See other National News Articles
Title: FREE SPEECH HATERS PISSING THEIR PANTS - FLORIDA - Thousands ride in support of Confederate flag at Marion County complex
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.ocala.com/article/20150712/ARTICLES/150719928?tc=cr
Published: Jul 12, 2015
Author: By Kristine Crane
Post Date: 2015-07-12 23:36:41 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: CONFEDERATE, CONFEDERATE FLAG, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH
Views: 1847
Comments: 102
An estimated 2,000 vehicles, mostly motorcycles and trucks adorned with Rebel flags, took part in a rally and ride Sunday afternoon in support of keeping a Confederate flag flying in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex in Ocala. The event was organized by David Stone, of Ocala, and was called the Florida Southern Pride Ride. Police officials estimated participation at a couple thousand vehicles. The ride started about 1 p.m., and by 1:30 p.m. could be seen winding its way through Ocala. Participants were wearing shirts that said “heritage not hate” and talked of defending a way of life rooted in Southern traditions. Danny Hart, of Dunnellon, had two Confederate flags and the American flag in the back of his truck. He pointed out that the U.S. flag was flying higher and said that he had come to participate in the ride to “defend freedom.” Another ride participant, Rick Hart, said, “It's a history thing. The flag is also a military flag. It's not a race symbol.” Phil Walters, a member of the Confederate Sons of America, felt compelled to attend to defend history against what he calls “intellectual dishonesty.” Walters said the NAACP's 1991 resolution “abhorring the Confederate Battle Flag” has set the tone for conflict and hatred. “According to the U.S. Congress, Confederate veterans are war veterans,” said Walters, whose branch of the Sons is named for Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish secretary of state under Confederate President Jefferson Davis. “The South was fighting for states' rights, and the Northern slaves were freed after Southern slaves. Slavery is a guilt across the human race.” A replica of the General Lee from the 1979-85 “The Dukes of Hazard” TV show led the way during the ride, followed by motorcycles and then pickup trucks. The ride was expected to be 17 miles total and loop back to parking lots north of the city on North U.S. 441. Ocala Police Department Sgt. Erica Hay said the ride was rerouted away from the Northwoods neighborhood after some residents threatened to shoot into the procession. The ride was organized to support the Marion County Commission's decision Tuesday to return the Confederate flag to a historical display in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The flag had been removed after a massacre at an African-American church in Charleston. The suspected shooter is a white supremacist who was photographed with Confederate flags. Two small protests were held last week at the county complex in opposition to the Confederate flag — which many see as a symbol of racial hatred. On Sunday, a few black people participated in the ride. One of them, Renee Gore, 34, of Dunnellon, said that to her the flag means “heritage, love and family.” Another black person, Dwayne Webb, 23, of Ocala, said he came specifically “to show people (the flag) is not about prejudice and hate.” For Webb, the flag represents “good living, respect, and honesty,” things that he associates with the South. Webb participated in the ride with his friends, also in their twenties. “I got goose-bumps (during the ride),” said Mike Ponticelli, 29, also of Ocala. They were hanging out in a parking lot with several of the other participants after the ride's conclusion. “We were standing up for what we believe in: manners and common courtesy towards all people, no matter who you are,” Ponticelli said. “It's a positive movement,” Webb added. A handful of people who view the flag as a sign of disrespect also showed up at the ride, holding signs that explained why they are against the flag flying in front of a governmental building. Laila Abdelaziz, 23, who came to the rally from Tampa, held a sign with a quote from one of the flag's defenders in the 1860s, whose defense of the symbol was rooted in white supremacy. “What if your heritage is rooted in hate?” Abdelaziz said. “You have to confront that.” Abdelaziz, who was born in Palestine and came to the U.S. with her parents as a child, said she is very familiar with dynamics of hatred. “I know what hatred does to people,” she said. “America has to confront the fact that someone younger than me killed people out of hatred.” Abdelaziz said she also came to protest the ride to speak for another part of Ocala, where her parents live and she also lived for some time. “This (ride) does not represent all of Ocala,” Abdelaziz said. In the aftermath of the Charleston killings, too much emphasis has been placed on the flag, she added. “Dylann Roof held the flag in one hand, and a gun in the other. We've heard more about the flag than the gun control problem in America.” On Sunday evening, Awake Marion, in conjunction with the NAACP, held a meeting at the Second Bethlehem Baptist Theological Seminary in Ocala. About 75 people attended the meeting, where they discussed how to express their disagreement with the County Commission's decision to raise the Confederate flag. Draft copies of a letter to the Board of County Commissioners were handed out. The organizers also announced that a peaceful sit-in to protest the flag will take place Wednesday at 9 a.m. at the south end of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The sit-in is being sponsored by Brown Memorial Funeral Home. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Where can I buy a CONFEDERATE FLAG?
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Looking good! I'm glad to see folks standing up to the cultural cleansing started by the communists.
#2. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
(Edited)
-Alex Kurtagic
#3. To: X-15, lod, jethro tull, neoconsnailed, christine, greylmist, dakmar, darkwing, (#2)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#4. To: X-15, neoconsnailed (#2)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#5. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#3)
Lovely news -- 2,000 rallied??? Very high number, great. Normally when they don't ay who's accused of some mayhem likes this, it's because it's embarrassing to liberalism. If the thug in the truck had been fired on you can bet your booties they'd be saying so. Connect the dots..... I said in my new editorial people are now going to be shot at and have rocks thrown through their windows for celebrating their Southern heritage.
#6. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
================================================================= 2 words: Jade Helm I said in my new editorial people are now going to be shot at and have rocks thrown through their windows for celebrating their Southern heritage.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#7. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#1)
Wonderful news! I can get you a 3x5 flag if you're stuck. I also have some very cool pocket knives with the stars & bars on them.
#8. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, X-15, Rebels, 4 (#0) (Edited)
Flying the BattleFlag no more makes you a racist, than flying the Jolly Roger makes you a pirate. Great job! MS.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#9. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
“Distrust all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.” -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
#10. To: jwpegler (#9)
There was no confederacy...there was mass treason that was quelled.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#11. To: Lod, HAPPY2BME-4UM, X-15, Rebels, 4 (#8)
#12. To: Jethro Tull, 4 (#11)
memphis council votes to exhume forrest -
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#13. To: war, jwpegler, jethro tull, lod, neoconsnailed, x-15 (#10)
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958... ========================================================== war, are you aware that Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)? He was unsuccessful. Pound sand. There was no confederacy...there was mass treason that was quelled.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#14. To: war, jwpegler, jethro tull, lod, neoconsnailed, x-15, CHRISTINE (#13)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#15. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#14)
^^that^^ dead on
#16. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
#17. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#14)
Prior to the war, Lincoln was a supporter of the Corwin amendment as it was consistent with his belief that slave states should maintain self- determination. Lincoln was wholly opposed to the expansion of slavery in to new territories. This was rendered moot when the South committed treason. war, are you aware that Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#18. To: war (#17)
Is the Union perpetual through the rest of time regardless of what percentage of the people still want it?
#19. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#13)
Your characterization is a bit off. The Corwin amendment did nothing more than bar amending the USCON to end slavery where it was in existence. Lincoln was a supporter of that *idea* prior to secession. It was passed a few days prior to his inauguration and once he assumed office, he never aggressively pursued its ratification. Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#20. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
The Union has a mechanism for dissolution...the constitutional amendment... Is the Union perpetual through the rest of time regardless of what percentage of the people still want it?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#21. To: war (#20)
I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
#22. To: NeoconsNailed (#21) (Edited)
A proposed amendment, once having been passed by the Congress, goes directly to the State legislatures (unless the Congress decides that the amendment should be decided by state conventions)...it is impervious to Executive action...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#23. To: war, katniss, lod, jethro tull, neoconsnailed, greylmist, darkwing, christine, x-15 (#19)
Your characterization is a bit off. The Corwin amendment did nothing more than bar amending the USCON to end slavery where it was in existence. Lincoln was a supporter of that *idea* prior to secession. It was passed a few days prior to his inauguration and once he assumed office, he never aggressively pursued its ratification. =============================================================== Please be SET FREE! If you cannot be * SET F-R-E-E * then you will live the rest of your days POUNDING SAND. Accept the truth of the matter as recorded down in the archives you refuse to admit exist or accept as fact. Take it to your heart. Let this loosen those shackles that have your mind bound by lies and deceptions. Be set FREE from the SLAVERY than tends to bind thee .. He was the secret author of it, orchestrating the politics of its passage from Springfield before he was even inaugurated. Not only that, but he also instructed his political compatriot, William Seward, to work on federal legislation that would outlaw the various personal liberty laws that existed in some of the Northern states Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
THE LIES OF THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN CULT EXPOSED - HE PUSHED FOR SLAVERY TO BE PERMANENT FIXTURE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION
The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up
Not only did Lincoln support this slavery forever amendment, but the amendment was his idea from the very beginning.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#24. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#23)
Corwin had been around in some form or another going back to Calhoun's snit fits. That entire 36th Congress was devoted to addressing the growing issue of secession and war... the fact that Lincoln was *cahootin'* with political allies after his election is hardly a shocking revelation and is fairly well known to anyone who has studied the era. The fact that he was trying to peaceably keep the Union together - as did people like Senator Jefferson Davis, btw - shouldn't be a surprise either. So, if your bold and beautiful response above was done for *shock* value then your FAIL is *epic*.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#25. To: war (#24)
Predictive.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#26. To: NeoconsNailed (#21) (Edited)
No Amendment was necessary to dissolve State bonds with the Union. Reference the Declaration of Independence. No Amendment was needed either to dissolve America's original government entirely, the establishment of which was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#27. To: war (#24)
You agree with your hero's later violent approach, do you?
#28. To: NeoconsNailed (#27)
The South had been gearing up for a violent confrontation for at least 10 years prior to Lincoln's election. The South did not want to negotiate anything...not the *status* of new states or territories...not compensation for Federal assets in southern states...nor navigation of common waterways... Any objective analysis of history reveal the rests squarely on the shoulder of the intransigent southerners. You agree with your hero's later violent approach, do you?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#29. To: GreyLmist (#26) (Edited)
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. That's an obvious statement of history...the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union... "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same..." Reference the Declaration of Independence.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#30. To: war (#28)
The Yankees had been plenty intransigent, grasping, exploitative, abusive, arrogant and tyrannical, just as they were once the war was over -- vastly beyond all proportion. Their behavior was communist in everything but name and had the open backing of Marx himself. A New York newspaper thoughtfully carried his writings on the subject! Southern states left gradually on realizing they had no choice due to the above factors. Everybody knows Lincoln was proud of manipulating Dixie into firing the first shot, everybody knows an emotionally hysterical racial abolitionism heavily drove the Union to war despite Lincoln's sometime protestations to the contrary -- one of the reigning hypocrisies of history. Julia Ward Howe called it "the glory of the coming of the Lord" -- psychiatrists would call it PROJECTION on a cosmic scale.
#31. To: NeoconsNailed, war (#30)
Comrade Abraham: Was President Lincoln a Closet Marxist? 
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#32. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#31)
Happ, you are a never-ending magic genie of good stuff! Yeah, Ape was as race- obsessive as Obongo in his own sanctimonious way. I remember the episode of Disney's Wonderful World of Color where they introduced an audio-animatronic statue of Ape spouting that very "The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty" business. Of course we baby boomers just drank it cluelessly in as the most absolute, ultimate in amerikan greatness. Where has that page BEEN all my life? It's Christmas in July!! I really wish more people knew about 4um, but everybody's totally into Twitter, FB etc...... "To secure each laborer the whole product of his labor" -- uh, is this the same president that gave us our first income tax, which Congress promptly shot down as un-Constitutional? That must be the "as nearly as possible" part, an otherwise very strange thing to say. Lots of Ape's most beloved humanitarianistic quotes are FAKE. isp.netscape.com/whatsnew...? name=fte/lincoln/lincoln There used to be a Lincoln Never Said It site, wonder where it went. He was rightly hated and derided for the aberration he was during his lifetime. Thanks for nothing, Booth!!
#33. To: war (#29)
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments. The secessionist States agreed in violation of the Articles of Confederation: On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimityReference the Declaration of Independence.
the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union...
[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#34. To: GreyLmist (#33)
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member. The 9th and 10th Amendments.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#35. To: GreyLmist (#33)
And only enforceable between those states... On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#36. To: war (#34)
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. Loyalists to the Crown weren't of that view, so their consultations were soon no longer considered as admissable. It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated. The 9th and 10th Amendments.
There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#37. To: war (#35) (Edited)
And only enforceable between those states... Yes, that is correct...those secessionist States. Edit to add: And they were agreeable to substantially downsizing the Union to form and implement their own government. No war was fought over it; just a diplomatic separation of the States and their jurisdictional powers of governance. On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#38. To: GreyLmist (#36)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#39. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#38)
Sounds like he might be an ancestor of Gus Hall, who was a Chairman of the Communist Party USA. A quote from Hall, a Loyalist
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#40. To: GreyLmist (#36)
As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
.
.
.
Comments (41 - 102) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest