Columbus, Mississippi United Daughters of the Confederacy chapter accepted an Iron Cross of Honor from UDC "sisters" of North Carolina Tuesday morning at the Stephen D. Lee Home in Columbus.
The Iron Cross, given in honor of Stephen D. Lee, the youngest confederate lieutenant general in the WBTS, a Mississippi governor and the first president of Mississippi State University, was ordered by the UDC in the early 1900s. On Tuesday morning the cross was donated to the Stephen D. Lee Home & Museum, where it will be displayed.
The Iron Cross, given in honor of Stephen D. Lee, the youngest confederate lieutenant general in the WBTS, a Mississippi governor and the first president of Mississippi State University, was ordered by the UDC in the early 1900s. On Tuesday morning the cross was donated to the Stephen D. Lee Home & Museum, where it will be displayed.
HOUSTON SCHOOLS SUED OVER NAME CHANGES
Nine members of the local community on Thursday sued Houston's public school district, alleging the district violated numerous laws and their own regulations when recently changing the names of eight schools.
"We've been arguing as parents and taxpayers for months that the vote was illegal, politically driven, and taking these historic buildings was against the law," said public relations consultant Wayne Dolcefino, who is a spokesman for the plaintiffs in the case.
The lawsuit asks the Harris County District Court to prohibit HISD's board from spending millions of taxpayer dollars on renaming the eight schools. HISD voted to change the names of these schools in May because each school was named for a Confederate leader.
An HISD spokesman said the district had no immediate comment on the suit.
Dolcefino said the school board violated the Texas Open Meetings act and the Monument act, among other regulations. The plaintiffs on Tuesday issued a 24-hour demand to HISD, asking the board to rescind its vote to rename the schools. HISD didn't respond, he said.
Attorney Dan Goforth, who's representing the plaintiffs, said the money HISD will have to spend is the sole problem with the name changes.
"We're not saying they can't do it. We're just saying they can't do it the way they want to do it," Goforth said.
He estimated it will cost the school district at least $5 million, including at least $2 million to change student uniforms to match the new school names. HISD expects the total cost of the name changes will be no more than $2 million.
"HISD is broke," the attorney said.
Nancy Abrego, one of the plaintiffs, lost her job teaching special education in HISD in April due to school district budget cuts. She grew up in the Heights section and attended Reagan High School, one of the schools slated for a name change.
Abrego, who taught in the school district for 18 years, said renaming the schools is a waste of money.
"They need to give it to schools, so the schools and the students can have what they need, instead of teachers having to pull money out of their own pocket," Abrego said.
STATE ASKS OBAMA TO ERASE ALL CONFEDERATE NAMES
Historical figures or hateful avatars? How you see former leaders of the Confederacy depends much on your perspective.
Extending a debate that has swirled from Charleston to California, the California Assembly members on Monday spent a fervent few minutes debating and then passing a resolution that would urge Congress and the president to strip the names of Confederate leaders from federal buildings, roads and other pieces of property.
The author of the resolution, Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, last year pushed a bill to erase Confederate place names in California that could have renamed Fort Bragg, a tiny town on the northern California coast named after General Braxton Bragg. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed Glazer's bill, calling it "an issue quintessentially for local decision makers."
But plenty of Assembly members think it's an issue for members of Congress. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, argued that nixing such names nationwide would communicate that "we do not tolerate, celebrate or welcome displays of oppression, hatred or bigotry in public funded spaces."
ADVERTISING
"By continuing to honor confederate leaders who fought against our country to defend the institution of slavery," said Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, "we perpetuate a long flirtation in this nation with a selective, I would say abjectly false, nostalgia."
Disputing the need for the bill, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, R-Oceanside, argued for a more inclusive view of history, asserting that Confederate titan General Robert E. Lee "was a leader within Virginia and many things beyond what had to with the confederates."
"If we start purging our history, the lessons that can be learned by our youth on what was good and bad by everyone are going to be lost," Chavez said. "We cannot re-engineer history. We just have to understand what history is."
MARINE CORPS TO CHANGE 19 NAMES
Nineteen of the service's job specialty names will be changed to reflect gender-neutral titles.
Within the next few days, the Corps is expected to issue a mandate to remove "man" from Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) job titles such as "Infantry Assault Man" and "Basic Infantryman," and to replace gender-specific endings with "Marine."
The change comes in the wake of a months-long review mandated by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who also oversees the Marine Corps. Mabus requested the review in January, after the Defense Department opened all military jobs to women.
"Please review the position titles throughout the Marine Corps and ensure that they are gender-integrated as well, removing 'man' from the titles," Mabus wrote to the Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. Robert Neller.
The change has prompted a range of responses from the military community. Some see no point in creating what they view as a non-issue. Many others, however, view the changes as signs of a degraded military. The services overall have been weakened by "empty platitudes and concessions to political correctness run amuck," says Commander Dan O'Shea, a retired Navy SEAL and OEF/OIF veteran.
"Can SECNAV Mabus answer how further emasculating the Navy and Marine Corps by removing 'man' from every job title increases the combat mentality and lethality of our military?" O'Shea says. "Continuing to push a 'macho' warrior culture and ethos out of the service will only result in driving out those who joined to go to war and not for the GI Bill, VA benefits or false praise like a medal for finishing boot camp or an unearned 'neutered' title."
Others have mixed views.
"The Marine Corps has a very sound, vibrant, culture," says former Marine Angie Morgan. "There are many opportunities for women to succeed in the organization. If, by renaming MOS's, this attracts more qualified women because they see the range of opportunities available to them, then I think it's great."
However, Morgan adds, "I don't see a need to change (the long-used mantra) 'Every Marine is a rifleman.' It's part of our organizational identity. I never took issue with viewing myself as a rifleman. I joined the Marine Corps. I knew what I was getting into. "
The Marine Corps, meanwhile, is neither confirming nor denying the forthcoming announcement. The service has not yet announced the changes because the official document mandating the changes has not been signed, a Marine Corps official tells the media. Noting published reports on the announcement, though, the official says: "There is no inaccuracy in what has been reported."
HAS NIKKI HALEY BURRIED THE FLAG FOR GOOD?
Almost a year after the Confederate battle flag was removed from public view at the Statehouse, there still is no clear plan for its display at the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum.
The Relic Room Commission received no feedback from the General Assembly on its request for museum improvements, which included funds needed to display the flag. Museum staff said Wednesday they will look at other options. The Legislature received the proposal at the beginning of the year.
Commission Chairman George Dorn, a past director of the State Budget Office, told members it was clear by March that the Legislature didn't want to discuss the flag's display this year.
As a result the flag continues to rest in an environmentally protected secure area with the other materials in the museum's collection that are in storage. The Museum can not remove the flag from storage without the State's permission. If the Governor and other Scallywags in the Assembly continue their manipulation of the legislative process the flag, potentially, may never again see the light of day. That, is the Governor's hope.
Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, who surprisingly broke with the majority of the state's Republican leadership last summer when he endorsed changing the Mississippi flag, got to vote on the issue recently.
Gunn was a "messenger" for his church, Morrison Heights Baptist Church in Clinton, to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, where a resolution was adopted that calls on "our brothers and sisters in Christ to discontinue the display of the Confederate battle flag as a sign of solidarity of the whole Body of Christ, including our African-American brothers and sisters."
Gunn said, "I raised my hand" to vote for the resolution. When asked if he hopes to have success in the 2017 session passing a bill to change the controversial state flag, which includes the Confederate battle emblem as part of its design, Gunn said, "It is a conversation we will continue having. To do anything around here you must get 62 votes."
Despite Gunn's support, no legislation dealing with changing the flag made it out of committee to the floor of either chamber during the 2016 session. He plans to keep reintroducing the issue until it passes. Maybe Speaker Gunn needs to hear from Southern minded people throughout Mississippi as they vote for someone else.
GEORGIA PASTOR RESPONDS TO SBC RESOLUTION
Dixie Heritage subscriber and re-enactor, Pastor John Brown, has submitted the following:
The ONLY reason such a proposal as this could pass - especially in the South - is because enemies of the truth have done a better job "educating" others toward their point of view than have we.
I am a preacher of the gospel, and you may "quote" me on this if you like: The Confederate flag stands for honorable history and heritage, and is symbolic of many good, righteous traditions. we uproot our history and heritage to our own destruction.
Southern Baptists for Southern Heritage
As we have stated in the last two week's letters, our response to the condemnation of the Confederate Battle Flag by the Southern Baptist Convention, "will be ongoing."
Pastor Brown's note has got me thinking about Lee's charge and in particular the duty of we, Confederate descendants, to, "the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles he loved and which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."
This week we will release the first of a series of videos. These videos will be heavily promoted throughout the South. They will be promoted particularly amongst Baptists under the title of Southern Baptists for Southern Heritage.
We will announce the release of each video to our Dixie Heritage subscribers so that you may distribute them freely. Together, we will educate ours and future generations.
Gunn was a "messenger" for his church, Morrison Heights Baptist Church in Clinton, to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, where a resolution was adopted that calls on "our brothers and sisters in Christ to discontinue the display of the Confederate battle flag as a sign of solidarity of the whole Body of Christ, including our African-American brothers and sisters."
Gunn said, "I raised my hand" to vote for the resolution. When asked if he hopes to have success in the 2017 session passing a bill to change the controversial state flag, which includes the Confederate battle emblem as part of its design, Gunn said, "It is a conversation we will continue having. To do anything around here you must get 62 votes."
Despite Gunn's support, no legislation dealing with changing the flag made it out of committee to the floor of either chamber during the 2016 session. He plans to keep reintroducing the issue until it passes. Maybe Speaker Gunn needs to hear from Southern minded people throughout Mississippi as they vote for someone else.
GEORGIA PASTOR RESPONDS TO SBC RESOLUTION
Dixie Heritage subscriber and re-enactor, Pastor John Brown, has submitted the following:
The ONLY reason such a proposal as this could pass - especially in the South - is because enemies of the truth have done a better job "educating" others toward their point of view than have we.
I am a preacher of the gospel, and you may "quote" me on this if you like: The Confederate flag stands for honorable history and heritage, and is symbolic of many good, righteous traditions. we uproot our history and heritage to our own destruction.
Southern Baptists for Southern Heritage
As we have stated in the last two week's letters, our response to the condemnation of the Confederate Battle Flag by the Southern Baptist Convention, "will be ongoing."
Pastor Brown's note has got me thinking about Lee's charge and in particular the duty of we, Confederate descendants, to, "the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles he loved and which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."
This week we will release the first of a series of videos. These videos will be heavily promoted throughout the South. They will be promoted particularly amongst Baptists under the title of Southern Baptists for Southern Heritage.
We will announce the release of each video to our Dixie Heritage subscribers so that you may distribute them freely. Together, we will educate ours and future generations.
The Following Editorial appeared in the York Pennsylvania Newspaper:
As a native Pennsylvanian, and one whose ancestors fought on both sides of the American Civil War, I regard the Confederate battle flag as emblematic of a particularly tragic time in our nation's history. While no one in his or her right mind would today defend the concept of slavery, it is too simplistic to assume that in that war the South was wholly in the wrong.
My wife, Bonnie, is originally from Atlanta; last summer, we tracked down the graves in Richmond, Virginia, of two of her great-great-uncles who died of disease while in the Confederate army, placing a small battle flag at each grave. These two young Georgians - barely out of their teens - were from poor farming families who owned no slaves. They were simply defending their native state.
Nor was the North wholly in the right. In many northern cities, desperately poor immigrants toiled in factories under appalling conditions that were little better than slavery. There was a lot of good and bad on both sides of that war.
I agree with the editors that the Confederate battle flag, understandably, provokes strong emotions in many, and by no means is always displayed in good taste (being flown from the back of a pickup truck comes to mind). However, it is perfectly appropriate for the battle flag to be displayed as part of a historical exhibit - yes, even in a government building - as was the case with the Hanover Area Historical Society's Flag Day exhibit.
The Confederate flag is certainly a part of Hanover's history, as a cavalry battle was fought there on the day before the opening of the Battle of Gettysburg. A display such as this one is clearly meant to educate, not to intimidate. The editors twice erroneously state that the battle flag was "flying in the state Capitol"; the picture accompanying the editorial clearly shows that the flags were hung as part of a historical display. There is a difference.
That brings us to the actions of Rep. Brown.
The representative is certainly entitled to her opinion as to the appropriateness of the battle flag's presence as part of the display, though I believe that, in this context, she is wrong. What she was not entitled to do was to act in the way that she did. The editors state that Rep. Brown "... took it (the flag) down and turned it over to House officials." Actually, what she really did was this: She removed an authentic, historic artifact that did not belong to her, crumpled it up in a ball, and tossed it on the House speaker's desk. Simply put, her actions were unlawful, and she should have been arrested.
By the way, since the editors seem inclined to hold up Rep. Brown as some sort of a hero in this incident, it might interest your readers to know that she is currently under indictment and awaiting trial on corruption and bribery charges. To add insult to injury, the flag, after being restored to its rightful place in the display, was then again removed by order of Gov. Tom Wolf, who once more demonstrated his talent for choosing political expediency over common sense.
The Civil War remains a huge event in our nation's history, filled with countless examples of heroism and pathos. In sad contrast, the Flag Day incident reflects credit on no one except the good people of the Hanover Area Historical Society.
A link shared by one of our readers:
http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=334
SUPPORT DIXIE HERITAGE
Receive a banner ad in the next 20 issues of the Dixie Heritage Letter for the reduced rate of just $120 - thats just $6 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.
A Louisiana Walmart refused to bake a cake with a Confederate flag, but did decorate one with the Islamic State flag, according to a video.
Chuck Netzhammer said his cake with the words "Heritage not hate," printed over the Confederate flag was rejected.
Yet the store gave no qualms when he requested a cake with the ISIS flag.
"They happen to be somebody we're fighting against right now who are killing our men and boys overseas and are beheading Christians," Netzhammer says in the video.
A Walmart spokesman told the Daily Caller, "We made the decision to stop selling Confederate flag related items promoting the flag's image. For that reason we did not make the cake. [Netzhammer] brought in the other image of ISIS and really, what happened, was our associate didn't recognize what that image was," Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove told the news site.
You can watch Chuck's video and make your own determination:
Chuck Netzhammer said his cake with the words "Heritage not hate," printed over the Confederate flag was rejected.
Yet the store gave no qualms when he requested a cake with the ISIS flag.
"They happen to be somebody we're fighting against right now who are killing our men and boys overseas and are beheading Christians," Netzhammer says in the video.
A Walmart spokesman told the Daily Caller, "We made the decision to stop selling Confederate flag related items promoting the flag's image. For that reason we did not make the cake. [Netzhammer] brought in the other image of ISIS and really, what happened, was our associate didn't recognize what that image was," Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove told the news site.
You can watch Chuck's video and make your own determination:
TRUMPS MUSLIM BAN ALREADY WRITTEN INTO FEDERAL LAW
The MacCarran Walter Act of 1952, and its subsequent 1965 revision, which is the law that liberals are citing to claim that immigrants can not be blocked from entering the country on the basis of their religion is actually a legal basis for the proposed ban on Muslim immigration. The Act passed June 27, 1952 revising the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. And it was updated further in 1965.
That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by "force, violence, or other unconstitutional means." This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.
All Muslims who attest that the Qur'an is their life's guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam, Islamic law, and to Jihad.
Not only that, anyone with any disability or disease (and TB is listed specifically) is forbidden to enter America ! And anyone without the proper ID Papers is forbidden by law to enter America.
Christianity and Islam by Charles Reginald Haines
This book talks about the differences between Christianity and Islam. I originally hunted it down when I saw that a copy was reported to have been amongst Osama Bin Laden's bedside reading. Dry reading at some points, I did learn some interesting things. It is overall a well written book.
I was particularly struck by the stories of Christians provoking martyrdom to the frustration and consternation of their Muslim rulers. I also noticed much discussion of different heresies that only hinted at a rich backstory there and also indirectly explains how Christianity took its modern form in the Middle East.
I will send a copy of this book when you give a gift of $5 or more to Dixie Heritage. Get your copy of Christianity and Islam by Charles Reginald Haines:
The MacCarran Walter Act of 1952, and its subsequent 1965 revision, which is the law that liberals are citing to claim that immigrants can not be blocked from entering the country on the basis of their religion is actually a legal basis for the proposed ban on Muslim immigration. The Act passed June 27, 1952 revising the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. And it was updated further in 1965.
That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by "force, violence, or other unconstitutional means." This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.
All Muslims who attest that the Qur'an is their life's guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam, Islamic law, and to Jihad.
Not only that, anyone with any disability or disease (and TB is listed specifically) is forbidden to enter America ! And anyone without the proper ID Papers is forbidden by law to enter America.
Christianity and Islam by Charles Reginald Haines
This book talks about the differences between Christianity and Islam. I originally hunted it down when I saw that a copy was reported to have been amongst Osama Bin Laden's bedside reading. Dry reading at some points, I did learn some interesting things. It is overall a well written book.
I was particularly struck by the stories of Christians provoking martyrdom to the frustration and consternation of their Muslim rulers. I also noticed much discussion of different heresies that only hinted at a rich backstory there and also indirectly explains how Christianity took its modern form in the Middle East.
I will send a copy of this book when you give a gift of $5 or more to Dixie Heritage. Get your copy of Christianity and Islam by Charles Reginald Haines:
One of our readers submitted the following commentary on why they do not like Donald Trump - and on why they will vote for him:
I supported Ted Cruz during the primaries and struggled mightily with Donald Trump (and in many ways, still do). But I will vote for Trump in November because as intrigued as I was early on by the NeverTrump movement, it's clear these folks (who stand on soap boxes of personal integrity) are putting self before country.
David Horowitz and Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Magazine are two conservatives among many who have been covering the urgent need to get behind Trump. Writing in forceful and eloquent ways, they are sounding the alarm, pointing out critical differences between Trump and Clinton. Most recently Horowitz wrote:
Barack Obama delivers nuclear weapons and $150 billion to America's mortal enemy in the Middle East.
But when Donald Trump insinuates the president is a man of uncertain loyalties, Republican leaders back away from him. When Trump proposes fighting "radical Islam," securing America's borders, stopping unvetted immigration from Muslim terrorist states, surveilling mosques, and scrutinizing the families of terrorist actors, Republicans join Democrats in denouncing him, or take an uncomfortable distance or maintain a silence that leaves him to fend for himself.
Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run. This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.
The threat of Islam, terror, and open borders drives home the fact that without national security, all else is moot. And on this front alone, Donald Trump's views are dramatically different from Hillary Clinton's. The gap between Trump and Clinton on national security is so wide it is one that might one day save your life. Or mine. Or the lives of Republicans who will not vote for Trump because, you know: integrity. As if casting a vote that helps ensure that a criminal, socialist, Islamist sympathizer gets to plop herself down in the oval office in order to continue the destructive and downright evil work of the past eight years is an act brimming with integrity.
To those whose delicate sensibilities are offended by Trump, I ask: Are your sensibilities not offended by Clinton? Because if they're not, then you should register as a Democrat. And if they are, then the reality is that it will be Clinton or Trump.
Choose one. "Conscientious objector" is an adolescent cop-out. Our nation is at war (albeit a one-sided one we refuse to fight). All adults are needed on deck.
As Daniel Greenfield wrote concerning those who are committed to abandoning our presumptive nominee and helping to "usher in eight years of left-wing rule" that embraces "positions well to the left of Obama."
Political campaigns can get ugly and Trump's style is, at times, to get as nasty as possible, but it's a sign of misplaced insider priorities to allow personal animus to matter more than the war against the left. It's not unreasonable for some conservatives to be angry at Trump and his tactics. It is unreasonable to let that anger turn into a petulance that would let the left rule the nation for another eight years.
So to those holier-than-thou conservatives who refuse to vote for Donald Trump because their personal integrity will not allow them to do so, I say: If you want more jihad, don't vote for Trump and help Hillary win. If you want to be sure our borders remain open, don't vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And if you want the next president to be someone who got Americans killed and then lied about it, don't vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And when Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the next president, you can pat yourself on the back, know you did the right thing, and raise a glass to your integrity, which will have served your ego but not the nation.
The primaries are over. Whatever happened, happened. Whatever rude, obnoxious, manipulative behavior Trump engaged in is in the past. Voting for him doesn't mean you condone such behavior, you support everything he has expressed, you trust him implicitly, or that you even like the guy. It means you understand what's at stake and have the maturity to move beyond your own ego in order to be a true patriot.
We either have a shot at a future or we don't.
Trump gives America a chance to survive. And maybe even do better than that.
LIKE US ON fACEBOOK
Use this link to visit the fACEBOOK page:
https://www.facebook.com/dixieheritageletter
VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE:
Dixie Heritage has a new home on the internet.
www.dixieheritage.net
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.net
Until next week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed
I supported Ted Cruz during the primaries and struggled mightily with Donald Trump (and in many ways, still do). But I will vote for Trump in November because as intrigued as I was early on by the NeverTrump movement, it's clear these folks (who stand on soap boxes of personal integrity) are putting self before country.
David Horowitz and Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Magazine are two conservatives among many who have been covering the urgent need to get behind Trump. Writing in forceful and eloquent ways, they are sounding the alarm, pointing out critical differences between Trump and Clinton. Most recently Horowitz wrote:
Barack Obama delivers nuclear weapons and $150 billion to America's mortal enemy in the Middle East.
But when Donald Trump insinuates the president is a man of uncertain loyalties, Republican leaders back away from him. When Trump proposes fighting "radical Islam," securing America's borders, stopping unvetted immigration from Muslim terrorist states, surveilling mosques, and scrutinizing the families of terrorist actors, Republicans join Democrats in denouncing him, or take an uncomfortable distance or maintain a silence that leaves him to fend for himself.
Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run. This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.
The threat of Islam, terror, and open borders drives home the fact that without national security, all else is moot. And on this front alone, Donald Trump's views are dramatically different from Hillary Clinton's. The gap between Trump and Clinton on national security is so wide it is one that might one day save your life. Or mine. Or the lives of Republicans who will not vote for Trump because, you know: integrity. As if casting a vote that helps ensure that a criminal, socialist, Islamist sympathizer gets to plop herself down in the oval office in order to continue the destructive and downright evil work of the past eight years is an act brimming with integrity.
To those whose delicate sensibilities are offended by Trump, I ask: Are your sensibilities not offended by Clinton? Because if they're not, then you should register as a Democrat. And if they are, then the reality is that it will be Clinton or Trump.
Choose one. "Conscientious objector" is an adolescent cop-out. Our nation is at war (albeit a one-sided one we refuse to fight). All adults are needed on deck.
As Daniel Greenfield wrote concerning those who are committed to abandoning our presumptive nominee and helping to "usher in eight years of left-wing rule" that embraces "positions well to the left of Obama."
Political campaigns can get ugly and Trump's style is, at times, to get as nasty as possible, but it's a sign of misplaced insider priorities to allow personal animus to matter more than the war against the left. It's not unreasonable for some conservatives to be angry at Trump and his tactics. It is unreasonable to let that anger turn into a petulance that would let the left rule the nation for another eight years.
So to those holier-than-thou conservatives who refuse to vote for Donald Trump because their personal integrity will not allow them to do so, I say: If you want more jihad, don't vote for Trump and help Hillary win. If you want to be sure our borders remain open, don't vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And if you want the next president to be someone who got Americans killed and then lied about it, don't vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And when Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the next president, you can pat yourself on the back, know you did the right thing, and raise a glass to your integrity, which will have served your ego but not the nation.
The primaries are over. Whatever happened, happened. Whatever rude, obnoxious, manipulative behavior Trump engaged in is in the past. Voting for him doesn't mean you condone such behavior, you support everything he has expressed, you trust him implicitly, or that you even like the guy. It means you understand what's at stake and have the maturity to move beyond your own ego in order to be a true patriot.
We either have a shot at a future or we don't.
Trump gives America a chance to survive. And maybe even do better than that.
LIKE US ON fACEBOOK
Use this link to visit the fACEBOOK page:
https://www.facebook.com/dixieheritageletter
VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE:
Dixie Heritage has a new home on the internet.
www.dixieheritage.net
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.net
Until next week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed
RSS Feed
