Dixie Heritage News – Friday, March 23, 2018


Running against the Confederate Flag


Richmond, Virginia Mayor Leavar Stoney’s Monument Avenue Commission will have one more upcoming meeting to receive feedback on the future of the City’s Confederate monuments. The City government is deliberately choosing small meeting places. We encourage all of our readers in the area and other concerned individuals to attend the meeting. Space is tight.


March 27, 3:30 p.m. @ Leadership Metro which is located @ 9211 Forest Hill Ave., Suite 200-A in Richmond.




Of the several bills generated in the Tennessee State Legislature allowing Tennessee to charge local officials with committing felonies if they acted against state laws regarding historic monuments. All but one of the bills have failed in the House. The one remaining bill has been tabled until the summer.




The gubernatorial race in South Carolina began last Friday. As you know, we have endorsed Charlestonian Catherine Templeton, who served in Governor Nikki Haley’s cabinet.


Secretary Templeton drew gasps when she said last year, “I’m proud of the Confederacy.” She talked about her ancestor who lost a leg at the Battle of Seven Pines.


Secretary Templeton is the only candidate with state-wide recognition to declare that as Governor, she would protect all of South Carolina’s Confederate monuments in public spaces. None would be removed, she said, “not on my watch.”


Her fundraising runs close to Governor Henry McMaster who wants a second term. This despite the fact that President Trump has done a massive fundraiser for Governor McMaster. The President is also endorsing McMaster. Our readers know that we are supporters of the President. Though doing so is getting harder when he insists on endorsing RINOs and leftys. Sadly, its becoming a pattern!




Florida Governor Rick Scott has simply become unlobbyable. And in his desperate attempt to prove to the State that he is not a “lame duck” he has been dismantling the entire State in short order.


He signed the biggest gun control package ever signed by a Governor. And then, Monday, he followed it up by signing SB472 – the legislation that removes General Kirby Smith’s statue from the US Capitol and replaces it with one of a black woman who is a dead-ringer for boxing promoter Larry King.


We’ve attempted to lobby the Governor’s office and he’s unresponsive. Other lobbyists likewise report, he just stopped listening. It seems he has an agenda. Why, I really don’t know. I guess conservatism was just an act? Now his true colors are revealing themselves. Or maybe he cut a deal to finish his term and not be prosecuted for the hundreds of millions he defrauded Medicare before becoming a politician?


Whatever, General Smith’s monument will soon be removed and Florida will be a massive “gun-free” zone.




From June 1936 until its removal in mid-September last year, Alexander Phimister Proctor’s statue Robert E. Lee and Young Soldier overlooked Oak Lawn. Now it bides its time at Hensley Field in Grand Prairie. And soon it could find itself in Fort Worth – specifically, the Texas Civil War Museum.


That’s just one of the suggestions found in materials prepared for Wednesday’s meeting of the Dallas City Council, which will discuss what to do with the city-owned monuments, artwork and street names honoring soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.


The council put the discussion on hold in November. The lull allowed the city staff time to analyze the 13 proposals offered last summer by the mayor’s Confederate monuments task force.


The task force proposed putting the Lee statue and the Confederate War Memorial, planted outside the downtown convention center, in a museum. But until now, the name of that museum wasn’t made public.


Joey Zapata, the assistant city manager overseeing the review, said that the Civil War museum on Jim Wright Freeway in Fort Worth is open to accepting the statue.


According to documents posted on the city’s website, it will cost about $75,000 to move the statue and place it on a new foundation. It will cost $125,000 to remove the existing base and stairs at Oak Lawn Park, the green space formerly known as Lee Park.


Zapata and Jennifer Scripps, director of the Office of Cultural Affairs, said there’s a chance the Fort Worth museum or some private donors might help offset the costs of the statue’s relocation. “But those are part of larger negotiations if we get the direction from council to pursue it,” Scripps said.


The documents posted also show that city staffers – from various departmens including Sustainable Development, Park and Recreation and, most of all, the Office of Cultural Affairs -don’t always agree with the task force’s recommendations.


For instance, the task force wanted the Confederate War Memorial, dedicated in 1896, to join the Lee statue in a museum. But Scripps and Zapata said Friday that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to move the towering collection out of Pioneer Park Cemetery next to Dallas City Hall without damaging or destroying the works. It would also cost about $500,000. The staff recommends leaving it in the cemetery and surrounding it with signs that put the statue in context. That would cost about $25,000. “It’s incredibly complicated with all those graves around there to even start to think about moving it,” Scripps said.


The task force also wanted to change the names of streets that honor Confederate leaders: Lee Parkway, Cabell Road, Gano Street, Stonewall Street and Beauregard Drive. But city officials are recommending renaming only Lee Parkway, which is adjacent to the park where its namesake statue stood until last fall.


“Gano and Cabell really were early Dallas residents that made other positive contributions to Dallas,” Scripps said, referring to rancher, doctor and minister Richard Montgomery Gano and Mayor William L. Cabell. “I am not glossing over their Confederacy links, but Lee is clearly in honor of a Civil War general without other ties to Dallas.”


There is no guarantee Lee Parkway will get a new name. Several residents along that stretch of Oak Lawn went to City Hall last year to protest the statue’s removal and any proposed name change.


Zapata said late Friday that “because there’s already been opposition expressed, we’ll probably need a super-majority of the council to make any change.”


But city staffers embraced most of the task force’s proposals, including creating a Fair Park Art Working Group and hiring a local consultant to create signs that would “add full historical context to Fair Park art.”


The staff also agreed with commemorating the Hall of Negro Life, which was built for the Texas Centennial Exposition in 1936 and then destroyed.


That cost could be anywhere between $50,000 and $200,000, according to the briefing, depending on how deep the council is willing to dig into its budget.


Also, the task force and the staff would like to see a Texas historical marker at Akard and Main streets – where Allen Brooks was lynched from the Elks’ Arch on March 3, 1910.


But as Zapata and Scripps note, theirs are merely recommendations – like the task force’s. It will be up to the council to tell the staff how to proceed. At Wednesday’s meeting, they rolled the report to April. Our readers in Dallas should make it a point to attend upcoming Council meetings and speak to these matters.




In August of 2017, Mayor Paul Soglin ordered the removal of Confederate
memorials from the cemetery. At the time, a plaque was removed, but a cenotaph still remains. It’s a large stone monument erected in the middle of the tombstones of Confederate soldiers that bares their names.


Monday night, Madison’s Landmark Commission met and voted to keep the monument in place.
“The names that were put in, in 1909, have degraded. You can’t read the names and this is the marker that bares the names of the 140 dead and we believe that it’s possible to honor the dead without honoring the cause that they died for,” said Stu Levitan, the Chairman of the Landmarks Commission.


A majority of the commission feels the dead should still be respected and remembered, but others say that can happen without the monument.


The final vote was five to one, with Alder Marsha Rummel being the lone vote in favor of the cenotaph being removed. “The names of the soldiers are still available for their families and the community to see who is there and I don’t believe that the monument serves any purpose other than it’s a legacy of slavery,” Rummel said.


The commission will give its recommendation to city council to make the final decision. They will also recommend an informative plaque be added to the memorial. The display would explain the history surrounding the Confederate cemetery.


If the council votes to remove the monument, they will have to go back to the Landmark Commission to get approval to do so.


If the monument is finally removed the names of these honorable men, and that of Mrs Alice Whiting Waterman, who cared for their graves until she died in 1897, will perish as well as the memory of the faithful Mrs. Waterman.




Nearly 60 people came to speak at Wednesday’s public hearing on removing three Confederate monuments from the Capitol Square in downtown Raleigh. The reports that we have received indicate that except for two black speakers, most of the speakers were against moving the statues.


In his comments Rick New of Jacksonville said, “It looks like what you’re trying to do is circumventilate the law. The law is clear. It says when you relocate a statue, it has to be in an equal place of prominence. There is no equal place in North Carolina other than the capitol grounds.”


According to David Ruffin, chairman of the Historical Commission, more than 4,200 comments on the controversy have been sent through a web portal established to take public comment on the issue. He encouraged the public to continue to provide its feedback as the task-force and ultimately the full commission continues its work.


The full commission will meet next month and is expected to hear a report from the Confederate monument task force.




The Confederate monument removed from the Courthouse in Tampa, Florida has finally been relocated to a private cemetery.


In a Tampa Bay Times report , Ken Brandon said the century-old statue now occupies a corner of his family’s cemetery. It is kept behind a locked gate monitored by security cameras. Brandon said the monument will not be open to the public. He said he denied a Southern heritage group’s request to host an event at the cemetery.




Tulsa Public Schools said the nearly century-old monument was removed and replaced with bricks on Tuesday. A district spokeswoman said “a community partner” covered the cost.


The removal comes less than week after the school district’s board rescinded the school’s original name: Robert E. Lee Elementary School. The board was considering the new name of Lee Elementary School, but it held off officially renaming the school last week and will reconsider the issue on April 2.


The monument is now at a school district warehouse for safe-keeping while the district evaluates who owns the monument.


The school was dedicated and named after Lee in 1918, following a Confederate Veterans of America convention in Tulsa.




The NW Museum of Legends and Lore will never completely leave Capitol Hill, it seems. Fresh off rejection by the City of Seattle for its permit for the annual Broadway Pride street festival, the museum’s directors are leading the charge targeting, of all things, the United Confederate Veterans Memorial in Capitol Hill’s Lake View Cemetery.


Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson along with a group including a former president of the United Daughters of the Confederacy are now demanding that the Seattle City Council order the 92-year-old memorial removed from the 15th Ave E cemetery.


The memorial hewn from a “10-ton” block of “Stone Mountain, Georgia” rock was created by the Seattle chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy reportedly with money raised at “Dixie Day” during the 1909 Alaska Yukon Pacific Expo. The group included the actual daughters and wives of Confederate soldiers living in Seattle.


The museum claims that despite the memorial’s presence in the private cemetery operated by a nonprofit association, the City has the right to require its removal.


While the Council has not yet made a decision, Mayor Ed Murray said the Lake View monument should be removed.


But removal is not quite enough for the NW Museum of Legends and Lore. The group says it is also calling on City Hall to “return in a symbolic gesture the granite back to Stone Mt. Georgia – the recognized home of the resurgence of the KKK.”




HuffPost Deputy Opinion Editor Chloe Angyal claimed the company had succeeded in its goal to have “less than 50% white authors,” on Wednesday.


“Our goals for this month were: less than 50% white authors (check!), Asian representation that matches or exceeds the US population (check!), more trans and non-binary authors (check, but I want to do better),” declared Angyal in a series of Twitter posts, Wednesday. “We also wanted to raise Latinx representation to match or exceed the US population. We didn’t achieve that goal, but we’re moving firmly in the right direction.”


“Making the improvements we made took work, no doubt about it,” she continued, adding, “We all tapped our networks and made moves to expand our collective rolodex.”


Though the posts received hundreds of likes, Angyal received over 3,000 replies, mostly consisting of users criticizing the company for focusing on race rather than content.


HuffPost, formerly known as the Huffington Post, has frequently published racially-charged, anti-white articles.


Last year, a HuffPost columnist argued that white people who stand for the national anthem are standing for white supremacy, while the company refused to remove an article that claimed the Islamic prophet Muhammad was poisoned by a Jew.


HuffPost even published an article on their South African site which argued white men should have their voting rights taken away, only for it to be revealed that the article was written by a man as a hoax.


Following former Breitbart News Chairman Steve Bannon’s departure from the White House last year, HuffPost celebrated with a series of racially and religiously-charged headlines, including “Goy, Bye!” and “White Flight.”


In 2016, HuffPost published an article titled, “White People Should Be Banned from Doing Yoga,” and in the same year, HuffPost editors were mocked for posting a picture of their alleged diversity in the editorial department, only for users to point out that every editor in the picture was a white woman.




Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told members of his cabinet this week that US President Donald Trump will likely walk away from the Iran nuclear deal this May, Channel 10 news reported Thursday.


Netanyahu reportedly made the remarks during the cabinet meeting on Sunday when he relayed the details of his meeting with Trump in Washington a week earlier.


According to the TV report, Netanyahu said his conversation with Trump about the 2015 nuclear deal was attended by Vice President Mike Pence, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.


“I believe Trump is very close to canceling the nuclear agreement,” Netanyahu reportedly told his ministers. “The president spoke in the presence of his staff and senior government officials when he told me that if there is no significant change, he’ll pull out of the Iran nuclear deal.”


According to a report in the Axios news website, Trump told the prime minister that he was demanding “significant changes” to the 2015 accord and vowed to walk away from the Obama-era accord unless the European countries fixed it. However, Trump said that so far, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have only offered “cosmetic changes,” the website said, quoting Israeli officials.


Trump has called the deal “disastrous” and vowed to pull out of it if it is not renegotiated, positions echoed by Pence in his speech.


Netanyahu said he warned US officials that, “buried within the Iran nuclear deal are many dangers to the world, including a specific danger of nuclearizing of the Middle East.”


This was highlighted Thursday when Saudi Arabia’s crown prince warned in a US television interview that if Tehran got a nuclear weapon, his country would follow suit.


“Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible,” Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in an excerpt of the interview that aired Thursday on “CBS This Morning.”


On Sunday, Netanyahu warned against “nuclearizing the Middle East,” saying that the nuclear deal signed by Iran and the international community could, in its current form, lead to a dangerous arms race.


“Many countries in the Middle East say that they too should be allowed to enrich uranium if Iran is allowed to,” Netanyahu said, at the opening of his weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem detailing his meetings with US officials, including President Donald Trump, during his five day-trip to the US. In recent months, Saudi Arabia has announced its intentions of embarking on a massive program to become “self-sufficient” in producing nuclear fuel. Preliminary plans suggest the Saudis may be looking to build as many as 17 reactors in all. In his meeting with Netanyahu earlier this month, Trump reportedly refused to commit to halting an emerging deal to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia, telling the prime minister that if the US did not supply the reactors, then the Russians or Chinese would, Channel 10 news said, citing unnamed senior Israeli officials.


Netanyahu and his team reportedly requested that, if the Americans insist on going ahead with building the reactors, Saudi Arabia should be prevented from enriching uranium by itself. They demanded that this be a precondition for the entire deal, the report added.




New York Times best-selling author and populist conservative columnist Ann Coulter, who up until now, has been a strong supporter of President Donald Trump, says that his border wall prototypes are a “fakeout,” a “a ridiculous waste of time.” The border wall prototypes are a ploy to never actually build any wall.


Speaking in an interview broadcast on KABC Radio Los Angeles, Coulter said that the border wall prototypes-which have been standing for over half a year without any further action-were only “very good at stopping any illegal alien prototypes.”


Coulter went on to say that she didn’t understand “why we need prototypes, except that it’s all just a fakeout and the whole thing about building a wall is just ‘I’m going to get four years saying I’m going to build the wall and inspecting prototypes, but I’ll never actually build the wall.’ … No, it’s a ridiculous waste of time.”


Coulter went on to discuss Israel’s border wall, and how that works perfectly in keeping illegal invaders out of the Jewish state.


“I’ll take whatever Israel has because it’s working 100 percent. … And they have a big problem because they are surrounded, . . . and its weird, because Jews are usually so good at real estate [laughter] but look at what they are surrounded by, a tiny little outpost of civilization. . .


“So they have a huge problem with illegal aliens and they’re fantastic. I mean, I have a whole chapter in ‘Adios, America’ about ‘Why can’t we have Israel’s plan on immigration?’ … They take illegal aliens and just fly them to other countries and drop them off in the desert.


“There’s no integrating you, putting you in houses, giving you welfare, no, they’re in prisons or jail facilities right there at the border and you can leave on your own or you can stay in jail and eventually they might get sick of you and just fly you to another country but when they first put the fence up.”


She went on to point out how the Jews had even boasted about how good the border wall in Israel worked.


“For close readers of the New York Times, they would be bragging, Netanyahu, bragged [about the wall] and this year, zero illegal immigrants got through [into Israel].


“Yeah ok it’s a smaller country, but you know they also have a much smaller budget. How much are you guys spending on the bullet train [in California] $77 billion? We could have three walls [for that]. I never want to hear about the cost of the wall again.”


Coutler is possibly being harsh on President Trump, as he has yet to secure the funding to build the wall, but his most recent offer-of allowing millions of illegal immigrants amnesty in exchange for Democratic support for the wall budget-does not augur well for the future of the project.


The President has requested $18 billion to complete the wall. His 2019 budget request includes roughly $1.6 billion to add 65 miles of walls in the Rio Grande region. Congress has so far only allocated roughly $341 million to replace some fencing and “add gates to existing barriers.” Even if lawmakers were to approve Trump’s request, that would still fall short of the up to $21.6 billion needed to seal off the entire border, as the president originally proposed.


Only a few days ago, a NBC report preparing to cover President Trump’s recent visit to the prototypes, captured a family of four nonwhites brazenly jumping the border as it currently exists in the immediate area of the prototypes.


If the wall gets built, will it affect the current changing demographic of America?


Perhaps the most recent pertinent example of this mass invasion has come in a recent National Geographic article, which revealed that the town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania has shifted from just two percent Hispanic in 2000, to 51 percent Hispanic in 2016.


by Dr. Chuck Baldwin


Dr. Charles Obadiah Baldwin is an American politician, radio host, and was the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party for the 2008 U.S. presidential election.


In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shootings last year in October, I wrote a column entitled “They Are Coming For Our Guns.” In that column, I listed sixteen gun control bills that were working their way through the U.S. House and Senate.


At the time I wrote that column, the vast majority of conservatives, Republicans, and Christians paid no heed, because they said, “Donald Trump is ‘pro-Second Amendment’ and won’t let any more gun control legislation pass.”


Fast forward just four months later to after the Florida school shootings, and we watched and listened to Donald Trump turn his back on his word to protect the Second Amendment as he enthusiastically picked up the gun control mantra of Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi and embraced enacting additional gun control laws.


Please understand: In spite of the mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas, gun control Democrats in Washington, D.C., were mostly stymied, and the myriad gun control laws they were pushing appeared dead on arrival. Donald Trump had campaigned and won as a fierce defender of the Second Amendment, and everyone (including Democrats) figured that even if some gun control bills passed the Congress, President Trump was sure to veto them.


Following the mass shooting in Florida, there was NO surge in gun sales (which is not normally the case-usually gun sales skyrocket after mass shootings in anticipation of more gun control laws being enacted), as conservatives and gun owners were confident that their constitutional right to keep and bear arms was not in jeopardy: Donald Trump would make sure of that.


But as I have tried to warn people, Donald Trump has no core convictions; he has no center; he has no moral compass; and he is a dish rag when it comes to the Constitution. Of the sixteen gun control bills in Congress that I referenced in my October, 2017, column, Trump is now actively supporting at least ten of them.


In Trump’s highly publicized round-table discussion with members of Congress from both parties (including radical gun control zealots such as Dianne Feinstein), Trump announced that he favors implementing several additional gun control laws, including banning bump stocks (and similar “modifiers”), more background checks for gun purchases-including adding a variety of “mental health” screenings-and implementing the “Fix NICS” bill (a longtime goal of gun grabbing Democrats like Schumer and Feinstein).


In point of fact, the original “Fix NICS” bill was introduced under Barack Obama and included outlawing private gun sales. Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie is warning the American people that the Republican leadership in Congress is trying to pass the “Fix NICS” bill THIS WEEK. He warns of how devastating the bill will be to America’s veterans and seniors who will be thrown into the “no buy” list for a host of reasons. And will the bill include the original language outlawing the private sale of firearms? Don’t count it out.


Trump also announced that he supported gun confiscation without due process. He TWICE said that government should take (confiscate) the guns first and worry about due process later. He then looked at Dianne Feinstein and told her he would support her bill. “Her” bill is the “assault-weapons” ban that would outlaw all semi-automatic rifles.


After Trump’s shameless calls for more gun control, the White House has tried to calm Trump’s conservative constituents by walking back several of those comments. That doesn’t change the fact that Trump said them-more than once. And it doesn’t change the fact that Trump is still forging ahead with plans to implement new gun control laws.


Again, until Donald Trump made his stupid Stalinist statements supporting more gun control laws-even gun confiscation-the Democrat-led charge for more gun control was DEAD. However, AFTER Trump’s stupid Stalinist statements, politicians in both parties have gone into a gun control frenzy.


Already, the Republican house, senate, and governor of Florida have enacted one of the most draconian gun control laws in U.S. history. The law bans the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 21; it mandates a three-day waiting period for most gun purchases; adds a “red flag” law that allows law enforcement to CONFISCATE the firearms of individuals who have not committed a crime or have not even threatened to commit a crime-but who might be “suspected” of having “mental health” issues; adds additional background checks for gun purchases; and mandates “mental health” screening for all public school students in the State.


Again, these Marxist-inspired gun control laws were passed by a REPUBLICAN house, senate, and governor.


Do you think for one minute that Trump’s pro-gun control rhetoric had NOTHING to do with the way those Republicans voted in Florida? Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. The party takes its cues from him. When Trump embraced and promoted the enactment of more gun control, it was a signal to Republicans and Democrats alike to proceed with more gun control. And that’s exactly what both parties are doing.


A few days ago, the State of Washington became the first State in the country to enforce its newly enacted “red flag” law and confiscate the firearm of a man who had broken NO law and who had not even threatened anyone. His firearm was confiscated on the mere notion that he was “suspected” of having “mental health” issues. I wrote about this Gestapo-style episode last week.


Now, the State of Illinois is about to pass a law that would authorize blanket gun confiscation of everyone under the age of 21. Writing for American Thinker, Daniel John Sobieski writes,


It is no longer a conspiracy theory spawned by deplorable bitter clingers, but a creeping reality spawned by shootings law enforcement could have prevented but didn’t. The Illinois House has passed legislation requiring 18- to 20-year-olds to give up certain legally purchased and legally owned firearms:


A bill requiring 18-20 year olds to hand over or transfer ownership of heretofore legally possessed “assault weapons” is gaining sponsors in the Illinois Senate after passing the House last month.


The bill, HB 1465, was sponsored in the House by Rep. Michelle Mussman (D-Schaumburg) and passed by a vote of 64-51 on February 28.


After being introduced in the upper house by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the bill has added seven co-sponsors in the last week. Notable among them was Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), the NRA “A” rated 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.


Gun confiscation is here. First they will come for the young, who can go to war with guns but can no longer go hunting with them or protect their families. If you are a 20-year-old single mom with a restraining order against a violent ex-boyfriend, well, you’ll just have to trust your life to 911 as your door is being kicked in. Meanwhile, the government wants you to give it your guns.


Notice that Democrats AND Republicans in Illinois are supporting this Marxist bill that confiscates guns from law-abiding people with NO DUE PROCESS WHATSOEVER.




All we need now is a Red Square-style military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh, that’s right! Donald Trump is calling for that, too, isn’t he?


As I noted in last week’s column, no less than 30 states have either already passed gun confiscation laws (Florida makes that number now 7) or are in the process of enacting gun confiscation laws.


Instead of enacting additional gun control laws, what our president, governors, and lawmakers should be doing is expunging existing gun control laws-including eliminating virtually all of America’s gun-free zones.


As Mr. Sobieski wrote,


It is typical of gun-control zealots that their answer to the slaughter invited by gun-free zones is to create more gun-free victims. Those who fear an armed citizenry are typically those who believe that all rights are on loan from an all-powerful government. The Founders wisely wrote the Second Amendment to protect the other nine in the Bill of Rights.


Critics of the Second Amendment say they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season.


In the hands of British redcoats, the musket was an assault weapon. In the hands of a law-abiding American, even those between 18 and 20, an AR-15 is what the Second Amendment is all about.


Hear! Hear!


It is time for the American people to forget about which party controls Congress and who is in the White House and start standing en masse for the Constitution and Bill of Rights-and against ANY new gun control laws-or the Second Amendment (and the rest of our liberties) will soon be toast.




by Dr. Scott Lively


Dr. Scott Lively is a pastor, activist, author, attorney, radio show host, and a Dixie Heritage subscriber. He is currently running for Governor of Massachusetts.


In 1957 when I was born in the Village of Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts exemplified the American dream. A family could live comfortably on a single income. Our streets were safe. You didn’t even have to lock your doors. The factories were humming. Family farms were thriving. The churches were full and the prisons were empty. We were secure and prosperous, the home of many top blue-chip companies. And, as the birthplace of abolition, we led the nation in the pursuit of racial harmony.


So what happened? The so called “progressive movement” happened: Marxism. It overtook the Democrats in the mid-20th Century, and then began infiltrating the GOP. They destroyed our manufacturing base and drove out the blue-chips with high taxes and over-regulation, turned our Judeo-Christian public schools into Marxist reeducation camps teaching secular humanism, enslaved inner-city communities with government dependency programs, and shifted political power from diversified local control to a Soviet-style centralized government in partnership with organized crime on Beacon Hill.


By seeking unity with the Democrats while aggressively suppressing conservatives, Charlie Baker is robbing this commonwealth of its last hope for recovering what we lost. Only the true conservative values of our founders that served us so well for so many generations can make Massachusetts great again.


And that’s the truth.


I am true Republican Dr. Scott Lively and I ask for your support.


We conservatives have one last chance to prevent a complete takeover of the Mass GOP by establishment liberals aligned with Charlie Baker. If we allow him to run an uncontested primary in 2018, proving to the entire Mass electorate that conservatives are irrelevant, there will be nothing to stop him from finishing the job he started in 2016 to purge us all from party leadership and rewrite the platform to conform to his Democrat values. His Donkey Party opponents in ’18 are very weak, so there’s no real threat of his losing the governorship if he (as everyone expects) wins the primary, so there is no reason for Republican delegates to “circle the wagons” to protect the seat.


All I’m asking for is 15% of the delegates to vote for me at the convention so I can get on the primary ballot as a champion of true Republican values — keeping those issues fresh and alive for every future conservative candidate in this commonwealth.


This convention is not about me, it is about the principles our founders built this constitutional republic upon, and the critical issues like the murder of the unborn and trampling of the Bill of Rights which will have no advocate in the 2018 gubernatorial race if Baker runs unopposed.


Don’t get me wrong, I’m in this race to win it — and I think I have a realistic chance even though it’s a long shot. The more important question, however, is whether Republican delegates still care enough about conservative principles to take the opportunity I am offering to keep those principles alive in the minds and hearts of the voters by giving me a 15% vote in the convention, even if these same delegates plan to vote for Baker in September. It’s just smart politics to prove to conservative voters that they still have a home in the GOP and a reasonable hope that their values can survive the Baker/Polito sell-out.


THE UNION LEAGUE – The Real Terrorists!
by Mike Scruggs


Mike Scruggs is a retired combat pilot and a Vietnam War veteran. He is also a retired stock broker. Currently he writes as a columnist for the Tribune newspapers.


Most people today know something about the Ku Klux Klan, but very few are familiar with the Union League of America, also called the Loyal League. In fact, the birth and growth of the Klan was largely a response to Union League bullying, violence, and murder. The Union League perpetrated far more violence against both blacks and whites in the post Civil War Reconstruction years of 1865 to 1877 than the Klan. Why has the violence of the Union League been shoved deep into the memory hole of history? It is because the Union League was essentially a quasi-federal agency carrying out the policies of Reconstruction. The factual history of this political despotism, corruption, and violence is a moral and political embarrassment, which the powerful guardians of counterfactual political narratives have relentlessly sought to suppress. This is even truer in today’s social and political climate of hysterical political correctness that chains modern academics and media within narrow bounds of subject, reasoning, and speech.


In 1862, many in the North had become demoralized by Confederate victories in the field. Also pro-States Rights Democrats made substantial political gains in six Northern states. Many Republicans felt that the success of Union war policies and efforts were threatened by this. As a response, Union Clubs were formed in almost every town to support the war, the troops, and the Republican Party. These became the Union League of America. As the war was ending, Union League Clubs were also formed by Union loyalists in the South. These became a political arm of the Reconstruction and carpetbagger state governments. Their initial goal, shared with the Freedmen’s Bureau, was to make sure that blacks registered to vote and voted Republican. Most of the loyalist whites soon dropped out of the League, and except for the carpetbagger politicians and Federal Army officers who formed its key leadership, the League was composed almost exclusively of former slaves and black soldiers of the Federal Army.


Radical Republican leaders in Washington realized during the war that if the South came back into the Union with Democrat Congressmen, the Republicans would lose the political dominance they had enjoyed since the 1860 election. This is why the Radical Republicans in Congress wanted to shove Lincoln’s replacement, Andrew Johnson, aside. Johnson was a former Democrat, a constitutional conservative still sympathetic to States Rights, and committed to following Lincoln’s relatively lenient ideas about reconstructing the South. He was also incorruptible. They wanted control of Reconstruction. Their goal was first to punish, humiliate, and exploit the South, and then to remake it into a powerful political tool for permanent national dominance by a Republican Party tightly controlled by a small, but ruthless faction. The core leaders of that faction were radical abolitionists Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Edwin Stanton, Benjamin Wade, and Benjamin “Beast” Butler.


These ruthless radicals believed the key to making the South solid Republican was the black vote. Thus it was critical to insure that blacks voted Republican. The March 1867 Reconstruction Act disenfranchised Confederate veterans for the foreseeable future. Thus 85% of the white vote was eliminated. The Radical Republicans also thought it necessary to alienate blacks from white Southerners, Democrats, and especially their former masters. Previous to the war and especially immediately following the war, the relationships between former slaves and masters were cooperative and often affectionate. Most slaves in the South had been well treated, in many cases like family. The whites also appreciated the tremendous loyalty that most blacks had shown them during the war. The vast majority did not desert them during the war, and no Confederate Army in the field could have moved a mile without black wagon drivers and other logistical support. They served in many capacities. Some had proven their loyalty and combat effectiveness in Confederate infantry and cavalry regiments.


Union League meetings were conducted as a mystical secret society with secret rituals. Meetings were especially devoted to stirring up enmity between blacks and whites. A catechism written by Radical Republicans in Congress was used in Union League meetings to create an unreasonable sense of entitlement, grievance, and resentment. They were taught that Northern Republican whites were their friends and allies and that white Southerners and Democrats were enemies to be hated and despised. They were frequently promised that they would receive land and livestock confiscated from the whites. In some cases they were even promised racial dominance that would entitle them to the wives and daughters of their white enemies. This led to a number of violent racial incidents. Such racial incidents were frequently used by carpetbagger governments to demonstrate to Washington and the Northern press and public the continued need for Southern Reconstruction. Other promises were in the form of threats of a death penalty by hanging to any black who betrayed the League by voting Democrat.


With the coming of Radical Reconstruction and martial law, the role of the Union League became more aggressive. Union League militias were formed and were an enforcement arm of the carpetbagger governments. The militia was composed of former slaves and black troops stationed in each state. The Union League had 250,000 men in ten Southern States. North Carolina’s Scalawag Governor William W. Holden had a Union League militia of 80,000 at his bidding. The primary role of the Union League was now to keep the corrupt carpetbagger governments in power. This included suppression of competing carpetbagger factions.


In order to insure that all blacks voted Republican the Union League bullied and beat other blacks into submission. Even flogging with the lash was used. If that did not work, they exacted the death penalty, frequently by lynching. In order to intimidate whites from seeking power or influencing black voting, they conducted terror campaigns. Barns and sometimes houses of whites were burned. In some cases small towns were burned as in Warren and Hamburg, Arkansas. Men, women, and children were killed in raids on “insurrectionary” communities and counties. Their deaths were reported as “killed trying to escape.” There were Union League barn burnings and other destruction in every North Carolina County. During a single week of 1869 in Gaston County, North Carolina, nine barns were burned.


In two months of the same year in Edgecombe County, two churches, several cotton gins, a cotton factory, and many barns and homes were burned. The Raleigh Sentinel reported on August 29 of the same year that ten Federal Army companies associated with the Union League had terrorized the Goldsboro area and committed violent depredations of all sorts. It reported the actions of the troops “so violent that it was unsafe for women to leave their homes.” This was all part of the Reconstruction mandate to remake the South.


In Myrta Lockett Avary’s 1906 book, Dixie After the War, she relates a tragic atrocity. In Upstate South Carolina, a group of Union League Federal soldiers marching and singing halted to discharge a volley of bullets into a country church during services, instantly killing a fourteen-year-old girl. At a nearby residence a squad of the same troops entered a home and bound the elderly owner as they ransacked his house and argued over who would first ravage his daughter. The girl when approached drove a concealed knife through the heart of her assailant. She was then beaten to death by the rest. But under corrupt military and carpetbagger rule, Southern whites had little recourse to justice. No Federal justice occurred.


By 1870, the corruption of the carpetbagger governments and the violence of the Union League were becoming a concern to a significant minority in the U. S. Congress. But as Klan activity increased in response to Union League and other Reconstruction misdeeds, the Radical Republicans formed a committee to investigate the Klan. A minority report by Northern Democrats and Conservative Republicans representing more than a third of the committee, however, noted that the Union League had “instilled hatred of the white race” and had “made arson, rape, robbery, and murder a daily occurrence.” They also noted the role of corrupt government and Union League violence in driving whites to take law into their own hands.


by Dr. Charles Krauthammer


Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist, author, political commentator, and a former physician. He is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and a nightly panelist on the Fox News Channel.


I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called “Organizing for Action” (OFA).


OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?


If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!


Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration’s top dogs over to Organizing for Action.


OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.


OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for “progressive” change.. Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.


OFA members were propped up by the ex-president’s message from the shadows: “Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond.”


OFA’s website says it obtained its “digital” assets from the ex-president’s re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.


Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.” Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.


The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his ‘wife’ will oversee the operation from their home/office in Washington DC.


Think about how this works. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. All of this happens from the ex-president’s signal that he is heartened by the protests.


If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.


If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.


One of our readers submitted the following to their local newspaper:


Dear Editor:


Roanoke City is considering changing the name of Stonewall Jackson Middle School. Before any name change, the city (School Board-Council) needs to cover a number of issues that are important to the citizens.


Why is it necessary to change the name?


For many years the school has proudly borne the name of a great Christian, Southern General who was and is very important to both the white and Afro-American races. He started a Sunday school in Lexington for both free and slave people. As a direct result of his Christian love, the 5th Avenue Presbyterian Church, “the first and only colored Presbyterian church in Roanoke,” was established! In his memory a beautiful stained glass window graces the sanctuary, and on it are Stonewall’s final words, “Let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees.”


Why change the name now? Why not ten years ago or ten years in the future?


What part does racism have to do with the proposed name change and the timing of that change?


Will changing the name make white citizens feel more alienated?


Will it cause more white flight from the city?


What affect will this have on the city’s tax base?


Will having less white students have a negative effect on the educational system?


Will changing the name promote racial disharmony?


It will cost the taxpayer’s thousands of dollars to change the name. Is this a wise use of our educational dollars?


Name ten citizens whose lives will change for the better if the name is changed.


It will cost the city in dollars, social unrest, and racial tension, loss of citizens, loss of taxes, and loss of students. Will the benefit to the city and its citizens be worth the cost?


Gary C. Walker
Roanoke, Virginia




Dr. Ed is a pastor, author, public speaker, radio personality, lobbyist, re-enactor, and the Director of Dixie Heritage.


Mitch Landrieu, the Democratic mayor of New Orleans, told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday that many Americans “feel alienated…. In this moment that we have a dark moment in the country, it’s obvious that a lot of people feel alienated,” said Landrieu, as he pitched his new book, In the Shadow of Statues: A White Southerner Confronts History.


Let me just say it, New Orleans is OLD news. It is very much LAST YEAR’s news. Let me repeat that again. New Orleans is OLD news. It is very much LAST YEAR’s news.


So why, a full two months later, is Mayor Mitch on the Sunday shows two weeks in a row? Why has he been the lead guest on a major media outlet EVERY night this week? Why would a publisher want to give him a book deal? My guess is it’s a ghost-written book nobody is gonna buy (but hey, so was Hillary’s – never mind).


Why is Mitch being sought for comment every day by a reporter outside of New Orleans? Don’t think so, just do a Google search. Oh, and by the way, Google is putting Mayor Mitch quotes and stories at the top of their search results even though the actual engine usage does not justify it. Again, why?


I said this last year, when the New Orleans statues came down, that Mitch was using the monument removal to grandstand for what would be his run for higher office.


Maybe thats why, on Sunday, Mayor Mitch was at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. giving a press conference. Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported: “New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu denied he’s thinking about running for president in 2020, but acknowledged the chatter out there about his possible run.”


Do you know how many presidential campaigns have started in almost, or exactly, the same way? Most of them!


Even is Mayor Mitch isn’t sure about his future, it seems the political bosses have already decided for him. And that is why the “media” has been keeping him constantly in front of cameras and microphones. That is why a publisher is paying him a huge sum for a ghost-written book that they won’t be able to give away, hundreds of thousands of books that will end up being recycled and the recycled paper being used to print romance novels and comic books.


And what will be be Mayor Mitch’s platform? On what merit will he run? Why removing Confederate monuments of course!


Which leads me to the bigger question: Why would the political powers want to run a candidate whose sole accomplishment, whose sole talking point, whose sole anything, is hating the Confederacy?


I can’t fully answer that question yet. But I can tell you what it means. It means that 2018 (and probably 2020 also) will be elections where America will not be voting on issues of substance. Rather, the next two election cycles will be a “referendum” (the media likes that word) on all things white, all things Southern, all things “Confederate.”


You only thought that Donald Trump made 2016 YUUUUUGE. Here at Dixie Heritage, we’re digging in for the coming fight!


Until Next Week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed


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