So, let's talk about this "Confederate Flag." First, the flag that is often referred to as the "Confederate Flag" was never the national flag of the Confederate States of America. The CSA had three flags over its 5 year existence.

• The first CSA Flag (referred to as "The Stars and Bars") was very similar to the current Flag of Austria, except it had a blue square at the upper hoist (side closest to the flag pole) with a star for each state in the CSA arranged in a ring. It was massively unpopular because people thought it looked too similar to the Flag of the United States.
  The State of Georgia bases its current flag on this flag.  Also, Texas flies this flag along with the five other flags that have flown over the state throughout history on the grounds of the state legislature (they also fly the flags of the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of France, Mexico, the Republic of Texas and the United States).  No one really complains about these flags being flown because most don't know how they connect to the confederacy or because they are presented in a historical manner.

• The second CSA Flag (referred to as the "The Stainless Banner") was a white piece of cloth with the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia (the "Confederate Flag" but square in dimensions) in the upper hoist.  This flag was also not popular because of many reasons.  First, it was hard to keep clean for very long.  Secondly, since most of it was just a white cloth, it was easy to mistake the flag as for the white flag of surrender.

• The third, and final, CSA Flag (referred to as the "The Blood-Stained Banner") was almost exactly like the previous flag, except with a different dimension for the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia at the upper hoist and a red bar on the fly (portion of the flag farthest away from the flagpole. Very little can be said about this flag since it was only adopted about a month before the CSA ceased to exist.

The closest you can get to the "Confederate Flag" being flown during the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War for Southern Independence/etc was the Second Naval Jack (used between 1863 and 1865).  However, the colors are slightly different from the "Confederate Flag" and most people would say there is something wrong with it if they saw it.

Now, onto whether the "Confederate Flag" represents racism or represents "Southern Pride," frankly its two sides of the same coin.  Yes, the South does have it's own history and unique culture, but a lot of that was born out of racism.  The South had Jim Crow laws, open acceptance of lynchings, and strict segregation rules.  Now that's not to say that it was better for non-whites outside of the South, but I do feel there is a difference between cultural norms and laws prohibiting certain actions.  To say that it only represents "Southern Pride" is effectively white washing the horrible actions the South did throughout its history, which I'm sure the OP complains about others doing.

Also, this is a perfect example of cherry picking and the "true Scotsman fallacy."  This one black man supports what I support; therefore, he is correct and every who doesn't agree with him is wrong.  Just because that one man has a particular viewpoint does not mean that opposing viewpoints are wrong.  Furthermore, I feel Terrence Williams was making a false dichotomy where there isn't one.  He effectively stated that those who oppose the flying of the "Confederate Flag" also condone the use of nigger/nigga/etc.  Those are two issues that are not really connected.  The NAACP doesn't like official flyings of the "Confederate Flag" but they also don't like people (including black people) using the word nigger/nigga/etc

@Frederick:

it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States.

Can you point to a law or piece of legislation that backs up your statement?  There have been a number of times that what you are asserting was true, but no longer.

• The Sedition Act of 1789, made it illegal to make "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or Congress.  However,
  this law was allowed to expire at the end of John Adams's term as President in 1801. It, along with the other acts commonly referred to as the Alien and Sedition Acts, were one reason why Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party was able to beat the Federalist Party in the election of 1800.

• The Sedition Act of 1918 also outlawed criticizing the United States Government. Like the Sedition Act of 1789, it is no longer law (it was repealed in 1921)

Now there are laws relating to advocating the overthrowing of the United States Government, referred to as seditious conspiracy. Attacking and criticizing the President does not mean that the individual is arguing for the overthrowing of the US governemnt.

As far as I know, the only people that can be punished for attacking the President of the United States are members of the military.  According to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ),

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Members of the armed forces that are not officers can be punished under the more broad Article 134,

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

You really have two problems with your argument.

• The Supreme Court of the United States held in Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the First Amendment protects inflammatory speech unless it was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Basically, the person has to be inciting or encourage a riot or doing something similar to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  Is Representative Adam Shiff intending to start a riot or something similar? He's not, and as such, he has the ability to criticize the President because of his First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

• Representative Adam Shiff (and all other federal Representatives and Senators) are protected from most legal actions while Members of Congress by the Constitution.  Article I, section 6 states that Members of Congress are protected from protected from arrests, except in cases of "treason, felony and breach of the peace." Furthermore, they cannot be punished for what they say on in any speech or debate in the house of which they are a member.  Although you might be able to argue that he can be arrested for speech not made on the House floor, attempting to do so would probably bring about a lot of criticism from both sides of the aisle in both houses of Congress if someone tried to do so.

• As stated above, there is no law barring civilians (meaning individuals not currently serving in the military) from criticizing the President or any other government official (elected or not).