Dixie Heritage News – Friday, December 14, 2018


We’re gonna have to step it up a few notches.


Before the election we reported that high-profile politicians were supporting a new Confederate-themed license plate for Texas. That was BEFORE the election.


The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board has now rejected the plate in a 5-3 vote without comment to reject the plate design submitted by the SCV featuring a rebel soldier clad in a gray Confederate uniform carrying a Texas regiment’s flag – the plate design did not even include a Confederate flag.


The plate was sponsored by the Department of Agriculture’s commissioner, Sid Miller, who has argued Texans should not hide parts of history now considered offensive.


Approximately 380 people weighed-in with the department to support the plate through an online portal, only 88 people expressed disapproval or left negative comments.


Board members in favor of approving the plate were Robert “Barney” Barnwell III of Magnolia, Luanne Caraway of Kyle and Gary Painter of Midland. Those who voted against the plate were Chairman Raymond Palacios Jr., Brett Graham of Denison, Kate Hardy of Trophy Club, Paul Scott of Lubbock and Guillermo “Memo” Trevino of Laredo. Board member John M. Prewitt of Cypress was absent.




Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush on Tuesday called for the plaque honoring the Confederacy to be removed from Texas’s state Capitol. Bush is the eldest child of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and grandson of former President George H.W. Bush. He wrote on Twitter that, “The time has come for the Confederate plaque to come down. These types of displays belong in museums, not our state capitol,” Bush wrote.




A North Texas politician, Pat Fallon, a Prosper Republican who will be sworn into the Texas Senate in January, filed Senate Bill 226 on Friday. The legislation would prohibit the use of taxpayer money to remove, relocate or alter any statue, portrait, plaque, seal or symbol or to rename any building, bridge, park, area or street “that honors an event or person of historical significance.”


While the bill would apply to nearly any historical marker, Fallon said he was spurred to file it after the city of Dallas removed a statue of Robert E. Lee from a park in Oak Lawn last year. The city also renamed Lee Park with its pre-1936 moniker: Oak Lawn Park. The changes, which were approved by the City Council, were estimated to cost at least $450,000. “It was an absolutely egregious waste of money,” Fallon told The Dallas Morning News Tuesday.


A Massachusetts native who grew up seeing monuments to the Union side, Fallon insisted he’s not supporting the concepts espoused by the Confederacy by filing this bill and said he’d be in favor of adding context to memorials whose messages are “inconsistent with our values.”


“That’s the ugliest portion American history. I don’t want to wash it away,” Fallon said. “Our young people are woefully, unfortunately, in many instances, unaware of our history and where we came from.”




County commissioners in Jefferson County, West Virginia voted 3 to 2 on Thursday afternoon to remove a plaque honoring Confederate soldiers from the front of the courthouse. After the vote, the commissioners directed county staff to remove the plaque “within a reasonable amount of time.” The reasonable amount of time turned out to be less than 24 hours. Two county maintenance workers removed the plaque leaving an outline of the plaque and the holes for the screws that kept it in place.


In August 2017, six black women who live nearby petitioned the county commission to remove the small plaque. They told commissioners they found the marker offensive because it paid tribute to Confederate soldiers who had fought to keep their ancestors enslaved. The women said the tribute shouldn’t be posted on a public building, much less the county courthouse, which was they allege had been the site of auctions of enslaved people.


The plaque read: 1861-1865 In honor and memory of the Confederate soldiers of Jefferson County, who served in the War Between the States. Erected by the Leetown Chapter #231 United Daughters of the Confederacy.


The county commissioners voted 5 to 0 last year to keep the plaque in place, but two commissioners later said they would change their vote when campaigning for reelection. Then Commissioner Peter Onoszko, a Republican who strongly supported keeping the plaque on the courthouse, was ousted by Democratic challenger Ralph Lorenzetti, who wanted the plaque removed. With Lorenzetti taking his seat last week, the commission revisited the plaque issue and voted to take it off the building and return it to the Leetown Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the group that placed it on the building 32 years ago.




Almost 80 teaching assistants are on a “grade strike” at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), refusing to report or distribute their students’ final grades until the school abandons all plans to return the Confederate monument to the campus.




City crews begin to prepare the George Prentice statue for transport on Tuesday. It currently sits just outside the Louisville Free Public Library but the plan is to move it to a city storage facility on Lexington Road over the weekend.




On Monday, a non-profit named Project Say Something presented their plan to Lauderdale County Commissioners to erect a new statue at the Lauderdale County Courthouse.


Under Alabama law it is illegal to remove confederate monuments. So the group hopes to put a bronze statue depicting Dred and Harriet Scott breaking chains adjacent from the confederate monument.


The group is still waiting on permission to place the statue on the grounds of the courthouse since Commissioners did not decide on Monday. Project Say Something plans on raising over $200,000 to build the statue so that it will not require public funds. They hope to raise the money in six months to a year.




CNN took its ongoing campaign to prevent the confirmation of acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie to a new level this week by accusing him of being a “neo-Confederate” (whatever that is).


It seems that back in 1995, while working at the time as a staffer for then-Rep. David Funderburk (R-N.C.), Wilkie gave a speech at an event sponsored by the United Daughters of Confederacy in which he said: “Today marks the 187th anniversary of the birth of Jefferson Davis; planter, soldier, statesman, President of the Confederate States of America, martyr to ‘The Lost Cause,’ and finally the gray-clad phoenix. An exceptional man in an exceptional age,” according to a transcript of the speech published by CNN.




On Monday the Supreme Court declined to review three cases relating to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level. There was a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.


The dissent was significant because Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the high court’s liberal wing to keep government funding of Abortion in place.


“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?,” Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood. Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty…If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”


Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined the Thomas dissent, meaning there were three votes in favor of taking the case. Since four votes are needed for the Supreme Court to take up a case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Kavanaugh joined with the four liberals to deny the review.


“We are disappointed the Supreme Court declined to hear this case,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. “The pro-life citizens of states like Kansas and Louisiana, through their elected representatives, have clearly expressed their will: they do not want Medicaid tax dollars used to prop up abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.”


The Trump administration is currently formulating a new federal regulation called the Protect Life Rule which would forbid public funding of Planned Parenthood under Title X.




Democrats object to an “expensive border wall.” Republicans object to rapidly growing welfare costs for those here illegally. Libertarians say, abolish the welfare magnet. Then, there is no need for a wall. Taxpayers save billions on both.


CALEXIT: California, Adios!
by Dr. Clyde Wilson


Dr. Clyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina. He is the author or editor of over thirty books and has published over 600 articles, essays and reviews.


It seems that out in California an impressively large number of people are petitioning for a referendum on secession. While I don’t think much of their motive, I say more power to them.


The motivation is, of course, fear by California leftists and foreigners that the 2016 federal election has deprived them of the excessive influence they have exercised over American domestic policies at least since a movie actor was elected President in 1980. The secession move amounts to an adolescent tantrum at not getting their way. This reflects a widespread defect of the Yankee national character-a tendency to reduce public matters to self-centered personal emotions.


However, there is a principle involved here. The basic principle of the Declaration of Independence that Americans claim to admire (though seldom exercising it): just governments must derive their being from “the consent of the governed.” If a majority of the real citizens of California want to be independent of the U.S., they should be and have every right to decide so. Frankly, I would be delighted to be rid of them-far happier, I suspect, than they would be in getting rid of me. I do not need them at all. They need me to boss around and feel superior to.


We are in a new millennium. The ruling classes in the U.S. and Europe have clearly lost their grip-they are ever more selfish, clueless, and incompetent. They cannot think of anything except to keep on doing what they have been doing, no matter how disastrous the results. The 2016 election and other signs indicate that good people everywhere are ready for a new, more democratic and more responsible way of governing.


It is time to think the unthinkable. To rise really to the new challenges of a changing world that politicians are always gassing on about.


These California secessionists are our “discontented fellow citizens,” to use the label that Lincoln placed on Southerners who solemnly and democratically voted to get out from under his rule. Let us hope that if it comes to a real act of secession today, the U.S. government will act more rationally and humanely than it did in 1861. Then the ruling capitalist interests of the Northern States knew that an independent free trade South would critically reduce their profits and deprive them of captive markets and resources. Rivers of blood were preferable. There was a lot of noise about the “glorious eternal Union,” that is, forcible imposition of the false idea that Americans all belong under one government. And a lot of insincere babble about “slavery.”


Doubtless, if Southerners were talking about secession today, the Special Forces and tactical nukes would already be deployed. But Californians are not Southerners and cannot be treated that way. I can’t see that the U.S. has anything to lose and much to gain.


Another unfortunate national defect is to look at nuts and bolts and lose sight of the whole machine. There will be wails about the impracticability of separation of California from the other States. In 1861 there was good faith on only one side- the South was willing to settle all issues of separation responsibly. Where there is good faith on both sides, all issues can be negotiated to a satisfactory settlement. For instance, the U.S. could keep a 99-year lease on its naval bases. Californians entitled to Social Security retirement benefits could keep them, although not all the other welfare from the federal treasury that has made half the people wealthier than the rest of us.


California, as they are saying, is certainly “a country,” as viable in separate nationhood as any other Latin American state. I realize that there are many good Americans in California who do not want to be part of a declining Third World country. The great sums that will be saved from supporting the bottomless welfare state of California can be used to resettle those good people in America if they wish. These folks will be a boon to the U.S. economy and culture.


Imagine the change for the better in reason and patriotism if there were 53 fewer members of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Many of them are loyalists to other countries anyway.) I would recommend putting heavy taxes on importation of Hollywood productions that have destroyed the moral tone of what used to be a reasonably decent people. We might even be able to build a truly American cinema of high quality.


One widespread characteristic defect of the Yankee national character I have mentioned-a tendency to reduce public matters to self-centered personal emotions. There is a socialist side to this that has become glaringly evident of late in California and elsewhere. There is also a fascist side-people who react violently to any notion of breaking up the good ole U.S. of A., “the greatest nation on earth.” This is what happens to people who have no culture and no religion and can only gain identity from their feeling of belonging to a powerful government. Such people are unable to tell the difference between government-worship and real patriotism-the love of one’s land and people. And they are out there, believe me. Every time I write a little something in defense of the Confederacy I receive denunciations as a traitor who will soon meet my just demise.


California independence can bring with it some real problems. For instance, as it collapses ever further into debt-ridden poverty, the government may try to prevent good Americans from leaving, as is the case now with white people in Southern Africa. Parasites need their hosts. Another genuine concern is that the vacuum will bring in dangerous Chinese influence. Response will have to be made to such situations when they arise. Decisions will be much easier without California distorting the national debate.


Some years ago I had a debate with a couple of libertarians who said that they were all for secession where people wanted it, but, of course, it could not apply to the South because the South had immoral reasons for secession and because it was “holding hostages,” the slaves. They displayed the usual ignorant distortion of that portion of American history. After the first wave of secession there were still more slaves in the U.S. than in the seceded States. There were also more free black people in the South than in the North and they were in better condition. To assume that the black people were “hostages” presumes that the North was somehow being deprived of them or concerned about them. That assumption is a grievous lie. If there was one thing that all Northerners agreed upon it was that they did not want the black people, free or slave.


Besides the historical ignorance, there is a more fundamental flaw in their self-righteous philosophizing. If I have a right to secession, then that right cannot be subject to the interference of some force that claims to reject my right on his own self-determined moral considerations. That is simply to say that there is no right and there cannot be and never can be any right. Its exercise will always be countered by some outside evaluation of its bad motives. The South declared honestly that it seceded to be free of exploitation and interference. Its independence could not be justly challenged by an opponent’s propaganda slogan that it was motivated by the evil motive of keeping slavery. In fact, the North had never challenged slavery, only opposed its “extension” to new territory.


I have to confess that my strongest feeling in favour of California secession is the precedent it can set. I dream that some day my own brave and beautiful little country of South Carolina can be independent again, as we have been twice before in our history. We have everything that we need and, from our imprisonment in the Union, a lot that we don’t need. Independence would remove the totally evil influence of the national Republican Party from our polity, and perhaps prompt the flight of a lot of discontented carpetbaggers. (This latter may not work out. I notice that while Yankees always put the South down, they all want to live here if they can.)


A beautiful little warm, coastal Switzerland we could be! Something truly valuable that I can leave my descendants. There may be those who can love New York or Detroit or Las Vegas. I cannot, but I am willing to live and let live if they will. I certainly cannot love the politicians who govern us all. South Carolina is quite enough for all the genuine patriotism anyone could want.


The Yankee Empire
by Al Benson, Jr.


Al Benson, Jr., is the Editor of the Copperhead Chronicle. In addition to writing for Southern Patriot and other publications, he is a member of the Confederate Society of America and the League of the South.


Well, the Kennedy Brothers have done it again! Their latest book, complements of Shotwell Publishing in Columbia, South Carolina is Yankee Empire. The title is self-explanatory and demonstrates that the Yankees, both yesterday and today were and are not satisfied with their own country-they want as many countries as they can control. In other words they want a world empire, undoubtedly to be the seat of the New World Order. Their quest for empire began with their conquest of the Confederate States of America and with that conquest they set a pattern for how they would henceforth attack and eventually control any country they set their sights on.


The Kennedy’s explain how they did this, not only in the South, but also in Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines and how, since the end of the 19th century, they have done it all over the world.


When you look at how they did it you see a definite pattern to their conquests. I have never seen anyone else explain it quite the way the Kennedy Brothers do, but what they say makes sense.


On page 17, they start to explain: “After the conquest of the Confederate States, a new system of government, both in the Southern States and the federal government was imposed upon the South. These post-war governments which were imposed upon the South, both federal and state, were created not with the consent of the governed but by the compulsion of the occupying imperialistic power-the victorious Yankee Empire. These “new” governments were, both then and now, illegitimate governments. All governments exercising power in the South, subsequent to the conquest of the Confederate States of America, were and still are illegitimate.


The Kennedys noted that apologists for the Yankee position argue that the Southern States were not “true democracies” because they didn’t allows blacks, free or slave, to vote. They conveniently ignore the fact that the United States was in the exact same position-their blacks, free and slave, couldn’t vote either.


After the War was over the Yankee Empire installed puppet governments in each Southern State and then withdrew, leaving these illegitimate puppet governments to control the conquered Southern territory. The Yankee Empire then followed this same scenario in the places they started taking over at the end of the 19th century. By the early 1900s the U.S. had had troops in Cuba, the Philippines, Hawaii, China, and Panama and even though the troops eventually left, the Empire maintained invisible control. Over the years the U.S. has stuck its nose into just about all the Central American countries as well as several in the Middle East. All you have to do to see that the U.S. is indeed a world empire is to check today to see how many countries we have troops stationed in. Last time I checked it was well over a hundred!


On pages 52 and 53 they note the parallels between the conquest of the Confederate States and the Kingdom of Hawaii. They note that “In the case of Hawaii, the United States used two excuses to invade and conquer the Kingdom of Hawaii: protect American property and protect the ‘rights’ of Americans. Another technique to hide the raw fact of invasion and conquest is to demonize the invaded people as backward, barbarian, and subhuman. The Yankee invader of Hawaii had honed his skills in demonizing the people to be subjugated during the War for Southern Independence.. In 1862, upon the floor of the United States House of Representatives, Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham noted how radicals in the North had ‘taught the people of the North and West not only to hate but to despise’ Southerners. This ‘teaching’ of hate and/or loathing of a soon-to-be-invaded and conquered people is always indispensable in paving the way for one people to psychologically prepare themselves to engage in immoral or criminal acts against ‘the others,’ those who do not deserve the usual respect given to normal people.” You have to admit, in today’s cultural Marxist society, this is more and more the way Southerners and their history and culture are being treated by the “enlightened” Yankee/Marxists of our day.


The Kennedys observe, accurately, on page 66, that “As harsh as it may sound, Imperial America was born with the death of the Confederate States of America. With the death of REAL States’ Rights, the federal government became an authority unto itself-just like all other empires.” This is where it has been ever since.


They accurately describe the new “American” mindset as “a merger of Yankee commercial/financial nationalism and Yankee secularized religion that produced a new Manifest Destiny-as God’s elect-the Yankee Empire would reconstruct the world.” Yankee preachers felt that “the free North…must one day carry liberty all over the world…We are its divinely appointed representatives and defenders…Our influence will renew and unite the world.” Sounds like these people were even ahead of George Bush in the promotion of a “New World Order” only they just didn’t call it that yet.


On pages 114-118 they deal with “reconstruction” both active and passive. They describe active reconstruction as what went on while the Yankee troops were down here for twelves years, part of which was the “divide and conquer” strategy they used to divide blacks and whites into opposing groups-the old Marxist class struggle technique. They describe passive reconstruction as what “…was enforced by puppet state governments-the leaders of which knew that if they did anything that appeared to be an attempt to reassert the South’s right of self-determination-the Yankee Empire would re-impose Active Reconstruction.” In reference to these puppet governments, they again asserted, on page 122, that “Because these governments violate the principle of ‘consent of the governed,’ they were and still are illegitimate governments.” Another thing they note is that empires (and those who run them) have “no spiritual connection to the land.” This is something that separates the rulers of empire from most of those they have conquered. I’ve lived in the South, both in West Virginia, Louisiana, and briefly in Oklahoma, long enough to realize that Southern folks have a feel for their land and their place on it that exists in few other places, except maybe still some places in the far West.


The Kennedys go on to detail cultural differences between North and South, and they are notable. This I can vouch for personally. Having grown up in the North, but having spent considerable time as an adult in the South and West, I have seen the cultural differences firsthand, which is one reason we now live in the South.
On pages 134-135 they note:: “During the debates in the various states over the possible ratification of the proposed constitution, many notable Southerners warned their countrymen about the dangers associated with joining a union with people in the North (New England and New York, especially Wall Street) who had radically different economic and social interests than the people of the South.”


We realize that no real empire can tolerate a republican form of government where its citizens have any kind of a vote that really makes any difference. Therefore, once the United States turned toward the path of empire the old norms had to be done away with, but they retained the forms, however the real substance was eaten out. Even some Northern folks realized this. On page 163 the Kennedys note the commentary of a citizen of Philadelphia, one William B. Reed who warned that “…if the United States were successful in its war against the South it would result in ‘some new form of consolidated government, alien to our habits and education.’..Many in the North recognized that Lincoln and his cronies were actively engaged in an illegal (unconstitutional) destruction of America’s original Republic of Republics.”


On page 181 the difference between abolitionists is noted. There were abolitionists who sincerely wanted to do away with slavery but they realized with such a momentous issue you had to find a rational way to do it and they worked toward that. Then there were the radical abolitionists of the William Lloyd Garrison and John Brown stripes who wanted the slavery issue settled immediately if not sooner and they were willing to countenance any and all actions, no matter how bloody, to get the slaves freed yesterday! The Kennedys observe that “According to radical abolitionist propaganda, the massacre of all white men, women, and children in the South was justifiable if the end result was the abolition of slavery.” You have to wonder if these modern “hate whitey” types are really nothing more than modern abolitionists who seek to abolish the white race.


There are several chapter in this book that detail what the Yankee Empire did to the South after the War. Chapter 10 notes “Yankee Empire plunders a conquered South. Chapter 11 deals with the “occupation of a once free people, and chapter 12 goes into something we today are too familiar with-“Cultural genocide-the destruction of a proud heritage.” This chapter takes us from the cultural genocide of the 19th century right up until and including today. On page 283 it is stated that: “Yankee efforts to slander the South are not new. The Empire’s prior and ongoing efforts to slander its first victim are necessary for the Yankee Empire’s survival. The ongoing campaign of anti-South bigotry must be maintained IF the Yankee Empire is to maintain its facade of legitimacy! Worldwide recognition of the truth about the War for Southern Independence would destroy the Yankee Empire.” Think about that for awhile!…The Yankee Empire’s campaign of cultural genocide is not new, it did not develop in our lifetime or in response to the horrific act of a lone, crazed gunman in Charleston, South Carolina who had no direct or indirect connection to the Southern Heritage Movement. The Yankee Empire’s campaign of anti-South cultural genocide is a permanent part of its continuing efforts to pacify rising generations of Southerners…Every empire must dehumanize the people of the invaded nation. This is made easy in modern America in which the mainline media, educational institutions and political parties are all supporters of the Yankee Empire…For instance, they constantly imply that any Southerner flying a Confederate flag is an evil racist and/or a neo-Nazi.” Most who will read this know what the drill is by now.


The title of chapter 15 is “The will to be free?” and it is posed as a question rather than a statement. Page 323 states: “While there are certainly a fair number of Southerners who would vote to form a separate Southern Republic, their percentage out of the total population would be less than a majority. Several recent polls have demonstrated that a significant minority of American, including those living in non-Southern states, still believe that a state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.” I have to say that, overall, the percentage of people that feel this way is stronger now than it was when I was younger. People that used to laugh at the idea of secession years ago are not laughing now.


There is much more in this latest book of the Kennedy Brothers than I can’t deal with here. All I have done is to hit some of the high spots. This is a book that needs to be read, and not lightly. There needs to be sober reflection on what the Kennedys have put together in this book. It will not all be fun reading, and some of it will make you angry. If so, that’s good! That means you still have the capacity to get mad when you read about evils and injustices that have been committed against Southern folk. At that point, you need to ask the Lord what your response to that should be.


The Border Struggle is Real
by Newt Gingrich


Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representtives from 1995 until 1999. He is a regular Fox News contributor.


President Trump is doing the right thing to secure the southern border.


The struggle along America’s southern border is a war.


It is largely a psychological war. Foreigners are taunting the American government and trying to get the news media to focus on American law enforcement rather than the people trying to break into our country.


This struggle is historic. It is the tip of a wave of lawbreaking foreigners who would love to move into the United States and dictate to law-abiding Americans the terms under which the lawbreakers will be accepted, supported and subsidized.


Ultimately, this war is a function of willpower and cleverness.


The foreign invaders have a huge advantage. Most of the American news media and the American left are on their side.


Most of the news media do not want to explore the aggressiveness – and in some cases criminality – of those seeking to come into the United States illegally. Nor do most news organizations want to report on the total number of people who will illegally enter the United States over the next few years if the American border control system collapses.


Most of the news media do not want to examine how many billions of dollars the Mexican cartels have made from human trafficking and assisting people to break American laws. Nor do they want to widely report stories about law-abiding Americans who are killed or harmed by people who are in our country illegally – such as the 28-year-old 6th-grade teacher in Texas who was killed in a hit-and-run on Thanksgiving by an illegal immigrant who was out on bail from an assault charge.


For the last several decades, the left has tried to change the terms of the entire debate. Those on the left hate the term “illegal immigrant.” They prefer the softer (and less accurate) term “undocumented.” After all, “illegal immigrant” implies that the person is doing something illegal. On the left, that is an unthinkably negative description.


On the left, every illegal immigrant becomes a “refugee seeking asylum.” It doesn’t matter if they come from middle-class families and live in safe towns. On the left, they are transmuted into frightened, endangered people who should receive sympathy without scrutiny.


There is an entire network of left-wing organizations dedicated to recruiting and helping people break American immigration laws.


Additionally, there are very smart left-wing activists who fully understand how to manipulate the American news media.


Many of the illegal migrants are taught to memorize key phrases, so they will meet technical requirements the Border Patrol has to follow – even if the migrants are lying.


The American people love children and value families. This has led to the creation of rules that assume that any male with a young child must be the father.


Yet, as Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out in June, “in the last five months, we have a 314 percent increase in adults and children arriving at the border fraudulently, claiming to be a family unit.”


Many of the adult male-and-child groups crossing the border are not family. In a number of cases, the child is being trafficked and brought to the United States to be sold into slavery or forced into prostitution. The left’s own emotional commitment to blaming the American government and siding with foreigners makes it impossible for them to deal with the reality of child exploitation by traffickers who are simply lying to the border authorities.


Further, the news media’s bias makes it virtually impossible for reporters to thoroughly investigate the role of human trafficking, slavery and prostitution in funding and incentivizing the illegal flow of humans into the United States.


As you watch the struggle along the border remember two things:


First, this is an ongoing evolutionary conflict. Every day is a snapshot. You can’t look at it in isolation. Everyone is learning from everyone else. The leftist advisers are studying the Trump administration and advising the would-be illegal immigrants what their next steps should be.


The U.S. government is watching the illegal immigrants and is modifying tactics to try to keep smothering their efforts, keep them off balance, and block them from getting into the United States.


The news media are constantly looking for new ways to embarrass the American government and put the illegal immigrants in the best possible light to build sympathy for them.


Second, there is a huge worldwide audience watching.Every estimate of foreigners who would like to move to the United States runs into the tens of millions – and many estimates run well over 100 million. All these people are watching and assessing their own chances of breaking the law and sneaking into the United States.


If the American government succeeds in closing down the caravans headed toward our border and blocking them from entering the United States, then these would-be immigrants may conclude they have to wait and follow the legal rules for coming to America.


The future is going to be very different depending on who wins the current war on our southern border.


Don’t Believe Everything Trump Says
by Servando Gonzales


Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born writer, historian, and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of ‘The Secret Fidel Castro.’


Since Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, almost every single headline in the CFR-controlled mainstreams press, the so-called Public Radio, TV news and “progressive” web sites is fully devoted to subtly insinuate – and sometimes not so subtly – that Donald Trump is either unqualified or illegitimate to be the President, or both. What most people have not yet realized is that what we are seeing is actually a carefully planned and executed psychological warfare operation, a PsyWar, whose goal is to unseat President Trump.


Since the days of JFK, no American President has been under such a concerted attack than Donald Trump. Actually, further indication that both attack strategies were conceived at the same place, there is a strong similarity to the attacks on both Trump and Kennedy.


Soon after he was sworn into office, JFK’s enemies launched a coordinated campaign accusing him of being “soft on communism,” and an outright traitor and a commie. The CFR-controlled mainstream press criticism on Kennedy grew to the point in which David Rockefeller himself wrote and article for Life magazine strongly criticizing Kennedy’s economic policies. Even the current stab in the back General Motors recently played on President Trump is highly similar to the stab in the back big steel companies carried out on JFK.


A key leitmotiv in this PsyWar is accusing Trump of being a liar. To prove it, they accuse Trump of saying one thing and doing another quite different thing. Aside from the fact that U.S. Presidents lying to the American public is nothing new, just remember the lies told by the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama. Now, coming from people who fully supported them, their criticism of Trump is an ultimate form of hypocrisy. On the other hand, I have to confess that sometimes President Trump has confused me. But, seen from a different perspective, who is the fool that tells his enemies in advance about his plans to defeat them? Actually, it is a brilliant strategy to keep your enemies in dark and in a state of confusion.


A side effect of this strategy, however, is that, while confusing his enemies, Trump is also confusing some of his supporters. Nevertheless, his successes show that this is an acceptable price to pay.


I don’t know if Donald Trump has ever read Sun Tzu’s classic book The Art of War, but what he is doing closely follows Tzu’s advice to his generals on how to deal effectively with their opponents. According to Sun Tzu, “All Warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity. When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near. Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him. Anger his general and confuse him. Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance. Keep him under a strain and wear him down. When he is united divide him. Attack when he is unprepared; sally out when he does not expect you.”


Nevertheless, Sun Tzu was not the only one who was convinced that telling lies is the best way to confuse your enemy. During the preparations for the upcoming invasion in Normandy, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said: “In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” Churchill’s strategy worked. The D-Day allied invasion at Normandy took the Nazis by surprise. The meticulously created lies fed to the Nazis convinced them that the true point of the invasion would be Calais and the landing in Normandy was just a diversion. When they realized their error, it was too late. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have the impression that, most of the times, President Trump uses his apparently nonsensical tweets as carefully fed disinformation to keep his enemies confused and in disarray. Proof of this is that his tactics are working.


So, if sometimes you feel confused about President Trump’s apparently nonsensical sudden changes of opinion, I have some advice for you: Don’t pay attention to what Trump says and focus on what he is doing. If you do that, you will see that very soon a new picture of Trump emerges. This image shows a very pragmatic and qualified President relentlessly fighting the globalist anti-American forces and making a sincere effort to make America great again.


Granted, Donald Trump is not perfect – nobody is. But, as Cuban patriot José Martí once wrote, “Even the sun has dark spots, but we must focus on the light, not on the spots.”


By the way, adding to the growing opposition to the globalist policies of Prime Minister May in the U.K., Macron in France and Merkel in Germany, the recent victory of Bolsonaro in Brazil seems to be another headache in the making for the New World Order globalists and their minions. Adding to this, the European Union is dying, and there is a growing opposition in many Latin American countries to the so-called “gender ideology,” which is actually a Trojan horse of the New World Order.


Evidently, the world is awakening. The “deplorables” of the world – as Hillary the Wicca called them – have decided that enough is enough. They are mad as hell and will not take it anymore. The days of the globalist conspirator’s total control over the world is seemingly coming to a catastrophic end.


Good riddance!




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


Back in November we reported a big victory at the ballot box in Walton County, Florida. Before the mid-term, the commissioners voted unanimously to allow the County’s voters to decide whether or not to retain or take down the Confederate Flag flying outside the courthouse.


It was clearly stated that whatever decision was reached in November’s balloting would be enacted. So when over 65% of the voters cast their ballots to KEEP the Flag that settled the issue. Or did it?


Now, the new County Attorney Sidney Noyes has informed the Commissioners and the news media that the voters “simply expressing an opinion.” Seeking clarification that the County Attorney had declared the vote non-binding, Sidney Noyes was specifically asked and in reply sent the following eMail: “The referendum on the Confederate flag was not binding.”


Noyes confirmed in an email Wednesday that while she considered the referendum to have been, “non-binding, it is the commitment of the County Commission to follow the will of the majority of voters.” Let me translate that:


At least for now the Commissioners will leave the Flag up because that’s what the voters want. But sooner or later, they will take it down because the government can’t be restrained by the voters. In other words, so much for Government “of the people, buy the people, and for the people.” There simply no longer is no such thing as “the consent of the governed.” When the voters vote for what the politicians want it is a “public mandate” – but when the voters do not vote the way the current politicians or maybe even some future politician wanted, well, to hell with the voters.


In this case, even the Commissioners were taken by surprise when they were told that they could simply disregard the vote and take the Flag down. “I was a little shocked to hear it wasn’t binding,” Commissioner Beasley said. “I think in general, people thought that it was.”


On the day the County decided to put the referendum on the ballot, Stephen McBroom, a fourth-generation Walton County resident, Flag supporter, and Dixie Heritage reader specifically asked whether the vote would be binding. “This is binding…” Board Chairman Bill Chapman told McBroom. Chapman then asked Heather Christman, who was acting as County Attorney at that Feb. 13 meeting, to validate his statement, “What the voters decide will be binding,” Christman said.


Sarah Comander, the now former Walton County Commissioner who made the motion to call for the Confederate Flag referendum, said Noyes was “totally incorrect” in her assessment that the November vote isn’t binding. “That was the reason it was voted on, to put this to bed,” Comander said. “Like it or not, to me the voters have spoken loud and clear.”


The current set of Commissioners may be happy to “consent to the will of the governed” on this. But as we know, Commissioners come and Commissioners go. Sooner or later, the County will elect a Commissioner who will want to impose his or her own will in this matter and the County Attorney has done her part to make that “legally” possible. The very fact that a new County Attorney is going out of her way to declare the results of an election that preceeded her and which she did not like as “non-binding” is all the proof we need that, in Walton County, as well as everywhere else in the South, and even across our country, the fight to maintain the display of our Flags and monuments is going to be never-ending. Even when we win – we really have only won the right to come back and fight for it all over again tomorrow.


In other words, we’re gonna have to have people in every Walton County Commissioner’s meeting from now until Jesus returns because the first meeting that our folks miss, that will be the one where the enemies of our heritage are unanswered in their demand that the Flag be removed.


I’m not just writing about a singular incident, in one Florida county, because we are seeing the same and similar happening all across the Southland. This is just the most recent. As we go into 2019, we do so realizing that this is NOT our grandfather’s culture war or even our Dad’s culture war. Still, we remain, committed to the fight! Going into 2019, well lets just say that we’re gonna have to step it up a few notches.


Until Next Week
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed


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