Posted by ConservativeSouthern on 03/23/09

       Congress is very close to closing a deal that would give Washington D.C. a vote in the House. This measure must be stoped for several reasons (to be discussed later in the post), but first lets look at the arguments for giving D.C a vote:

      Residents of Washington D.C. want a vote in the House of Reps. They believe that they are also Americans and deserve to be represented as well as every other American. They claim they are being taxed without representation same as the original American colonists. They have ideas and greivences too and want those ideas to be heared and those greivences to be addressed on Capitol Hill. While most of these arguments are true, they all have one problem: Choice! While the American colonists were taxed without representation, it wasn't that way when they moved to the colonies and they couldn't easily move back. They had no choice in the matter. Washington D.C. has gone without representation in congress since it became the United States Capital in the 18th century! Any and all people who moved to D.C. since then knew that they would not have representation. In short it was their own choice. If they don't like it, again unlike the original colonists, they are able to easily move out of the city to an area that has a representative through whom they can voice their ideas. It isn't that D.C doesn't have a representative but that the people of D.C. are unwilling to accept the Constitution that is the problem.

    In Article I section II of the United States Constitution it says "No person shall be a representative who shal not ...when elcted be an inhabitant of that STATE in which he shall be chosen." Later in the same article and section it goes on to list the amount of representatives each state is to recieve at the time, but mentions nothing about giving the Capital city a representative! This obviously means that only States are currently permitted to have a representative and that it would take a Constitutional Amendment, approved by two thirds of the states, to give D.C. their desired representative.

Posted by ConservativeSouthern on 03/16/09
Last updated 03/17/09

     Philadelphia, 1789, the Constitutiton os the United States is ratified and goes into effect. The Confederated Republic has taken up the task of leading the free world; the first Republic to do so since Ancient Greece. The foundation is set, the States will govern the people, the Federal government will deal with foreign nations, and the Constitution--"the Supreme Law of the Land"--will govern over the entire system, keeping the Federal government within its bounds by a series of ckecks and ballances. The Founding Fathers can rest now; a Free country has been created for all ages to come.

     Washington D.C. 2009, the newly elected President of the United States has just signed a so called stimulus bill, which is meant to re-enliven the economy. The government has become powerful; our military is misused, but still the best in the world; the States are all but powerless; the dollar is collapsing; the president commands the armie's every move; the congress seeks to rule the people; the Supreme Court refuses to challenge the Federal government; and Thomas Jefferson's restless spirit has one question: What happened here?

    The answer is simple, but hard for "Americans" to accept. In order to understand we go back. Back over time one and half centuries to 1859.

     The United States is thriving. Since George Washington first took the oath of the President, the United States has repelled a second English invasion, become the economic power of the West, annexed the Republic of Texas from the hands of Mexico, built a beutiful new capitol, and relieved tensions between it and their most powerful adversary, Great Britain. However, not all is perfect. Despit the fact that America's one weakness is greatly ignored, differences between North and South can not be denied. The South is a land of gallant cavaliers, and ladies fair. It a place where both great estates and small farms thrive. The open country dominates; one could walk hundreds of miles and never reach a town. It is the slow but beatiful side of America. It is the womb from which American leaders are born.

    The North, on the other hand, is a place of bustling cities filled with factories. A place where productivity and buissness is king; the economic engine of America. No city ever seen could have challenged New York City's swift expansion. Slaves are brought in to be sold in the South and West. England, France, and all Europe send ships of trade to New England's ports. Armories, factories, mills, quarries, and other signs of flourishing buissnes are everywhere. Farmers have moved South. This region of the Confederation, intent on making America the King of the world's economy for centuries to come, is in stark contrast to the backwater, calm but yet productive South.

     At this time in history, 150 years ago, not only are the cultural differences between North and South great, but the political differences were stunning! For a country that had come into being due to a common political cause, the United States is suprisingly divided politically. In the South, strict adherence to the Constitution is being demanded by politicians of all offices. Governors threatening to secede if the Federal government doesn't remain in its Constitutional bounds, congressmen and senators giving masterful speeches on the supremecy of the Constitution, and a Southern president who balked at the idea of empowering the Federal government beyong the scope envisioned by the Founders. Also, in the South the economy runs on exportation to foreign countries and trade between the states.

  The North, however, is using certain clauses in the Constitution--particularly the "Necessary and Proper clause--to expand federal power. The hope is that the Federal government will use its newly found power to pay for internal imrovements allowing the industrial revolution to spread, and the cities to grow. Congressmen, governors, and Judges use every means at their disposal to empower Washington D.C. However, there is one problem: the Southern States, particularly Virginia, are politicaly too influential for Northern plans to succeede, until; two Southern men run for president in 1860, spliting the vote and allowing a Northerner to take office for the first time in many years.  

    Washington D.C., the Whitehouse 1860. Pres. Abraham Lincoln has just signed an executive order. An order which authorizes an armed fleet to sail from New York harbor to South Carolina and re-supply Fort Sumter, which is in Confederate territory. Lincoln has also commanded that a message be sent to Richmond to inform Pres. Jefferson Davis that the North IS re-supplying the fort with or without permission from the South. Although the South had seceded, which is their Constitutional right, and formed a new Republic, Lincoln cared nothing for their independence. He was the commander in Chief of the United States army, why should he fear the Confederacy?

    Richmond V.A., the Whitehouse, 1860. Pres. Jefferson Davis is suprised to find that Liuncoln has even contacted him. Just weeks before Davis' ambassadors to Washington had been rudly thrown out of Lincoln's office without seeing the President. What is the message? It tells him that the North is sending a fleet to Fort Sumter. Days later, a messanger arrives in Davis' office telling him that an armed fleet has just been seen sailing South! Invasion! Reacting quickly, Davis orders the immediate destruction of Fort Sumter. His plan is to leave the armed fleet without any safe harbore at which to land. Thus begins the War for Southern Independence.

     From here on it known what happened. The Northern armies were defeated many times. Gen Robert E. Lee and stonewall Jackson had Lincoln prepared to flee Washington because he thought the North would fail. Then, Jackson died; Lee was defeated at Gettysburg; Sheridan burned the Shenandoah valley; and Sherman burned Georgia and the Carolina's. But what else happened? How did this war affect the legitimacy of the United States?

    When the Southern states seceded in 1860-1861, they had every right to do so. However, Lincoln refused to accept this! He used force to hold Maryland, a pro-South state, in the Union. He shut down Newspapers that supported Secession. He invaded the fledgling Confederacy in a desperate attempt to destroy his political enemies, and ensure that the States are subject to the Federal Government. He trampled the Constitution underfoot as no other president had ever done before. Why? The reason is in the definition of the united States: A CONFEDERATED Republic. Confederated, meaninig that the Republic was governed by two major branches: the Federal government and the States, which were in confederation or loosly bound to each other. Lincoln destroyed this Confederation. He ended part of the American governing system without consent of the people! States Rights is guranteed by the Tenth amendment of the United States Constitution. But, if the States are subject to the Federal government and cannot exercise their rights, then the Constitution is no longer effective! But the United States continues to claim that it is the same country founded in 1789 by the Founding Fathers! The question is: how can it be if it doesn't operate as the American government, as established by the Constitution, does?

    The answer is that the "United States" government has not operated as the United States since 1860 and therefore no longer exists. Or, at best exists under occupation by a foreign government. Now, people say that the years of the american people accepting the U.S. government as it is makes the united States legitimate. However, perhaps the American people do not accept the U.S. government as it is but do not cry out for its abolishment from fear. Look at what happened to the poor Confederacy when they cried out!

   Well, if the U.S. is not our legitimate government, what is? Well, for those in the Southern states the truth is that the Confederate States government is our true government! The truth is that the Confederacy had to sign a treaty to dissolve their government. No such treaty exists. In fact, the Confederate Vice Pres. fled to Englan after the war and continued to operate from there until it was safe to return. That government is still in operation today. In the North, your true government is the Confederated Republic of the United States. It exists only in your hearts, minds, and the memory of the Founding fathers. But current "U.S." government is false, and we owe only that loyalty to it that comes from occupation.

Posted by ConservativeSouthern on 02/12/09
Last updated 02/13/09

The world was stunned! the greatest military power known to man had been defied! England had lost its own colonies and seemed unable hold them even with all the Kings Military might! How had this happened? The answer is simple. Virginia had taken a couragous stand and past a resolution, authored by Virginian "Light Horse" Harry Lee, declaring independence from England. This move by the largest and oldest of the colonies would act as a rallying cry for the continental congress, which soon past a similar declaration authored by virginian Thomas Jefferson. So began Virginia's Legacy. From that time on it was Virginian Edmund Randolf who drew up the three branch form of government we now have; it was the Virginian George Washington who bacame our first president and oversaw the formation of the Union; it the Virginian Thomas Jefferson who would fight our first foreign war (the war of the barbary Pirates) and nearly double the country in size; it was the Virginian James Madison who would lead the country during the terrible years of 1812-1817. During which time Washington D.C would be burned, the country overrun until only one army and the pirate Jean-Laffite stood in the way of the British and victory; and it was Virginia that first stood her ground, by the Virginia Resolution of 1798, when the government attempted to overstep its Constitutional bounds. Then in her final days of glory it was Virginian's Thomas Jackson, and Robert E. Lee who took Virginia to her highest height, and stood true to her in her fall allowing that state to end (in a manner of speaking) honorably.

    What has happened? Where are Virginia's men of leadership and political and physicall courage? To tell the truth, they have fallen into memmory and books. However, if the signs Virginia is showing are correct, then the race of Virginia's leaders of freedom are ready be re-born! Allow me to explain: 

   1) Ever since the War for Southern Independence, Virginia has never taken a major step toward regaining its leadership position in the fight for freedom. However, Virginia also never (or else only on extreme occasions) voted for a person who sttod against liberty. That is until last November. Because of Virginia's failure to remain true to the core values that have dominated Virginian politics for over 200 years, traditionalist Virginians are preparing for a major counter-campaign to re-take Virginia from the foreigners who have been invading our state. This counter-attack will include forcing Richmond to bend to traditional Virginia values (We have already seen the begining of our success when our state legislature passed the anti-Real I.D. bill), re-taking our Senate, and Governor's office from the un-traditionalists while retaining our majority in the House, and finally--and most signifigantly--we are prepared to put forward our strongest and proven conservative  leaders to be elected to all offices, State and Federal.

  2) In recent years most of our men and women who believe in strong Virginia values were not running for political office! Now, due to our losses in November, a majority of all people running for office are strongly entrenched in Virginia traditionalism.

 30 Lastly, for the past several years most of the opposition to traditionals Virginians has come from Northern Virginia. because of the economic crash, Northern Virginia is slowly shrinking. Many people are leaving the area because they are unable to afford living in the washington suburbs. With the opposition in decline, the traditionalists are in position to, not only reclaim virginia for ourselvs, but carry our campaign into the Federal scene and re-claim the United States.

Posted 03/24/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

I have a particular interest in this piece Nicholas as I'm British born and bred. England was an awful place and nation during these times, but the hierarchy that ruled were not really English at all; they were a breed of conquerors that took over Europe then began persecuting the people in the name of everything from religion to clothing colour. The only real time the English ruled England was during the dark ages and in my eyes the only true king we ever had was Alfred the Great (back then there was no such thing as bloodlines; if you didn't rule well enough, you and your kin were booted out, just as it should be now!). The rest of his family were fine, but they were too busy fighting the Danes to rule with patience peaceful intent. The history we are taught in schools portrays these conquering kings as heroic individuals who fought for the greater good of the country, but when you grow up and bother to look closer, you find the truth behind all of it hidden in the history from other nations. A perfect example is Coeur-de-lion or Richard the Lionheart. Judging by your excellent written English, you may already know this, but this man was blown up as a great warrior king of England, fighting the crusades for the greater good of christianity! This is in fact, laughable before it even starts; Richard I was actually French and visited England for six months in his entire life! Why did he make claim to the British throne? Because the British people were well organised into a strong military force even in the times of Harold II so his riches were better protected! We then come to the brave warrior part of his name. In a place called Acre, Israel, Richard I found his troops bottled up in this small town in the Middle East. As a way of escaping, he took 2,700 people, including women and children, then demanded that Saladin surrender the land around Acre so his forces could escape. Saladin, being a far more honourable man, did this immediately, without hesitation, as did all his own fores. However, Good King Richard decided that the caravan would be slowed too much if he took the hostages along so he butchered them anyway! This is the history of England, but not the English. I do not believe in invading lizards or many of the other stories you'll hear, but for a certain clan, loaded with wealth, to place themselves high in positions that gave them rule over the world is not only feasible with money, there is coincidentally an organisation sitting in that position right now. We can never underestimate ourselves in either direction in life, but the greatest rules must always be kept - the allowance to decide for yourself (and don't forget the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Good blog; keep going!

Posted 03/24/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Just to let you know the "bother to look closer" is for me, not for you.

Posted 03/29/09 newindependent Jeddah , Saudi Arabia

Greetings. I have read with interest your blog titled, "Virginia Rising." I am a Virginian by birth, and grew up in Richmond. My father's family are also Virginians from Goochland County. I have many fond memories of the hills and history of Richmond, the rolling hills of Goochland County and many other locations in Virginia. I am not quite sure I understand the intent of the term, "traditionalist," or whether I would fit in that category. While I remember the rich history and life of Virginia, especially Richmond, I also remember the bitter struggle with race relations. I remember the signs of Jim Crow and segregation as well. I also remember the passive resistance of the entire school system of Prince Edward county in opposition to U.S. government ordered school desegregation. So, I ask, what exactly is Virginia "traditionalism?" Is it a return to the days of slavery and segregation. Where separate was not equal and anti-miscegenation laws were on the books? Or is it a return to values of faith, traditional family and mutual respect for self, neighbor and fellow citizen without regard to race, color or belief. If it is the former, then there is a common thread among many. However, the latter will only seek to continue the long history of bitter division that has plagued the American society on all sides of the racial divide. In closing, my final question is what, if any thing does this "traditionalism" have to do with the campaign for liberty. Are you suggesting that America return to a white-ruled society where states rights can be used as a rationale to deny human right to American citizens because of their physical characteristics? I pray for our collective success in all that is good.

Posted 03/29/09 newindependent Jeddah , Saudi Arabia

A correction to my previous post . . . My reference to the "traditionalism" of Virginia . . . I support the Virginia traditions of faith, family and mutual respect, NOT the traditions of racism, segregation and bigotry.

Posted 05/07/09 ConservativeSouthern Nokesville, VA

Newindependent, During Virginia's Golden age, racism did not exist! Although slavery existed, virginia was the only state that tried to pass bills giving the means for slow emancipation! Being a virginian yourself, you will probably agree with me that slow emancipation was necessary for if all the slaves were freed in a day Virginia's economy would cease to exist. No sir. Virginia's--indeed most of the south's--slave owning population were kind, loving, and even at times almost parental toward their slaves. This is not to say the slaves enjoyed their state in life, but most of them did love their masters. In fact there are many records of slaves who, during the war, freely gave their lives to save their masters on the battlfield, and the Southern women at home. No greater sign of love could possibly be given. AS for the racism in Virgiia during the late 19th and early 20th century, that can be traced to the yankee occupation during the 1870's. At that time all newly freed slaves were out of work, their masters were to poor to hire them, and they were unschooled. The yankees promised all slaves forty acres and a mule if they 1) voted like the northerners and 2) helped the yankees "rebuild" the south. Well, the Yankee plan to "rebuild" the South was to remove all Southerners from their plantations and farms through high taxes, and turn them into a typ of second class. The former slaves began helping the yankees do this by establishing carpetbagger governments which were given authority by the federal government to literally destroy the South. Southern wites (and some still faithfull blacks) did the only thing they could: resist. Unfortunately, the yankees sat back and allowed the blacks to do as they would causing violence between the two groups and so rcism began. As you can see, racism was something created by the yankees in an attempt to destroy what little srength remained in the southern people. They failed. Today, Virginia's and all the south's legacy leaves a record of overcomming the racim the Northerners caused. Racism is not Virginia's legacy sir, it is the legacy of the North. Overcoming it is our legacy and part of our tradition.

Posted by ConservativeSouthern on 02/12/09

It is and outrage and a direct assault on the will of the people when an already un-constitutional bill is "agreed" upon to be made even more destructive, and sent to the congress for a vote when the dissenters to the bill are excluded from negotiations over it. On Wednesday, behind locked doors, the Democrat leaders in congress met to reach a "deal" on the so called stimulus package without (as far as can be ascertained) any Republican representation. This means that Democrats are attempting to send a bill to be voted upon by the congress without its first having been considered by Republicans in any way. So far it seems that the Democrats have added several new provisions to the bill which will cost the taxpayers billions. On top of all this, the Democrats want a fast vote so the Republicans won't even have time to read the document. This must and will be made known.

Democrats want us to think that the house and senate have reached a deal on the "Stimulus" bill, but in reality all that has been done is for the Democrats to further their liberal agenda.

Posted by ConservativeSouthern on 02/11/09

Despite almost desperate attempts by Pres. Obama and Sen. Reidto bring republicans over party lines in order to vote for the stimulus bill only three did out of forty did so! because of this three questions now remain: 1) Did the Republican party as a whole show strength or weakness during the voting process, 2) What will be the effect on the republican party in upcoming elections from the votes cast on the stimulus bill, and 3) will Senate/House negotiations prove helpful or harmful now that a stimulus of some sort is sure to be declared law?  

   The first of the three questions poses a major problem! Although Republicans--thankfully--re--discovered their more fundamentally Conservative principles for the first time in many years, they were also unable to keep three of their own, who's votes, mind you, were neccessay for keeping the "stimulus' bill from passing, from betraying the American people! This fact proves a weakness in the Republican party that few could have forseen. If the loss of almost all major elections, two branches of the government, the loss of the trust of the American people, and pressure from all Conservatives was not adequate to force all Republican senators to vote according to our principles, then much work has yet to be done.

   On the other hand, the fact that a vast majority of republicans did remain true to our American principles--even if for mere political reasons--proves that republicans may be discovering that without the support of conservatives they will fail to regain power. This is good news for the upcoming elections. In past years we have been given moderate at best and liberal Republicans at worst. Also the Republicans debating the bill in the way they did and voting (for the most part) the way  they did will encourage all Republicans to keep fighting now that they know they have advocates in the government. Despite the three traitors to our principles, who will probably be removed from office in upcoming elections, the Republicans  in congress have generated new enthuasim in their conservative base, and opened a road to majore principle-based changes in the near future.

 The second of the two questions was mostly answered with the last question. What will be the effect on the republican party by the passing of the stimulus bill? Well, from the elections  Republicans have discoverd that without their conservative base they cannot win. Now, they have discovered that by staying true to the principles at the core of the republican party they will keep the Conservative support and without remaining true they will lose it. Subsequently, in the next few years we will see an influx of true Conservative, principled candidates in the republican party. Also, over the next few years, republicans will come to fear betraying the conservative principles or they know they will comt under the same heat that the three traitor Senators have. This is what we will most likely see.

  Finally, will Senate/House negotiatioons prove helpful or harmful? This nobody knows for sure. It all depends on whether or not the negotiations will be dominated by the Senate, where Republicans have more political streangth, or by the House, where Democrats control everything. Overall, however the stimulus should be striped of several spending options, and reduced in overall size. But this will not destroy it which is why You and I must not stop fighting.