Speaking Out Against Banning Expression

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"A student whose protected expression is stifled suffers an injury that cannot be undone."
- U.S. 3rd Circuit Court

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
- George Washington

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
- U.S. Supreme Court

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Speech codes are disfavored under the First Amendment because of their tendency to silence or interfere with protected speech."
- U.S. 3rd Circuit Court

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime..."
- Justice Potter Stewart

"In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."
- U.S. Supreme Court

"We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive."
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The Supreme Court has held time and again, both within and outside of the school context, that the mere fact that someone might take offense at the content of speech is not sufficient justification for prohibiting it."
- U.S. 3rd Circuit Court

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
- John F. Kennedy

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
- Mark Twain

"The mere fact that expressive activity causes hurt feelings, offense, or resentment does not render the expression unprotected."
- U.S. Supreme Court

May God open the eyes of these administrators to the wisdom of our Founders and the majesty of our system of guaranteed rights; turn them away from their path of censorship of expression, denigration of a cultural heritage and marginalization of a group; and restore to our schools the philosophy that they are to be places of learning, places to celebrate our freedoms as well as understand the responsibilities that come with them and places to prepare our children for the responsibility of protecting our freedoms in the courtroom, at the ballot box and, if need be, at the battlefield.

Confederate Flag Bans in PA Schools

Three high schools within our Commonwealth have made the misguided decision to ban the Confederate flag. I encourage all members of the Pennsylvania Division, the SCV, the larger Southern heritage community and all lovers of the liberties and rights protected by the Constitution of the United States to contact these schools and encourage them to change their policy regarding our venerable symbols.

The issue of the display of Confederate symbols is often one that is emotionally charged. These venerable symbols of one side of the most defining struggles of this country's history have become abused by a tiny minority of crackpots who also defame the flag of this great nation and the symbols of Christianity. Those of us who revere Confederate symbols for the historical value and expression of heritage they represent, join with all good and decent Americans in the abhorrence of the actions and beliefs of those misguided people.

We would not ban our children from displaying 'Old Glory' or from being able to wear a cross while in school, despite the fact that those who spread hate do so under those symbols. We should also not ban Confederate symbols indiscriminately simply because they too are used by those same lunatics. Within our schools, we must make sure not only that our children are safe, but also that they learn to become good citizens of this nation.

The children of today are indeed the leaders of tomorrow and the educators of the next generation. We cannot allow them to become a new generation of bigots or excuse-makers nor can we teach them that silencing the free expression of ideas is the solution to avoiding or resolving conflict. The answer is not less speech, but rather more and better directed speech. Let them speak their minds and then correct their misconceptions. Let them express themselves, but then punish those who abuse that privilege on a case by case basis.

It is not really a matter of free speech, racial tension, methods of punishment or any of the other causes and outcomes. It is, above all, a matter of education. What lesson will you teach these children? Will it be a lesson that helps them learn how to work together to solve problems or a lesson that teaches them to ban free expression and bury their misconceptions in public, letting them fester into a new wave of bigotry?

Those few students who abuse these symbols to spread a message of hate should be dealt with firmly, as we cannot allow that behavior to stand in our schools. Equally, those who display these symbols for historical or heritage reasons should not be banned from that expression simply for the misdeeds and abuses of others. We would not ban Islamic children from displaying the Crescent simply because some deranged foreign terrorists abuse it for their purposes. We should not ban the Southern Cross simply because some deranged domestic terrorists abuse it for their purposes.

A school is a place of learning, not a place for the suppression of ideas. It is the duty of our educators to teach our children and not to enforce stereotypes of any kind against any group of people or any symbols. If we all work together and have free and open dialog, without prejudging anyone or anything, we can learn to overcome the lingering social problems of this nation; problems that often are left undealt with in the name of avoiding conflict. That is not the answer and all the lessons of history teach us that banning an idea, a symbol or a group does not eliminate the problem; it strengthens it. Education and equality are the solution. We should expect no less in our schools.

Please contact these schools and express your feelings about this issue:

Schuylkill Valley High School - Principal Mr. David J. Haughney - dhaughney@schuylkillvalley.org
Shippensburg Area High School - Principal Dr. Fred Shilling - Fred.Shilling@ship.k12.pa.us
Yough High School - Principal Mr. Earl Thompson - Thompsoe@yough.K12.PA.US

Below, you will find in the comments section, a collection of letters/posts I have submitted related to this issue.

New U.S. Flag Design

It was customary up into the end of the 19th century for citizens and groups to design their own versions of the US flag. The "Betsy Ross" flag, for example, was never an official US flag any more than the "Bennington Flag" was, but both are some of the favorite designs of all time. The "Great Star" flags and a variety of "Federal Eagle" flags were popular in the early to mid 19th century and then during the War Between the States (WBTS), there was a popular revival of circular patterns.

Although the practice of 'personalizing' the US flag is nearly extinct, it was a major part of pre-WBTS America. Along with the downfall of State's Rights and political diversity within the US as a result of that war, conformity to federal power can be seen by the sudden end of the sectional variety of US flags. Strict use of the official flag became the norm.

When we lost that personal 'ownership' of our flag, that ability to make it represent our view of country - be that a unified circle, a collection of individual stars to make a single great star or some other symbolic representation - we lost a part of the Founder's America. As that loss came as a byproduct of the WBTS, it is only fitting that its resurrection should come from that same source.

I have designed this "Heritage Flag" version of the 50 star US flag to represent the lasting influence of State and Individual rights even in the midst of the massive central government. Our official US flag simply shows a grid of stars, identical cogs in rank and file. It lacks the 'unity' of the circle flags and the 'greater purpose' of the great star flags.

This design shows the individual stars forming a new constellation, one representative of our shared heritage. The thirteen stripes represent the original states of the First War of American Independence and the thirteen larger stars represent the states of the Second War of American Independence. The other 37 stars form the borders of the saltier of the Southern Cross, completing the design and representing the extension of Constitutional philosophy throughout the country that is now building towards a restoration of original Constitutional government, created in 1789, restored in the CSA in 1861 and lost in 1865. The use of 9 stars in the north (top), east (right) and west (left) symbolizes the 9th Amendment rights of the People and 10 stars in the south (bottom) represents the 10th Amendment rights of the States and the People, all but lost as a result of the WBTS.

May this new version of our flag fly proudly and symbolize a restoration of Constitutional government within the United States and a return of this government and its symbols to the People.

Some Thoughts About Our Charge

Over the past year the SCV has seen the beginnings of a restoration movement deemed radical by those who failed to understand the original purpose of the organization. This movement, designed to re-ignite the fulfillment of the Charge by a modern generation of Confederate descendants, is an important process that we must see through to its successful complete implementation. It is important to bear in mind that the internal political battles and victories are nothing more than symbolic if the tenor of the organization as a whole does not change. There are far too many 'closet Confederates' within the SCV, members who push for heritage defense everywhere but in their own lives, neighborhoods and work places. This is a major problem that any successful restoration movement must confront and correct.

Simply put, how can anyone be considered a defender of the Confederate soldier's good name and a guardian of his history if that person fails to defend and guard that heritage in every aspect of his life? How can we expect others to battle their employers, schools, governments and other groups on behalf of our heritage when there are many among us who hide their heritage in their own lives? So long as there exists a single officer at any level of the SCV who offers up an excuse why he does not display our symbols on his home and vehicle, in his workplace and in such other places as he frequents, then we do not have a cause to defend. If any member of this organization can justify the 'hiding away' of our symbols from public view in their own lives, then we are nothing but a gang of hypocrites to tell others that they should fight our fight for us.

Why should a student suffer harassment or suspension/expulsion by school officials in the name of our heritage when a single one of our members won't wear a battle flag shirt to his workplace for fear of harassment or termination? Why should the people of a state battle with their government to preserve our symbol on their flag when a single one of our members won't fly a battle flag from their home for fear of disturbing the neighborhood or suffering vandalism? Quite frankly, either our heritage is important to us enough to display and protect ALL THE TIME or it isn't. If it isn't important enough for all of us to display and protect ALL THE TIME, then our true purpose as an organization is already lost. If even one member is afraid or ashamed to display his heritage, then the Confederate soldier's good name and his true history is already surrendered.

Those men who claim to support our Charge and our heritage, but who fall into the category that I have described may consider my views to be extreme, radical, inflexible, unrealistic or some other negative descriptor. They may feel that I just don't understand the complexity of the issue. They may reason that their contributions to heritage defense while fitting in with 'mainstream' society are some sort of positive example of how we can 'reasonably' defend our heritage. To that I can only say, an excuse is just an excuse no matter how nice it sounds or by whom it is given.

Tell the man who is fighting to get his job back because he refused to cover up or remove his Confederate symbols that you're on his side, but that you can't take the exact same stand he took in your own workplace because [insert your excuse here]. Tell the man who has been beaten for displaying the Confederate battle flag that you're on his side, but that you can't display that flag on your home or car because [insert your excuse here]. Tell the student who was banned from her own prom because she wore a battle flag patterned dress that you're on her side, but that you can't wear battle flag clothing to church, at work, the store or anywhere aside from SCV meetings because [insert your excuse here]. If they roll their eyes at you, don't be surprised. Saying you care about defending our heritage when you won't do it in your own life is like Lincoln claiming to be defending government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Folks, simply changing who is wearing the gee-gaw isn't going to change anything. We have to all make the commitment to display and defend our heritage each and every day. Hiding our heritage and symbols away for any reason is an admission that they are the bad thing our opponents say they are.

We need to end our own members' excuse making and convince them that our heritage is not evil. For, if the truth is to be told, failure to display our heritage is done out of fear; fear of what others will think, will do or will say and a cowardice to stand up to that abuse and defend our heritage. That is the underlying truth covered over by all the 'reasonable' excuses. Leaders cannot be cowards. We, as an organization, cannot fulfill our Charge and lead a defense of our heritage if our members only fight for it when no one they know will see them.

So now, take a look at your life. Do you have our flag flying from your home? Is it displayed on your car? Do you wear it on your clothing at work, church and in your daily activities? If the answer to any of those is no, then you are a deserter to our Charge. Make what excuses you will, but in your heart you know you have shirked your responsibility. You suited up, polished your brass, marched along and yelled to your compatriots to put up the fight, but then when you were in the cross-hairs you hid and let the battle go on without you. Maybe no one noticed your failure and called you on it, so you went on back with everyone else and then whined and moaned about a battle lost somewhere else and claimed it was not fought hard enough by those compatriots. Your own failure, you justify as 'picking your battles' or 'conserving resources' or some other excuse. In your heart, you know the truth.

We cannot fulfill the Charge only sometimes. Either we truly believe that our heritage is a proud and noble heritage and we defend it as we would our family all the time or we don't. Either it is more important to you than fitting in at work, church and the neighborhood or it isn't. Either we are fully committed or we will lose. There is no half-way in a battle of vindication.

The restoration movement in the SCV is a positive sign, but it is nothing if we don't all live the Charge. No one can save your heritage for you. You must save it for yourself and your children. If we all fight that personal battle, the opposition will be overwhelmed. If, instead, we let others fight for us or only fight ourselves the battles of others, then we allow the opposition to mass its resources against us and control the battlegrounds. As Project Wave defied the government of Georgia's duplicity by using the power of private property and private citizens, so must we. Forty thousand homes with Confederate flags, forty thousand men wearing Confederate ties or pins at church, forty thousand cars carrying the message of our heritage is the minimum we should be showing. Talk or participation in major heritage battles is not enough. The Charge must be lived by each of us every day. If we lead, others will follow. If we shirk, others will follow. The choice is ours individually. My neighbors, my co-workers and those I drive by all can see my choice. They can see yours as well, whether that is a proud display of our heritage or the cowardly lack of it. It's your choice.

Introducing...

Welcome

Gen John Bell Hood CSA

At 11:10pm on May 30, 2005, Ginny (CSS Virginia) gave birth to a litter of just one little black lab, the son of Bo (Gen PGT Beauregard CSA). Both Ginny and Hood are doing well.

I'd like to thank Sterl Price and Timmy Spicer for helping build and stain a very nice whelping box for Ginny. She took right to it.

Here are a couple more pictures of Hood, Ginny and us taking this morning:

Conservative Conference

Pat Toomey and I at the Conservative Conference

On Saturday 2/26/05, I attended the Conservative Conference which was help in Gettysburg, PA. The conference included many speakers such as Jessica Bayer and Anita Nardone from Pennsylvanians' for Human Life, David French the President of FIRE, Conservative Author Dan Flynn and featuring former Congressman Pat Toomey who is currently the President of The Club for Growth.

The conference was a great opportunity to meet with many people and discuss the various state and national political issues that are driving forces in society today.

Let the Race Begin

Today begins my campaign for Mayor of Port Matilda, Pennsylvania. I went to the Centre Country Bureau of Elections and picked up my Candidate’s Nomination Petition Packet. I am permitted to begin collecting signatures in about two weeks. This is the first step in the process, whereby I will challenge the current Mayor in the Republican primary. The outcome of the primary will likely not only determine the Republican candidate for Mayor, but also the office of Mayor as an independent or Democrat is unlikely to defeat the Republican candidate.

Port Matilda is a pleasant rural town of about 650 residents, of which about half are registered voters. Around 60% of the registered voters are Republicans. Most people who live there work in one of the neighboring communities as there are few local employers. It is serviced by the Port Matilda Volunteer Fire Company (PMVFC), which also services the surrounding four townships. It operates its own municipal water service and water treatment station. The property values are quite high considering the median income of the citizens and many of those who grew up in the borough cannot afford to buy a home there themselves and either live in a neighboring community, with family or rent.

In the last election (Nov. 2004), 78% of registered voters came out to vote. However, that was a major election for President, a U.S. Senator and Congressman and several PA State offices. At the last Mayoral election (Nov. 2001), only 35% of registered voters came out to the polls. The current Mayor was the only candidate and she received 79% of the vote.

I decided to run for Mayor after several months of consideration. The driving force in my decision is that I don’t feel that the citizens and community organizations in the borough really have an advocate for them in the Mayor’s office. I feel that I could better represent the needs of the people and the community organizations. I believe that I could help set aside old grudges and work towards what is best for the community rather than just for those on one side of an issue.

Our current Mayor has not been a bad Mayor. She has done an adequate job. Under normal circumstances, I would likely vote for her. Unfortunately, these are not normal circumstances. During the time Vivian Duncan has been Mayor, a crisis has developed with the PMVFC. This crisis developed over time, but was not monitored by the Mayor due, I believe, to a somewhat adversarial relationship between her and the officers of the PMVFC that stifled open communication.

In June of 2004, the problems that had been growing for some time reached a crisis point with the closure of the PMVFC a strong possibility. In the eight months that have followed since that public disclosure, almost nothing has been done to solve the problem. A Task Force was set up, but it has no authority and its recommendations are more long-term in nature. In the mean time, the potential of the loss of service from the PMFVC continues to be a danger.

The five municipalities which the PMVFC serves jointly collect revenue for the support of the company. They do not turn over the money to the company, but rather make payments on their behalf. However, not all the money collected for the purpose of supporting the company is used for that purpose. Despite the severe financial situation of the PMFVC and the real threat of losing service, funds are still being withheld. I believe those funds are being withheld as a result of a power struggle between the various municipal governments and the PMFVC as to who should have control over the PMFVC.

As it stands, the PMVFC funds 70% of its operating budget on its own through fund-raisers, as well as providing all the labor and time both for responding to calls and for the training that is required. In addition to responding to many calls, the mere presence of the PMFVC and its equipment significantly reduces the cost of property insurance. That reduction is very important to the home owners in Port Matilda as the cost of property had already out-paced incomes. A significant increase in insurance costs due to the loss of the PMVFC or its equipment would be very detrimental to the existing home owners and would likely make it even harder for the average citizen to be able to afford a home in the future.

Currently, the various leaders of the five municipalities favor letting the PMVFC default on its truck loan and having that equipment seized, as they feel the structure and cost of the loan is too great a burden. That plan of action would be disastrous for not only the PMVFC, but also for the community due to the cost that loss of that equipment would add to property insurance. That plan is based on the notion that a new or restructured fire company could take the place of the existing, get new equipment and go from there. The time it would take to re-create a fire company and to obtain equipment is unsatisfactory. Further, the volunteers now servicing the area would be alienated by this de facto takeover and may not volunteer in the new version of the company. Finally, the money lost on payments already made, penalties and then the costs of re-structuring or making a new company, as well as down payments on new equipment would be far more expensive than simply solving the financial problems of the existing company.

I believe that, as Mayor of Port Matilda, I could serve as an optimistic and committed leader towards preserving and fixing our current volunteer fire company. I have not been a party to the political and, at times, personal fighting between the local government and the PMVFC. Like the majority of the citizens of the borough, I am concerned more with the preservation of the services and the cost of property insurance than I am in trying to prove who was right and who was wrong about something that happened in the past. We need to consider the future and not get mired in old grudges.

In addition to the mismanagement of the relationship between the borough and the PMVFC, I feel our current Mayor has not really tried to be an advocate for the community organizations that make Port Matilda more than just a collection of streets and houses. For example, the borough also operates its own water system and the Port Matilda Sportsmen’s Club asked for a rate reduction considering their status as a non-profit community organization. The decision to deny that request was not made solely by the Mayor, but she did not serve as a strong advocate for their needs. The Borough Council has the responsibility of making most of the decisions, so it should be the priority of the Mayor to serve as an advocate of the people and of the community organizations at the meetings of the Borough Council. The Mayor needs to consider the benefit to the community various civic, recreational, religious and other organizations provide and make sure that is weighed in the debate against the simple dollars and cents. If we fail to consider the intangible benefits of our community organizations in our decisions about the way in which to manage our community, we risk losing those organizations and their benefits to the community. At a time when new development and the need to travel longer distances to find a decent paying job are slowly eroding the sense of community in our borough, we need a Mayor who will work to see that we preserve and grow those organizations that still hold us together.

I do not belong to either the PMVFC or the Sportsmen’s Club, but I recognize that they, along with the many other organizations in the borough provide important services and fill a key role in the community. As a conservative Republican, I believe it is the duty of the local communities and not the Federal Government to improve the lives of the people. It is through our clubs, churches, businesses, youth leagues and other organizations that we the people work together to make our community and consequently our country a better place to live. That is why I am running for Mayor of Port Matilda.