Dixie Heritage News – Fri, Feb 9, 2018
CHIEF WAHOO and our beloved Confederate symbols
49-year-old Tyler Watkins Davis, of Middleburg, Florida (near Jacksonville) was arrested at his home on Buggy Whip Trail by Clay County deputies charging him with malicious wounding, according to his Clay County arrest report. The Florida deputies arrested him on a Virginia warrant because he was identified in video footage of the Charlottesville rally back in August.
Davis, who is white, is the fourth person arrested in the Aug. 12 assault on DeAndre Shakur Harris, one of several people protesting the “Unite the Right” rally defending the monuments in Charlottesville.
The Southern Poverty Law Center was engaged by “authorities” in Virginia to identify “extremists” in the Charlottesville footage. They spotted Davis, known to be active in both the Sons of Confederate Veterans and in the League of the South. This appears to be the only reason for the issuance of a warrant since Davis has no prior criminal record.
He remains in the Clay County jail not being allowed to post bail as he awaits extradition.
TEXAS COMMITTEE WANTS TO APOLOGIZE FOR STATUE
An advisory committee decided to recommend keeping a monument of a Confederate soldier on the Denton Square and adding context to it.
The committee, formed by the Denton County Commissioners Court, voted 12-3 to support letting the monument remain where it stands outside the historic courthouse, according to the Denton Record-Chronicle.
The committee will make its recommendation to the court, including a request for adding context in the form of a large plaque clarifying opposition to slavery and audio-visual kiosks that will play interviews of people discussing “racial progress” in Denton County, the Record-Chronicle reported.
Any action taken by the Commissioners Court to alter the monument will require approval from the Texas Historical Committee, as the courthouse and surrounding area are historical sites.
Savannah, Georgia Committee is recommending change.
The task force created to develop recommendations concerning the city’s Confederate Monument presented its findings to the Savannah City Council on Thursday.
Those recommendations include renaming the statue from Confederate Monument to Civil War Memorial. The group also suggested preserving all historical material already on the soldier statue and adding a bronze plaque that reads: “This memorial was originally erected in 1875 to the Confederate dead, redesigned in 1879 and rededicated in 2018 to all the dead of the American Civil War.”
These recommendations despite the fact that a two-week public poll resulted in nearly 5,000 responses via online survey, emails and postal mail, half of which identified as Savannah residents. Sixty-four percent of those Savannah residents said they didn’t want any changes to the monument.
Council members said they were open to the changes suggested by the task force.
“I have no problem supporting the recommendations made as it is,” Alderman Bill Durrence said.
However, Alderman Tony Thomas did express concerns on how the proposed changes would affect future monument modifications around Savannah.
“I appreciate all the work that has gone into this (study) but I think it’s a slippery slope,” Thomas said. “We have to be very careful about how we go about changing the monument and how we sanitize it …there is going to be call for other monuments down the road.”
The recommendations will be up for approval during the council’s Feb. 14 meeting.
FLAG REMOVED FROM CONNECTICUT HISTORY MURAL
The Hartford Board of Education, responding to a complaint from a single parent, has removed a depiction of the Confederate Battle Flag from a mural inside the E.B. Kennelly School in the South End.
Pedro Zayas, a spokesman for the school district, said the piece of the mural depicting the Flag was removed before classes began at the school Wednesday morning. Because the mural is an interconnected series of ceramic tiles, workers at the district were able to “pop the tile” with the Flag without disturbing the rest of the artwork, Zayas said.
The removal came just hours after Kamora Herrington, whose son attends the school, noticed the Flag during an assembly for students of the month in Kennelly’s cafeteria.
The mural was drawn and fabricated by seventh and eighth grade art students at the school in 1967. It was described as an “unusual mural which portrays the growth of the United States and records the history of its flag along with historical highlights of Connecticut,” according to the caption of a photo depicting its unveiling.
The complaint came from the same parent who runs the school’s “support group” for LGBTQ youth – said she sent emails to Kennelly’s principal and the Board of Education late Tuesday. She also posted about the mural on Facebook. Within minutes she received a reply from board member, Shontá Browdy, “1st thing tomorrow.”
NASHVILLE’S NEWS 2 (WKRN) REPORTS:
A monument dedicated to Confederate soldiers was found vandalized at Mt. Olivet Cemetery in South Nashville.
The monument was established by women of Nashville and named Confederate Circle, which features a large obelisk.
The 45-foot obelisk marks the graves of some 1,500 Confederate soldiers, whose remains were moved there from Nashville-area battlefields.
KENTUCKY STATUES VANDALIZED
The statue of a Confederate soldier in Cherokee Triangle has been vandalized again. And this time around, so has another statue outside the downtown Louisville Free Public Library.
The John B. Castleman statue and the George Dennison Prentice statue outside the library were found vandalized with orange paint Wednesday morning.
The Castleman statue was vandalized around 11 p.m. Tuesday, said Louisville Metro Police spokesman Dwight Mitchell. “Apparently, a can of orange paint was thrown on the statue,” he said. “The LMPD 5th Division is in the process of trying to identify the individual(s) responsible.”
The Castleman statue was first vandalized with orange paint in August when a local company cleaned the statue for $8,200.
Mayor Greg Fischer on Wednesday chastised the vandalism as an unhelpful and ineffective way to express an opinion.
“In a diverse community like ours, people are going to have differing viewpoints, but vandalism is not the way to share those views,” Fischer said in a statement. “It is costly, divisive and ultimately ineffective since it basically is a one-way conversation.”
An advisory committee on the city’s public art is scheduled to meet 5 to 6:30 p.m. Feb. 7 in the auditorium of the library’s main branch to discuss the future of the artwork in the city, which includes the Castleman statue.
“I’d ask citizens to share your views in public, with each other, through opportunities like this, including an online option,” Fischer said. “Let’s talk with each other, not at each other.”
NON-HERITAGE NEWS EFFECTING THE SOUTHLAND:
The Justice Department turned over a host of documents to special counsel Robert Mueller, including internal correspondence regarding Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ resignation attempt, ABC News is reporting.
Also included in the stash was DOJ-White House correspondence surrounding the ouster of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, ABC News reports.
President Donald Trump reportedly asked for Sessions’ resignation last May, got it, but then rejected it at the advice of his own counsel, worried about the optics in the wake of Trump’s dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice refuses to release the proposed budget for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating alleged “collusion” between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia, according to the government watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Judicial Watch is seeking the budget data under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
When Judicial Watch requested the information, the DOJ responded on Jan. 19 that “seven pages were located that contain records responsive to your … request.” However, said the DOJ, “We have determined that this material should be withheld in full because it is protected from disclosure under the FOIA.” The DOJ claims that releasing the budget proposal could interfere with “law enforcement proceedings.”
“Special Counsel Mueller’s operation is not above the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people have a right to know how much taxpayer money is planned for his massive investigation.”
“No one else in D.C. seems to be providing oversight of the Mueller operation, so once again it is up to the citizen’s group Judicial Watch to fight for accountability,” said Fitton.
In its lawsuit, Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice, Judicial Watch asked for the following information:
“A copy of the budget prepared and submitted by Robert S. Mueller III or his staff….
“A copy of all guidance memoranda and communications by which the Justice Management Division will review the Special Counsel’s Office’s ‘Statement of Expenditures’…
“A copy of each document scoping, regulating, or governing the Special Counsel’s Office appointed under the leadership of Mueller III…”
According to Judicial Watch, the DOJ “has thus far ignored” the group’s requests “for documents about its management of the Mueller operation.”
The DOJ did send Judicial Watch a copy of the special counsel’s expenditures from May 17, 2017 to Sept. 30, 2017, showing a total of $3,213,695, or more than $800,000 a month.
THAT PESKY MEMO
House Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday listed four points in defense of his fellow Republicans on the House intelligence committee, following their public release of a classified memo about the way the FISA process was used in the Trump-Russia investigation.
“First, there are legitimate questions about whether an American’s civil liberties were violated by the FISA process. We are the legislative branch of government. It is our job to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people of the Executive Branch in case any powers were abused and civil liberties were abused by the Executive Branch. So there’s a very legitimate issue here as to whether or not an American’s civil liberties were violated in the FISA process. That’s point number one.”
“Point number 2. This is a completely separate matter from Bob Mueller’s investigation. And his investigation should be allowed to take its course.”
“Point number 3. There may have been malfeasance by people at the FBI…So it is our job in conducting transparent oversight of the Executive Branch to get to the bottom of that. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. And so what we want is all of this information to come out so that transparency can reign supreme and accountability can occur.”
“There’s a fourth point I want to make. And that is, the institution of the DOJ, of the FBI, is a very important institution for American life; is a very important institution for keeping the rule of law intact.”
Ryan noted that the “vast number of men and women” at the FBI are professionals who do their job well.
On other questions, Ryan said he thinks Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is “doing a fine job.”
And he said, “Democrats on the intelligence committee who are complaining about their own rebuttal memo not being released along with the Republican memo are being subjected to the same procedure that the Republicans went through.”
First, the committee must vote to release the memo to all House members; then a vote would be taken to release it publicly, depending on what redactions need to be made for security reasons.”
AN INTERESTING STORY FOR CANADIAN VETS
A group of disabled veterans is taking its legal fight for better pensions to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The six veterans involved in what is called the Equitas case say the federal government has a sacred obligation to care for the country’s wounded soldiers, and that the duty was breached in a 2006 overhaul to the compensation regime for those injured in the line of duty.
Mark Campbell, a retired major, and former combat engineer Aaron Bedard, both part of the Equitas suit, held a news conference on Parliament Hill today to announce plans to take their pension fight to the Supreme Court.
Campbell said it’s a “national disgrace” that the government is spending tax dollars in a legal fight against injured veterans, and “untolerable” that changes to the pension regime have left two standards of compensation for soldiers, depending on when they were injured.
“This is grossly unfair and it has to change,” he said.
The overhaul replaced lifelong disability pensions with a lump-sum payment, career training and targeted income support, which the veterans claim was worth less than the previous pension system.
The case, which they hoped to turn into a class-action lawsuit, has been winding its way through the courts since 2012. It was launched when the Conservative government was in power but continued under the Liberals.
Last year the B.C. Court of Appeal struck down the veterans’ claim.
Lawyer Don Sorochan, who is representing the Equitas group, hopes the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to that decision, and definitively rule on whether the government has a “social covenant” or sacred obligation, and whether it is enforceable.
“The position taken by the government was astonishing. For them to stand up and say we don’t have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything they had been saying in Parliament, on the election campaign,” he told CBC News.
During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to give veterans the option to have a lifelong pension.
After much frustration and protests, the government announced major changes to the compensation system in December 2017 that would pour about $3.6 billion into veterans’ benefits.
But Campbell called that proposal a “sham.”
“The new pension for life is nothing more than a shell game,” he said.
Questioned about the legal challenge in the House of Commons today, Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan said the government has spent $10 billion to expand: pain and suffering compensation, income replacement and education, career transition and mental health benefits.
He also said the government has followed through on its pledge to institute a life-long pension.
“Veterans asked for a pension for life option. We delivered,” he said.
According to a copy of the court filing to the high court, the case raises “fundamental questions about the unique and special relationship between Canada and members of the Armed Forces,” and whether an “inadequate compensation scheme” breaches Canada’s solemn obligation to those who served the country.
The filing says the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision could have profound implications for future military service in Canada and the very operation of Veterans Affairs Canada.
“Those who enlist in military service do so at great personal risk and sacrifice, but do so based on the premise which underlies the social covenant: Should they fall or be injured, the nation and people of Canada will ensure they will be looked after,” the filing reads. “The implication of the Court of Appeal’s decision is that this solemn obligation does not exist.”
Veterans advocates say the government’s new pension regime for injured veterans is grossly unfair. (CBC)
Sorochan said the social covenant has been recognized since the First World War, when promises were made to those who served their country. It was, and remains, necessary to build and retain a voluntary citizens’ army.
Sorochan said the B.C.appeal court ruling effectively said even if a promise was made, any government could undo it “on a whim.”
“I don’t think that’s much comfort if you’re going to put your life on the line when you could take away the promise.”
Phil McColeman, the Conservative veterans’ affairs critic, called on the Liberals to fulfill their campaign promise.
“It’s shameful that as a result of Liberal broken promises, veterans have been forced to take their case to the Supreme Court in order to be heard,” he said in a statement to CBC News. “The Conservative Party of Canada believes in providing the best possible services and benefits for veterans and their families, in recognition of their service to Canada.”
In the House, O’Regan said when the Conservatives were in office, members of the armed forces returned home from duty to find services cut, veterans offices closed and their voices ignored.
In a news release, Marc Burchell, president of the Equitas Society, said the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling says there is nothing embedded in the law to protect injured veterans.
“This case is about making sure the government of Canada supports our fighting men and women as they must,” he said. “The government must either reinstate the old Pension Act, or must make sure compensation for injuries under the New Veterans Charter is as good as – or better – than what they received before.”
How Many Evangelicals Voted for Hillary?
by Al Benson, Jr.
Al Benson, Jr., is the editor and publisher of the Copperhead Chronicle, a newsletter that presents history from a pro-Southern and Christian perspective. In addition to writing for Southern Patriot and other publications, he is a member of the Confederate Society of America and the League of the South.
Just yesterday afternoon I saw an interview by Rev. Franklin Graham (Billy’s son) on Fox News. Rev. Graham stated, flat out, that there is a coup d’ etat in progress in this country by people in the Deep State that are trying to take Donald Trump down. I thought, as I watched Rev. Graham’s comments, which I agreed with, that “his daddy would never have said that much” about the current national condition.
Many evangelicals, and fundamentalists as well, strain to stay clear of any commentary about political issues (which, at root, are really theological issues) because they don’t want to be perceived as being “worldly.” In this, they have imbibed enough propaganda from the Great Deceiver so that they take no stand on much of anything and, therefore, don’t bother to learn any real history so that, when they occasionally do speak out on something, being historically ignorant, they manage to come down on the wrong side of whatever the question might be.
I’ve told this story before, but it fits here. We once had a preacher that came to our church in Indiana and preached about the sad condition of the country (he was right). When he had gone that far with his sermon, he said: “I could stop here and be safe” meaning that, as long as he spoke in vague generalities without naming names, the congregation would agree with him.
However, he committed (in evangelical circles) the unpardonable sin. He went on and started naming names as to who was doing what to the country and he named all the organizations on whose behalf they were doing it. He was very thorough and I had no problem with anything he said. He had done his homework. However, the congregation, at least most of them, had a major problem with it. They didn’t want to hear that. It upset them, because the logical implication of his sermon was that if we knew some of this stuff we had a responsibility to pass along this info and also to do something about it because it affected us as Christians and it would affect our children-and their children. That was just too much to be bothered with-sort of like putting your kids in a Christian school or home schooling them when it was so much easier to just let them attend the local public indoctrination center. You could feel the congregation’s temperature rising as he preached. It was perceptible.
As he stood at the door to greet folks on the way out, most didn’t have all that much to say to him. When I got to him (I had known him previously) I told him “You didn’t make too many friends here today.” He already realized that, but he had felt led to say what he did anyway.
One parishioner was heard to say, on the way out, that “We don’t need any of this right wing stuff.” Yet I have noticed, over the years, that lots of evangelicals I’ve run across didn’t seem to have too much trouble with “left wing stuff, provided it was couched in evangelical terminology, which the leftists have become quite adept at doing because they know it fools the evangelicals almost every time.
Remembering all this from years back (the church we attend in Louisiana now does not practice this Marxist frippery) I wondered just how many evangelicals had voted for Hillary in the last election and were saddened because she had not had her chance to do to the country what Obama had done to it. I wondered how many evangelicals had succumbed to her labeling of Trump supporters as “deplorables.” I wondered if any of the evangelicals I knew back there in Indiana had learned anything about what really goes on in this country since I had last seen them. I can’t answer that question accurately, but my gut instinct tells me “not many.”
Rev. Franklin Graham is on target here. There is, indeed, a coup being perpetrated by the Deep State Swamp Denizens against Mr. Trump and we do not yet know how it will turn out. Mr. Trump is at least sympathetic to Christians. His opposition hates out guts! Thanks to the internet and various alt.right news sources, more people are beginning to realize what the game really is and where the Deep State really wants to take us-and where they would have taken us by now if Hillary had got elected. No sane person wants to go there!
As for those evangelicals that rushed to vote for Hillary, I wonder how many of them did any homework to find out where she was really coming from. Again, my gut feeling tells me that not too many did. Many of them probably voted for Hillary because Trump has been known to use coarse language in public at times and Hillary didn’t (in public). I’ll tell you this, I don’t encourage that kind of language, but I’d rather vote for an honest man that cussed now and again than for a deceiver who never did (in public).
For that rare evangelical that might really be concerned for where Hillary is coming from you might be interested in some of the books listed below. I think they are still available if you try Amazon or other sources.
Hell to Pay-The unfolding story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Barbara Olson, Regnery Publishing Co, 1999.
Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweizer, Harper Collins Publishers, 2015. Some of this deals with the Uranium One deal and related events.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors-The case against Bill Clinton, by Ann Coulter, Regnery Publishers, 1998.
“Slick Willie” 2-Why America still cannot trust Bill Clinton, by Deborah J. Stone & Christopher Manion, Annapolis-Washington Book Publishers, 1994. There is an interesting chapter in this book on The “Rodham Clinton Justice Department.”
I would exhort evangelicals who thought Hillary was a better choice for president than Donald Trump to get some of this material and do some reading. You may begin to find out about some of this Deep State foolishness now going on in Washington and how much of it Hillary and her Deep State buddies are really responsible for. And who knows? You may wake up and smell the coffee!
CANDIDATE IS PROUD OF CONFEDERATE HERITAGE
South Carolina candidate for governor Catherine Templeton touted her outsider status and Civil War roots during a campaign speech Thursday at Bob Jones University.
After making waves last year during a speech in Pickens County – where she said she was “proud of the Confederacy” and vowed not to allow WBTS monuments to be removed if she is elected governor – the Mount Pleasant attorney cited the WBTS again in her speech.
“It’s important to note that my family didn’t fight because we had slaves,” Templeton said to a room mostly filled with university students. “My family fought because the federal government was trying to tell us how to live.”
Templeton said her family arrived in South Carolina in the late 1700s, adding her father was named after Judge William Brawley, “who fought for this state, fought in the Battle of Seven Pines, even lost an arm for this state.”
Chester County native William H. Brawley fought in the Civil War and then returned to Brawley Plantation before he went to Europe to study law. He later became a federal judge who lived in Charleston, according to historical reports.
“We didn’t need them to tell us how to live way back then, and we don’t need them to tell us how to live today,” Templeton said.
Democratic candidate James Smith later criticized Templeton’s praise of the Confederate cause.
“Catherine’s deliberate attempt to divide our state and insert dog-whistle politics into her campaign is shameful and clearly demonstrates her unfitness for office,” Smith said. “South Carolina deserves better.”
Templeton led two state agencies during Gov. Nikki Haley’s tenure. She is the the third candidate in June’s GOP primary to campaign at BJU Christian university in Greenville, joining Gov. Henry McMaster of Columbia and Lt. Gov. Kevin Bryant of Anderson.
In her speech, Templeton told of her opposition to abortion – shared by the other GOP candidates – and, later, quoted Psalms, saying it would take an “army of angels” to win the governor’s race.
Templeton said she would shift money from administrative levels to teachers and principals in the state’s schools, expand private school-choice options, focus on the education and job needs of rural counties, privatize the state’s school bus fleet if possible and reduce the size of government.
Templeton said her work in Columbia against the “corrupt establishment” led the State Law Enforcement Division to call her and ask her to begin carrying a weapon for her protection.
Now, she told the crowd, you will find her grandfather’s .38-caliber pistol in her purse next to Chick-fil-A coupons and car keys.
“They said, ‘Come get a concealed weapons permit and carry,'” she said. “Can you imagine having a job where you’re doing the right thing and people are so upset that you have to carry a gun to protect yourself?
“Well, I’m not finished doing the right thing,” she said. “So I’m still carrying a gun because I’m running for governor right now because no one is rattling cages in Columbia.”
Until Next Week,
P.O. Box 618
Lowell, FL 32663