The monument was erected in 2014 by the Durham camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

This is at least the second time the monument has been vandalized. In July 2015 we reported that cemetery workers found “Black Lives Matter” and “Tear It Down,” painted in black on the memorial.

“It is just aggravating,” said William G. O’Quinn, a member of the Durham Camp, “the memorial was put up to honor people that did what they thought what was right,” he said.

O’Quinn said he isn’t hopeful that the people responsible for the recent destruction would be prosecuted if they are caught.


A Republican candidate for Mississippi attorney general is calling for the removal of the Confederate Flag from the state flag, according to the Mississippi Clarion Ledger.

Andy Taggart told the publication “Unlike monuments, unlike street names, unlike building names, our state flag is supposed to be the banner under which all of us march and is a symbol of unity for all of us in the state of Mississippi. And no matter how strongly people feel as though we ought to keep the current state flag, every objective observer would have to agree: Our current state flag is not a banner that unifies Mississippians.”

Rep. Mark Baker (R), one of Taggart’s primary opponents, is the only Republican candidate who has yet to call for changing the state flag, according to the Clarion Ledger, although he did not tell the newspaper his personal feelings on it. Calls to change it are “just for stirring up stuff,” Baker said. “I don’t really understand what the motivation is.”

Jennifer Riley Collins, the only Democrat running for attorney general, also did not call for the flag to be changed. “For me the issue is less about taking the current flag down and denying any part of the state’s history but instead more about lifting a flag that represents the pride all Mississippians have for our state,” she said, according to the Clarion Ledger.


Ocala Mayor Kent Guinn has told the Washington Post that while he is “no Civil War scholar,” that the war “was about more than just slavery.”

He also told the Post that the prospect of memorializing the Confederacy was “a no-win situation.” He said he endorsed the measure after local members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy lobbied for it. If he decided against signing the order, he said, his constituents who cherish their Confederate heritage would have been upset with him, too.

“That’s the problem with our country, we worry about offending people too much,” Guinn said. “I haven’t done anything wrong by doing this proclamation and I stand by it.”

He has signed similar declarations in years past, and, so too, have Commissioners in Marion County, where Ocala is located. The state of Florida also considers Confederate Memorial Day a legal holiday.

The Mayor also told the Post that Ocala residents didn’t have a problem with the memorial declaration. “I probably got 15-to-1 emails from people in support of us doing it,” he said.

I personally spoke to the Mayor on Wednesday and he thanked me for the support shown by our Dixie Heritage readers.


A House committee this morning failed to approve the bill aimed at preventing any government from altering, moving or removing Confederate monuments.

SB 515 by Rep. Mark Johnson (R-Ferndale) pre-empted local control of any historical monument, but it was transparently a response to recent controversy and removal of Confederate memorials in other states. None has been attempted in Arkansas.

Said Johnson, “Our heritage is under attack.” He invoked ISIS and the Taliban. But he also noted removal of Christopher Columbus statues, as well as the Confederate removals.

The cumbersome bill provided an appeal to a state commission. Johnson contended this was a “safety valve” for legitimate requests. Speakers for the bill suggested monuments to veterans of World War II and Vietnam might be removed or their efforts unacknowledged and the monuments needed to be protected. The committee also heard from the Daughters of the War of 1812, which placed a monument to that war on the Capitol grounds early in the 20th century.

Some technical objections were raised to the bill, including by the Arkansas Municipal League, which also noted that criminal law already provides penalties for damage to monuments.

Committee Chair Dwight Tosh ruled the bill had received a do-pass on a voice vote, but it failed on the roll call, with a number of members of the committee not present on a vote that required 11 of the 20 committee members.

An amendment was added to remove a reference to street names. But it retained statues, plaques, school names, flag displays and buildings.


Tensions are boiling over as the State Legislature debates a comprehensive bill that would extend protections for Confederate monuments throughout the state by removing the distinction between Confederate-era statues and other historic markers.

Democratic state Representative Jarvis Johnson knocked Republican supporters of the bill Tuesday, comparing their efforts to erecting a monument to honor lynchings and slavery.


St. Augustine Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline says she supports moving the city’s memorial to Confederate soldiers, a change from her previous stance.

Sikes-Kline hinted at the change during commissioner comments at Monday’s meeting, when she said she’d like to see the Commission talk more about race relations and she brought up the topic of the memorial again.

Sikes-Kline has been attending Grace United Methodist Church, which she said has been revealing and has changed her position on the memorial.

The city is in control of a memorial in the Plaza de la Constitucion that lists local men who served the Confederacy. The University of Florida has a monument to Confederate Gen. William Loring in a public space nearby that also contains his ashes – the monument also bears the image of a Confederate flag.

The latter monument is under control of the University, not the city, and is also a gravesite.

Since the Commission’s decision to keep the monument, two new faces have appeared on the Commission. Mayor Tracy Upchurch replaced Nancy Shaver, who resigned in February after a stroke, and Commissioner John Valdes joined the board in December.

The “Rev.” Ron Rawls, of St. Paul AME Church in St. Augustine has held ongoing protests of the decisions of the City and University to maintain St. Augustine’s historic monuments. Rawls, who was not on the agenda but arranged to speak to the Commission on Monday, said Tuesday that, “Last night was just to check the pulse of the leadership of St. Augustine to see if the hearts are still as hardened to preserving the legacy of their ancestors, or if they’re developing a softer heart to look at the humanity of other citizens.”

Because of the “positive” response from Commissioner Nancy, “Rev.” Rawls has already renewed his harrassment of officials at the University of Florida.


Because of the Confederate-themed artwork in the hotel.

An art print featuring a monument of J.E.B. Stuart in a mini-suite at the Doubletree Hilton near the Chesterfield Town Centre.

Hotel management released the following statement:

“Doubletree by Hilton Hotel in Richmond-Midlothian is very proud to be apart of the Richmond community. Inspired by the cities rich history the hotel features artwork depicting local Richmond scenes and landmarks.”


Tulsi Gabbard says her 2020 presidential campaign has reached the donor threshold to qualify for the Democratic debates that begin in June. The congresswoman from Hawaii said in a video posted Wednesday night on Twitter that her campaign had collected contributions from at least 65,000 donors, ensuring that she can participate in the first two Democratic debates.


California Rep. Eric Swalwell announces his bid for 2020 – the California congressman confirmed that he’s running for President and made his announcement official on the latest episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, which aired on Monday night.

One more reason why I don’t listen to the crap Taylor Swift calls music:

The singer donated $113,000 (US) to the Tennessee Equality Project, an political group involved in fighting a series of bills in the State designed to protect churches and ministers from government persecution for preaching what the Bible says about the sin of sodomy. In the letter that accompanied her donation Swift expressed her hatred of Christians who hold to biblical convictions.


This is being done to prevent the “ANTHONY WEINERIZATION’ of his last name.

The openly faggot mayor has the first name of PETER (may the jokes begin) and last name BUTTIGIEG (making the jokes even crazier). To make that easier to pronounce we’ll just say BUTTPLUG.

We will call him MAYOR PETER BUTTPLUG and encourage all right of center pundits and commentators to do the same.

Crazily, Mayor Peter Buttplug is unfazed by the irony as he launches a sanctimonious moral judgment on national media attacking the President’s “Christianity” and declaring himself to be a better “Christian” than the President. He has also apologized for having declared in 2015 that “all lives matter.”


The House has passed a bill barring the Internal Revenue Service from providing its own online tax software forcing everyone to pay services like TurboTax and H&R Block’s to e-file returns.


President Trump’s son Eric and daughter-in-law Lara announced that they are expecting a baby in August.

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.

Once I had someone ask me if Jesus had ever “officially” abandoned Israel. This was someone who sincerely believed in the Dispensationalist viewpoint regarding that country and he honestly believed that no Christian should ever speak a word against national Israel, no matter what. I don’t note this to impugn that person, but merely to point out that this is the view of many sincere Christians. Without realizing it, what they are doing is subtly substituting national Israel for Jesus Christ.

To answser him I noted Matthew 23:37-38 which says: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house if left unto you desolate.” To me that sounded pretty final. And it was their choice. What Jesus offered they were not interested in, at least at the spiritual leadership levels of the country. Jesus’ words to them were true-and ye would not! Their rejection of Him was their choice, not His.

And even with Israel’s adamant refusal, God was merciful and gave them one more generation to repent. However, they were not about to take advantage of that and so in 70 AD He visited judgment on Jerusalem and the end of their spiritual world came.

In Matthew chapter 27, after Pilate had sought to release Jesus to the crowd, he washed his hands symbolically in front of them and said “I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.” To which the Jews answered “His blood be on us and our children.” They did not realize what they were asking for, but they got it, and national Israel has been complaining about it for almost 2,000 years now! Just goes to show you that you need to be careful about what you pray for because you might just get it!

The theological leadership in Israel in Jesus’ day were not nice people anymore than most politicians in any given age are. There is always a small handful that want to do the right thing and a majority that will do whatever it takes to make sure they retain their power and prestige, even to the killing off of their opposition.

Welcome to the real world. Israel was no better than the Gentile nations around them. They had had more spiritual light but had refused to use it properly, had turned in on themselves and looked down their noses at everyone else.

When Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom He was letting everyone know that His salvation was open to all people, not just Jews, and the Jewish religious leadership really hated that because if people listened to Jesus and followed Him, their positions of influence and leadership would be gone and they were not about to let that happen. The solution-kill off the opposition! And so they set about to do just that. The Gospels are clear on this.

Mark 10:33 notes Jesus’ own words: “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles.” They had to do that because, under Roman law, they could not take His life. Had they been able to they would have. Mark 11:18 notes: “And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him:…” Mark 12:12 shows the same thing-“And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew he has spoken the parable against them:…” If you want to know what parable read Mark 12:1-11. I have long thought that the key verse here was verse 7, where the husbandmen seek to kill the son so they can keep the vinyard for themselves. It is the perfect encapsulation of the Pharisees’ plan for Israel-keep it for themselves and to blazes with everyone else!

Then, Jesus made a statement that should make all Dispensationalists really stop and think. He says, in Mark 13:30 that “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” So many think that so much of what Jesus said is supposed to happen in our day-at least that’s what Hal Lindsey and others that make big bucks selling “end times” books have told them. Sorry, but I can’t buy it, and not just because I can’t afford to buy the books. I think the books are a waste of your money. Although many will disagree with me. Jesus was telling the people of His day that all the future things regarding Him, except His Second Coming at the end of history, were going to happen in the lifetimes of His Apostles.

So many Christians spend so much time anticipating “the rapture” that they feel must surely occur any day now, that they have lost the ability to deal with the world they live, move, and have their being in. All they want to do is get out so they won’t have to deal with this mess. I don’t think the Lord is going to let them off the hook that easily. I think He wants us to deal with the world and its problems as Christians rather than to be consumed by a retreatist, escapist mentality.

If Christians cannot learn to deal with some of the world’s problems in a constructive way, then you can bet no one else can either. So think about it.

Southern Poverty Law Center’s Troubles Demand Federal Investigation
by Jim Tharpe

Jim Tharpe is a retired journalist living in Atlanta. He is a former editor of the Montgomery Advertiser. This article appeared in The Washington Post on April 8th.

There’s something strange afoot at the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the nation’s richest civil and human rights charities. In March, the center abruptly fired legendary co-founder Morris Dees. Dees’ biography was quickly scrubbed from the center’s website, and the SPLC announced this week that Karen Baynes-Dunning would serve as interim president and CEO, giving the civil rights organization its first black female leader.

In confirming Dees’ departure, then-President Richard Cohen emphasized the center’s values of “truth, justice, equity, and inclusion,” and he said vaguely, “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.” Subsequent news reports pointed to allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment inside an organization that had raised hundreds of millions of dollars from donors to fight just that type of injustice.

Dees has said little about why he was shown the door after 48 years at the organization he had come to define. But to those of us familiar with the SPLC and its inner workings, the allegations swirling around the latest drama were familiar. The question isn’t what went wrong at the SPLC; it is why it took so long for the rest of the country to learn what local reporters already knew. It will probably take a federal investigation to fully unravel this Deep South mystery and provide a credible, long-term fix.

More than two decades ago, I was managing editor of the Montgomery Advertiser, which was located one block from the SPLC in downtown Montgomery, Alabama. I proposed an investigation into the organization after ongoing complaints from former SPLC staffers, who came and went with regularity but always seemed to tell the same story. Only the names and faces changed. The SPLC, they said, was not what it appeared to be.Many urged the newspaper to take a look.

We were, at the time, anything but adversaries with the center. Like other media outlets, we generally parroted SPLC news releases. We also became friends with SPLC staffers, occasionally attending the center’s parties. Some of my reporters dated staffers at the center.

That relationship, however, suddenly soured when reporters Dan Morse and Greg Jaffe (both of whom now work for The Washington Post) began making serious inquiries about the SPLC’s finances and the treatment of black employees.
SPLC leaders threatened legal action on several occasions and at one point openly attacked the newspaper’s investigation in a mass mailing to Montgomery lawyers and judges. Then they slammed the door.

“Accommodating your charade of objectivity simply takes too much of our time,” center co-founder Joseph Levin wrote the Advertiser in 1993. “Our patience in this matter is exhausted, and we will not respond to further inquiries of any sort.”

In February 1994, after three years of research, the Advertiser published an eight-part series titled “Rising Fortunes: Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center” that found a litany of problems and questionable practices at the SPLC, including a deeply troubled history with its relatively few black employees, some of whom reported hearing the use of racial slurs by the organization’s staff and others who “likened the center to a plantation”; misleading donors with aggressive direct-mail tactics; exaggerating its accomplishments; spending most of its money not on programs but on raising more money; and paying its top staffers (including Dees and Cohen) lavish salaries.

Dees and Cohen vigorously denied its findings. And the SPLC mounted an aggressive campaign against the series when it was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize – it was a 1995 finalistfor the Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism.

And yet, based on the details of Dees’ ouster, the problems we identified 25 years ago do not appear to have been resolved.And yet, a few days after Dees was canned, a friend sent me a recent mail solicitation from the SPLC touting Dees’ accomplishments and asking donors to “let Morris and his colleagues know you care” not only by donating but by using the donor’s own “first-class stamp so more of your contribution goes to the SPLC.”

Cohen, before he announced his own departure, said the center would bring in well-regarded lawyer Tina Tchen to conduct an investigation. It’s too late for that. The IRS, which grants the SPLC tax-exempt status, and the civil rights division of the Justice Department would be the best bets to really figure out what’s up at the organization.

Any investigation should take a close look at the SPLC’s finances. It should look at what the center has told donors in its mail solicitations over the years. And it should take a close look at how that donor money has been spent. Investigators should also look at how SPLC staffers have been treated over the years. Where was the center’s board when this mistreatment was going on? And why did no one step up sooner?

The feds owe that to the young progressives who work at the SPLC. And they certainly owe that to the donors who have put their own first-class stamps on the checks they mailed to Montgomery.

by Dan Murray

Dan Murray is a co-founder of Putting Canada First (PCF), a non-profit political organisation incorporated in March, 2014 that challenges “Canadian multiculturalism and large-scale immigration.”

According to an Angus Reid poll released in December of 2018, most Canadians do not favour a clear division between church and state.


Instead, they believe that Judeo-Christianity is exceptional for having made a central contribution to the nation and that therefore those wearing the symbols of this religion should be given special dispensation to display them in government settings.

The admittedly-nuanced poll measured public opinion both within and outside of Quebec in reaction to Premier Legault’s plan to ban the wearing of visible religious symbols by government employees in authority. The Angus Reid report summarized the poll’s findings in a nutshell:

“(When) shown images of nine different symbols and asked whether they should be allowed in the workplace for public employees, Canadians are most amenable to the Judeo-Christian items on the list: Crucifixes, Nun’s habits, Stars of David and Kippas. Each of these three items enjoy more than two-thirds support.”

Given that the flame of nationalism and national self-awareness burns more brightly in Quebec than what was once called “English” Canada—murdered by two decades of mass immigration— it should not be surprising that as the report noted, “Quebec residents differ significantly from the rest of Canada in their assessments of this question.” Nevertheless, poll respondents in Anglophone provinces exhibited a solid preference for Christian and Jewish symbols, though in slightly less numbers.

I deem these results significant for what they say about Canadians’ view of the country and its history. They say something about where we came from and the direction that most Canadians want the country to go. They validate a conception of Canada that Ottawa politicians regard as erroneous, illegitimate and disrespectful of “minorities”. Even “hateful”. This conception runs like this:

Canada was not founded as a ‘propositional’ state like the United States. Its identity did not revolve around a set of “values’ which people of all colours and creeds would share, or so it was assumed. Instead, Canada was created by two founding nations, two founding peoples, Anglo-Celtic and French. Two peoples of European ancestry steeped in Christianity and guided by Christian ethics, reflected in their code of conduct and embedded in Criminal law. Even in non-religious households like the one I was raised in, parents imparted Christian ethics to their children. And most of the five million Canadians who presently identify as atheists, agnostics or humanists can be fairly described as “cultural” Christians. Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter traditions continue to be honoured by committed, nominal and cultural Christians alike.

Christianity shaped our country. And the symbols of Christianity are felt to be a needed reminder of that fact. Just as our British and French heritage should not be dismissed as mere fragments of a “mosaic” of Johnny-come-lately cultures all of equal stature, Christian religious symbols are not to be to cast out from the public sector and dumped in a trash bin labelled “religion”.

Judeo-Christian symbols have a place in government offices. Non Judeo-Christian symbols do not. They are not in the same category, any more than chalk and cheese. That is what these poll results tell me. They stand as a repudiation of the multicultural portrait of Canada that is cultivated by the political class, and set in stone by the government of Pierre Trudeau and his successors. Thanks to their efforts, the gospel of diversity is entrenched in every institution, and multicultural cant is the catechism of school teachers, politicians and corporate hacks as well. The propagation of the secular religion of Multiculturalism is even woven into the mandate of the taxpayer-funded CBC. Their message is simple. According to this message, the Canada you knew 50 years ago when nine in ten Canadians identified as Christian is dead and gone, and nostalgia won’t bring it back. Also according to this message, here is the last of their message : “Get over it. Ours is now a post-Christian secular state dedicated to fostering ethnic and religious pluralism. Either get with the program, or get out.” As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in the House after the shootings in Christchurch, people who don’t support diversity don’t belong in Canada.

The trouble is, as the poll results infer, most Canadians are not buying it. Despite 48 years of relentless propaganda, the majority of Canadians do not accept that all cultures are created equal, or that all cultures should co-exist on a level playing field. They may like diversity—the diversity of music, dancing and cuisines–but this kind of ’boutique’ multiculturalism is not to be equated with the complete fragmentation of the country and the diminution and displacement of the two founding peoples who defined Canada.

If the people of Upper and Lower Canada saw their communities as propositional states united by the values of liberty and freedom and property rights as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, then they would not have resisted union with the United States. They would not have fought the War of 1812 or remained steadfast in their opposition to American ambitions to push the border northward on the Pacific Northwest. The settlers of Upper and Lower Canada saw themselves as a separate PEOPLE under God, not disparate individuals who ascribed to a set of ‘values’, especially secularism. Canada was not founded on civic nationalism, but ethnic nationalism, which is not exclusive of minority rights. Immigrants were to be accorded the rights of other citizens or settlers, but they were none the less Christian of whatever denomination. It was never imagined that newcomers could or should be empowered to challenge the prevailing Christian character of the country.

This belief remains. The poll results are clear. The majority of Canadians have drawn a line in the sand. Their statement reads, “This far diversity, but no further. This is still a Christian country, and as such, Christian symbols should be accorded special status in government venues. Crucifixes are OK. But niqabs, burkas and kirpans definitely not. ”

Now put these poll results alongside the results of the Angus Reid poll on immigration conducted in August of 2018 and you get a more comprehensive picture. Not only do most Canadians want to see Christianity remain in the driver’s seat, but they do not want the bus over-laden with passengers from non-Christian sources.


80% polled did not want to see immigration levels increase from the then 310,000 annual level. And almost half—49%–wanted to see immigration intakes reduced, including four in ten of NDP and Liberal voters! Since the Trudeau government subsequently raised their immigration target to 340,000 per year, it can be assumed that the percentages of anti-mass immigration sentiments recorded in that poll have risen appreciably.

The pity is that the Quebec politicians who seek to soothe public anger against massive unwanted Muslim immigration by proposing a blanket ban on religious symbols in government venues are hacking at the branches of a disaster rather than striking at the root, which is immigration policy. Ultimately, Christian symbols cannot long endure in a land without Christians. Canadian Christians cannot arrest the alarming decline of Christianity in this country while the demographic rug is being pulled out from under them by deliberate bipartisan federal government policy. In 1970, Christians comprised 90% of the population. Now they make up less than 67%. And mass immigration advocates still tell us that the “Great Replacement” theory is a myth!

In the light of these two Angus Reid polls, it seems that what the late Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King said of Canadians’ view of immigration policy 72 years ago is as correct today as it was then. In King’s words,

“The people of Canada do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population.”

The question is, when will politicians listen to their voice? When will their views on immigration and diversity be represented in parliament? When will politicians in all parties have the courage to stand up and give them a voice? When will brave politicians like Maxime Bernier and Australia’s Fraser Anning become the rule rather than the exception in politics? When will Canada become a democracy?


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

This week Wednesday I spoke to Mayor Kent Guinn who told me that the media is NOT reporting the greater portion of what he is telling them because it simply does not fit into their predetermined conclusion.

Some accuse Dixie Heritage of being “non-objective,” etc. Bottom line, a publication called Dixie Heritage is going to have an opinion. or to put it more bluntly, yes, we are pro-Southern and proud of it. Our purpose is not to be objective and in reality our pro-Southern slant is not the least bit of a complication for our anti-Southern critics because there simply is no such thing as an “objective” or neutral media when it comes to anything Confederate or Southern.

As I read through several media outlets each week its painfully obvious that all “objectivity” has been completely tossed out the window when it comes to things Southern. To illustrate this I am pasting a transcript below from a network news report from a source that has attacked our publication for failing to be “objective” and “Neutral,” as they claim to be:

Two activists dedicated to preserving the memories of American traitors have been arrested for a racist crime spree that included replacing an American flag with the “white man’s flag” and defacing a memorial recognizing the contributions of enslaved Africans. And also, peeing.

WTVD reports that the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Police Department arrested Nancy Rushton McCorkle and Ryan Francis Barnett-the Confederate Bonnie and Clyde-in connection with the vandalism of a campus art installation and monument to the slaves who helped build the college campus.

In an email, the university’s interim chancellor, Kevin M. Guskiewicz, said the Unsung Founders Memorial was blemished with “racist and other deplorable language ” around 1:30 a.m. on March 31, according to WRAL. Law enforcement officers also discovered another installation had been vandalized with “hateful language and racial slurs.” The couple reportedly ended their crime spree by flying a Confederate flag in front of the school’s administration building.

Then, like most criminal masterminds, they allegedly stopped to take a quick piss.

The accused vandals are reportedly affiliated with Heirs to the Confederacy, a neo-Confederate group that was adamantly opposed to the college’s removal of “Silent Sam,” the monument to the unpatriotic Southern soldiers who got their asses whipped after they chose slavery over their country. Lance Spivey, the group’s leader confirmed that both McCorkle and Barnett are members of the Heirs to the Confederacy, although he did not comment on the weak bladder aspect of the case.

McCorkle, whose rose-colored neck appears slightly inflamed in her mugshot, has publicly referred to herself as “a strong southern women [sic] who puts family God and country first i [sic] live life to help those in need.” In December, she appears to have hosted a prayer service for the statue (seriously, this is a real thing) and her social media posts are littered with references to the Confederacy.

Sounds like white supremacy to me.

Of course, it is hard to argue against the idiotic logic of those who defaced a monument to slaves who built this country as a way of protesting how people disrespect their ancestors. Now everyone can see that they believe in honoring and preserving history.

I guess they showed us.

In addition to the misdemeanor charges of ethnic intimidation and damage to real property, Barnett also faces a charge of public urination … Like a real southern gentleman.

Now tell me that a single word selection in that diatribe was in any way neutral?

The so-called “objective” media will continue to attack our history and the good names of our ancestors. We will continue to uphold their honor and the truth of their cause!

Until Next Week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed

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