AP: White Supremacists To Rally At Gettysburg

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

Aryan Nations Plans June Rally In Military Park
Comments GETTYSBURG, Pa. -- The National Park Service granted the white supremacist group Aryan Nations a permit to hold a rally next month on the hallowed grounds of Gettysburg National Military Park.

The rally will take place from 1 to 3 p.m. June 19 near the old Cyclorama Center, in sight of the spot where Confederate Gen. George Pickett's division collided with Union forces on the third day of the fateful Civil War battle.

The rally will focus speeches and discussions on issues like immigration and homosexuality.

Park spokeswoman Katie Lawhon said officials had to grant the permit because of constitutionally protected rights to free speech.

Other groups from Adams County, where Gettysburg is located, plan to hold a "celebration of diversity" on the same day to counter the Aryan Nation rally.

Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/23627157/detail.html

---

tie in links here:
New Vienna, OH tied to shootings in West Memphis, AR
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4391431

2 police fatally shot in West Memphis, Arkansas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4390720&mesg_id=4390720

and a blog post:

ARKANSAS POLICE OFFICERS SHOT; POSSIBLE OHIO ARYAN NATION CONNECTION
Friday, 21 May 2010 04:16 OPP HQ One month before an Ohio contingent of Aryan Nations is set to march in Gettysburg Memorial Park, we get this news: a shootout in Arkansas ends with West Memphis Police Officers Brandon Paudert and Bill Evans dead and policelearning that the van in this picture was registered to an Aryan Nations associate. The WPs over at Stormfront are doing as much as they can to distance themselves from the shooting and the persons involved. They are even trying to suggest that there is no way Aryan Nations could be involved as Aryan Nations went belly up ten years ago. But even if those involved with this shooting are not tight with the Aryan Nations crew from Chillicothe, Ohio, the group doing Gettysburg on June 19, the Aryan Nations people in question still were active last time we checked. The name "Hoge Tabor" is coming up in relation to this shooting. Hoge might be sweating a few bullets right about now because there are pics somewhere about of Hoge hanging out with a few people in a hotel room after some WP meeting in Ohio, among them not only Aryan Nations leaders like the late Ray Redfeairn who died in 2003, but also White Power radio host, Sean Hannity friend and FBI Informant Hal Turner. Even more curious, the New Vienna church this van is connected to is the same one that the infamous Kehoe Brothers were coming from when they got into a shootout with a police officer in '97 (video after the jump). This story is still developing, so there will definitely be more. But sadly, we have to chalk this up to yet another example of the domestic terrorism that conservatives ran defense for when Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder called attention to it last year. Food for thought.

more:
http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=425:arkansas-police-officers-shot-possible-ohio-aryan-nation-connection&catid=29:antifa-news

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

1. Rand Paul will be there to say the government shouldn't tell private businesses not to own slaves

and will say that he wouldn't have supported the emancipation proclamation had he been around at the time

[bos1]

2. he won't really be there, will he?

obviously the rally sucks but that is USA-style freedom of speech, for better or for worse

[coti]

4. I think you're straw-manning Paul's argument.

You shouldn't do that. Listen to exactly what he said- I don't think he was lying when he said he wasn't a racist- and then think through why he's wrong. His argument can be responded to honestly and still shown to be wrong.

In fact, you're actually proving some of the things he said about politicizing ideas.

[DeSwiss]

7. BS. n/t

[coti]

27. That's not an argument either. nt

[No Elephants]

33. No, it's an editorial comment. They're allowed.

[coti]

37. Oh, well then, since I'm so clearly in the wrong, I suppose you'll supply a link

to Paul arguing against the abolition of slavery.

Commentary is easy. It helps to have facts on your side, though.

[No Elephants]

39. It's called humor and hyperbole. Since you're so intelligent (according to you) how come

those literary devices escaped you?

ETA: I am referring to the humor and hyperbole in Adenoid's post.

[coti]

42. It's also characterization. I.E., he's a racist.

That's your opinion, right?

Characterization is a cheap shortcut in argument- a shallow, overused "literary device."

Know your opponent's argument, know your argument. Know real rationale, and don't just make shit up. It's a disgrace and it's WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLITICS.

[No Elephants]

45. Talk about a strawman! Pot. Kettle. Black..

If you read my post, I said it was irrelevant whether Paul himself is a racist or not. So, unless you can read my mind, you don't know if I think Rand Paul is a racist or not. And I certainly did not characterize him. You made that up

I do know Paul's argument. I made no shit up. (Again, you're claiming I'm doing things that you are actually doing.) Adenoid mocked Paul's argument. So did I, when I responded to Adenoid's post.

Right. Posts on a message board using humor to mock Paul's argument are WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLITICS. Again, try to get over yourself. It shouldn't be hard.

[coti]

50. Yes, and the implication of said mockery was that he's a racist.

In other words, that's just the type of thing Paul would say, because that's where he's coming from. It's characterization.

And, yes, the deliberate distortion of other's ideas and arguments for the purpose of dishonest characterization is exactly what is wrong with politics. If we somehow managed to cut that out of our debates, we'd live in a freaking utopia.

And there'd be no Fox News.

[No Elephants]

52. Only in your imagination. BTW, express your outrage to Stewart and Colbert, too.

And buy yourself a sense of humor and a sense of proportion. Maybe a grasp on reality, too.

I'm done with this exchange.

[coti]

53. If Stewart and Colbert are using characterization unfairly,

they're contributing to it too.

I don't usually see them take the kind of baseless cheap shots you apparently like to engage in, though. They usually have a real point to make.

[Iowa]

85. Nonsense...

The genteel civility you describe is the playing field of the comfortable and well-heeled. It's a game for those who don't actually have much at stake. Rand Paul and the ideology he espouses is a genuine menace to average working people; it would result in untold suffering and despair. It is entirely ethical, moral, and sensible to take his words, assume the very worst, and trash him into oblivion. When it comes to Paul's abhorrent ideology, give no quarter and take no prisoners. This is the Alan Grayson way, and it has been proven to be effective. Oh my, but what if we don't get it precisely right? And shouldn't we hear the "ideas" of the opposition? Pfft... These are things the hand-wringers can debate after the predators are defeated.

You are pushing the Obama way. Presume the opposition has good motives. Give them the benefit of any doubt. Take their long-discredited stone-age "ideas" and merge them with your own for the sake of getting along - even if countless people are harmed in the process. Cautious. Passionless. Conciliatory. Impotent. Ineffective. Ground will be gained by predators, and many will be hurt, but who cares, right? As long as we get ours... Pfft. Politics is a contact sport and it's not a game for sissies. For the vast majority of us, there's far too much at stake to succumb to the rich man's rules of gentility. The harm that comes from that approach far outweighs the trifles you are concerned about.

IMHO.

[coti]

92. Someone has to be right.

Unless you're giving up.

And lest you say we are just so right, I offer up the healthcare reform bill. The mandate forcing every American to buy private medical insurance- do you think that was not a mistake?

I think it was as extraordinary as the title of the Civil Rights Act Paul refers to, without even close to the same strength of rationale. In forcing contracting between private parties, it's closely related issue, too.

[DeSwiss]

87. I don't intend to argue about what is already established.

He's a racist. After 58 years, I know them when I see them and when I hear them. And I also know when someone is talking out of their *** and don't have a clue about racism -- first-hand.

I do.

[PassingFair]

97. Here's the "argument". I don't care whether Rand Paul is a racist or not.

The fact that he wants to allow racists to make
life miserable, and certain occupations unobtainable,
for certain segments of our population, is what's
abhorrent about that guy.

[leftynyc]

9. While I appreciate the sentiment

that we should stick to what's actually out there in making our arguments, you've summed up rather well why the Democrats get beaten by morons - they play hardball and we play slow pitch softball.

[coti]

28. It's also a good summation of how we're supposed to be different from them.

You know, better informed, more intelligent, etc.

[No Elephants]

36. Flatter yourself much?

[leftynyc]

74. Those are a given

Doesn't mean we can't fight to the death the way they do. In fact, that used to be considered honorable.

[coti]

91. The means matters.

It affects the outcome.


Someone has to be right if we aren't going to plummet headfirst into the abyss.

Seems like everyone's caught up in looking right, rather than being so.

[No Elephants]

34. You're very generous, IMO. The poster agrees with Paul. What's "softball" about that?

[coti]

40. Wow- MORE strawmen. You just can't argue honestly, can you?

I don't agree with Paul at all. He's wrong.

The difference between you and me is that I can tell him why he's wrong, while you can only tell him why someone else is wrong.

Am I giving you too much credit in assuming you see the basic problem with your approach?

[No Elephants]

41. Who's arguing? And try to get over yourself. It should be easier than

you seem to think it will be.

[coti]

43. I'll make you a deal- I'll get over myself when you start using real arguments.

If you'd do me that great favor (cuz people thinking straight with honest reason would be for me, and not for the betterment of our society :eyes: ), I'd stop lecturing.

[No Elephants]

46. Again, I'm not arguing with you about Paul. I tend to doubt that you'd stop

bloviating, even if I did care to engage you about Paul.

ETA: BTW, you don't get to decide what I choose to engage you about. Again, get over yourself.

[coti]

48. You're not even making sense now. nt

[No Elephants]

51. You haven't made sense since you missed the mark on Adenoid's post, so you'll forgive me

if your editorial comment on my post is irrelevant to me.

[Thor_MN]

47. Don't let it get to you, he/she/it LIKES to argue

Can't recall a post that hasn't been picking a fight. While I wouldn't yell "Troll!!!", when I notice a mostly tangential flame war, I've noticed that some names are much more likely to be fanning the flames.

Who knows (or cares) why, not enough fiber in the diet, dealing with Mommy issues, whatever... Don't spend too much energy arguing, there will ALWAYS be some minuscule little tangent to bring up to counter with while ignoring the issues.

[No Elephants]

55. From someone who has all of 3136 posts since 2003? LOL

You make a post solely to take personal pot shots at a poster who isn't even talking to you and accuse me of flaming addressing issues? Do you get the irony?

But, I'm flattered that you seem to have followed my posts. I didn't even recall your screen name. Maybe I'd know you better by another name? I'll try to remember you from now on, though. However, if that post indicates the quality of your posting in general, I can't make any promises.

[Enthusiast]

12. He's a racist to the core.

Just like his daddy. Of course they don't want to be known as racist. They try to keep their racism a secret, too bad he blew it.

[bulloney]

16. They hide their racism behind their libertarianism, saying the free market made them do it.

[No Elephants]

35. Much as folks like McCain and Goldwater hide the Rethug "Southern Strategy" behind states' rights.

[The Croquist]

44. He's not supporting the free market

He's supporting freedom of choice.

What he is saying is that it's none of the government's business. Not that it is morally right. You can disagree with his opinion but it isn't necessarily a racist opinion.

First analogy:
When Georgia passed a smoking ban Manuals Tavern in Atlanta chose an exception allowing smoking if no one under 18 (or 21?) was allowed. Manuals Tavern is as much a restaurant as a bar and also a significant political hangout. A friend of mine sat at a table next to Jimmy Carter 5 plus years ago. After a year or two they changed their minds, banned smoking and allowed minors in. It was a business decision not a moral decision.

Second analogy:
In 1974 when I was 17 (and had hair) I went with my dad to visit Georgia Tech. While there, we went to Underground Atlanta and one point stopped at a souvenir shop operated by former Georgia Governor Lester Maddox a devout segregationist. The thing that amazed me was that we spent 10 minutes watching him talking to and selling stuff to a black couple.

Third analogy:
I was showing a rental house to a young white woman and her mother. It was to be for the young woman and her husband. At one point the mother pulled me aside and told me that her daughter's husband was Hispanic and asked if that would be a problem. I told her no but the first thing that popped into my mind (but didn't say) was "What color was his money?"

[No Elephants]

49. He says he's supporting freedom of choice. In reality, we don't know what his motives are.

Our personal and business choices are limited by all kinds of laws. No one wants unfettered choices. You don't want people o be allowed to murder at will. You don't want people to be able to sell you food known to cause illness or death. But, does that mean government should outlaw winking or smiling?

The issue is, which personal and business choices should our government limit? So, your anecdotes don't address the issue. Smoking, for example may be like segregation in some ways, but in many very relevant ways, it's nothing like it. You need to deal with the specific behavior in question.

So, the is: should our government be able to limit segregation by businesses that are not under government ownership? If not, why not? And if so, why so?

(I am not asking you for the answers to those questions. I am just saying those are the issues, IMO.

[The Croquist]

65. What I'm saying is that discrimination is bad for business

I agree largely with what you are saying. There is a role for government to protect consumers from danger.

Article. I Section. 8 Clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Gives government that right but not for intrastate commerce.

Libertarians are really into the Tenth Amendment:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What it basically does is to limit the power of the federal government.

Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but he was no racist.

[jobwithout]

75. Explain to me like Im a 10 year old

How do you know he is a racist?

[Enthusiast]

90. He is against desegregation.

He is in favor of an American Apartheid. It could not be any more simple than that. Now, he cloaks his racism in the words of libertarianism but that is only cover. I don't find his words to the contrary convincing. Maybe you want to believe him, I don't.

[coti]

93. That's a fair summary of what he is in favor of.

If he's thought it through at all, he should know the consequences of what he's saying.


Still, I would not go so far as to call him a racist.

[Blandocyte]

18. Few SAY they're racist

but many act as if they are, and Rand Paul seems to be in favor of the government allowing groups of people to suffer at the hands of racists.

[coti]

29. Well, that is the consequence of what he's saying

and ultimately the problem with his argument. He just doesn't see that, though. He's an ideologue.

[donco6]

60. I think he does see it, and doesn't care.

And to me, that's dancing so close to the edge of racism as to be indistinguishable.

[LanternWaste]

67. Some dog whistles are easier to hear than others...

Some dog whistles are easier to hear than others...

[No Elephants]

32. We're not supposed to politicize ideas? Things like freedom, democracy,

and justice seem to me to be ideas. So do most things in politics.

Whether Rand Paul himself is a racist is irrelevant. The Civil Rights Act was necessary and great legislation for women, minorities and, later, the disabled. And part of what made it necessary was institutionalized discrimination (to say the least).

[Deep13]

63. I'm really not interested in getting into Rand Paul's head.

He's against civil rights legislation that applies to anything other than public entities and that is racist in practice if not in thought. Anyway, I'm a little surprised to see anyone on DU actually defending that right-wing douchebag.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ter]

82. Agreed

[No Elephants]

31. "I abhor slavery. I just oppose anyone's doing anything to stop it."

[The Croquist]

66. Rand Paul would oppose slavery

Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It's in the Constitution. If there was something in the Constitution that opposed discrimination he would be opposed to it as well.

The closest I can come up with is the ninth amendment:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is however somewhat in contradiction of the tenth amendment:

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[donco6]

58. IF only he were that consistent. n/t

[Kievan Rus]

98. Had he lived during the Civil War, he probably really would have said that

[Clintonista2]

3. Teabaggers having another rally? eom

[RoyGBiv]

5. Deargod that makes me sick ...

I ran into these pieces of shit in 2006.

Pieces of shit.

[Mac1949]

6. Gettysburg was a key defeat for the South in the War of Southern Insurrection.

Curious that they wouldn't have chosen a battle site where the South had won.

[DeSwiss]

10. Traitorous War of Cowardly Southern Insurrectionists.

/fixed

[Enthusiast]

20. Good name for it. nt

[DeSwiss]

88. I love accuracy.

- Particularly when describing traitors.

[get the red out]

17. They would have had to read history to know that

You can't expect them to get some kind of evil liberal education or anything can you, these are "real Umuricans" we are talking about here! :sarcasm:

[kwassa]

84. They would also have to be able to read at all to know that.

Don't set the bar too high.

[Wednesdays]

24. Maybe they're gonna storm Cemetery Ridge again,

hoping for a different outcome. :crazy:

[donco6]

57. Yeah, I thought that was odd, too.

Probably not enough RV parking at Chickamauga.

[Arkana]

71. It should be called the war of SOUTHERN aggression.

Lest anyone forget they shot FIRST at Fort Sumter.

[Journeyman]

8. That's okay. That land is consecrated far beyond their "poor power to detract". . .

Let them rally if they must at the highwater mark of their ignoble defeat. The power of their hate has gradually diminished over the years and continues to dissipate. Let the world today "little note, nor long remember" what they say or do there, but instead "take increased devotion" to the only cause that should concern us, the "new birth of freedom" that from the beginning has determined the very existence of politics, and remains for all time the only truly noble pursuit to which we can dedicate ourselves.

[TK421]

95. "at the highwater mark of their ignoble defeat." and that's why I don't want the bastards there n/t

[KG]

11. kind of fitting. these protests are the last gasps of white hegemony in america.

there is nothing they can really do to stem the sea change of americas ethnic demographics.

[SpiralHawk]

13. That's Juneteenth...

Surely just a coincidence...

Ptoooey.

[No Elephants]

62. Good point.

[David__77]

14. I believe in actively, forcefully engaging such fascists.

Holding some event far away is fine for those who don't want confrontation, but I hope there is one. Masses of people should repudiate these fascists in force.

[Enthusiast]

21. I agree! nt

[The Croquist]

68. Actively but peacefully engaging is more like it

How about a bunch of people who show up, turn around and moon them?

Freedom of speach...

[David__77]

80. Attack peacefully, defend forcefully.

That is my thought. Engagement with fascists physically has not been at my initiative. But if they resist being confronted and removed from the public stage, then they get what they deserve. Mooning? They don't deserve to see my ass...

[bulloney]

15. I realize Gettysburg is public land, but it's almost blasphemous for this group to assemble there

in my opinion.

It would be akin to a Nazi group holding a formal assembly at the Holocaust Museum.

[bos1]

23. it's freedom of speech USA style but that's an interesting point you make. I wonder if it could be

legally challenged as a provocation (like your example, a Nazi group at the Holocaust Museum)

[jobwithout]

73. Anything to limit speech you dont like

[bos1]

79. yeah yeah yeah. get a job

[jobwithout]

83. Thankfully I dont need one

Gainfully retired after working for 50 years. Most of that as a tenured professor where I had true freedom of speech and expression.

[bos1]

99. If you were really a professor you would no you didn't have absolute freedom of speech and

no one does.

[woodsprite]

25. I highly agree. I wish they wouldn't let them assemble there.

That is disrespectful to the people who died there.

[Captain Hilts]

38. They might learn some history. They lost that battle. nt

[TK421]

96. ROFL!!!!

[meow2u3]

19. I thought terrorists didn't have the same rights as real Americans

Oops, I forgot. Only muslins are terrorist, not white people :sarcasm:

[reggie the dog]

22. well at least they will be at a battlefield where they lost

during the civil war.

[cap]

26. I am tempted to go to Gettysburg

with a sign saying, "You Lost. Get Over It."

[pinboy3niner]

56. HA! Best Post!

I nearly spewed my coffee.:rofl:

[stanwyck]

69. Good one. n/t

[cap]

86. i mean.. like it's been a while...

like over 100 years... Just let it go.

[ShortnFiery]

30. I hate Pennsylvania Nazis.

:silly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EoOZKjAjlk

[onehandle]

54. Go away, teabaggers. nt

[No Elephants]

59. June 19. I hope some of the Pennsy area DUers can make it.

The Gettysburg Address
Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

(full text-not under copyright; emphasis added)


"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[sui generis]

61. After reading the above excerpts from the witless protection program

it occurs to me, what exactly is the basis for claiming "white" supremacy? Western European? Presumably excluding people descended from Huns and Magyars or the central Slav states? Are mediterranean people "white"?

What about Tyroleans? Austria is often referred to as Northern Rome with some humor. Shouldn't white supremacists more properly refer to themselves as uneducated piss poor protoplasm supremacists?

:shrug:

just wondering.

[Deep13]

64. They should reenact Pickett's charge with real bullets. nt

[Arkana]

72. Where are Meade and Grant when you need them?

[Arkana]

70. The irony is just sickening.

White supremacist garbage gathering in the place where the war against slavery and "states' rights" turned the tide against the racists.

[NoGOPZone]

76. What's dumber than characterizing criticism of a British company as un American?

Holding a white supremacist rally at the site of the turning point of a war that effectively ended US slavery.

[Downtown Hound]

77. Maybe normal people can stage a counter protest and rout them again

In the spirit of history all. :)

[Posteritatis]

81. Because that worked out so well for them the first time.. (nt)

[jberryhill]

89. Can They Re-enact Their Half Of The Civil War?

...it would be more convenient.

[PurityOfEssence]

94. Let's just call it "Bigot's Charge"

There's a reason why the South lost: they thought they were inherently superior, and they weren't.

That's poetic justice if there ever was any. It was endemic in their very government: they didn't promote competent officers who came from common stock and they had top-down leadership, as opposed to the more democratized leadership in the north. The Federal Government crushed this rebellion because it was modern and the south was primitive. They got what was coming to them, and they died by the mistaken and egocentric credo by which they organized their society.