Dixie Heritage News – Friday, February 8, 2019






Judge Stanley Allen of Forsyth Superior Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit filed on Thursday of last week by the United Daughters of the Confederacy to stop the city of Winston-Salem from removing the Confederate statue at the corner of Fourth and Liberty streets. This should have resulted in an injunction against the City to prevent them from removing the statue while the outcome of the lawsuit was awaited. But instead, the judge ruled that the City may remove the statue ahead of the hearings.


In his ruling, Allen said he didn’t fully understand the City’s urgency to remove the statue, but nonetheless he will not exercise his ability to prevent them from doing so. According to the Judge, he might have been more willing to issue the injunction had the UDC filed sooner.


As we reported last week, the City had intended to remove the statue Thursday night or Friday morning but there have been logistical delays and those were reported to the Judge at the hearing. City officials told the Court that removing the statue would take some time and would not happen Friday or during the weekend. But the City is still actively seeking the statue’s removal.


Meanwhile, three members of a group called Heirs to the Confederacy are keeping vigil at the statue.




A photo emerged of the 1984 Medical School yearbook of Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam appearing in a KKK hood and in blackface.


These photos made national media attention just days after the Governor voiced his support for legislation to “legalize” infanticide.




Amid the ongoing scandal in Virginia, an old photo showing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell posing in front of a large Confederate flag has resurfaced.


The photo first circulated in 2015 and is said to be from a Sons of Confederate Veterans event in the early 1990s.




Last week we reported that a House of Delegates committee killed a bill to allow localities to remove Confederate statues. This week, the NAACP has vowed to seek the legislations reintroduction.


Loudoun County NAACP President Michelle Thomas has vowed that her group will continue to advocate for the measure to be passed until it is. “We’re not going to give up…We are going to try again…” And they vow to keep trying as many times as it takes.




James Bessenger, founder (2014) of the South Carolina Secessionist Party, has officially abandoned the cause of Southern Heritage.


James has spent the past week digitally erasing his group. He has taken down its Facebook page and website. It also seems that he has stopped checking the eMail. He has also notified the attorneys in the pending lawsuit against the group filed by a black North Charleston mother after two of her children, who are black as well, were photographed at the Charleston Battery holding Confederate Flags to inform them that his group is disbanding. Just our prediction, without an “entity” to sue, the lawyers will sue him personally and a liberal judge will wring him out.


Anywhoo, Bessenger says that he’s “been too jaded, I can’t commit any more energy to this movement.”


The reason he gives for abandoning the cause is his recent ouster from the SCV. Bessenger, who is both gay and pagan was simply not a good fit in his local SCV camp or in the South Carolina Division of the SCV.


Bessenger said he was sent an eMail on January 26 from S.C. SCV Division Judge Advocate Randy Burbage, “He is gay, he won’t stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and he is an atheist. Three strikes and you are out. Simple as that.”


This email, if it had been sent, was not a dismissal of Bessenger from the SCV. But it would indicate that an action was forthcoming. In any event, Bessenger said that the eMail assured him that he “is not welcome in the Confederate heritage community as a gay, non-Christian man.” Bessenger also said he fears that the Confederate heritage movement is attracting “a bunch of racists and homophobes…I’ve always been an outlier in the Confederate heritage movement because I’m not a straight, Republican white man.”


I for one find it hard to believe that one little eMail would prompt James Bessenger to walk away from his years-long public fight defending the Battle Flag and other Confederate symbols. Certainly this was a decision that was a long time in the making.




A Confederate memorial and a Revolutionary War statue were vandalized in Wilkesboro last week Friday.


The Revolutionary War statue was of Colonel Ben Cleveland and the other memorial was to Wilkes Confederate soldiers.


Police Officers are now seeking out information to find who may be responsible for the incident. Those with information about the incident are urged to call Wilkesboro Police at (336) 666-7277.




Vandals splashed paint on a Confederate monument, a nearby World War I cannon, and another cannon in Decatur on Sunday and almost all the paint was cleaned off Monday.


The Confederate monument is a 30-foot-tall obelisk. It was splashed with red paint. Blue paint was thrown onto the World War I cannon, on the other side of the Old County Courthouse in Decatur Square. The second cannon was splashed with green paint.


The county commission has been trying for more than a year to move the obelisk from the square, but its options are limited by state law.


Please contact the Decatur Police with any information at (404) 373-6551.




The Park was closed on Saturday, ahead of the Super Bowl, because authorities feared that Marxists would stage violent protests at the Confederate monument.




Officials at American University are investigating a man simply because he was wearing a Confederate Flag hoodie while eating his dinner in a campus dining hall Thursday night.


According to the report, a campus police officer talked to the man while he was eating his dinner to “express concern about his presence.” The man simply left, his meal unfinished, and that would have been the end of the incident had other parties not demanded additional investigation, essentially, to determine the identity of the man who according to all reports did nothing more than attemopt to eat dinner.


A university spokesman would not respond Friday to specific questions but it appears that University police have now documented the incident as a hate crime by a suspect that was never identified.




Tomah joins seven other schools in the Mississippi Valley Conference in banning the Confederate Glag. The Tomah School Board voted unanimously to approve the ban during a special meeting Monday even though community member and high school students spoke against the ban during the board meeting, saying the move would limit students’ right to free speech.




New Jersey Senator Cory Booker announces that he is running for president.




Multiple sources report that Herman Cain, the former pizza company executive who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, is under consideration by President Trump for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board.




Stacey Abrams’ “Democrat Response” State of the Union rebuttal that is.




In the SEnate Bernie Sanders proposed a plan to increase the estate tax with a rate of up to 77%.


The Real American Revolution 1776 or 1861
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.


Many have, over the years, no doubt to their government school “educations” looked at the 14th Amendment, and been under the misguided delusion that it was a milestone in the cause of “racial equality.”


It might not hurt for those prone to such flights of fancy to take a look at the prime mover behind that amendment, the radical Thaddeus Stevens from Pennsylvania (and no credit to that state). I have recently done articles dealing with him so this will only add info to what’s already out there. Stevens has been characterized by some who’ve written about him as an “apostle of hate.” I guess you’d have to say that’s an apt description of him. His vindictive attitude toward the South before, during, and after the War of Northern Aggression might well be described as pathological.


Stewart Sifakis in Who Was Who in the Civil War has told us, of Stevens that: “In politics he moved from Federalist to Anti-Mason, to Whig, and finally to Republican. He served in the state legislature from 1833 until 1842, where he is most remembered for his defense of free public schools. He was a master at the distribution of patronage…” Just about every position noted here for Stevens was one of centralism and more government control. Note that he supported the concept of “free public schools” that was advocated by Karl Marx a little later in The Communist Manifesto which he wrote for The League of the Just (Illuminati).


Sifakis also told us that: “During the Civil War he wielded great influence as head of the House Ways and Means Committee. Although he had supported Lincoln in 1860, he was a constant critic of his moderate actions against the South, favoring instead a war of extermination and recolonization of the South, abolishing the old state lines.” A war of extermination against the South-Stevens sounds like a really nice guy doesn’t he? Just a paragon of Yankee/Marxist virtue! Virtue? Well, not exactly. Fawn Brodie, who wrote a biography of Thaddeus Stevens told us that: “Carl Schurz reported later that Stevens’ Pennsylvania neighbors ‘did not, indeed, revere him as a model of virtue; but of the occasional lapses of his bachelor-like life from correct moral standards, which seemed to be well-known and frequently talked about, they spoke with affectionate lenity of judgment.” An interesting commentary on Stevens’ Pennsylvania neighbors.


Brodie also told us that Stevens’ crusade against Masonry was “almost pathological in its nature…Later the Southern slaveholder became for Stevens a still more satisfactory object of attack. The desire to punish deepened with his advancing years, until after the Civil War it became an obsession.” Obsessed and pathological seem rather apt descriptions for Thaddeus Stevens-a quintessential Yankee/Marxist if ever there was one.


Anyone who has studied the career of Thaddeus Stevens ought to be convinced that his main intent, after presiding over the destruction of an orthodox Christian South, was to change the structure and direction of the federal government. He labored tirelessly to turn that government into an even more effective instrument of tyranny than it had been under Lincoln. A tall order!


Stevens made a point of giving speeches in 1865, after the shooting phase of the war ended. While notably professing to protect the “constitutional guarantees” of all, he advocated, in a manner similar to that of the Marxists, that the land of the “chief rebels” be seized and used to help pay the national debt. Stevens was doing nothing more than advocating the redistribution of someone else’s wealth, and he had the audacity to do it under the cloak of “constitutional guarantees.”


Every once in awhile Stevens let the cat out of the bag if you knew what to look for. In one of his speeches he said that: “In reconstruction…reformation must be affected; the foundations of their institutions, both political, municipal and social (Christian) must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been in vain. This can only be done by treating and holding them as a conquered people.” So where were Stevens’ “constitutional guarantees” he spoke so glowingly of? Well, just like today, they were for certain people. Here Stevens has given us the foundation of his personal theology. Every man has a theology whether he attends church or not. The true theology of Stevens and his Yankee/Marxist good buddies can easily be described as “subjugation and seizure”-in direct violation of both the 8th and 10th Commandments.


Stevens later said: “They (the South) ought never to be recognized as capable of acting in the Union, or of being counted as valid states, until the Constitution shall have been so amended as to make it what its framers intended: and so as to secure perpetual ascendency to the party of the Union (Republicans).” It would seem, at this point, that Mr. Stevens had appointed himself as the chief interpreter of what the true intent of the framers of the Constitution was. I can’t help but ask if Stevens’ allusion to the amendment process had anything to do with his upcoming plans in regard to the 14th Amendment.


From Stevens’ comments one comes away with the feeling that his concept of “original intent” was to change the Constitution by amendment to make it say what he thought it should have said but didn’t. Also, are we not also forced to conclude, from his statements about the “perpetual ascendency of the party of the Union” that he was, in fact, advocating what amounted to a one-party state? In essence that is what “reconstruction” did in the South. Karl Marx must have absolutely drooled with anticipation!


The hypothesis has been put forth that, in 1776, we fought a war for independence, not a revolution. I agree with that. Others have put forth the idea that our “Civil War” was really a revolution in disguise (and a Marxist one at that), and I have to agree with that. If you don’t think so, then read Lincoln’s Marxists. The intent of the War of Northern Aggression was to radically change our form of government, while giving the appearance of trying to preserve it.


If such was accomplished by 1865, is it any wonder today that we still struggle with “civil rights,” “Women’s Lib,” unprecedented federal intrusion into our private lives, and a host of other ills?


Let me say again as I have in the past, that our problems in this country did not start with FDR, or even the Federal Reserve. Some of them probably started with Lincolns Internal Revenue Service, but most likely, even that cancer is but a predictable symptom of the religious apostasy that has, for the past 170 years, eaten the true heart and soul out of what was once America but is now post-America.


Until we come to grips with that truth we will continue to spin our wheels and get nowhere. You can’t begin to think about fighting apostasy by “getting a few more conservatives into Congress.” While that might be a desirable step, it will only be a speed bump for the Deep State. A return to our biblical roots, the Reformation faith “once delivered to the saints” is the only thing that will suffice to save America and that return must be accompanied by repentance.


Trump’s Venezuela Fiasco
by Dr. Ron Paul


Dr. Ron Paul is an author, physician, and retired 10-term U.S. Congressman. He was the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 1988 and nearly won the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012 resulting in the “Tea Party.”


Last week President Trump announced that the United States would no longer recognize Nicholas Maduro as president of Venezuela and would recognize the head of its national assembly, Jose Guaido, as president instead. US thus openly backs regime change. But what has long been a dream of the neocons may well turn out to be a nightmare for President Trump.


Why did Trump declare that the Venezuelan president was no longer the president? According to the State Department, the Administration was acting to help enforce the Venezuelan constitution. If only they were so eager to enforce our own Constitution!


It’s ironic that a president who has spent the first two years in office fighting charges that a foreign country meddled in the US elections would turn around and not only meddle in foreign elections but actually demand the right to name a foreign country’s president! How would we react if the Chinese and Russians decided that President Trump was not upholding the US Constitution and recognized Speaker Nancy Pelosi as US president instead?


Even those who would like to see a change of government in Venezuela should reject any notion that the change must be “helped” by the United States. According to press reports, Vice President Mike Pence was so involved in internal Venezuelan affairs that he actually urged Guaido to name himself president and promised US support. This is not only foolish, it is very dangerous. A Venezuelan civil war would result in mass death and even more economic misery!


Regime change has long been US policy for Venezuela. The US has been conducting economic warfare practically since Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, was first elected in 1998. The goal of US sanctions and other economic measures against Venezuela (and other countries in Washington’s crosshairs) is to make life so miserable for average citizens that they rise up and overthrow their leaders. But of course once they do so they must replace those leaders with someone approved by Washington. Remember after the “Arab Spring” in Egypt when the people did rise up and overthrow their leader, but they then elected the “wrong” candidate. The army moved in and deposed the elected president and replaced him with a Washington-approved politician. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry called it “restoring democracy.”


It is tragically comical that President Trump has named convicted criminal Elliot Abrams as his point person to “restore democracy” in Venezuela. Abrams played a key role in the Iran-Contra affair and went on to be one of the chief architects of the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003. His role in helping promote the horrible violence in Latin America in the 1980s should disqualify him from ever holding public office again.


Instead of this ham-fisted coup d’etat, a better policy for Venezuela these past 20 years would have been engagement and trade. If we truly believe in the superiority of a free market system we must also believe that we can only lead by example, not by forcing our system on others.


Just four months ago President Trump said at the UN: “I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.” Sadly it seems that these were merely empty words. We know from Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. that this will not end well for President Trump. Or for the United States. We must leave Venezuela alone!


If Army Stands with Maduro, What Is Plan B?
by Pat Buchanan


Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, three times a candidate for the Presidency.


“Pay the soldiers. The rest do not matter.”


This was the deathbed counsel given to his sons by Roman Emperor Septimius Severus in A.D. 211.


Nicolas Maduro must today appreciate the emperor’s insight.


For the political survival of this former bus driver and union boss hangs now upon whether Venezuela’s armed forces choose to stand by him or to desert him and support National Assembly leader Juan Guaido.


Wednesday, Guaido declared Maduro’s election last May to a second six-year term to be a sham, and had himself inaugurated as acting president.


Thursday, the defense minister and army chief General Vladimir Padrino Lopez, with his top brass, dismissed the 35-year-old Guaido as a U.S. puppet, and pledged allegiance to Maduro.


Friday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the U.N. Security Council: “Now it is time for every other nation to pick a side. … Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem.”


By Friday, however, the world had already taken sides.


Russia and China stood by Maduro, as did NATO ally Turkey, with President Erdogan phoning his support. Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia were also with Maduro.


Backing Guaido are Venezuela’s neighbors Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, Costa Rica, Colombia, the U.S. and Canada, and the Organization of American States.


Britain, France, Germany and Spain have sent Maduro a diplomatic ultimatum: Agree in eight days to new elections or we back the 35-year-old Guaido, who, until this year, was an unknown.


All options are on the table, says President Donald Trump. But Russia called Guaido’s action a “quasi-coup” and warned that intervention could result in “catastrophic consequences.” Vladimir Putin also phoned Maduro with his support.


The stakes for all sides here are huge. Russia has contractors in Venezuela and has lent the regime billions. In a show of solidarity, Putin recently flew two strategic bombers to Venezuela.


China has loaned Venezuela tens of billions, with Caracas paying Beijing back in oil.


Cuba has sent military and intelligence officers to maintain internal security. Hugo Chavez had seen in Fidel Castro a father figure and modeled his new Venezuela on Castro’s Cuba-with similar results.


Where hundreds of thousands fled Castro’s revolution in the 1960s, three million Venezuelans have fled to Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia and other South American countries and the USA.


The economy is in a shambles. Though Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on earth, production is a fraction of what it once was. Cronyism and corruption are endemic. Inflation has destroyed the currency. There is poverty, malnutrition and shortages of every necessity of modern life.


Yet, still, the crucial question: What will the soldiers do? And if the military stands with Maduro, and Maduro refuses to go, what do the Americans do to force him out?


Invade? That would invite disaster. Venezuela is not Panama, Haiti or Grenada. Larger than Texas, its population is more than 30 million. And U.S. forces are already committed around the world.


A blockade and sanctions would magnify and deepen the suffering of the people of Venezuela long before they would bring down the regime. Would our allies support a blockade? And if years of suffering by the Venezuelan people have not shaken Maduro’s hold on power, what makes us believe more of the same would persuade him?


Maduro and his army are being offered amnesty if they peacefully depart. But what would Maduro’s fate be if he flees?


If he gives up power under U.S. threat, he is finished and disgraced as a coward. Would he not prefer to go down fighting?


And if the leadership of the army should abandon Maduro, there are younger ambitious officers who would surely see a rewarding future in fighting to save the regime.


Are we inviting a civil war in Venezuela? Should the shooting start in Caracas, what do we do then?


Did anyone think this through?


Maduro is an incompetent brutal dictator whose ideology has helped to destroy a nation. But if he can change the narrative from a confrontation between a tyrant and his persecuted people to that of an embattled defender of Venezuela being attacked by Yankee imperialists and their domestic lackeys, that could resonate among the masses in Latin America.


And from all indications, Maduro intends to defy the U.S. and rally the radicals and anti-Americans in the hemisphere and the Third World.


Guiado’s constitutional claim to the presidency of Venezuela was a scheme cooked up in collusion with Washington, made in the USA, with Secretary of State Pompeo, John Bolton and Sen. Marco Rubio signing on, and President Trump signing off. This was Plan A.


But if Plan A does not succeed, and Maduro, with America’s prestige on the line, defies our demand that he yield, what do we do then? What is Plan B?


“Assad must go!” said Barack Obama. Well, Assad is still there – and Obama is gone.


Will the same be said of Maduro?


Damn straight MAGA’s the new Battle Flag!
by Dissident Mama


Rebecca is recovering feminist-socialist-atheist and retired mainstream journalist turned domesticated belle and rabble-rousing rhetorician. A truth warrior, Jesus follower, wife, and boymom; she defends the Southern tradition, homeschooling, and liberty.


“It is un-Christian to wear a MAGA to the March For Life.” That was the social-media pronouncement from a really nice guy I know. What would make a usually mild-mannered Christian post such hostility?


Moreover, this statement came a whole week after the brouhaha surrounding the male students from Covington Catholic High School. A whole week after them being smeared as “racists” by the mainstream media and its dutiful enablers.
A whole week after being berated as “bigots” who were “intentionally smirking” and in need of a good punch. These kids are obviously “would-be school shooters,” which was shown by their either engaging too much or too little. They’re clapping and doing “tomahawk chops!”


No, no, I mean, “Just standing there is harassment!” Ah, screw it. Let’s just stick with “Toxic males parading their loathsome white skin in front of an ‘indigenous’ man is outrageous!” I mean, who could argue with that?


My friend’s post came a whole week after the Covington teens received death threats for “disrespecting a ‘Native American and Vietnam veteran,'” and in front of the Lincoln Memorial no less. So “painful.” The blue-check marks on Twitter assured us that these “privileged” hooligans were chanting “Build the wall,” which all forward-thinking people know would be a “monument for white supremacy.” The horror!


A whole week after their fellow Christians, their principal, their hometown mayor, and even a few Catholic bishops pegged the teens as “shameful,” urging them to seek forgiveness for their dastardly transgressions. “Repent for existing, white boys,” says the Bible, Book of Racial Reconciliation, Chapter 6, Verse 66.


And did I mention they were from Kentucky?! Ack, that’s in the South, right? Pffft, figures. That’s where all the Klan dwells in trailer parks, plotting against our otherwise tolerant and unified rainbow-nation. “Diversity is our strength … minus crackers! Love trumps hate … except when it comes to godly young men!” Who needs enemies when the archbishop in your own Catholic diocese throws you under the bus – then deletes his soon-to-be-proven mistakes but with no apology? Such justice. My friend’s virtue-signal came a whole week after the young pro-life attendees were compared to segregationists of the Civil Rights era. “Bunch of modern George Wallaces and Bull Connors!” A whole week after media thugs dug into Convington school history, unearthing such alleged gotchya gems as “Covington kids wore blackface!” and “Covington censored a gay valedictorian!”


A whole week after the globalist goons in the media supposedly scavenged every piece of video footage, only to find a single snippet of one kid making an off-color comment to a budding feminist. They’re all “little Bret Kavanaughs” and “potential rapists,” the corporate press declared. Traditional Christian “misogynists” who are anti-abortion only because they seek to oppress women.


A whole week after “professional” media hounds were somehow unable to unearth the truth: that all these dangerous claims were patently false. Instead, news outlets spent a whole week treating with kid gloves confirmed-liar and non-vet Nathan Phillips, who then gave cover to the real instigators and only legitimate racists, the Black Hebrew Israelites.


I don’t use the word “racist” lightly, but if it still has any meaning at all, the pure venom of these Black Hebrew haters fits the authentic definition.


So, not only did these young students do nothing wrong, but they handled themselves with aplomb and deserve a freakin’ medal for exhibiting such restraint during this unimaginably ugly situation. If I was Nicholas Sandmann’s mom, I’d be busting with pride.


And thank God for the tireless reporting of alternative media; honest citizens spreading revealing videos and reliable articles; savvy media consumers who screenshot and share; and internet archivers. Without them, we’d never know the truth, nor would we have had our spotlights as laser-focused on the shills and shysters.


Some “conservatives,” like Scott Adams, rushed to judgment but actually apologized and seemed genuinely remorseful. But others, like Bill Kristol, deleted his posts bashing children and then conveniently stopped having an opinion. And some, like Ben Shapiro, deleted negative tweets, offered no apology, but then began defending the boys only when it seemed politically palatable. Such solidarity. Calling for violence against children – truly unconscionable. This creep Aslan is actually touted as some kind of “religion expert” and is one of the media’s go-to “faith” guys. No one should be listening to this monster. When “conservative” publications like National Review run an article on its religion page entitled, “Covington students might as well have spit on the cross,” you know that being a young white boy is indeed NOT the privileged position in our society, and there sure as hell ain’t no “supremacy” going on. Few too are the allies of bold Christians, especially ones who stand their ground against “people of color.”


Despite the facts, though, not everyone threw their support behind the obvious victims. The New York Times described the Covington parents as “swiftly circling” in defending their sons against media lies and others described them as “lawyering up.” In using loaded language, the apparatchiks attempted to turn sympathetic readers against the teens and their understandably protective parents.


Despite the mounting evidence, the loony leftists opted to cling to their MAGA hats as undeniable proof of racism. They demanded that the hat is akin to cross-burning, even though it was the Convington kids who were virtually lynched in our 4G civil war. The MAGA hat was equated as the “new Battle Flag.” Gasp! You can always count on moral preening from struggling actresses. I doubt even casting-couch sex will get you as many job offers as will bashing your own race. No Hollywood empathy to be had for white Christian boys. “The MAGA hat speaks to America’s greatness with lies of omission and contortion,” the Washington Post reported with customary hysteria. “To wear a MAGA hat is to wrap oneself in a Confederate flag. The look may be more modern and the fit more precise, but it’s just as woeful and ugly.”


If you think baseball hats are overrated and flags are just sky cloth, you’re missing the point. To lefties and their duped allies, there is nothing as evil and sinister and deadly as alleged “racism.” It even beats actual murder. So maligning symbols and recklessly linking them with bigotry serves a unified end purpose: propagating cultural Marxism.


If you dare to possess such a “banned” item, well, don’t throw yourself on the mercy of the commie kangaroo court. Don’t accept your guilt and plead for racial-sensitivity training, so maybe they’ll give you your life back, shattered as it may be. Instead, say “Damn straight MAGA’s the new Battle Flag, and we ain’t running away from it. Those are my brothers in arms!” Don’t let ignorant fools dictate what is reality or tell us what we can wear, fly, say, do or not do.


It’s time we all grow a pair, stop wasting our precious time and minimal political capital castigating others we see as more “deplorable,” and unify. As the progressives like to say, “Solidarity breaks chains.” Let’s be free, y’all.


Visit: http://www.dissidentmama.net




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


I have watched each and every one of the last 37 State of the Union addresses. Of all of them, the one that President Trump gave Tuesday night may have been the best yet. Well, there was that moment when Ronald Reagan dramatically dropped about 10 reams of paper on the podium and told the Congress that it was the “balanced budget” they were refusing to pass. But that event, as dramatic and well executed as it was, did not draw the responses from the Democrats of the day (Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neil, etc.) that we saw Tuesday night from Pelosi/Schumer and their Democrat cronies.


Chuckie (Schumer), whenever he was shown, always had a snake-like half grin on his face that is undoubtedly going to be the inspiration of hundreds of anti-Semitic memes. Pelosi sat lemon-faced during most of it even though there were times when she had to applaud and stand up or face criticism. Obviously, the Democrats came intending to sit out every standing ovation. But several of the President’s points were so solid so Pelosi had to applaud, even if just for show. Seeing Pelosi applaud, other Democrats, confused, did likewise.


As a newspaperman who has been writing for the last 20 years or so it never ceases to amaze me how multiple writers and publications come up with the same headline at the same time when covering a story. In the case of this year’s State of the Union, that headline is “AMERICA IS NOT A SOCIALIST NATION.”


Have we moved so far from our foundation that it has become necessary for the President of these United States to stand before a joint session of Congress to declare to the nation:


“Here in the United States, we are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free and we will stay free.”


“Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”


The roar of approval could be heard by many in the Chamber. But others, were not clapping!


The camera settled on Bernie Sanders whose face was so sour he must have been sucking on a lemon. And Elizabeth (I’m an Indian no wait, I’m sorry for calling myself a “Native American”) Warren had an even more sour look on her face. Maybe she was sucking on Bernie’s lemon too? Both, as we know are self-avowed “Democrat Socialist” and I predict both will announce their presidential bids very soon. Bernie and Lizzy will be tossing their hats into the already full ring with Senators Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker, as well as Representative Tulsi Gabbard, and former Obama HUD Secretary Joaquin Castro – all are also self-avowed “Democrat Socialist.”


As inspiring as it was to watch as the President of the United States looked directly into the eyes of the Marxist monster and told it NO. The monster, so ably rebuked, has responded by literally spitting in President Trumps face – and in doing so, the face of all who love freedom. I’m not for sure who picked the fight this week. But I damn well know which side I’m fighting on!


Until Next Week
Deo Vindice
Chaplain Ed


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