Dixie Heritage News – Friday, January 11, 2019


Just Build The Wall Already




Last week we reported that the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina had given the United Daughters of the Confederacy an eviction notice for their downtown Confederate monument. The Daughters have responded:


“The North Carolina Division, United Daughters of the Confederacy, wishes to register our dismay at the recent actions and statements of the city of Winston-Salem regarding the Confederate memorial on the old courthouse grounds. The heavy-handed tactics of the city and its threat of legal action against us are as shocking as they are dishonorable. When so many real problems are facing Winston-Salem and its citizens, city officials would rather engage in a cheap political stunt and distraction. We wish for the memorial to remain in its place, where it has stood since it was dedicated in 1905, and will do everything in our power to see that it continues to remain.”


Mayor Joines has promised to meet the UDC refusal with a “heavy hand” and says that since the statue is on private property, “moving it does not violate North Carolina law,” and that he expects the court to rule in the City’s favor.




As we reported last week, the Winston-Salem monument is located in front of an historic apartment building that used to serve as the Courthouse. So while the monument was erected on “public” land the land became “private” when the government sold the courthouse building to a developer.


The new plot twist in the story is that the developer is now joining the City in calling for the removal of the Statue. Juat a few days ago the developer was happy with the statue on the property. Not sure what brought about the change of opinion?


Obviously, the UDC could not have forseen a century ago that the Courthouse would be sold to a developer and converted into an apartment complex. But this latest plot twist is a game changer because while the City might not have had the authority to order the statue from the private property, the property owner may hold that right. No doubt this will be going to court rather quickly now. We’ll keep you posted.




The Nevada State Board on Geographic Names will consider a proposal to strip the name of Jefferson Davis from one of the State’s highest peaks and replace it with a Shoshone phrase meaning “white peak.”


Because of the government “shutdown” we have been unable to solicit comment or confirm the time and place of the meeting from Board members.




The sport’s network issued an apology on Sunday after being criticized for playing the song Dixie and using a graphic of players in Union and Confederate uniforms during an NFL playoff game.


The graphic was used during the live broadcast of the Indianapolis Colts versus Houston Texans playoff game on Saturday afternoon.


It’s believed the use of Luck mocked up in WBTS style was a reference to his parody Twitter account @CaptAndrewLuck,
whose tweets consist of spoof letters home to his mother from the battlefield, making fun of his idiosyncrasies.


OK, I couldn’t resist:




Remember the Durham, North Carolina statue that was torn down by protesters back in 2017? A joint city-county government committee in Durham issued its recommendation Tuesday for creating an indoor display at the local government building near the grounds where the statue was torn down. The county commission still needs to approve the plan.




A group of leftistorganizations and Democrat politicians are banding together again to sponsor legislation that would overturn the Georgia law that protects Confederate monuments. Similar legislation introduced last year failed to get a hearing.


This year’s legislation is being pushed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the state and Atlanta chapters of the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Georgia Alliance for Social Justice, the Moore’s Ford Movement, and Concerned Black Clergy.


They have scheduled a rally (location unstated) for Saturday, Feb. 2. That’s not an accidental date. It’s the day before the Super Bowl, when Atlanta will become the media hub of North America.




New York state’s Onteora Board of Education is considering a ban on students wearing, depicting, possessing or displaying Confederate symbols in district schools. A public hearing on the proposal, which would be an amendment to the district’s Code of Conduct, has been scheduled for 6 p.m. on January 22 at Bennett Elementary School on state Route 28 in Boiceville.




Race-mixed marriages are at an all-time high – but white Americans are the least likely to marry outside their race, according to The Pew Center report, titled “Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia,” which said that one-in-six newlyweds are married to someone of a different race or ethnicity in America today.


The study interviewed 1,800 people about their perceptions on interracial marriage and analyzed census information over the years. It found white Americans were the least likely to marry someone of another race, with white women slightly less likely than men, and that Asian women were the most likely to marry someone of another race.


Overall, the rate of intermarriages is increasing, with only 3 percent of newlyweds in 1967 being intermarried, and 17 percent in 2015. Of all married Americans, one in 10 are married to someone of another race.


About 11 percent of white American newlyweds are married to someone of another race, according to the study, compared to 18 percent of black Americans, 27 percent of Hispanic Americans and 29 percent of Asian Americans.


White and Hispanic Americans have similar rates of intermarriage between men and women, but both black Americans and Asian Americans differ sharply by gender.


Black men are twice as likely to marry another race as black women – 24 percent to 12 percent – and the rate of intermarriage for Asian women is 36 percent, compared to Asian men at 21 percent.


Interracial marriages are slightly more common among the college educated, younger generations and in metro areas. Regions with some of the highest rates of interracial marriages include South Florida, metro areas in California and Hawaii.


More broadly, one-in-ten married people in 2015 – not just those who recently married – had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity. This translates into 11 million people who were intermarried.


The most dramatic increases in intermarriage have occurred among black newlyweds. Since 1980, the share who married someone of a different race or ethnicity has more than tripled from 5% to 18%. White newlyweds, too, have experienced a rapid increase in intermarriage, with rates rising from 4% to 11%. However, despite this increase, they remain the least likely of all major racial or ethnic groups to marry someone of a different race or ethnicity.


Asian and Hispanic newlyweds are by far the most likely to intermarry in the U.S. About three-in-ten Asian newlyweds (29%) did so in 2015, and the share was 27% among recently married Hispanics. For these groups, intermarriage is even more prevalent among the U.S. born: 39% of U.S.-born Hispanic newlyweds and almost half (46%) of U.S.-born Asian newlyweds have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity.




The popular Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” is being boycotted. By advertisers because its host is supporting the President’s immigration policy.


The Huffington Post reported the companies boycotting Carlson’s show include Pacific Life, Bowflex, Indeed, Minted, NerdWallet, SmileDirectClub, Voya, Ancestry, Land Rover, Zenni, IHOP, Just for Men, United Explorer, ScotteVest, TD Ameritrade and CareerBuilder.


CareerBuilder said in a statement it would advertise on programming that aligns “with who we are and what we value.”


Bowflex said that along with pulling its ads, it has “no other association or affiliation with Mr. Carlson.”


So far, the network has vowed it will not “allow voices like Tucker Carlson to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts from the likes of Moveon.org, Media Matters and Sleeping Giants.”


“Attempts were made last month to bully and terrorize Tucker and his family at their home. He is now once again being threatened via Twitter by far left activist groups with deeply political motives,” the network said. “While we do not advocate boycotts, these same groups never target other broadcasters and operate under a grossly hypocritical double standard given their intolerance to all opposing points of view.”


The Washington Times reported major firms such as Farmer’s Insurance, Mitsubishi and John Deere blew off demands from activists to censor Carlson.


“In a statement to the Daily Beast, Farmers Insurance said it ‘invests in advertising across a broad range of networks and programs that reflect the diversity of opinions and viewpoints found across the nation,'” the report said.


Mitsubishi said demographics and psychographics drive its advertising strategies, “not politics.”


Bayer, the German pharmaceutical conglomerate, said: “Opinions or views expressed by the network’s news programs or their hosts are solely those of the network, and do not necessarily reflect those of Bayer. Given the wide diversity of media today and wide range of public opinion on any given issue, it would be an impossible task to find a major television or radio network whose entire programming schedule appeals to all audiences.”


And the Associated Press reported many of the companies that boycotted Carlson placed their ads elsewhere on Fox News, “meaning the network is under no broad pressure.”


MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, one of the biggest advertiser for Carlson’s show, said, “I make all of my advertising decisions based on what is best for MyPillow, my customers and my employees.”


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.


When Patrick Henry forcefully argued against Virginia’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution he made several prescient observations. In her book Patrick Henry: Patriot and Statesman Norine Dickson Campbell noted a statement made by Patrick Henry regarding the different sections of the country. Henry said:


“The Northern states will never assent to regulation promotive of Southern aggrandizement…There is a striking difference, and great contrariety of interest between the States…This government subjects everything to the Northern majority. Is there not then a settled purpose to check the Southern interest?”


Now that was a good question. How long has it been since anyone asked it? You can bet the farm your “history” books are not about to deal with it.


Miss Campbell noted, on page 367 of her book, Henry’s almost prophetic assertions, when she said:


“His discernment in the Virginia Convention 180 years ago is astonishing and merits singular praise in light of the events of today. He prophesied the fate of the agricultural South at the hands of the industrial North. He foretold the baneful effects of a supreme judiciary beholden to no one. Patrick Henry declared that this government would not last a century. He had not been in his grave 65 years before his predictions came to pass…”


The advent of the War of Northern Aggression proved conclusively what Henry had stated. Virginia should have listened. Henry also argued that, should this Constitution be adopted, then more of a “Bill of Rights” than ten amendments should be adopted. It has been stated that Henry favored nineteen amendments, but we only ended up with ten, most of which are just plain ignored by government today at any level.


Be that as it may, if we read the first ten amendments we find that power was supposed to reside with the states and that these amendments seem to be written in a way that restricted the federal government. From the First Amendment that starts out “Congress shall make no law…” to the Tenth Amendment stating the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution …”are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” The intent would seem to be one that limits federal power over the states and over individuals.


However, in this context, we must remember that, in 1776 we did NOT fight an “American Revolution.” We fought a War for Independence. Then, in 1861, the real American Revolution occurred-a revolution that God-fearing and patriotic Americans in both North and South lost! Unless and until we begin to slice through some of the bovine fertilizer they forced on us in most of those Unitarian seminaries we refer to as “public (really government) schools” we will never be able to grasp that sad fact. Consequently, most people are utterly unable to even begin to think about dealing with the mess we find ourselves in today. By 1865 FEDERAL DICTATORSHIP had won the day and the fatal seeds of the federal oppression we find ourselves beset with today had been sown. I don’t think even Mr. Trump totally apprehends the true depth of what we refer to as the Deep State. The reason for this state of affairs was American apostasy, pure and simple. After Northern Unitarian apostasy had denied the truth of Scripture and repudiated the Holy Trinity, and done it quite successfully for over two generations, something had to give. They sowed the wind and we are living to reap the whirlwind.


So, taking apostasy into account, let’s take a look at our constitutional amendments. The first ten sought to restrict federal power except in certain specific areas. But by the time the second version of the 13th Amendment came along the American Revolution was nearly over. Debates on the second Thirteenth Amendment were taking place in 1864, just before the shooting phase of the revolution was over.


So look at the wording contained in the second 13th Amendment-“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” You have the same exact wording in the infamous 14th and 15th Amendments. In fact you have basically the same wording in the 16th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Can you observe the fundamental shift in thinking here? Please note that, by 1865, we had degenerated from the concept of “Congress shall make no law” to the concept of “Congress shall have the power to enforce.” Consider that for awhile.
There is a not-very-subtle shift after the War of Northern Aggression from state power to federal power-where we are today. This is proof of the success of the shooting phase of the revolution which started in 1861, but it is also proof of the cultural shift in the North, which started decades earlier.


Some of those who took part in the debates concerning the second 13th Amendment could see the revolutionary nature of the amendment in its wording and they sought to warn their colleagues of its revolutionary intent-to no avail. Many who partook of the debate were the usual suspects in the abolitionist/reconstruction/19th century Deep State camp. Others were not. Fernando Wood, Democrat of New York stated:


“The control over slavery, and the domestic and social relations of the people of the respective states, was not and never intended to be delegated to the United States…”


According to Wood, the proposal of the amendment “arraigns the President as having violated the Constitution in his Emancipation Proclamation, and stamps it as a nullity and void.” Wood contended that the war was not fought to preserve the Union, “but was directed against the sovereignties of the states, and to destroy such of their domestic institutions as were obnoxious to the views of the party controlling the government for the time.” The slavery question aside, there was a concerted effort on the part of the federal government to destroy the rights of the individual states and to replace those rights with national power. And if we are still naïve enough to think that such did not succeed, then we have no real grasp of our history.


With the adoption of the second 13th Amendment, Congress began to usurp the rights of the states and began to exercise unconstitutional power to enforce “appropriate legislation” to back up its new national decrees. This was, in essence, the beginning of our modern “civil rights” movement. It was also the beginning of the eventual repeal of the Bill of Rights. The “Patriot Act” passed hurriedly after the 9/11 situation finished that repeal almost completely.


Now admittedly, you may not like them apples-I can’t say that I’m overly fond of them myself. But let’s face facts. Departure from God’s Truth (apostasy) paved the way for forty years for the 1861-65 American Revolution. Unless we are willing to repudiate that apostasy and return to “the faith once delivered unto the saints” the revolution, in its more revolting states, will continue unabated until God judges an apostate and corrupt America.


Until we realign our thinking in regard to apostasy and revolution and start trying to act biblically in regard to our present dismal situation, we are only spinning our wheels and getting deeper into the mud of chaos and confusion. Either we will accept God as our Ruler, or tyrants will rule us. There is no middle ground.


Fighting the Juggernaut
by Sid Secular


Sid Secular is the Editor of Citizen’s Informer magazine.


“In those dark hours [for the French in World War One], that vision of France as a generous nation, of France as a project, of France promoting universal values, was the exact opposite of the egotism of a people who look after only their interests, because patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of it.”
— President Macron of France, flatulating on Armistice Day 2018


“The beginning of any society is never charming or gentle.”
— Franca Bettoia, as Ruth Collins, in “The Last Man on Earth,” 1964


“The Last Man on Earth” was a Vincent Price movie made in 1964. The year before the beginning of the end. In 1965, all of our restrictive immigration laws were dismantled, in accordance with ushering in a new era of civil rights, and, in many ways, I personally date all subsequent historical events using that milestone. Even in 1965, as a child, I understood that this was a watershed moment, and one ominous in its implications.


Few others had the same forebodings. America, people reasoned, was strong, invincible, and confident. With promises from politicians that the demographics and politics of the U.S. would remain unaltered, our nation’s gates were flung open to the world.


They lied, as the evidence of our own eyes verifies, and, forty years later, I entered the lobby of a local library and encountered an ancient woman diligently yanking down public notices from a bulletin board. When I asked what she was doing, she smiled, and said, in accented English, “These notices are written in ten different languages, translations paid for with my tax dollars. If someone had the right to put them up on a public board, I have the same right to pull them down. Let them learn English, as I did.” As I pondered the woman’s response, she trundled out the door and down the street, away from the scene of her mischief.


She turned out to be Colette Berger, an immigrant herself, a woman who resided in a house whose roof was visible from my own residence. In our next encounter, I observed her at the supermarket, hiding Spanish language magazines behind English publications. Again, the smile of a disobedient child, and a quip: “If I’d wanted to live in Guatemala, I’d have gone to live there.”


Over time, I learned she’d come from France after World War Two as a refugee. But there was much more to the story, as I learned in pieces over the years. She’d been born in a village near Reims in Northern France, and during the war was hired, along with her brother, as a train depot guard, guarding both cargo trains and German troop trains in a freight yard. She eventually revealed she’d been sufficiently trusted by the Germans to receive passes to travel on both German troop trains and truck convoys. She’d met a German soldier, had a baby by him, and then placed the baby for adoption when the end of the war culminated in her hasty emigration from Europe. “They weren’t asking about civilians’ motivations,” she said. “The Maquis [the French Resistance] were lining people up against the walls and shooting them.” She’d come to America, lost a young husband to cancer, struggled with poverty, lost a second child to a gulag called foster care, worked hard, bought a house, and survived in her old age by opening an illegal beauty parlor in her basement and an illegal rental cottage in her detached garage. Throughout our acquaintance, she continued to make veiled references to her activities during the war.


Finally, one day I stated flatly: “You, Colette, were on the wrong side.”


She did not shrink from the comment. “Yes,” she readily confessed. “The Germans’ sins were considerable, but they would have ensured the West’s survival in some recognizable form. No one else is going to do that now. I understood from the beginning what the Bolshevists would do to Europe and the world if they won, and they have indeed won. They have repeatedly forced the West into a trajectory that can only lead to our extinction, a trajectory that has always left us with no other recourse but to fight back.”


It was an Aha moment. She was not only an ideological renegade, like myself, but someone who was apparently willing to take genuine risks in order to act on her beliefs — risks ranging far beyond pulling down public bulletins. As I came to know Colette, she indeed turned out to be a one woman army, battling what we both perceived as the forces of darkness: a soupy and toxic Cultural Marxism manifested in the promotion of things like universalism, socialism, deracination, miscegenation, white guilt, social and moral decay, nihilism, multiculturalism, and a tsunami of other assaults on all things traditional. These things, Colette contended, were merely the incarnations of an effort to destabilize and deconstruct American society. She rejected without hesitation the notion that America, the world’s last real bastion of freedom, was a nation in which patriotism should be primarily defined as a blind loyalty to democratic principles of government; she scoffed at the belief that loyalty to the American nation-state and culture was a form of bigotry and chauvinism. “To insist on such a thing,” she said, “is to deny human nature itself.” Erasing the latter two things, she argued, was a tragic insanity that would almost certainly and inevitably erase American democracy itself. That goal, she insisted, was our enemies’ ultimate intent. “They plan nothing short of our destruction. That is what gives us the right and the duty to resist,” she would say. We talked for endless hours about the reasons for America’s constant accommodation of the poisons destroying its foundations, and she summed it all up in two sentences: “Human beings, in general, are herd animals, driven by the need to conform, and white people, in particular, often deal in abstractions. It will be their epitaph, because the rest of the world deals in realities.”


Colette’s activism took many forms, and in much of it, I soon joined her. She manned petition tables, and lobbied for restrictionist immigration legislation, despite the irony of doing so in accented English. She campaigned for political candidates, gave them money she did not have to spend, spoke her mind with jaw-dropping frankness, wrote letters to newspapers, trolled websites, and engaged in other forms of soft sabotage. She trolled internet trolls, to locate their battles and fight in them. Once, while working on a job hiring panel, she refused to hand out the racial preference points that she and her colleagues had been instructed to give to nonwhite job applicants. She not only withheld the points she’d been asked to give, but went further and subtracted the points she knew her colleagues would obediently bestow. (“Bolshevist social engineering,” she called it). She boycotted businesses that promoted social decay in the name of progressiveness, and she had six email accounts she used to badger political and cultural luminaries. She paid for books like “Alien Nation,” “The Death of the West,” and “Adios, America,” and mailed them to prominent people, attempting to reshape social policy. She was dogged in her determination, and her battle motto was “We fight until we win.” She never waivered in this resolve, despite a framed Whitaker Chambers quote on her office wall, to the effect that “We must fight simply because it is morally correct for us to fight. We must fight, even though it is virtually impossible to fight for a people who will not fight for themselves.”


“These things are the best I can do,” she said, “because I’m too old and too frightened to put dynamite under bridges.” Because of the inherent danger in resisting the powers that be, she in fact recommended covert and nonviolent sabotage: “There can be no full frontal assaults on the enemy until we have sufficient strength and a chance to win.”


Despite her bravado, there was little evidence any of our activities made any impact. All of our efforts in sum were mere flailings against a goliath.


Colette regarded both the Democrats and the Republicans with an almost equal contempt, but when a specific act of violence against Republicans occurred in our neighborhood, it spurred her to greater action. The violence had been incited in the heart of a down and out person who had wandered up and down our neighborhood’s commercial strip, where he’d absorbed a steady diet of messages discrediting the Trump administration’s lawful election to power. Up and down that commercial avenue, trees and lamp poles were festooned with banners, signs, and even hand knitted messages urging the locals to “Resist Trump,” “Fight the Power,” and “Reject Hate.” Goaded on, the derelict had “rejected hate” by engaging in some very enthusiastic violence. Rounding up me and a local sympathetic indigent, Andrew, whose loyalty and silence were contracted with a gift of banana bread, we spent one early Sunday morning by riding our bicycles in a swift B-line down the empty avenue, pulling down signs and banners, unravelling the knitted scarfs around tree trunks, and removing fliers. Colette’s logic was the same as the logic she used when I first encountered her in the library: “If they have the right to put these messages up on public property, we have the same right to tear them down.” Afterward, we celebrated gleefully with lumpy servings of her homemade clafoutis, submerged in cream. “Not a bad operation,” she said, smiling with affection, “for a cowardly crone and two village idiots.”

Whatever she may have thought of herself, Colette was no coward. On more than one occasion, I saw her on the receiving end of a progressive’s kindliness, which she had a knack for quickly transforming into rage and contempt. One such encounter at a petition table ended with a wad of spit being deposited on her forehead. She remained tranquil in such encounters, strenghtened by a moral certitude that I have only begun to acquire as America’s situation has become more visibly dire. It was my honor to have fought in the opening skirmishes of our conflict with a tiny graying French woman, a woman who had fought her way through life, yet also found the strength to fight in the eternal battle against the massive forces of evil now arrayed against us. Three days before her death, anticipating it, I asked her how I could best honor her life. From her quick response, it was obvious she had expected the question. “You can remember me by continuing to fight, “she said. “Do whatever you can, whenever you can. Resist — regardless of all of the might and scorn and fury that may oppose you — in every way in which you are capable of resisting. I will leave this life knowing that I and my village idiots, in just one Sunday morning spent tearing down banners, were worth ten thousand Marines who understand our fate and do nothing.”

It was important for me to speak honestly, in the face of her approaching death. “We did not accomplish all of the things that we needed to accomplish,” I said. “It does not matter,” she responded. “We will fight until we win.”


Nobel Chief Finally Admits He Regrets Giving Obama the Peace Prize
by Warner Todd Huston


Warner Todd Huston has appeared on Fox News, CNN, and several local Chicago News programs to discuss the issues of the day. Additionally, he is a regular guest on radio programs from coast to coast.


Anyone with half an ounce of brains immediately knew in 2009 that the Nobel Peace Prize committee was making itself look foolish for giving Barack Obama its top award even though he had only been president for about five minutes. Now the group’s former secretary is admitting that the whole thing was a huge mistake.


Nobel’s former secretary, Geir Lundestad, told the media that he thought giving Obama the award would spur him to great accomplishments. Instead, Obama did nothing of note over the next eight years.


Lundestad addressed the foolhardy decision in his recently published autobiography, according to the BBC:


Mr Lundestad, writing in his memoir, Secretary of Peace, said even Mr. Obama himself had been surprised.


“No Nobel Peace Prize ever elicited more attention than the 2009 prize to Barack Obama,” Mr. Lundestad writes.


“Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,” he says. “In that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.”


Lundestad that at first Obama greeted the situation with some good sense and initially said he did not even want to come pick the thing up.


But, soon enough his natural (and proper) embarrassment at being given the award for no logical reason was overcome by his arrogance and desire for personal adulation. He went and picked it up in person anyway.


Of course, Obama’s detractors here in the U.S.A. widely made fun of the idiotic award.


As well they should. Obama did not deserve any “peace prize” before he had even fairly begun his first term. And eight years later, even Lundestad now admits that Obama did nothing even after two terms to deserve it.


It’s about time they admit it.


NOT Your Parents Democrat Party
by Dr. Pat Buchanan


Pat Buchanan is a political commentator, author and syndicated columnist. He was a senior adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan.


Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House has more women, persons of color and LGBT members than any House in history – and fewer white males.


And Thursday, the day Rashida Tlaib was sworn in, her hand on a Quran, our first Palestinian-American congresswoman showed us what we may expect. As a rally of leftists lustily cheered her on, Tlaib roared, “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive deleted)!”


Not only was no apology forthcoming, the host of the New American Leaders event where Tlaib spoke warmly endorsed her gutter language.


Her remarks, said Sayu Bhojwani, “were raw and honest, and came straight from the heart. … a refreshing break from the canned comments our elected leaders usually make. Tlaib spoke … with the fire that so many at our event wanted to hear.”


Sunday, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, 29, the youngest member of the new House, told CNN there is “no question” President Donald Trump is a “racist,” for he regularly uses “historic dog whistles of white supremacy.”


While the Democratic Party is celebrating a diversity that insists that the more women, persons of color and gays in leadership ranks, and the fewer white males, the stronger and better the party, has all of America embraced this as an ideal? Is there no limit to the ideological, political, religious, racial and ethnic diversity a party and nation can tolerate before it comes apart?


Are Democrats inviting an eventual Balkanization of their party and country?


Consider. This week, Julian Castro, former mayor of San Antonio and HUD secretary, appeared about to enter the race for the Democratic nomination. Castro has seen fellow Texan Robert F. O’Rourke, who goes by the nickname “Beto,” walk off with his Hispanic constituency in a 2018 Senate race. Castro intends to win it back it in the Democratic primaries.


Former Congressman O’Rourke has been accused of trying to pass himself off as Hispanic, though he is of Irish descent. Elizabeth Warren suffered a near-fatal wound trying to pass herself off as part Cherokee Indian.


In December, Maze Jackson, morning host of a radio station that reaches into Chicago’s black community, said of the mayoral election to succeed Rahm Emanuel, where 21 candidates have filed and a black woman and a Hispanic woman are the front-runners, “This thing is going to get so tribal.”


The Democratic front-runners for the presidential nomination – Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto – are all white males. Ranked just below them are black Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris.


South Carolina is a state where a large slice of the Democratic vote is African-American – Jesse Jackson won the caucuses in 1988 – and Harris and Booker should expect to do well if they do not split that vote.


While racial and ethnic voting is not new, it appears much more intense.
In the last Congress, the 33 U.S. congressional districts with the largest concentrations of black voters almost all elected African-Americans who became members of the racially exclusive Black Caucus.


The first two battles of 2020, Iowa and New Hampshire, are in states predominantly white. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made several stops in Iowa with impressive turnouts, putting pressure on Biden and Sanders to decide soon.


But while Biden is the front-runner, consider how far away the ex-vice president is from the new realities in his party.


Though millennials are one voting bloc Democrats are courting most, Biden would be the oldest president ever elected. He was in the Senate for a decade before Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib were even born.


Biden is an old white male in a party that wants the torch passed to women and minorities. He backed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in voting for the war in Iraq. He backed an anti-crime bill in the early 1990s that incarcerated individuals now gaining release by the latest crime bill. As Judiciary Committee chair, he presided over the hearings that resulted in a vote to elevate Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.


The Republican Party, even with the never-Trumpers gone, still seems more united than a Democratic Party where the differences are not only ideological but also racial, religious and tribal.


Ocasio-Cortez is backing a hike in the top federal income tax rate to 70 percent. Castro has suggested taking a look at a top rate of 90 percent. How will this sit with the big Democratic donors?


Joe Biden, like Pelosi, was raised Catholic in a Church that taught that homosexuality was immoral and abortion was the killing of the innocent unborn for which the sanction was automatic excommunication.


Today, the Democratic Party celebrates same-sex marriage as social progress and regards abortion as a cherished constitutional right. A floor battle erupted at its 2012 Charlotte, North Carolina, convention over whether God should even be mentioned in the party platform.


Yet Nancy Pelosi did last week denounce as “immoral” the idea of building a security wall along America’s border with Mexico.


No, this is not JFK’s party anymore. That party is long dead.




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


This week’s editorial is published online at The Barnes Review website:




I watched Tuesday night as President Trump gave his much anticipated Oval Office address about the situation on our Southern border. When he finished my wife looked at me and asked what I thought. My reply, “I am disappointed. The President didn’t talk very long and has offered NO solutions to any problems.”


I had hoped the President would have declared a “state of emergency,” which is often the object of an Oval Office address. But he did not. Instead, he is going to give Congress yet another opportunity to negotiate.


Is the President really that naive? Does he really think the Marxists who now run Congress will give him anything? What was Einstien’s definion of insanity? Wasn’t it something about someone who keeps doing the SAME thing over and over again but somehow thinks the next time the result will be different?


Donald Trump has been President for TWO years now. And with nearly everything he has attempted to do, the Marxists simply get an activist judge to “order” him to stand down. And regrettably, he always does. Now it seems he simply does not act for fear of the lawsuit. How many times did Obama, Bush, Clinton, and the 41 Presidents before them all tell the Federal judges to “go to Hell”? Why won’t President Trump?


I had really hoped that Tuesday would be the night when Donald Trump graduated from the guy who lives at the White House to actually BEING the President of these united States.


As such, President Trump can declare a State of Emergency, order the Army Corps of Engineers to the southern border, immediately begin to build the wall, stop the invasion – and there isn’t jack-turd the Democrats or the Judiciary can do about it short of burning the Constitution (not that I’d put that past them).


Anyway, I listened to the entirety of the President’s speech. And even stayed tuned to watch the Saturday Night Live sketch where Beevis and Butthead stood in the long hallway dressed like Schumer and Pelosi to reassure us all that they will obstructing everything the President is so far not actually doing. Speaking of which, I still don’t have a clue what, if anything, the President is planning to do. Whatever it is, I hope he will do it quickly.


Until Next Week
Deo Vindice
Chaplain Ed


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