With hurricane Dorian headed straight for them you would think Virginia’s highway department workers would be prepping for the possible impact. Instead they were busy taking down memorial signs to Confederate President Jefferson Davis along US HWY 1.


A Charlottesville judge is denying an equal protection claim from city attorneys over Confederate statues. Judge Richard Moore said Wednesday that the 1904 state statute was amended several times, covers all wars, and that statues don’t have a discriminatory message.


Workers have finished the re-assembly of Tampa’s 106-year-old Confederate monument recently relocated to the obscure Brandon family cemetery in Brandon.


In Pasco County, Randy Maggard is the overwhelming GOP pick in the House 38 primary.

Randy is the candidate who wants to preserve Confederate military memorials.


A Metro Parks Board subcommittee decided on Monday to add signs that give context to the Confederate memorial statue in Centennial Park.

The Public Arts subcommittee moved to forward a recommendation to the full Parks Board that the statue remains, but with a sign that gives historical context.


Tennessee House Speaker Pro Tem Bill Dunn says he’s “floating the idea” of replacing a controversial Capitol Hill bust of Confederate General Nathan Bedford with a bust of former Tennessee U.S. Senator Howard Baker.

If you remember back in June we reported that Governor Bill Lee said there was a need for some kind of discussion about the future of the Forrest bust.

The first stop for any changes would be the Capitol Commission which oversees artifacts on Capitol Hill.

Governor Lee also said earlier this summer that he also wants to repeal a century-old state law honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest’s birthday.


A member of the Mid-Michigan Color Guard was seen flying the Confederate battle flag during the Charlotte Frontier Days parade on Saturday. She was among a sea of horseback riders who carried other historical flags during the procession.

The Charlotte Frontier Days Board of Directors issued a statement Monday afternoon, saying, in part, that, “It was never the intent of the Charlotte Frontier Days Board of Directors or the the Mounted Color Guard to offend anyone’s feelings or points of view. The statement went on to quote from the the mission statement of the Color Guard, which says the group aims “to bring all of these beautiful banners before the public eye to serve as a reminder of all the battles fought and won so that we might enjoy the freedom and liberty that we have today.'”

Charlotte Mayor Tim Lewis said he doesn’t want his city associated with the Confederate battle flag: “We consider the Confederate flag a symbol of racism, regardless of its history. It is associated with hate,” said Lewis. “It’s not a reflection of the people and their beliefs.”

Neither the Parade Board nor the City will comment on whether or not the Flag will be banned or allowed in future parades.


Robert “Doug” Hall Jr. put up the large Battle Flag on his property last year with the help of the pro-Confederate group Alamance County Taking Back Alamance County. Now he is appealing the county’s ruling that his Flag violates a new ordinance that was passed just to target his Flag.

The rule limits flags to 4 by 6 square feet. County commissioners approved it in response to Hall’s Confederate Flag.

Hall filed an appeal with the county Board of Adjustment this week.

“The appeal would be heard in a Board of Adjustment meeting, and then once that decision is made, if the property owner is still unsatisfied, he can appeal to the Superior Court,” said Orange County Community Relations Director Todd McGee.
If both rule against him, he could face fines of up to $500 dollars a day.

The Board of Adjustment could consider the matter later this fall.


Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines confirms it could take up to a year for a judge to make a decision on the city’s Confederate Monument.

We have already reported that the City has ordered the monument removed and the UDC is suing to keep it in place.


In response to the recent media hype over “mass-shootings” the mega-retailer Wal-Mart has announced that it will no longer sell ammunition for handguns or “assault rifles.” I guess that means that the store’s employees will no longer be able to hoard ammunition for themselves? Wal-Mart has also asked that customers stop open carrying their firearms into the store.

Walgreens has followed suit, also issuing a statement that customers will no longer be allowed to carry their lawful firearms in Walgreens stores.

Additionally, add Kroger, Whataburger, Sonic, Panera Bread, Chili’s, Starbucks, Target, Costco, Trader Joes, Chipotle, and HEB to the list of stores that you USED TO shop at or eat at because they all have jumped on the anti-2nd Amendment bandwagon.

Gillette Comes within a Whisker of Disaster

“Your stupid boycotts will never make a dent in a company like P&G,” one liberal scoffed back in January. Turns out, they didn’t just make a dent. After a string of male-bashing, transgender shaving ads, the parent company of Gillette got nicked so badly, market experts wonder if the brand will survive.

Gillette’s CEO insists the radical activism was “worth the price.” Let’s hope so — because so far, that price is a whopping $8 billion dollars.


Vice-President Mike Pence held bilateral meetings at the famous Höfði House in Reykjavík, Iceland last week Wednesday to discuss issues of trade and security with Icelandic leaders. The house, which was the same location used for 1986 US-USSR talks between Reagan and Gorbachev, had a different set of flags outside of it for Pence’s visit. The six flagpoles, which should have displayed the flags of the nations engaged in the talks, were instead flying rainbow flags as a direct assault against the expressed Christian faith of the Vice-President and his wife.


If so, why is the FBI monitoring and investigating groups protesting open borders and mass immigration?


Tuesday morning President Trump fired John R. Bolton, his warmongering third national security adviser, over differing approaches on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan.

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.

Most folks who look at the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia think it was totally carried out by Russians revolting against the cruelty of the Czar. If that is what you believe then you are wrong on both counts. What’s more, you were probably lied to on both counts.

Arthur Thompson, in his informative book In the Shadows of the Deep State has given us a bit of history that I can almost guarantee you will never read in your “history” books-so called.

He notes: “As with many historical ‘facts’ most of what Americans know about the communist revolution in Russia is mythology. The reality is that a mere handful of Russian communists were successful against the entire country of Russia and its population as a result of the help of prominent people in America, Britain, and Germany, not the people of Russia. The aim of the international Conspiracy, particularly the communist wing since at least the 1850s, was that the United States, Russia, and possibly China would rule the world. This was outlined by several communist and Carbonari leaders in America at the time and was revealed in various books, such as that authored by two German communist immigrants, Charles Goepp and Theodore Poesche, entitled The New Rome: or The United States of the World (1853).” This should show you that the concept of a one world government is not just something dreamed up in the middle of the 20th century. These people have been plotting this stuff since before your grandfathers were alive, so it ain’t something new.

Thompson continues: “The Illuminati and its offshoots worked in both Russia and the United States movements that worked at the top and bottom of the political spectrum. In both countries, the bottom rung of the movement toward a one-world government was handled through the communist/socialist movement. In the United States at the top, more and more people were working for the same thing within an increasingly influential elite and literati.”

Noted by Thompson was the fact that Russia had been an ally of the North during the War of Northern Aggression. The Czar sent two naval fleets to America, one to lay off the coast of New York and another to do the same thing off San Francisco.
This was to protect these cities from attack by Confederate naval forces.

Thompson makes an interesting statement here. He says “At the time, the Confederacy had better naval vessels than the North, since they had just been built by the English and French shipping yards. The problem was that the Federal fleet was busy being used to blockade the South and could not be relied on to defend the New York and San Francisco harbors. It is rare that this Russian involvement is told in school history texts about the Civil War.” I can remember, when I was in high school in the 1950s that the history book I had made a brief mention of this, but only a brief mention. I imagine, in this day and age, even that brief mention is long gone.

We do know, though, that the Russians were there to protect these two harbors, because once the danger was past, they left. Thompson observed that: “The fact is, the U.S. government paid for the use of these fleets after the war…The point is that of all the European powers, Russia at the time was one of the friendliest toward the United States. Both France and England were debating whether or not to support the South to weaken the power of the United States by helping to split our nation up into smaller countries, not only at that time but into the future…What is lost to the American people is the fact that England was the historic enemy of the United States until our involvement in the First World War…Russia never played a role against the United States until after the takeover by the Bolsheviks in 1917.”

Thompson explains the drift of all this when he says “Over time this shifted as a result of the changes in Russia and then the thrust of communism emanating from Moscow, which added a new direction to the already powerful influence of socialism in our country. This made communism and socialism seem to be a foreign problem injected into America instead of recognizing that it had been here since the beginning of our country. The communist and socialist influences started with the Jacobins and evolved through a variety of Illuminist descendants, such as Young America (YA), and through as host of organizations promoting changes in our system of government….all leading toward an international government.”

Do my readers note any of this same thing going on today? How about the blatant Democratic attempt to remove the Electoral College? How about Democratic threat to “pack” the Supreme Count until they can get it to vote positively on their brand of socialism? And don’t for a New York minute think that the Democrats (and many Republicans) in Washington and our states are not socialists. They are. That should be obvious to anyone who even remotely follows today’s political scene.

These people are only following through with what the Jacobins 200 years ago wanted done. These people are in the process of trying to destroy our God-given liberties and replace them (and God) with their brand of totalitarianism-same as they did in the French Revolution.

To be continued.

by Dr. Scott Lively

Dr. Scott Lively is an internationally known attorney and pastor who nearly won the governorship of Massechusettes in 2018.

There is an apparent battle in the Democrat Party between the hard left Pelosi types, and the ultra hard left AOC types, but I think it’s all a staged distraction and that the elites have long ago chosen Elizabeth Warren to be their candidate against President Trump.

“Old Gaffer” Joe Biden is ostensibly the front-runner, but in my view Biden is merely playing the role of shill for the Dem elites (for whom he has always been the “Water Boy”) through the early stages of the election cycle.

I believe he is a simply a placeholder for Warren, and that he will be one of Warren’s strongest surrogates later in the race (“It really is time to give the women a chance to lead” he’ll say to great media fanfare).

Why Warren? Because 2020 will be the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote, and it is inconceivable to me that the Dems would run a man.

I’ve been publicly predicting that Warren would be the Dem’s candidate since early 2018, and that Charlie Baker will run against Trump in the GOP primary to weaken him for Warren’s `benefit. In February the Boston Herald suggested that Baker’s former boss and mentor, William Weld (who announced his candidacy against Trump months ago) is a stalking horse for Baker and I think that’s true. I also think Romney is part of the Baker team, testing for weaknesses in Trump’s GOP support base by taking highly public pot shots against the president at opportune moments.

I believe the Warren/Baker tag team strategy is a joint venture of Obama and the Bush and Clinton dynasties: the Purple Uniparty against the Conservative Populist champion both families loathe.

I also think it’s likely that Buttigieg will be the VP candidate, because as an open homosexual he represents the second most critical constituency of the hard left and will bring out the millennials and “social justice” grassroots (i.e. the Marxist storm troops). But I’m less convinced of this than of Warren’s nomination.

The feminists and LGBTs are the only factions of the traditional Dem coalition that are immune to the Trump poaching strategy. Trump’s relentless reconstruction of the middle-class manufacturing base is winning huge numbers of blue collar workers, unions and ethnic minorities (now enjoying the highest employment numbers ever). His vigorous support of Israel is winning significant support from American Jews. Because of these facts the major elite players know that Trump has an almost certain lock on the electoral college using the traditional election calculus.

Thus, I expect the Dems will play the longer odds (and longer term game) of activating and battle-hardening the Millennials by inflaming ideological passions. That hyper polarization tactic against Trump has obviously been in play since 2016, and was proven effective in 2018, so I think they’ll double
down on it in 2020 and all these recent highly public exhortations by Pelosi and Biden to seek the middle are a head fake for 2019.

Perhaps before but certainly after the Dem Primary, it will be the hard, hard left running the plays in a social justice strategy — and a major play for Republican and Independent women to “make history” in 2020 by electing the first woman president.

It is this Hail Mary strategy of poaching Republican women en-masse to “make history” that makes a Kamala Harris nomination unlikely. The Dems believe their own propaganda that Republicans are inherently racist, and they won’t risk losing the Republican womens’ vote by running a Black woman.

Remember, you heard it here first. The 19th Amendment 100 anniversary on August 18, 2020 is the Dem’s Ace-in-the-Hole and they are going to play that “woman” card like you’ve never seen before. Indeed, they’ve been laying the groundwork for it for two years with the MeToo campaign, which I have arguing from the beginning has been driven by the Clintons for this very purpose.

The fact that we’re just 4 days away from the 99th anniversary may be why Warren has broken out of the pack in the latest “poll” to a statistical tie with Biden, so the news media can maximize her positive press on this symbolic weekend.

If indeed this is the planned beginning of the Warren emergence, the sudden stock market crash casting doubt on “the Trump economy” in the same week would seem a bit suspicious.

We’ll have to wait and see. I actually thought they’d wait till closer to the election to push her to the front, but it would make a powerful narrative and legacy to showcase “the Warren ascendancy” between the bookends of the 99th and 100th anniversaries: the one-year countdown to ouster of the “Male chauvinist pig” Trump by the women of America (in their dreams).

But in the end, I predict Trump will win by a landslide.

by James King

James King is the Commander of Camp #141 Sons of Confederate Veterans in Albany, Georgia.

There were many parallels between the American Revolution for American Independence and the War for Southern Independence. After many years of economic abuse by England the 13 American colonies seceded from England and fought a war 1775-1783 to achieve Independence and form a new nation The United States of America. From the earliest colonial days until 1861 major political, economic and cultural differences existed between the Northern New England colonies and the Southern colonies. By 1860 immigration in the north had increased the population to approximately 3 times that of the Southern states. After many years of political, economic and criminal abuse by the Northern states the Southern states made a decision to secede from the Union and form a new nation, The Confederate States of America.

It is a well established fact that the winner of a war writes the history. The Northern and Southern perspectives concerning the causes and reasons for the war commonly known as the Civil War differ greatly. The war has been primarily presented as a war to defend and maintain slavery with some emphasis on the issue of States Rights. There was only one cause of the war. The South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression. But there were 10 causes for Southern secession.

One of the primary reasons was the tariff tax issue. After the war of 1812 Southerners had agreed to a 10% tariff to stimulate American industrial production. By 1820 the tariff became a greed factor for the North which is today referred to as corporate welfare. South Carolina almost seceded from the Union 1828-1832 due to the tariff rate being raised to 40% which was known in the Southern states as “The Tariff of Abomination”. Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would raise the tariff if elected and the upcoming Morrill Tariff Tax was to be 47%-51%. The South was being treated as an agricultural colony and bled dry and forced to pay 75% to 85% of the money to operate the Federal government by this unfair sectional tariff. The excessive tariff tax was almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces under their ProCouncils nearly 2000 years ago except that New England added hypocrisy to robbery.

The war for Southern Independence was a cultural war. Most Southerners were descendants of Celtic immigrants from western England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. New Englanders were primarily of Anglo-Saxon and Viking decent from eastern big city England and major cultural differences existed. States Rights vs. Centralization was another major issue. America was formed as a Constitutional Federal Republic but Northerners wanted to change American Government to a Socialist Democracy. In 1848 in Europe the Socialist Revolution led by Karl Marx failed. In 1849 and 1850 he sent about 2,000 European Socialists, primarily Germans, to New York City. These Socialists were highly educated and intelligent. They joined with American Socialists led by Horace Greeley and Charles Anderson Dana. Dana had been to Europe before the war and had met Karl Marx. Abraham Lincoln had been a pen pal to Karl Marx since the late 1840’s.

The European and American Socialists formed the Republican Party in 1854 which was very similar to the modern Socialist Atheist Democratic Party. Within 6 years they had figured out how to start a war and blame it on the south. The Ft. Sumter incident was a set up as proven by correspondence between Lincoln and Admiral Gustavus Fox. Within several years after Southern defeat in 1865 America was changed to a Socialist Democracy in which virtually all powers of sovereignty were removed from the states and power concentrated in Washington DC. The 14th Amendment removed most of the States Rights from the states and the people as recognized in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Major religious differences existed between the North and the South. The South was primarily Orthodox Christian whereas many Northerners were Atheist, Unitarians, Transcendentalists, Secular Humanists, and various other religious cults and ism’s. Between the early 1800’s and 1860 numerous groups of Northerners formed Socialist groups which considered women and children community property and advocated free love. Southerners were concerned about what type of country America would become if these people had their way.

Control of Western territories was another major issue. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and paid for Northern people who had political ties to New England to move to Kansas and Nebraska. The South was made to feel unwelcome in these new territories and New England sent psychopath John Brown to Kansas where he murdered Southerners who were not even slave owners. The Civil War began in 1854 in Kansas not on April 12, 1861 at Ft. Sumter SC.

The great English writer Charles Dickens summed up the situation in one sentence “The Northern onslaught against Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states”. New England wanted the South’s resources, cotton, land, timber, and coal, for pennies on the dollar and had for many years slandered and condemned the South in Northern newspapers which had created sectional animosity. Southerners were tired of reading about what bad and evil people they were because their neighbors owned a few slaves. Hypocritical New Englanders were primarily responsible for the development of slavery in America and the port cities of New England had grown wealthy due to the slave trade but after it became unprofitable they accused Southerners of grave moral sin while the money they made from the slave trade was still in their pocket.

Even though the economic infrastructure of the port cities of New England had been based on the slave trade, small groups of extreme radicals and fanatics in New England demanded instant abolition of slaves as opposed to gradual emancipation which was already occurring in the South. 68 Out of 117 Republicans signed a resolution advocating terrorism against the South with plans to create a massive slave rebellion which would have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Southern men, women and children as had occurred in Haiti (Saint Dominigue) between 1791 and 1803.

After 7 of the lower Southern states seceded from the Union Lincoln caused the secession of the upper Southern states by calling for 75,000 volunteers to put down what he called a rebellion. Southern secession was legal by the 10th Amendment and in 1865 and 1867 U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase stated that secession was not rebellion and if any former members of the Confederate governmental or military were brought to trial what the North had won on the battlefield would be lost in a court of law. Jefferson Davis was released from prison and no former confederates were ever tried for treason.

Perhaps the worst mistake that our Southern ancestors ever made was joining into a Union with the Yankee Serpent.


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

Greg Cauley has written me claiming that he represents the SCV, MOS&B, and “tens of thousands.”

He writes:

I am a long time member of the SCV, MOS&B and a subscriber to your newsletter. People take what is written as gospel but you wrote about a certain incident that I am very familiar with and you left out major key details that would change the opinion of most readers against the narrative you were pushing.

I am all for gun rights and have several of my own. Your report on Maryland’s 61 year old man being killed shot and killed by police simply for not complying with a confiscation order though borders on lying. Yes the police responded to his residence to confiscate his firearms but that was not what caused him to get shot and killed. The man answered the door with a gun in his hand. He put it down for a moment but then picked it back up. An officer tried to take the gun away but this “innocent” man fired a shot. That is when the 2nd officer shot him and he was killed.

So what happened is far different than what was reported. Police officers are being assaulted and shot and an increasing alarming rate and this man came close to doing just that. His actions with the police showed he was mentally unstable and if fire a gun around the police, everyone else is a target as well. Innocent lives may have been saved by the actions of these officers at the risk of their own lives and this incident you mentioned in the newsletter would only increase the public’s opinion that such confiscations are justified and that would include many of our members.

Credibility is something you need to keep an audience but much was lost from this report. It makes some wonder if you mislead on one report, how many other reports are misleading?

I will wait a short period of time for a correction to be sent out to everyone. If one does not come, I will contact the leaders and members of both organizations I belong to and let them know what happened. hey can let the tens of thousands of our members decide whether or not to continue following your reporting.

Deo Vindice

My reply:

Wait a long time, a short time, don’t wait at all.

The fact that criminal enforcers, call them “police,” call them what you like, the FACT is that they were there to violate the 2nd Amendment rights of a fellow citizen. That means that the police were in the wrong – period.

They (police) should not have even been there. In fact, they were in criminal trespass with intention of committing additional crimes. So any subsequent action on the part of the police is irrelevant as they (police) were engaged in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Or do you not believe that violation of the 2nd amendment is a crime?

So there was no lie in our reporting! If anything, we understated the criminal activity of the police in our reporting!

The 2nd Amendment, in case anyone has forgotten its wording, says that:

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice that the sentence ends in a PERIOD! So you’d think that would be a settled matter. And it was for the first 140 years or so since the Amendment was written. I mean how much clearer could the Founders have written it than SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

The reason for that is because the people not only needed to hunt or protect themselves from people of ill intention. They needed to protect themselves from the agents of their own government. In colonial times, the government became more ill intended and evil than any robber. The founders knew that day could come again even in the government and nation they were creating.

So not only were the police violating the law by coming onto a man’s property (his home being his castle which he can defend at all costs) to illegally violate his 2nd Amendment right. The man has the right to defend himself against the agents of his own government when he has reason to believe they intend to violate his person or property. This is a basic human right expressed for centuries before the Constitution in English common law and even in the Bible.

So whats your address Greg? So the thousands who read this can call in a red flag report on you.

After all, you have expressed illogical reasoning. You have also, by the way not only confessed to owning firearms but you even admitted to belonging to TWO organizations that have been SPLC certified as “hate groups.”

Maybe, when the same criminal enforcers show up at your door you’ll finally see the reality of the situation? Just don’t try to defend yourself because if you do you’ll most probably end up just as murdered as your poor neighbor, may he rest in peace.

Until Next Week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed

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