Crowe’s Contradiction


Once again that symbol of the New South is drumming up support for progressive measures. This time he rides his stallion in defense of Sodomites adopting children.

Now, despite both research and common sense showing that both a mother and a father are necessary for the full formation of a child’s mind (and heck, the body for that matter), Crowe thinks it is just as good to pass off children to Sodomites. If they want to have children, “marrying” someone who is incapable of producing children isn’t just stupid- it’s selfish. But the worst of it is Crowe is masking anti-Family attacks in pro-life wordage.

The pool of adoptive parents grows every time a same-sex couple marries and wants to start a family. And the more loving couples that are willing to adopt, the more options there are for unwanted children.

But are they good options, Mr. Crowe? No, it is a novelty and a revulsion against both mankind and his traditions.

Then Mr. Crowe goes all out, saying

The gay and lesbian community, being evil, open-minded and all, have led the way in adopting toddlers and children over the age of 6. They have also shown love for mixed-race and special needs children.

They have “led the way”? How much of the population do they comprise? Between 1 and four percent, at most. How do they compare against normal persons’ adoption rates? From where does Mr. Crowe draw his conclusions? They are far from “open-minded,” and anything but pro-life.  Compare lesbian journalist Masha Gessen’s words with those Crowe invents in his head:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.…Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage ….I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life

Or how about French lesbian leader Nathalie de Williencourt admission:

…a silent majority…don’t have any desire to marry nor to adopt.

Did Crowe mention that, according to studies, Sodomite teens are 5 times as likely to end their own lives, or that Sodomite men are 50 times more likely to contract AIDS?

But Mr. Crowe won’t listen. He’s a flower child of the New South. But even Mr. Crowe can out-do himself. His most laughable statement this week?

Same-sex marriage is good free market family values policy.

If you believe that, you’re betting off eating crow.

Having forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: `Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24-25].

Eusebius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel


Alabama Senators for Alabamians

Despite the overwhelming Yankee support for the new “Gang of 8” immigration “reform,” our two Senators Shelby and Sessions have fought valiantly against the proposed bill. Shelby stated flatly that

The child of Simpson-Mazzoli (1986 amnesty measure) will become the mother of all amnesties

Senator Sessions, who has been praised by Shelby for his “relentless effort to bring to light the many problems and questions surrounding the legislation before us,” also correctly pointed out the obvious:

Americans have begged and pleaded time and again for Congress to end the lawlessness. But this amnesty-first bill is a surrender to lawlessness

Now if only Sessions was a secessionist, we could have a first-rate leader….

Yankee Stab in the Back

Even though the Supreme Court recently ruled in our favour, they have overturned Clinton’s DOMA. Though not scrapping it completely, they have invalidated the section defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Thus, the progressive floodgates are open, and the family is now under attack. The South, specifically Alabama, has long recognised the correct definition of marriage as being between the two sexes, rather than two of the same sexes.

Recently the Colombian Senate voted down a bill to change the legal definition of marriage. Traditionalist, Catholic Senators stated the obvious on “homosexual” unions. Senator Diario Salazar noted,

Heterosexual marriage is of public interest because it has to do with procreation and the conservation of the race.

The BNP of England is in agreement with Senator Salazar on the impact of Sodomite “marriage” on the culture. Senator Roberto Gerlein of Colombia also pointed out,

It’s empty sex, incapable of generating life, a form of sex that is practiced as if it were for recreational purposes…It’s bad for the country, for the Congress, for women and for everyone. This bill isn’t good for anyone.

Here in Alabama, our Governor came out against the measure, saying,

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman

While Bentley maintained it is a State issue, and the Supreme Court implied as much, how can one “Union” have so many separate States all maintaining different laws regarding something so fundamental? Simply, this was a mere first step to overturn the law here in Alabama as well, which Rep. Patricia Todd (D- Birm.) accedes:

You can’t have 50 different sets of laws about this issue…The court left open a way for those of us who have been left behind.

The very fact that SCOTUS overturned something called the DEFENSE of Marriage Act acknowledges that they are attacking marriage. But, as Senator Gerlein saw in his country, the fed isn’t legalising marriage for sodomites, just redefining recreational Sodomite fornication.

Don’t forget to vote in this poll and let your voice be heard.

Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way.                                    St  Augustine, Confessions

We are in the Right

While others utter anti-Alabamian inanity, calling the South “redeemed racists” (I’m looking at you, J.D. Crowe), it is important to remember that this is a victory. And in no way must we sully our forefathers to bask in it.


A Small Victory

The Voting Rights Act Section 4, long a tool to suppress the South, has been overturned (surprisingly) by the current Supreme Court. Section 4 declared that any changes made in regards to voting must gain Federal approval or be considered invalid. While it’s a step in the right direction, the entirety of the Voting Rights Act needs to be abolished.

Not Surprisingly, Our Glorious Leader has called out the SCOTUS, saying,

I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.

And then Obama called upon Congress to

pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.

Alabamians, rather than having the ability to sort things out amongst ourselves, have carried the weight of this “Reconstruction” style act probably more than any other country within the United States. Reaction towards the move has been generally favourable, except for that liberal section of Alabama whose wishes are granted by playing the “racist” game.

State Representative Holmes (D-Montgomery) has already been playing the fool:

It’s very sad that the United States Supreme Court would make such a ruling in this day when they know that in most southern states that the Republicans have taken control, not only the governorship, but the state legislatures. And they’re trying to do everything they can to get it back like it used to be. And I’m mighty afraid if we’re not real careful it will get back like it used to be

Online reactions to Holmes and his liberal compatriots have been very pro-Dixie:

DSHornet: The “black political leaders in Alabama” seem not to notice something glaringly obvious in today’s ruling.
You wanted fairness in the voting process. As cited elsewhere, there is about 1% difference in the rates of Black and White rates of voter registration. Over the last fifty years you have enjoyed Federal Government supervision in the voting process so you could get the equality in the process you wanted and, frankly, deserved. In other words, you won. You reached the goal. What is your problem?

mike: You just know in your heart that the Supreme Court made the correct decision if this group of racist politicians are opposed to it.

keithinala: Give it up Rogers, it’s State’s rights, as the founding fathers intended. Enough of your Washington big brother endless control.

bamatexan4: Folks who make a career of being black like Jesse and Al ain’t gonna like this.

Skinnerton: After 50-years of failure, for ALL Southerners, it is time to move forward! Like George Corley Wallace, Lyndon B. Johnson bowed to the yankees, imposing detrimental act upon ALL Southern people.

Rep. Holmes has also previously called on a Confederate flag to be removed from I-65 even though it is on private property, saying that it is a distraction to drivers and a racist emblem. In addition, he came out against every Alabamian regardless of colour over the flag:

We are going to consider calling for a nationwide economic boycott against the state of Alabama


St. Andrew’s News is eagerly awaiting as more heavy-hitters, like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Tom Woods, weigh in on the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Until next time, may St. Andrew Bless Y’all heartily.

Miss Alabama and the New South

Miss Alabama (that intellectual heavyweight) recently weighed in on the Federal government’s NSA scandal. When asked if the move by the Fed is a breach of our rights or a necessary measure against terrorism, Miss Alabama replied:

I think the society that we live in today it’s sad that, if we go to the movies or to the airport or even to the mall, that we have to worry about our safety. So I would rather someone track my telephone messages and feel safe wherever I go than feel they’re encroaching on my privacy.

Now, while the dear lady obviously meant well, she played a Neocon/lib card. “For the good of society,” becomes the cry of government intervention in these matters and others, while protection of babies from abortion or instilling the government with Christian character is treated as unacceptable. And, while she chooses to give up her rights in the matter, that does not mean others should. Their voluntary submission does not make it justifiable in the case of others.

The situation of her fearing for her safety in the movies, airports, and malls could be solved by concealing a firearm on her person. But, the removal of citizens’ firearms is another “good of society” progressive measure.

The whole ordeal is reminiscent of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Children of Hurin.” Flinding go-Fuilin returned with Turin to his ancestral home, only to find changed- a police state, if you will.

Flinding the faithful, the far wanderer,

though form and face fires of anguish

and bitter bondage, Balrogs’ torment,

have seared and twisted, for a song of welcome

had hoped in his heart at that home-coming

that he dreamed of long in dark labour.

Are these deep places to dungeons turned,

a lesser Angband in the land of the Gnomes?

(Verses 1910- 1917)

Eventually, if you lack common sense, the methods you create to solve problems can become greater than the problems themselves.