Every week I receive several eMails from readers of the Dixie Heritage Letter asking if they can forward the letter to others. Several other eMails are received telling us that they appreciate the weekly Letter and are already forwarding it to others.
We would be happy to add your friends, family members, compatriots, and others to our mailing list. Simply reply to this eMail with the eMail addresses that you would like for us to add.
We will send them a free copy of my book, The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag and add them to the mailing list so that you do not have to keep forwarding the letters each week.
Just so you know, I am actually putting this week's letter together Thursday evening (3-31) and will set a timer on it so that it goes out on Friday morning. Much of what we will report this week has not yet seen major media coverage but potentially could before you read our letter.
Last week there wasn't a whole lot happening on the "Heritage front" but that has changed this week as new shots against our heritage have been fired in three states this week. Plus the presidential race has gotten even more interesting. So this will be a longer issue that usual but worth the time it will take you to read it.
We will start with Heritage news:
FLAG COMES DOWN IN MARYLAND
Last week we reported a heritage victory about a Battle Flag that had been prominently raised 40 feet behind the sign along the side of Md. Rt. 234 welcoming visitors into St. Mary's County from neighboring Charles County.
In response to complaints about the flag St. Mary's County Commissioner John O'Connor investigated and determined that the flag was on private property. His official response was that, "It's not about like, dislike, heritage or hatred on something like this. It's about the Constitution and the First Amendment. It doesn't matter what flag that person is flying. That's private property and they have every right to fly whatever flag they may want to fly." Local officials made it plain that they would not take any action to remove the flag. The gentleman who raised the flag determined to keep it up. That was last week.
This week, the flag raised by the owner of Budds Creek Motocross Park, Jonathan Beasely, was removed and replaced with the "First National" flag.
Beasely says he's been flying lesser-known Confederate flags on his property for 30 years and, "Nobody ever said a word because nobody knows what it is, except the people who are in the Sons of Confederate Veterans or knowledgeable with the flag," speaking of the lesser-known flags.
In April, Beasely will be hosting an annual music festival on his property called Buddsfest. Tickets, according to the festival website, sell for $40 each and get you in to hear a rather impressive list of bands scheduled to perform on the festival stage. Only one problem the police refused to provide security for the festival.
Beasely, who says the local police department has provided security for his event for over 30 years, has withheld their services this year in response to his flying of the Battle Flag. By replacing it with a "lesser known" flag he hopes that he can regain police security services for the festival.
ALSO IN MARYLAND
St. Mary's College is blaming a string of recent dormitory fires on the display, by two students, of the Battle Flag, during the college's annual Easter Egg Hunt, and previously at a student led drinking party.
The school's annual Easter Egg Hunt is unlike most other Easter Egg Hunts is different because at St. Mary's the Seniors hide "eggs" (actually beer bottles) around the campus for the Freshman to find.
At both events this year, a few of this year's beer bottles had a Confederate Flag printed on their labels. So the Administration now wants to cite that as the reason why someone, who they just can't seem to catch, has been setting a single wooden chair on fire in a dormitory building during the morning hours between 2-3 am.
Rather than catch the firebug the school's Administration is planning a referendum on the Battle Flag and the "violence" that it "incites."
Rally protests sale of Confederate flag merchandise
BEREA, Ky. (WTVQ) - The group Berea United for Racial Justice (BURJ) is holding a rally outside the Berea Chamber of Commerce (BCOC), to protest the sale of Confederate flag merchandise at the annual Spoonbread Festival.
The Rally started at 10:30 a.m., and brought members of BURJ, Bereans4Mike Brown, and others in the city concerned about the sale of these items.
Organizers point out that while the Kentucky State Fair and the State Park System have both banned the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, the Berea Chamber of Commerce, which organizes the festival, still allows Confederate flag merchandise.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Fla. -- where school leaders could decide if they will ban the Confederate flag from campus. This comes after several reports by the local NAACP blaming "racial tension" at Indian River Schools this school year as a result of the display or use of the flag.
At the beginning of the school year, cellphone video captured someone ripping a Confederate flag from a truck parked on school property.
Just this month, some Vero Beach High School students were disciplined for passing around a flyer that read "The south will rise again" with the picture of a Confederate flag.
"As the tumultuous atmospheres in our nation goes up, so does the atmosphere in our schools," said Tony Brown, President of the Indian River County chapter of the NAACP.
Brown is now pushing the school district to officially ban Confederate flags from being worn on clothing, or displayed in any other way on school property.
At Tuesday's school board meeting, Brown spoke to the board about his concerns with the flyer that was passed to other students, and also brought up his desire to see the flag banned.
Brown says board members seemed supportive of the idea. The Indian River County School District would not comment.
SOUTH CAROLINA unlikely to decide flag display
The Chairman of the South Carolina museum storing the Confederate Flag removed from Statehouse grounds last summer says he doesn't expect the Legislature to make any decisions on its display this year.
George Dorn also suggested Thursday that the museum's governing board take no position on a House proposal that could result in the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum moving to Charleston.
But the commander of South Carolina's Sons of Confederate Veterans says his chapter opposes that idea. Leland Summers, a board member, says the 120-year-old museum needs to stay in the state's central, capital city.
The board recommended spending $3.6 million to renovate the museum and display the flag. The House instead advanced a budget plan requiring an analysis of Charleston museum space and moving cost estimates.
We would be happy to add your friends, family members, compatriots, and others to our mailing list. Simply reply to this eMail with the eMail addresses that you would like for us to add.
We will send them a free copy of my book, The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag and add them to the mailing list so that you do not have to keep forwarding the letters each week.
Just so you know, I am actually putting this week's letter together Thursday evening (3-31) and will set a timer on it so that it goes out on Friday morning. Much of what we will report this week has not yet seen major media coverage but potentially could before you read our letter.
Last week there wasn't a whole lot happening on the "Heritage front" but that has changed this week as new shots against our heritage have been fired in three states this week. Plus the presidential race has gotten even more interesting. So this will be a longer issue that usual but worth the time it will take you to read it.
We will start with Heritage news:
FLAG COMES DOWN IN MARYLAND
Last week we reported a heritage victory about a Battle Flag that had been prominently raised 40 feet behind the sign along the side of Md. Rt. 234 welcoming visitors into St. Mary's County from neighboring Charles County.
In response to complaints about the flag St. Mary's County Commissioner John O'Connor investigated and determined that the flag was on private property. His official response was that, "It's not about like, dislike, heritage or hatred on something like this. It's about the Constitution and the First Amendment. It doesn't matter what flag that person is flying. That's private property and they have every right to fly whatever flag they may want to fly." Local officials made it plain that they would not take any action to remove the flag. The gentleman who raised the flag determined to keep it up. That was last week.
This week, the flag raised by the owner of Budds Creek Motocross Park, Jonathan Beasely, was removed and replaced with the "First National" flag.
Beasely says he's been flying lesser-known Confederate flags on his property for 30 years and, "Nobody ever said a word because nobody knows what it is, except the people who are in the Sons of Confederate Veterans or knowledgeable with the flag," speaking of the lesser-known flags.
In April, Beasely will be hosting an annual music festival on his property called Buddsfest. Tickets, according to the festival website, sell for $40 each and get you in to hear a rather impressive list of bands scheduled to perform on the festival stage. Only one problem the police refused to provide security for the festival.
Beasely, who says the local police department has provided security for his event for over 30 years, has withheld their services this year in response to his flying of the Battle Flag. By replacing it with a "lesser known" flag he hopes that he can regain police security services for the festival.
ALSO IN MARYLAND
St. Mary's College is blaming a string of recent dormitory fires on the display, by two students, of the Battle Flag, during the college's annual Easter Egg Hunt, and previously at a student led drinking party.
The school's annual Easter Egg Hunt is unlike most other Easter Egg Hunts is different because at St. Mary's the Seniors hide "eggs" (actually beer bottles) around the campus for the Freshman to find.
At both events this year, a few of this year's beer bottles had a Confederate Flag printed on their labels. So the Administration now wants to cite that as the reason why someone, who they just can't seem to catch, has been setting a single wooden chair on fire in a dormitory building during the morning hours between 2-3 am.
Rather than catch the firebug the school's Administration is planning a referendum on the Battle Flag and the "violence" that it "incites."
Rally protests sale of Confederate flag merchandise
BEREA, Ky. (WTVQ) - The group Berea United for Racial Justice (BURJ) is holding a rally outside the Berea Chamber of Commerce (BCOC), to protest the sale of Confederate flag merchandise at the annual Spoonbread Festival.
The Rally started at 10:30 a.m., and brought members of BURJ, Bereans4Mike Brown, and others in the city concerned about the sale of these items.
Organizers point out that while the Kentucky State Fair and the State Park System have both banned the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, the Berea Chamber of Commerce, which organizes the festival, still allows Confederate flag merchandise.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Fla. -- where school leaders could decide if they will ban the Confederate flag from campus. This comes after several reports by the local NAACP blaming "racial tension" at Indian River Schools this school year as a result of the display or use of the flag.
At the beginning of the school year, cellphone video captured someone ripping a Confederate flag from a truck parked on school property.
Just this month, some Vero Beach High School students were disciplined for passing around a flyer that read "The south will rise again" with the picture of a Confederate flag.
"As the tumultuous atmospheres in our nation goes up, so does the atmosphere in our schools," said Tony Brown, President of the Indian River County chapter of the NAACP.
Brown is now pushing the school district to officially ban Confederate flags from being worn on clothing, or displayed in any other way on school property.
At Tuesday's school board meeting, Brown spoke to the board about his concerns with the flyer that was passed to other students, and also brought up his desire to see the flag banned.
Brown says board members seemed supportive of the idea. The Indian River County School District would not comment.
SOUTH CAROLINA unlikely to decide flag display
The Chairman of the South Carolina museum storing the Confederate Flag removed from Statehouse grounds last summer says he doesn't expect the Legislature to make any decisions on its display this year.
George Dorn also suggested Thursday that the museum's governing board take no position on a House proposal that could result in the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum moving to Charleston.
But the commander of South Carolina's Sons of Confederate Veterans says his chapter opposes that idea. Leland Summers, a board member, says the 120-year-old museum needs to stay in the state's central, capital city.
The board recommended spending $3.6 million to renovate the museum and display the flag. The House instead advanced a budget plan requiring an analysis of Charleston museum space and moving cost estimates.
CRUZ ACCUSES KASICH OF BEING FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS
That may be the only polite news regarding Ted Cruz this week!
Billionaire George Soros is known to have given millions of dollars to liberal causes and is a strong backer of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. However, this week second place GOP candidate Ted Cruz has been telling Wisconsin voters that, "Hundreds of thousands of dollars from George Soros," reads the text of a new ad by TrusTED Leadership, one of Ted's SuperPACs.
The ad hit the airwaves Tuesday and is scheduled to continue through Wisconsin's winner-take-all election next week. It drew immediate complains from the Kasich campaign for its inaccuracy.
While it is true that many friends and business associates of George Soros or his many companies have donated to all of the Republican candidates neither Soros himself, or any of his companies, have contributed to Kasich or any Republican groups.
Kasich's people filed complaints late Tuesday with television stations demanding they pull the TrusTED Leadership ads because of the, "false, misleading, and deceptive statement," that Soros is funding Kasich.
Matt David, senior strategist for Kasich called the Cruz ad claims "absurd."
At the same time, Ted has been busy saying the same thing about last week's National Enquirer article alleging that he has had affairs with five women.
Why are we bringing that up again this week? Because:
TED CRUZ DOES NOT DENY UNFAITHFULNESS TO HEIDI
Specifically, on Monday, at a press conference, Ted declined to answer a question on Monday about whether he has ever been unfaithful to his wife Heidi.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?'
Instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage - a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle - Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
DailyMail.com directed the question a second time at Cruz when Fiorina had finished.
'Senator I'm sorry, this is a very serious question about your character,' the second question came.
"Will you just - if the answer is, 'Yes, I've always been faithful to my wife,' can you just say so please?"
Rather than do so he once again regurgitated his practiced answer that the National Enquirer story was false, calling it 'complete garbage.'
Regarding the National Enquirer story, many will question the legitimacy of the source - the National Enquirer - and rightly so. They're a tabloid after all. But remember this - the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards scandal, Tiger Woods scandal, the Gary Hart scandal, and the Jesse Jackson scandal. When it comes to exposing the affairs of politicians, they've got a pretty good record.
But the reporter from DailyMail.com did not ask about the National Enquirer article. He is assuming it to be false. What he was asking, related but not, is whether Ted Cruz has ever cheaTED? Since Ted has now refused to answer that question several times this week we have to ask if maybe Ted has cheaTED?
But that's not the only evidence that has surfaced indicating that Ted may soon be busTED?
Facebook has been chocked full of reports that Heidi Cruz filed divorce papers back in 2011 and again in 2013. The reason she allegedly cited for the dissolution of marriage was "infidelity." Now that is unconfirmed. And this is also complicated by the fact that most legal documents in Texas and elsewhere regarding Ted Cruz have been "sealed" by courts at Ted's request. So as long as the documents are "sealed" investigators and media agents have no way of confirming the reports.
And Ted will not issue a statement in response to them.
The mainstream media is pretty much giving Ted a pass on this, choosing instead to resurrect news stories from last week. It really got bad when a panel on Don Lemon's CNN show insisted on talking about Ted's refusal to address the DailyMail.com reporter and other reports by lesser media sources. When the panel refused the instruction of Lemon and CNN's off camera editors that CNN has determined Ted Cruz' sex scandal off limits (the panel kept talking about it) CNN terminated its broadcast, then aired a commercial, and switched to alternate programming.
Still, this just will not go away for poor Ted.
SUPREME COURT MOTION MAY DOCUMENT TED CRUZ VISITS TO PROSTITUTE
Monday, a motion was filed asking the Supreme Court to allow a Florida attorney to release to the public view documents in his possession that will supposedly prove that one of the candidates in this primary (presumably Ted Cruz) had frequented prostitutes.
The former attorney for the "D.C. Madam" has asked the Supreme Court to allow him to release records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's escort service, including customer names, addresses and Social Security numbers, because they allegedly could affect the 2016 presidential election.
In an application to the high court, filed Monday, Montgomery Blair Sibley is asking to be released from a judge's 2007 restraining order which prohibited him from sharing Palfrey's telephone records, during the much-publicized run-up to her federal trial for racketeering, money laundering and mail fraud. And, if the Supreme Court won't hear his argument, Sibley says he will release the identifying information of Palfrey's customers anyway.
Early this year, Sibley filed a motion to modify the 2007 court order prohibiting him from releasing the records. In February, D.C.'s U.S. district court rejected his motion to have the order lifted.
So Sibley attempted to file a motion in the Federal Appeal's Court where Chief Judge Richard Roberts would not allow the Clerk to permit Sibley's motion to be filed at all.
In his Monday filing to the Supreme Court, Sibley argues that if the Supreme Court doesn't rule that he should be allowed to simply file the motion to modify the restraining order, allowing him to release the subpoenaed information, that this will "appear to many to intentionally favor one Presidential candidate over others." The filing goes on to say that, "Such a result will further erode the faith of the People in a fair and impartial judiciary."
The documents in question are 5 years of Verizon phone records that will document the names on the "D.C. Madam" client list.
Before the records were sealed, news agencies reportedly reviewed the phone records and a number of Beltway insiders were named in the scandal, including Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias (who resigned as a result) and Senator David Vitter whose bid for the Governorship of Louisiana was destroyed by the revelation.
Many on the list were not thought to be consequential enough to report on. That would seem to indicate that the person Sibley is talking about is not Clinton or Trump since they were already in public eye. Even though their profiles weren't as high, Kasich and Sanders were both serving in Congress by then, and, like Vitter, they would have drawn attention had their numbers been on the list. That leaves Cruz.
Now the ANNONYMOUS video makes sense.
A couple weeks ago ANNONYMOUS released a video claiming they had info Cruz would not want to go public and urged him to get out of the race or they would send the info to media outlets and start leaking it on twitter. The video specifically asked if he remembered visiting prostitutes.
Around that time a twitter hashtag #theThing started trending that hinted at some misdeed(s) by Cruz including a video. That video is believed to be a possible basis for the National Enquirer article.
The Enquirer story, alleging his cheating, included the claim a prostitute was involved.
The lawyer who is making the request to release the records also noted that ANNONYMOUS had joined the conversation on a blog where he's been posting developments in the legal processing of his request. You can read attorney Sibley's blog and ANNOYMOUS posts to it at: amoprobos.blogspot.com
That may be the only polite news regarding Ted Cruz this week!
Billionaire George Soros is known to have given millions of dollars to liberal causes and is a strong backer of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. However, this week second place GOP candidate Ted Cruz has been telling Wisconsin voters that, "Hundreds of thousands of dollars from George Soros," reads the text of a new ad by TrusTED Leadership, one of Ted's SuperPACs.
The ad hit the airwaves Tuesday and is scheduled to continue through Wisconsin's winner-take-all election next week. It drew immediate complains from the Kasich campaign for its inaccuracy.
While it is true that many friends and business associates of George Soros or his many companies have donated to all of the Republican candidates neither Soros himself, or any of his companies, have contributed to Kasich or any Republican groups.
Kasich's people filed complaints late Tuesday with television stations demanding they pull the TrusTED Leadership ads because of the, "false, misleading, and deceptive statement," that Soros is funding Kasich.
Matt David, senior strategist for Kasich called the Cruz ad claims "absurd."
At the same time, Ted has been busy saying the same thing about last week's National Enquirer article alleging that he has had affairs with five women.
Why are we bringing that up again this week? Because:
TED CRUZ DOES NOT DENY UNFAITHFULNESS TO HEIDI
Specifically, on Monday, at a press conference, Ted declined to answer a question on Monday about whether he has ever been unfaithful to his wife Heidi.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?'
Instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage - a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle - Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
DailyMail.com directed the question a second time at Cruz when Fiorina had finished.
'Senator I'm sorry, this is a very serious question about your character,' the second question came.
"Will you just - if the answer is, 'Yes, I've always been faithful to my wife,' can you just say so please?"
Rather than do so he once again regurgitated his practiced answer that the National Enquirer story was false, calling it 'complete garbage.'
Regarding the National Enquirer story, many will question the legitimacy of the source - the National Enquirer - and rightly so. They're a tabloid after all. But remember this - the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards scandal, Tiger Woods scandal, the Gary Hart scandal, and the Jesse Jackson scandal. When it comes to exposing the affairs of politicians, they've got a pretty good record.
But the reporter from DailyMail.com did not ask about the National Enquirer article. He is assuming it to be false. What he was asking, related but not, is whether Ted Cruz has ever cheaTED? Since Ted has now refused to answer that question several times this week we have to ask if maybe Ted has cheaTED?
But that's not the only evidence that has surfaced indicating that Ted may soon be busTED?
Facebook has been chocked full of reports that Heidi Cruz filed divorce papers back in 2011 and again in 2013. The reason she allegedly cited for the dissolution of marriage was "infidelity." Now that is unconfirmed. And this is also complicated by the fact that most legal documents in Texas and elsewhere regarding Ted Cruz have been "sealed" by courts at Ted's request. So as long as the documents are "sealed" investigators and media agents have no way of confirming the reports.
And Ted will not issue a statement in response to them.
The mainstream media is pretty much giving Ted a pass on this, choosing instead to resurrect news stories from last week. It really got bad when a panel on Don Lemon's CNN show insisted on talking about Ted's refusal to address the DailyMail.com reporter and other reports by lesser media sources. When the panel refused the instruction of Lemon and CNN's off camera editors that CNN has determined Ted Cruz' sex scandal off limits (the panel kept talking about it) CNN terminated its broadcast, then aired a commercial, and switched to alternate programming.
Still, this just will not go away for poor Ted.
SUPREME COURT MOTION MAY DOCUMENT TED CRUZ VISITS TO PROSTITUTE
Monday, a motion was filed asking the Supreme Court to allow a Florida attorney to release to the public view documents in his possession that will supposedly prove that one of the candidates in this primary (presumably Ted Cruz) had frequented prostitutes.
The former attorney for the "D.C. Madam" has asked the Supreme Court to allow him to release records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's escort service, including customer names, addresses and Social Security numbers, because they allegedly could affect the 2016 presidential election.
In an application to the high court, filed Monday, Montgomery Blair Sibley is asking to be released from a judge's 2007 restraining order which prohibited him from sharing Palfrey's telephone records, during the much-publicized run-up to her federal trial for racketeering, money laundering and mail fraud. And, if the Supreme Court won't hear his argument, Sibley says he will release the identifying information of Palfrey's customers anyway.
Early this year, Sibley filed a motion to modify the 2007 court order prohibiting him from releasing the records. In February, D.C.'s U.S. district court rejected his motion to have the order lifted.
So Sibley attempted to file a motion in the Federal Appeal's Court where Chief Judge Richard Roberts would not allow the Clerk to permit Sibley's motion to be filed at all.
In his Monday filing to the Supreme Court, Sibley argues that if the Supreme Court doesn't rule that he should be allowed to simply file the motion to modify the restraining order, allowing him to release the subpoenaed information, that this will "appear to many to intentionally favor one Presidential candidate over others." The filing goes on to say that, "Such a result will further erode the faith of the People in a fair and impartial judiciary."
The documents in question are 5 years of Verizon phone records that will document the names on the "D.C. Madam" client list.
Before the records were sealed, news agencies reportedly reviewed the phone records and a number of Beltway insiders were named in the scandal, including Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias (who resigned as a result) and Senator David Vitter whose bid for the Governorship of Louisiana was destroyed by the revelation.
Many on the list were not thought to be consequential enough to report on. That would seem to indicate that the person Sibley is talking about is not Clinton or Trump since they were already in public eye. Even though their profiles weren't as high, Kasich and Sanders were both serving in Congress by then, and, like Vitter, they would have drawn attention had their numbers been on the list. That leaves Cruz.
Now the ANNONYMOUS video makes sense.
A couple weeks ago ANNONYMOUS released a video claiming they had info Cruz would not want to go public and urged him to get out of the race or they would send the info to media outlets and start leaking it on twitter. The video specifically asked if he remembered visiting prostitutes.
Around that time a twitter hashtag #theThing started trending that hinted at some misdeed(s) by Cruz including a video. That video is believed to be a possible basis for the National Enquirer article.
The Enquirer story, alleging his cheating, included the claim a prostitute was involved.
The lawyer who is making the request to release the records also noted that ANNONYMOUS had joined the conversation on a blog where he's been posting developments in the legal processing of his request. You can read attorney Sibley's blog and ANNOYMOUS posts to it at: amoprobos.blogspot.com
Trump and Cruz Suckered into Destroying Each Other?
The "War on the Wives" between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz should have conservatives asking "Cui bono?" an old Latin legal term meaning "Who benefits?"
And the answer of course is that only the Republican establishment and the Washington Cartel would accomplish benefit from the war that is breeding this intensely personal hostility.
So, let's take a look at where this all came from and how it started - and who started it.
The War on the Wives began when "Make America Awesome," an independent Super PAC (really more of a fundraising mill) run by liberal establishment Republican consultant Liz Mair, ran an ad attacking Donald Trump through his wife, Melania.
Note Liz Mair's liberal past and record of failed campaigns when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker briefly hired her before his campaign tanked.
The ad repurposed a British GQ spread in which Mrs. Trump appeared to be nude. Mair put a $400,000 buy behind the digital ad which appeared right before the March 22 primaries mostly in Utah, but also apparently in Arizona as well.
The result, entirely predictable to anyone who has been observing Trump and his campaign, was that Trump unloaded both barrels against Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi.
Naturally, Cruz responded with "lay-off my wife" just as he did when the establishment media attacked his children back during the Christmas holidays.
And then the "Cruz is having multiple affairs" story appeared in the National Enquirer.
Cruz (understandably) took the bait and attacked Trump for planting the story and has now declined to say that he will support whomever the GOP nominee is - something he'd been promising for months.
"I don't make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family, and Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee," Cruz told reporters.
Cui bono?
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, the two smartest guys in the contest for the GOP presidential nomination, are being played for suckers by the Republican establishment, Washington power brokers, and their allies in the Media.
The establishment's goal is to sow as much chaos as possible in the lead-up to the Republican National Convention so that no candidate reaches the magic number of the 1237 delegates necessary to win the nomination on the first ballot.
At that point the insiders of the Republican establishment will step in to choose their preferred candidate (our money is on House Speaker Paul Ryan but know that somewhere in Utah Mitt Romney is at a beauty parlor getting a manicure and practicing his convention acceptance speech to a hair stylist) to derail the conservative revolution now threatening the establishment stranglehold on Washington.
Both Trump and Cruz supporters need to be smart about who the real political enemy is in this contest - it is the Republican establishment, not the other candidate. By attacking each other rather than addressing issues and exposing the establishment and Media manipulations for what they are the remainder of the Republican primaries are playing right into the establishment's hands.
TRUMP HAS CLOSED DOOR MEETING AT RNC THURSDAY
On Thursday Donald Trump left his campaigning in Wisconsin for a closed door meeting at RNC Headquarters in D.C.
After a wild week for Trump, the RNC reportedly requested a private sit-down with Trump to discuss some of the comments Trump has made in the past week.
According to Politico, the closed door meeting between Trump and RNC chairman Reince Priebus covered a variety of topics, but apparently the primary focus of the meeting was a simple one: delegates. The delegates that Trump needs in order to win the nomination, the delegates he'd be fighting over if there's a contested convention this summer, the very same delegates that Trump claims were stolen from him due to 'unfair' rules the RNC imposed in states like Louisiana - which saw Trump, who won the state, receive the same number of delegates as Cruz who came in second.
The controversial decision by the RNC was called into question by Trump shortly after his victory was announced. Donald Trump threatened to sue the RNC over the debacle, a threat that may have been addressed at this secretive meeting between Donald Trump and Reince Priebus.
Trump has always had a troubled relationship with the RNC, suggesting numerous times he might dump the GOP in favor of a third-party run in the general election, despite signing a pledge that he wouldn't do so. For his part, at least publically, Reince Priebus stands behind Trump, stating that the RNC will back Trump if he wins the nomination - Priebus reiterated the RNC would stand behind whoever wins the nomination.
The closed-door meeting was held at the RNC's Washington DC office, and lasted about an hour, reports NBC News. Taking a break from TV interviews, Trump spent the day meeting with the RNC, and his own foreign policy team.
It's unclear, just what was discussed in the closed-door meeting between Trump and RNC chairman Reince Priebus, but Politico reports that security shut down the fourth floor of the building in order to keep the talks as private as possible. Just after the meeting, Trump tweeted out thanks to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, stating that the meeting was productive and civil.
"Just had a very nice meeting with Reince Priebus and the GOP. Looking forward to bringing the Party together - and it will happen!" Trump tweeted shortly after the meeting.
The "War on the Wives" between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz should have conservatives asking "Cui bono?" an old Latin legal term meaning "Who benefits?"
And the answer of course is that only the Republican establishment and the Washington Cartel would accomplish benefit from the war that is breeding this intensely personal hostility.
So, let's take a look at where this all came from and how it started - and who started it.
The War on the Wives began when "Make America Awesome," an independent Super PAC (really more of a fundraising mill) run by liberal establishment Republican consultant Liz Mair, ran an ad attacking Donald Trump through his wife, Melania.
Note Liz Mair's liberal past and record of failed campaigns when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker briefly hired her before his campaign tanked.
The ad repurposed a British GQ spread in which Mrs. Trump appeared to be nude. Mair put a $400,000 buy behind the digital ad which appeared right before the March 22 primaries mostly in Utah, but also apparently in Arizona as well.
The result, entirely predictable to anyone who has been observing Trump and his campaign, was that Trump unloaded both barrels against Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi.
Naturally, Cruz responded with "lay-off my wife" just as he did when the establishment media attacked his children back during the Christmas holidays.
And then the "Cruz is having multiple affairs" story appeared in the National Enquirer.
Cruz (understandably) took the bait and attacked Trump for planting the story and has now declined to say that he will support whomever the GOP nominee is - something he'd been promising for months.
"I don't make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family, and Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee," Cruz told reporters.
Cui bono?
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, the two smartest guys in the contest for the GOP presidential nomination, are being played for suckers by the Republican establishment, Washington power brokers, and their allies in the Media.
The establishment's goal is to sow as much chaos as possible in the lead-up to the Republican National Convention so that no candidate reaches the magic number of the 1237 delegates necessary to win the nomination on the first ballot.
At that point the insiders of the Republican establishment will step in to choose their preferred candidate (our money is on House Speaker Paul Ryan but know that somewhere in Utah Mitt Romney is at a beauty parlor getting a manicure and practicing his convention acceptance speech to a hair stylist) to derail the conservative revolution now threatening the establishment stranglehold on Washington.
Both Trump and Cruz supporters need to be smart about who the real political enemy is in this contest - it is the Republican establishment, not the other candidate. By attacking each other rather than addressing issues and exposing the establishment and Media manipulations for what they are the remainder of the Republican primaries are playing right into the establishment's hands.
TRUMP HAS CLOSED DOOR MEETING AT RNC THURSDAY
On Thursday Donald Trump left his campaigning in Wisconsin for a closed door meeting at RNC Headquarters in D.C.
After a wild week for Trump, the RNC reportedly requested a private sit-down with Trump to discuss some of the comments Trump has made in the past week.
According to Politico, the closed door meeting between Trump and RNC chairman Reince Priebus covered a variety of topics, but apparently the primary focus of the meeting was a simple one: delegates. The delegates that Trump needs in order to win the nomination, the delegates he'd be fighting over if there's a contested convention this summer, the very same delegates that Trump claims were stolen from him due to 'unfair' rules the RNC imposed in states like Louisiana - which saw Trump, who won the state, receive the same number of delegates as Cruz who came in second.
The controversial decision by the RNC was called into question by Trump shortly after his victory was announced. Donald Trump threatened to sue the RNC over the debacle, a threat that may have been addressed at this secretive meeting between Donald Trump and Reince Priebus.
Trump has always had a troubled relationship with the RNC, suggesting numerous times he might dump the GOP in favor of a third-party run in the general election, despite signing a pledge that he wouldn't do so. For his part, at least publically, Reince Priebus stands behind Trump, stating that the RNC will back Trump if he wins the nomination - Priebus reiterated the RNC would stand behind whoever wins the nomination.
The closed-door meeting was held at the RNC's Washington DC office, and lasted about an hour, reports NBC News. Taking a break from TV interviews, Trump spent the day meeting with the RNC, and his own foreign policy team.
It's unclear, just what was discussed in the closed-door meeting between Trump and RNC chairman Reince Priebus, but Politico reports that security shut down the fourth floor of the building in order to keep the talks as private as possible. Just after the meeting, Trump tweeted out thanks to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, stating that the meeting was productive and civil.
"Just had a very nice meeting with Reince Priebus and the GOP. Looking forward to bringing the Party together - and it will happen!" Trump tweeted shortly after the meeting.
COURT RULES NEW ORLEANS MONUMENTS STAY IN PLACE
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order on March 25 that prevents the city of New Orleans from taking down Confederate monuments while a lawsuit challenging its ability to do so makes its way through court.
U.S District Judge Carl Barbier had previously rejected a request to block city action while a federal lawsuit was being considered.
John Dunlap III, the attorney representing the Louisiana Landmarks Commission, said that while their main case must still be heard in Barbier's court, the appellate panel's decision Friday provides hope the plaintiffs will prevail.
"Obviously, the 5th Circuit thinks there's some merit to the arguments that the city's failure to follow own ordinances violates the U.S. and Louisiana constitutions," Dunlap said.
The 5th Circuit judges that considered the injunction appeal were Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod and Leslie Southwick, according to a two-page document filed at the court.
The plaintiffs didn't earn a complete victory at the appellate level, as the panel denied a request to have their appeal expedited. This essentially keeps the case on the standard docket in Barbier's court, meaning arguments and briefings could last for months, Dunlap said.
Pierre McGraw, president of the Monumental Task Force board, issued a statement Friday afternoon: "We appreciate the unanimous decision of the panel of federal judges, which acknowledges that removing the monuments is premature. This action will allow for a full review of the constitutional and statutory issues at stake in this case," he said.
There is a similar case in state court that is also awaiting appeal. Orleans Civil District Judge Piper Griffin ruled in February that the Monumental Task Force, volunteers who maintain and repair fixture displays around the city, can't claim ownership of the monuments. Dunlap said that with signs pointing toward defeat before the state's Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, his goal is to bring the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court where the issue of constitutionality can be determined.
Since gaining City Council approval to remove the monuments, Mayor Landrieu has been unable to hire a contractor to remove the monuments. The preferred contractor it first selected backed out of the job. The mayor's office then announced the project would be awarded through a public bidding process, but the city pulled a list of interested contractors from its website. The deadline for obtaining more bids has been extended to April 22.
Sarah McLaughlin, the mayor's communication director, said in an email "the city is evaluating the implications that this ruling may have on the bid process."
VISIT THE DIXIE HERITAGE BOOKSTORE
VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
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!
www.dixieheritage.weebly.com
Until next week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order on March 25 that prevents the city of New Orleans from taking down Confederate monuments while a lawsuit challenging its ability to do so makes its way through court.
U.S District Judge Carl Barbier had previously rejected a request to block city action while a federal lawsuit was being considered.
John Dunlap III, the attorney representing the Louisiana Landmarks Commission, said that while their main case must still be heard in Barbier's court, the appellate panel's decision Friday provides hope the plaintiffs will prevail.
"Obviously, the 5th Circuit thinks there's some merit to the arguments that the city's failure to follow own ordinances violates the U.S. and Louisiana constitutions," Dunlap said.
The 5th Circuit judges that considered the injunction appeal were Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod and Leslie Southwick, according to a two-page document filed at the court.
The plaintiffs didn't earn a complete victory at the appellate level, as the panel denied a request to have their appeal expedited. This essentially keeps the case on the standard docket in Barbier's court, meaning arguments and briefings could last for months, Dunlap said.
Pierre McGraw, president of the Monumental Task Force board, issued a statement Friday afternoon: "We appreciate the unanimous decision of the panel of federal judges, which acknowledges that removing the monuments is premature. This action will allow for a full review of the constitutional and statutory issues at stake in this case," he said.
There is a similar case in state court that is also awaiting appeal. Orleans Civil District Judge Piper Griffin ruled in February that the Monumental Task Force, volunteers who maintain and repair fixture displays around the city, can't claim ownership of the monuments. Dunlap said that with signs pointing toward defeat before the state's Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, his goal is to bring the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court where the issue of constitutionality can be determined.
Since gaining City Council approval to remove the monuments, Mayor Landrieu has been unable to hire a contractor to remove the monuments. The preferred contractor it first selected backed out of the job. The mayor's office then announced the project would be awarded through a public bidding process, but the city pulled a list of interested contractors from its website. The deadline for obtaining more bids has been extended to April 22.
Sarah McLaughlin, the mayor's communication director, said in an email "the city is evaluating the implications that this ruling may have on the bid process."
VISIT THE DIXIE HERITAGE BOOKSTORE
VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
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!
www.dixieheritage.weebly.com
Until next week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed
RSS Feed
