Dixie Heritage News – Jun 30, 2017


Is the United States Really a Country?


Since Dylann Roof opened fire at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal in Charleston two years ago, the debate over historical markers of the South has taken on more urgency and more widespread concern.


Flags have been lowered, songs censored, mascots switched, and schools renamed.


Communities and institutions shifted their discussions around their own landmarks, namesakes, and long-ago history; most notably, New Orleans spent two years eliminating its Civil War monuments, the last of which-a statue of General Robert E. Lee-came down last month.


A year after the Mother Emanuel massacre, the Southern Baptist Convention called on Christians to stop displaying the Confederate Flag. The Episcopal Church made a similar statement, and its National Cathedral in Washington, DC, opted to remove two images of the Flag in its stained glass windows.


Other churches are now coming under attack. The most striking example may be St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, nicknamed the Cathedral of the Confederacy.


Over the past two years, the historic church, where Jefferson Davis learned that the war was coming to an end, decided to remove plaques honoring Lee and Davis and place them in an exhibit. Gone are the kneelers with the Confederate flag in needlepoint. The church will retire its coat of arms. Leaders are now discussing how to move forward with “presenting a history that acknowledges racism and slavery in its past.”


Confederate ties are not restricted to a single locale or tradition. The major US denominations all divided to coincide with secession. In Southern cities like Montgomery, Alabama; Louisville, Kentucky; and Augusta, Georgia; America’s Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists all made their splits official by forming new denominations.


Decades before the War, Southern Baptists left their northern brothers and sisters to meet at Augusta’s First Baptist Church and form the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The congregation left the historic site back in the 1970s for a new location, and the old building went up for sale last year.


But just two blocks up the road, the city’s First Presbyterian Church-now a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation-continues to meet and worship in the building that hosted the first gathering of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America. The church building has a bronze plaque at the front of the sanctuary that commemorated the location of the Confederate Presbyterian meeting – and the balcony that one time segregated slaves during worship. The pastor says he intends to use “the plaque as an occasion to ask for forgiveness and publicly repent for our racist past.”


First Presbyterian recently purchased a home near the church to use for its seminary program. When church leaders learned it once belonged to a Confederate general, they renamed it for Lucy Laney, who pioneered education for black students in the area in the late 19th century.


Churches can opt to let their Confederate history remain, remove symbols altogether, shift them away from places of prominence, or “contextualize” them.


Rabbis in Germany recently adopted the latter perspective when requesting that churches retain “anti-Semitic” sculptures tied to Martin Luther.


Monuments to the early eras of foreign missions have also been called into question; last year, Williams College made efforts to contextualize the Haystack Monument, which honors students’ call to the global mission field in 1806. Some faculty now fear endorsing “cultural imperialism” associated with such efforts.


“The primary question for the church to consider is not what to remember but how we remember it,” said Theon Hill, a Wheaton College communications professor. Hill remembers the “culture shock and crisis of faith” that accompanied his undergraduate years at Bob Jones University, where he watched classmates embrace and defend Confederate heritage. Of course, now, South Carolina based BJU is very anti-Confederate.


Churches dating back to the WBTS period may actually serve as the final resting place for soldiers themselves. Church cemeteries haven’t avoided the recent pressure; an Episcopal congregation in Maryland cancelled annual memorials for a soldier buried on its grounds.


In Lexington, Virginia, the church where Lee worshipped after the war-renamed R. E. Lee Episcopal decades after his death, considered but ultimately voted down a name change in 2015. The church, located near the university chapel where Lee is entombed, didn’t display battle flags. Its former rector cited a quote attributed to the general that they be folded up and put away after the war.


A University of Alabama building named for its one-time president Basil Manly, a preacher involved in the formation of the SBC and a chaplain to Confederate leadership has also come under attack.


My point in all this – Our churches and cemeteries will come under ever increasing attack. The liberals and self-defeating southerners have created a new reality where NOTHING IS SACRED!


And to drive that point home, here is a mean little editorial that appeared in Tuesday’s Dallas Morning News:


Arlington National Cemetery, it seems, is running out of space. A bugler might need to play taps for the holiest and most visited of the nation’s military resting places sometime around mid-century if the burial ground isn’t expanded.


A project to be finished in August will add some 27 acres and 28,000 burial sites, which should suffice until around 2041, at which point our most honored dead will have to go elsewhere. That is, unless other solutions are found.


But oh yes, I forgot.


Some space could be made in Section 16, where one can find Confederate dead and a memorial to those who fell trying to form a separate union. With today’s full-out mania to wipe away visible Civil War history, at least the tributes to the South’s heroes, perhaps some plots could be freed up by removing what some see as symbols of treason.


It’s doubtful most Americans know 482 Confederate bodies are taking up room in this hallowed ground, carved from the plantation of the most famous of all Confederates, Gen. Robert E. Lee, who last stayed in the farm’s mansion overlooking the U.S. Capitol the sleepless night before he decided he loved Virginia more than the rest of the nation. It was just a matter of state’s rights.


But don’t tell that to those leading the current campaign to obliterate the statues and monuments studding southern cities from Alexandria, Va., to New Orleans, an effort that has extended to discrediting Lee’s motives and military genius.


Those interred in Section 16 are an eclectic bunch including not only soldiers who gave their lives for what they called “the Cause,” but also wives and civilians and unknowns. Marking the spot is a sizable memorial statue of a woman, her hand stretched out to her beloved South. The memorial is the work of Moses Ezekiel, a Confederate veteran who is buried at the base.


The headstones in this portion are pointed, with a common explanation being that they were designed this way to keep Unionists from sitting on them in disrespect. The cemetery’s official explanation is that the aesthetic was chosen simply to set these graves apart from those belonging to the 400,000 other people buried under Arlington’s manicured sod.


The cemetery began accepting these rebels in 1901, three years after the Spanish-American War, during which public animosity against Confederates began to subside as Southern and Union vets fought together.


In 1906, the United Daughters of the Confederacy received permission to erect their memorial in Arlington, which was created in 1864 with the Civil War still raging.


By fighting the Civil War, America reaffirmed one of the main foundational tenants: That all men are created equal and endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


But today, revisionists are moving to eliminate prominent reminders of the war, arguing there is nothing noble worth remembering about the battlefield sacrifices of Southern soldiers, most of whom weren’t slaveholders and fought mainly with the passionate belief they were defending their homes.


Perhaps then, those Southerners buried in the sacred grounds of Arlington should be disinterred, their memorial removed. Would that finally heal the wounds of slavery? Or would it be better to continue to acknowledge that history is unchangeable and we need constant reminders that millions of Americans had to die on both sides to begin the drawn-out process of keeping the promise of our founders?




In a settlement between St. Louis and the Missouri Civil War Museum, the museum agrees to remove the monument by the end of the day Friday – and perhaps much more quickly. Workers began rapidly deconstructing the monument Monday, shortly after the settlement was announced.


The museum will foot the bill for the move, and agreed to store the monument until a permanent new location is found for it. That permanent location must be at a Civil War museum, battlefield or cemetery, the agreement says. The museum also agrees not to display the monument in the city of St. Louis or St. Louis County. The museum commits in the settlement to giving the city advance notice of where the monument will be placed.


In a statement released Monday morning, Mayor Lyda Krewson said it was time to move forward on the issue. “Although it is our position that the city controls the monument and would have prevailed in court, the city has entered into this agreement to avoid protracted legal proceedings and move forward immediately with the monument’s removal,” the statement said. “This is an outcome both parties wanted.”


The agreement was signed by representatives for the city, the Missouri Civil War Museum, the United Daughters of the Confederacy Missouri Division and the St. Louis Confederate Monument Association.


Jay Kanzler, an attorney for the Missouri Civil War Museum, said the plan Monday was to get as far as they can in removing it. “The key is to move it as quickly as possible without damaging it,” he said. Kanzler said Mark Trout, founder of the Missouri Civil War Museum, was on site to oversee the removal.


Kanzler wouldn’t say where the monument will be stored, so as not to invite more vandalism. He said it will be in a fenced location in Missouri, not in the city or county. He said he doesn’t know where it will be put on permanent display yet. “There are lots of possibilities throughout the state of Missouri,” he said, “where people have an interest in Civil War artifacts will go.”


Kanzler said his side liked the agreement because it won two key points: that the museum owns the monument and got to remove it.


Krewson told reporters Monday that a resolution was able to be reached once the museum formally agreed to bear the entire cost for removal.


Patsy Limpus, president of the United Daughters of the Confederacy Missouri Division and the St. Louis Confederate Monument Association, said she agreed to the settlement because she feared the structure would be destroyed, either by the city or by vandals. The agreement was the best way to save it, she said, though she would have liked it to stay in Forest Park. “Because what had happened with the vandalism to it, and the city wanted it removed, this way it will be preserved,” she said. “It is a beautiful monument.”


Limpus said she doesn’t know where the monument will end up. “We hope that it ends up being displayed again,” she said. “That is our hope. It is part of our history, and I think that it needs to be displayed. We have to learn from our history. Even though some people don’t like, it is part of history,” she said.




We all know that the Florida Legislature voted in 2016 to replace the statue of Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith, in the U.S. Capitol. Politicians, however, did not select a new representative for the State in National Statuary Hall. They left the decision to a future vote after an outside panel selected nominees.


Each State gets two statues in the Hall; Florida’s other spot is held by John Gorrie, widely considered the father of air conditioning.


Proposed to replace Gen. Smith: the famous Boxing Promoter – Don King! No joking folks, here is her picture from the Tuesday edition of the Orlando Sentinel:


The liberals in Tallahassee are saying that they want to replace the statue of Gen. Smith with one of educator Mary McLeod Bethune, who has beat out both Mickey Mouse, Walt Disney and even the guy who started the Publix Supermarkets. But pictures don’t lie! The ;picture you are looking at, look at the face, the hair. They better put a plaque on this statue because you cast that image in bronze and people are gonna think they are looking at a statue of Don King. Maybe they can rope it off, so it looks like he’s in a boxing ring?


Again, nothing’s sacred!




Last we week we reported that the Hillsborough County commissioners voted 4-3 to keep the monument but place a mural celebrating diversity behind it.


On Tuesday, a mob of angry blacks, muslims, and liberals stood outside the County Building and violently demanded that the Hillsborough County Commission reverse course and remove the Confederate monument from the old county courthouse.


Joining them was Hillsborough Commissioner Pat Kemp, one of the three dissenting votes last week, she said she is a descendant of a Confederate soldier but does not think the statue belongs where it is.


Dixie Heritage subscriber Phil Walters of Tampa and some fellow SCV members were there and tried to have an intelligent conversation with the protestors. That was, of course, an exercise in futility.




A three-day Confederate Flag rally was held Monday – Wednesday in Muskogee, Oklahoma and the SCV Camp hosting the rally said its purpose was to share the ‘true meaning of the flag.’ They also waned to educate the public on who the Sons of Confederate Veterans are.


The rally was held in front of the Muskogee Civic Center from 12:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. each day.


I’m proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squares can have a ball
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
In Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA.




A woman in Charleston, South Carolina, ripped a Confederate flag tag off of a truck and then when the driver of the truck tried to get her license plate number, and as he was doing so, she backed into him with her car, causing minor injuries.


Now, Ann Lee Walters faces charges of vandalism as well as leaving the scene of an accident with injuries.




A big dispute is brewing over a tiny plot of land in Orangeburg, South Carolina because a Confederate Flag is flying near an ice cream parlor.


The land – just three-thousandths of an acre – and its flag pole belong to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, having been willed to the Camp by my late friend, the BBQ baron, Maurice Bessinger.


The flagpole, which used to be adjacent to one of Maurice’s BBQ restaurants, now sets next to an ice cream shop owned by a Mr. Daras who wants the flag moved. He’s hired a lawyer and even filed a zoning appeal.


My suggestion is that all of our readers near Orangeburg visit the ice cream shop, order three scoops, and be sue to tell mr. Daras that you appreciate his flying the Flag and plan to patronize his shop frequently to show your support for his flying it.




A black Mississippi citizen is taking his case against the state’s Confederate-themed Flag to the U.S. Supreme Court.


In papers filed Wednesday, attorneys for Carlos Moore said lower courts were wrong to reject his argument that the Flag is a symbol of white supremacy that harms him and his young daughter by violating the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection to all citizens.


His attorneys wrote that under the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against Moore, “a city could adopt ‘White Supremacy Forever’ as its official motto; or a county could incorporate an image of white hooded figures and a noose hanging from a tree into its county seal; or a state could incorporate a Nazi swastika, as an endorsement of Aryan/white supremacy, in its state flag.”


Mississippi has used the flag since 1894, displaying its red field and tilted blue cross dotted with 13 white stars in the upper left corner. Voters kept it in a 2001 election.


However, several cities and towns and all eight of the State’s public universities have stopped flying the Flag.


The lawsuit Moore filed in February 2016 says the Mississippi flag is “state-sanctioned hate speech,” and seeks to have it declared an unconstitutional relic of slavery.


U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves dismissed it in September without ruling on the merits, saying Moore lacked legal standing to sue because he failed to show the emblem caused an identifiable legal injury. But despite ruling against Moore, Reeves devoted nine pages of his decision to historical context, noting the racial terror intended to maintain segregation and white supremacy in the Deep South in the years leading up to Mississippi’s adoption of the flag with the Confederate emblem. Reeves specifically rejected an argument some flag supporters make outside the courtroom, that there is no connection between slavery and the Confederate battle emblem. The judge cited Mississippi’s 1861 secession declaration.


Moore, himself an attorney, is now asking the Supreme Court to send the case back to Reeves’ federal courtroom for a full trial on the merits of his arguments. Ultimately, Moore wants the Confederate symbol removed from the State Flag.


“While acknowledging that the Establishment Clause prohibits a state from expressing the view that one religion is superior to, or preferred over, others, the court of appeals reached the remarkable and unwarranted conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause does not similarly prohibit a state from expressing the view that one race is superior to, or preferred over, another,” wrote Michael Scott and Kristen Ashe, attorneys who represent Moore, in their filing with the Supreme Court.


It will be October, at the earliest, before the Supreme Court will say whether it will take the case. The Mississippi attorney general’s office, which has defended the State, declined to comment Wednesday, spokeswoman Margaret Ann Morgan said.


Republican Gov. Phil Bryant has said if the lag design is to be reconsidered, it should be done in another statewide election. Legislators filed several bills in 2016 and this year, to either change the flag or financially punish universities that refuse to fly it. All failed because leaders said they couldn’t reach consensus.


Last week we ran an Associated Press (AP) story reporting that the
Rufus C. Burleson Chapter # 2709, Texas Division, UDC had rented a crane to remove a monument in Paris, Texas. The AP story got it WAY WRONG and we are very happy to correct the record. Below is an eMail I received on Monday from the President of the Rufus C. Burleson Chapter # 2709, Texas Division, UDC:


Director at Dixie Heritage:


Here is the Rewrite for your story “TEXAS UDC EFFORT TO REMOVE MONUMENT BLOCKED”




Last Thursday, a Paris resident thought he saw a crane around the Lamar County Courthouse in Paris, Texas. This
vision of a crane, was an omen of things to come. To safeguard the Monument, the Commissioner’s Court agenda was checked and a Special Meeting had been posted for 9:00 Friday at the Lamar County Commissioners Court by Judge M. C. Superville, Jr. First on the agenda, the Judge would call a vote to re-locate the Lamar County Courthouse Monument.


This posting led to the men and women of Paris and the Lamar County area to organize their opposition to re-locating this 1902 Monument. The Lamar County Courthouse was full to capacity. The vote to have it removed was tied 2-2, therefore Judge Superville declared the Monument would not be moved at this time.


Rufus C. Burleson Chapter 2709 in Burleson, Texas, in the Texas Division, of the United Daughters of the Confederacy was not involved in any way of re-locating or moving the Monument. This Chapter is located 150 miles away from Paris, Lamar County, Texas. Members of the chapter, stand with the Paris, Lamar County, Texas residents for leaving the Monument where it was dedicated in 1902. The Chapter did distribute information regarding the Lamar County Commissioners Court hearing for its members and interested men and women in that area. The Rufus C. Burleson Chapter honors its Confederate Ancestors and Southern heritage.


Louann Rubel, President
Rufus C. Burleson 2709, Texas Division, UDC
Texas Division, UDC


To let you know how the specific commissioners voted:


Lamar County Judge M. C. Superville, Jr. made the motion to move the Monument. Commissioner Lawrence Malone voted with the Judge.


Commissioners Lonnie Layton and Ronnie Bass voted not to move the Monument.


Commissioner Keith Mitchell was absent.


This made the vote 2 for and 2 against.


Lets talk about our neighbor to the NORTH AYE


You know, Canada, AYE


In Toronto, video footage caught an altercation between an idiot and an owner of a General Lee car at the Highland Creek Heritage Festival.


Ybia Anderson began filming the 1969 Dodge Charger, which looked almost identical to the one featured on the popular TV show “The Dukes of Hazzard.” WARNING: Video contains profanity and language that may be considered offensive!


Anderson, who is black, began to argue with the owner of the car regarding the Confederate Flag he had exhibited on his car. She streamed the interaction on Facebook Live.


Anderson told the owner. “They hung our people from trees until their eyes bugged out.”


Here is the link to the video:






Thursday, June 15 was a grim day for freedom of speech in Canada. After months of debate and some spirited opposition, the Senate passed.67-11, one of the pet projects of self-described feminist, best buddy of the transgendered and enthusiastic participant in gay pride parades from Montreal to Vancouver, Justin Trudeau.


This bill will make criticism of yet another privileged minority — now gender identity and gender expression — difficult. If your criticism is deemed “hate” under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law”, you could go to prison for two years.


Under Canada’s welter of pernicious federal and provincial human rights (minority special privileges) laws, you might be compelled to call a sexually weird individual by whatever pronoun he/she/it/zee/zuu/zur insists on.


As this CTV News (June 15, 2017) reported: “Nicole Nussbaum, a lawyer with expertise in gender identity and gender expression issues, says she’s relieved the bill has finally passed. Parliament has seen earlier versions of the bill for more than a decade, but never approved one. Including gender expression and gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act will ‘address the really desperate situation that many trans and gender non-confirming, non-binary people experience as a result of discrimination, harassment and violence,’ she said in an interview with CTVNews.ca.”


Hang on a minute: Violence against anyone, sexually weird, confused or otherwise is already illegal. And, “non-binary” — meaning not one of two (that is, male or female) — would seem to suggest people who are seriously confused and perhaps mentally ill. Now, they must be treated with care and their delusions adopted. The CTV report continued: “The Senate took seven months to study and debate the bill, a process that included discussions about whether it would force people to use unusual pronouns.


Rene Basque, president of the CBA, wrote to the Senate legal affairs committee last month.” For one thing, Basque is speaking only of the “hate law” here, not the much more loosey goosey human rights laws. Supposing an employer refers to a person who looks male as “he”, but is told the person feels like a woman today and wants to be called she or zee or they. If the employer is a traditional Christian or just a common sensical sort and does not want to join this person in their fantasies and insists on referring to the individual as “he”, might this not suggest “abhorrence, delegitimization or rejection”? And, if so, the poor employer has big legal problems.


Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto was warned last Autumn that, if he did not address the transgendered or sexually mixed-up by the made-up pronoun of their choice, he could face discrimination problems with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.


The Daily Caller News Foundation (June 16, 2107) explained the new law is “making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training. Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code. … ‘Great news,’ announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. ‘Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.’ [Uh, what does sexual confusion have to do with love, Trust Fund Kid?]


Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, and one of the bill’s fiercest critics, spoke to the Senate before the vote, insisting that it infringed upon citizens’ freedom of speech and institutes what he views as dubious gender ideology into law. ‘Compelled speech has come to Canada,’ stated Peterson. ‘We will seriously regret this.”[Ideologues are] using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward,’ said the professor to the Senate in May. ‘The very idea that calling someone a term that they didn’t choose causes them such irreparable harm that legal remedies should be sought [is] an indication of just how deeply the culture of victimization has sunk into our society.’ Peterson has previously pledged not to use irregular gender pronouns and students have protested him for his opposition to political correctness. ‘This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth degree, all in the name of political correctness,’ Jeff Gunnarson, vice president of Campaign Life Toronto, a pro-life political group in Canada, told LifeSiteNews.”




According to University of London professor Eric Kaufmann, almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be “visible minorities” within two generations and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.


Kaufmann notes that, with its continuing high immigration intake and the fact that four out of five newcomers are visible minorities, Canada is undergoing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in the Western world.


Questions must be asked about why such drastic population replacement is taking place and who is benefiting from it.


While Canada has been helped by large-scale immigration at various times in its history, the current high intake causes more problems than benefits for our current population. Our economy grows because of the increasing population, but the average Canadian gets a smaller piece of the bigger pie. The cost is huge – with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually.


Young people in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are being crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals, and the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.


Despite this, those who profit from mass immigration continue to laud its benefits. Their claims are not supported by the facts, however. We are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure.


Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.


Those who seek to benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base with policies designed to make it easier to come here from abroad and acquire the full benefits of citizenship. Also active are leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence.


Another important influence has been contributions from developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties – particularly at the municipal level.


In this regard, it is worth noting that not too long ago, leading politicians in Vancouver on both sides of the political aisle – such as former mayors Art Phillips and Mike Harcourt – were readily prepared to identify high immigration intake as one of the leading causes, if not the main cause, of rising house prices. Now, however, no Canadian politician has the guts or integrity to connect the two.


This is not only because they are so heavily indebted to the real estate industry in one way or another, but also since criticism of mass immigration is treated in many quarters as xenophobic, if not racist, since newcomers are overwhelmingly visible minorities. While a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant – and my own family is an example of this – it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population, particularly when there is no good reason for allowing this to happen.


With current policies, we will have to find room for tens of millions of more newcomers, most of whom will settle in the already densely populated areas of the country where most of the employment opportunities as well as their relatives are located.


We will also have to contend with the fact that many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.


If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere.


Is this what Canadians want for their children and their descendants? Almost certainly not.


And yet we are letting it happen through a combination of wilful ignorance, political and financial greed and an excess of political correctness.


Are we prepared to do something about it? Sadly, it appears that most Canadians are too supine or short-sighted to do so – at least at this juncture.


Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups. Without this we cannot expect our descendants to inherit a country that is anything like the Canada of today.


Martin Collacott lives in Surrey and served as Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East. He has testified on numerous occasions before parliamentary committees as an expert witness on immigration, refugee and security matters


Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe released an undercover video Tuesday morning of a CNN producer saying the network’s heavy coverage of possible collusion between Trump administration officials and Russia during the 2016 presidential election is “mostly bullshit.”


“I haven’t seen any good enough evidence to show that the president committed a crime,” CNN supervising producer John Bonifield, who works in the network’s medical unit, says in the clip.


“I just feel like they don’t really have it, but they want to keep digging. And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me,” says Bonifield, who is filmed in a number of casual settings with his off-camera interrogator. “You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.”


Bonifield is speaking to an off-screen questioner in the edited clips, which O’Keefe says were taken in Atlanta by people within his organization that got into CNN.


The two talk in a number of settings, including an elevator, as if they are having a casual conversation. It appears that Bonifield does not realize that he is being filmed.


O’Keefe is a conservative provocateur who has produced a number of controversial undercover videos. He has at times been criticized for releasing videos that were selectively edited to portray people in a negative light. O’Keefe has also donned costumes in past videos as part of undercover projects to get people to talk on camera.


In 2010, he was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine after he plead guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from entering Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office on false pretenses.


Bonifield also mocked “cutesy little ethics” around journalism in making the argument that the business side of news gathering is more important.


“All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you’re just like, that’s adorable,” Bonifield said. “That’s adorable. This is a business.”


Bonifield also discussed CNN President Jeff Zucker’s editorial input in an internal meeting earlier this month after coverage of Trump’s decision to pull the United States from the Paris climate agreement.


“Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords,” recalls Bonifield. “And the CEO of CNN [Zucker] said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.”


New York Times writer Sopan Deb questioned O’Keefe’s latest work around CNN, stating there was a “better than 90 percent chance” the videos “were deceptively edited.”


“One guy’s private comments, by the way, judging from the source, that there is a better than 90 percent chance they were edited deceptively,” wrote Deb.


The Hill has reached out to Bonifield and CNN for comment.


Please be warned that there is profanity in this video:


My Brother, My Enemy


Syndicated Column by Dixie Heritage Subscriber
Dr. Chuck Baldwin


June 29, 2017


Brothers are supposed to be allies; they are supposed to be friends. This is true for spiritual brothers as well as for biological brothers. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work out that way. Sometimes, brothers become enemies.


Think about it: in our War for Independence, brother fought against brother. How many Christians sided with the British Crown and raised arm and bayonet against their brothers in Christ who stood for American liberty and independence? How many Christians were among the British troops who participated in the Boston Massacre? How many Christians were among the British troops who participated in the raid on Lexington and Concord? How many Christians were among the British troops who participated in the assault against the colonists on Bunker Hill? Too many to count.


The same thing happened in the War for Southern Independence. How many Christian men in the North took up arms against their spiritual brethren in the South for basically the same reason that American Tories took up arms against colonial patriots years before: to forbid them from declaring independence? How many Christians were among the troops who invaded Virginia and assaulted the citizens of that State in the First Battle of Manassas and throughout the War of Northern Aggression? Once more, too many to count.


As an aside, I find it more than interesting that great spiritual revivals broke out among the Confederate army during the War for Southern Independence in much the same way that they had erupted among the Colonial army during our War of Independence from Great Britain. One could make the argument (and I do) that it is the thirst and fight for liberty and independence that often coincides with great spiritual awakenings. The Protestant Reformation is a European example. Therefore, I am absolutely convinced that there will be no more spiritual awakenings in this country without a subsequent thirst and fight for liberty and independence, because “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (II Cor. 3:17 KJV) Turn that verse around and it says, “Where liberty is, there is the Spirit of the Lord.” And the antithesis of the verse would read, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is not, there is not liberty.”


Think about what happened in Germany during the rise of the Third Reich. The vast majority of Christian pastors and churchmen turned against their freedom-loving brethren in the Confessing Church and helped Hitler’s henchmen and Stormtroopers to persecute, imprison, and even murder fellow followers of Christ. The historical record indicates that 95% of the pastors and churches of Germany supported Hitler and openly opposed Christian freedomists such as Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Niemoller was tortured, imprisoned, and sent to concentration camps, while Hitler had Bonhoeffer murdered.


I would dare speculate that, FAR more Christians have been killed by fellow professing Christians–including by Christians serving in the U.S. armed forces who have killed at least tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Arab Christians in the Middle East today–than by Muslims.


Author and researcher Nicolas J S Davies writes, “Any impartial judge would reject a claim that this legislation [the AUMF passed by Congress in 2001] authorized 16 years of war in at least eight countries, the overthrow of governments that had nothing to do with 9/11, the killing of about 2 million people [a sizeable percentage of these victims being Christians] and the destabilization of country after country–just as surely as the judges at Nuremberg rejected the German defendants’ claims that they invaded Poland, Norway and the U.S.S.R. to prevent or ‘preempt’ imminent attacks on Germany.”


The truth is, Muslims kill FAR more of their fellow Muslims (Sunni Muslims killing Shia Muslims and vice versa) than they do Christians. For all of the current hysteria among today’s Christians regarding the threat of Islam and Sharia Law, history suggests they have much more to fear from their own Christian brethren.


I can honestly attest to the fact that during my 40+ years of Gospel ministry, my greatest enemies have been Christians. In truth, those who have directly threatened my life and well-being have been almost exclusively professing Christians. And if I should join the ranks of the martyred, I can almost guarantee that it would be at the hands of a professing Christian. And even without suffering physical martyrdom, I can testify as to how it has been professing Christians–NOT Muslims–who have assaulted and attempted to destroy my livelihood, my family, my reputation, and my church flock. Only God’s grace has saved and sustained me from these “Christian brethren.”


How is it that so many professing Christians today can be so blind to the divine principles of liberty? How is it that they can be so quick to turn against their brethren who choose to stand and fight for these principles? I believe the answer is because 1) they are truly ignorant of the divine principles of liberty and/or 2) they are statists at heart.


1) They are ignorant of the divine principles of liberty


Without courageous preachers and teachers expounding, explaining, exegeting, extrapolating, and elucidating the Biblical Natural Law principles of liberty, Christians (and non-Christians) quickly become ignorant of and illiterate in liberty principles. The great examples of Abram, Moses, Gideon, Samson, David, Daniel, the three Hebrew children, John the Baptist, Simon Peter, et al. are spiritualized away without the principles behind those acts of faith and resistance being the least bit taught–and without any practical application to the modern day. This kind of preaching leaves men pitifully unprepared to understand and deal with modern acts of tyranny when they occur. And this is exactly what is happening in the pulpits and churches of modern America. But it is even worse than that.


Not only are Christian ministers deliberately not teaching the divine principles of liberty, they are aggressively misinforming their congregations with erroneous teachings of Scripture relative to freedom principles. And nowhere is this more evident than in the way the vast majority of ministers are teaching Romans 13. This brings me to the second point.


2) They are statists at heart


Let’s face it: the fallacious “always-obey-the-government” interpretation of Romans 13 is one of the biggest allies any would-be tyrant has. This was Adolf Hitler’s favorite passage of Scripture. He instructed his propaganda ministry to prepare sermons and Bible lessons for Germany’s churches emphasizing this misinterpretation of Romans 13. Accordingly, the vast majority of Germany’s Christians compliantly submitted to Hitler’s tyranny, specifically because they had been taught in church that Romans 13 instructed them to do so. They believed that by obeying Hitler, they were obeying God. They believed that Hitler (the state) stood in the place of God per Romans 13. All over America today, pastors and churches share this identical belief.


This egregious and ubiquitous misinterpretation of Romans 13 is why I co-authored a book (with my attorney son) to show the true teaching of Romans 13–and all Scripture–regarding submission to government. It is called “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.”


I digress to add: many so-called Christian patriots are merely anarchists at heart who try to mask their rebellion against the authority of God by feigning to engage the freedom fight. But that is a subject for another day.


In reality, the vast majority of America’s pastors, TV preachers, radio preachers, ministers, evangelists, etc., are promoting the Hitlerian philosophy that the state stands in the place of God and must be obeyed without question or hesitation. They believe that anyone (Christian or otherwise) who dares to resist an oppressive state is doing a disservice to God and should be punished. And with the clever enticement of the 501c3 non-profit corporation status that most churches submit to today, they have become–either wittingly or unwittingly–the sheepish slaves of the state. In Biblical terms, they have become idolaters.


Look at how many Christians believe that whistleblower Edward Snowden is a traitor and enemy of America. Instead of realizing that the federal government’s Orwellian surveillance society is blatantly and overtly unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral and that every preacher in America should be sounding the clarion call repudiating this unlawful activity, most Christians blindly follow America’s pastors who regurgitate the call of compliance and non-resistance to unlawful government–even to the point of calling for the death of the man who simply tried to warn the American citizenry of their government’s evil machinations.


I am convinced that many, if not MOST, of these Christian statists today would applaud the imprisonment and execution of the likes of the great Christian theologian and freedomist Dietrich Bonhoeffer all over again–not to mention the great martyrs of church history including Stephen, the apostle James, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Savonarola, William Tyndale, et al.


Ladies and gentlemen, the chasm between freedomists and statists is widening. It is pitting brother against brother; husband against wife; father against son; mother against daughter; friend against friend; and Christian against Christian. In much the same way that the great struggles for liberty have divided brethren in the past, so, too, it is happening today. And the chasm is only going to widen further in the months and years to come.


And mark this down: as the chasm widens, there will be no room for neutrality. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will have to pick a side. We will either believe and understand the divine principles of liberty and be ready and willing to fight for and defend those principles or we will support the tyrant’s position that the state stands in the place of God and must be obeyed at all costs.


This is why it is so important for Christians to leave these churches that promote this damnable doctrine of unlimited submission to the state–and I mean right now. Pastors who continue to preach this devilish doctrine are facilitating the destruction of liberty in America. They are helping to put shackles around the necks of our children and grandchildren.


I realize that there are many sincere Christians out there who believe that all their pastor and church must do is preach the Gospel, win souls, etc., and America will be healed. They are sincerely mistaken.


Over the last 70 years in America, we have seen an explosion of Christian witness–an explosion unparalleled in church history. There are over 300,000 churches in this country. There has been more Gospel preaching, more Gospel literature, more Christian colleges, universities and seminaries, more Christian TV and radio ministries, more youth retreats, couples retreats, marriage retreats, Sunday Schools, missions organizations, evangelism programs, Christian publishing houses, ad infinitum than at any other time in church history. And while many of these institutions and organizations differ on the nuances of secondary doctrine, for the most part, they have shared fidelity to the Gospel.


With all of this Christian witness, one would think that we would be in the Millennium by now. So, why is America teetering on the brink of financial collapse? Why does our constitutional republic increasingly look like a despotic oligarchy? Why is evil running rampant? Why are we on the brink of nuclear war? Why is our entertainment industry a moral cesspool? Why is aberrant sexual behavior skyrocketing? Why are our armed forces engaged in perpetual aggressive war? Why are we in the burgeoning throes of a Police State? Why? I’ll tell you why: the “salt” has lost its savor and is “good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” (Matt. 5:13 KJV) Christian pastors and churches are no longer fighting against the decay and putrification of our country–including against the polluted political bacteria that is eating away at the fundamental principles of liberty upon which this nation was established. Biblical Natural Law principles have been abandoned by pulpit and pew alike. As a result, America’s freedoms are being systematically and rapidly expunged–a Donald Trump presidency notwithstanding.


America can never be saved by the White House. It can only be saved by the church house. Yet the vast majority of Christians seem to be looking for national salvation from a president and ignoring the cowardice and complacency of the one to whom God has entrusted with the responsibility of being the nation’s watchman: their own pastor.


And as is always the case: when the light of truth is turned off in a nation, the darkness of error quickly envelops the land. Accordingly, the errors of socialism, militarism, corporatism, neoconism, statism, and Zionism have become sacrosanct in America–including in a majority of America’s churches.


For all intents and purposes, freedom and liberty are entering a modern-day Dark Ages. And just as in the dark days of European persecutions and inquisitions, those Christians who stand for liberty today are being ostracized, marginalized, vilified, and demonized–by their own brethren.


More and more, the same man who is my brother is also my enemy.


Editor’s Note: If you are in Central Florida, or in Montana, reply to this eMail and we will refer you to a Bible preaching, freedom preaching church!


This week a reader drew my attention to a YouTube video asking if the United States is really a country?


The narrator of the video is probably NOT of Southern sentiment. In fact, I think he is European. And as such, he makes some awkward conclusions regarding the “Civil War.” Still, this video will be worth the time you invest to watch it:


Dixie Heritage
P.O. Box 618
Lowell, FL 32663