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
You realize Lincolm shared almost such a view of group superiority? As did many others who were Abolitionists. They objected to slavery, not to white superiority.
Why don't you go to Scotland and get married?
One of the main issues driving the South towards secession was the various personal freedom laws of northern states that interfered with recovery of fled slaves. Sometimes those laws and constitutional provisions were reasonable, intended primarily to provide due process in determining whether the fugitive actually was a slave. Sometimes they were frankly in direct conflict with the federal Constitution, intended to prevent the return of fugitives regardless of their legal status.
But in 850 the South got the Fugitive Slave Law passed, which took the return out of state hands and gave it to the feds, a quite considerable expansion of federal power.
The South only became enamoured of states’ rights when it became obvious they were losing the disproportionate control of the federal government they’d held since the Founding.
Just go on any thread that discusses the Civil War and you’ll find scores of them. I bet you’ll even find your “name” there.
Lincoln did not believe in a Master Race in the sense I mean, the one held in the South and in Nazi Germany. There it was meant quite literally, that one race was to be Masters and all others Slaves.
You bet, Lincoln and most other northerners believed in white racial superiority. This POV was, BTW, the “scientific consensus” of the time. But they did not believe this superiority meant other races should be literally enslaved.
You're a man after my own heart! Er . . . unless you're a woman. (And by the way, if you are, would you marry me?)
The South was for "states' rights" during the Washington and Adams administrations but when Jefferson was elected the two sides did a do-si-do and switched positions completely. New England Federalists, first the Essex Junto and then the Hartford Convention, advocated secession, and the Jeffersonian South called it "treason."
That’s funny, because to get a flavor of the cause of the Civil War from dispassionate and neutral sources, one can simply read the European accounts of the conflict, both contemporary and historical. Even Karl Marx (who had no love at all for the Confederacy), called the Civil War a “tariff war.” European writers said that staying in the Union would cost the South millions, but the Southern states leaving the Union would cost the North millions.
Why should my sex/gender make a difference in whether we get married?
You are obviously a homophobe.
I is quite male, and married almost 39 years.
Was dismissed by Chief Justice Chase for lack of jurisdiction so it doe not support your claim.
But you will continue to raise the straw man, the faux conservative that you are.
And you, pseudo-conservative that you are, will continue to post irrelevancies.
Shouldn't we rely more on the speeches and writings of the Southern and Northern leaders of the time rather than analysis from people who were not part of it?
Only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances, i.e., the return of fugitive slaves, slavery in the U.S. territories and Federal abolition. By leaving the voluntary Union, these States abandoned all claims regarding the first two and the issue of Federal abolition was entirely eliminated as a cause of war by Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address and the Corwin Amendment. The only issue of contention remaining was the 40% Federal sales tax on Southerners, which required a compulsory Union to collect.
The difference is the Lee family had no interest in owning slaves and freed all the ones they inherited once the debts were paid off. The Grants, however, had no such scruples and didn’t free theirs until they were forced to by the 13th amendment, or else their slaves ran away before that as you say they might have done.
That is simply a lie.
The Grants didn't live anywhere that slavery was legal after January 1865 so how could they have owned slaves until December 1865?
Here is one article about it from the Maryland state site: Arrest of the Maryland Legislature, 1861
This site also has a lot to say regarding the arrests
Abraham Lincoln and Maryland
He could not legally free the slaves
Of course he couldn't. And since he had no power over the other country he was fighting, his proclamation did nothing to free anybody. It was a mere gesture to help sway Europe away from siding with the Confederacy by making his war of aggression out to be righteous cause.
Regarding the reasons for the war, I think you missed this part of one of my previous posts:
Only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances, i.e., the return of fugitive slaves, slavery in the U.S. territories and Federal abolition. By leaving the voluntary Union, these States abandoned all claims regarding the first two and the issue of Federal abolition was entirely eliminated as a cause of war by Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address and the Corwin Amendment. The only issue of contention remaining was the 40% Federal sales tax on Southerners, which required a compulsory Union to collect.
Except that there was no 40% tax on Southerners. Not in 1860. Not ever.
Because they left before the taxes could be raised. They knew the Lincoln and his northern friends were planning on pushing it through, and they knew they didn't have enough legislative force to stop it. February 15, 1861 in Pittsburgh, U.S. President-elect Lincoln affirmed his priority for passage of a high tariff after his inauguration on March 4:
“The condition of the treasury at this time would seem to render an early revision of the tariff indispensable. The Morrill (tariff) Bill, now pending before Congress, may or may not become a law. If, however, it shall not pass, I suppose the whole subject will be one of the most pressing and important for the next Congress.”
In 1860 South Carolina had declared that
“The British parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference.” “And so with the Southern States towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, they are in a minority in Congress.” “The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North.” (Paragraphs 5-8)
Lincoln further declared in his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 his stance on slavery and his reasons for war if war broke out:
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government [four Federal tax collection forts], and to collect the duties and imposts [import tax]; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” (Paragraph 21)
“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.” (Paragraph 4)
“I understand a proposed (Corwin) Amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” (Paragraph 32)
Please see posts #36 and 59.
Because this isn't Scotland.
You are obviously a homophobe.
And a Theocrat!
I is quite male, and married almost 39 years.
You are to be congratulated.
yeah, only 5
Funny how they ll seceded right after an anti-slavery president got sworn in and not before
Funny how they all were upset at the rights of northern states to not return runaway slaves
As I'm sure you know by now neither site supports Baldwin's claim that the entire legislature was arrested. One puts the number at 16, which agrees with an earlier post of mine.
And since he had no power over the other country he was fighting, his proclamation did nothing to free anybody.
The "other country" part is open for debate, but what it did do was make sure that any Southern slaves who ran off couldn't be returned.
It was a mere gesture to help sway Europe away from siding with the Confederacy by making his war of aggression out to be righteous cause.
Even if that were the reason for the proclamation you would have to admit that it worked.
Only 5 of the 13 Confederate States mentioned slavery issues in their Secession Ordinances, i.e., the return of fugitive slaves, slavery in the U.S. territories and Federal abolition.
But slavery is prominently mentioned in all of the Declarations of the Causes of Secession which were issued by several of the seceding states. If we take these declarations as having the same purpose as the original Declaration of Independence then it is clear that slavery was by far the most important reason for their actions.
The only issue of contention remaining was the 40% Federal sales tax on Southerners, which required a compulsory Union to collect.
There was no 40% tax on Southerners.
Because they left before the taxes could be raised. They knew the Lincoln and his northern friends were planning on pushing it through, and they knew they didn't have enough legislative force to stop it.
There was no 40% tax on Southerners as a part of the Morrill Tariff.
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government [four Federal tax collection forts], and to collect the duties and imposts [import tax]; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
Lincoln also mentioned delivering the mail and appointing judges. He was going down the list of tasks the government performed and promised they would continue.
“I understand a proposed (Corwin) Amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Lincoln could have said he was dead set against it and it wouldn't have made a difference. The president plays no part in the amendment process. He doesn't vote on them, doesn't sign them, can't veto them, nothing.
But Baldwin says that Lincoln did more than just be aware of the amendment. According to him, Lincoln authored the amendment and he said it was the only amendment proposed by a sitting president. Can we agree that that claim is completely false?
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.