Posted on 02/28/2008 10:39:14 AM PST by cowboyway
The controversial stars and bars of the Confederate Flag could soon find their way to Florida license plates. State Rep. Don Brown, R-DeFuniak Springs, has worked with the Sons of Confederate Veterans to sponsor a bill that would allow the group to create a non-profit license plate that bears the Dixie flag. The tag would cost roughly $25 from the Department of Motor Vehicles. SCV Executive Director Ben Sewell said his organization has been successful in the past at getting the license plates in numerous states and feels theyve met the requirements in the state of Florida to acquire the tag. The laws have been relatively even for non-profit organizations, he said. In Tennessee weve been able to do a lot of things with the money such as sponsoring museums that preserve historical flags. According to the groups estimates, the process for the acquiring the tag in Florida has cost nearly $200,000 and taken three years to be adopted into a bill. Florida SCV Division Adjunct John Adams said he thinks the bill has a pretty good chance of passing and commends Rep. Brown for stepping up to the plate for them. There was a lot of uproar over the MLK and right to live tags, he said. In the end, people didnt care because it didnt cost anyone a dime. These tags will raise revenue for our organization and spread awareness. But not everyone feels these tags will be beneficial. We respect Representative Brown, but we think he is wrong on this, said Northwest Florida National Advancement of Colored People Director Sabu Williams. We will fight and do anything to stop this from getting state sponsored. That includes putting some boots (protest) in front of his office. Sabu said he understands the meaning to certain individuals and believes the flag has its place, but does not agree the state should have anything to do with it. Why ask the state to sponsor something that we know causes pain? he said. I just dont understand it. Rep. Brown has previously sponsored a bill that would name part of Highway 90 Dr. Martin Luther King Dr and said his decision to support the tag is something he thinks is right.. Rep. Clay Ford, R-Pensacola, said he agrees with Browns intentions. Many license plates depict heritage, environmental causes, professions, and achievements, he said. In fairness, I believe any group that meets the requirements of the statute should be allowed to participate in its benefits. Government should treat every group the same. Representative Don Brown has been a good House member for his district. Although the bill is on the table, it still has a long way to go before it is put into legislation. Were not going to let it happen, said Williams. Rep. Brown does not want this fight.
I totally agree.
The United States was founded by rebels. The Confederate States was founded by rebels.
If Osama Obama is elected and the libs carry the House and Senate, conservatives will find themselves facing a very hostile environment and we'll need a lot of rebel spirit.
The past has shown us that once a government policy and the agency that it spawns is in place it never goes away and like a cancer it just keeps growing until it becomes almost a government within the government. If Hussein gets the White House and has a cooperative Congress the country will go hard left and socialist, irreversibly so.
If Osama Obama is elected we'll have an open border with Mexico, which means all of South America and the middle east. The US as we know it will be no more (this is easy enough to demonstrate now by visiting border states and south Florida) and I hope there will be enough rebels left to carve out a section and start afresh.
Off topic.
Happy Texas Independence Day, non. March 2, 1836, and March 2, 1861.
And what rights did the confederate constitution grant the states that they didn't also have under the real Constitution?
You didn’t answer the question. What state powers did the confederate constitution reserve to the states that were not also reserved to the state under the federal Constitution? And considering the areas where Davis ignored his constitutional limitations - supreme court, tariffs, slavery - why should you believe that he wouldn’t have ignored those reservations of power had it become convenient for him?
Registered Democrat with confederate tags? Appropriate, given the poltics of those who formed the confederacy to begin with. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
There, fixed it.
That is precisely what they have been doing, and Bill Clinton had the markers at Gettysburg changed by a pair of Columbia Reds to reflect this propaganda message, which he wanted inculcated on visitors to Gettysburg, abolishing the even-handed retelling of events which had been the National Park Service's mission for four generations.
The message is a political one aimed at moderate conservatives in "battleground" States, to encourage them to separate from the Southern conservatives and vote Democratic, by perpetually demonizing Southerners.
It's an attempt to break the Finkelstein Box -- the "red States" -- and every liberal teaching history and/or politics freely concedes the importance to the Left cause of doing this.
Divide et impera. America's motto since 1860.
And people on this board are propagating it.
You ought to be, because you have been specifically informed of the threat uttered against the Rhode Islanders by people in Connecticut, about what would happen if Rhode Island Plantation didn't stop dragging its feet and ratify.
That has been discussed on these boards and original documents quoted. You're responsible for the material now. Don't pretend you never heard of it.
You would think that anyone that was proud of rebelling against the US constitution and forcing a war upon this country within it’s borders would be equally proud of which party caused the whole thing and created the symbols they hold so dear.
Sadly most are afraid to make the connection.
No, and you know why, because the subject has been beaten to death on other threads (and you lost).
Once a State, a State is a State is a State. Nihil Obstat if a State wishes to assume full sovereignty.
Some States, it has also been pointed out to you, were States before they were members of the Union, and that includes States that were not members of the original Thirteen Colonies. I refer to, and we have discussed at length, the cases of Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii.
California "could" be thrown into the mix, but their "Bear Flag Republic" was a put-up job, like the Lecompton Constitution in Kansas (I'm sure you will agree about that last). So arguendo I leave them out.
The whole State needing their full sovereignty once they have entered into a contract to give up the independence as a separate nation to a central federal government reeks of a child taking his ball and going home once the game doesn’t go his way.
Most Confederate wannabees understand that, but cannot admit to it, so I’ll say it for them.
I for one am glad the south lost, because if it had won, I’d be some peon of a cotton farm in a country very similar to Mexico today where only the privileged upper class ruled and no better off then the slaves of olden days.
I can see your point, and yes, they'd have to be pretty peeved for that to happen. But "they had the right", and besides that Jefferson had been pretty explicit in saying that he preferred, if the Union had to become two countries for its citizens to be happy, he would prefer that to the use of military force against a State. That's where he parted company with Jackson, who was a Democrat like himself, but fixated on the vision of Manifest Destiny.
Madison, too, and I think Hamilton (but I'll take advice and correction on that) abhorred the idea of using military force against the States by other States or the federal government to obtain political compliance on policy. "Publius" said in The Federalist that it would nullify the Constitution and the Union, and make the latter into something else (he meant, Empire).
The Civil War was basically fought to impose Henry Clay's American System on an agrarian nation that didn't want it, because it was Good for Business (if you were a manufacture or a railroad man).
Remember, Abraham Lincoln wasn't a "rail splitter". He was a railroad, shipping, and patent attorney. He practiced business law.
So did Alexander Hamilton.
Penny drop yet?
Well, since we're into wild speculation, let's just suppose you were born on a cotton farm.
Why do you think you'd be a rightless peon?
You would be a whole hell of a lot less likely to get a visit from an IRS, FBI, or ATF agent, now wouldn't you? How unfree is that?
Visits from OSHA and EPA and ACLU lawyers? Drop-by's from GLAAD and GLSEN and other golems of the HRC at your local schools? How about NOW and NARAL -- do you think the divorce rate would be higher, or lower? Lots of things would be different, not just a few, and not all of them bad.
Since we're speculating and all.
No, I said that, since you claimed to have been unable to locate any SUVCW chapters in the south, that you either didn't try very hard or that you're merely incompetent at conducting a web search. I lean toward the former.
In your dreams.
Once a State, a State is a State is a State. Nihil Obstat if a State wishes to assume full sovereignty.
Once a state. And it becomes a state, is created in effect, by the act of being admitted to the Union. It is admitted by the other states. Once in, it is forbidden to take actions which impact the interests of the other states without the approval of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Yet you would have us believe that they can suddenly do what they want, take what they want, repudiate any obligations that they want by assuming a level of sovereignty that they didn't have before or while a part of the Union. And nothing at all hinders that? The other states have no say in the matter, and therefore have choice but to accept being screwed by the departing states? Absolute nonsense.
Some States, it has also been pointed out to you, were States before they were members of the Union, and that includes States that were not members of the original Thirteen Colonies. I refer to, and we have discussed at length, the cases of Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii.
The fact of which is irrelevant to these discussions. Texas and Hawaii and Vermont still had to be allowed to join the Union. Once in their status was no different that that of the other states, and they enjoyed no special rights that the other states didn't. That includes walking out unilaterally.
California "could" be thrown into the mix, but their "Bear Flag Republic" was a put-up job, like the Lecompton Constitution in Kansas (I'm sure you will agree about that last).
No more put up than Hawaii, but do what you want.
And was said threat uttered by the government of Connecticut? Or Congress?
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.