Dixie Heritage News – Fri, May 11, 2018


Government Wins – Alfie Evans is Dead


Last year, Corey Stewart almost bagged the Republican gubernatorial nomination, even as his openness about being a Confederate earned him condemnations from his own party — and his fellow Prince William County supervisors. He managed to come within one percentage point of his primary rival, Ed Gillespie.


Now, he is running against Virginia’s Democratic senator, Tim Kaine. He’s considered the GOP frontrunner in the Virginia Senate race, having positioned “with President Trump,” opposing “political correctness,” “illegal immigration,” and the “Washington elites,” according to his website.


His two main populist planks appear to be gun rights and immigration policy.




The commission studying what to do with Richmond’s Confederate monuments has scheduled two public meetings to get additional community input.


The meetings will be held Thursday and Saturday, May 19. A press release from Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney’s office says the meetings will provide a chance to review input solicited so far and take additional comments.


The commission is concluding its public engagement phase and preparing to compile a report for the mayor. It has been considering a range of options, from adding context to the monuments to removing or relocating them.
Dealing with the monuments will likely to be a long process. A state law at the center of a lawsuit in Charlottesville prohibits the removal of monuments to war veterans, and the General Assembly has shown little interest in changing it.




Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised another Confederate Flag along a major roadway; this time along U.S. 74 near Belmont, North Carolina’s downtown.


It’s the latest location with a Confederate flag after others were raised in more rural parts of Lincoln, Catawba and Burke counties.


It’s not the first time a flag has flown in this exact spot along U.S. 74. Last summer, the property’s landlord raised a Confederate flag but later lowered it after a mother renting from him said it drew too much negative attention.


Local Sons of Confederate Veterans camp commander Bill Starnes said they’re flying it once again after a new, supportive tenant moved into the property.


“We don’t want to put one up out in the woods somewhere where nobody will ever see it,” Starnes said. “We do like to have them in locations where they’ll be seen, and I welcome people to call and ask questions about it.”




A newly formed Committee in Durham will met Thursday for the first time to determine the future of Confederate statues and monuments in the Bull City.


One of the first goals of the Committee will be to figure out what to do with the remains of a monument outside the Durham courthouse that was pulled down last year when protesters wrapped straps around the Confederate statue and ripped it down.


The 12-member Committee will look at all Confederate statues and memorials in Durham and make recommendations on their future placements. Some Committee members were appointed by the City Council and others by the County Commissioners.


The committee plans to meet nine times from now until November.




State government offices were closed Thursday as the states observed Confederate Memorial Day. A number of local governments were also closed Thursday and all non-essential State employees got the day off to mark the holiday held each May 10.


The Carolina states are two in six States in the South to observe a Confederate Memorial Day, although the dates vary. The Carolina states chose May 10 because it is the day when Confederate Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson died in 1863, and it is also the day Union soldiers captured fleeing Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Georgia in 1865.


The South Carolina Legislature still met Thursday in its final day of regular session.




Following a unanimous vote of approval on Monday, Lakeland, Florida’s Confederate Munn Park Monument will be moved to Veterans Memorial Park, instead of Roselawn Cemetery, where the relocation was originally planned.


We reported In December 2017 when Lakeland’s city commissioners voted to move the statue, a process that will cost as much as $250,000. To move the statue, funds to move the structure must be raised by private citizens and donors.




The Manatee County Commission on Tuesday rejected giving voters a chance to decide the fate of the Confederate monument removed under the cover of darkness from the courthouse grounds in August. (The removal resulted in the monument breaking in pieces.)


The motion Tuesday failed in a 4-3 vote with Commissioners Vanessa Baugh, Robin DiSabatino and Stephen Jonsson voting in favor of sending the question to voters; and commissioners Betsy Benac, Charles Smith, Priscilla Whisenant Trace and Carol Whitmore voting against.


Representatives from America First Manatee, commission candidate Barbara Hemingway and others asked the commission to keep its promise to let voters have the final word on the monument’s fate.




We reported this earlier but want to remind everyone who can be in Florida on May 17th to 19th to plan to attend counter protests of the demonstrators who will set out on a three-day, 40-mile walk from Jacksonville to St. Augustine, aimed at calling for the removal of Confederate monuments.




The Tulsa Public Schools board voted 4-3 on Monday to change the name of Robert E. Lee Elementary School to Lee Elementary School. But opponents question whether the new name does enough to erase Lee’s history.


The Board also voted to rename Andrew Jackson Elementary School to Unity Learning Academy.




A coalition of seven states filed a lawsuit against the federal government Tuesday to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia filed the suit saying the Obama-era program, which protects hundreds of thousands of children of undocumented immigrants from deportation, is unconstitutional.


“Our lawsuit is about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy,” Paxton said. “Left intact, DACA sets a dangerous precedent by giving the executive branch sweeping authority to ignore the laws enacted by Congress and change our nation’s immigration laws to suit a president’s own policy preferences.”


The lawsuit urges the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to declare DACA unlawful and stop the federal government from issuing or renewing any DACA permits in the future. It doesn’t request the federal government remove any DACA recipients or rescind previously issued DACA permits.


Last week Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Department of Homeland Security to resume accepting DACA applications if the agency was unable to provide a legal reason to end the program within 90 days.


Two other federal judges, in New York and California, previously blocked President Donald Trump’s efforts to end DACA on the principle his administration hadn’t offered legally adequate reasons to rescind the program.


The Mexican American Legislative Caucus condemned the lawsuit as a misuse of taxpayer money.


Texas state Sen. José Menéndez, a Democrat, also issued a statement defending DACA recipients.




Ford is getting out of the car business and will be focusing solely on trucks and SUVs, according to Executive Vice President Joe Hinrichs, who was recently interviewed on FOX Business. The Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker will stop selling sedans in North America and only sell the sporty Mustang.


“By 2020 we believe that is where the market is going,” Hinrichs said to Maria Bartiromo during an exclusive interview on “Mornings with Maria” on Thursday. “If you look at historically what is taking place in the U.S. industry in the last 10 years, consumers are moving more towards SUVs.”


While Ford cuts sedans, GM sees an opportunity.


Because of the transition away from cars, Ford reported better first-quarter earnings and revenue than expected and plans to save around $25 billion in cost cuts and efficiencies by 2022. It also expects to boost profit margins to 8% by 2020, two years sooner than it previously expected.




Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday the Department of Justice will prosecute all cases involving illegal border crossings between the United States and Mexico, noting there is now a “zero tolerance policy” in place.


Sessions spoke at the border near San Diego and underscored the Trump administration’s desire to crack down on illegal immigration – including when parents try to illegally bring their children over the border.


“People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border,” Sessions said. “We need legality and integrity in our immigration system. That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is now referring 100 percent of illegal southwest border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution.


“I have put in place a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry on our southwest border. If you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple.”


Sessions added if adults try to smuggle a child with them across the border, the child might be separated from his or her parents.


“If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you,” Sessions said. “That child may be separated from you, as required by law.”


Sessions referenced an increase in border crossings the past three months as reason to ramp up security efforts.


“These trends are clear, these trends must end,” he said.




The Oklahoma House passed legislation Wednesday to abolish the need to get a state-issued permit before carrying a concealed handgun for self-defense. The legislation, Senate Bill 1212, would allow Oklahoma residents ages 21 and up to carry without a permit so long as they were legal gun owners with no felony record.


News 9 reports that State Rep. Meloyde Blancett (D-Tulsa) opposed the bill and falsely claimed that “law enforcement” opposes it too.


State Rep. Jeff Coody (R-Lawton) countered Blancett, saying, “The Oklahoma State Bureau of investigation gets a great deal of money from the permitting process. So they simply are concerned about revenue over the freedom of law abiding citizens.”


State Rep. Scott Inman (D-Del City) also spoke in the opposition to the bill, asking if proponents of permitless carry also plan to “introduce legislation that eliminates speed limits in Oklahoma?”


Coody responded, “There’s nothing in the constitution about cars and driving and it’s not a constitutional right. It’s a privilege. But the right to self-defense, the right to carry keep and bear arms is a constitutional right.”


State Rep. Emily Virgin (D-Norman) raised the issue of slavery in an attempt to question the Founding Father’s intent with the Second Amendment. Yet SB-1212 passed by a vote of 59-28 and now moves to Senate.


There are currently 12 permitless carry states. They are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. Two other states-Arkansas and Montana-allow residents to carry a gun in 99.4 percent of their respective states without a permit.




CHAB, which is a society that has been studying our so-called civil war for more than 40 years!


The Confederate Historical Association of Belgium is to be commended for their extensive research and fine articles. They produce a slick quarterly magazine in French and English. They also have speaker programs every year.


In their most recent publication, there is a fascinating biography about an Englishman who was many things; for a time he was a blockage runner. He later came to be known as Pasha Charles Hobart. Charles Priestley wrote this
brilliant article which includes engravings and photographs.


Honorary Presidents of CHAB are Prince Victor Mansfield de Polignac, the son of CSA General Polignac and the Great granddaughter of CSA Secretary of the Treasury, George A. Trenholm. Europe has many fascination connections to our War for Southern Independence.


I suggest if you have an interest in Confederate history and want to encourage our European compatriots, consider subscribing to the CHAB at $30 per year by PayPal. Details can be found on their website: www.chab-belgium.com


or e-mail: info@chab-belgim.com


Hubert Leroy and Daniel Frankignoul have both been very active in keeping this European society going. I consider them to be my friends and believe they and their members deserve much credit in keeping the Cause alive overseas.


I hope you all will consider joining with our European brothers in our ongoing battle to keep the truth alive.




Every now and then, in response to these e-mail commentaries on national problems I will get in reply a timid soul or two, who will tell me “remove my name from your distribution list…”


I am not sure what the motive behind such reply to me is, but it comes across to me as cowardice to be involved in this matter of being American, of making America the world’s exceptional nation. I have said many times before, and I repeat now: America is no greater than the collective sum total of greatness in all its people. One man alone—not even an American President—can single-handedly make America great.


One American President did have something to say about American greatness, though: Thomas Jefferson.”Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.” “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” “We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather bed.”


What our third President is saying is that freedom is NOT free, if we want it, we must work and sacrifice for it, and we must be committed to our cause of liberty. Here, he is reflecting a Biblical truth, the law of sowing the reaping. Galatians 6:7-10. Whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap. If we sow sparingly, we will reap sparingly. If we sow abundantly, we will reap abundantly. And let us never tire in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not.


There are many diverse ways we can contribute to making America the world’s exceptional nation. I thank all those who have served in America’s military armed forces, which for me, includes a cousin and a long-time friend of old. But there are also many other ways, too numerous to list here, by which America can be made the world’s exceptional nation, and each one of us must play his or her part as God grants to us the talents and resources to do so.


Those who chose to say to me “Remove my name…”, will they also say to the Lord on Judgement Day, “Remove my name from the Book of Life”? I wonder.


Lewis Regenstein submits the following:


The very liberal, always politically correct New York Times has just published a review of 2 books on slavery, one of which, “Barracoon,” by Zora Neale Hurston.


The reviewer reports, “had as its major liability in finding a publisher…” the fact that it was too honest in describing how its was the Africans themselves who were the major slave traders: “The book was completed almost a century ago. Publishers considered her use of dialect too alienating, and there was a worry that the blunt description of Africans selling their own into slavery was too incendiary.”


Thus the massive rewriting of history.


The NY Times has, for the 2nd day in a row, reviewed “Barracoon,” a new book on slavery, blaming it largely on African slave traders. here are excerpts from “A slave’s tale, finally told,” NYT, 4 may 2018: ”


“Barracoon…tells the story of Cudjo Lewis, captured by Dahomey warriors in West Africa, and how he was sold to slavers and taken to Mobile ALA in 1859, more than 50 years after Congress had outlawed the slave trade… At times, he was so overcome by painful memories he could not speak, like when he recalled the day his village was attacked by Dahomey warriors, who beheaded victims they deemed too weak to be sold, and smoked their victims’ heads to reserve them.”




I just watched Michelle Wolf’s “comedy” act from the White House Press dinner, and I can’t believe it. How is this even allowed?


Our country has sunk so low, we’d have some powerful climbing up to do to reach the bottom of the gutter! It was absolutely FILTHY!


If you haven’t watched it, DON’T! I’m sorry I watched it! – but what is worse, is the deplorable crowd of “journalists” and politicians loved it!


It became very clear that DC really is a swamp and is full to the brim with human trash. You could see the displeasure and embarrassment on the faces of the few decent people in attendance, but they didn’t do anything about it. Perhaps they sensed that they would be eaten alive if they dared to do so, I don’t know, but I was disappointed and disgusted with the whole thing, and I agree with the President when he suggested they do away with the annual event. The whole thing was a horrible embarrassment.






When I went to your website to find your mailing address, I noticed that a topic of discussion from a recent convention was the concern over the decrease in membership. May a lowly rank and file member offer a suggestion?


No one wants to be a member of any organization run by a bunch of suck up, ass kissing, politically correct cowards. Your vulgar attack against our honored Confederate Battle Flag was disgusting. It was nothing more than a pathetic display of pandering to the criminal element of our society.


I promise you most assuredly that you have lost one worker from Crievewood Baptist Church in Nashville. I will never donate another dime to you effeminate whiners, nor will I ever again waste my time cleaning up after programs, working the neighborhood picnic, or servicing the grounds.


Ask the loudmouth, vulgar thugs from Black Lives Don’t Matter to Other Blacks to cough up the tithe money for your salary so that you can spend time insulting Southerners who had ancestors fight under St. Andrew’s Cross against a brutal, sadistic enemy who used churches in the South to stable their horses and the pews for feed troughs.


Ask George Soros to work at the church since you wimps are more concerned about Marxist liberal perverts than you are about Southern Baptists.


My ancestors fought – and some died – under the Confederate Battle Flag. Those men never did anything to make me ashamed of them. Nor would I do anything that would make those Confederate patriots ashamed of me, like consorting with South-hating cowards.


I suggest that you read about real Southern religious leaders such as Father Abram Joseph Ryan, Rev. Robert L. Dabney, and Rev. D.C. Kelley. They were Christian soldiers on and off the battlefield. They were also men, something you never will be.


Former Southern Baptist,


Gene Andrews
Nashville, Tennessee


by Al Benson, Jr.


Al Benson is the editor and publisher of the Copperhead Chronicle, and a regular contributor to Southern Patriot, The Patriotist, The Fire Eater, and the Sierra Times. He is a member of the Confederate Society of America, the League of the South; the Friends of the Sons of Confederate Veterans; and other patriotic groups.


Actually, civil war in this country has a lot of manifestations, some of which we are seeing right now.


Some say it will be a struggle between “progressives” (those on the Left and their Deep State financiers), some currently in government and the folks we refer to as patriots, of which there are many stripes, (many of which, unfortunately, refuse to get along with one another). There are more patriots than progressives, but many patriots have yet to come to grips with the fact that, in several forms, the civil war has already begun. By the time some of the patriots decide to pick up their guns and fight, the real struggle may well be beyond them and their ability to make a difference. Unfortunately, they could have earlier made a difference had they been willing to pick up their Bibles and then their pens (which are still mightier than the sword if rightly used). Cultural conflicts are not always won with firearms, though that is a last resort.


Back before the War of Northern Aggression the North had been waging a cultural war against the South for decades. Mostly the South ignored it, paid little attention to those Northern people (and those who backed them) as they horrendously slandered the South and its people. Many Southerners did not feel it was “gentlemanly” to reply to gross Northern slander. Good folks they were-but they were wrong. If the Lord is the source of all truth, which He is, then you need to defend that truth wherever you have it!


Some say the civil war will commence when rational discussion can no longer be had. Sad to say, we are long past that point. All you have to do is look at Black Lives Matter, Antifa, or the NAACP to realize rational discussion is out the window. Those people are there to destroy your culture and history and they don’t give a flip about “rational discussion.” That’s not on their agenda. Never will be!


You have to admit that, in a sense, a state of civil war exists between Trump and his supporters and those who supported St. Hillary in the last election. Hillary, Soros, Obama, and the rest of the Deep State apparatus have never gotten over Hillary’s stinging defeat in that election and the proof that a variation of civil war exists is the fact that they are all actively working to overthrow the results of the last election constantly. The Deep State has never stopped trying to destroy Trump (and by extension those who support him) since he took office. They have been trying, illegally, immorally, or any way they could, to unseat him constantly-and they actually think we “deplorables” are too stupid to notice. They are not only at war with Trump-they are at war with US! Trump is trying to run the government as best he can and the Left (composed of many congress critters who are Republicans as well as Democratic socialists) is trying to wrest control from him and his administration and I think they’d actually hand it over to Hillary if they thought they could do it, against the will of the American electorate. Maybe that’s why they want our guns so badly right about now. When two opposing groups contend for control of the same government that’s a definition of civil war!!!


Mueller’s witch hunt is a main campaign in the Left’s civil war against America and her people. We are already at war (a spiritual war first and foremost) and it would be helpful if the Christians and patriots could, in larger numbers, begin to realize that the war is already upon us, both culturally and in the streets, as well as in the vaunted halls of congress.


A good place to make a beginning is to get on the internet and read None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. Although written back in 1972, it will give you valuable insight as to where we are in our day and why.


by Mark Levin


Mark Levin is an attorney, author, and radio personality. He is the host of The Mark Levin Show (radio), as well as Life, Liberty & Levin (TV) on Fox News. He worked in the Reagan White House and was a Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese.


Rather than try to pass legislation to protect “Special Counsel” Mueller, the GOP Congress should subpoena Mueller and demand he answer legitimate questions about the course of his investigation – especially given its constitutional impact.


Congress need not wait for Mueller to issue his pronouncements. Surely Mueller cannot be a power unto himself, immune from legislative oversight while disrupting and threatening a presidency. Indeed, Congress has a more legitimate constitutional authority if not duty to inquire into Mueller’s investigation, given its lurch into constitutional areas and threats of obstruction against a sitting president, than Mueller does to question the president about his presidential functions.


Moreover, Mueller must be asked on what legal basis he apparently disclaims the unaltered official DOJ policy and position, asserted in two long-established opinions, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He must also be asked on what authority he can abandon DOJ policy which he’s compelled to comply with as a condition of his appointment.


Now that Mueller has turned his “collusion” investigation into a potential “constitutional crisis,” he doesn’t have exclusive authority to call the shots and the GOP Congress needn’t wait for his anticipated impeachment report, a political gift to salivating Democrats who’ve pushed for this from the start.


Two Judges in Virginia Rebuke Special Counsel Mueller
by Printus LeBlanc


Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. This article originally appeared in the American Free Press.


As bad weeks go, last week was a pretty bad week for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Two different judges dealt blows to the special counsel while breathing life into the Constitution. From the beginning it was obvious the special counsel was not interested in Russian collusion but was more interested in getting President Trump. Thanks to a pair of federal judges the American people are finally seeing what the special counsel is really up to.


In a blistering exchange with Mueller cronies, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, overseeing Mueller’s case against one-time Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, questioned why the special counsel was handling a case that was years old and had nothing to do with President Donald Trump or the election. The judge stated, “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. . . . What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”


The judge is correct. From the beginning, it has become increasingly clear, the investigation has absolutely nothing to do with finding a link between Russia and President Trump, but everything to do with ending the Trump presidency. The Special Counsel handed over the case involving Mr. Cohen to federal authorities in New York but did not do so in this case, even though Manafort is being charged with crimes that are alleged to have happened years before becoming part of the Trump campaign.


Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning agreed with the judge, stating, “Everyone outside the Department of Justice seems to be able to see that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s only objective is to create grounds for the Democrats to impeach the president. That isn’t his job; his job is to investigate Russian collusion if there was Russian collusion in the election. The Manafort case clearly demonstrates the special counsel is well beyond his legal mandate, and Judge Ellis should throw the charges out immediately on this basis.”


Perhaps the most critical issue to come out of the hearing was the judge ordering the Special counsel to turn over the scope memo to the court. The scope memo was written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and laid out the parameters of the Special Counsel’s investigative powers. The DOJ has been guarding this document closely, refusing congressional subpoenas to turn it over. If the Special Counsel and DOJ have nothing to hide and are doing everything legally, why are they refusing to hand over the document?


While Judge Ellis was slamming the Mueller investigation for targeting the president, another judge dealt a potential lethal legal blow to the case against 13 Russians and three companies indicted earlier this year. Federal District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich rejected Mueller’s motion to delay the first hearing after lawyers showed up to defend two of the companies last month when it was expected no one would show up. The lawyers made multiple requests for information, seemingly catching the special counsel off guard.


It is believed the requests were a plan “to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information,” according to Politico’s Josh Gerstein, citing legal experts. Mueller’s team must now show up on Wednesday. If the team does not turn over all exculpatory Brady material the defendants are entitled to, it risks a dismissal and an extremely embarrassing episode for Mueller and Deputy AG Rosenstein.


Something else we also learned late last week, is that Mueller may have lied to the court. For almost a year, there have been multiple reports on the contacts between Manafort and Russian agents or people connected to Russian agents. On March 28, it was further reported by Newsweek, Mueller told the court Gates knew he and Manafort were dealing with ex-Russian intelligence agents in sentencing documents for Alex van der Zwaan. Manafort’s lawyers challenged the allegation that their client knew anything and asked the special counsel to produce the evidence Manafort had contact with Russian intelligence officials.


The government is allowed to deny the request for the Brady material on national security grounds, but the government is not allowed to deny the evidence exists. This is exactly what the Mueller team did. Manafort’s legal team filed papers stating, “Despite multiple discovery and Brady requests in this regard, the special counsel has not produced any materials to the defense-no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials (or any other foreign officials). The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort’s requests.”


Two questions immediately come to mind: Did Mueller lie to the court, and how can there be collusion if there is no evidence of contact? If Robert Mueller can go after Trump officials on specious charges of lying to the FBI, then Mueller’s lies to the federal court should be treated harshly. Apparently, Mr. Mueller lives in a glass house and should have known better than to throw the first three stones.


We are finally seeing the true nature of the special counsel. His sole objective is to be the most expensive and extensive opposition research project in history. He was created to give Congress an excuse to impeach the president, and if he couldn’t find it, make it up. Thanks to the judicial branch, the people can finally see who is pulling the coup strings.


Puritans, part 1: Coming to America
by Dissident Mama


Rebecca is a truth warrior, wife, boymom, and apologetics practitioner for Orthodox Christianity, the Southern tradition, homeschooling, and liberty. A recovering feminist-socialist-atheist and retired mainstream journalist turned domesticated belle and rabble-rousing rhetorician. A mama who’s adept at triggering statists, so she’s going to bang as loudly as she can.


Recently, Business Insider editor, MSNBC contributor, and public-radio personality Josh Barro called the left’s war on American culture “annoying.” He explained that “Liberals have supplanted conservatives as moralizing busybodies.” New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait even tweeted support of Barro’s “sensible thoughts,” calling out the Democrats’ supposedly new-found misadventure of “liberal sanctimony.”


Funny that in all his talk condemning such “moralizing,” neo-liberal Barro went on to further pontificate about the Dems suffering “from a cultural disconnect from non-college-educated voters who have abandoned the party in droves.” But not to worry, the left’s “substantial inroads with upscale suburban voters have been more than offset by the loss of voters down the income spectrum, most of whom did not finish college.”


Translation: If I pepper my blue-blood insults with enough of an overall empathic tone, I can probably admit that “following all the [politically correct] rules has become exhausting,” while also simultaneously telling the poor and stupid masses how poor and stupid they are. Bless his heart, this New England son really tried, but unfortunately, moralizing is all this atheist, gay, Russell-Moore-loving, Harvard “educated,” media elite really has to offer.


In fact, moralizing is and always has been the left’s religion. It’s the “puritanical progressives,” as I refer to them, who are constantly intruding into our lives through never-ending regulations, laws, educational indoctrination, corporate edicts, hive-mind social pressures, and media proselytizing. It’s a devilish scheme in which the pietistic purveyors of “social justice” have concocted a scenario that leaves no room for discussion, logic, or science.


And if you disagree with their flawless emotional creeds and ever-changing but always-correct edicts, well, you’re either an idiot, a hateful troublemaker, or you must just want people to die. That’s why these self-proclaimed Solomons feel no compunction in silencing, discrediting, maligning, bullying, punching, pepper-spraying, or perhaps even killing dissenters.


It’s this diabolical concoction of socialist politics mixed with religious fervor that has become the dominant “cultural power” and is even “more motivating than public policy,” to borrow Barro’s own words. It’s my contention that this holier-than-thou mindset is borne of New England Puritanism and has been a thorn in the side of liberty and self-determination ever since the Pilgrims came to America. So, let’s take a gander at history, shall we?


The Church of England, also called the Anglican Church, was established when King Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church in 1534 in order to divorce his wife on grounds that she didn’t give him a male heir. Henry’s defiance of the Pope, who had denied him a divorce request, and break with Rome made this new state-run Church of England Protestant by definition, yet it still shared many liturgical practices with Catholicism. Thus, Anglicanism was (and still is) considered “high church.”


Enter in lawyer-turned-theologian John Calvin. His seminal writing – “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (first published in 1536) – challenged Catholic Church government and promoted divergent dogma, such as justification by faith alone and Sola Scriptura, and an abandonment of Church sacraments, rituals, and traditions.


By the late 1500s and early 1600s, there was a growing faction of Anglicans who had become disillusioned with the state ecclesiastical system. Influenced greatly by Calvin’s Protestant teachings, these Christians pushed for simplified Church worship, challenged what they deemed as apostasy of Anglican hierarchy, and wanted to shed themselves of liturgy they considered an impediment to practicing a more “pure” spiritual life – hence, the name Puritans.


Calvinism continued to spread, although there were varied belief systems and splinter groups within the movement at large, some more Puritan than others, but all united in opposition to Anglicanism. For instance, Congregationalists championed self-governing congregations independent from the Church. Presbyterians, who had a strong hold in Scotland, wanted a national church headed by pastors and elders. And Separatists severed all ties from the Church in order to create their own communities.


Kings Henry and then James harassed and mistreated all sects of non-Anglican Protestants, whom they considered rabble-rousing religionists. Persecution ranged from fines for missing Sunday services and Holy days, imprisonment for holding “illegal” meetings, loss of employment, and even execution in some instances.
In 1608, a group of Separatists fled England for Holland. Even though the Dutch were highly tolerant of these immigrants and their perceived unconventional religious practices, the Puritans worried about the loss of their English identity, as well as the corrupting effect morally lax Dutch culture was having on their children.


In order to protect their religious community and raise their families void of outside influence, the Separatists obtained a land grant in the New World. Under authority of the Virginia Company, they acquired a charter and set off in September 1620 to settle lands north of Jamestown.


Stormy winds and rough waters blew the Mayflower ship off course, and after two grueling months at sea, these Pilgrims landed in Cape Cod in what would eventually become Plymouth Colony. Since they found themselves outside the jurisdiction of the Virginia charter, the colonists in this vastly strange and unsettled territory drafted and signed the Mayflower Compact, which set up a majority-rule system of self-government under the divine authority of King James I.


England’s next monarch, Charles I, wanted to extend English territories along Massachusetts Bay. Consequently, more Puritans were able to obtain charters. In 1628, a small fleet journeyed across the Atlantic and settled in Salem, while another much larger company sailed to the emerging Puritan colony in 1630 and went on to establish Boston.


One of the greatest fallacies of American history is that the Virginia and Massachusetts colonies were monolithic, all endeavoring for freedom, all practicing the same religion, all bringing with them the same beliefs, cultures, and social norms. In truth, it wasn’t just geography and 13 years that separated Jamestown and Plymouth.


The people who settled Virginia were Anglicans who came from the South of England. They were comprised of gentry and indentured servants who sought economic opportunity, land, laissez-faire trade, and self-determination. They labored hard, but also desired down time.


The Puritans who settled Massachusetts hailed from East Anglia. Their faith-based colony consisted of strict personal regulations, collectivism, and “progress” through works.


“Thus out of small beginnings greater things have been produced by His hand that made all things of nothing, and gives being to all things that are,” said William Bradford, signer of the Mayflower Compact and governor of Plymouth Colony, “and as one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shown unto many, yea, in some sort, to our whole Nation.”


“Lastly and chiefly the way to prosper and achieve good success is to make yourselves all of one mind for the good of your country and your own,” stated the charter of the Virginia Company, “and to serve and fear God the giver of all goodness, for every plantation which our father hath not planted shall be rooted out.”


You can see here (emphases are mine) a few nuanced differences in their language. Whereas Bradford spoke in divine terms about the glories of production and spreading the Gospel through the Puritan collective, the Jamestown principles, although devotional in word, were more about the land and spreading community prosperity through individualism.


Another widespread misbelief is that the Pilgrims were seeking religious tolerance. But what these Puritans were really working toward was not freedom of religion, but rather, freedom from other religions.


Their aim was to rebuild humanity, “purify” civilization, and create Heaven on earth through their revamped interpretation and redesign of the Church. In short, the Puritans were activists. They had escaped what they regarded as the dead-and-gone confessionalism and formalism of the traditional Church, so these Pilgrims were finally unchained to plant and manifest God’s “right religion.”


As an Orthodox, we proudly claim to be the “one, holy, catholic (meaning: universal), and apostolic Church,” so I don’t slight the Pilgrims their passion. Admittedly, belief that your faith is “the one true Church of Christ” is a pretty consistent belief among most serious Christians then and now.


But what is troubling to me is that the Pilgrims pushed strict adherence to their constantly unfolding Protestant doctrines in such a coercive and majoritarian way. In preaching that only Puritanism could save mankind, any deviation was considered heresy and was boldly and often violently denounced. The Plymouth Colony was a religious monopoly built upon forced piety and corporate compliance, rather than salvation of the individual.


“Communities, and even families, were tightly controlled by the governing authorities … constables were assigned a group of around 12 families to ‘look in on’ and make sure they were functioning according to community standards,” explains independent historian Carl Jones in his analysis of David Hackett Fischer’s formative work, Albion’s Seed. “Submission to authority was the desired end in all aspects of Puritan society.”


In contrast, within the hierarchical structure of Virginia, free will was acknowledged by these Anglican Protestants, but self-control was instilled via the instruction of manners, familial expectations for social conduct and work ethic, and the practice of a serious but quiet faith. For example, youth were expected to respect their elders, but elders were expected to exhibit grace, strength, and wisdom.


The Puritans were more concerned with literal Biblical interpretation and moral behavior, while Virginians were more interested in property rights and fulfilling English common law in a godly way. As the New England Historical Society states, Puritan “people were less likely to be punished for larceny than to be punished for blasphemy, idolatry, drunkenness, lewdness, fornication, cursing or smoking.”


In their early days, both colonies struggled with starvation, disease, drought, harsh winters, maintaining order, infighting, and Indians, yet each slowly but surely overcame hardship in ways unique to her people. But with triumph come intruders, hangers-on, and co-opters. And in 1655, the first non-native agitators to meddle with the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s success were the Quakers – a people on fire for spreading the beliefs of their Society of Friends.


Likewise, Puritans were on fire for protecting their faith, smashing competing theologies, and keeping out dissenters, so Quakers were systematically shunned and persecuted. They eventually fled to other more religiously tolerant emerging colonies, like Rhode Island Plantation, which was founded in 1636 by Massachusetts-banished Puritan Roger Williams as a haven based in freedom of conscience, and became the site for the first Baptist church in America; and the Province of Pennsylvania, which was established by William Penn in 1681 as a refuge for oppressed Quakers.


I must say, as a libertarian, I don’t have problem with the English Puritans seceding from institutions and governance they saw as counter to their own freedoms, beliefs, and pursuits. Nor do I have a problem with the early American Puritans trying to maintain their principles through community standards and by purging trespassers.


Yet, it was these very same New Englanders who would become the intruders and invaders of the Southern colonies. It was these Puritan-steeped navel-gazers of the North who campaigned and crusaded beyond their own borders, conquering the “impure” Dixie rebels via political, economic, and military force, gathered the spoils, and then reconstructed their lessers, all in the name of God.




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


The government won. Alfie Evans is dead!


So now it is the time to ask: What have we learned?


It is also worth remembering that it is less than a year since the case of Charlie Gard.


The details of both cases are similar: young children diagnosed with fatal illnesses whose parents disagreed with medical professionals on the immediate next steps to be taken.


In Charlie’s case, his parents wanted to fly their son to the United States for an experimental treatment. However, they were prevented from doing so by the hospital, which argued that the treatment was not in Charlie’s “best interests.” In Alfie’s case, his parents wanted to move to Italy to pursue treatment in a Vatican-owned hospital, but the hospital argued (in one judge’s words) that it “is not in Alfie’s best interests to keep him alive.”


The crucial similarity between these cases is that in each the final say was given to the hospital, and not to the parents.


Welcoming the parents of Charlie Gard to the White House in December, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence tweeted: “Their parental love and devotion to their son is inspiring and a reminder of how precious all lives are.”


Supporters of Charlie and Alfie cut through many of the medical complexities, to focus instead on parental rights. In this they got it exactly right. Each case helps clarify the gravity of the issues at stake.


As soon as one recognizes the centrality of parental rights, there is no longer any reason to expend effort disagreeing with the doctors.


But in the end, none of this matters. Because the central question still remains: who should have the right to decide?


I believe the answer was clear: it was the right of the parents, and not the State.


The tragedy and injustice of each case is not necessarily that life support was removed, but that it was the State and not the parents who made that decision.


Any ambiguity in each case was removed by the fact the parents in both cases had the independent financial means to provide the desired treatments. Millions of dollars had been donated to Charlie Gard’s family. In the recent case, Italy granted Alfie Evans citizenship, and an air ambulance was on the tarmac, ready to whisk Alfie to the Vatican owned Gesu Bambino Hospital at a moment’s notice. There was no problem of either child being a burden on their government’s limited healthcare resources. All the doctors and courts had to say in each case was: “Fine. We don’t agree with you. But since what you want for your child won’t impact our hospital or health care system, take your son and pursue those treatments you deem best. That’s your right.”


But they didn’t. Instead, they leveraged the entire apparatus of the State to ensure that the parents’ desires were thwarted. No expense or effort was spared by government in standing between the parents and their efforts to save their children. The end result is that the actions of the hospital and the courts were exercise of raw, and even totalitarian power.


Parental rights are absolute, they should always be the default. In the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, far too many members of the “expert” classes (politicians, academics, and, sadly, some bishops in the UK) were far too quick to side with the experts over the parents. But as the history of the 20th century shows us in stark fashion, the State-sponsored cult of “experts” does not lead to greater well-being: it leads to tyranny.


Right now, there is pending legislation in Great Britain to change the Children Act of 1989, which ultimately strips parents of their legal rights as primary custodians and caregivers, and instead entrusting these rights to the State. A proposed law – “Alfie’s Law” – would return to parents more legal rights in medical decision-making.


An “Alfie’s Law” would be an encouraging first step. Of course, nothing can ever replace Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard. Nothing can ever give back to the parents the right that was theirs to make the decision that they felt was best for their child. But if the massive publicity that surrounded their cases helps prevent other families and children from experiencing the same pain, their lives will not have been lived in vain.


Until Next Week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed


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