We know this, and yet we didn't expect that a special panel assembled by the state government would recommend replacing a statue of a Confederate General with one of Publix and its founder George Jenkins.
That's right, Florida could send a statue of Jenkins to sit in the Capital Building in Washington, D.C.
The National Statuary Hall houses two statues from each state, honoring their most historic and important citizens in the halls of the U.S. Capitol building. One of Florida's current statues is of the Confederate Army's Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith.
This week an ad hoc committee of the state's Great Floridians Program met to select the three finalists who should replace him.
Here are your contestants:
- * environmentalist Marjory Stoneman Douglas
- * Civil Rights icon Mary McLeod Bethune
- * George Jenkins, the Publix guy.
The panel selected the finalists from 259 names submitted by Floridians. That said, 153 of the 259 votes were for Tim Tebow. Also beating the three "finalists" in the vote count were two of the States more famous icons: Flipper the dolphin and Mickey Mouse.
The voters of Florida be damned, Douglas and Bethune have dominated the conversation since the beginning of the movement to replace Smith. Their finalist status is no surprise. Jenkins is really the only shocker on the shortlist.
By the way, the other Florida person honored in the Statuary Hall is John Gorrie, a doctor who invented an early form of air conditioning. So, yes, there's a chance Florida could end up paying homage to A/C and everyone's favorite supermarket deli in the U.S. Capitol. Talk about Publix and chill.
The state Legislature will have the final say, and the vote will, in all likelihood, come down to Douglas and Bethune. Either would become just the tenth woman honored in the hall.
Marco Rubio, a University of Florida alumni who by the way led the Tebow statuary campaign, will Run for Senate. Maybe that will go better than his failed presidential and Tebow for statuary campaigns.
CONGRESS REMOVES CONFEDERATE FLAG BAN
A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.
The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.
In negotiations to reconcile the House funding measure with the Senate bill, the confederate flag provision was dropped. The bill passed the House 239-171.
Of the eight House Republicans Ryan appointed to the conference committee that ultimately stripped the measure, four had voted against the ban on the floor.
A GOP aide declined to comment on the internal deliberations that led to the removal of the ban.
Senator Criticized For Attacking "Confederate Flag Funeral"
South Carolina Senator Margie Bright Matthews is facing criticism for slamming a Colleton county funeral procession that prominently displayed several Confederate flags.
"Shame, shame, shame!!" Matthews wrote in a since-deleted Facebook post containing video of the procession - which passed by her home.
The funeral procession was for 28-year-old Marshall Catterton, who died last weekend when a car struck him as he attempted to move a dead deer from a local roadway.
"Be a good citizen, get killed - then get mocked by your own Senator," said James Bessenger.
Matthews claimed her post was justified - "Given all of the horrible events that have happened recently and their connection (or not) to this flag, it evokes ... distress in others," she wrote on social media. "My grandson was in the house and was upset that someone was going to hurt him."
Bessenger said Matthews was making excuses for her action and that she was looking for a reason to attack the flag. "She was just chomping at the bit to be able to say something about a Confederate flag," Bessenger said. "She saw an opportunity to look like a righteous social warrior and ended up putting her ugly liberal foot in her mouth. How can someone claim to represent her district when she mocks the deaths of her own constituents?"
Hard to argue that point ...
Bessenger has launched an online petition demanding Matthews' resignation. The petition calls out Matthews for her "poor understanding of history" and for harboring a "desire to stir racial division" in South Carolina.
Caledonia County Fair (VERMONT) Prohibits Sale of Confederate Flags
Are they "Feelin' the Burn?"
STATUE MOVEMENT IS FINALIZED
Jefferson Circuit Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman's written ruling on June 20th affirmed a May 25 verbal decision to deny an injunction sought by plaintiffs, including the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who had earlier won a temporary restraining order halting removal work. It also granted Fischer's motion to dismiss the case - allowing the city, which had pledged to do no removal work until the ruling, to press ahead.
He said the public art commission will hold a meeting within a month to consider possible relocation sites, and no removal work will occur until a site is determined. Some sites suggested by the public in recent weeks have included Perryville Battlefield State Park and the Pewee Valley Confederate Cemetery.
Jefferson County Attorney Mike O'Connell called the plaintiffs' case "a sham" that was totally devoid of any real evidence.
Fred Wilhite, an officer of the Kentucky Division Sons of Confederate Veterans who was a plaintiff, said he didn't know whether the ruling would be appealed.
Recently, attorneys for the plaintiffs sought to be relieved from representing them claiming that their client was "racist."
In 1862, a man named Lt. Charles H. Colley of Gray, ME was killed during the Battle of Cedar Mountain. When his grieving family opened up the casket that was supposed to contain their son, they were stunned to discover that a fully uniformed Confederate soldier had been shipped to them instead. Having no way to identify the soldier, and also lacking the means to ship him back to Virginia, Lt. Colley's family decided to bury him in Gray Village Cemetery alongside the Union soldiers who had been killed in the war. They figured that this unknown Confederate's family would appreciate the gesture, even though they'd never find out about it.
The Ladies of Gray, a group of mothers whose sons were either missing, injured, or killed in the war, paid to put up a headstone for this unknown Confederate.
The headstone's inscription is simple and gut-wrenching: "Stranger. A soldier of the late war. Erected by the Ladies of Gray."
Gray sent more people to fight for the Union Army per capita than any small town in Maine, and nearly 200 of them didn't get to come home. The people of Gray, especially mothers whose sons could have been shot at or killed by Stranger, had every right to have simply buried Stranger in an unmarked grave in a field somewhere in the town. It would have been completely understandable -- this person was, after all, an enemy soldier during a time of war. Instead, they recognized their shared humanity with this unknown man, and buried him alongside local heroes and treated him like one of their own.
Which brings me to today.
We've come a long way from 1862, but not entirely in a good way. Our nation, and in particular its liberals should look to the actions of the Ladies of Gray for inspiration on how to behave with decency and respect in times of fighting and conflict.
In 1862, America had divided into two nations at war -- it doesn't get more polarized than that. If the Ladies of Gray could find it within themselves to create and maintain a dignified memorial to a man who was quite literally shooting at their sons before he died, there's no excuse for the attacks against Southern memorials 150 years later.
Last Confederate General Surrenders
On yesterday, in 1865, more than two months after Lee's surrender, Cherokee Stand Watie became the last Confederate General to surrender his forces in the final days of the WBTS.
Born in Georgia, Watie had sided with the Cherokee faction supporting removal to the West and signed the Treaty of New Echota.
At the time of the outbreak of the War, Watie was a planter in the Indian Territory. He sided with the Confederacy and was commissioned as a Colonel and was later promoted to General. Watie spent much of the war waging guerrilla warfare in the Indian Territory and adjacent states.
General Watie is one of my personal favorite Generals to study. Everyone who gives a gift of $5 or more to Dixie Heritage this week will receive a great book, a Biography of General Stand Watie.
Order Biography of Cherokee Stand Watie - Last Confederate General:
That attack has been led by liberal / modernist Dr. Russell Moore, President of the SBC's Ethics And Religious Liberty Commission.
Moore has essentially been fighting a TWO-front war because at the same time he has been violently attacking the founders of his denomination and our heritage, he has also been actively working to unite the Southern Baptist Convention with Islam.
I believe that the real reason why Moore pushed the flag resolution at the recent annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention was because he knew that its debate would eat up all of the time that could have been better used examining the documents which Moore has been signing on behalf of Southern Baptists that will yoke their denomination with Islam.
Still, Moore could not dodge the issue entirely. He was asked a direct question from a messenger at the annual meeting about his intentional support of Islam. This pastor posed to Moore the same question that Joshua posed to the religious of his day in Joshua 24:15, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Here is the question posed to Dr. Moore regarding his alliance of Southern Baptists with Islam:
"I would like to know how in the world someone in the Southern Baptist Convention can support the defending of rights for Muslims to construct mosques in the united states when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans. They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world. Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today, He would actually support this and that He would stand up and say, well, let us support the rights of those Baal worshippers to erect temples to Baal? Do you believe that Dr. Moore?"
The query, offered by a Southern Baptist pastor, is straightforward and Biblically-informed received a smug and condescending reply from Moore:
"You know sometimes we have to deal with questions that are really complicated and we have to spend a lot of time thinking them through and not sure what the final result was going to be. Sometimes we have really hard decisions to make. This isn't one of those things."
Joshua, who led God's chosen to settle the promised land, destroyed pagan nations worshipping their foreign gods and idols as God promised Israel He would do. He forbade His chosen people to engage in alliances with those pagan nations. He also commanded the wholesale destruction of not only the idolatrous temples and altars of those foreign gods but also the destruction of those who worshipped them.
It's important to remember a fundamental attribute of God that Baptists believe - His immutability. God does not change. What He hated in the days of Joshua, He yet hates today. His expectations of faithful obedience by His chosen people - of whom Southern Baptists purport to be among - has not changed. The New Testament affirms the command for the church to be separate from the pagan world around us, not to, as Moore entreats, to create alliances with it (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Intending to belittle the Southern Baptist pastor who dared question him, Moore, the elitist, made it very clear that it was not a difficult decision for him to align the SBC with Baal. It took no thought. It wasn't given any consideration as to worthiness. It was a no-brainer, guided as it was by the tenets of "American" Christianity, rather than rightly being directed by actual Bible Christianity.
Moore then provides this definition of "Baptist" for the rebuked, insolent questioner:
"What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody."
At this point, supportive applause for Moore ensued around the meeting hall indicating the pervasiveness that this culturally-worshipped idol of tolerance represents among too many in the SBC who sadly would rather be seen as co-conspirators in a treaty of co-existence as Americans rather than as a Bible-believing denomination standing, alone if necessary, on the promises, and commands, of God's Word.
The Baptists of old very loudly proclaimed the doctrine of Soul Liberty without promoting, assisting, or otherwise yoking up with Muslims. Moore, in typical modernist fashion, lacks their understanding of the defining doctrine.
Russell Moore is attempting to cloth everything in the garments of religious liberty. Disagree with Moore's alliances with Muslims and you oppose religious liberty. Disagree with Moore's abuse of SBC resources to promote the flooding of our nation with hundreds of thousands of new refugees from Muslim nations and you are opposing religious liberty.
No one is against religious liberty in America. (Perhaps especially not the Muslims!) We are thankful for it. We benefit from it. We ought to stand boldly for it. But it is not necessary, nor Biblically-tolerable, for Southern Baptists to intentionally join hands with pagans as they pursue their own rights under it. It is that alliance that is unnecessary and, as is being seen around the world in God's saving grace, it is not a necessity for our - or His - faithfulness.
As Baptists, we'd do well to err on the side of Scripture. He's called us to obedience, not to unfettered and Scripture-free tolerance, and He has certainly not called us to enter into unholy alliances.
Russell Moore would do well to remember the preaching of one who led many of our Founding Fathers to faith, 18th-century evangelist George Whitefield:
"The sins of the church are far more offensive to God than the sins of the nation."
And fellow Baptists, we are in sinful, willful, disobedience to our God, led as we are by the likes of Russell Moore and every applauding hand-clapper who fails to acknowledge, by active obedience, the sovereignty of the Lord our God and His command for us to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.
Our regular contributor, Al Benson, contributes the following:
Let me start off by saying that I have several friends who are Southern Baptists and I know some Southern Baptist preachers who are good, patriotic pastors for their congregations. My comments here are not directed at them or their congregations. I realize they see some of the same problems I am addressing here as much as I do.
Last week and earlier this week (this was originally written on Sat. June 18th) I did two articles on my other blog spot http://thecopperhead.blogspot.com about the Southern Baptist resolution to disavow and remove all Confederate battle flags. The Southern Baptists have been holding their yearly meeting this past week and the anti-Confederate flag resolution was of many that passed by a healthy margin so I am told. The people in the Southern Baptist Convention that pushed this resolution feel that all Christians should show "solidarity" (a good Marxist term) by removing any Confederate flags they have up anywhere. I hope they don't hold their breath!
This resolution denies the legitimacy of the Cause that all Confederate soldiers fought for (which was not "racism" or slavery) and it verbally slaps in the face today anyone who has a Confederate ancestor that resisted Yankee/Marxist aggression, and that includes me. Whatever Confederate flags I have out (and I vary them) are going to stay out and I seriously question the "concern" of those Southern Baptists that tell me I am "racist" for keeping them out. Oh, I don't doubt the politically correct do have a concern-but for what and who? A lot of us here in the South are really getting fed up with the "perpetually offended" who expect us to totally dismantle our Christian culture and heritage just because they claim it bothers them. If I got to the point where I started listing things in their cultures that bother me we could really have a donnybrook.
Unfortunately, the situation with the Confederate flag seems to be a symptom of where the Southern Baptists are headed in the main. I just read an article on http://www.wnd.com the headline for which was: Pastor to Southern Baptist Convention: Stop push for Muslim refugees. The article stated: "The Southern Baptist Convention threw down a gauntlet at the feet of Republican nominee Donald Trump and many conservatives, adopting a resolution encouraging churches and families to welcome and adopt refugees into their churches and homes...The resolution did not specifically refer to Islam or Muslims. However, Russell Moore, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Commission has been a prominent critic of Donald Trump and his proposed immigration policies...The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention is also supporting the building of a mosque in Bernard, New Jersey."
Needless to say, some of the local residents in that area are not overly enthused about the mosque and their concern about Shariah law in their area is a legitimate one. So why is the Southern Baptist Convention even doing this? I could see some of the culturally Marxist churches such as those in the National Council of Churches supporting this because they have been making common cause with the enemies of Christ for decades now, so it would come as no surprise to see them involved. But the Southern Baptist Convention is supposed to be a "conservative" group. Or has the definition of conservatism been changed?
One Southern Baptist pastor, Carl Gallups noted: "What should the Southern Baptist Convention have done about the mosque in New Jersey? They should have stayed out of the situation altogether! They should have left the matter up to the voice of the local people and their elected and appointed officials..." Gallups made an accurate observation when he said: "...the ERLC would be hard pressed to find anywhere in the scriptures, or elsewhere, where the early church was aligning itself with government entities and 'interfaith coalitions' to assist in the constructing of more pagan temples, shrines and altars to Emperor worship in the Roman Empire-in the name of 'religious liberty'."
Gallups also noted that this was not the first attempt by the SBC committee at supporting the building of mosques. The WorldNewsDaily article also observed that: "Gallups also pointed to the history of the ERLC in supporting mosque construction, notably the support of the Executive Director Richard Land for building the 'Ground Zero mosque' in 2010." Gallups said: "I find it very suspicious that the ERLC, just a few years ago, under Richard Land attempted the same 'mosque building agenda'...Now, only five years later, Dr. Russell Moore does the very same thing." Whether he realizes it or not, Pastor Gallups is observing cultural Marxism at work and in living color. The cultural Marxists, whether in churches or out (and there are a number of them within churches) do not deviate from their agenda and their agenda is ultimately anti-Christian, so they will work to get the church, in our apostate day, to support the cutting of its own spiritual throat-all in the name of "love" naturally.
Pastor Gallups mentioned Richard Land a couple times in his comments. So who is Richard Land? Richard Land, who used to hold high positions in the Southern Baptist Convention, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, at least they have him listed as a member as of June 18th of this year. So why does a leading Southern Baptist belong to the CFR? There would seem to be a contradiction or at least a major conflict of interest here. A prominent Southern Baptist as a member of the premier One World Government organization in this country, a member of the leading organization that promotes One World secular government! Something smells here and it ain't in Denmark.
Now I've had a few folks over the years my Dad included, who told me I had a suspicious mind, but when you start to see things like this, how can you not have a suspicious mind unless you've quit thinking altogether?
I also ran across another interesting article on http://www.texemarrs.com that was published back in 2007 that dealt with the Council on Foreign Relations and Christian pastors that seem to be part of that group. The article dealt with "global spirituality." It stated, in part, "To achieve this, the Illuminti's premier political and economic organ, the socialistic, pro-Zionist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), has elevated to membership two key operatives, two men who are at the helm of America's most influential Christian evangelical groups. I refer to Pastor Rick Warren, Saddleback Community Church in California, and Dr. Richard Land, reigning religious potantate and poobah of the massive Southern Baptist Convention. For the first time in the almost 100-year history of the CFR, evangelical leaders have been elevated to elite status as members of the exclusive globalist secret society." I have often wondered about these evangelicals that end up with hundreds of churches following their agenda, whatever it happens to be at the time, and when I found out that Rick Warren was a big supporter of Obama in his first term, I knew I had been right to be suspicious. In regard to Dr. Richard Land, it turns out that he was (is) a big promoter of environmentalism. It has been said that "Land essentially believes that Jesus died on the cross to save Mother Earth and to save human souls. Land says that the Great Commission includes the preaching of environmentalism just as much as it does the traditional John 3:16 message."
So, has the CFR suddenly become interested in the Gospel message-or is it more interested in finding usable Christian pastors to push its "gospel" message onto unsuspecting Christian believers? It might be worthwhile and good for Southern Batist believers to start doing a little homework on Dr. Land and this One World Government organization he is part of. If you want to read about the Council on Foreign Relaltions check out Gary Allen's book None Dare Call It Conspiracy. It was published way back in 1976 but it is still relevant today. I understand that it is now out on the Internet and so you can check it out there for nothing, and you DO need to check it out.
SUPPORT DIXIE HERITAGE
Receive a banner ad in the next 52 issues of the Dixie Heritage Letter for the reduced rate of just $300 - thats just $5.76 per issue. Your banner ad will also go on the website for an entire year at no additional cost. Click the banner below to eMail for more information on how you can support Dixie Heritage and at the same time put yourself before a great audience of Southern patriots.
The history of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been inextricably tied to the Confederacy and her heirs for over a century and a half. Great pulpit expositors, as well as seminary professors that left their mark in the area of Biblical thought and world view offered service to the Confederacy, as chaplains and men of arms, as well. Therefore, it was a profound disappointment and excruciatingly disheartening to hear the anti-Confederate Battle Flag resolution that was approved by SBC messengers meeting in St. Louis on June 14.
The resolution offended on several levels -- first of all, simply put, it did not adequately deal with the Truth of the nature of the Flag, particularly disappointing as Christians should place a premium on the Truth. The 800,000 men that served the Confederacy held, and always will hold, full title to that banner -- it is a soldiers' flag and their political agenda was nothing more than defense of their home. Furthermore, as the Fifth Commandment compels us to "honor father and mother", those of us who enjoy Confederate ancestry are bound to tell the Truth of our ancestors fight and flag. Finally, the tone of the resolution has the effect of intimidating the consciences of Southern Baptists into holding a terribly negative opinion of Confederate symbols.
All that said, the SBC is not a hierarchy; local congregations are in no way bound to the resolution. They may continue on as they have done, in some cases, for many years, in helping their community to retain its history and honoring the men that rebuilt their community after a tragic war and devastating reconstruction. Today, we call upon the great SBC congregations throughout the South to do just that, ignore this distraction and get on with the priorities of Gospel proclamation, building up of the fellowship of Faith and pursuing a witness of goodwill in the community. Untold numbers of these SBC churches, over the years, have cultivated great relationships with SCV camps by opening their facilities for regular meetings and special occasions, not to mention the cemeteries owned by SBC churches where the remains of legions of Confederate heroes lie -- these are sites for numerous memorial services.
Of course, in addition to the historical ties of the Confederacy and SBC, thousands of SCV members are also members of SBC churches. In closing, we call on our camps to pursue "peace with all men" (Heb. 12:14) by cultivating good relationships with all organizations in their community, particularly houses of worship, be they SBC, other Christian denominations or Jewish Synagogues.
Charles Kelly Barrow
Sons of Confederate Veterans
SBC STATISTICAL PREDICTION
Convention statisticians, who can predict coming trends with pinpoint accuracy, are anticipating that the Convention's churches will loose at least 225,000 members as a direct result of the resolution against the Confederate Battle Flag.
One of our readers in Virginia sent the following letter to his pastor this week:
Greetings Rev. Smith:
We were in church when you made the announcement that the Convention had voted to pass the Anti-Confederate Flag, Anti-Christian resolution. The devil shouted with glee that his will has been done! It is hard for me to believe that with that many preachers present, none took a stand for the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
You are well aware that the Confederate flag proudly displays the Cross of St. Andrew: next to the Cross of Jesus the most scared symbol in all Christianity! The Constitution of the Confederate States of America plainly stated that God (the Christian God) was the founder of the nation. It was no accident that the Confederate Congress adopted the Cross of St. Andrew as the symbol of the nation.
The Southern people loved their country and their flag. Southern Baptist boys fought hard for the Cross of St. Andrew; many willingly gave their lives under that flag! Those who founded the Southern Baptist Church; those who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ; those who have been members and who have advanced the church unto this day strongly stood for the Gospel. Now, the Convention has defecated on all their graves!
By taking an Anti-Cross of St. Andrew; Anti-Gospel stand, the Southern Baptist Convention has replaced Jesus with the devil.
When you made the announcement that the Baptist Church was no longer a Christian organization, we walked out!
If you would like to discuss this e-mail or anything related to the War Between the States, please contact me.
I end most of my personal communications with "God Bless!" but I cannot with this letter.
Gary C. Walker
"The way I think of it is this," Rumsfeld said Wednesday night on Fox News Channel's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. "On the Democrats' side, we have a known known. On the Republican side, we have a recent entry, who's a known unknown."
That line, of course, was a play on a famous series of statements uttered at a Pentagon briefing in February 2002 in response to a question about whether there was evidence Iraq had tried to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld said then. "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
Trump, apparently, falls into the second category, according to Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld, who served as Defense secretary for both Presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford, went on to cite the reasons he found Clinton "unacceptable" for president, including her handling of the Benghazi attack in September 2012 and her use of a private email server to handle government information while serving as secretary of State.
As for Trump, Van Susteren asked Rumsfeld if he was endorsing or just supporting the presumptive GOP nominee, a distinction some Republicans have made in announcing their support of the real estate mogul.
"I don't know that there's any difference," but added: "No one asked me for my endorsement."
"I'm clearly going to vote for him," Rumsfeld said of Trump. "I just can't imagine not."
Trump tweeted Thursday morning that he "very much appreciated" the support of the former Defense secretary.
LIKE US ON fACEBOOK
Use this link to visit the fACEBOOK page:
VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE:
Dixie Heritage has a new home on the internet.
YES, we are still giving a FREE eBook (PDF) copy of the book The Truth About the Confederate Flag to everyone who visits the website - so tell your friends - and your enemies!
Until next week,