Bob Martin, Lincoln Impersonator?

Bob Martin, the publisher of the tiny Montgomery Independent newspaper, has weighed in on the SCV's new Confederate flag flying along I-65 between Montgomery and Birmingham. Predictably, he's against it. Here a quote from his slanderous article:

This flag goes beyond the issue of free speech because it is a hazard to motorists traveling along the interstate [This is a lie. If the flag is a hazard, so is anything else interesting on the side of the road. Let's put up high walls so no one will be tempted to look at the scenery--DB]. If the owner will not remove it and if state or local officials will not find a legal way to get it down, perhaps someone ought to suggest to Rep. Alvin Holmes that he scale that pole and take it down. I would lend him a ladder. [Note--I'd LOVE to see Alvin Holmes try to climb a 100 ft. flagpole. -- DB]

The War Between the States ended 140 years ago. We should observe and respect our Southern heritage, but we shouldn't use it to enhance the opinion of some that we walk around barefoot, don't have indoor plumbing and constantly spit tobacco juice on the floor.

Ellen Williams of Selma sent a response to the Independent:

How is the presence of the Battle Flag (BF) by the interstate “showing disrespect” to others? On the contrary, it is flying there to show respect to 125,000 Alabama Confederate Veterans who fought, and 30,000 who died when this state was invaded.

You refer to the Battle Flag as the “stars and bars.” Your education, like that of most BF bashers is sorely lacking. The BF is known as the St. Andrew’s Cross; it is the First National Flag of the CSA which is called the “stars and bars.”

How is the BF on the interstate harmful to the “economic well-being” of our state? Please produce specific examples to prove that statement. Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, well-known hater of the Battle Flag, once made that same statement in reference to the economy of Atlanta. I reminded her that there are no Battle Flags flying in the crime-ridden, poverty-stricken ghettos of Atlanta; so what was holding back that economy? She couldn’t answer my question, but she did call me a name.

May I inquire, sir, how the Battle Flag on I-65 is “enhancing the opinion of some that we walk around barefoot, don’t have indoor plumbing and spit tobacco juice on the floor?”

Apparently that is what the Battle Flag symbolizes to you. The 140 years of Yankee propaganda has been very successful in your brainwashing. Your CSA grandfather must be very ashamed of you.

The Confederate Battle Flag is the international symbol against tyranny for it was taken into WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Additionally it was waving when the Berlin Wall came crumbling down and was held in a student hand at the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Sir, if a symbol of freedom “offends” you, then you’re not merely brainwashed, you’re brain dead.

I've seen Martin on APT's "For The Record" program. I think he must be a member of the Cult of Lincoln, since he wears a "Lincoln Beard." (That's a beard with no mustache, just like Abe wore.) He seldom fails to say something stupid in the course of the 30 minute show.

Unity through Federalism

I have read several references recently (see one here) that make the assertion that the US has been able to remain one nation (albeit forcibly) as long as it has because of its decentralised form of government. Federalism, and the residing of much power in the states, allows diverse interests and groups to coexist within a common framework. Commentators have asserted that if the US were a unitary state like France, internal pressures would tear it apart. This seems plausible to me. And if this is true, then to the extent that the US government continues to erode the powers of the states and assert all authority unto itself, does it not move the country ever closer to dissolution and toward its [the government's] own possible destruction?