http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1400" title="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1400" target="_blank"http://www.mises.org/fullstor...

Remembering Karl Hess


by Gary Galles

[Posted December 31 2003]

This essay was the basis of a talk that Galles gave at the Karl Hess Club.

2003 was the 80th anniversary of the birth of Karl Hess, a beloved libertarian and public intellectual who was involved in most of the political debates from the 1960s until his death in 1994. His efforts on behalf of liberty were prolific, whether in over a dozen books or the life he lived in harmony with what he believed.

He is best known for penning "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue" as Barry Goldwater's head speech writer (his ability was reflected in Goldwater's nickname for him: Shakespeare). 

He wrote In a Cause that Will Triumph (1967), Dear America (1975), and Neighborhood Power (1975). But his most influential work was probably his 1969 Playboy article
"The Death of Politics." Published prior to the founding of the Libertarian Party, it has been singled out as a central influence in inspiring a revival of the libertarian movement. A short documentary on his life, "Karl Hess: Toward Liberty," even won two Oscars in 1981.

Hess came to his radical views after writing to Murray Rothbard and requesting to meet him. Rothbard invited him to New York. "It was a classical salon, a roomful of a dozen or so extraordinarily bright and witty men and women united by enthusiasm for liberty," wrote Hess. He later wrote for Rothbard's newsletters and co-edited the Libertarian Forum. And while he was involved in the Libertarian Party later, he was never really interested in politics as anything but a venue for airing dissent against the prevailing trends of our time.

Given his influence in reigniting the embers of what had been the flame of liberty at America's founding, it is worth commemorating Karl Hess by considering some of his powerful words.

Politics has always been the institutionalized and established way in which some men have exercised the power to live off the output of other men.

Politics, throughout time, has been the institutionalized denial of man's ability to survive through the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare. And politics, throughout time, has existed solely through the resources that it has been able to plunder from the creative and productive people whom it has, in the name of many causes and moralities, denied the exclusive employment of all their own powers for their own welfare.
Political parties and politicians today (all parties and all politicians) question only the forms through which they will express their common belief in controlling the lives of others.

The reactionary tendencies of both liberals and conservatives today show clearly in their willingness to cede, to the state or the community, power far beyond the protection of liberty against violence. For differing purposes, both see the state as an instrument not protecting man's freedom but either instructing or restricting how that freedom is to be used.

Once the power of the community becomes in any sense normative, rather than merely protective, it is difficult to see where any lines may be drawn to limit further transgressions against individual freedom.

...the state...has not given me anything that it did not first extort from me.

...the real answer...must lie in the abandonment, not the extension, of state power—state power that oppresses people, state power that tempts people.

Why should anyone have permanent authority over you and your kids merely because they provide certain services?
No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person.

...government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men's affairs...

When you put your faith in big government, you end up an apologist for mass murder.

The most interesting political questions throughout history have been whether humans will be ruled or free, whether they will be responsible for their actions as individuals or left irresponsible as members of society, and whether they can live in peace by volitional agreements alone. The fundamental question of politics has always been whether there should be politics.

Will men continue to submit to rule by politics, which has always meant the power of some men over other men...?
Politics devour men; a laissez-faire world will liberate them.

...many people...are so unsure of freedom that they see its preservation only in its abandonment... We seek...who are neither afraid nor ashamed of what freedom has accomplished, and who will pledge their future to a life in freedom rather than mortgage it to fear, to regimentation, and to a garrison state.

The Declaration of Independence is so lucid we're afraid of it today. It scares the hell out of every modern bureaucrat, because it tells them there comes a time when we must stop taking orders.

I want the freedom to be responsible for my own actions...

...freedom has been our vision. Some say it is our myth. I say it is our possibility.
...each man is a sovereign land of liberty...

Liberty [is]...simply being human to the hilt; being absolutely responsible for your own choices in life, questioning authority, being honest in all dealing with others, and never initiating force to get your way or condoning it for someone else to get their way.

Libertarians yearn for a state that cannot, beyond any possibility or amendment, confer any advantage on anyone; a state that cannot compel anything, but simply prevents the use of violence, in place of other exchanges, in relations between individuals or groups.

Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit; that all man's social actions should be voluntary, and that respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life, and by extension, the property and fruits of that life, is the ethical basis of a humane and open society.  In this view, the only—repeat only—function of law or government is to provide the self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself.

In a laissez-faire society, there could exist no public institution with the power to forcefully protect people from themselves. From other people (criminals), yes. From one's own self, no.
...every community should be one of voluntarism, to the extent that it lives for and through its own people and does not force others to pay its bills. Communities should not be exempted from the civil liberty prescribed for people—the exclusive enjoyment of all their own powers for their own welfare. This means that no one should serve you involuntarily and that you should not involuntarily serve anyone else.

The libertarian, laissez-faire movement...builds diversified power to be protected against government, even to dispense with government to a major degree, rather than seeking power to protect government or to perform any special social purpose.

The radical and revolutionary view of the future of nationhood is, logically, that it has no future, only a past—often an exciting one, and usually a historically useful one at some stage. But lines drawn on paper, on the ground or in the stratosphere are clearly insufficient to the future of mankind.

My community is the community of all who love liberty.

Karl Hess lived as an illustration of his own advice: "We have the illusion of freedom only because so few ever try to exercise it. Try it sometime." He also did what he urged others to do: "keep slogging away...opposing restrictions against liberty." He was one of very few Americans to have really reflected Patrick Henry's immortal words, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" We can be grateful he did so with words of clarity and acuity, rather than the obfuscation so often resorted to when liberty is besieged by those who want power over other men:
Think of whether you have ever met a libertarian who is more a threat to you than is a willing, serving agent of the state. More irritating perhaps. More dangerous? I doubt it. Happily, such libertarians are far more easily ignored than the agents of the state.


_________________________ ________


Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

This newsletter is from William J. Murray, Chairman - Religious Freedom Coalition

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - WEEK ENDING JANUARY 2, 2004

CONGRESS IN RECESS UNTIL JANUARY 20, 2004

THE PRESIDENCY

On December 30th USA Today ran an editorial cartoon picturing a check written from the Bush/Cheney Committee to Howard Dean for President with a memo that said "keep talking." Republicans think that Howard Dean as the Democrat front runner in the primaries is just a big laugh.

I don't think it is funny, I think it is sad.
It says something about our nation that a great political party consisting of millions of Americans could possibly pick someone as mentally unstable as Howard Dean to lead their party and carry their banner into a national election. I have just made a comment about Dean (that he is mentally unstable) that has not been printed anywhere, but has been said privately in newsrooms and boardrooms across the nation. No one, not even Governor Howard Dean, can tell what is going to come from his mouth next.

I was shocked to watch him at a rally in San Francisco when he growled out loud that he wasn't going to listen to any preachers . That was a few weeks ago. Then in New Hampshire during an interview on Christmas Day with the Boston Globe, he stated that he would emphasize his Christianity as soon as he began to campaign in the South. What?

Let's take a closer look at Howard Dean and religion. His mother was a Catholic and his father an Episcopalian. He was raised in the Episcopal Church and pretty much stayed there until he met his wife in medical school. His bride, the former Judith Steinberg, is Jewish. He did not convert to Judaism and she did not want to become a Christian. He and his wife have stated that they almost became Unitarians as a compromise.

Compromise? Unitarians do not believe in a living God. The basic belief of that "church" is sort of a fuzzy universalism ... "we are all a part of God." Most Unitarians are either agnostics or atheists and they surely do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.

It gets worse: the Deans told their children to pick a religion, any religion, and that they would not get involved in their decision one way or the other. The kids did, and both chose Judaism, which should give everyone a good idea of the kind of witness for Christ Howard Dean has been to his two children. Sometime in the 1980's he left the Episcopal Church where he was a member over a dispute about the route of a public bike path through the church property. Excuse me? Now, I would leave a church if they ordained female deacons or recruited a homosexual music minister ... but a bike path? He then moved to a Congregationalist Church which he rarely, if ever, attends.

So Howard Dean is a Christian just like Bush the Methodist or Gephardt the Baptist? Not really. When asked about Christ he told the Boston Globe on Christmas Day that, "Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind." Dean said, "He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything. . . . He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it."
Christ was "someone", "a person", "an extraordinary example"? Nowhere in any of his comments can I find Howard Dean referring to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as a part of the Trinity, or being in any way divine. Indeed, he talks of Christ in the past tense, as if He had died in the human sense. Perhaps Howard Dean would have been better off in a Unitarian Church, but then he would have had trouble winning any elections as a member of a near atheistic institution.
Congressman Gephardt, Senator Lieberman and other Democrats do have a rudder of faith to guide them. Howard Dean lacks that rudder and this is precisely why his "deeply held beliefs" vary from day to day. One day he said he did not know if Osama bin Laden was guilty of 9-11 and that the man should get a fair trial. The next day he said Osama deserves the death penalty. He has stated that the United States should receive "permission" from the United Nations before waging war and then said that the Iraqi people must determine their own fate. Howard Dean is not of a single mind, he knows not where he stands on any given issue from one day to the next. The situation is not funny; it is pathetic and dangerous.

EXAMPLE: Suppose Dean gets the Democrat nomination and is trailing by 15 points when the President dies of a heart attack while running the Marine Marathon in October, 2004. Cheney, who is perhaps no more of a social conservative than Dean, becomes President and is at the top of the Republican ticket. The Christian right envisions Cheney's lesbian daughter being married to her female lover in the White House, and they just don't vote. The Muslims join with the unions, the gays, the socialists and the loony greens to vote Dean in, and we have a madman in the White House in January '05.

Now are you scared? You should be. The fact that Howard Dean can raise tens of millions of dollars and attract millions of supporters who really don't care what he says should scare all Americans and the rest of the world as well. While Karl Rove may be ecstatic over the Democrats picking Howard Dean as their standard bearer, I am not. Further, I am sure that President George W. Bush would prefer to run on his merits and his faith against a more worthy opponent than Howard Dean.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE HOUSE AND SENATE

MARRIAGE

The marriage issue looked like a slam dunk for Republicans. They were to stand up for traditional marriage and the Democrats were going to follow the gay agenda. It isn't working out that way. In an editorial this week the Atlanta Journal stated that the White House has a "...more liberal view of civil unions than was taken even by the administration of Bill Clinton, who in 1996 signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act allowing states to refuse to acknowledge such unions established in other states." The editorial continues that the White House is trying to appease both the Christian right and the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans and that this just cannot be done. No it can't, and there is dead silence from Republican congressmen and Senators on the issue as they try to figure out what to do with the White House stance on civil unions.

Accordingly, there is a huge split in the conservative community between those who will back the President no matter what and those who say a stand must be made to keep marriage as a traditional institution with no substitutes. Social conservative leaders, including myself, will meet later this month in Washington, DC to once again attempt to forge a single policy on marriage with the Republican leaders and the White House. I seriously doubt the meeting will be successful. In the end, I believe we will see civil unions codified as an alternate form of marriage. This will be applauded at first, until millions of young adults and the elderly join in civil unions and it becomes obvious that Republicans have created an alternative to marriage that will have the effect of destroying the actual institution of marriage itself.

I do believe that President George W. Bush believes the institution of marriage is ordained by God as he has said. I do not believe, however, that the forces in the White House pushing him to endorse civil unions understand the full ramifications of their efforts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

I will travel to the West Bank either the first or last week of February to visit the Christian schools and families supported there by the Religious Freedom Coalition.

As I mentioned last week, the city of Bethlehem was 95% Christian just 20 years ago and now Christians are less than 20%. The Muslims under Yassar Arafat have forced Christians out of their businesses and homes. A family I have known for almost two decades ran hotels and tourist shops in Bethlehem. Their hotels are in rubble and their tourist store boarded up. The family, wealthy Christians, have for the most part fled to Switzerland. Many other Palestinian Christians have fled to Australia and the United States. This organization and I will continue to work with the Christians in the Holy Land until the last one is run off or killed. We will not abandon our brothers in

William J. Murray, Chairman - Religious Freedom Coalition

Religious Freedom Coalition - Promoting Religious Freedom and Family Based Legislation


http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.asp" title="http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.asp" target="_blank"http://www.rfcnet.org/news/de...

California has long led this nation (over the cliff) in progressive-liberal thinking. Now comes another great? idea. To Hell with American citizenship. Let everyone have the rights of legal citizens, without the responsibilities, values and principles that founded this once great nation, of like minded peoples.
*{FOUNDERS' QUOTATION: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."---Publius ...(John Jay)..The Federalist No. 2}*

Read the following article about this PCBS mentality, which is destined to ruin this country.

Consider Avila's recommendation to win voting rights for non-citizens by increasing "public debate." Quite a suggestion, since it's clear that Avila doesn't want debate. Debate allows both sides to be heard, whereas Avila's idea of debate turns out to be "conferences and symposiums" that "formulate strategies for empowering this politically excluded community."

Debra Saunders: No history, no study, no debate
Address:http://www.townhall.com/colum...


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaund ers/printds20031229.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaund ers/printds20031229.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

QUOTATION:

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."---Publius
...(John Jay)..The Federalist No. 2

OF..course, President Jay ( John Jay served as President from 1778 to 1779: READ ARTICLE was refering, at the end, to separate 'states', but, I certainly feel that it easily could apply to the 'divisiveness' we experience 'today' in most of our everyday lives. Replace "alien sovereignties" with ",unsocial, jealous and alien ancestors, cultures, languages, religions, principles of government, customs and manners."

Now, apply that to the entire context of the quote.

Now do you understend how diversity and multi-culturalism ain't what the globalist, 'progressive-liberal' (socialist) "PC" crowd, crack it up to be? NO DOUBT..it sure ain't what the Founding Fathers' had in mind!

I like to say we are "NED" {a NATION EQUALLY DIVIDED}.

I really don't "like" to say it, but it's true. We find it's true on numerous issues; abortion, Bush v Gore for President '00 (perfect example of the country truly being "NED", { A. LINCOLN WON BY THE LARGE MAJORITY OF 36% OF THE VOTERS.} ), etc..

Let's call this one MULTICULTURALISM / IMMIGRATION 'PCBS':

Dennis Prager offers a pretty good example of what the Middle East is all about. Just goes to show you that Multicultralism is a pipe (bomb) dream. It has never and never will work. It completely flies in the face of human nature. Read on.

Iran clarifies the Middle East


Dennis Prager
townhall.com
December 30, 2003

 If you want to understand the Middle East conflict, Iran has just provided all you need to know.

 
A massive earthquake kills between 20,000 and 40,000 Iranians, and the government of Iran announces that help is welcome from every country in the world . . . except Israel.

 This little-reported news item is of great significance. It begs commentary.
 Israel not only has the world's most experienced crews in quickly finding survivors in bombed out buildings, it is also a mere two-hour flight from Iran. In other words, no country in the world would come close to Israel in its ability to save Iranian lives quickly.

 But none of this means anything to the rulers of Iran. The Islamic government of Iran has announced to the world that it is better for fellow countrymen and fellow Muslims -- men, women and children -- to die buried under rubble than to be saved by a Jew from Israel.

 That is how deep the hatred of Israel and Jews is in much of the Muslim world.

 Hundreds of millions of Muslims -- Arab and non-Arab, Sunni and Shi'a -- hate Israel more than they love life. Leaders of the Palestinian terror organization Hamas repeatedly state, "We love death more than the Jews love life." And now, Iran announces that it is better for a Muslim to asphyxiate under the earth than be rescued by a Jew from Israel.

 Naive Westerners -- which includes most academics, intellectuals, members of the international news media, and nearly all others on the Left -- refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Arab/Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews. Yet, there is no hatred in the world analogous to it. Not since the Nazi hatred of Jews has humanity witnessed such hate.

 That is why finding survivors from earthquakes, creating a Palestinian state and life itself are all far less important in much of the Islamic and Arab worlds than killing Jews and destroying the little Jewish state.

 That is why Arab newspapers run articles by Arab professors describing how Jews butcher non-Jewish children to use their blood for holiday meals.

 That is why Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad could get a standing ovation from the heads of every Muslim country when he told them "the Jews rule the world by proxy."

 That is why Palestinian parents celebrate the suicide terror of their sons -- the joy of killing Israeli families far outweighs the pain of the death of their child.

 Western naifs like to believe platitudes such as "Deep down, all people are really the same," "All people want peace," and the great untruth of multiculturalism that no culture is morally superior to another. That is why they choose not to face the truth about the Nazi-like hatred that permeates the Arab/Muslim world and the consequent moral gulf that exists between it and Israel. It shatters too many of their illusions.

 Surely the Iranian refusal of rescuers from the Jewish state ought to help all these people acknowledge the unique hatred that is at the root of the Arab-Israeli dispute and recognize that it is therefore a conflict unlike any other on earth.

 So, too, the immediate and sincere Israeli offer of rescuers to Iran should make the moral gulf between Israel and its enemies as clear as day. Despite the fact that Iran is the greatest backer of anti-Israel (and anti-American) terror and despite the fact that Iran repeatedly declares that Israel must be annihilated (in other words, seeks a second Jewish Holocaust), Israel offered to send its people to save Iranian lives.


 The two reactions -- Iran's preference for Iranian deaths to Israeli help and the Jewish state's instinctive offer to help save Iranian lives -- ought to be enough anyone needs to understand the source of the Middle East conflict. But they won't. Because those who are anti-Israel or "evenhanded" are not so because of the facts, but despite them.

Dennis Prager: Iran clarifies the Middle East

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprag er/printdp20031230.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprag er/printdp20031230.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

The Cultural Genocide Has Not Abated


Al Benson, Jr. - The Patriotist

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, the term "genocide" refers to "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." That pretty well describes that has been done and what is still being done to Southerners since the first installment of "reconstruction" back in the late 1860s. Southern, Christian culture has, since that time, been the object of an ongoing political and ideological pogrom designed to remove it from the memory of man and from its place in our history. You might call it "1984 revisited."

Last year about this time, I wrote an article that dealt with looking both forward and backward, and I noted that I expected this year to be but one more in the continuing onslaught against Southern, and particularly Southern Christian culture. I have never claimed to be a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but events taking place this year have not exactly proven my contention in this area to be wrong.

Before the year was far along, we had the usual run of political wannabees, all jockeying for preferred status in the prostitute press, mouthing the usual pretentious drivel about how bad Confederate flags and symbols are. When one would-be presidential candidate, hoping to make some political hay, stated he would like to be the candidate of those people who use those horrible symbols on their pickup trucks, he was quickly beaten into verbal subjection for daring to want to, at the national level, even think of representing such terrible people. Why all people everywhere just know that anyone who has a Confederate symbol on his vehicle must be a terrible racist. Surely such people can't be worthy of representation or recognition. And yet another politician from the Show Me State said that Confederate flags should not be flown anywhere, and he managed via his comments, to have a couple in Missouri taken down from memorial sites. I hope at election time, or even before, the decent people of Missouri will have the common sense to "Show him the door" politically.

Then there has been the ongoing situation of students in government schools being suspended for wearing T-shirts with Confederate symbols on them. This has occurred in several states, and the parents of these students who have been thusly treated have, at this point, little to be happy about. Their protests are mostly ignored. Anything Confederate is strictly anathema in government schools and will, in most cases, continue to be. Don't expect that to change. Why it never occurs to these parents to simply take their children and secede from the government system is beyond me. Perhaps the government school system in the South has finally managed to teach "the Rebel's children respect for national authority."

And now we have a new wrinkle to the government school game. Government schools in the South that were named after Confederate heroes are now being threatened with name changes because the school officials don't want the kids to have to be confronted with the names of people that "fought to preserve slavery." Why the poor darlings! What a crock that is!!! But it gets back to the old government school saw that the War of Northern Aggression was fought by the North to prevent the South from keeping her slaves. I've stated before, and probably will again because it's true, that if the South wanted only to preserve the institution of slavery, she could have done so by remaining in the Union. But today's benumbed generation, having not been taugh to think or reason, cannot begin to grasp such an unconventional concept as that.

So they don't want government school buildings named after Confederate heroes. Who do they plan to name those schools after? In the North, many government schools are named after well-known Unitarians and other such radicals. I can just picture the new bumpersticker on the back of a mini-van that says "My child is on the honor roll at Karl Marx Middle School." That may not be as far out as it sounds.

In Hampton, Virginia there is a school named Jefferson Davis Middle School. It now seems that there is some sort of "petition drive" on [one wonders who originated this] to change the name of the school because Davis was, after all, a slave owner - the worst of all unpardonable sins! I wonder how many government schools in this country might have been named after Ulysses S. Grant. After all, he was a slave owner too, or at least his wife was, and Grant, gentle soul that he was, made no effort whatever to free those slaves until forced to do so by the passage of the 13th Amendment.

Anyway, there seems to be quite a fuss over this school in Hampton, Virginia. And naturally, Julian Bond, a radical "civil rights" leader, has stepped in and put his two cents worth in. In his pontification on this situation, Bond has, not very trenchantly, uttered: "If it had been up to Robert E. Lee, these kids wouldn't be going to school as they are today. They can't help wondering about honoring a man who wanted to keep them in servitude." Somewhat of an amazing statement - considering that Robert E. Lee really has nothing to do with this situation. The man the school is named after is Jeff Davis, not General Lee. I guess, however, that's about as much depth as you can expect from "civil rights" historians though. Should Mr. Bond decide to comment on General Lee, though, he ought to at least have done some homework. Robert E. Lee never fought to preserve slavery. He, in fact, freed slaves owned by his wife even before the War started, and he personally felt that slavery was a great moral and political evil. Even "civil rights" historians ought to know that much if they have taken the trouble to read anything at all about some of those they preach against. Or, worse yet, maybe they do know that much after all, but would rather you didn't know it. All the better to manipulate you with my dear.

And so the name of the cultural genocide game remains the same - and you can look for it to continue in the coming year. As long as our people continue to leave their kids in the government schools for their enemies to educate, this part of the situation will never change.

However, what those practitioners of cultural genocide regarding Southern Christians are really afraid of is those youngsters that do not fall within the purview of the government brain-laundering system, those homeschools and Christian-schooled kids that are being taught to think for themselves and who will end up homeschooling their children so they, too, may think for themselves. Some in the Southern Heritage Movement that are Christians have worked at teaching their children the truth, and now those children are busy teaching their children the same truth - and teaching them how to teach their children. Our goal is multigenerational education, so that Christian and Southern heritage will always be with us. And, as our grandchildren grow and learn how cultural genocide was practiced on their parents, they will, with God's help, learn how to resist it, combat it, and, eventually conquer it. I will not live to see that, but, in God's Providence, my grandchildren may live to see their children do it, and I think that possibility really scares the daylights out of those that would destroy our heritage. The anti-Christians and heritage-destroyers, like the devil, [their father] go around "seeking who they may devour" because they realize their time is short and that in the end, they will not prevail.

Copyright ©, 2003 Al Benson Jr.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Al Benson, Jr.-The Patriotist

http://www.patriotist.com/benson.htm" title="http://www.patriotist.com/benson.htm" target="_blank"http://www.patriotist.com/ben...