The Pledge

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We know these words by heart. We have said them countless times as we have grown through our lives. We have recited this Pledge as a part of our Patriotic duty, and to honor our Nation. We have done these things without fully knowing, understanding, or comprehending where these words came from; what they mean; or why they exist.

Once we learn the basic elements of Who, What, When, Where, and Why of those things we take for granted, or do from habit, we may then feel like fools for having done it. Because of the fear of being foolish, we often refuse to accept certain truths… even when the evidence is irrefutable.

What truth am I referring to? Why should anyone feel the fool for reciting the glorious Pledge? My answers may surprise you; they may even anger you; but they are the truth nevertheless.

Francis Julius Bellamy, a Baptist Minister and Cousin of Edward Bellamy, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.

The original Pledge was a bit different than the one recited today:
I pledge allegiance to my flag and (to) the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Pledge was to be recited using the “Bellamy Salute”, a salute akin to the way Roman Soldiers would salute the Caesar. The right hand was over the heart while reciting “I pledge allegiance”; at the point in which “to the flag” was recited, the arm was extended to the flag, where it would remain for the duration of the rest of the Pledge.

The Pledge was published in the leading family magazine of the day, “The Youth’s Companion” at the behest of Daniel Ford, the owner and editor.

The Pledge was then used officially during programs for Public Schools during a celebration of Columbus Day in 1892. Francis Bellamy was chairman of the committee of state superintendents of the NEA (National Education Association), so implementation was considerably easy; especially considering President Harrison set forth a proclamation making it so.

By 1898, a movement was underway to put a US Flag in front of every school in America. The goal was to boost a sense of Nationalism and Patriotism in the children. By 1905 Northern States began passing laws requiring Schools to fly the flag (the South refused to based, most likely, on their contempt for the flag of the Union).

In 1923, the National Flag Conference changed the words of the Pledge from “my flag” to “the Flag of the United States of America”… Bellamy protested, but the change was made. The purpose for the change was to insure that immigrants knew for certain which flag they were giving their allegiance.

In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools could be COMPELLED to recite the Pledge, even if they objected to it on religious grounds. In light of the riots this caused, in 1943 the Supreme Court reversed itself and made exception for religious objection.

In 1945, the US Congress made the Pledge of Allegiance an official National Pledge.

In 1954, President Eisenhower authorized the words “under God” to be inserted into the Pledge.

With basic history of the Pledge now behind us, we have, at least, skimmed the surface of the Who, What, When, and Where; and for the most part, you are probably not all that bothered or alarmed by most of what you have read.

It is when we dig deeper into the “Who”, and begin touching upon the “Why” that this seemingly benign bit of history begins to become upsetting.

Edward Bellamy was the author of Socialist Utopian novels. His cousin, Francis Bellamy was a socialist, who dreamed of making Edwards Utopia a reality.

Francis Bellamy used his pulpit to further his socialist agenda, and was eventually kicked out of his Church for his ardent socialist sermons and stances.

Daniel Ford was not only the owner and editor of “Youth’s Companion”, but was a member of Bellamy’s congregation; who was greatly impressed by Bellamy’s socialist’s philosophy and sermons. Daniel Ford went on to found the Ford Hall Forum… a socialist forum dedicated to educational organization and public involvement.

The “Youth Companion”, began selling flags to schools to solicit subscriptions and promote the Pledge. The magazine became the leading campaigner on behalf of the Pledge… thrusting it into the very fabric of American society. The campaign was headed by James Upham, Daniel Ford’s nephew.

James Upham, a socialist, was an ardent campaigner for the Pledge; and implemented many ideas that brought the Pledge into the American culture.

Now that we know a little more about the “Who”, lets move on to the “Why”:

It was the belief of Francis and Edward Bellamy that in order to bring about a socialist Utopia, you must (as all manipulators of society knows) indoctrinate the children. It was vital to them to instill in the children an overwhelming sense of Nationalism, and Patriotism; a loyalty to State… a single Nation, not a federation of sovereign States.

Bellamy was very careful in his wording of the Pledge. Each and every word meant something specific, and every specific word was meant to bring about the idea of his Utopia.

I pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible…
“The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the "republic for which it stands." ... And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.”—Francis Bellamy

…with liberty and justice for all.
An American take on a French Revolutionary idea “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Bellamy referred to the French Revolution as “the poetry of human brotherhood”. The French Revolution is a study in socialism.

Bellamy wanted the Pledge to be a vow to State; garnering the idea from the “loyalty oaths” that were thrust upon Confederates as they were conquered by Lincoln’s army; and throughout the reign of Reconstruction.

The love of the State, Bellamy believed, should override the love of individuality and liberty, as those things would stand in the way of achieving the socialist utopia.

“America suffers too much liberty, and not enough equality”—Francis Bellamy

It was Bellamy’s contention that the public school system could be used as a means to teach blind obedience to the State. The National Education Association was a means to that end.

We now know the Who: Socialist
We now know the What: The Pledge
We now know the When: 1892 to the present day
We now know the Where: the “freest” country in the world
We now know the Why: To bring about a socialist utopia by indoctrinating the children into a love of State (Nationalism) over individual liberty.

It seems they were successful, for how many people speak out against the encroachment of their liberties out of fear of being called “unpatriotic”? How many people do you know who get angry if you do not say the Pledge, because they accuse you of not loving America? Why do men fight and die, is it for love of liberty, or love of Country?

The Pledge is, on its face, a very UN-American thing to do. If we are to pledge ourselves to anything, it should be the Constitution and the liberties it guarantees; not to the State, which seeks only to centralize its power and strip away the freedoms we take for granted.

(Note: See the effect Bellamy and the Pledge had on Hitler... including the use of the "Bellamy Salute" which is now associated as the Nazi Salute. The Bellamy Salute was done away with in 1950 due to association to the Nazi's; it was replaced by the modern practice of covering the heart with the right hand.)

Feminism: A Scourge on Society

I am sure if you asked most people what the Feminist Movement was originally about, they would say “equality” or “oppression”, and so on. What if I were to say that it was not, is not, and never will be about that?

What if I were to tell you that the second wave of feminism, which launched in earnest with the release of Betty Friedan’s 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique”, was actually a manufactured (or inflated) movement steeped in Marxism, used as a deliberate means to tear down American society, and aid in the coming of the “New World Order”? Would you say I was crazy, or a conspiracy theorist, or off my meds..? What if I gave you evidence of such a thing? Would your ingrained view of the world allow you to accept it? Can you step back and look at the world we live in today, and juxtapose it to the world of even 30 years ago?

“Destroy the family, and you destroy society.” – Lenin

Before I begin to make my case, allow me to refresh you on a few things, including names of major players, and warnings from the past.

Refer to:

http://opinetime.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-world-order.html

http://opinetime.blogspot.com/2006/12/coming-of-new-america.html

Keep in mind what the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and the Council on Foreign Relations is; what their agenda is, who runs and finances these groups, and who its members are.

A sampling can be seen here:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation)

The Rockefeller Foundation is a major supporter and financial contributor to the Feminist Movement from its beginnings to present day; including the funding and support for “Women’s Studies” (aka Feminist recruitment and indoctrination centers) at Universities throughout the country.

In 1958, a young activist and writer named Gloria Steinem was recruited by the CIA (Agent Clay Felker, who would go on to be an editor for feminist publications) for the purpose of promoting American involvement in a World Youth Festival, a Marxists/Globalist gathering of youths from various nations.

I do not know the exact purpose the CIA (with backing by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations) had for sending Gloria Steinem in—though, it in part had to do with using such efforts as a “nursery school” for potential, future CIA employees and agents; Gloria’s purpose for going was, to some extent, to further her socialist beliefs.

“I have sued twice to hide my CIA ties.”—Gloria Steinem (included in the law suit in support of Steinem was Clay Felker and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas)

“Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations.”—Henry Makow

With her CIA connections in tow, Gloria Steinem attained media attention, financial backing, and sponsorship of a media outlet (MS magazine, and others) for the purpose of promoting Feminism in the United States, and the rest of Western Civilization. Though she tried to paint herself as a “radical”, she kept some very “establishment” bedfellows… literally, having dated Stanley Pottinger, Attorney General during the Nixon and Ford administrations; and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger (who, oddly enough are/were both members of the CFR).

The Rockefellers had a great interest in seeing the feminist movement prevail; for in keeping with Freneau’s Rules:

#10: Divide and govern. Establish classes of people, and keep them at odds with one another. A "majority vote" can be established by pandering to one class or another for the purpose of the question at hand.

#16: Keep the people asleep so as not to discover your true intentions; or divide them so they cannot resist.

The immediate goal of those who want to bring about a “New World Order”, is to destroy the family unit, because they believe that in order to prevail you must separate Man from his God, his family, his traditions, and his responsibilities so that you create an automaton that no longer has a will or reason to fight.

Strong families make strong communities. Strong communities keep government in check. If you break down society, you can easily centralize power. The “Globalists” seek to break down families and allow government to attain greater and greater control of everyday life.

“Let me tell you what that [the feminist movement] was about, we the Rockefellers funded that, we funded women’s lib, we’re the ones who got all of the newspapers and television – the Rockefeller Foundation.” – Nicholas Rockefeller

“[We did it for two reasons] One, before women’s lib the bankers couldn’t tax half the population; and two, because it allowed us to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.” – Nicholas Rockefeller

It is also the contention of the Rockefellers that the world is too overpopulated, and that the population must be decreased so that they can be more easily controlled.

This is also why feminism has entrenched itself so tightly to the Homosexual Movement, whose aims are the same; and who are funded and backed by the same people. Together they tear away at tradition, family, and marriage.

Feminists and the Media have done a great job of making the populace believe that Feminists stood for the empowerment of women and the equality of all… but this is nothing less than a bold-faced lie.

Or put another way… “[Feminism is not] about equal opportunity for women. It is a thuggish, devious synthesis of Marxism and lesbianism used by ruling elites to undermine individuals and weaken society. It is to society what AIDS is to the body.” — Feminism Defined, by Bruce Eden of Divorce Reform in New Jersey

Take a moment and read it in their own words; I will return at the end for some final remarks:

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Simone de Beauvoir, feminist leader

“The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men.” – Alison Jagger, feminist leader

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” – Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and professor at Wellesley College.

“[If we destroy the family unit] Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” – Roxanne Dunbar, feminist author

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” – From “Sisterhood is Powerful” (1970)

“Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their ‘true’ role.” – Andrea Dworkin, feminist leader

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” – Sheila Cronan, feminist leader

“…women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they marry and raise children.” – Phyllis Chesler, feminist leader

“Marriage is just another form of prostitution.” – Barbara Ehrenreich, feminist activist and author

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."— Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."— Catherine MacKinnon

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." — Catherine MacKinnon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." — Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

"Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women's erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices... Those definitions... are about the oppression and exploitation of women [by men]."— Marilyn Frye

“…[I]t is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. — The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" — Gloria Steinem, editor of 'MS' magazine.

"God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much that He won't fit anymore."— Naomi Goldenberg

“Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism” — Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Feminist Law Professor at University of Michigan

“Prime purposes of feminism are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family unit.” — The Declaration of Feminism

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" — Vivian Gornick, feminist author

"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.” — Andrea Dworkin.

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."— National Now Times, Jan.1988

Feminism has been, is, and forever will be the scourge of society…

'...Women's liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.' — Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse

Feminism is not unlike Nazism… “Even the language of the [feminist] movement mirrors the mood of fascism. The apocalyptic and hate-filled rhetoric of radical feminists expresses their eagerness to inflict harm.” — Robert H. Bork

The Globalists are no fools, they understand what every dictator, fascists, or totalitarian understands, and Hitler so knowingly stated…

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." -- Adolph Hitler

Get the mothers at odds with the fathers. Get the mothers out of the homes. Get the children out of the wombs or get the children to indoctrination rooms.

Here is what feminism has accomplished in the last 46 years (revised and corrected):

POINT 1: Feminist have helped destroy marriage.

(this statement cites its references... from an AP News story, emphasis mine)
"America's divorce rate began climbing in the late 1960s and skyrocketed during the '70s and early '80s, as virtually every state adopted no-fault divorce laws. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981.

But since then it's dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That's the lowest rate since 1970.
What's fueling that decline? According to 20 scholars, marriage-promotion experts and divorce lawyers consulted by The Associated Press, a lot of things.

The number of couples who live together without marrying has increased tenfold since 1960; the marriage rate has dropped by nearly 30 percent in past 25 years; and Americans are waiting about five years longer to marry than they did in 1970." (In other words... divorce rates are dropping during recent history due to less people marrying.)

The stats provided from the US Census Bureau supports this...

"Recent US scholarship based on such longterm (sic) tracking,
reported for example in the New York Times on April 19,
2005, has found that about 60% of all marriages that result
in divorce do so in the first decade, and more than 80% do
so within the first 20 years; that the percentage of all marriages
that eventually end in divorce peaked in the United States at
about 41% around 1980, and has been slowly declining ever
since, standing by 2002 at around 31%. Some have attributed
this decline to the popularity of co-habitation (sic) without marriage."

Guess who pushed for "No Fault Divorce"? Need a hint? Feminists.

The National Association of Women Lawyers (a feminist organization) according to their website: http://www.abanet.org/nawl/about/history.html

""The greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken" is the description given by committee chair Matilda Fenberg to NAWL's pioneering work to create a Uniform Divorce Bill." ...and

"In 1965, the Conference commenced the task of drafting, and in 1970 produced, the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (amended in 1971 and 1973). By 1977, the divorce portions had been adopted by nine states. Following this, the momentum for uniformity waned, but the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states." (When did divorce rates skyrocket? Oh yeah, late 60's, 70's, and 80's... the reigning era of the second wave feminists)

POINT 2: There has been a dramatic rise in promiscuity among teenage girls.
There was a poll of NYC teens and the promiscuity rate hit 90% among girls in some high schools.

Further polls... such as one conducted by NYC Magazine showed the promiscuity rate at 61%.
A poll by Planned Parenthood shows the number to be 57%.

Zogby polls showed a 79% promiscuity rate by college age (18 - 19); 61% have multiple partners starting from as young as 15.

NY Times poll showed the number to be 75%.

According to the CDC the promiscuity rate among teen girls in 1960 was 4%. That is an increase to (using the lowest modern numbers) 14.25 times the rate in 1960.

POINT 3: The teenage pregnancy rates have risen DRAMATICALLY since 1960.
According to (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf ) the teenage pregnancy rate was 95.1 per 1000 in 1972, down to 75.4 by 2002-- which was largely attributed to birth control.

According to the University of New Mexico School of Medicine... the number of teenage pregnancies will reach approximately 1,000,000 with roughly 1/3 ending in abortion, 1/3 ending in miscarriage, and the remaining 1/3 will come to term. More than half of these pregnancies are to girls under 17 years of age. According to studies by the March of Dimes... 17% will go on to have a second child within 3 years.

The March of Dimes study went on to state that 11% of all births in the US are to teenage girls.

There is no specific data on teenage pregnancy rates of 1960, but according to the CDC the number of ALL unmarried women (i.e. ALL age brackets) was 15.3 per 1000 (in other words, ALL the unwed pregnancies of ALL ages in 1960 is roughly 1/5 the current rate of TEEN pregnancy of the "declining number" today).

POINT 4: Since Roe v Wade the number of aborted babies is 48,589,993.
The rate of abortions in 1972 was 19.1 per 1000, up to 42.3 in 1986, and down to 21.7 in 2002. In 1965 (first available data) was .07 per 1000 pregnancies. So from 1965 to 1972 the abortion rate jumped roughly 273 times higher than the 1965 rate. As of 2002 the abortion rate was 310 times higher than in 1965.

According to the National Right to Life website, the total number of abortions since Roe v Wade is 48,589,993.

POINT 5: As the NY Times headline reads "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse".
According to RECENT reports (reported here http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?ex=1326603600&en=8b6192126c472ee5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/eveningnews/main2365036.shtml ) the rate of unmarried women has now risen to 51%.

POINT 6: The rate of Cervical Cancer has been rising 3% per year since 1986 even though the rate and intensity of pap smears has increased (i.e Cervical Cancer has dramatically increased due to "two types of HPV that cause the majority of cervical cancers worldwide").
According to the Department of Health and Human Services
"The two-decade quest for the underlying causes of cervical cancer could be considered a scientific success stories, culminating last June in the Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccine Gardasil, which protects against infection from the two types of HPV that cause the majority of cervical cancers worldwide."

The rate has been rising 3% per year since 1986 even though the rate and intensity of pap smears has increased (Encyclopedia.com).

See also (http://opinetime.blogspot.com/search?q=+What+every+woman+should+know...+but+the+feminists+won%27t+tell+you )

POINT 7: A dramatic rise in Breast Cancer since the 1970's (attributed to a change in mating and reproductive habits).
According to Cornell University, the Breast Cancer rates in 1976 was 110 per 100,000 and in 1996 was 135 per 100,000. It is now 129 per 100,000. In 1960 the rate was 50 per 100,000.

According to www.breastcancer.org 1 in 20 women had breast cancer in 1960; now 1 in 8 do.

More info at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BrCaFF2001.pdf

POINT 8: Sperm Counts are dropping... there is SOME debate as to SOME estimates and the root cause.

Can I scientifically link this to the rise of feminism... probably not; but I do find it interesting it is happening over the course of the last couple of decades in the wake of the rise of feminism. This along with other provable factors of the negative impact of feminism, I am inclined... theoretically to say that it has to do with the emasculation of men by feminism.

According to http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7040/1183/a:
"The studies, published in the May (1996) issue of Fertility and Sterility, did not refute estimates that sperm counts were falling worldwide. But they do cast doubt on some previous estimates of levels among US men."

Okay... "did not refute estimates that sperm counts were falling" "cast doubt on SOME previous estimates of levels among US men". This indicates that "A" sperm counts are falling, and "B" there is doubt on SOME estimates of levels among US men specifically... not all.

Now modern (not 1996 reports) are stating that Yes, US sperm counts are dropping but they are saying it is possibly attributed to mother's eating beef (but their not sure)... (like Mom's didn't do that in previous decades).

POINT 9: Dropping Testosterone levels in Men.
Again, can I scientifically link this to the rise of feminism... probably not; but (once again) I do find it interesting it is happening over the course of the last couple of decades in the wake of the rise of feminism. This along with other provable factors of the negative impact of feminism, I am inclined... theoretically to say that it has to do with the emasculation of men by feminism.

Dropping Testosterone levels are at a "dramatic decline in the last two decades". Furthermore "The researchers concluded that the decline in testosterone "does not appear to be attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors, including health and lifestyle changes such as smoking and obesity.""

http://www.endocrinetoday.com/200702/frameset.asp?article=decline.asp

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/1/196

POINT 10: Roughly 50 Million abortions since 1973, and a tripling of maternal filicide cases since 1950 = Dramatic rise in women murdering their own children.
In addition to the murder of roughly 50 Million babies... feminists are also making excuses and enabling people like Andrea Yates and the woman who just recently hung her children in a murder suicide (http://www.wbir.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=45708 ). They cite how these women are actually the victim, are not accountable due to post partem depression, etc. The feminist hold them up as saints, and use it to justify abortion... you don't have to do much research to discover this.

Since 1950 filicide has tripled. According to FBI crime statistics, from 1976 to 1999 30% of children under 5 were murdered by their mother.

The list can go on and on, but the evidence is clear. The collective “They” are succeeding in their goals.

My Trip to Austin

I spent the day at the Capital in Austin on Friday. I went there with the intention of interacting with hundreds of SCV (Sons of Confederate Veterans) on their "Legislative Action Day". My hope was to discuss the Confederate Movement and garner recruits.

I met with one of my contemporaries from Bryan, and we went to where the SCV was to gather. No one was there.

We went to see if they had gone on to the session of the Senate. The Senate was not in session. However, children doing mock events were there.

We went to see if they had gone on to the session of the House. The House was not in session. However, children doing mock events were there.

I looked to my colleague and said, "there can be no 'legislative action day' without a legislature; I think the SCV is going to be a 'no show'". I had checked all of my sources and I definitely had the right day and time. I definitely had the right place. My colleague checked his sources, and verified the same information. Regardless of how "right" we were, the event was not going to happen.

I was disheartened, a 5 hour trip (one way), the cost of gas, meals, a motel room... I then decided to turn lemons into lemonade. This was the first time I had ever been inside the Capital Building. I walked around, taking my own little tour.

My colleague then suggested we go see our representatives... he had read my mind! We went to find them. They weren't in... after all, neither house was in session. We went to see the President Pro Tempore. He was in Houston. My colleague wasted no time though... everyone we spoke with ended with them getting a brief summary of who we were, what our intentions were, and he handed them his card. This happened in various offices, this happened to a little old man directing traffic; in fact, between my colleague handing out cards, our name tags, and all the discussions we were having, few would not of known who we were.

After about an hour or so of walking a marathon, he being a man of extended years, and me being a man of extended weight, decided that we were tired and would eat lunch in the cafeteria.

We sat down and began eating and discussing politics, the role of government, the future of our movement, how we needed to educate the masses that "Confederate" was not a dirty word, and so on.

As we were speaking to each other in a lively, friendly way, a group of about 10 High School kids sat at a large table next to us. My friend and I were engulfed in conversation and barely noticed the looks we were getting from the kids.

One of the kids, who happened to be black, turned and looked to us with a burning look of anger. This, of course, caught my eye. The other kids seemed to be prompting, or encouraging, him in a supportive, loving way. The young man then turned and said to us "Why do you have to do that?"

"Do what?" I asked.

"Its STUPID! Its STUPID, for you to do that!" He said.

"What do you mean?" I asked again.

"Why do you wear that flag? Why do you use that name?" He was getting bolder now.

"Its RACISTS! Its RACISTS!!" He is now very angry and attracting the attention of other tables.

He then points at my friend... "You are a racists!" My friend replies, "No, your the racists as you are the one putting race into this".

They were then firing back and forth "you're a racists... no you are... no you" back and forth. My friend's desire was to simply be left alone to eat. I saw an opportunity.

I intervened in the exchange and stopped it. I then looked to the table full of kids and asked, "What is racists about it?" I received the typical response, the one I was expecting... "Slavery".

I then began to answer their questions, discuss topics, and my friend joined in. Before long, we had half of them gathered around us, including the angry boy, like an enthralled audience at a cliffhanger. The other half was listening, but nervously so. The peripheral audience gave varied responses... tables full of blacks, rolled their eyes and walked away... tables full of whites gave the cocked, confused puppy look, and so on.

At one point, I even pointed out to the angry young man, that my friend and I were in the midst of discussing the inherent God-given rights of ALL men regardless of color, when it was he that "pre-judged" us. I pointed out the irony to him, which was not lost. He understood it.

We spoke to the kids for almost two hours, and when it was over, notes were taken, personal research and homework was eagerly sought by the kids, the angry black boy was now comfortable with us. A few adults that had pulled up chairs behind us unnoticed, asked us which class we were teaching... I replied "Oh, we aren't teaching a class, we just met these kids." The adults were stunned in light of what they were witnessing.

The boy that initiated our contact asked for my phone number and email; and as my friend and I decided we had a long trip ahead, and rose to leave; the kids were disappointed to see us go. They eagerly shook our hands, with wide friendly smiles.

The once angry boy looked at me eye to eye; I could see the hint of tears, and he shook my hand once more and said, "I am sorry I called you a racist." I smiled, patted him on the shoulder and said, "that's alright son." I turned to the entire group and said "I know you may think we're crazy, but we respect you. You are very bright young ladies and gentlemen. You are very respectful and polite. Your school and your parents should be very proud."

We then walked away, and the kids began to scramble to their laptops, and an intense discussion group.

It turns out those kids were at the Capital Friday as a part of Youth in Government. They were there to learn about history, politics, the function of Government and the Constitution. They were there as future leaders of Texas, perhaps the United States. Friday they received a lesson that wasn't on the agenda. They learned there is more than what you learn in school. They also learned to not judge anyone they meet solely by what they see.

It turns out that my trip to Austin was far more successful than I ever would have imagined.

The Birth of Slavery in the New World

It was common practice in the early days of Colonization of the New World for the wealthy to sponsor the poor for passage to the New World. In exchange for passage, the poor would become an indentured servant for a limited amount of time (usually 2 to 7 years).

After their term of service, an indentured servant would receive their freedom and a modest plot of land to call their own.

Anthony Johnson came to Jamestown in 1619 as an indentured servant; and within 4 years, he worked off his debt and settled down with his wife as a land owner. By 1651, Anthony Johnson became wealthy enough to sponsor 5 individuals for passage to the New World. The sponsorship not only garnered Anthony workers, but also increased his land holdings by 250 acres in headrights.

Unlike his contemporaries, Anthony Johnson put a twist in the normal sponsorship, when he outright purchased one of his wards (an African) as a slave.

Within a year or two, John Casor (the slave) pleaded with a local farmer (Robert Parker) to save him. Casor stated that Anthony Johnson had sponsored him as an indentured servant and that he had worked off his debt, but Mr. Johnson refused to release him.

Outraged, Robert Parker took John Casor under his wing. Anthony took Parker to court. After a year and a half court battle, the English Court had to make a ruling on something they never had before… whether a man could possess another man as chattel.

In 1654, the decision was rendered, and the court ruled that “seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master....It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.”.

John Casor had become the first ever slave of the New World Colonies.

The People of Jamestown, and elsewhere, began to see the benefit and cost savings of purchasing Africans outright for a life of servitude, as opposed to sponsoring freemen for a limited duration, and slavery was underway in force.

The above story is not spectacular, nor does it give rise to gasps of shock or surprise; what should surprise and shock you however is this…

Anthony Johnson, the man responsible for slavery in the New World was not named Anthony Johnson; that was the name he adopted upon arriving in the New World. Anthony Johnson signed on as an indentured servant under the name “Antonio, a Negro”. You see, slavery was birthed in the New World by a black man from Africa.

I am sure that this accomplishment will not be the subject of a Black History Month special.