RumiNations: More Gun Control? Seriously?


Seriously?  What are people thinking?

Yet another mentally ill, Islamist inspired socialist, brainwashed by political correctness, kills people in another gun free zone.

So the liberals and progressive Democrats believe the answer is to take away all the guns from the law abiding citizens?

That’s like finding a hungry child and believing the solution is to take away the food from all children.

That is like auditing the entire United States because the IRS found one person who cheated on their income taxes.

That is the ultimate form of presuming guilt until proven innocent and it turns the entire point a purpose of this nation on its head.

What are these people thinking?  Well, the only answer is they are not thinking, or they have another agenda in mind.  Logically, those are the only two options.

gun free 2



Explain this:

If the Arabs invade Israel from Lebanon and the Israelis drive them back …

If the Russians then step in to support their allies and Israel drops a bomb on them in the valley of Megiddo

If China then sends two million troops to supposedly support their ally Iran (and Russia)

If the EU then steps into Israel and the Middle East in general as “peacekeepers”

What does that sound like to you?

atom bomb

RumiNations: I am Waiting for … Mock SCOTUS soup 3

I am waiting for … the Supreme Court to definitively declare that hate speech is not protected speech, and then have hate speech defined as any speech against current laws, or the government, especially in government programs or policies.

Anyone, for example, who speaks out in favor of traditional marriage, or who is pro life, or who doesn’t like national healthcare will be subject to fines and possibly jail time. Anyone who offers a Christian point of view as oppose to a liberal, progressive, or socialist point of view will be shut down.

I figure the Supreme Court will allow this hate punishment for contrary speech because otherwise the speech might “disrupt” the country … as they said when they twice approved Obamacare against all common sense. They said the did not want to “disrupt” the country.

family P C campus

RumiNations: I am Waiting for … Mock SCOTUS soup 1

I am waiting for … Christians to be told that no one is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion as long as they keep it at home and behind closed doors. The minute they bring it out into public they will be subject to pubic oversight, responsible for hate speech, subject to fines for proselytizing, possible jail time for refusing to go along with government approved (SCOTUS approved) points of view such as laws, regulations, and the definitions of words.

We will see what the Supreme Court decides when the religious freedom cases get there.

supreme court

RumiNations: All Businesses have the Right to Discriminate Against Gay Marriage, And Here is Why:

I confess, I honestly don’t get this Christian business-gay wedding stuff. I just can’t grasp in what way it is discrimination other than the discrimination of an artist refusing to take a special, one-time job, a contract job, where they feel they will not do their best work.


gw 1If gay people want to get married, that is fine. I hope family and friends are supportive and all that. But if a friend or family member is asked to stand up for the couple, especially if they are asked to be like the best person or the person of honor, and they say no because they are not comfortable with gay marriage, will the couple then sue the friend or family member for emotional distress and force them to participate or pay astronomical fines? I don’t think so.

But when it comes to bakers, florists, photographers and the like, that is exactly what is happening. Why? They are not claiming anything different that the friend or family member. And to say it is a public business, duty bound to serve all customers equally, doesn’t cut it with me for a wedding, and here is why:


This has nothing to do with whether or not a person is born gay, like a person being born black or being born a woman. The point is, people are not born married. Marriage is a choice, a one-time event, a special event, and what people choose to fill that event with will differ from couple to couple. No two weddings are exactly alike, you know. gm 4

When I was a minster, before I retired, I got calls now and then from people (you know, heterosexual couples back then) who wanted to get married. I often said no, and sometimes referred them to another minister. I once served a church in a resort area where the church was regularly used for weddings by all sorts of people who were not church members. The minister who was there before I came made a nice living on the side doing those weddings. When I came, I said no. This is a church, not a wedding chapel. This is a sanctuary that belongs to the people of God in this congregation where we worship God, and I am glad you think it is a beautiful church, but no. Plenty of people, at least at first, thought I was being, maybe, foolish to turn down all that extra income, but no.

And for the record, I was never thrilled with Grandma presenting a baby for baptism when mom and dad were clearly not interested in any sort of church. I figured, what’s the point? Maybe down the road, mom and dad may change their mind. Maybe grandchild will grow up and become a faithful church member. There is nothing wrong with adult baptism. Indeed, some denominations insist on it.

Anyway, when my daughter got married, not being a great church member, as is epidemic among preachers kids, she talked to a bunch of pastors before she found one she liked and (don’t miss the point here) AND was wiling to do it. A couple of pastors told her no. She did not sue them for emotional distress.

gw cake

I remember one couple’s story. There were two good bakeries in town—always a danger for a sedentary lifestyle like mine—but this couple went to a baker out-of-town. Being curious, I asked why?

“You are friends with this out-of-town baker?”

She answered. “No, I just looked through the phone book.”

“So, why didn’t you go to baker #1?”

She answered. “She (the owner) doesn’t like me.”

“So why didn’t you go to baker #2?”

She answered. “I don’t like them.”

Okay. But she didn’t sue anybody.


A wedding is a special, one-time event, and it usually involves a contract with bakers and florists and photographers. This, for many, is a good side income, like the pastor in that resort area church, but it is not their normal business. No one would stay in business doing just weddings. They might get asked to do a dozen in June, and maybe only one the entire rest of the year. But here is the thing: any artist needs to be able to say no. Just no, for whatever reason. And it should be a simple no, as long as that special-event contract has not been offered and signed.

gm 3I do not doubt that wedding cakes, wedding floral arrangements, and wedding photography are both artistic endeavors, and sidelines. Anyone worth the price will take the time to get to know the couple and add the appropriate artistic touches to their work. And if they feel, for whatever reason, specified or unspecified, that they cannot do their best work, they should say no, and if they do say no, they need to be able to say no without penalty, and certainly without affecting their normal, regular business. I mean, and this is really the key to the whole thing, they are not refusing service to someone at a lunch counter, or forcing them to sit in the back of the bus for crying out loud.


The front office may ask a professional sports player to participate in a charity event, but unless it is written in the contract, the sports player might say no. It is not his normal job, and if he says no, no one is going to sue him. True, the front office might be vindictive. Some people are. But no coach is going to make his star quarterback sit out a game because he refused to participate in a charity event.

Again, big corporations sometimes raise money for charities but they don’t walk up and down every row of cubicles to see who gave and who did not, and the charity is not going to sue those workers who chose not to participate. It is not their normal, regular job, and saying no to participation should not interfere with their normal, daily work.

Again, Publishers sometimes tell writers to rewrite parts or portions of stories or books, and writers sometimes refuse, and sometimes even when there is a contract already drawn up and signed. Writers may offer an alternate story to substitute and meet the contract. Publishers might try to find a way to work in what they want without changing what the writer calls the essence of the story. Sometimes, money is returned, or not, and they part, amicably or not, but only very rarely does one sue the other, and it is invariably for breach of contract, and only when there already is a 5

Again, a boss might ask his plumbing crews to go around X, Y, and Z neighborhoods after work and place flyers in doors for extra pay. If a plumber says no, I’m busy or whatever, it may not endear them to their boss, but they cannot be forced, and the boss will have to be careful about trying to fire them if they are punctual and do their regular work well.

Make no mistake, the request for a wedding cake, or wedding flowers, or wedding photography is above and beyond the business persons normal, regular work. I know of no instance where a baker refused to sell a cookie, or a florist refused to sell a dozen roses, or a photographer refused to take in-studio couple or family portraits because the customers are gay. Frankly, there is no particular reason the baker, florist, or photographer should know the person or persons are gay or straight unless they are told, and it should not matter if they are when it comes to selling a cookie.

But in this case, these artists are saying no to something outside their normal business, and just because they do one wedding, or a bunch of weddings, or weddings all the time, that should not mean that henceforth and forevermore they are bound by law to do every wedding of whoever asks. They can’t do three weddings on the same day if asked, for example—not if they take any pride in their craft or art. Maybe they bought tickets a year ago to go on a cruise that week. Sorry. Maybe they are burned out on weddings for the time being and just need a break. Maybe they don’t like you, or think you don’t like them. As Hillary Clinton said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

These bakery, florist, and photography artists often say no simply when it doesn’t feel right, even if they can’t quite put their finger on why it doesn’t feel right, and often they just say I am booked that weekend, gm 2and nobody bats an eye. These Christian business people, may not believe in gay marriage, but whether they believe in gay marriage or not is honestly not the point. They still deserve the same right to say no as anyone else when special requests are made, and they deserve the right to say no without penalty, and especially without penalty to their regular “lunch counter” business. I am not aware of any Christian business person who has denied gays lunch counter business. They have said no and should be able to say no to a special, one-time contract event, especially where no contract has yet been offered or signed, even if all they say is, “I would not do my best work and I refuse to do a half-baked job.” (You would probably hear that one from the baker). And if they are kind hearts they might add, “You deserve a baker, florist, photographer who will really put their heart into it.” And that should be the end of it.

I see no discrimination here, except the discrimination of an artist who will not contract to do less than their best work, for whatever reason, specified or unspecified. You may ask, in this way were black or interracial couples turned away in the past? I imagine they were, but nobody sued, and maybe the couple even bought some cookies to eat while they went down the street to check the next store on the list.


Welcome to the new dark ages.

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, gm 6slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them” (NIV, 2 Timothy 3: 1-5).

These are the characteristics of true darkness.

“War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” … “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” —George Orwell.

RumiNations: I am Waiting for … Millennials to Wake Up


I am waiting for … The millennial generation to start voting in their own best interest. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama twice and we see what a good jobs and bright futures he had ready for them when they graduated. But Obama cares about them? But that was George Bush and the evil Republicans fault? Yeah, right! I may be waiting for some time for this generation to wake up.

Millennials 2



RumiNations: I am Waiting for … is a new piece added to the RumiNations puzzle. We will look ahead, at consequences and possibilities, so all you futurists and science fiction writers take note. I am waiting for … something good to happen in these United States, but I am not holding my breath.

Bring out your dead.

Bring out your dead.

RumiNations: Gay Marriage has Nothing To Do with Marriage. It is all about …


I am sure the majority of gay couples are happy with marriage, having achieved equality, dignity, or other such words, and now being able to receive the benefits of being married, whatever those benefits might be—and they aren’t many, and some are even penalties. But I am sure the majority of the gay community will be content to leave the Christian (and non-Christian religious) communities alone, at home and even in their businesses, as long as they have access elsewhere to meet their needs. Most people dislike confrontation, and even in this litigious society, most people will just walk away and go elsewhere.

I am sure most of the gay community will be content to live and let live with their neighbors, and may even agree to feed the cat for their anti-gay marriage neighbors when those neighbors go to the beach. Familiarity brings cordial relationships, and may even cause people to like each other, even if they never agree on marriage and lifestyle. Live and let live proposes there is no reason to foster hatred and enmity between any people, and need not come from either the gay or the straight neighbors. And in the same way, I am sure most gay couples will not force themselves on that evangelical church, and will be content in a church that accepts gay marriage, if they go to church at pizza

Sadly, you and I know there are some radicals who will never allow live and let live to exist. Worse, there are radical progressives, for the most part straight people, who have pushed all the way for gay marriage to be approved. Why? Because gay marriage is not about marriage. It is simply the wedge that will be used to alter the whole fabric of society and create a progressive utopia.

Listen carefully. I will not be surprised if gay marriage eventually goes away. Do not despair my gay neighbors! Thanks to rampant divorce, single parent households, people choosing to live together without marriage, and a plethora of other reasons, I expect that in the end, marriage will go away for everyone. I expect it will further the progressive cause to isolate individuals. I also suspect it will not further the progressive cause to sanctify any given living arrangement over any other, but that remains to be seen. In the present day, gay marriage is a convenient wedge in progressive hands.

The progressives already own the main portion of the media, and thus have serious sway over the opinions of millions who depend on the media to keep up with what is going on in the world and in the nation. Just see how the media and their political allies denigrate Fox News and talk radio for not towing the progressive line.

family P C campusThe progressives already own cradle through college/university education. Even some liberal professors are beginning to admit fear of the politically correct monster they have created. Education is no longer about logical thought, reasoned discourse, and a fair examination of the facts where young people can draw their own conclusions based on the evidence. There are no longer two or more sides to every proposition, idea, or story. There is only one side, and tests like Common Core are only there to see how well the students have swallowed the Kool-Aid.

The progressives have already inserted themselves into the government bureaucracy from the local level up to the federal, so if non-progressives (like those hated conservatives) should win an election, it might slow, but it will not end, much less reverse the progressive agenda. And even the courts have shown their stripes where four lock-step liberal justices only need to sway one to advance the cause.

So what is left?

Gay marriage is already being used as the wedge to attack churches and Christianity in general. Calls have already gone out to remove tax exemption and thus bankrupt thousands of small churches. Churches in England are already being sued to force them to perform gay weddings, and don’t be foolish enough to think it won’t happen here. In truth, we won’t be far behind. Progressives are not stupid enough to believe Christianity can be destroyed, but it can be marginalized to where it no longer has any bearing on public gays and police 2

The progressive (atheists) have already run away with the church-state arguments. “Free expression” of the Christian faith has all but disappeared in public life, and too many Christians have sadly bought into this narrow misinterpretation of the first amendment—that church and state must be separated at all costs and on every level. There is not very much further to go to completely marginalize the Christian community. But why should that be important to the progressives?

Because Christianity and the church remain the strongest, and some would say the last supporters not only of traditional marriage, but traditional families. Gay marriage will be used, not only to take down the Christian faith, in schools, charities and institutions as well as churches, but to take down the family. Do not doubt. “They are coming for your children.”untitled


Because children are still being taught Christian values and virtues, moral precepts and/or conservative principles in the home, especially among the home schooled. I am not saying they will, but I would not be surprised if HHS declared these things child abuse and began to remove children from such homes. Then again, I would not be surprised to see a sign hung on every church declaring this organization restricted and no one under 18 admitted.

Listen. Here is the end game:

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” —Melissa Harris-Perry for MSNBC, 2013.

family kid chain gangThe government wants to take down your church, true, but ultimately it wants your children.

But why? What is the point?

Obviously, alternate ideas and other points of view must be silenced, and controlling and, in effect, brainwashing the children from birth will be imperative to achieve this end. What I can only guess at is why the progressives want to do this and what the progressives are ultimately after.

I can only imagine the belief is something like this:

If only everyone thought the same, talked the same, acted the same, treated one another in the same way, and agreed with the government, and did whatever the good government told them, then at last there would be world peace, racial harmony, pristine wilderness, clean air and water, and sunshine every day. The thing is, such people, controlled in their actions, their speech, and even their thinking, would hardly qualify for mindless robots and certainly would no longer be gay radicals 1

I have seen this vision played out in Madeleine L’Engle’s award winning book Wrinkle in Time, and it is truly a dark and frightening vision.


Welcome to the new dark ages.

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them” (NIV, 2 Timothy 3: 1-5).

family policeThese are the characteristics of true darkness.

“War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” … “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” —George Orwell.


RumiNations: I am Waiting for … The SCOTUS of Babel


I am waiting for … the Supreme Court to redefine the words uphold, defend, and constitution, so we know what people are pledging when they pledge to uphold and defend the constitution. Why not? If state no longer means state and marriage no longer means marriage, why not redefine the whole thing? Ever since Roe v Wade, the constitution has had things in it that are not anywhere in the words. I feel the least the Supreme Court can do is rewrite the thing so we can all see what it actually says and not be surprised by what the court decides.


supreme court

RumiNations: A Confederate Flag for Independence Day Means …


In defense of the Confederate flag, let me say several things up front (and please bear with me for a minute here). The flag, born in the Civil War, was designed to represent one thing. It was only after the war was over it came to represent other things. We condemn the other things, and rightly so, but in so doing, most forget the original thing it stood for. This is unfortunate, because in our zeal to cleanse this nation, not only do we risk misunderstanding history, but also, as the cliché tells us, we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.

After the Civil War, the Confederate flag was taken up by the resistance to the heavy hand of Washington and the blunt federal instrument called reconstruction. For the most part, this was the reason for the secession in the first place, and despite the surrender, there were plenty of people who were not wiling to simply kowtow to the dictates of some distant federal bureaucrats. This was especially true when those dictates extended well beyond the limits of the constitution and overrode what had always been the province of state and local governments, or worse, what had always been left to the conscience of every American as a God given right.

Before the war, New England, the middle Atlantic states, particularly on the coast around New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and the like, and the states bordering on the waterways such as the Great Lakes and the Ohio River, developed the industries that brought great prosperity to the several regions. These states did not want that prosperity to stop. The obvious example being the mills, particularly in New England, who turned cotton into cloth which they then sold to Europe for a great profit.

The south, being more agriculturally based, grew the cotton. The south could sell the cotton directly to Europe for an equally great profit, but as time went on they were more and more prevented from doing America cottonso. The federal government found ways to keep the northern mills humming by overriding the states and forcing southerners to sell their cotton to the north for rock bottom prices, thus increasing the profit and prosperity of the north even while slowly impoverishing the south.

Cotton is only the most obvious example, but in many ways, the federal government was beginning to exert serious control over the southern states and the people living there. The south was in danger of becoming a third world country within the borders of what was becoming the richest country in the world. The south was being treated, on the state, local, and individual human level, as badly as any of the so-called banana republics that struggled through the 1870s-1920s. Life became progressively harder as northern business men became progressively greedier between 1820-1860, and the ordinary people in the south, unable to sell their goods on the open market for a fair price, became poorer and poorer until they were barely able to feed their families.

This poverty of the people was a condition, despite so-called reconstruction, that continued right on up through the Great Depression. My father once told me when he was young, in the 1930s, his great uncle Andrew said he did not realize they were in a depression. Uncle Andrew said that was the way our family always lived.

Of course, politicians in Washington tried to work things out before it came to war, but since when have politicians ever been able to work things out? By 1860 it became clear that the prosperous north was not going to allow anything to cut into their profits, and if that meant impoverishing the south, then so be it. The southerners, congressmen and the like in Washington, finally came to believe the south would do better on its own. So the south succeeded, and for some brief moments actually hoped the separation might be amicable.

Americaq fort sumterYou realize, if certain southern hotheads had avoided acting stupidly, like firing on Fort Sumter, things like Fort Sumter might have been negotiated. But to be honest, there were too many ordinary southerners, what we might call the 99%, or the original occupy Wall Street crowd, who were too angry and tired of being oppressed and denied their portion of the growing prosperity in the nation. And there were too many Wall Street types that were not about to let the pliant south get away. So it began.

Notice, I haven’t mentioned slavery.

Slavery was the foundation for the southern cotton economy—the cotton that now felt like the north was stealing and using to grow rich. There were some Christians who found ways to gerrymander around passages and twist the words of scripture to justify this horror, even as theologians of the same ilk gerrymander and tap dance around the plain meaning of the text to this day to justify all sorts of things. But many Christians (I would like to think the plain honest ones who knew better), both in the north and in the south, spoke out strongly against slavery at that time. (I can’t say what positions the non-Christians took because there weren’t many to speak of).   And then there were the fanatics like John Brown who did not really help their cause by their actions, especially when innocents, like women and children, were killed.

For the most part, though, the north was as reluctant as the south to say or do anything to get rid of the institution of slavery. To see it from a southern perspective, I might say that if the north outlawed slavery, it would kill the cash cow that they were so happily raping. So for two years the war went on. The south wanted freedom: open markets, state and local control, and the individuals left alone to follow the dictates of their own conscience without the federal government sticking its fingers in everywhere. The north wanted to bring the south to its knees without seriously damaging the economy of the south.America blockade

Thus, the north blockaded southern ports, like an early form of economic sanctions, and tried to win a battle without seriously hurting the southern economy. Naturally, with that politician designed strategy, like so many politician designed strategies in our day, the north kept losing despite fighting out of their prosperity, and the south kept winning despite fighting out of their poverty. You know, when Lee move the southern army into Pennsylvania and landed at Gettysburg, it was not really an invasion of the north. The plain truth of it was his army needed shoes. After decades of depressing the southern economy, the south did not have enough money to put shoes on its soldiers.

So the north followed the strategy of trying to crush southern resistance (rebellion, as the early media painted it}. The thing is, it wasn’t a rebellion, at least not in the sense of a revolution or a mutiny. It was a civil war between what had become two very distinct and different cultures forced to live in the same community, where one became rich and the other became poor.

The north, as I have mentioned, was a city and industrial culture. Sure, there were plenty of northern farmers who were able to keep the north fed during the war years, but the focus of the culture was all on the growing urban structure, and in essence, Wall Street. There were cities on the lakes, like Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Milwaukee. There were cities growing up on the rivers, like Pittsburg, Columbus, Cincinnati, and even that mixed bag called St Louis. There were the cities on the east coast, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, not to mention Washington itself. In all this, the north was becoming very urban and industry focused, and they imagined it would not be hard to defeat those hicks, hayseeds, and ignorant southerners, a prejudice against southerners that continues to this day.

The south, as I have mentioned, was an agriculturally focused society, what we now might call America southern belle“Country”. The rich plantation owners, more or less the southern version of the 1%, who also owned the vast majority of the slaves, set the tone for the culture with their gentrified lifestyle. Back in those days, far from wanting to strip the 1% of their wealth, the 99% wanted to emulate the 1%. It might be said that the whole of southern culture became gentrified, after a fashion. You can see it and hear it to this day in the words and actions of a true “southern belle”. Understand, the 99% owned very few slaves, and likely would not know what to do with one if they had one. I am sure some people bought maybe one slave, but that was because, I don’t know, they wanted to one-up their neighbors.

You see, southern culture was not a slave culture. The slavery part of it only seriously mattered to the 1%, whose plantations were dependant on heavy manual labor. Today, the corporate farms have Mexican migrants to fill the same role—and they are honestly paid about the same price as the cost of keeping a slave. The two big differences between then and now are first, lazy migrants can be fired, though it is getting harder and harder these days to fire anybody. Lazy or indigent slaves could be sold but not be fired. They were dealt with by crueler means, like the whip. Second, migrants can quit and take a job in construction or some other field, and thus try to better themselves. Slaves, obviously could not quit, though many did thanks to the underground railroad.

But the point is, while the plantation slaves certainly made the gentrified lifestyle of the 1% possible, it had nothing to do with how the 99% chose to live and express themselves. The 99%, the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of southern soldiers in the civil war, never imagined they were fighting to defend the institution of slavery. I would go so far as to say, if any number of Christians on the southern side really thought that was what this war was about, they would have quit. Let me say again, believe it or not, there were many Christians in the north, and south, who were strongly against slavery—and I don’t just mean those white southerners who made the underground railroad possible. I mean there were many ordinary, sitting in the pew, southerners who thought slavery should be ended.

So why did so many southerners fight for the south if it was not about slavery? Well, the more honest history books, and they are becoming rare, have reduced that to the term “states rights”. It was really more than that. It was a fight for human rights, for a person, a community, and a state to set their own course as liberty demands. It was a fight for freedom of conscience, and the bill of rights, and a return to the kind of limited federal government the founders created.

Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall Street

It was a fight against the northern industrialists and the banks who kept prices for raw materials depressed while charging high interest and raising the cost of manufactured goods, which kept southern people down and oppressed, and kept them from making a better life for themselves and their families. The Confederacy was like the first occupy Wall Street

It was also a fight against an intrusive federal government that controlled the agricultural and commodities markets, fixed prices, and ran roughshod

Tea Party Movement

Tea Party Movement

over peoples lives with excessive taxes, fees, and regulations. The Confederacy was like the first tea party after the original.

The Confederacy and the Confederate flag represented the anti-big corporations ideals expressed by occupy Wall Street and the anti-big government ideals expressed by the current Tea Party. The flag represented a fight for freedom, which may sound odd in an economy which depended on slaves, but for the 99%, that was what it was. It was a fight for liberty, and liberty lost that fight.

Now, let me say, I am glad the north won. On my mothers side of the family, I have many family members who fought bravely in blue uniforms and died in defense of the Union. Unfortunately, on Halloween, if I wanted to go out as a civil war soldier, I had a hard time choosing between blue and gray uniforms, because on my fathers side of the family, the family name is listed among the honored dead from North Carolina to Vicksburg.

That tells me two things about the gray side of my family. One, the family was not very good with a musket, and two, since as far as I know the family never had enough money to buy a slave even if they knew what to do with one, my family not being big on all that reading and writing education stuff since before 1740, at least they were not fighting to protect the institution of slavery. The so-called “rebels” in my family were probably not smart enough, or at least not educated enough to understand the fight for liberty and all the nuances, either. They were probably fighting to protect their homes from what some have called “northern aggression”. They probably just wanted to be left alone to live out the dictates of the conscience according to their faith, to farm their land, and make a reasonable living they could pass on to their children. But that was the essence of the fight for liberty.

So, the north tried to bring the south to submission without seriously damaging the southern economy (the fatted cow), and for two years, they failed, miserably. By then it became clear that the south was not going to surrender as long as they could afford to put guns on the field. The strategy needed to be changed. It became: okay, sanctions aren’t working. We need to kill the southern economy if we ever hope to end this. We need to make it so they cannot afford to continue.America slaves

I am sure by that time, Lincoln, no doubt most of his cabinet, most of the congress and courts all believed slavery needed to go away. I take nothing away from those men, even if I doubt they all felt that way for idealistic (what we might call the right) reasons. I also imagine some in the minority who remained against setting the slaves free might have thought it was a good thing, idealistically, but on a practical (or personal) level, “Uncle Dick’s mill is going to go belly up if he doesn’t get his hands on some cotton”. In any case, however the government at the time felt, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, only let’s be clear why he did that.

Given the change in strategy, it was decided that the best way to destroy the southern economy would be to destroy the plantations—the 1%. With that in mind, it would not be unfair to say the Emancipation Proclamation was not signed out of the goodness of anyone’s heart. It was signed with the hope that the slave population on the plantations would rise up and revolt, throw off their slave masters and refuse to keep the economic engine running. The remarkable thing to me is that did not happen. I can imagine two reasons. You may come up with more.

One would be simply because most of the slaves were uneducated and had limited skill sets. (Sounds like my family). They had nowhere to go. The other was even a moron could look around at his poor, struggling, free white neighbors and conclude, “Why do I want to get into that? All things considered, life on this plantation is not so bad.” Truth is, when the reconstruction men came down, puffing out their chests like they were someone special going to fix everything, they had to force more than a few former slaves off the plantation at gunpoint.

During the final years of the war, after the slaves were free, while the north fought to destroy the south, or at least the southern economy, as far as I knew, the Confederate flag still stood for the same things: states rights, local autonomy, human rights and individual liberty. That did not change until after the war.

When the south formally surrendered at Appomattox, the flag was taken up by those individuals whoamericaa KKK refused to surrender. Reconstruction overlords then exacerbated the problems and determination of the few resisters. The resistance soon enough focused on the blatantly obvious symbol of race, and no one in their right mind will deny that the next hundred years were full of atrocities.

Those atrocious actions came to be associated with the Confederate flag. I understand. A couple of amendments to the constitution were quickly passed by the Republicans in charge, but otherwise, the slave community still had nowhere to go, no education and limited skills. Being free and equal did not mean a whole lot except hardship and poverty.

When the southern Democrats founded the KKK, they soon spread it even into northern states. When the southern Democrats founded and enforced segregation, they carried the confederate flag with them all the way. The Republicans began with the Emancipation Proclamation and forced through the constitutional amendments to make the former slaves free and equal, but it did not mean much for a long time. It took the federal government 100 (well 99) years to pass the civil rights act of 1964 (over the protests of the southern Democrats).

I would like to think things have improved since then. But in any case, let me repeat, I am glad the north won. Slavery needed to go. At the same time, though, I am sad the “federalists” won. Now, 150 years later, I say without hesitation that states rights, local autonomy, human rights, and individual liberty are gone. Self-determination and the right to follow your conscience is no more. America as founded is dead. The corporate interests in businesses that are “too big to fail”, and a bloated federal government that is trying to micro-manage everyone’s lives from “cradle to grave”, as some call it, have killed this nation. That is my opinion.

As for the Confederate flag, I understand many people can only see it as a symbol of the old southern Democrats and their KKK and their segregation. It has become a symbol of hate and unspeakable atrocities perpetrated against my fellow human beings, and for that reason, it ought to be removed from public. It should be confined only to history books, museums, Civil War reenactments, and maybe Google images. Again, though, that is just my opinion.

America newAt the same time, I think we need a new flag to symbolize liberty. One that will stand for state and community rights, local autonomy, and human rights that allow people to live out their faith in the dictates of their conscience. We need a new flag to stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness against the oppressive federalists and their crony businesses that are controlling and crushing everything of value in this nation. I only hope we don’t have to end up in a new civil war.


Welcome to the new dark ages.

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them” (NIV, 2 Timothy 3: 1-5).

Bring out your dead.

Bring out your dead.

These are the characteristics of true darkness.

“War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” … “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” —George Orwell.