PC hit squad attacks The Ohio Republic

I have been advised by an anti-secessionist blogger in Vermont that The Ohio Republic is a "neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, Paleoconservative, Racist, White Separatist, anti-Government Sovereignty Activist," or at least one of "Their Enablers and Supporters." For several years, The Ohio Republic was listed in his ordinary Links section, but the writer, a pseudonymous "Thomas Rowley," has decided that it deserves to be classified as shown above because

On a more personally disappointing note, I've moving the Ohio Republic blog to [this category], not so much because its author, Harold Thomas, espouses the sort of virulent hatred that oozes from sites like [two Vermont secessionist websites and Rebellion, originating from the League of the South], but because of the open support he offers Tuggle's vile LOS website.

I cheerfully plead guilty to Paleoconservative and maybe even Anti-Government Sovereignty Activist, which I suppose is what he would call anyone who stands up for the Constitutional rights of the states. Neo-Confederate? The term is highly controversial and as the politically neutral site WordIQ notes, is frequently used as a pejorative ad hominem attack. I am the direct descendant of a Confederate soldier, and therefore can easily relate to Southerners wishing to honor their ancestry. Beyond that, how the South wants to decide its future is none of my business.

The League of the South really is a controversial organization, and does include some avowed white supremacists among its leadership. However, the League does not openly espouse racism in its policy statements (unless "Anglo-Celtic culture," which it desires to promote, is a code phrase for racism). Rebellion is the blog of the League of the South. I sometimes comment there, but I also disagree with it on racial issues. However, the blog covers many other subjects; and overall is well written, well researched, and certainly not "vile."

My own views should be clear from reading the posts in the Racism label on this blog. I have criticized in this space Rebellion's propensity for trivializing the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for supporting disruptions to celebration of Dr. King's birthday. In addition, I have repeatedly highlighted the work of African-Americans who are outspoken in defense of liberty, not just for some, but for all of us.

Mr. "Rowley" enthusiastically supports the Southern Poverty Law Center, itself a controversial organization, which last May libeled former Ohio resident Jason Rink by putting him on their "Hatewatch" list for working with the Tenth Amendment Center to organize the Nullify Now rallies.

In fairness, he has done his fellow Vermonters a service by exposing white supremacist attitudes and general buffoonery among members of that state's secessionist movement.

So, to summarize Mr. "Rowley's" position, I am a "neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, Paleoconservative, Racist, White Separatist, anti-Government Sovereignty Activist" or fellow-traveler because I sometimes comment in a blog sponsored by an organization that is not avowedly white supremacist, but includes a few white supremacists among its leadership; despite the fact that I have criticized that same organization when I disagreed with it, particularly on racial issues, have always shown minority individuals the same respect I would show for anyone of my own race, and have publicly encouraged those who support liberty.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Mr. "Rowley's" real agenda is to shut down opinions contrary to his own by fixing emotionally charged labels on his political opponents. Those who insist on "political correctness" want to shut down discussion that seeks the truth, rather than engage its participants in a mutually respectful exchange of views. As long as this cancer continues to affix itself upon the American body politic, we will be unable to hold the honest and frank discussions that we need to solve our political problems in a way that will promote liberty and justice for all.

Waters over the damn

Mohandas Gandhi, one of the wisest men of the last century, once said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Evidently threatened by President Obama's plummeting approval ratings, and utterly unwilling to read the 6" high printing on the wall, the Congressional Black Caucus leadership has decided to start the attack phase against Tea Parties and other libertarian Americans.

Being one of those allegedly "racist" crackers myself, there isn't much I can say that would help, so I will defer to Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Allen West (R-Florida), as reported in The Hill:

Rep. West

"When you start using words such as lynching ... that's a reprehensible word and I think we should we should move away from that language." West said on "Fox & Friends."

"One of the things I'm starting to think about is reconsidering my membership in the Congressional Black Caucus, because I don't think they are moving in the right manner toward solving the problems in not just the black community, but all of America."

After making his comments, West sent a letter to Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Missouri), chairman of the CBC, demanding that he denounce comments by Carson and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California), At a town-hall meeting earlier this month, Waters said the Tea Party "can go straight to hell."

"I believe it is incumbent on you to both condemn these types of hate-filled ocmments, and to disassociate the Congressional Black Caucus from these types of remarks," West wrote. "Otherwise, I will have to seriously reconsider my membership within the organization."

West went on to argue that Carson's charges against the Tea Party were "racist."
"Congressman Carson's desire to generally criticize a large grassroots group as racist is baseless and desperate," West wrote. "When individuals believe they are defeated in a political disagreement, they normally resort to race-baiting, which in my opinion is itself racist."

Since Rep. Waters represents a district in Southern California, she might want to think about this.

Not to mention the contempt they are heaping on the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whom they profess to idolize.

I can only imagine what the late Elizabeth Wright would have said about all this...

Elizabeth Wright: A tribute

It is with sadness that I report the death of 2011 Champion of Liberty Elizabeth D. Wright, which became publicly known August 19. A resident of Brooklyn, New York, Mrs. Wright was an outspoken opponent of political correctness in racial issues. She expressed those opinions through a newsletter known as Issues and Views. She began the newsletter in 1985 and converted it to a blog about ten years ago.

She particularly opposed the view that African-Americans were a victim of their race.  Instead, Mrs. Wright stressed the importance of personal responsibility and entrepreneurship as ways of creating economic opportunity; having been rooted in the political and economic philosophy of Booker T. Washington. She also saw that "political correctness" was hindering legitimate academic inquiries into the problems that affect the African-American community.

Mrs. Wright was a private person, almost to the point of being mysterious. The exact date of her death is currently unknown, and no one knows whether she had a family. I was under the impression that in age she was in her mid-seventies. She wrote a touching farewell post in Issues and Views June 20 that indicated that she was going into hospice for cancer.

While her contrarian views on racial issues were reflected in the work of 2010 Champions of Liberty Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell, she also became, unfortunately, a darling to white supremacists (very mild example). This may be in part because of statements like her piece "Racism is not sin." I only learned of her death because The Ohio Republic enjoyed a record hit count from one such organization accessing my 2011 Champions of Liberty citation. Perhaps this should not matter, but at a time when liberals are fond of charging people with "racism by association" (even when they are using your work, and not the other way around), it is disconcerting and a bit embarrassing to me. It is also an injustice to a woman who respected the truth so much that she was willing to be ostracized by others in her community.

This is how Elizabeth D. Wright should be remembered. She respected the truth more than anything else, and had the courage to proclaim it. May she rest in a well-deserved peace.

Update Sept. 7: Here is a longer obituary by Samuel Newhouse in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. It should go without saying that I take very strong exception to the remark by One People's Project founder Daryle Lamont Jenkins that “The only blogs that are paying tributes to her ... are all white supremacists,” but then judging from this blog post, One People's Project appears to be the Southern Poverty Law Center in wolf's clothing...

Black columnist attacks President Obama -- for all the right reasons

Star Parker, writing at Townhall.com has unknowingly submitted an early nomination for The Ohio Republic's 2012 Champions of Liberty award, given to African-Americans who are outspoken in defense of freedom. This is the first article I have read by her, but it is clear, to the point, and pulls no punches:

It is not hard to understand why black Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States. It was kind of a final and most grand announcement that racism has finally been purged from America.

But for the highly politicized parts of black America this was certainly not the only message. Because for the highly politicized parts of black America, the point has always been to keep race in American politics.

For black political culture that dominated after the civil rights movement, the point was not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law. Plus the assumption that more black political power -- defined by more blacks holding office -- would mean that blacks would be better off.

In other words, post-civil rights movement black political culture embraced an agenda exactly the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about. Its agenda was to get laws and policies that were not neutral but racially slanted and to put individuals in power based on their race and not on their character and capability.

So, according to the script of this political culture, election of a black man as president meant more than an end to racism. The conclusion had to be that if the man holding the highest political office in the nation was black, it must follow that blacks would be better off.

Now blacks have a dilemma. We have a black president and blacks are worse off. Not just a little, but a lot worse off.

She finds only two possible conclusions: Either President Obama is a "traitor to his race," or he is incompetent, or in Ms. Parker's words, "Bad policies hurt the weakest the most."

She is hoping that 

Maybe blacks will realize that they should blame Barack Obama. Not because he is black, but because he is a liberal. And because he has grown government to the point where the oxygen necessary for freedom and prosperity is being squeezed out of our nation.

Now she has hope for change we could all believe in.

The Tea Party is racist

Uh huh.

Then how do you explain this article from The Root, a blog devoted to African-American news and commentary?

And this, a video in which Congressman Allen West defends Tea Party Republicans?

The politics of racism

From Champion of Liberty Elizabeth Wright in her Issues and Views sidebar:

Racism is not "sin"

Over the years, as whites have worked to defend themselves against the charge of "racism," they have validated this slur by giving it greater importance than it deserves, and thereby helped to institutionalize it as the world's greatest "sin." As to genuine sin, harboring negative thoughts concerning some group is much further down the list of human deficiencies than bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Hamburg, or hacking to death with machetes the men, women and children of an enemy tribe. Now, those are sins! Seeking to force "diversity" down the throats of an unreceptive segment of society is the religious mission of rabid, agenda-driven ideologues. None of this apparent concern for "social justice" has ever been about virtue. It's about power.

Note that the headline is Ms. Wright's, not mine.

Follow the link to "It's about power" and read that post with its comments. The racial situation in this country is not what we are told. I have many coworkers and a few friends who are black, and most of them think more like Elizabeth Wright than like the so-called "civil rights" leaders.

If we think at all for ourselves, we are individuals, not puppets of groupthink. Those who find power in the status quo actually demean everyone by trying to force individuals into arbitrary groupings (and anyone who attempts to find a scientific basis for "race" will soon learn just how arbitrary those groupings are!)

In fact, I will go a step farther: The ultimate purpose of the liberty movement is to free people to think and act as individuals. One of my favorite quotations, from a source I cannot identify, is: "God made us unique, and then we go and spoil it by trying to be normal." Liberty is society's (and our own) permission to be the unique person God made us to me.

Why Americans cannot openly discuss racial issues (and should be able to)

On January 25, American Renaissance, a publication that promotes white culture (which to most Americans is the definition of racist), was informed by the Sheraton Hotel in Charlotte, North Carolina, that its convention contract was canceled by the hotel. The circumstances of this cancellation indicate that the hotel was heavily pressured by Charlotte mayor Patrick Cannon.

The interesting part of this story is how it was covered in Champion of Liberty Elizabeth Wright's Issues and Views. Remember, this is a black writer treating an allegedly racist white organization. She wrote in 2009 (and quotes here):

How is it possible, in these United States, that a group of people, who wish to get together to discuss a historical topic, must relentlessly hide their intention, obfuscate their meeting place, and keep their identities secret, if they don't wish to be hounded like wanted criminals? How is it that citizens who wish to meet peacefully do not have the protection of the law, in order to practice what the law supposedly guarantees, that is, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

How, indeed?  She then makes some particularly enlightening insights into the liberal mentality on race:

In our weirdly racially over-hyped universe, there is no latitude offered to those who would focus their sights on the subject of race and ethnicity in any other manner than that prescribed by the country's race monitors. Any aspect of the subject must be scrutinized only within the limits currently deemed permissible by a "diversity" obsessed society. Scientists and other researchers who have the temerity to explore such subjects as native ability, intelligence and I.Q., or other particular studies about biological differences between groups, are suppressed, and often denied an institutional affiliation. Some have been blackballed and banished.

This unenlightened, unscholarly approach, that leads to ignorance, is encouraged by liberals, who deem themselves the country's "intellectuals." They run most of the country's academic institutions, yet tremble at the prospect of applying their academic wits to subjects they have made taboo. To this mentality, the very act of investigating the taboo is an act of "hate." Yet, how can there be a subject that cannot be explored, researched, discussed and debated? What are these people afraid of discovering?

What these people are afraid of discovering is that people who really are not racist see others as individuals, not as part of groups. Seeing people as individuals frustrates the liberal agenda of leaving all power in the hands of the intellectually arrogant. In other words, it leads to the failure of propaganda.


I encourage you to read the original article. Like most posts in Issues and Views, it has been carefully researched and thoroughly thought out.

I support the First Amendment, in part because it enables us to find truth through reading and the free exchange of views. The problem is, the First Amendment lets people say things other people don't like to hear; or as my Constitutional History professor once put it, "The test of the First Amendment is the ability to allow the expression of opinions that are repugnant."

What is "racism", really?

The following questions appeared in an anonymous comment in Rebellion. The first three questions (about Communism) have answers that will vary with personal opinion; and I, for one, do not wish to get into a shouting match with readers over whether Dr. King was or was not a Communist. He obviously favored governmental solutions to problems, and was therefore "liberal" as we currently understand the term, and he had at least one Communist (Bayard Rustin) on his staff. In the absence of an organizational affiliation, one must judge "Communism" on the basis of a person's commitment to Marxist-Leninist or Maoist ideas. Dr. King clearly espoused communitarianism, which is an integral part of the culture of both Africans and African-Americans, which stresses that the local community should be the engine for solving social problems. In my opinion, it is not valid to extrapolate that communitarianism into support for state capitalism, dictatorship of the proletariat, or any of the other central tenets of Communism.

I should add, before someone else does, that Rebellion, being a secessionist site favoring restoration of the Southern Confederacy, is sharply critical of Dr. King's plagiarism in college and of his personal morality, and is strongly opposed to observance of Martin Luther King's Birthday as a holiday. Christian faithful know that God has used some very imperfect instruments for carrying out his will -- and I suspect that Dr. King was one of those. While this reduces Dr. King's value as a role model, it does not erase the good that  his leadership accomplished while he was among us. Nor do these facts erase the thought-provoking value of the questions that follow:

Who was more Communist, MLK Jr. or Obama?

How Communist does someone have to be before people stop calling you racist for calling the person Communist?

Are there any other Communists that have a national day of recognition/holiday?

Why do those that claim to oppose slavery support modern day slavery by buying slave made products from China etc. ad nauseam?

Why do those that oppose racism here not object to the racism of American jobs going to China which is pretty much a one race society?

Why do Hispanics here and in Mexico etc. not complain about the American jobs that went from here, then to Mexico, that then went to China? Isn't that racist?

Why are white people the only people guilty of racism?

Why have American Indians and the jobs they have lost due to "outsourcing" been left completely out of the equation?

Why can it not be mentioned that illegal aliens pouring into the country displaces/replaces U.S. Hispanics, American Indians, Whites, Blacks, Orientals etc., etc.?

Why won't anyone use the word replacism since that is what's happening?

Speaking of racism...

A wise person once said that when you point a finger at someone, three fingers point back at you. It has been widely remarked in the blogosphere and in some mainstream media how eagerly the liberal paints the libertarian with the brush of racism.

If you really want to know what racism is, read this article by Walter E. Williams (left), one of The Ohio Republic's Champions of Liberty, who writes about how the liberal-controlled public education system has done the African-American community an enormous disservice by making high school easier for them -- setting them up for failure in college.

Prof. Williams notes that, from 1870 to 1955, students of Dunbar High School, predominantly black, in Washington, D.C., regularly outperformed whites in the city's academic testing, and most of their graduates during this period went to college. Studies by Dr. Thomas Sowell (another Champion of Liberty) shows that black children in Harlem regularly equaled or exceeded the performance of white children in New York's Lower East Side in the 1940s and 1950s.

Libertarians support equal educational opportunity for all. With good schools (not state and teachers' union-run) and good role models, any child can succeed in school, in college, and in life.

So why do the liberals insist on doing these "favors" for blacks? Prof. Williams' explanation makes as much sense as any:

Recruiting [a] youngster to be a failure is cruel, psychologically damaging and an embarrassment for his family. But the campus hustlers might come to the aid of the student by convincing him that his academic failure is a result of white racism and Eurocentric values.

Telling the truth about Lincoln

Continuing Glenn Beck week at The Ohio Republic:

Historian and persistent Lincoln critic Thomas DiLorenzo explains (in LewRockwell.com) how Mr. Beck has distorted history in his defense of Abraham Lincoln -- which is, at best, ironic, given the often controversial truth Mr. Beck has expressed on other historical subjects.

Specifically, Prof. DiLorenzo cites these falsehoods:

• Mr. Beck refers to the Confederate Constitution as the "Slaveholders' Constitution." As Mr. DiLorenzo points out, and I can confirm from my own reading, the Confederate Constitution was almost identical to that of the United States, Where it differed, it further limited the powers of the federal government by limiting its President to one six-year term, giving its President a line-item veto (a power that state governors were beginning to receive in state constitutions at the time), outlawing protectionist tariffs and subsidies to corporations, and removing the "General Welfare" clause.
• Mr. Beck echoes the widely-held misconception that the War between the States was about slavery. It was not. It was about states' rights. Granted, the Confederates used states' rights to protect slavery -- but the difference is important, because states' rights covers a whole lot of territory that has nothing to do with slavery -- and as Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the strongest defense of slavery at the time came from Lincoln himself, in support of the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln didn't care about the slaves -- he wanted only to preserve the Union for the benefit of the New York bankers who supported him!
• Mr. Beck has "adminrably" (to Prof. DiLorenzo) attacked the notion of "collective salvation" in every context except Lincoln's. As Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the spirit of the age in the North was of collective salvation -- by purifying the lives of the people as a whole through the temperance movement, abolition of slavery, and the abolition of Roman Catholicism.

Glenn Beck urges his listeners not to take his word for it, but to research the facts for themselves. I agree. Especially when it comes to the facts about the War between the States, which Mr. Beck insists on distorting in the service of neoconservative statism.

Black Republican gives Harry Reid his comeuppance

Here's one African-American who isn't afraid to say what he really thinks. Lt. Col. (Retired) Allen West is seeking the Republican nomination for Congressman in Florida's Tenth District. He sent out a letter castigating Sen. Harry Reid for his remarks about President Obama, as reported by the Washington Independent blog:

Greetings,
The revelation of Senator Harry Reid’s comments referencing “negro talk” is just indicative of the true sentiment elitist liberals, and indeed the Democratic party, have toward black Americans. The history of the Democrat party is one of slavery, secession, segregation, and now socialism. It is this new aged socialism born from the Johnson Great Society programs that have castigated blacks as victims needing government dependency. One need only to look upon the city of Detroit to ascertain what liberal social welfare policies have produced for the inner city… the new plantation for black Americans...

One can only imagine the insanity and media outrage if Reid’s quote had come from a member of the Republican party. I look forward to hearing from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on Reid’s comments… or has liberal hush money paid for the silence of these proprietors of poverty and victimization theory. Actually, if President Obama had any courage he would demand Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader, and discontinue any support for his Senate reelection… notice I said “if”. I am quite sure the Soros money which elevated Obama to the position of President has bought his servitude.

Rev. Jackson has weighed in -- to him, Sen. Reid's remarks were merely "an inartful way of speaking the truth".

Why am I running for US Congress as a Republican? Simple. I would rather stand proudly and be called “an Uncle Tom and a sellout” than lose my self-esteem and be considered an inferior by liberals. I understand the legacy of the GOP and the black community… not the revisionist history espoused by liberal educators. I am not, shall never be, and will not raise my daughters to be a part of the liberal 21st century plantation. I am not just some articulate, clean, well spoken negro. I am an American warrior, Congressional candidate, and shall never submit to the collective progressive ideal of inferiority.

Senator Harry Reid’s comments are disgusting, despicable, and unacceptable. They are representative of how intellectual elite liberals do indeed speak of black Americans in their closed private spaces. Next week I have been invited to NYC to address the Hudson Institute, a conservative organization, conference on “Reclaiming American Liberty”. That invite came to me because I took advantage of the opportunities this great Republic offered. I followed the guidance of my parents and set my standards above all others around me. I speak well and have impeccable communicative skills because my Father and Mother prioritized that quality. I shiver to think what my future could have been if I listened to the insidious rhetoric of charlatans such as Harry Reid, and the ambassadors of affirmative action who reside in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Sure, the “stuck on stupid” blacks are going to address me in derogatory names...

Of course. When liberals can't reason, they result to namecalling. It's how they work.

...but I possess something which they lack; Honor, Integrity, and Character. To them I say, continue to be slaves to the liberals for your vote… and in a year you will be calling me Congressman West.

Steadfast and Loyal,
LTC(R) Allen B West

Next Monday, I shall be honoring four African-Americans who have been outspoken proponents of liberty. Lt. Col. West is not on the list (because I didn't know about him until today) -- but at this rate, he will soon be added to it.

On a related note, here is a column by Michael Barone that shows how the liberal "educated class" likes to put down the tea parties. He concludes:

On these issues [gun control and global warming] the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by substance.

As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party back in 1773.

As the liberals said joyfully in 1968, "the times, they are a'changing," but they're not going to like the changes coming down this year.

Ending racism

One of the most frequent objections that has been raised to the state sovereignty resolutions is that they are somehow racist. I have seen this objection in the media, heard it from Sen. Ray Miller in response to sponsor testimony for SCR 13, and have encountered it among African-American coworkers. For many people, the concept of state sovereignty evokes memories of the States' Rights movements that attempted to preserve racial segregation in the South prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act. I have already alluded to the peculiar and highly emotive meaning of "sovereignty" when associated with Mississippi history.


It is difficult for a white to discuss racial issues openly, because of a widespread assumption among blacks that whites have a genetic predisposition to insensitivity on the issue, something that certain radio talk show commentators seem to display to excess. Which leads to the conclusion that no white could possibly make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Which makes impossible the resolution to the problem.


However, I suggest (with George Bernard Shaw) that all generalizations are untrue, including this one. The root of all racism (black and white) lies in overgeneralization. When Dr. King called on us to "judge others by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin," he was challenging us to overcome some assumptions that are hard-wired into our belief systems.


In May, I challenged Leonard Pitts, Jr., on his views about secession. Now, however, I want to support him in his warning (published in the Columbus Dispatch Aug. 8) that racism is a subject to be dealt with sensitively; not just by whites, but by blacks as well.


Mr. Pitts is rightly critical of those who use race in demagoguery, whether it was Glenn Beck's careless comment about President Obama having a "deep-seated hatred for white people," or the inflammatory statements of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Mr. Pitts asks:

What wound in all American life is more raw than race? What is more likely than race to suddenly flare into conflagration? Our most ruinous war was about race. Our greatest social revolution was about race. We have seen a hundred riots and rebellions fueled by race. Race is a major component of our most vexing issues: health care, education, the environment, crime. It is our most profound and oldest regret, a tender spot on the American psyche.

I agree with him that what really matters are our collective hopes. Mr. Pitts, hopes, as I do,

that we will all someday evolve the courage, the compassion, and the inter-cultural trust to face the hard truths of race head on, and thereby validate that self-evident truth upon which the country was founded.

To get there will require us to get past our overgeneralizations about race. Sometimes this will require courage to go against ingrained stereotypes as Columbus City Council candidate Alicia Healey has by embracing libertarian ideals (third video here).

It will require us, in some instances, to rethink our politics; because these state sovereignty resolutions, and these demands for states' rights have nothing to do with race. They are to protect all of us in our right to do what we feel is best for ourselves, our families, and our communities.

One of the goals of state sovereignty is to begin reducing government to a human scale -- that is, one that is understandable to all of us, and manageable by those we elect. One that promotes equality of opportunity for all; and, at least in my opinion, will bring us closer to the kind of society Dr. King envisioned when he wanted us to be judged by the content of our character, and not the color of our skin.

An African-Vermonter favors secession

Ian Baldwin finds himself swimming upstream in an article for Culture Change. A co-founder of the E. F. Schumacher Society and contributor to Vermont Commons, he understands the significance of President Obama's election, but ...

"I voted for Barack Obama for many reasons, if not out of political conviction. I am entangled. Entangled by history, by family, by friends, by a sense of justice and honor toward those fellow human beings my Euro-American tribe first enslaved and then segregated as non-equals. Human beings who are finally honored and respected without any equivocation. Set free. For them I am moved -- not for the United States.

"For the United States the hour is late, very late.

"Any one of you who have African-American friends knows how deep, how absolute and complete Mr. Obama’s election to the office of the U.S. presidency is for them, in particular. The meaning of this achievement lies unbounded by words, unshakable in the hearts of our African-American brothers and sisters.

"I am a lone secessionist in a large community of family and friends, almost all of whom (not quite all!), starting with my walk-beside, my own wife, do not share this peculiar dream of mine. So, even if the Vermont secessionist movement grows, despite Vermonters’ overwhelming vote for Mr. Obama and his promise of change, what about New Mexico or North Carolina or Massachusetts or anywhere else in the multitude of Empire’s diverse homelands, where secession still sleeps? I have daughters, sons, granddaughters, every imaginable in-law, a mother, brothers, cousins, and friends who live all over America and for that matter, the world. Thus mindful, if I look at, if I sense the man Obama presents in the media, I see a smile that feels true, eyes that betray more than a hint of unmalicious humor, a face that reflects the joy of being connected to others -- in short, a mensch, not a trickster. "

At the very least, this should help discredit Edward Sebesta's assertion that secessionism is inherently racist.

In the remainder of the longish article, Mr. Baldwin describes his intellectual journey toward decentralism and secession. He finds it ironic that President Obama takes office at the very time the United States is starting to founder. He repeats Sebastian Ronin's observations about peak oil and the urgency of building secessionist movements now, or face chaos later.

"In cities, neighborhoods, towns, suburbs, rural villages, bioregions everywhere the forces of liberty and innovation and local self-reliance are going to surge, with or without Empire. We must hold our stand on the land, pull down the flag that signals our forlorn allegiance to Empire, and hoist a new flag, founded on a new allegiance -- to liberty and unity in one small place."

For him, that is the Green Mountain flag of Vermont. For us, it's the Burgee.

Diversity is good - but it's not an end in itself

The motto of my collegiate alma mater, Ohio Northern University is, Ex diversitate vires (strength from diversity). Diversity brings a range of experiences and viewpoints to bear on issues facing an organization or a nation, just as genetic diversity brings health to the species. Conversely, too much uniformity of background or opinion leads to stasis and eventual death, just as its genetic equivalent causes the species to become vulnerable to disease and unwanted mutations.

Ohio has had a long history of being culturally diverse. I believe I reflect the majority opinion in Ohio (white, black, yellow, Asian Indian, and most* Muslims in Columbus) when I assert that a society must agree on at least a few core values, such as the use of the English language in the public square, freedom of expression, and the rule of law. The application of decentralist ideas will contribute to the long-term success of this principle, since it would give us the benefits of diversity, while enabling everyone to live in the neighborhood with which they are the most comfortable.

As I stated earlier, the end goal of decentralism is not just a new political alignment, but the ability to recover our humanity after generations of being treated as homo oeconomicus.

* Some of the first-generation Somalis in Columbus haven't gotten it yet (a few of the young men have disappeared, presumably to join the radicals in Somalia); but the Somalis here are distressed by their disappearance, which suggests that the community as a whole is beginning to understand our common values as Ohioans.

President-elect Barack Obama

For many Americans, the election of a President is a deeply emotional experience. This is understandable. For those who are candidates and political activists, a campaign consumes everything: physically, mentally, and emotionally -- perhaps more than any other human activity, except combat.

For African-Americans, Sen. Obama's victory was a sign that racism in America, while not quite dead, is no longer a threat to their legitimate opportunities and aspirations. Yes, a person of color can be elected President. Those of us who have not had the experience of being black cannot appreciate its meaning. One black friend said that the pillows that night were wet with his and his wife's tears of joy.

For many Republicans, the election was a sobering reminder that "success is never final." Some, finding their work now in vain, need to remember the other half of that quotation from Winston Churchill: "Failure is never fatal". Neoconservatism is dead, and rightly so. The Republican Party will have to go back to the drawing board, and determine what conservatism means today. It would do well to consider its paleoconservative roots in limited government, balanced budget, strong national defense (and no more), states' rights (relative to the Federal Government), and freedom both economic and social.

Many observers have become overwrought. Liberal euphoria has made the image of Sen. Obama as a "messiah" stick in the minds of many. Conservative despair looks to the onset of socialism, if not Communism in the United States of America.

Let the truth bring assurance to both camps. Barack Obama is human, like the rest of us. Being human, he is subject to the temptations of great power. The test of his Presidency will lie in his ability to harness the power he has toward ends that will make America a better nation; and in his ability to prevent himself and others from abusing that power. For every President, except the current one, the Presidency has changed the man. The candidate filled with ideals is sobered by the realities and responsibilities of actually holding the office. I have no reason to believe that President Obama will be any different.*

I do not expect the messianic age to come, nor do I expect the spectre of Stalinism to rise over the United States -- at least not right away. Once the honeymoon is over -- and it ends sooner or later for all Presidents -- I anticipate that there will be very little real change. We will still be moving toward consolidation of the Empire, as we have at least since 1913, the rights and liberties of the people will still remain in danger while the President and the Congress (especially with both Houses controlled by the same party) remain in session.

History may well recall that, from a policy standpoint, the significance of an Obama Presidency may prove to be nothing more than that of replacing red covers with blue ones on the deck chairs of the Titanic. If the ship does sink, keep in mind that those of us who preach secession will be there with the lifeboats.

In the meantime, pray for the best.

* The reason President Bush is the exception lay in a combination of his lack of intellect and his unwillingness to entertain difference of opinion.

"A More Perfect Union"

Sen. Barack Obama (left) certainly did distance himself from Rev. Wright's rhetoric, in one of the most beautiful and potentially powerful speeches I have read in some time. I encourage you to view it on his site, or to read it (this link is to the Drudge Report Flash site).

Clearly, this speech came from the heart, and is not the work of some spin doctor. It was an extremely courageous speech in a nation that has been gripped in fear of even discussing openly our racial issues. However, the test of a President's leadership is the ability to translate fine words into effective action; and his ability in this regard remains to be determined.

I do not want to be cynical. We need new hope for all our people. At the same time, the entrenched corporate kleptocracy will be difficult to dislodge. While I stand by my assertion that the United States is too large and complex to support a free government, I am willing to be proven wrong.

I shall wait and see what comes of it ...

Knowing Wright and wrong

The Presidential candidate whom one of my fellow Ohio bloggers is fond of calling “BOOHOO” * has for a pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (right), who according to Thomas Sowell and ABC News, reportedly invoked Divine damnation upon the United States of America †

Such a statement, especially coming from a minister of a Christian denomination, is blasphemous and obscene. Blasphemous, because he is assuming that he knows better than God what God should do; obscene, because he is assuming that America is inherently evil. Those who express the contrary sentiment in the song “God Bless America” usually do so as a prayer that America would be worthy of God’s blessing, rather than taking for granted that the nation is worthy of it.

I expect that, if Sen. Obama attends a service where such a sentiment is expressed, he will walk out and publicly distance himself from such remarks. (He didn't walk out, but he certainly did distance himself. See update)

There is no inconsistency between this stand and my advocacy of Ohio independence. I am not angry with America, but am saddened by how it has changed. America was founded on an idea that remains as great today as it was two centuries ago. In the last forty years, we have allowed that idea to wither in our pursuit of imperial dreams and wanton materialism. However, I do not believe that our founders’ vision can be restored in a nation as vast and diverse as the United States is today. My vision for the Ohio Republic is a restoration of the original concept of free government, one that prizes liberty above security, and which welcomes the input of every Ohioan into the life of their community and nation.


* With a separate link for each letter: see Bizzyblog
† I am avoiding the exact phrase to prevent search engines from locating The Ohio Republic on it.

Our "allies"

I am at the library today catching up on my Internet activities. I posted a comment to the end of the discussion "League of the South: Learn to Use P.R.!" that summarizes my take [which remains favorable] on their organization eloquently. I won't be interested in receiving mail from them... but I may still purchase a Confederate Silver Dollar with my tax return! «laugh»
I am more intrigued with the issue of sovereignty as it applies to the indigenous peoples. I frequently infuriate both the "white supremacists" and the "black supremacists" with my views that if anyone ought to get "reparations" for the actions of our ancestors, it should be the Native Americans! Like so many young white people educated in public schools, I find that I don't really know anything about the indigenous tribes. But perhaps I need to begin educating myself quickly, because it may be well for us to make an effort to reach out to tribes native (or formerly native) to Ohio and make a space for them. (A real space, not a crappy rez on land nobody else wants.)

Race and secessionism

This discussion opened a can (no, make that a barrel) of worms. My purpose in bringing it up was to see for myself just how racist the Confederates were. I will not issue a summary judgment here, but invite you to judge for yourself in the comments to my posts on Martin Luther King Day and the preceding Friday; and on the Martin Luther King Day thread in the League of the South's Rebellion.

Ohio needs to secede, because independence will result in a more efficient, more accountable government. With some decentralization, it will also greatly enhance the personal freedom and quality of life for all of our people.

Martin Luther King, Jr., shared his dream. It is up to all of us to make it reality.

Ending racism in America

“I Have a Dream” August 28, 1963

Today is Martin Luther King Day. Like many other whites, I was skeptical when this day was first declared to be a holiday, but now I am absolutely convinced that we need it. Some holidays are for fun and celebration, like Independence Day and Labor Day; but others, like Memorial Day and this one, are better suited to reflection.Forty-five years have passed since Dr. King shared his dream with the American people. The next year, the Civil Rights Act ended segregation; and in the following year, the Voting Rights Act enabled minorities to enjoy the full rights of citizenship. I was 14 years old when the Civil Rights Act was passed, and I recall thinking even then, that it would take 50 years for the African-American to fully achieve that dream. Looking back, I think that prediction will prove to be about right, but we still have a few problems to work out.

The institutional racism exemplified by the old Southern segregation is long gone, but subtle forms remain. Remnants of white supremacy movements remain. Our schools are resegregated, in part because housing discrimination, while illegal, continues to be subtly practiced. Blacks still have problems obtaining conventional credit, and frequently need knowledge of the banking system that most whites take for granted. In many industries, glass ceilings hold down Blacks from top management positions.

But white racism is not limited to the “Fergit, Hell!!!” crowd. White liberal Democrats are facing an exquisite crisis with Barack Obama’s candidacy for President. Their choice is this: They can reject their own rhetoric about racial equality by not supporting Sen. Obama; or they can nominate him for President, and prove that minorities no longer need protection from the Democratic Party.Then there is the “politically correct” guilt trip that some white liberal extremists try to force on the rest of the race, evidenced by the diversity program that was attempted last fall at the University of Delaware (and fortunately, scrapped).

Whites are not the only racists. Black racism occurs when people presume that all white males are privileged, and therefore deserve to be discriminated against. A particularly egregious example lies in the insistence that today’s whites apologize for slavery prior to 1865. I’m sorry, I see no reason to do this. No one who owned slaves is still living. It’s not my fault that it happened, and no one living who was American-born was ever a slave! Some proponents of this idea cite the apology made to the Nisei (Japanese-Americans) who were interned during World War II, or that proposed for the Native American. Those situations are different. The Nisei apology was made to people who experienced that injustice, and the horrible conditions on the reservations continue for the Native Americans (hence the Lakota declaration of independence).I suspect that one of the drivers of Black racism is the continuing existence of a civil rights movement that appears to have lost sight of Dr. King’s vision. The original civil rights movement unintentionally followed a model use by successful businesses, where the principals are referred to as Mr. Inside (the plant manager or bookkeeper) and Mr. Outside (the salesman). Both have the same goal, but work with different people. The civil rights movement’s Mr. Outside was Dr. King, who worked with white opinion leaders to secure the legislation needed to end segregation. Mr. Inside was Malcolm X, who stressed the need for Blacks to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and set up their own institutions, not depending on assistance from whites. They shared the same end and both were successful, even though (as far as I know) they never coordinated with each other.

Another example of Black racism is a belief that affirmative action should go on forever. I understand that it has been necessary to help level the playing field for equal opportunity in education and in the workplace, and that it may need to continue for several years to come. But its continuation forever will only serve to institutionalize discrimination against white males. It will lead to the kind of grievances that never end, like the Sunni vs. the Shiite, and the Albanian vs. the Serb. We need to come together to find the answer to a question similar to the one about troop withdrawal from Iraq: Not when, but under what conditions, can we say that enough equality has been achieved that students be admitted or people hired solely on personal merit. After all, that was Dr. King’s dream, that his grandchildren would be judged by the quality of their character, not the color of their skin.We also need to work together to find real solutions for the unconscionably high incarceration rate for Black males, and to ensure genuinely equal educational opportunity for inner-city (mostly Black) children. Educational opportunity for all children is the key to ending racism.

As an Ohio secessionist, I would be deeply honored to have a Black sharing its leadership, especially if that person could see that independence will give us a fresh start -- a nation in which all of us, having been created equal, and being accepted as equal from the beginning of the Republic, can use that knowledge to empower ourselves and our communities to realize the dream that Dr. King shared with us so long ago.