Jump to content
RnR

Apple removes Civil War Games from App Store

Recommended Posts

http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/

Because of the use of the Confederate Battle Flag that is in the news lately due to its association with hate crimes and political use on government grounds.

I just downloaded Ultimate General: Gettysburg (a pale imitation of Sid Meiers Classic Civil War series but the closest thing I could find for Mac) last week, and I see it is indeed gone now.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A totally benign use of historical accuracy, in no way shape or form meant to harass or intimidate anyone, but rather to just be, well, historically accurate. In a war game.

I'm all for removing the actual flag from state property like in South Carolina and putting it in a museum. But wiping out any use of it in any context by other agents? I know it seems hyperbolic, but I do tend to see this as akin to the attempts of the Taliban and its ilk to wipe out any mention of any religion other than Islam by destroying art that reflects anything it disagrees with.

Yeah, it touches a bone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

:thumbup:

They apparently did the same thing a while back with a war game set in the Pacific. You can't have the Japanese flag otherwise you might offend Japanese.

I seem to recall that there was another where a game was pulled for being a strategic war game about the Syrian Civil War... A little too sensitive, but such is Apple apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comic book reader iPhone app for French bande dessineé I was quite fond of using had to take some titles off of its service, since with the French being who they are generally had steamier content than us Americans in their comics and didn't have the Comics Code to limit its creative freedom at some point in its life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the question is: did they give a refund to all those that bought it in the past? :eek2:

The guy that made the game had a comment like: "...they should have an exception for HISTORICAL games". Yeah, exactly. But this is the over-the-top politically correct world we live in, front and center. It is really getting out of hand. :heu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wanting to defend Apple's decision, but this thread is NOT a political discussion - because...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not wanting to defend Apple's decision, but this thread is NOT a political discussion - because...?

This is not a political discussion because it's all about mass hysteria, knee jerk reaction, and otherwise sensible people losing their minds. If it was a political discussion there would be room for discourse; this is just insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Taylor Swift should get the flag back in the games, and all the wrong doings that Apple has done in the past, we just can't have companies doing what they want, it's just not right.:c:

Haters got ta hate.:men_ani::men_ani:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A totally benign use of historical accuracy, in no way shape or form meant to harass or intimidate anyone, but rather to just be, well, historically accurate. In a war game. I know it seems hyperbolic, but I do tend to see this as akin to the attempts of the Taliban and its ilk to wipe out any mention of any religion other than Islam by destroying art that reflects anything it disagrees with.

Yeah, it touches a bone

Also reminds me of the Soviet practice of re-writing history to erase the memory of 'uncomfortable' events and people who went against either the orthodoxy of the time or current orthodoxy. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was about the flag flying over state capitols than it is a political post. But its about anything with the flag on it being removed from the Apple store. Its more about a company playing the CYA game because someone, somewhere might get offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no real comparison with the Taliban or with totalitarian governments (nor even a state like Germany which is neither but which bans the Swastika)- Apple is not a government. It's not the same as amending history books or resubmitting official narratives from the government. It's no different than if Kmart elected to remove products from their shelves. It's a voluntary option for a corporation.

Look at it this way- wargames designed for your Apple device aren't really suitable for enthusiasts, like most mobile games, they are designed for casual audiences on a wider scale. How many people seriously get involved in their mobile games anyway? Candy Crush is still going to be more popular than any game based on the ACW will ever be. I don't play games on my Android phone, because they are shallow, and I never was interested in portable gaming.

In the US market, games designed for your PC aren't going to go in this direction- they're more likely to just not be made altogether IF the PC market were to become extinct or increasingly moved under fewer companies like Electronic Arts before that happens. If that did happen, I'm done with gaming- which I'm almost there already.

What I think is worse than this is that lately certain comics are taking heat for their politically incorrect observational humor- where once these guys were considered funny for making fun of everyone, there is a generation of younger people which can no longer appreciate it, they certainly can't be made to laugh at themselves, they're too sensitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not wanting to defend Apple's decision, but this thread is NOT a political discussion - because...?

...because it has nothing to do with politics? :c:

Well, really, it doesn't matter. The issue was that Apple removed a game that people purchased, just because it contained a historical flag. Lock the thread though if there is concern, who cares. But yes, I can see this thread potentially going down the toilet quickly. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't mean to get into that discussion. Just wanted to bring up a discussion on the precedence being set by one of the biggest private companies in the world that games can now be rejected for being historically accurate. It is a private company's policy based on mass hysteria, not a government (political) edict.

Have a great day!

...because it has nothing to do with politics? :c:

Well, really, it doesn't matter. The issue was that Apple removed a game that people purchased, just because it contained a historical flag. Lock the thread though if there is concern, who cares. But yes, I can see this thread potentially going down the toilet quickly. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the war Lincoln decided to go easy on the South. He let them keep their traditions, symbols ect. He could have done the same thing Germany did after WW2 with their traditions and symbols, but He did not. If anyone has a problem with Confederate symbols today blame Lincoln.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the removal was because of content or packaging? I cant find enough actual facts on this story when 98% of what I'm finding is opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny that it was perfectly fine up until now.

They're going after the Rhodies again too, because that tosser wore a South African White Supremacy patch that had the Rhodesian Flag on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple has said that they won't remove apps that are historical or educational in nature, so I don't know where they feel this game in particular falls. They apparently don't see it as being used in a purely historical or educational context in that game, but I don't claim to know the circumstances. Further, although the game has been removed from the store, it does not mean it has been removed from any customer's devices. If you get the app before it's removed from the store, then you get to keep it...you just can't download it again, so make sure not to delete it if you already have it! I guess the only customers who may lose out are those who have paid for the app but do not have it currently installed and may want to download it in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rebel Flag will be part of America forever,no matter what anyone or political hack does will never change this.That flag stood and stands for many things in the USA,some I agree with(smaller less intrusive govt,freedom)many I dont which certain racist groups have taken it to represent their views(slavery,racism).But it will always be there.This will make for some interesting reading.The author is dead on....

With all the talk lately about the south, the confederate flag and the history of the south , we have to get some facts right

June 24, 2015 at 6:37am

With all the talk lately about the south, the confederate flag and the history of the south and civil war , we have to get some facts straight. Read this and check the links before you rush to judgement, then after that think honestly on if you still think of the Civil war , then north and south and Lincoln the same or have your eyes been opened...

Let me preface this with " Slavery is wrong and evil, always has been always will be" but im tired of people lifting up Lincoln as the man that freed the slaves through the civil war ( War of northern Aggresion) . When in truth, he didnt give 2 hoots about the slaves either way. He just used slavery as a emotional trigger to get backing for his war. His ONLY concern was keeping the union together, and expanding the power of the federal government over the states. He was truely one of the first Progressive presidents in U.S. history. The war was all about economic control of the north over the south. Here is a letter from Abe him self and his view on the slaves. Slavery was already on the down turn in the states, there was a movment against it, and many of the states that backed the south were non slave states, lastly .... the last state to end slavery was a northern state..

A Short Primer on the Secession of Southern States

In the early 1800's, for the industrialization of the United States to take hold, the key weapon in the Northern capitalists' arsenal would be the protective tariff - to hold off their British competitors and at the same time enrich either their own firms or the U.S. Treasury.

Second, they wanted a taxpayer-funded national transportation network. Third, they wanted taxpayer subsidies to enable the fledgling industries to survive and grow. Fourth, they wanted changes in the banking laws to give preference to industry. (The capitalists wanted a lot more than that, but those were some of the main items.)

To get what they wanted, the Northern capitalists would have to transform the U.S. into a nation-state with a federal government that had enough funds to build the transportation network, and enough power to run roughshod over the recalcitrant South. The power would have to (eventually) come from a majority in Congress and a presidential administration sympathetic to the capitalists. The funding would have to come from protective tariffs on goods imported into the U.S.

A tariff is simply a tax. In those days, there was no income tax. The U.S. government obtained most of its operating revenues from import tariffs (and the rest from the sale of public lands and an excise tax on whiskey). The Northern capitalists demanded an extreme high tariff rate covering most imports, for three reasons.

First, with a high tariff in place, the Northern manufacturers could overprice their goods in the firm knowledge that the competing low-priced British goods - with the tariffs added - would then be more expensive than theirs. If an imported British product were initially priced at $100, and the competing New England product were priced at $120, a 45% tariff-rate would then price the British product at $145; and the $120 product from New England would outsell it

Second, the Southerners bought most of the manufactured goods imported from Britain, largely because they sold most of their cotton to Britain; thus - by paying the tariff - the Southerners paid most of the costs of running the U.S. government. (In 1860, for example, just four of the Southern states paid 50% of the total import-tariffs collected in the U.S. that year; and all of the Southern states were paying about 85% of the cost of running the federal government.) By increasing the tariff rates, the North could force the South to pay most of the costs of the U.S. government's industrialization program - a program which would benefit the North tremendously, and the South not at all.

Third, even if the South continued to buy the British goods after the high tariff had been added, then the U.S. government would gain lots of additional money to dredge rivers and build new railroads and harbor facilities and national roads, to distribute the Northern goods more effectively; and to subsidize those Northern capitalists who didn't want to risk their own money developing initially-shaky new industries. But if the South caved in and bought the overpriced Northern goods (which would now be cheaper than the British goods), then the Northern industrialists would get richer quicker. Under a government policy of high tariffs, the Northern capitalists could not lose, and the South could not win.

Worse, yet, if the South chose to pay the tariffs to create the greatly expanded federal government demanded by the Northern capitalists, that government would inevitably arrogate unto itself additional powers to regulate and manipulate the lives of the Southern citizens still further. The U.S. would move still further away from its legitimate function as a republic of sovereign states - as mandated by the U.S. Constitution - and toward the role of a nation-state operated solely to satisfy the requirements of the vested interest, the Northern capitalists.

The growing power of the federal government to control the states by means of selective taxation and other legislation was formidable; if the Northern capitalists now gained control over both the presidency and the Congress, it would all be over for the South.

Excerpt from The South Under Siege, by Frank Conner

And the rest, as they say, is history. Is it any different today? You be the judge.

Lincoln's Letter To Horace Greeley on Slavery

March 11, 2011 topics:

Since this comes up so often on the Mike Church Show on Sirius/XM I thought I'd go ahead and add this to the site's archives. Notice that the Great Emancipator does not care which method of dealing with the issue of slavery is used to "save the union". It should also come as an intellectual sledgehammer to the head that regardless of his "intentions" Lincoln did NOT save "The Union" because when his reign of fire was concluded federalism was on it's way to the grave and the Southern States ceased to exist as soverign-insular political entities and instead became satellite offices for the National Government.

Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

Executive Mansion,

Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,

A. Lincoln.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did the civil war actually start and who started it, and who tried to be peaceful ...

South Carolina’s secession instrument, as they called it, is a brilliant piece of political prose. You should read it sometime. You live in South Carolina. The legislature of South Carolina basically, in their secession instrument, cited whole paragraphs from the Declaration of Independence and then cited the voluntary ratification of the Constitution as how the state got into the federal union. Then they said that the federal union has become injurious to the people of South Carolina, and since we are a sovereign entity and can choose our form of representative government, we want to do as our forefathers did and sever all political ties between us and the United States of America. They didn’t say everyone else had to join us. They didn’t say that all the property herein is the property of South Carolinians now.

They sent a delegation to meet with Lincoln. Lincoln refused to meet with them and try to work out the terms under which, for example, the stores and what have you at Fort Sumter could be negotiated, either paid for or sent back to the union. Of course, Lincoln would have nothing to do with it and sent a flotilla down there knowing that since South Carolina was a sovereign state, much like the country of France or Spain, just to put it in perspective at the time, that the South Carolinians, if the armed vessels wouldn’t stop, they would have no choice but to fire on them.

This part of the history and this part of the question, to me, is not even one that is worthy of the debate. The facts are what they are. Again, it is silly, childish and infantile to argue that you are somehow free but you’re not free to choose your own form or mode of government. Now, would there be consequences for choosing to leave a union? Well, of course there would be. You’d have to negotiate the terms again of the property. What about the debts that are run up and so on and so forth? Those are legal questions. You decide that either in court or in a treaty session.

THE TRUTH ABOUT CONFEDERATE HISTORY- IT’S NOT WHAT YOU THINK!

History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispel some of these rampant inaccuracies.

MYTH – The War of 1861 – 1865 was fought over slavery.

FACT – Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, “Why not let the South go in peace?” To which he replied, “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?” Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.

MYTH – Only Southerners owned slaves.

FACT – Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn’t free his slaves earlier, Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”

Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased – they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!

MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.

FACT – NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portuguese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.

BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.

These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products made from raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.

This is the problem with Yankee history History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.

MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.

FACT – Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.

The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.

The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.

The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northen Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.

MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Stars & Bars”.

FACT – A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the “Stars & Bars”. The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Southern Cross”.

MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.

FACT – The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that vilify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.

MYTH – The United States Flag represented freedom.

FACT – No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it’s commodities. It wasn’t until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.

MYTH – Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.

FACT – While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.

MYTH – The South revered slavery.

FACT – A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it’s servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.

MYTH – The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.

FACT – Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.

MYTH – Only the North had men of color in their ranks.

FACT – Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.

Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.

MYTH – The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.

FACT – Quite the contrary. These despicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE – NOT HATE.

MYTH – The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.

FACT – This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendants of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.

The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK.

-----------------

Lies My Teacher Told Me: The True History of the War for Southern Independence

By Clyde Wilson on Jul 22, 2014 http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/clyde-wilson-library/lies-my-teacher-told-me-the-true-history-of-the-war-for-southern-independence/

-------------------

The importance of states' rights.

Contrary to popular discussion, America is a Republic, not a democracy. Representatives of the people are chosen to represent them on the state level and also on the national level. We have an electoral college that selects the president, not a popular vote.

In a Republic, the most qualified individuals from among the people are chosen by the citizens to represent them in government.

In a democracy the people represent themselves. These distinctions are important when looking at national politics and then looking at politics on a state level.

The Founding Fathers wanted the states to govern themselves, with a loose Federal Government protecting them from outside threats and making decisions concerning multiple states, treaties with foreign governments and regulating commerce.

The term "state" always meant nation. France was a state, Great Brittan was a state all the nations of Europe were individual states. The modern use of the term is something closer to "province" because the true power of the states has been squelched by those who believe in strong central and national government.

The Founding Fathers knew better than this, which is why they added the 10th amendment to the constitution that expressly states that all powers not given to the Federal Government, are given to the States and the People respectively.

State governments are much closer to the people they represent and thus have much less bureaucracy. Also if a state became destructive to the rights of the people, the citizens could simply move to another state that was more consistent wit their beliefs.

If New York wanted to start taxing its middle class and businesses to provide services for other citizens, New Yorkers could simply move.

If the policies of New York's high taxation were damaging business there, the businesses could more to a more business friendly state like Virginia and all the other states could watch the experiments of state governments and determine if they would like to implement those changes in there own states.

Bad decisions were not supposed to punish the entire country.

This is the advantage of a Republic over some form of a pure national government.

Obviously the values of California are not the same as the values in Montana, so why should they be under the same blanket federal laws pertaining to morality such a drug use or prostitution?

If states' rights were still respected, individual freedom would be greater in some states then others and individuals would make a conscious choice on which state best reflected their values and move there, or fight tooth and nail within there own state to make the changed they believe in.

The Federal Government was never intended to impose whatever it wanted across the entire nation.

Massachusetts is not South Carolina and the people there should not be governed by the same blanket legislation, they should be able to choose the laws they wish to live under in their own state legislatures respectively.

----------------------------------------

In my opinion the whole problem is that the states have forgotten that they are Sovereign, that they created the Fed Gov to work for them, and that at any time the states can put thier foot down and tell the fed gov what to do. Please take the time to at least look over some of the history and facts as to the power the states have had in the past and should start using again.

This is what was taught as basic constitutional principle in all schools proir to the end of the civil war, befor Lincon perverted the constitution disallowing the states to remain sovgrine and free as our founders intended. They intended the states to be independent sovgrine entities , that work together in a confederation , under the constitution, using a representative form of government. The states always had the right to leave the union as a check/balance to the power of the fed government that the states created. With that ablity taken away, the states are no longer states but just counties with few freedoms or rights. Its time to once again assert that its the State Governors and County Sheriffs that have the real power. If we dont stand firm now and stick together we are in for a dark dark future.

---------------------

What Is A State? And How Is It Sovereign?

May 22, 2012

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/what-is-a-state-and-how-is-it-sovereign/

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript - I’ve been on this experimental tangent here for the last, I don’t know how long you’ve been listening, but I’ve been on this assignment in trying to explain what it is that makes a state and how it is that governments are formed in sovereign states. If you understand that from the Jeffersonian point of view, then to me it is impossible to reconcile the current leviathan and all its various agencies and what have you in any sort of a constitutional order. You just call it what it is. We have a giant mass democracy, a mobocracy. Check out today’s transcript for more…

On the Permanence of the Union – William Rawles

May 31, 2012 http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/on-the-permanence-of-the-union-william-rawles/

here is the full writing Of The Permanence Of The Union – 1825, William Rawles

http://www.mikechurch.com/liberty-institute/the-constitution/of-the-permanence-of-the-union-1825-william-rawles/

Patrick Henry – Why did they say “We the People”?

http://www.mikechurch.com/liberty-institute/founders-corner/patrick-henry-why-did-they-say-we-the-people/

Why Is Secession A Naughty Word?

http://www.mikechurch.com/daily-clip/why-is-secession-a-naughty-word/

Mandeville, LA - Exclusive Audio and Transcript - How ironic is this? You want the greatest irony of all ironies? In the Articles of Confederation, it says that the articles, once ratified, were to make a perpetual league of friendship, I believe. They use the word “perpetual.” How perpetual was it when eleven of the states living under it in 1787 and 1788 seceded from it and gave it up and instead adopted the new plan, the Constitution? There’s an argument and a debate that still rages. Check out today's audio and transcript for more...

/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interview With Professor Donald Livingston

http://www.mikechurch.com/daily-clip/interview-with-professor-donald-livingston/

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Audio & Transcript – Check out Mike’s exclusive interview with Professor Donald Livingston right here. They discuss the size and scope of the Federal Government and how out of scale it has become. This is the main focus of Mr Livingston’s new book “Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century.” Listen to the interview and check out the transcript for the entire interview!

Audio Downloads

Part one: http://www.mikechurch.com/mc-media/daily-clip/18042012_PSS_Interview_Livingston_Part1.mp3

Part two: http://www.mikechurch.com/mc-media/daily-clip/18042012_PSS_Interview_Livingston_Part2.mp3

Part three: http://www.mikechurch.com/mc-media/daily-clip/18042012_PSS_Interview_Livingston_Part3.mp3

What Ever Happened to the Constitution? | Andrew Napolitano http://youtu.be/0sNWbiAMf80

this is the type of stuff that needs to be taught in school.. especially the point between 23min and 27min that sums up in a nutshell what is wrong with our gov today. We need to relearn and teach that its the STATES and the PEOPLE that have the power NOT the FED GOV. That we the STATES and the PEOPLE have the LAST say. The Fed Gov can ONLY do what we the STATES , PEOPLE and CONSTITUTION let them do. The Constitution TELLS the Fed Gov what LIMITED powers they have.

Did the “Civil War” Settle “Supremacy”?

Posted by William Kennedy http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/09/did-the-civil-war-settle-supremacy/#more-13141

What If the States Refuse to Comply?

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/17/what-if-the-states-refuse-to-comply/

What if the federal government passes a “law” and everyone ignores it, or actively blocks its enforcement? What if a state said it no longer would comply with the EPA, HUD, DOE, DOT, DHS, etc. etc.? What if multiple states refused to comply with federal rules, regulations and “laws”?

If they did, what then?

The Nullification Movement

Dexter Wright http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/m-the_nullification_movement.html

Secession: It's constitutional

Walter E. Williams offers evidence from 18th and 19th century U.S. history

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/

Even The English Knew The Constitution Made Secession Legal

January 3, 2013 http://www.mikechurch.com/liberty-institute/the-constitution/even-the-english-knew-the-constitution-made-secession-legal/

The right of revolution http://libertycrier.com/forum/right-of-revolution

The right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China. It has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

A Founder’s Case Against A ‘National’ Government

An important history lesson on the #Constitution from the #Founders.

READ IT:

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/06/a-founders-case-against-a-national-government/

Declaration Of Independence: Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/declaration-of-independence-do-our-rights-come-from-god-the-constitution-the-supreme-court-or-congress/#ixzz2Y89EtD6v

Bill Of Rights Is Meant To Restrict The Feds, Not The States

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/bill-of-rights-is-meant-to-restrict-the-feds-not-the-states/

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – The Bill of Rights was used and created to provide further safeguards for the states against the Feds, just in case the Feds got the bright idea that they wanted to try, as the vulgar phrase goes in 2013, take our guns away. The Second Amendment says: No, you can’t; you’re prohibited from doing it. That doesn’t mean the State of Illinois couldn’t do it. It just means that the Feds can’t do it. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Is Secession Legal ?

"Hope you enjoy this fun chat. Next month I've been asked by a law school to speak on secession

"

So here's what I told those law students about the right of secession. Warning: there is a SLIGHT chance that this material differs a bit from what they learn in class. http://tomwoods.com/blog/what-i-told-those-law-students-about-secession/ Tom Woods

The Abraham Lincoln Myth Serves The Purpose of the U.S. Regime' http://youtu.be/WhD8PoKN8BI

Abraham Lincoln The Treasonous TYRANT - Judge Napolitano http://youtu.be/fgA4qYpR5aI

Lincoln vs. the Constitution | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://youtu.be/RVmgUqv8ZcE

Secession: The Reasonable Option Everyone Resists | Tom Woods

http://youtu.be/IXOEdvfMeIY

Lincoln’s Lust for Empire & How Jefferson Davis Exposed it as Tyranny

http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/12/lincolns-lust-empire-jefferson-davis-exposed-tyranny/

Secession: American as apple pie

Exclusive: Molotov Mitchell pits Jefferson against Lincoln on newly popular issue

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/secession-american-as-apple-pie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Apple, the rebel IT company turned into the very same oppressive corporate machine that they were battling in their 1984 Superbowl commercial.

Film at ten.

I mean, seriously, what's new about Apple being pansies about everything?

They want to monopolize electronic media distribution, but can't tolerate whatever offends any sufficiently loudmouthed interest group. Well, they are a for profit business (and they stand for ruthless profit maximization more than most other companies). Apple never tolerated critics of their gilded cage policies, dissent, hackers, or anyone other who actually thought different(ly).

So, I'll follow Apple's fine example by shutting down this thread, and proving that I'm just the same kind of pansy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×