So far, Georgia’s heritage protection laws have prevented the removal of monuments in Atlanta. So the Marxists have taken a different approach.
As Rosalind Bentley reports for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta is installing markers next to four of the city’s most prominent Confederate monuments. The markers will discuss slavery, racial persecution in the aftermath of the “Civil War,” segregation and disenfranchisement.
The markers will be erected next to the “Lion of the Confederacy” in Oakland Cemetery, which is surrounded by the graves of 3,000 unknown Confederate soldiers; the “Confederate Obelisk,” also in Oakland Cemetery, which towers over the graveyard’s Confederate section; a monument commemorating the Battle of Peachtree Creek; and the “Peace Monument” in Piedmont Park, which honors efforts by Atlanta’s Gate City Guard to reconcile the North and South in the years after the war.
The Peace Monument marker will recognize that 200,000 black soldiers fought in the “Civil War,” but will not properly acknowledge black Confederates.
OLD DOMINION TO REMOVE ANOTHER MEMORIAL
Virginia’s Department of Historic Resources is backing an alternative to Gov. Ralph Northam’s call to take down a 1950s-era archway honoring the president of the Confederacy.
The preservation officer at Fort Monroe says that instead, just the letters reading “Jefferson Davis Memorial Park” should be removed from the arch at the historic U.S. Army site.
The Virginian-Pilot reports David Stroud would move the letters into the fort’s Casemate Museum, and contextual signage can explain their history. The arch was installed in 1956 at the request of the Daughters of the Confederacy. Davis was briefly imprisoned at the fort after surrendering during the Civil War. The site also marks where John Smith landed on the James River in 1607 and where the first enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619.
UPDATE FROM THE PEOPLES REPUBLIK OF TEXAS
Months after the Children of the Confederacy plaque was removed from the Texas Capitol, the state’s top leaders have yet to decide what to do with it.
Gov. Greg Abbott led the state’s historical preservative board in January to take down the Children of the Confederacy plaque, which hung for nearly 60 years. They then gave everyday Texans a few months to weigh in on its future.
More than 300 comments were submitted, including dozens from the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the group that erected the plaque. They and an overwhelming number of responders want it put back, or placed in another prominent location in the Capitol.
But it has been two months since the public comment period ended, and the governor has yet to call a meeting of the board to make a final decision. His office did not return multiple requests for comment on the issue.
Until the board makes a decision, the plaque will remain in storage at the preservation board’s offices in Austin.
HOPEFULLY GENERAL HAS A NEW HOME
After hearing two hours of objections from out of town protestors the Lake County Commission voted 3-2 on Tuesday to support relocating the bronze statue of Confederate Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith from National Statuary Hall in Washington, D.C., to the Lake County Historical Society and Museum, a county facility in Tavares.
As we reported recently, Governor DeSantis recently ordered the keeper of the statues in the nation’s Capitol by way of a letter to remove Florida’s statue of Smith from the statuary.
MICHIGAN CAR DRAWS CRITICISM
A car draped in a Confederate flag Sunday at the Monroe County Fair parade drew criticism.
“Who said I’m supporting the Confederate flag? I just put my company name on the Confederate car. It doesn’t mean I support it,” he said.
Wampler said he wanted to sponsor a car, which will be going to a demolition derby, and “if it upset people, then they’re holding on to something.”
The Monroe County NAACP president said he doesn’t understand how the parade committee approved the car.
FROM THE NEBRASKA CORNFIELD
On July 27, Omaha natives driving near the Millard West High School caught sight of a peculiar banner flying from a cell tower looming above the campus: a makeshift half-American, half-Confederate flag.
According to reports from local station KMTV, an alleged Iconic Communications employee, who chose to keep his identity a secret, admitted that he often hangs up the flag on whatever cell tower he’s working on.
“Yeah, normally it gets everybody’s attention and everything,” the anonymous employee told the news outlet.
Since the flag was hanging over the campus of the Millard West High School, many people passing by mistakenly believed the school was behind the flag.
The cell tower worker told KMTV he hung the flag to honor his “heritage.” The unidentified employer said the flag pays homage to his great grandfather, who fought in the WBTS.
After KMTV spoke with workers about the controversial flag, they soon decided to take it down.
MY BAND AIN’T GONNA CHANGE
Despite being dropped from two shows last month due to the band’s logo featuring the Confederate Flag, the country-rock group is standing its ground.
Danny Shirley, lead singer of Confederate Railroad, said, “The name of my band ain’t gonna change,” in a statement issued to USA TODAY Thursday.
“I am who I am. We do what we do. I’ve been performing for more than 43 years and, hell, I’ve never seen anything like this,” Shirley said in his statement. “Through that time me and the boys have been out playing for and connecting with audiences around the world with everyone having a good time. That’s what brings people together.”
“Look, if you don’t want to come see us, that’s your choice,” he continued. “We’re listening to you. You’ll just miss out on a damn good time. To the fans who have stuck with us over the years though, thank you very much! You know who we are. We look forward to seeing you again soon.”
Shirley previously told Fox News he didn’t foresee an issue with the band, which “first rolled onto the national country music scene in the early ’90s” according to its website. “The attitude in the country was totally different then,” he said.
NON-HERITAGE NEWS AFFECTING THE SOUTHLAND:
What separates a well-run city from a poorly run city? It’s complicated establishing exactly what contributes toward the efficient operating of a city but experts have used certain criteria to help them determine which the worst-run cities in America are, as highlighted in a recent survey by WalletHub.
Using these results, Stacker decided to expand upon the concept with its own analysis. By looking at factors such as service delivery, economy, crime, job opportunity, and pollution, the news outlet was able to rank the worst-run cities in America. Here we look at the 10 worst:
10. Cleveland, Ohio. The city has one of the lowest annual household income medians in the U.S. Cleveland scored a 39.14 in terms of overall quality of city services.
9. Memphis, Tennessee. When it comes to violent crime rates, the city has one of the highest in America. Memphis scored a 37.78 in terms of overall quality of city services.
8. Toledo, Ohio. The city scored extremely low in education ranking, putting its overall quality of city services score at a 37.61.
7. Gary, Indiana. Poverty is rife in the city, which had one of the highest percentages of populations in poverty in America. Gary scored a 37.24 in terms of overall quality of city services.
6. Stockton, California. The city received one of the lowest rankings for infrastructure and pollution, putting Stockton as the sixth worst-run cities in America with an overall quality of city services score of 36.51.
5. Flint, Michigan. In addition to a massive water crisis in 2014, Flint also has the highest percent of the population in poverty in America. The city scored a 36.39 in terms of overall quality of city services.
4. Shreveport, Louisiana. Combined low rankings in education, infrastructure and pollution push Shreveport to fourth on the list of worst-run cities in America. The city scored a 34.59 for overall quality of city services.
3. Jackson, Mississippi. Health, economy and education were among the city’s lowest rankings. Jackson scored a 32.20 in terms of overall quality of city services.
2. St. Louis, Missouri. A low safety ranking combined with high crime rate puts St. Louis as the second worst- run city in America. The city scored a 29.81 in terms of overall quality of city services.
1. Detroit, Michigan. Numerous factors contributed towards Detroit’s raking as the worst-run city in America. The city has the highest violent crime rates, unemployment rates and infant mortality rates. Detroit scored a 28.77 in terms of overall quality of city services.
Editor’s note: I was in Gary a little over a week ago and surprised to see it didn’t rank in the top 5.
NO JUSTICE FOR WHITE TRUMP SUPPORTERS
Anyone who is being fair knows that the garbage “mainstream media” was brutal to the teen boys from Covington Catholic High in Kentucky earlier this year when they described an encounter between them and a known Left-wing Native American activist.
That activist – Nathan Phillips – was the one who actually initiated contact with several of the Covington boys, many of whom were wearing iconic red “Make America Great Again” hats as they were waiting for a bus to return them to their hotel in Washington, D.C. after an anti-abortion event.
But one student in particular – Nick Sandmann – became the ‘face’ of the ‘Covington teens’ when he stood, smiling, in front of Phillips after the activist approached the boys.
Video from the incident clearly shows a) Sandmann did not make any contact with Phillips at all; b) Phillips was the one who approached the students; and c) Phillips banged a drum in Sandmann’s face during much of the confrontation.
Also, the Phillips confrontation came after the Catholic students were verbally harassed by a group of black men who even singled out a black student because of his association with white friends.
The garbage media had a field day with the incident, and in an expected way: The students, who were mostly white and, as you might imagine, supporters of President Trump, so of course they were the aggressors. Oh, and bigots. And racists. And…well, you get the picture.
The first outlet, The Washington Post, was sued by Sandmann’s parents for $250 million after the paper’s coverage led to death threats and other potential acts of violence for falsely claiming the teen was racist and responsible for the confrontation. In particular, the suit said that the paper “wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C.”
Last week Friday, a federal judge – 83-year-old Jimmy Carter appointee William Bertelsman – threw out the suit claiming that established law and the Constitution hold that publications cannot be held liable for reporting “opinions.”
THREE CRAZY STORIES FROM AMERICAN FREE PRESS
The New England Journal of Medicine published a bizarre story earlier in July about a biological woman, who claimed to be a “transgender man” and had entered University of Michigan Ann Arbor complaining of severe abdominal pains. Because the biological woman was iden- tified as a man, though, the doctors did not, of course, think to see if she was pregnant and treat her for labor and delivery. As a result, the baby died. But rather than emphasizing the dangers of putting so-called radical left-wing gender identity claims over biological sex, the mainstream media made the absurd claim that the hospital should not have ruled out pregnancy even though the woman told doctors she was a man.
A Vietnamese woman living in Canada was forced to close her business this month after a biological man who claims to be a woman filed a “human rights” claim against her because she re- fused to wax the hair on the man’s genitals. Jonathan Yaniv, who calls himself “Jessica,” filed charges against 16 other women, claiming they discriminated against him because all of them had refused to perform the hair removal treat- ment on him. Yaniv dresses in women’s clothing, wears makeup, and calls himself a lesbian de- spite being born a male and having all of the normal male physical parts.
Liberal entertainment and commentary website “Buzzfeed” reported earlier this month that Leana Wen, the former head of abortion provider Planned Parenthood, was removed from her job because she was not “trans-inclusive” enough. Translation: She had refused to say that men can get pregnant and have abortions, too. As far as we know, the only species that could possibly do that is the seahorse.
ALSO FROM AFP
Kathy Zhu, an Asian-American Trump supporter who was awarded the Miss Michigan beauty title earlier this year, found out that she doesn’t actually have free speech in the United States. In July, Miss World America rescinded Ms. Zhu’s title and banned her from further participation because someone complained that Miss Zhu’s opinions on the Internet are “offensive, insensitive, and inappropriate.” What did Miss Zhu actually say? She said she would never wear an Islamic head scarf and she stated that black Americans kill more black Americans than do the police.
EMPORER’S THUMB IS BACK DOWN
Attorney General William Bar has announced that the Federal Government will begin executions for the violation of Federal crimes.
6 LIES ABOUT ABE LINCOLN, SLAVES & WAR
by Chris Leithner
Chris Leithner grew up in Canada. He is director of Leithner & Co. Pty. Ltd., a private investment company based in Brisbane, Australia.
The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know. Almost everything that Americans in general and Republicans in particular think they know about Lincoln is a toxic mixture of myths, distortions and wicked lies.
Founded in 1854, the Republican Party rose to prominence and power when its nominee, Abraham Lincoln, won the presidential election of 1860. To this day, many people regard it as the “Party of Lincoln” and historians and the general public have long considered Lincoln, next only to Washington, as America’s greatest president (see also “Rating the Presidents” by Pat Buchanan and “Down With the Presidency” by Lew Rockwell).
The first big lie, which is universally believed, is that Lincoln, dubbed the “Great Emancipator” by his cult of worshippers, went to war in order to free slaves. The abhorrence of racial injustice and the desire to abolish slavery played no role in the Union’s determination to strangle the Confederacy in its cradle. What did? One factor was Lincoln’s determination to preserve the Union at any cost – including the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. In 1862, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley (the leading Northern newspaperman of the day): “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”
Similarly, in 1861 Congress resolved that the purpose of the war was not “[to interfere] with the rights or established institutions of those states,” but to preserve the Union “with the rights of the several states unimpaired.” On the day that hostilities commenced at Fort Sumter (12 April 1861), only the seven states of the Deep South had seceded, there were more slaves within the Union than outside it and Lincoln hadn’t the slightest intention to free any of them. Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation in Democracy in America (1835-40) remained true: “The prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists.”
Another factor that motivated war was the Republican Party’s lust (which, with few and brief exceptions, it has retained to the present day) to tax and spend. The North waged war against the South in order to regain the federal tax revenue that would be lost if the Southern states seceded peacefully. Republicans were then, and remain today, a Party of Big Government. In Lincoln’s time, Republicans championed a high (i.e., protectionist) tariff. They used the proceeds – which were laundered through roads, canals, railways, etc. – to dispense lavish corporate welfare to their backers. To Republicans, the fact that tariffs, corporate welfare and the like favoured an anointed few (whose residences, factories, etc., were overwhelmingly in the North) and punished a benighted many (Southerners were mostly “outs” rather than “ins”) was inconsequential. What was essential, however, was that consumers, Southern as well as Northern, subsidise Republicans’ wealthy backers. Southerners’ unwillingness to subjugate themselves to Republicans ultimately drove them to secede.
In Lincoln’s view, only by keeping the Union intact – by force of arms if necessary – could Republicans’ lust to tax, dispense largesse and build an empire be sated. In his First Inaugural Address (4 March 1861), Lincoln threatened to invade any state that failed to collect federal “duties and imposts.” On 19 April, he rationalised his order to blockade Southern ports on the grounds that “the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed” in the states that had seceded.
A second wicked lie is that Lincoln championed natural rights and racial equality. Both his words and his deeds utterly repudiated any belief in or respect for these admirable principles. “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races,” he announced in the first (21 August 1858) of his celebrated debates with Stephen Douglas. Like many and perhaps most other men of his time and place, Lincoln was an unapologetic and irredeemable racist: “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favour of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” He added “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals.”
No reasonable person can possibly deny Lincoln’s staunch and vociferous advocacy of apartheid and white supremacy. On 17 July 1858, he said: “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” And in the fourth of his debates with Douglas (on 18 September), he vowed: “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.” Lincoln enthusiastically supported the Illinois Constitution, which at that time prohibited the emigration of black people into the state; he also backed the infamous Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks residing within the state any semblance of citizenship; and he applauded the Fugitive Slave Act (1850), which compelled Northerners to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners.
Lincoln brought these shamelessly racist attitudes and pro-slavery policy preferences to the White House. In his First Inaugural Address, he promised to support a proposed constitutional amendment (that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever assuming the power “to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labour or service by the laws of said State.” Also in his First Inaugural, Lincoln proposed to make this constitutional amendment “express and irrevocable.” Finally, Lincoln was a lifelong advocate of “colonisation,” that is, of shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti – anywhere other than the U.S. “I cannot make it better known than it already is,” he stated in a Message to Congress (1 December 1862), “that I strongly favour colonisation.” Indeed, he favoured it so strongly that he was the president of the Illinois Colonization Society. To Dishonest Abe, African-Americans could only be “equal” once they had been expelled from the United States.
A third myth is that Lincoln’s war saved the Union. Clearly, it did so geographically; just as clearly, however, by destroying its voluntary nature – which the Founders had emphasised and which had been taken for granted thereafter – the war ruined the Union philosophically. In the Declaration of Independence (1776), Articles of Confederation (1777-1781) and Constitution (1788), the states described themselves as “free and independent.” These documents could not be clearer: states delegated specified powers to the federal government which they had created as their agent, and they retained ultimate sovereignty for themselves. When they put their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, America’s Founders announced the secession from the British Empire of the states which they represented; and when George III signed the peace treaty ending the war, he named all of the states individually. He waged war against thirteen states, not a single entity called “the United States Government.”
Given those precedents, what sane person could possibly deny the same right of secession to Americans who withdrew consent from the federal government? Early in the 19th century, Northern rather than Southern states threatened to secede. Vermont considered secession in order to register its extreme disgust at the Louisiana Purchase – whose champion, Thomas Jefferson, knew was unconstitutional and who throughout his life affirmed the right of any state to dissolve the bonds of Union. Further, Massachusetts threatened to secede as a protest against the Embargo Act of 1807, the War of 1812 and the annexation of Texas in 1845. On none of these occasions did any Southerner (or any American of any description) threaten Yankees with invasion. When Texans seceded from Mexico, no American doubted their right to do so and to join the Union. Quite the contrary: all insisted that they had such a right, and that no Mexican had any right to stop them. But to Lincoln and his henchmen, freedom of association did not permit freedom of disassociation: hence Southerners (including Texans) could join but couldn’t depart the Union. Like the insect in the Venus Flytrap and the guest at the Hotel California, you’re free to enter but you can never leave.
The truth, however, is that in 1861 the principle of freedom of association and right of secession was as widely understood and affirmed in the North as it was in the South. As The Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialised on 13 November 1860, the Union “depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone.” The New York Journal of Commerce concurred. On 12 January 1861 it warned that a coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from “a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves” (see also John Remington Graham, A Constitutional History of Secession, Pelican, 2002).
A fourth blatant lie , cherished by Republicans, is the assertion that Lincoln was a “Defender of the Constitution.” The polar opposite is true: Lincoln was a tyrant and the despoiler par excellence of the Constitution. Generations of historians have accurately labelled him a “dictator.” “Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North’s successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms,” wrote Clinton Rossiter in Constitutional Dictatorship (first published in 1948). “Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal.”
James G. Randall documented Dishonest Abe’s assault upon law and liberty in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (first published in 1926). Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the military to arrest tens of thousands of political opponents. At his command, but without a shred of legal authority, ca. 300 newspapers were closed and all telegraphic communications censored; elections in the North were rigged; throughout the Union, Democratic voters were intimidated; in New York City, hundreds of protesters against conscription (a form of slavery) were shot; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. For good measure, duly-elected members of the Maryland legislature were gaoled, as was the mayor of Baltimore and a Maryland Congressman. In total disregard of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, inhabitants of Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia) were disarmed, and wherever Lincoln’s evil tentacles could spread, private property was confiscated.
A fifth lie is that Lincoln was a “great humanitarian” who bore “malice towards none.” The truth is that Lincoln planned and managed a total war upon Southern civilians (see in particular Mark Grimsley, The Hard Hand of War, Cambridge University Press, 1997). Like Robert Mugabe today and sordid host of dictators during the 20th century, Lincoln ordered his troops to murder women and children. His war included the destruction of entire towns populated solely by civilians, massive looting, rape and execution without trial (or even charge) of non-combatants. To this day, General William Tecumseh Sherman’s March to the Sea (November-December 1864) remains the worst act of terrorism committed on American soil (see, for example, “Sherman’s March” by Clyde Wilson). Americans would be wise to remove their blinds and recall that this evil act was perpetrated by the agents of the U.S. Government at the vengeful behest of a Republican president. Sherman wrote on 24 December: “We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organised armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect.” Using the rules established by the Allies after the Second World War, Lincoln and the high command of the Union Army unquestionably qualified as war criminals.
A sixth lie, perhaps the most despicable of all, is that the War of Northern Aggression was necessary. Only war, say its mythologisers and apologists, could have ended slavery. The truth, of course, is that it was a war of choice and not of necessity. This war, the deadliest in American history, caused the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number (but possibly as many as 250,000) of civilians. Approximately one in four adult, white male Southerners perished. And it was all for nothing. During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British, Russian and Spanish empires, abolished the indefensible institution of slavery. They did so peacefully and by means of compensated emancipation. Among the countries of the Western Hemisphere that followed this route were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, various French colonies, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Only in the Land of the Free is war and the destruction of property and constitution regarded as a necessary condition of emancipation. Whether in the American South or the Middle East, Republicans, it seems, have to destroy a country in order to deliver it.
Abraham Lincoln, then, was not the Great Emancipator: he was the Great Warmonger and Imperialist, the Great Racist, the Great Taxer-and-Spender, the Great Corruptionist, the Great Incarcerator and the Great Vandal of the Constitution. He was a war criminal and America’s worst-ever president.
LIVE LIKE RUSSIANS
by Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin is the President of the Russian Federation.
What would the Communist News Network (CNN), the Muslim Sharia National Broadcast Company (MSNBC) and the Communist Broadcasting System (CBS) think about this if President Trump had expressed the same sentiment in a speech to a joint session of Congress?
The reality is that the leader of Russia may be the ony “world leader” left on the stage who is still making sense!
This may very well have been Vladimir Putin’s SHORTEST SPEECH he has EVER made. The Russian president was addressing The Duma (the Russian Parliament) and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
In Russia, live like Russians.. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, it should speak Russian, and should respect all Russian laws.. If they prefer Sharia Law, and wish to live the life of Muslims, then we now clearly advise them to go and live in those places where that’s the state law.
Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’!
We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture
We had better learn from the suicides of so-called democracies — America, England, France, Germany, and Holland — if we are to survive as a nation. The Muslims are taking over those countries, BUT they will NOT take over Russia!
Our Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of Sharia Law and Muslims.
When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest FIRST, observing that the Muslim minorities ARE NOT Russian.
The politicians in The Duma gave Putin a five minute standing ovation.
FROM THE EDITOR
Dr. Ed is a pastor, author, public speaker, radio personality, lobbyist, re-enactor, and the Director of Dixie Heritage.
As we’ve been reporting, Rep. Geraldine Thompson, a central Florida Democrat, has renewed calls for the removal of the Confederate War Memorial, which sits on the lawn of the Old Capitol in Tallahassee. It was dedicated in 1882 to the Confederate soldiers of Leon County.
Now Russell Pfost, the great-grandson of a Confederate soldier, Noah Channell, who doesn’t have any direct connection to Florida, has been recruited to assist in the lobby against the memorial.
Pfost’s great-granddad, Noah Channell, served in the 31st Virginia Infantry, Company F.
The crazy thing, Pfost thinks that by lobbying to remove a Confederate monument he is “honoring” his ancestor who Pfost described as a farmer “who didn’t make a lot but fought with a conviction for his southern state.”
“Very proud of him,” Pfost said. “For a farmer, with very little education, he did quite a bit with his life.”
Of course Pfost was not confronted with any “legal jeopardy” for openly advocating against the Capitol’s Confederate monuments. Myself, as you know, have been summoned to appear in order to face unknown charges as punishment for my attempt to lobby the Governor and other bureaucrats on behalf of the same monuments.
Crazy update, a State official offered to make the whole thing go away in exchange for an opportunity to embarrass the Southern Heritage movement. My guess is that this was the goal of a few bureaucrats all along. I told them no deal.
I solicit your continued prayer in this matter as the court date approaches.
I am also planning another trip to the nation’s capitol in September after the Congress returns from recess. Please consider helping to support the expenses of this trip.
Until Next Week
P.O. Box 618
Lowell, FL 32663