Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow Southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
In fact, Southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the Southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
And before the South seceded, several Northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century--long before the Southern states even considered such a thing.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the Southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.
One of those Northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”
The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: why would the Southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the Southern (and Northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!
The problem was Lincoln wanted the Southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown--albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery--so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the Southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded Southern independence--policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy--and they might have a notion to again resist.
By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the Southern generals and fighting acumen of the Southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the Southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?
That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.
In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against Southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the Southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the South, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated Southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.
If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!
By the time Lincoln launched his war against the Southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of Southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully--just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”
And look at what is happening now: in one instant--after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag--the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.
The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.
In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.
Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”
Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.
© Chuck Baldwin
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;”
Nice try. That applies to states WHILE STILL IN THE UNION entering into treaties, alliances, or confederations with foreign states. That was clearly implied, because, for example, treaties are between nations; there can’t be a treaty between, say, New York and California.
That’s not the accepted definition of the term “Unilateral Secession”. No legal scholars, no historians, and no one with any sense defines it they way you are twisting it.
That’s OK though - because we know you’re “special”.
That’s right - they were subject to the terms of the confederation they joined before their pretend secession, during their pretend secession, and after their pretend secession. The terms of their confederation prohibited them from forming separate alliances or confederations outside of congress.
“Thank goodness the last of the (black) slaves were freed in the North. Took y’all another hundred years or so to free the white kids while you scoffed at Dickensian London. Oh, bold, brave Union!”
The union, like the confederacy, no longer exists.....this is the United States of America now and the year is 2015.
And I still wonder why any conservative would feel the need to uphold the honor of southern Democrat slave holders.
Spare me the parties switched side LIBERAL MYTH....The parties never switched sides.
Ah...so you go from citing Karl Marx to calling me a Nazi.....LOL.
Flail fail.
It’s not that I haven’t noticed your reply but rather that it’s still trickling through my consideration.
They kicked them out of a fortress on their own territory. While it certainly merited a forceful response, sending a 35,000 man invasion force was not it.
It certainly wasn't worth the loss of life it eventually caused.
Of course it was. If you were a true American wouldn’t be so squishy about putting terrorists in their place.
What does that matter if they have a right to do so? Even if you assume their primary reason is to protect slavery, was slavery not legal at the time?
Applying an ex post facto morality to a previous zeitgeist is bad cricket.
The main, and virtually, only reason given is the defense of slavery.
As was pointed out by ought-six , "In those eleven Articles of Secession, only four specifically mentioned slavery as a cause..." and "So, of thirteen Articles of Secession; only four expressly mentioned slavery as a reason. But they ALL cited self-determination as a reason."
So, if the people that actually seceded stated, very clearly and publicly, that the reason to secede was the defense of slavery, how can you say that it was something else?
Because Most of them did not say such a thing. The other seven states did not mention slavery, but they all mentioned "Self Determination."
Apart from that, I will once more point out that slavery was legal in the Union at the time, so how do you make something the Union considered legal an issue for why people wanted to leave? Had they stayed, slavery would have remained legal anyway.
This idea that you are going to justify an invasion on the basis of an Abolition that hadn't even been suggested yet is simply dishonest. You are trying to justify what the Union did in invading by what they did 2 years later.
This is Ex Post Facto.
They do it all the time. You don't notice it because you aren't arguing with them.
I try to match my argument to the level of the person I'm debating.
You are coming up short at the moment.
I truly will never understand the Southern mindset.
I'm not Southern. My family didn't arrive until after 1900, and we didn't settle in a Southern state. I simply learned that History is not quite what they have been trying to convince us.
A wife doesn't have to have a good reason for leaving, it is enough that she wants to do so. Perhaps she no longer loves him. Do you think a husband should force his wife to remain with him against her will?
and others argue that leaving was permitted with the consent of both sides.
Sounds like the Mafia. What sort of organization would you belong to that wouldn't let you leave if you decided you wanted to leave? I personally think free association is a component of "freedom", and that people can associate or not associate as they choose.
Some people believe that every single word of Baldwin's article is absolute fact.
People tend to believe what they want to believe and they often don't really care if it's actually true or not. I see the same problem occurring on both sides of the issue.
Is it too much to ask that you provide some sort of an example?
Do you think the wife should run up the credit cards before leaving and leave the entire debt to the husband? Take evey bit of community property she can get her hands? Fire shots at him as she's leaving?
Sounds like the Mafia. What sort of organization would you belong to that wouldn't let you leave if you decided you wanted to leave?
Sounds more like a union of co-equal partners to me. What organization do you belong to that allows one part to leave despite the consequences to the other partners, and those other partners have no say in the matter and have to sit back and accept everything that is done to them?
People tend to believe what they want to believe and they often don't really care if it's actually true or not.
I've seen a lot of that from the Confederate supporter, yes.
I believe I covered most if not all of these things in my previous post. But it you missed it, here it goes again.
What does that matter if they have a right to do so? Even if you assume their primary reason is to protect slavery, was slavery not legal at the time? The thought that the reason for secession is unimportant so long as they had the right to do so only works if you assume the elite of the South were feckless sociopaths who one day woke up and said “let’s just secede from the union and cause the deaths of 600,000+ people for no particular reason at all – just because we feel like it” Now, while they might have been feckless sociopaths, they didn’t do what they did without a reason. This reason was very clear, and it was outlined in EVERY ONE OF THE ARTICLES OF SECSSION THAT GAVE A REASON FOR SECEDING!!! As I stated previously, most of the Articles of Secession did not give a reason.
You mentioned that the reasons given by all was “Self-Determination”. The problem with this is back to the whole “feckless sociopath” thing. It was recognized by all that Secession was an extremely serious affair. So, your position is that each state entered this extremely serious affair for no reason other than self-determination? There wasn’t a triggering event at all? They just decided one day to (simultaneously) secede from the Union for no particular reason at all, just because they felt like it? Doesn’t come close to passing the sense test. They had a reason, what was it (I know! I know! Pick me!)?
As far as your last point involving the fact that Slavery was legal, and that the North invaded on the basis of Abolition is wrong on so many levels. First off, as far as the United States was concerned, slavery WAS NOT the reason they fought (the South on the other hand…). It was to maintain the Union. Secondly, as far as the “invasion” trope is concerned, the South started the war with the unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter in April 1961. The Battle of Bull Run in June 1861 (the “invasion” I presume you are referencing) was merely the next step in the war THAT THE SOUTH STARTED. Hard to claim that you’re the victim when you started the fight.
You talk about me missing something you wrote, and then you write this?
This reason was very clear, and it was outlined in EVERY ONE OF THE ARTICLES OF SECSSION THAT GAVE A REASON FOR SECEDING!!!
You obviously didn't read my rebuttal. Only four states cited slavery as their reasons for leaving, and my second point is that it is NONE OF YOUR D@MNED BUSINESS why they chose to leave.
So, your position is that each state entered this extremely serious affair for no reason other than self-determination?
They do not need a reason to exercise a right. Do you need a reason to exercise your rights? If you have to have a reason, then it isn't a right because someone else has veto power over you if they don't like your reason.
First off, as far as the United States was concerned, slavery WAS NOT the reason they fought (the South on the other hand…). It was to maintain the Union.
There is nor moral or legal imperative to "preserve the union." There certainly was not any moral imperative to preserve the British Union, and there was no moral imperative to preserve the US Union.
This is no different than a man denying his wife a divorce. It's none of his D@mned business what are her reasons for leaving, and he doesn't have a right to stop her.
Hard to claim that you’re the victim when you started the fight.
In the manner of a woman removing someone else's hand off her knee, and the masher trying to deck the woman.
The woman may have consented to the hand at one time, but once she no longer consents, it's time to remove the hand. The Hand belongs to you. The Knee doesn't.
I guess you are unaware of Virginia's contribution to Independence from the English Union.
And what are the debts to which you are referring? If your analogy is to hold true, you are going to have to support it with some numbers and breakdown of contributions.
Take evey bit of community property she can get her hands?
She took her own property. You know, the stuff that was hers before the marriage.
Fire shots at him as she's leaving?
Keep your analogy straight. "Firing Shots" is lethal force directed at the Husband. It would be the equivalent of sending an invasion army into Washington D.C. What she did was slap his hand because it was still on her knee after she told him to remove it. It was never close to being a threat to his life.
Sounds more like a union of co-equal partners to me. What organization do you belong to that allows one part to leave despite the consequences to the other partners, and those other partners have no say in the matter and have to sit back and accept everything that is done to them?
Until you provide some support for your claim that something was owed to them, you don't have an analogy worth discussing.
I've seen a lot of that from the Confederate supporter, yes.
And that is something you wish to believe.
And Abraham Lincoln. If you are going to make the Nazi analogy with the confederates, you have got to mention how Abraham Lincoln was a blatant racist and considered blacks completely inferior.
Since we are being objective and everything, your omission of blatant racist Abraham Lincoln is obviously an oversight.
And what did the Republicans want to do with them once they were free? Send them to Liberia? And Why did they want to do this?
He keeps saying he doesn't bring it up, but it looks like he always brings it up. Well the Union Slaverocrasy was going to keep it going anyways. The only question was whether it would be ruled from Washington D.C. or not.
Which Lincoln promised to keep. Even introduced a constitutional amendment to keep it.
What's this got to do with their right to leave?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.