Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Olive Branch Petition

Upon hearing of England's rejection of the so-called Olive Branch Petition on this day in 1775, Abigail Adams writes to her husband, "Let us separate, they are unworthy to be our Brethren. Let us renounce them and instead of supplications as formerly for their prosperity and happiness, Let us beseech the almighty to blast their councils and bring to Nought all their devices."
The previous July, Congress had adopted the Olive Branch Petition, written by John Dickinson, which appealed directly to King George III and expressed hope for reconciliation between the colonies and Great Britain.
John Dickinson's Olive Branch Petition was designed to be critical of parliament and not the king who they felt was still a friend of the colonies. It was the opinion of many Americans that the actions taken against them was caused by parliament and the king would support them if he only understood their situation. Abigail Adams’ response was a particularly articulate expression of many colonists’ thoughts. Patriots had hoped that parliament had curtailed colonial rights without the king’s full knowledge, and that the petition would cause him to come to his subjects’ defense. When George III refused to read the petition, patriots like Adams realized that parliament was acting with royal knowledge and support. Americans’ patriotic rage was intensified with the January 1776 publication, Common Sense, by English-born, and now American patriot, Thomas Paine.
Most of you know we won a decisive victory in Greensboro, North Carolina recently when The Rhino Times offered a settlement agreement in which we would not place Knights Party literature inside editions of The Rhino Times. The settlement agreement, in part, originally stated, "The Knights Party and Mr. Robb agree to contact all members of its organization residing in North Carolina, so as to put these individuals on notice that The Knights Party newsletter should not be distributed by placing such newsletters in or about The Rhino Times." I could not, with a clear conscience accept such an agreement. The reason I could not accept such an agreement is simple, The Rhino Times has no right to control your private property. Old and discarded copies of the Rhino Times collected by individuals or purchased from a recycling center is no longer property of Rhino Times.

Rhino Times CAN object to placing Knights Party literature INSIDE their newspaper. For example, you can not and should not take large quantities of The Rhino Times and put Knights Party literature inside and then place them back in the newspaper rack. It would be a dishonest thing to do. It could be interpreted as stealing advertising. It would be a hard case to win but certainly an argument in behalf of a newspaper could be made.

So after crossing out the words "in or about" from the settlement agreement it then stated, "The Knights Party and Mr. Robb agree to contact all members of its organization residing in North Carolina, so as to put these individuals on notice that the Knights Party newsletter should not be distributed by placing such newsletters inside The Rhino Times."

Rhino Times agreed with the removal of the words "in or about" and accepted the new phrase.
With that, we signed the settlement agreement because it did not limit people from using their private property anyway they should decide.

This new problem arose when we discussed the settlement agreement in a public forum. Evidently Rhino Times realized how foolish they looked because it has ALWAYS been our position to advise people not to put Knights Party literature inside of newspapers. The settlement agreement "forced" us to follow what was already our policy. No doubt people were laughing behind the back of the publishers of The Rhino Times.

But because we publicly discussed the terms of the settlement agreement they claim we violated the spirit of the agreement and have sued us for breaching the settlement contract.

It looks like our legal expenses will begin again. I know many of you have helped before, but we are sort of in a position where an attacking army retreats and suddenly attacks again. We can not walk away from the challenge before us and I am asking you who have helped in the past to stay the course with us and continue your help. Those of you who have not helped, need to understand that I did not ask for this battle, I am only the person who must face this enemy head on and we can’t have a victory unless somebody provides the "ammunition" (money) to rebuke this new assault upon us.

I know some may be saying, "There he goes asking for money again." But it is no different than a soldier in a war zone saying, "Pass the ammunition" Without it we can not fight for our nation, or heritage or your children. I want to remind you that most of you who joined The Knights did so because you wanted to do something on behalf of our race, fatih and homeland. You said you were tired of how our people are betrayed by politicians. This is the battle and this is how you can help.

I appreciate all of you who are standing for White Christian Revival. I also appreciate those of you who help support this work of reaching out to our brothers and sisters with hope and deliverance. Please keep us in your prayers as we face this new challenge from The Rhino Times. This is not something I wanted, but it is something we cannot back away from.
I hate to mention money again. But what else can I do? I have given an honest report to those that have helped in this most recent struggle and in doing so I hope I have earned your trust.
I do want to remind you that all money donated to The Knights go to The Knights. I receive absolutely no income in anyway from the Knights Party. I have my own income which allows me to be financially free to work full time on behalf of our mutual cause. I am sending $3,000 dollars out of my personal account to our attorney this afternoon. But it will take more. We have to win this battle again.
God bless!

No comments: