that Robert E. Lee "lost the war."  But the wonder is not that the war was lost.  The wonder is that it took the entire forces and strength of the United States 4 years to defeat one of the most brilliant commanders in the annals of war.

When the war began, the odds were overwhelming stacked against the South:

• The South had only one-fourth of the railroads in the nation.
• The South had one-third of the population.
• The South had no navy when the war began.
• The South had less than one-fourth of the nation's industry.

By 1865 when Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, his army could be described with the words, "No food, no horses, no shoes, few guns."  The 4 year war of attrition had taken its inevitable toll.  Lee was not defeated on the battlefield; he was defeated by overwhelming superior resources, such as number of soldiers, guns, shoes, food, money, industry, ships, trains--all replaceable.  Lees losses were not replaceable.  

When Lee faced Grant in the Wilderness Campaign, he was in a desperate defensive maneuver to hold the last rail line at Petersburg and to slow the Federal advance upon Richmond.  Many of his soldiers were barefoot and not all of them were armed. By the time the Army of Northern Virginia reached Appamattox in early Apri 1865, the Southern troops were starving, having been cut off from all supplies.

When I taught history, I tried to help my students understand Lee's untenable position by comparing it to a game that they all understood--the game of checkers:

Pretend you are in a checker game.  Your opponent doesn't know nearly as much about the game as you do.  You are by far a superior checker player.  You can counter any move your opponent makes and can defeat him easily.  There is just one rule, however, which you need to note.  When you remove one of your opponent's checkers from the board, he can replace it any time and keep playing.  If you take your opponent's last checker off the board by a superior move, all he has to do is reach and put the checker back on the board and keep playing.  However, you are not allowed to replace your checkers.  When yours are gone, they are gone for good.  The game will go on a very long time because you can out think, out wit and out maneuver your opponent.  But eventually, given enough time, he will defeat you because you have only 12 checkers and your opponent has an infinite number of checkers.  No matter how good you are as a checker player, you are doomed to run out of resources eventually and lose.  Therefore, it is not a matter of who the best player is.  It is a matter of having a limited number of resources.  Such was the case with Lee.

Lee outmaneuvered his opponents, out fought them, ran many of them out of command (Hooker, McClellan, Burnside, Sherman, etc.), and defeated armies twice his size on numerous occasions.  He would have won the war except for one thing:  attrition.  Lee could not replace his losses over time.  He could inflict more damage on a superior number of the enemy than he himself suffered; however, he would also suffer losses and those losses were not replaceable. 

So there is little honor in bragging that Lee was whipped.  That it took 4 years for the mightiest power on the planet to defeat him is a monument to his military genus.

ROBERT E. LEE - BEFORE PROGRESSIVE RE-EDUCATION

 “Lee was the noblest American who had ever lived and one of the greatest commanders known to the annals of war.”   --Sir Winston Churchill

 

Remember Churchill?  75 years ago, when freedom was being threatened by the evil of Nazism, it was Churchill who first led the lonely fight to save Europe. Churchill, at the time, and for decades after, was the most respected statesman in the free world.  I suppose that now Churchill must be thought of as a racist, or an idiot, or a bigot--because his opinion of Lee was so awe-inspiring.  But Churchill was not alone, back before the radicals changed our worldview and rewrote history.

After Lee's death, a Northern newspaper wrote of him:  "We have long since ceased to look upon him as the Confederate leader, but have claimed him as one of ourselves; have cherished and felt proud of his military genius; have recounted and recorded his triumphs as our own; have extolled his virtue as reflecting upon us—for Robert Edward Lee was an American, and the great nation which gave him birth would be today unworthy of such a son if she regarded him lightly".

Robert E. Lee opposed Slavery, and had freed the slaves he inherited from his Wife's estate long before the war. One of them, William Mac Lee, chose to stand by Robert E. Lee's side throughout the war, serving as his cook and confidant. This former slave and friend described Lee with these words, "I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee".

The following prayer by Robert E. Lee is contained in the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library in Independence, MO.  It was memorized by Truman as a young man and President Truman is said to have prayed it throughout his entire life:

"Help me to be, to think, to act what is right because it is right; make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me."

In the post-modern, progressive rush to condemn Lee (something traditional history never did) - the liberals have deserted all of the values that Lee held dear, and lived by.  It is not one man, or even one ideology that they condemn--it is an entire value system, one which apparently belongs to the past but has no part of the present or future.  Or so the liberals would wish.

"CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" - CONFEDERATE FLAG

Years ago, the US Supreme Court developed a doctrine about the kind of speech that can be censored.  The doctrine, written primarily by justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., was called the "Clear and Present Danger" doctrine.

This doctrine made a distinction between unpopular speech that might generally advocate harmful or even illegal ideology vs. speech that called for a "clear and present danger," the type of speech that the government had the right to censor or punish.

While I am not arguing a legal point here, I would encourage rational analysis of whether there is any "clear and present danger" involved in flying or displaying the Confederate flag.

Any common sense or reasonable approach to the Confederate flag issue would conclude that:

1. The Confederate flag poses no CLEAR DANGER to anybody.  It is, to some, offensive, hateful, unpopular, in the same way that a thousand ideas may be offensive to me.  But it does not hurt anyone.  It presents no clear danger to any right, unless there is a right "not to be offended." 
2. There is no PRESENT DANGER.  Even if you concede, for the sake of argument, that the flag once supported slavery, racism....or whatever, the Confederacy ended in 1865.  Nobody on earth today believes or acts as if the Confederate government exists, or that it has any power to re-enslave, encumber, discriminate, kill, maim or harm any living person.  Regardless of what the flag stood for in 1865 (that is clearly up for debate) - it has no power over anyone in 2015.  There is no clear danger; there is no present danger.

The argument is, however, that minorities must be protected against all things that offend because they were once the subjects of vicious discrimination.  Of course, they were.  But today, the minorities are the most protected class of people on planet Earth.  Since 1865, we have legislatively and judicially taken very aggressive action to protect minorities by such acts as:

• the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution
• the Civil Rights Act
• the Voting Rights Act
• the Equal Housing Act
• the Fair Employment Act
• and countless other pieces of legislation which make it nearly impossible to commit any meaningful act of discrimination against a member of the minority class.
• Numerous rulings by the federal courts that protect minorities against any infringement of constitutional rights.

So, members of minorities may not suffer discrimination in voting, employment, housing, borrowing, or any other significant area of modern life.  This is as it should be.

Is there a right "not to be offended?"  I don't believe so.  I believe that minorities, in spite of their protected status, are still subject to the same offenses to their sensibilities, tastes, prejudices, opinions, likes and dislikes as the rest of us.

"Minorities, in spite of their protected status, are still subject to being offended, just like everyone else."

I am not protected against being offended, in most cases.  If you set out to protect me against being offended, think of all the things you would have to outlaw, censor or eliminate. What if I am offended by Country Music?  Do you censor or outlaw Country Music? What about rap?  I am offended by abortion. I am offended by mosquitoes, spinish, opera, Natzism, Islam, a lot of religious beliefs that I deem to be wrong; I am offended by much of what I see on TV, and by many common words, phrases and ideas that I encounter every day. A lot of literature offends me. The list of things that offend me would take many pages if I were to write them all down.  Are we to make a list of all the things that offend me and try to eliminate them?  Are we to make a list of ALL the things that offend blacks (or women, or men, or seniors, or teenagers) and try to eliminate them from society?  What would a society look like it it were totally void of all things that offend someone?  I can't even imagine what a sanitary society of that nature would look like.  It would, of course, be totally anti-democratic.  Maybe it would resemble a radical Muslim Caliphate, even more extreme, perhaps.

Does anyone in America have a constitutional right not to be offended?  I don't think so. And I don't believe such a goal could ever be achieved, not even by enslaving the entire population with a mandatory list of ideas that must be avoided.

Of course, the government should not go around trying to offend.  It shouldn't, but it often does.  I was offended when the US Government bathed the White House in pink light recently to celebrate a certain Supreme Court decision.  But, I enjoy the right to be offended. 

Being offended is part of the price for living in a free, or at least partially free society.  When society begins trying to eliminate all things offense--it is a slippery slope that knows no boundary and if taken to the ultimate extreme ends in a dictatorship like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Communist North Korea or a Muslim Caliphate.  People might even then still be offended but they would dare not let it be known. 

What's the goal here?  Would we not be better off if we could concentrate on clear and present dangers to civil rights instead of ideas that we find offensive, or symbols of those ideas?

SARAH PALIN GETS IT RIGHT ABOUT CONFEDERATE FLAG

I love Sarah Palin's point comparing the Confederate Flag with Planned Parenthood's "flag".  Her question is:

"Which flag killed 80,000 black babies last year?"

The question simply points to the misguided focus that's going on here. The Confederate flag isn't killing or hurting anyone.  Why aren't we focused on the real present day evils in the world?  There are plenty of them.

As Charles Krauthamer points out, the murders in Charleston would have happened whether the Confederate flag was flying over the capitol or not.  The flag is irrelevant to anything going on in the world today.

Why are we not more concerned about murdering unborn babies, Islamic terrorism, attacks on our homeland (such as happened recently in Chattanooga), letting Iran get the atomic bomb.....on and on.....?

There is no end to the good that could be done if we'd get our hysterical national mind off what happened in the 1860s and focus on what is happening everyday in the 21st Century.

Here's an interesting link to Governor Palin's comparison:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/27/palin-planned-parenthood-not-confederate-flag-killed-90000-black-babies-in-2014/

TOP 10 NATIONAL PROBLEMS - NEW POLL OUT TODAY

One new public opinion poll released today shows Confederaphobia at the top of the nation's problems.  Here is the top 10 list of national problems that have the most Americans worried, according to this survey:

1.  Confederaphobia / national hysteria about the Confederacy
2.  converting to the metric system
3.  unemployment / economic problems
4.  domestic terrorism - potential attacks on American cities
5.  racism
6.  (alleged) police brutality
7.  stopping Republican candidates (especially Donald Trump)
8.  Hillary Clinton's emails
9.  Donald Trump's inflammatory remarks about Dolly Parton
10. the Iranian nuclear bomb

A few comments made by our poll responders are given below:

• "I just wish Mr. Trump would lay off Dolly Parton 'cause she's the real national hero here. Dolly for president!  Dolly on the new $3 bill."
• I saw Donald Trump on TV with a pair of jumper cables around his neck and I thought, Oh, My gosh, I hope he doesn't start anything."
• "The very idea that Mrs. Clinton might not be fully truthful and trustworthy is just one more example of the racial divide that makes it hard for minority men to get a fair shake in politics."
• "Hey, dude, Iran gets to verify compliance with UN/US nuclear restrictions by taking their own soil and air samples, so what?  If you can't trust Iran, who can you trust?"
• "At Liberty University, Donald Trump proved he is a true evangelical Christian scholar.  2 Corinthians, right?  Right?  Right!"
•  "President Nixon, Now More than Ever!"  (Senile responder, we think)?
• "The reason people can't get a job is because they have killed the only textile job that remained in America--making Confederate flags."
• "No American ought to support North Korea by flying a Confederate flag, it's just un-American.  If the Islamists want to fly the Confederate flag down in North Korea, let 'em keep it up.  But we ought not."
• "I'm glad the governor of New Jersey finally taken down the Confederate flag from there capital flag pole their.  Even southerners got to draw the line somewheres!"
• Confederates is causing all the illegal migration.  I saw an illegal alien flying one of them Confederation flags on his spaceship the other day. Confederation aliens should be departed back to Mars and we should make Mexico pay for it. We should also build a fence and make Mars pay for it."
•  I think PC is OK as long as you do it on your own time. I don't think anyone should make PC on government time or without a license.  This applies to California and Colorado, too.  And yes, it should apply to medical use, too.  And you need a prescription.

--------------------------------------------
Source:  The Center for Useless Social Statistics (CUSS), July 2-8, 2015.  Not a scientific poll.  In fact, it's a lot of ---- ---------- ----------- ---------.  But you have to admit, our readers are intelligent, informed and sensitive to cultural and political issues in Post Modern, Post Christian, Politically Corret USA.

N.B. FORREST III DIES A HERO OVER GERMANY IN WORLD WAR 2

There is another General Nathan Bedford Forrest of which most people do not know. 

Nathan Bedford Forrest III (April 7, 1905 - June 13, 1943) - was the grandson of the popular Confederate General.  He was born in Memphis.  This General Forrest was shot down during an American bombing raid over Germany in 1943.

Forrest graduated West Point in 1928 and was commissioned a second lieutenant with the US Cavalry.  He changed to the air corp and quickly climbed in rank.  He was made a brigadier general in the US Army in 1942.  

By 1943, the 8th Air Corp stationed in England was flying dangerous bombing missions deep into Germany without fighter escort.  On June 13, 1943, General Forrest flew as an observer on an American B-17 flying fortress.  As his plane completed a bombing attack on the German submarine yard at Kiel, the B-17 was hit by enemy fire.  Forrest took the controls where he remained until his crew had bailed out.  The plane exploded before Forrest could bail.

His body was found a few months later and he was buried on September 28, 1943 in Wiek, Rugen.  Two years after the war ended Forrest's body was exhumed and brought to the United States.  He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on November 15, 1949.

Brigadier General Nathan Bedford Forrest III was award both the purple heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross for service to the United States of America.

It is heartbreaking to hear that his hometown, the city of Memphis, is now trying to exhume and dishonor the body of his famous grandfather.  Our prayer is that a sense of decency, respect and common sense might be visited upon the leadership of the city of Memphis during this time.

DESTRUCTION OF EVERYTHING AMERICAN

Does it seem to you that we are moving through another dimension of time and space--where liberals want to destroy virtually everything that we see as American, or national, or patriotic, or traditional?

During my lifetime I have seen organized, vocal and sometimes violent crusades to change everything that ties America to its foundational roots.  We have heard cries to eliminate or restrict, as examples

• the pledge of allegience
• prayers - even non-sectarian or generic prayer in all public forums
• "In God We Trust"
• marriage, as it has always existed (a pretty radical change in foundational basics)
•  the Washington Redskins
•  the confederate flag
• the playing of Dixie
• immigration laws
• nationalism and patriotism
• the observance of Sunday
• Christmas
• Easter
• all "religious holidays"...... on and on

While I am really not much of a conspiracy theorist (a conspiracy being a group of people plotting together to bring about a particular outcome) - I do think there are growing numbers of people in this county who want to see a "new world order" in which 'old things have vanished away and, behold, all things have become new." They may not gather in a dark room somewhere and "plot," but they do share a common goal. This is not a new idea, nor is it unique to America.  The French tried it during the French Revolution, which is credited for giving birth to such ideas as liberalism, radicalism, socialism, feminism, secularism, progressivism, and many other modern ideas.

I suppose if you wanted to put the diverse motivations and dreams of these modern people into one word, the best word would be "progressive."  The term "secular progressives" is more definite. They like to play on the root word "progress," although I'm quite sure that their definition of "progress" amounts merely to radical change.  Their rallying cry is "Change, change, change."  Will the change be good, bad or indifferent?  Their idea of change is destruction of what now exists.  The most essential definition of a conservative is 'someone who believes that there is good in society which needs to be conserved or kept.'  By contrast, the liberal, progressive, secularist or radical sees no good in the past and wants to destroy everything. That alone can explain the odd direction toward which we see America marching today (not drifting, marching.  We drifted in the 1980s and 90s, we are marching today)!   The old order must be completely destroyed so they can establish the new one.  (You see these principles in the writings of Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, John Dewey and Horace Mann, for instance).

There are two powerful tools which will ultimately help the radicals achieve this goal.  They are American public education and the liberal media, both possessed of nearly omnipotent powers that have already paved the way for the destruction of traditional marriage, public prayer, much of our national sovereignty,* etc. Both the education establishment and the media have one power in common:  they shape how the public thinks, the values we are willing to accept.  (Forty hears ago, the idea of homesexual marraige would have been totally unacceptable to the public. What changed our minds?  The media and the eduction establishment, that's what).  More is to come if we are to believe our eyes and the dictates of the Supreme Court.  Both our progressive, secular education systems and our liberal media are controlled lock stock and barrel by radical interests. (And most Americans don't even know it).  This is why the American people have been conditioned to accept the brutally ridiculous philosophies handed down by President Obama and the Supreme Court in recent years.  It's why they can light up the White House in pink lights and Americans have been conditioned not to be offended by it-- or to believe that is merely an innocuous symbol of tolerance, having no important impact on the country or our civilization.  Thank you public media and public education for "re-educating" us to be so tolerate to the destruction of our civilization.  (I am not a huge fan of Ann Coulter, either, but her new book Adios America! - The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, is worth reading).

Rush Limbaugh, of whom I am not a tremendous fan or follower, says that the next target will be the American flag.  I do not doubt that.  The American flag is, after all, traditional, American, part of our culture, our past and it is a reverenced symbol.  Progressives or secularists cannot stand to see anything referenced unless it is one of their radical ideals. 
________________________
*If you want one example of the loss of our national soverignty, look at the recent treaty with Iran which allows them, in effect, to continue their nuclear development while having economic sanctions removed.  The president of the United States permitted two secret side agreements that compromised our ability to verify Iran's nuclear activities at any military installation in Iran.  Iran would be required to provide soil samples to demonstrate that they are not involved in nuclear bomb development.  These side deals provide that Iran can provide their own soil samples.  The US Congress approved the deal without even knowing about the two side deals or the compromise in our ability to verify safeguards.  President Obama obtained the approval of the United Nations for these deals, not the US Congress.  National sovereignty?  No such thing.

IS THE GOAL UNITY OR DIVISION?

During the 150 years following the Civil War, there has been much unity and reconciliation achieved.  I have long been encouraged by the degree of unity between the North and South, whites and blacks, even Democrats and Republicans.

I have felt that the goal of all Americans after the Civil War was unity. 

Even with the outrageously wicked murder of 9 African Americans in Charleston, South Carolina this year, I saw a city united in support of the victims.  Then, a whole nation was united to denounce this atrocity and show love and support for the victims.

Then, there appeared persons who do not want unity because unity denies them their place of importance and their political power. They create controversy, even where there is none.  Those who need disunity instead of unity began to wave the bloody shirt of the Civil War.  All it took was a moment for unity to vanish and strife to raise its ugly head all over again--even as South Carolina quickly was working to give Al Sharpton everything he asked for.  As Sharpton criticized the "confederate flag" flying over the capitol at Charleston, the governor was working to remove the flag as quickly as possible, which happened in a matter of just a few days.  Pretty darned quick for any American political process.

Unity appears to be a negative outcome for race-baiters who need discord, strife and conflict to maintain their position of influence.  What would happen to groups like Mr. Sharpton's if true one hundred percent racial unity could be achieved, just theoretically?  His group would have no purpose, no function, no mission in the absence of conflict and it would disappear.  So unity does not serve his goals.

The 150 years since the end of the Civil War has seen great examples of the attempt at reunification, reconciliation and goodwill.  Just after Appomattox Lincoln called for the playing of Dixie to show the confederates that "with us, it can be played again."  By contrast, 150 years later, the race baiters would not permit the playing of Dixie even in  video games or motion pictures if they could censor it.  Nothing is safe with them.

Magnanimous in their victory, the US Army named some streets and other sites after former Confederate foes, men they knew to have been honorable and courageous, even if they had fought on the opposite side.  Today, the race baiters are calling for places like Robert E. Lee Avenue, Lee Circle, Fort Hood and Fort Bragg to be renamed.  To its credit, the US Army has stated that these places were named, not for the confederacy or its ideals, but for soldiers.  They were named out of a magnanimous sense of reconciliation and healing of the nation's wounds.  So far, the military has stood firm and said that it will not be drawn into the crazy anti-confederate hysteria that has recently swept the nation.

The next time you see one of the race baiting politicians on TV yelling for extreme measures to purge all things that they deem "confederate," ask yourself the question:  Why will these people never accept any degree of unity among Americans, even when they are given everything they have asked for?  Whose interest does that serve?  Not the interest of the American people and certainly not the interest of American minorities.

PERSPECTIVE ON THE EXHUMATION OF GEN. FORREST'S BODY

As you may have read, the city of Memphis is trying to exhume the bodies of confederate general Nathan B. Forrest and his family in protest of Forrest's confederate military service.

I shared this with someone recently, who gave this rather refreshing response:

"If I were buried in Memphis, I would hope that someone would have the decency to dig me up and move me somewhere else."

THE UNKNOWN SIDE OF GEN. BEDFORD FORREST

General Nathan B. Forrest was one of the finest cavalry leaders produced in the United States.  He fought in the western theater of the War Between the States, primarily in Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky.  After the war, Gen. Forrest retired to his home in Memphis and made friends with many of his former enemy officers.  

In 1875, General Forrest made his last public appearance.  He had been invited to give a short speech concerning his views of reconciliation of the races after the Civil War. The New York Times reported part of Gen. Forrest's comments during that speech, which I am giving below.

 "I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt – that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don't believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none. I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going."

At the end of his remarks, Forrest received a kiss on his cheek and a bouquet of flowers from an elderly African American lady.

I have read the biography of Gen. Forrest several times, perhaps the best known one by Andrew Lytle titled Bedford Forrest and His Critter Company.  Forrest was indeed a ferocious fighter, feared and respected by his enemies.  But he evolved.  When the war to which he so devoutly served was lost, Forrest tried to heal wounds--a lesson we could all learn from today.  Shortly before he died, he took a preacher's hand at a little church in Memphis and said, "I am now at peace with my Maker, as I wish to end my days at peace with all men."

With those words as his epitaph, Forrest has rested quietly in his grave in Memphis.  Until July 7, 2015, when the city council voted to exhume Forrest and his wife, desecrate their bodies, and remove them.  



 

CONFEDERATE BODIES TO BE EXHUMED, DESECRATED & REMOVED (THIS IS REAL)

On July 7, 2015, the city council of Memphis voted to exhume, dishonor and remove the bodies of confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife.  General Forrest and his wife have rested in this present site since 1905. Forrest was a businessman in Memphis before the War Between the States and he retired there after the war.

On 6/29/15, I suggested tongue-in-cheek that if the anti-confederate hysteria continues, confederate soldiers might be dug up, placed before a firing squad, then reburied.  I was offering what I thought was a bit of satire at the time.  Little did I know that the current hysteria has proven my satire to be all too literal.  Confederaphobia has now gripped the nation and all reason, indeed all sanity, seems to have vanished from our midst.

After the media reported the city's plans to exhume the two bodies, Memphis officials offered a pretense that the exhumation of bodies had nothing to do with an anti-confederate hysteria that is sweeping the country, stating that a medical center wanted to use the gravesite space for building.  However, the Knoxville Daily Sun reported on July 9th:

"The proposal to remove the general's monument and grave are in response to the June 17, 2015 shooting that claimed the lives of nine parishioners at the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C."

The mayor of Memphis is also quoted as saying, "What African American family wants to have a picnic [at the park] with Forrest looking down on them?"  There is a large equestrian statue of Forrest near his grave and the mayor probably made reference to this statute--which the city also wishes to remove.

Under Tennessee law, the family of the deceased must give permission for the bodies to be removed.  The Forrest family has stated that they have no desire to see the graves disturbed.  Also, in 2013, the Tennessee legislature passed the Tennessee Heritage Act to prohibit the renaming, removal or re-dedication of any marker, statue or memorial of any person who served in any war, including the Civil War.  Ironically, the state legislature passed that 2013 law to prevent Memphis from eradication of numerous parks and Civil War markers.  Before the law took effect, however, Memphis hurriedly changed the name of the Forrest Park, which had been named after General Forrest.

There continues to be, sadly, an irrational attempt to sanitize the Southern states of any historical context or culture that certain groups of people disagree with.  All one has to do to remove a memorial, flag, marker, statue, song, film or menu item is to say that they find it to be "offensive," and it is gone with the wind (pon intended).  A truly sad day for American history.  We seem to be undergoing the same type of phenomenon that Joseph Stalin committed in Russia prior to the second world war.  Nobody knows where it will stop.  America contains a sick hotbed culture where germs of this variety this can multiply and thrive.

 

THE TRIAL OF ROBERT E. LEE (THE UNKNOWN LEE)

Please read this entire article before reaching any conclusions.  I want to point out how susceptible most of us are to the power of suggestion.  This article is intended as "re-education" to those of you who were educated in Post Modern public schools and may have missed the actual historical truth about Robert E. Lee:
___________________

He was born to an aristocratic slave-holding family in Virginia and as a young man was drawn to military service.  He rose quickly to became a military leader from Virginia and eventually fought in what was then frequently called a "rebellion."  In fact, during that era, his name was synonymous with "rebel" or "traitor." He believed vehemently that states, such as his native Virginia, had the right to govern themselves--and he would fight for that right.  By the age of 10, he had inherited a dozen slaves of his own.  He also inherited a large plantation not far from the city of Washington, D.C.  Like many aristocratic planters in the South, he made his living by farming--an occupation which, at the time, depended heavily on slaves.  He never chose to emancipate any of his slaves during his lifetime.  As he approached old age, he actually owned 123 personal slaves, leased 40 additional slaves from a nearby plantation and had a joint interest (with his wife) in 153 additional slaves.  At one point, he helped to raise emergency financial and military aid to prevent slaves in Haiti from obtaining their freedom from their French owners.  He also supported the Fugitive slave law that required free states to return captured slaves to their owners.

I'm sorry....  You thought I was speaking of Robert E. Lee, didn't you?  No, afraid not.  I am speaking of George Washington, another famous Virginian.  His plantation was Mount Vernon.  At the time of Washington's death, 316 slaves lived at Mount Vernon.  Washington provided in his will that his personal 123 slaves be freed upon his death.  That happened in January 1801 when his widow, Martha, freed those slaves.  However, Mrs. Washington kept all 153 of her slaves until her death on May 22, 1802. And she did not free them upon her death.  In her will, Mrs. Washington left all 153 of her slaves to her heirs.

I do not mean here to disparage George Washington.  The above are simply historical facts that can be looked up by any elementary student (unless they've reclaimed the history books recently).  George Washington did nothing that was unusual or uncommon for a Virginia planter of the time period.  But I do want to make the the following points, which I think this historical narrative illustrates:

1. We are too ready to ascribe racist or hateful attributes to one Southern leader, but not to another.  Washington is the hero; Lee is the villain. In truth, Lee emancipated ALL of the slaves he inherited during his lifetime and did not own slaves.  He renounced slavery and wanted nothing to do with it.  Washington never did.
2. Modern man has politicized all things "confederate," and all things Southern as racist and hateful, but has carefully omitted Washington, Jefferson, etc. from that list because it would require too much "re-education" of their public personas.
3. Nobody today is calling for destruction of the Washington Monument or the closing of Mount Vernon just because hundreds of slaves lived there over the years. But,  I hope you can see the irony.
4.  Finally, I do not, of course, believe that the Washington Monument or Mount Vernon are symbols of racism, slavery or white supremacy, any more than I believe that the confederate flag or Montgomery, Alabama or cornbread, buttermilk or Gone With the Wind are symbols of slavery, hatred or white supremacy.  Oh, if the radical extremists among us could just recognize the irony of their wayward ways.

9 in 10 PERSONS FAIL THIS TEST. WOULD YOU?

Name this famous historical figure:  He was born and raised in Virginia.  He had a military background and fought in what many called a "rebellion" against the government. He advocated the right of states to govern themselves. This man inherited 12 slaves when he was only ten years old and in his later years his plantation in Virginia had as many as 316 slaves living there. For many years he participated in the selling or trading of slaves. His long-time personal assistant was a slave named William Lee.  Who was this man?

9 out of 10 people incorrectly identified this person as Robert E. Lee.

The correct answer is George Washington.

While Robert E. Lee emancipated his family's slaves when he inherited them, Washington was a slave owner all of his life.  He did not emancipate a single slave during his lifetime.  He was the only 1 of 7 Founding Fathers who finally emancipated his slaves in his will.

"Political Correctness is a very, very strange business." 

Washington did not speak against the institution of slavery before the American Revolution.  In 1778, however, he did stop selling slaves, saying that he didn't want to break up their families. Historical accounts differ as to how Washington treated his slaves.  It is documented that he left written orders for his overseers to whip his slaves whenever they "needed it."

As president, Washington owned hundreds of slaves at his plantation at Mount Vernon.  During his tenure as president, George Washington authorized emergency financial and military aid to suppress a slave rebellion in Haiti in 1791.  His administration approved the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 to permit slave owners to recapture slaves in free states that had abolished slavery.  Washington even signed the Slave Act of 1794 that permitted foreign vessels to trade slaves in US ports.

At the time of Washington's death there were 316 slaves living at Mt. Vernon.  123 were personally owned by Washington.  40 additional slaves were being leased from a neighboring plantation for Washington's use.  Washington also left an additional 153 dower slaves to his wife, Martha.  (A dower is the lifetime interest in property that is left by a husband to his wife).  One year after Washington's death, in January 1801, Martha freed the 123 slaves that had belonged to her husband.  She did not, however, emancipate any of her own slaves and when she died on May 22, 1802, she left all of them to her heirs.

In fairness, George Washington did nothing that was not common among Virginia plantation owners of his era.  It may not be fair to judge him by the standards of our day.  However, nobody today hates Washington because he owned hundreds of slaves.  Nobody is calling for Mount Vernon to be abolished because it is a "monument of racism and slavery."  Why not?  Because we have been programmed not to think of Washington that way.  We have been re-educated to think of Washington as a great man, almost without fault, and we have been re-educated to think of Robert E. Lee and other southern leaders (the old "confederacy") as the villain. 

You will not see politicians or any political caucus calling for the destruction of Mount Vernon or the pulling down of statues of George Washington.  (And correctly so).  The irony is that when modern man compiles a list of great Virginians, they will to the last man omit the name of Robert E. Lee but will always place George Washington at the top of the roll of honor.  Political correctness is a very, very strange business.

DOING WHAT DLYANN ROOF COULD NOT DO

Politicians have done a pretty good job at doing what Dylann Roof failed to do -- stirring up unrest, agitation and more hatred.

Roof said he wanted to start a race war.  He failed.  He failed miserably.  His tragic act of murder and mayhem united a nation--of all colors, all faiths and all regions.  

Until the politicians stepped in and quickly divided the country again.  They divided the country over the most senseless of all issues--a confederate flag.

If the confederate flag was an issue in Charleston, it should have been dealt with quietly, quickly and without fanfare.  And it should have ended there.  But it didn't.

Several states are now embroiled over the issue.  The federal government is involved.  Major retail chains have felt the need to respond.  The media--which has only one food source--controversy--has responded.

The unity and solidarity in the aftermath of the Charleston murders lasted for about 24 hours.  In this case, demolition of wonderful goodwill and solidarity was not triggered by racists, white supremacy, neo-nazis, the klan, or any of the normal suspects.  Quite the opposite, the strife was created by political leaders, but by Democrats and Republicans who did not want to be one-upped by Democrats.  And the target of their strife is poorly chosen:  the confederate flag.  More precisely, they strive about what the confederate flag means to them.

In today's politically correct world, one can define anything--as anything we wish it to be.  In our existentialist worldview, nothing is absolute or even probable.  Your gender, race, nationality...whatever, can be defined however you want it to be defined.  Remember Rachel Dolezai, an NAACP leader who turned out to white, not black?  It doesn't matter. I was tortured over breakfast recently by two ABC news commentators wrestling with the question, "What is race?"

So, what is a confederate flag?  It can darn well be anything you want it to be in today's America.  You define it.  The possibilities are wide open.  It can be just an artifact of a bygone era, a historical symbol of the fact that the North and South once fought each other in a long,deadly war; or it can be a symbol of all that is evil in the world.  You choose.  Unfortunately, a few people (some with good intentions, some not so good probably) chose to define the flag as something it never was.  The flag is an inanimate object, incapable of good or evil and with no power to hurt anyone.

TURNING UNITY INTO DIVISION AFTER CHARLESTON (THE NEW CIVIL WAR)

 When the vicious criminal Dylann Roof was arrested on June 18, 2015 for murdering 9 innocent persons in Charleston, SC, he told police that his intention was to start a race war.

His atrocious act had just the opposite effect.  It brought Americans together in sympathy and support for the families of the murdered victims.  I was inspired to see Democrats and Republicans, blacks and whites,  rally in universal support of these suffering families.  Of the criminal I thought, you may have destroyed innocent families - but your despicable act shows that Americans are too caring, too rational and too compassionate to follow your deranged dream. You have united people as nothing else could have done.

Then, the politicians stepped in to destroy the unity and outpouring of support that followed the tragedy.  They created needless division, almost on purpose, it seemed.  It seems that they chose to re-fight the Civil War, or to open the first shots of the New Civil War, which is an ideological war or cultural war.

In the irrational rush to blame someone other than the criminal, politicians quickly turned victory into defeat. Removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol would have been, to most, a rational act of sensitivity.  But among the absurd demands that followed, no rationalization can be made:

• ban video games about the Civil War
• censor old TV shows like the Dukes of Hazzard (just a redneck show)
• ban Gone with the Wind and hundreds of similar movies
• remove flags from museums (it actually happened in Alabama)
• pull down markers at historic places
• Eradicate the memory of all historically significant soldiers (sometimes called "heroes") who fought for the South 150 years ago.
• Make it a crime to display a Confederate flag on an old soldier's grave*
• Make sure retailers don't sell any "Confederate merchandise," including birthday cakes with a Confederate flag on them
• Equovacate anything Southern with racism and hatred.

In the ensuing Confederaphobia madness, a national retailer was documented selling a cake with an Al-Queda flag after refusing to make one with a Confederate flag on it.  It was an ignorant mistake; however, it demonstrates the infractory extreme to which modern man will go, trying to always be politically correct, to avoid any possible offense to anyone.

It also challenges the common sense of our irrational national mood:  Do we fear the confederate flag more than we fear global terrorism, the coming Iranian nuclear bomb, the security of our technological infrastructure or the massive war crimes of Isis?  Apparently, for the moment at least, we do.  

 "The first misguided shots of the Civil War were fired at Charleston in 1861.  The first shots of the New Civil War were fired at Charleston in 2015. Discord was quickly called upon to replace unity... The only possible purpose...the redistribution of political power.

 The knee jerk reaction of politicians and the Black Congressional Caucus, fueled by a willing media, tore down all the unity and goodwill that followed the tragedy in Charleston.  They tore it down by declaring Civil War against the South, all of its culture (not just the flag) and firing the first misguided shots in the New Civil War.  What's to be gained?

The only thing to be gained is a redistribution of political power.  And toward that end, no amount of strife, grief or regression of civil liberty is too high a price to pay.

  "Do we fear the confederate flag more than we fear global terrorism, the coming Iranian nuclear bomb, the security of our technological infrastructure, unsustainable federal debt or the massive war crimes of Isis?  Apparently, for the moment at least, we do."

Is America's real enemy today the Confederate flag or the old southern Confederacy?  Or do we have more important enemies to worry about?

_____________
 *We have to wonder how First Amendment protection would be adjudicated in a Supreme Court case in the matter concerning the display of Confederate flags on graves, even on federal property, such as cemeteries inside federal reservations.  It might be argued that one does not relinquish his First Amendment right to free expression simply because he steps onto federal property or has a relative buried within a federal cemetery.  As the Supreme Court observed in 2011, "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
 

LIVING IN A WORLD WITHOUT MEMORY

In a world without memory, you won't be able to know roses in December.

We are apparently being pushed into a type of national Alzhiemer's dementia where memory is to be forever erased.

Confederaphobia seeks to erase the memory of history.  No heroes from the South.  No markers.  No flags.  No reinactments.  No memories.

America marches on into the fog.

The problem is not that people will forget all memories of the confederacy.  That might not be too bad.  The problem is, who gets to decide which memories we can have and which ones we cannot have?  National leaders pushing to erase the memory of the confederacy may like the world without memories they are now creating, because they can still remember their heroes.

But when we give people this unlimited power to censor, to choose what can be remembered and what cannot be remembered, the tide eventually turns.  It is an awesome and fearful power--this power to decide what can be remembered and what cannot.

I fear that this power is not being used rationally.  It is being used to promote the wishes of a certain group of people because it has the political power, at least for now, to make it happen.  What happens if the wrong group of people gain the power to choose what memories can be remembered? 

The problem is, who gets to decide which memories we can have and which ones we can't have?

TOP 10 CONFEDERATE 'THINGS" ENDANGERED BY CONFEDERAPHOBIA (SEE THE LIST)

We put a panel of experts together and tried to figure out other potential targets of Confederaphobia.  Here are things that our panel says may be in danger next.  We are giving these in 10 to 1 order, 10 being relatively safer, 1 being in the gravest danger of the post-modern extremist movement:

10.  BUMBLE BEES - because they are connected to the confederate flag.  Bumble bees fly.  The confederate flag once flew.  Both fly.  See the connection?

9.  THE LETTER C - because it is the first letter in the C-word and you can't spell the C-word without the letter C.  We will need a substitute for the letter C.  Maybe we could user ^ or some other symbol to avoid ^onfederacy.  (Historical fact:  The French tried this very same tactic during the French Revolution, renaming days of the week, months of the hear, holidays, even inventing a new system of measurements to avoid the traditional system).*

8.  CHECKERS - because the game is played on a board with diagonal red squares that resemble a ^federate flag.  You ^an't play ^he^kers without thinking of the ^onfederate flag.

7.  MAGNOLIAS - because of the movie "Steel Magnolias," which had a Southern theme and is bound to raise hateful, racist memories of the ^onfederacy.  Besides, magnolias are a Southern tree. 

6.THE PYRAMIDS - Obviously, these were built with slave labor and stand as constant reminders of slavery and oppression.  Let's call for them to be torn down.  They are, of course, historical and cultural - but built by slaves, nonetheless. They have to go!

5.   THE LETTER X - because the X is actually used on the ^onfederate battle flag and is even more offensive than the letter ^, which has already been blacklisted.

4.  ^HITTLINS - because they were the second most common food in the ^onfederacy.

3.  HARMONICAS - because this was the most widely adaptable and used portable musical instrument by ^onfederate soldiers.  It's music is de facto racist, hateful and offensive. Harmoni^as used by Yankee soldiers could be acceptable provided adequate documentation can be produced that no ^onfederate soldier ever touched them.

2.  MOCKINGBIRDS - because they sing in weeping willow trees over the graves of ^onfederate soldiers.  There was once even a movie titled "To Kill a Mockingbird."  It was set in a Southern (ex-^onfederate) town in Alabama. It was written by Harper Lee, who was born in Alabama (an ex-^onfederate state).   Mockingbirds also fly.  (See Bumble Bees).

1.  CORNBREAD - because it was the official food of the ^onfederacy, fed thousands of ^onfederate soldiers and is still recognized as a Southern delicacy.  You just can't think of ^ornbread without thinking of "that flag," the South and the ^onfederacy.  We debated buttermilk but our panel cannot agree whether it is endangered or not.  We actually think nothing is safe.  Based on contemportary post modern reasoning (or lack thereof), anything can be connected to the ^onfedera^y. 

*HISTORIC FACT: it kind of reminds me of the French Revolution in the 18th Century, during which the enlightened French renamed the days of the week and the months of the year, outlawed traditional measurements and invented metrics to replace feet, ounces, gallons bushels and snorts. The French radicals even made Christmas come during the summer-- anything to break with history or tradition.  I'm trying to think how long it took for all that irrational nonsense to abate.  Some of it never did.