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
If you say, "We am justified in our rebellion or secession or revolution and will attack your forces," and I say, "We am justified in maintaining legitimate civil government, but will not attack you unless you attack our troops first," and you attack, you certainly have the larger share of blame for the war. First of all, your firing first means you started the war. But secondly, you can't just dismiss the reasons I may have for resisting you and argue that I'm only attacking you because you shot first or because I want to invade and get something that you have. There was a case to be made that unilateral secession was unconstitutional.
In reference to what we were talking about, the right to revolution is very much a matter of reciprocity. If you accept that theory one person doing wrong very much does justify another person doing something that would under other circumstances be wrong. There are of course, different degrees of wrong or evil and atrocities aren't justified by oppression, but recourse to violence or force very often is a matter of "they did it first" or "they do it, too," whether we're talking about slave rebellion or secessionism or the federal response.
I do admit, though, that when people are always going on about how their opponents want to destroy them and any means are justified in response, things definitely get out of hand.
Actually, no (and I can see you didn't read all those nice quotes I gave you) There is nothing to that effect in the constitution or in any law whatsoever, and any rights or powers not delegated to the fed gov belong to the states. Period.
And it's pretty clear that any action involving admitting states, changing them one they've been admitted, and any actions that might affect the other states requires the consent of the states.
Notice how those all apply to states that are in the union or territories looking to join it. Doesn't follow for states looking to leave.
Remember, the constitution only applies to states that are in the union.
that property is still the property of the U.S" That was property that was delegated the fed gov. It belonged to the States before it ever belonged to the fed gov and when withdrawing the rest of their delegated powers they withdrew the fed gov's right to use those properties as well. Although by right these "federal" properties reverted back to the states when they were no long under the Federal government, the South still offered to pay for the forts, but Lincoln refused.
Napolitano's opinion and some Confederate leaders saying Lincoln provoked the war. What is that supposed to prove?
I thought you might find Napolitano interesting since he is a legal analyst. As to the opinions of Jefferson Davis and his VP Stevens, I posted it because it shows how they saw the situation. Here they had a hostile fort guarding their harbor. They had asked the garrison to leave numerous times and been refused. Now, after Lincoln had hinted that he would withdraw the garrison, Lincoln goes on to sent ships loaded with supplies, as well as soldiers and arms. Could they trust Lincoln? They knew he was a very wily politician, and where afraid of the harbor being exposed to the combined fire of a hostile fort and fleet combined. They were not acting on the offensive. They were acting on the defensive by making a preemptive strike because they felt threatened. Lincoln was very happy, as this was the result he had anticipated and hoped for when he sent out the fleet:
Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox in May 1861. Fox was the commander of the expedition Abe sent to reinforce Ft. Sumter:
"You (FOX) and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result (WAR).”
If the South had really wanted to be aggressive and start a war, they would have attacked much sooner, rather than waiting until the situation forced them to act. And they wouldn't have sent peace delegations to Washington in early 1861 (Lincoln refused to listen to these). Also, they would have declared war first (or at least right after Lincoln did). Rather they waited over two weeks after Lincoln declared war before they issued a declaration. In their declaration of war, they wrote that
"earnest efforts made by this government to establish friendly relations between the government of the United States and the Confederate States and to settle all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity and good faith, have proved unavailing, by reason of the refusal of the government of the United States to hold any intercourse with the Commissioners appointed by the government for the purposes aforesaid or to listen to any proposal they had to make for the peaceful solution of all causes of difficulties between the two governments...the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States"
They declared that these were "acts of hostilities and wanton aggression, which are plainly intended to oppress and finally, subjugate the people of the Confederate States."
So do you agree or disagree with Lincoln here? Do people have the right to self government or not?
The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state
This is the main point, a theme taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. The part about the legislatures adding this to their constitutions is something he is strongly recommending (because he believes, as you see, that this right will be abused). Their is no law anywhere saying that such is a requirement to leave.
Lincoln was speaking of the right to rebellion. You have the right to try. You don't have a right to win.
This is the main point, a theme taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. The part about the legislatures adding this to their constitutions is something he is strongly recommending (because he believes, as you see, that this right will be abused). Their is no law anywhere saying that such is a requirement to leave.
Rawle is not suggesting anything. He is stating legal fact as he sees it.
Hope, you didn’t include the qualifier “for the first time” until your most recent comment.
“I mean, if Parliament didn’t care about the working class and only cared about the rich and elite, it stands to reason that they should have recognized the CSA immediately, right?”
Not at all. As I said previously, Great Britain was being prudent and waiting to see how the war progressed before taking sides. Made a lot of sense, too.
Your comment about Great Britain not wanting to recognize CSA because of slavery just does not hold water. Think about it: Britain knew that Southern cotton was produced mostly by slave labor, and yet Great Britain continued to be the largest market for that cotton. Don’t you think that Great Britain — if it were so incensed about slavery — would have refused to be the largest purchaser of a product that was primarily produced by slave labor? It’s not like Great Britain did not have access to other sources of cotton (i.e., Egypt and India).
I think you’re not recognizing the effects of inertia on human relations. It’s one thing to hate something, but to accept current conditions. so, yes, the working class in Great Britain could hate slavery, but still accept the United States as a slaveholding nation, and run their mills with cotton grown by slaves, as this did not really drive any great effort on their part. The difference was in 1861, when the Confederacy asked to be recognized as a country explicitly formed to protect and continue slavery. This is where they drew the line, because their actions would have essentially meant they approved of slavery. This, I believe, was a major reason they did not recognize the Confederacy, although, as I said previously, Lee’s loss at Antietam had a lot to do with it as well.
“The Confederacy asked to be recognized as a country explicitly formed to protect and continue slavery. This is where they drew the line, because their actions would have essentially meant they approved of slavery. This, I believe, was a major reason they did not recognize the Confederacy.”
There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Please show me the evidence that Parliament refused to recognize CSA because of slavery as the major reason Great Britain did not recognize CSA. Hell, just point me to the official document that cited slavery as any reason Parliament did not recognize CSA.
Britain continued to trade with CSA after secession (though the trade was limited because of the Yankee blockade of Southern ports), and even sent military observers to embed with Southern forces (they embedded with Northern forces, as well). Britain held off on formally recognizing CSA as an independent, sovereign nation because Great Britain was waiting to see how the war would turn out. After 1863 Great Britain saw how the war would eventually resolve and by then it made no sense at all to recognize CSA. But I guarantee you, if the CSA had been successful Great Britain would have recognized it. The commerce was too lucrative not to.
I really can’t point to any document stating that Parliament refused to recognize the CSA because of slavery. I suspect that such a document does not exist for the very simple reason that it never got to a vote in Parliament. Would they have recognized the CSA if it won? That would be very likely - hatred of slavery only goes so far when compared to a fait accompli. I think that the important thing is that they did not recognize the CSA when it could have made a difference in 1861 or 1862.
The quote was actually in reference to Texas' secession from Mexico.
Rawle is not suggesting anything. He is stating legal fact as he sees it.
To be truly legal fact, there has to be a law indicating such.
You mean Texas's rebellion from Mexico.
To be truly legal fact, there has to be a law indicating such.
Or lack of law allowing such. In this case, the state constitution didn't grant the legislature the authority.
“I think that the important thing is that they did not recognize the CSA when it could have made a difference in 1861 or 1862.”
I do not dispute that at all.
It was secession. Look it up. Anytime people break away and declare their own new country it is secession.
Or lack of law allowing such. In this case, the state constitution didn't grant the legislature the authority.
The state's constitution doesn't need to. After all, the powers of the states are almost too many to list out anyway. In The Federalist, no. 45, Madison said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
When they have to fight their way out it's called a rebellion.
The state's constitution doesn't need to.
According to Rawle it did. How can you point to part of his writings and say they prove your point and then ignore other parts and say he didn't really mean it?
So Doodle when are you going to tell me and Jim Robinson about your position on the repeal of DADT you coward?
So Doodle when are you going to tell me and Jim Robinson about your position on the repeal of DADT you coward?
So Doodle when are you going to tell me and Jim Robinson about your position on the repeal of DADT you coward?
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.