One of the problems with being a weekly publication is that the news changes a lot more frequently than once a week. More than a few times, we have reported something accurately only to have it change within a day or two of our publication. 

There are two cases in point this last week, both in South Carolina. 

The first being the flag in the York County Courthouse. First, it is mothballed and closeted. We publish that. Only to have the Clerk reverse himself. So last Friday we publish his reversal. Over the weekend, the Clerk reverses his reversal. So here we go again. 

Likewise, we reported last week that the South Carolina Secessionist Party and the SCV were taking separate and seemingly divergent approaches to the display of a flag on a monument in Walhalla. Then, the next day the trustee responsible for the monument's maintenance resigns his trust, giving it to the SCV. The SCV then announces that they will restore the Battle Flag. No doubt both the SCSP and the SCV will claim credit for this victory. In the end, we are grateful for the efforts of BOTH groups on behalf of our heritage and we are very happy to report that The Flag will be returning to the monument! 

I do not normally start with reader submissions. But South Carolinian, Nelson Waller, sent an interesting eMail in followup to a few of last week's stories so we'll begin with Nelson's comments:

The York County matter isn't closed -- influenced by one black council member and an NAACP jerk, the [Clerk] now says he won't put the flag and portraits back unless the SC supreme court orders him to. We've got to find somebody able to file suit, and our usual lawyer guy says a mere CITIZEN doesn't have "standing" to -- claims it has to be a sitting legislator.

Dr. Carter, the only actual Southern rights leader left in Dixie, says there were about 25 people in total demonstrating for our side last Sunday and NONE against it. I didn't go up. You see how much legislation matters to liberals. this is the election season they simply became outright communist thugs. We have got to find a lawyer willing to take this, one who'll work free or cheap, maybe contingency. I don't know that they have to be based in SC. We're in great shape here with one of the very few legislators who voted to keep the flag on the pole indicted for beating his wife.

This is another great issue by you -- thanks so much. I forward it with comments to a former SC legislator who's with us. 

The opera singer is simply displaying the original St. Andrew flag. Many countries have claimed him including Russia. Here it is on the ill-fated Kursk submarine:

A Lutheran church around the corner from me in the medieval style has little shields across the back wall symbolizing each of the original apostles. the St. Andrew one is (in effect) the rebel flag without the stars -- I'm sure I'm the only one to have noticed this.

I know I'm the last person on earth opposing the recent move of Crimea, but I'll do so till I die (attached Nationalist Times article).

Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917

Editor's Response to Nelson Waller regarding Crimea

The current nation and government of Russia is NOT the Soviet Union of old. I also believe that the Crimean people have the right to self-determination. If they truly wish too secede from Ukraine and form an independent nation (or simply reattach themselves to their former Russian motherland) that is their right. 

Are they making a mistake? Only time will tell. Obviously, you believe so. And I do not have a problem with allowing you to state that opinion in our newsletter. 

What I definitely do oppose, is for the United States, or NATO, or the UN, EU, or any other outside force to intervene in this matter. There simply is no compelling US interest in the outcome of this that merits the resources of our government being used to deny the Crimean people their God-given right to be governed by the government they have authorized by virtue of their collective consent. In other words, my position on Crimea is, in my opinion, the exact same as Thomas Jefferson's would be. 

The Crimean secessionists have borrowed the flag of some famous Virginians. And we're happy to loan it to them. Maybe we should loan them the Declaration of Independence too? Did it not inspire the flag? And with what better words could the Crimean, or any other people, express their desire for self-government?


Eric Hall recently collected more than 350 signatures showing support for his history teacher, Woody Hart. The same California teacher that was put on paid administrative leave last month, then given an early retirement package, after displaying a Confederate Flag besides a United States flag inside his classroom during a "Civil War" history lecture.

Before that, Hall was under investigation this past November for comments he made to a class about lynching.

"That's part of the reason I think it's so crazy that he's been accused of these things," Eric Hall said. "It's just so off-target of what is the reality."

So off-target, in his eye's, that it prompted the 14-year-old to do something about it. Hall gathered 356 student and faculty signatures at Sutter, hoping to get Woody Hart's job back.

"I just felt like he had been misrepresented, and I felt like it has not been fair to him," Hall said.

The eighth-grader sent his petitions to the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. 
A letter arrived Thursday to Hall's home. In it, the district thanked him for his thoughts and hard work. But it also said Mr. Hart would stay retired.

"I think I am trying to make a point that people are outraged about this," Hall said.

One of the points the letter from the district made was that "personnel decisions should not be based on public opinion."

Hart has had overwhelming support from parents, students, and teachers. But, for now, Woody Hart will remain "retired."


The North Bend School District has banned the Confederate Flag after a fight broke out on the high school campus last Thursday.

What ended in punches - where the worst injury may have been a bad headache, according to Superintendent Bill Yester - allegedly began with racist slurs and threats.

"Was there bullying? That depends on which side you're looking at," said Jake Smith, high school vice principal.

Smith said wearing a hat with a symbol of the Confederacy could be seen as an attempt to intimidate, "and the threat if you wear that hat I'll beat you up could be too."

According to school officials, a female student showed up to school wearing just such a hat, which led to a physical fight with another female student.

Neither student has been disciplined, though the one who wore the hat still hasn't returned to class at the discretion of her parents.

In a press release, the District explained that banning the image and Flag is not a violation of free expression because schools have the legal authority and responsibility to "maintain an environment that is free of harassment."

However, on Monday morning, protesters took to the street outside of the North Bend High School holding up a variety of Confederate flags, as well as a Gadsden flag and the flag of the United States of America. 

Rumors that the school district banned the American flag were incorrect. 

The students stepping outside to join the protest mostly were freshmen or sophomores. 

"We're protesting against the school for taking our First Amendment rights away, our freedom of speech and expression," said protester Trenton Smith. "I was once a student here, and I have students here, and I'm sick and tired of them telling us we can't do things and that they don't believe in flags. It's against the Constitution."

"I think it's kinda dumb, honestly," said protester Winter Berrier. "It's a flag. They can't do anything about it. If the kid wants a flag, big whoop-dee-doo."


Chugiak High School administrators on Wednesday were investigating the display of the Confederate Battle Flag by a group of students in the school's hallway, according to an Anchorage School District spokeswoman.

The five students posed for a photograph with the large flag, which also had an image of "the Mudflap Girl" - the silhouette of a curvy woman - in front of an orange flame. Four of the students also held American flags.

A copy of the photograph provided to Alaska Dispatch News appeared to have come from a Snapchat account, and the text across part of it read, "If your (sic) offended ... hah that sucks. That's your problem." 

A statement from the school district on Wednesday said Chugiak High administrators would speak with the students involved to "learn more about their intentions and discuss appropriate actions in school settings."

Heidi Embley, school district spokeswoman, said the district was first notified of the photograph by a news outlet Wednesday morning. She said the district believed the photograph was taken Friday and confirmed that it was of Chugiak students and was taken inside the high school. Chugiak High administrators would have to determine the circumstances around the image before deciding whether to sanction the students, she said. "It could be punishable," she said. "Obviously a lot of people find it offensive, but students also have a right to free speech so we need to toe that line very carefully."

Chugiak High School serves about 1,180 students, only 22 of them are black, according to the most recent district data.


Charlottesville  City Council voted Monday night to remove the Robert E. Lee statue from downtown and to rename Lee Park. 

Dixie Heritage had someone inside the chamber - here is his report:

Tearing down statues is like sex. It feels good for the moment, for those doing the tearing down, but often has long term and unforeseen consequences.

Last night, in a City Council meeting that once again resembled more of a circus than a representative form of government, Charlottesville City Council voted 3-2 to attempt to tear down the magnificent equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee from its place in LEE Park. Against the advice of its own City Attorney, its self-appointed Blue Ribbon Commission, and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its citizens, they voted to violate State law in order to carry out their campaign of hate and bigotry. 

Tensions were high and police had to escort several people out of the meeting when tempers boiled over into fighting, all a result of the divisive climate created by City Council. 

A 10 year old girl who stood to address Council was actually booed loudly by the monument haters and others were the target of their jeers and taunts.

The majority of the speakers last night spoke eloquently and passionately for keeping the monuments. 

Perhaps one of the most poignant moments was when Kenneth Jackson, an African-American and life-long member of the community got up and called Bellamy out for the chaos, hate, and division he and Szakos have caused in the community. He received thunderous applause and cheers for his comments, which included:

"I can tell y'all, we didn't have these issues. We grew up together. I used to walk through every neighborhood," he said. "Don't play black folks for a fool. This disgusts me - and you're supposed to be our leaders? Our parents didn't hate the statue."

The few that spoke for removal, like the council members who voted to do the same, blamed the Robert E. Lee monument for everything from white Jim President Trump. It was obvious to anyone there that this entire process was a set up from the start. 

Comments from council member Kristin Szakos, Wes Bellamy, and Bob Fenwick were so ridiculous that they brought outbursts of laughter from the council chambers... reflective of the fact that the entire county is laughing at them, as well. The biggest rise came when Fenwick had the nerve to complain about the fact that Wes Bellamy had received messages that came from folks who were obviously "racist." Poor Wes was apparently so shook up that he spent the entire meeting staring at his laptop, even when citizens were speaking. Apparently not much has changed since he tweeted "I really tune out when white people talk in community meetings" just a few short years ago.

The fate of the monument was decided by three people. Councilman Kristin Szakos, a leftist extremist who has called for the removal for years put forth the proposal. The motion was seconded by disgraced Vice-Mayor Wes Bellamy, who led the charge to tear down the monument last spring, and was forced to resign from both the State Board of Education AND his position as a teacher in Albermarle County Schools after numerous vulgar and vile racist, sexist and homophobic tweets were uncovered and published" 

The third and deciding vote came from Bob Fenwick, a spineless, career politician who flip flopped after voting no just two weeks ago. One can only imagine what happened in the past two weeks to purchase that vote. 

Mayor Mike Signer and Councilman Kathy Galvin voted to keep the statues, but they are no friends to us our any citizen who honors Confederate heritage. In their comments, they both made it clear that they have also bought (hook, line and sinker) into the false white supremacy/racist/slavery narrative that has so permeated this entire process. They basically apologized for voting no.

For those of you who had not been following our ongoing war with Charlottesville City Council, the vote last night was not unexpected. We were prepared and if you had to sit through any of those meetings you understand why we are actually glad it finally happened and we no longer have to sit through meeting after meeting waiting for the shoe to drop. Our attorney will be sending a letter today, detailing what action is forthcoming, and we understand lawsuits and injunctions will be filed by others as soon as the courthouse doors open this morning.

The social justice activist extremists in Charlottesville have voted to violate State law and even bragged about it in their comments. They are not from here. They hate us. They hate our heritage and this is all about putting us "in our place".

The statues aren't going anywhere. These people actually think things will quiet down now. They are mistaken. We have not yet begun to fight. Here, once again is the contact info for City Council. Let them know how you feel about their actions last night.

We are well prepared for this next battle, but will need help and support. Poles are under construction as we type for new flag sites in and around Charlottesville, and we are working on several other surprises. Please stay tuned for more information about how you can help. It is our prayer that this action by Charlottesville City Council will have the effect that so many others have awaken thousands more to action to defend our history, heritage, and the good name of the Confederate soldier.


Wednesday both the Alabama House and Senate versions of the Monuments bill were in committee.

The House version, HB99, is sponsored by state Representative Kyle South. A lengthy public hearing was held Wednesday in the State Government Committee.

Rep. South said that HB99 would create the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017. In addition to protecting monuments it would also restrict the renaming of streets, towns, parks, schools etc. if the current name has been used for fifty years. South said that there is a process for getting a waiver. The legislation would create a committee to hear the waivers.

South said that he still has some technical issues to resolve. Included in those changes are a 60 day auto approval if the committee does not meet. South told the committee that he would introduce the changed bill in a sub that he will have before the committee upon adjournment on Thursday.

Steve Murray, the Director of the Alabama Archives and History spoke in favor of the bill. He said, "Everyone knows the origins of this discussion" (anti-Confederate backlash after the Charleston massacre) and it concerns Confederate iconography. Murray said that, "the Civil War is the hinge on which all of southern history is based. Everything before leads up to the events of 1861 thru 1865. Everything that has happened since has been affected by the Civil War. Murray said that to denude the landscape of Confederate monuments and memorials would do ourselves a disservice. They have an educational function and it would be a mistake to remove those."

Murray said that the bill takes a reasonable approach, is easily understandable, and says that all monuments would be treated in an equitable fashion

Beth Lang who claimed to represent the Mobile area denounced the bill and called it a vast over reach of legislative authority.

Lang warned of tremendous unintended consequences from this particularly concerning planned work involving the Port of Mobile and the Mobile Waterfront. Lang said that they are aware that there are French, English, and Spanish monuments that could be found buried when they do their work and it is possible that the Port could lose its chicken export expansion if their work was halted while a state committee debated what to do with some discovered statues, which may or may not be there. "Under this bill if we found something in the construction phase we would have to stop construction." Land denounced the bill as an, "Unfunded mandate to cities and counties," and called it, "Well intentioned" and "Over reaching."

State Representative Paul Beckman said, "I carried this bill last session. As a history buff we have to look to our history."

Beckman said that this bill protect civil rights movement monuments, Civil War monuments and monuments to technology in regards to Huntsville. "This is a good bill, it preserves our history."

Rep. Beckman said that he wanted to bass this bill but it needs to be right. He raised several issues including: How do we know the intent of a monument 100 years ago; how is the $100,000 fine assessed; what is the role of the Attorney General; What do we do with an individual versus a municipality? "I want this bill, but I want these little ambiguities cleared up."

Beckman said that he has talked to minorities who want to preserve our history and our parks.

Sonny Braswell with the Alabama Association of County Commissions. Braswell said that from a county commission point of view we think that you have enough to do. That we would have to appear before a committee that you appoint we will never advocate.

Braswell said, "There is not a representative of local government on the committee at all. We will be submitting some ideas on how to have local government represtentation on the board

State Representative John Rogers (D from Birmingham) said that it is totally wrong to be telling cities what to do. "To tell them they can't relocate a monument is wrong."

Rogers said that some wanted to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge; but he opposed that because, "We want to remember what they did to us on that bridge."

Rogers said. "I am opposed to the bill. You know we are going to fight it on the floor. Cities have the right to decide what they want to keep and what they want to tear down." "We want to remember what they did to us, not you but your ancestors."

Rep. Barbara Boyd (D from Anniston) said, "Why couldn't this be handed by archives and history instead of appointing a new committee who possibly wouldn't have as much historical background."

Murray said that the bill has changed was a legislative committee, then a committee of citizens and now is a blended committee. Murray added that this bill does not apply to federally owned property does not apply to private property strictly state and local

South said that a county would have to file a waiver with the committee to remove or rename a monument

Rep. Ralph Howard (D from Greensboro) said, "I don't think we need the state telling us how we do our business."

Lang warned that there is historical evidence that there is statues and monuments there covered up along the river. Indian artifacts are protected by federal government. City government has the authority over historical artifacts.

Rep. Mark Tuggle (R from Alexander City) said, "If it is federal money you are spending you are going to have to slow down," (if artifacts are found).

Rep. Ed Henry (R from Hartselle) suggested that, "If county makeup changes in forty years they could chose to remove those civil rights monuments I would not want that."

The Committee is supposed to meet today to vote on the bill.

The Senate version of the bill received a favorable recommendation from the Senate committee and could be on the floor of the Senate within days.

Senator Gerald Allen (R from Tuscaloosa) is the sponsor of the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act bill in the Senate.

Sen. Allen said, "I am concerned about politically-correct efforts to erase entire portions of American history, and oftentimes these efforts to remove a statute or a monument are done in haste and without public knowledge. I believe our children and grandchildren should remember history as it happened - the good and the bad. The Alabama Memorial Preservation Act will protect State history for the benefit of future generations."

Maryland blogger settles defamation suit brought by Melania Trump
Feb. 7 (UPI) - A blogger in Maryland has agreed to apologize to first lady Melania Trump and pay an undisclosed amount of money for writing "false and defamatory" statements online about her last summer.
Webster Griffin Tarpley reached an agreement with Trump's lawyers about a blog post from last August, in which he asserted that the first lady previously worked as an escort and was suffering from a nervous breakdown as a result of President Donald Trump's campaign.
"I posted an article ... that was replete with false and defamatory statements about her," Tarpley said in a statement provided by Trump's attorneys. "I had no legitimate factual basis to make these false statements and I fully retract them.
"I acknowledge that these false statements were very harmful and hurtful to Mrs. Trump and her family, and therefore I sincerely apologize to Mrs. Trump, her son, her husband and her parents for making these false statements."
Trump filed a $150 million suit in September against Tarpley. Britain-based Mail Media, the parent company of the Daily Mail, was also sued for publishing similar claims. The settlement in the Tarpley case resulted in the Trump family accepting an apology and dropping any pursuit for monetary damage from Tarpley. On Monday, Trump's attorneys refiled the libel suit against Mail Media in New York Supreme Court.  
Tarpley, 71, previously stated in a blog post last year that the defamation suit was "without merit," but in August, he retracted his original story, writing that although he did not start the rumors about Melania Trump, he should have kept "a healthy distance between innuendo and fact."


I received the following eMail earlier this week:

I couldn't help but point out what I believe is an error in the article "SOUTHERN BAPTISTS ATTACKING PRESIDENT TRUMP."  The Southern Baptist Convention has not met since June last year and will not meet again until June of this year so how could the Convention have taken a position on anything Trump has done since his inauguration?  Like any large group there is a diversity of opinion among the "leaders" but those leaders do not speak for the Convention.  Only the delegates at a Convention meeting can speak for the Convention in the resolutions they pass.  

The 2016 Convention did pass a resolution condemning the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag as being divisive but like any resolution of the Convention it is not enforceable.  That is one of the reasons I am a Southern Baptist.  Regardless of what the Convention may do, I am still free to exercise my religious belief as I see fit.

I hope you will clarify the statement about the Convention.  It has not taken a position on anything Trump has done - yet - and the "leaders" exercising their free speech rights do not speak for the Convention.

Raymond Settle
Blue Mountain, MS

This was my reply to Compatriot Settle: 

From:  Dixie Heritage
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 9:46 PM
My dear brother, when the "leaders" use their titles to express opinions publicly at official functions whose agendas they modified to give them their platform and further refuse to allow anyone to speak contrary to their "opinion" at the same they are indeed speaking for the convention. 

You can argue that they have no right to do so and I would agree with you. But that does not change the reality that these liberal and dare I say carnal (or possibly even unregenerate) men and women have abused their positions and having done so, as far as the world is concerned, have spoken for the convention. The perception is the reality! 

And our brethren will do absolutely NOTHING about it. These wicked men and women do what they do because they know that they can do so and more and much worse without consequence! 
As for the flag resolution, have you seen my video on youtube of the messengers passing the flag resolution? There were literally messengers shouting that there was another matter on the floor when the moderator was forcing the vote. That other matter was a motion to table the resolution. That is what the majority wanted to do. But the moderator would have none of that. A vote was forced over loud and vocal objection, the loudest voice being that of a retired federal judge (a Clinton appointee no less) who knew the whole thing was so far out of line. The camera purposely did not film the votes s they were cast so that those not in the room could not see just how few hands were raised. So who spoke for the convention last June at that very staged convention? It sure as Hades wasn't the messengers. 

And you are correct, resolutions are non-binding. The church I pastor has ignored many of them. That does not render their intended statement any less whatever. 

Have you read John 19? It was the assembled messengers who passed a resolution that they had no king but Caesar as they voted for Barabbas and formally declared Jesus a heretic. 

Bottom line, as long as the "brethren" keep electing people like Moore and Mohler to "lead" our convention pastors like myself will loudly oppose them at every opportunity. 

Compatriot  Settle then responded to me me with the following:

I think we see the situation pretty much the same.  I have made as much "noise" as one Baptist Deacon can about what I perceive as wrong and I can only answer for my actions.  However, I return to my original intent.  

Shouldn't we, at every opportunity, be pointing out the difference between statements by these so called "leaders" and the official position of the Convention rather than tolerating a false perception that these "leaders" speak for the Convention.  Forgive me if I am wrong but when I read the opening paragraphs of the article I got the impression that was the position of the Convention and that is the reason I wrote.
I don't want to be guilty of nit picking and I truly appreciate what you are doing with the newsletter but I would like to see a separation maintained between the position of the Convention and some who think they have authority to speak for the Convention.

I agree with Compatriot Settle when he writes: 

Shouldn't we, at every opportunity, be pointing out the difference between statements by these so called "leaders" and the official position of the Convention rather than tolerating a false perception that these "leaders" speak for the Convention.  

Indeed, the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention want for us to believe that it is the position of the Convention to oppose Southern heritage. 

Likewise, they want for the world to believe that the position of the Convention is opposed to the policies of the President of the United States. 

My point being that the sad reality is that perception (right or wrong) is the reality. But Compatriot Settle is also correct in pointing out that when the leadership makes their proclamations they exceed the authority of their positions to do so. 

Likewise, we could argue to what extent the former occupant of the Executive Mansion spoke for the United States during the 8 years prior? 

Traveling the nation and speaking as I do with thousands of Americans I can say with confidence that the majority of Americans did not agree with Barak Obama and that he did NOT represent them. Yet they elected him TWICE! 

The great majority of Baptists, I can say with confidence, do not agree with the position of their "leadership." Yet they continue to elect.....

The great majority of Southern Baptists voted for and support President Trump. And most at the convention either opposed the Flag resolution or wanted nothing more than to TABLE it. That was what motivated Southern Baptists for Southern Heritage. Giving a voice to all of us Southern Baptists, and we are the multitude, who support the Heritage and faith that our leadership is working so hard and vocally to undermine. 

America has finally elected leadership for whom we need not apologize! I implore my brethren in the Southern Baptist Convention to do the same. 

In Support of Tom Price

President Trump's nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services was born and raised in Michigan. But when he moved to Georgia to complete his medical residency at Emory, he became a friend of Southern heritage. 

In Georgia, he rose through the ranks in state politics, joining the State Senate in 1997 and moving up to the US House in 2005.

When he was a State Senator, Price sponsored a bill to institute Confederate history month and called for a Flag of the Confederacy to be flown above the State Capitol. As a US Congressman, he's voted against anti-flag measures before the US Congress.

The Confederate flag has a long and complicated history in Georgia. In 1956, the state adopted a flag with a narrow blue band featuring the state seal on the left side and the Confederate Battle Flag taking up the rest of the design. 

The flag was a regular source of controversy, but it remained in place until 2001, when Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes fought to implement a new design. 

The new flag retained the Confederate symbol. The state seal expanded to occupy the majority of the flag, but running along the bottom is a banner documenting "Georgia's history," which includes the 1956 flag alongside other historic flags.

Republican Governor Sonny Perdue (now President Trump's nominee for Agriculture Secretary) challenged Barnes for the governorship in 2002, campaigning against the flag change. He won, and Republicans took control of the state Legislature, making Price the Senate Majority Leader.

In his new role, Price shepherded a bill to abandon the 2001 compromise flag. The current Georgia Flag being inspired by the Confederate "stars and bars," the flag that served as the Confederacy's first official national flag.

In 2004, Price co-sponsored a bill with five other Republican state senators that included a host of measures to celebrate the history of the Confederacy. The measure stalled, but had it been signed into law, April would have become Confederate History and Heritage Month in Georgia. (That eventually happened in 2009.) The 1956 flag would have been renamed the "Georgia Memorial Flag," and it would have been flown above the state Capitol twice a year, on Confederate Memorial Day and Robert E. Lee's birthday.

Price's views on the Confederate flag came up briefly during his hearing before the Senate's health committee last month, when Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) pressed Price on his 2004 bill. "I note that the resolution that commemorated the time of Southern independence mentions nothing about slavery," Kaine said. 

In July 2015, when controversy around the use of the Confederate flag in South Carolina attracted national attention, Price joined those who voted against an anti-Confederate flag measure introduced by Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi. 

Currently, Senate Democrats are doing everything they can to block the confirmation of Congressman Price. If appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Price will lead the charge on behalf of President Trump to dismantle ObamaCare.

Use this link to see our Heritage items, books and more @ - the prices @ Amazon will not be discounted but this link will give you the convenience of shopping through Amazon.

Fable of the Ducks and the Geese
Lincoln Rockwell
Many, many years ago
When animals could speak,

A wondrous thing the ducks befell;
Their tale is quite unique.   
Down by a pond dwelt all these ducks,
- Ten thousand at the least -
Their duckish joys were undisturbed
By any man or beast.

One day down near the entrance gate
There was an awful din.
A hundred hens all out of breath
Were begging to come in.
    "Oh let us in!" these poor birds cried,
"Before we do expire!
'Tis only by the merest INCH
That we escaped the fire!"
Their feathers burned, their combs adroop,
They were the saddest sight.
They'd run a hundred miles or more,
All day and then all night.
"Come in! Come in!" the ducks all quacked,
"For you our hearts do bleed!
We'll share our happy lot with you;
Just tell us what you need!"
And so these poor bedraggled hens
Amongst the ducks moved in.
"For after all," the ducks declared,
"We're sisters 'neath the skin."
Before too many months had lapsed,
The hens were good as new.
They sent for all their rooster friends,
And those were welcomed too.
To please their hosts, these chickens tried
To waddle and to quack.
To simulate the duckish ways,
They quickly learned the knack.
This pleased the flock of ducks because
It gratified their pride.
But hear my tale and learn how they
Got taken for a ride.
The ducks, it seemed, spent all their time
In fixing up the place;
In growing food and building homes
And cleaning every space.
They asked the hens what they would do
To earn their daily bread.
"We'll teach and write and entertain,
And buy and sell," they said.
And so these hens began to teach
The baby ducks and chicks.
They traded food and eggs and things,
With many clever tricks.
They wrote great books and put on shows
- Of genius they'd no lack.
It wasn't long till chickens owned
The Duckville Daily Quack.
One day a mother duck who took
Her ducklings to the lake,
Was flabbergasted when one said,
"A swim I will not take!"
"Why duckling's ALWAYS swim!" she gasped,
"It's what you're built to do!
Like bunnies hop, and crickets chirp,
And cows most always moo!"
"You're NUTS!" her son replied,
"That stuff is all OLD HAT!
It's wrong for birds to swim - besides,
It's damn cold on my prat!"
"Oh fie!" the mother duck exclaimed,
"You're talking like a fool!"
Up quacked the other ducklings then:
"He's right! We learned in school!"
"Such things must stop!" the mother cried,
"Those hens can't tell such lies!
For sheer ingratitude and nerve,
I'm sure this takes the prize!"
But she was wrong, for even then
The hens did thump the tub,
Demanding they be let into
The Duckville Swimming Club.
"But you don't swim!" the ducks exclaimed,
"To join, why should you care?"
"That's not the point" the hens replied,
"To exclude us isn't fair!"
The younger ducks, who'd been to school
Agreed right there and then,
"To keep them out is bigotry!
'Twould just be ANTI-HEN!"
Outnumbered by the younger ducks,
The old ducks soon did lose.
The hens could join the Swimming Club,
If they would pay the dues.
That night the Duckville Daily Quack
Contained this banner spread:
"Reactionary Ducks are Licked!
Duckville moves Ahead!"
Down at the Duckville Gaity,
The young set laughed with glee,
At cracks about "old fuddy ducks"
In burlesque repartee.
Next day the hens were at the Club;
A petition they'd sent round
They objected to the Swimming Fund
With fury and with sound.
"You use our dues to fix the pond,
To keep it neat and trim
And this is wrong" they said, "because
You know we do not swim!"
"God help us!" cried a wise old duck,
"These chickens have gone mad!
We'll take this thing to court, by George,
And justice will be had!"
But when they went before the judge,
Imagine their dismay!
A CHICKEN judge decreed that they
A heavy fine must pay!
"Minorities must have their rights!"
The judge declared right then.
"To use hens' dues to fix the pond
Is very ANTI-HEN!"
Once more the Duckville Daily Quack
Emblazoned 'cross the page:
"Old Fuddy Ducks Refuse to See
The Great New Coming Age!!"
In Duckville's church, on Sunday morn,
The preacher spoke these words:
"Discrimination's got to stop!
Remember, we're all birds!"
The wisest duck in all the town
Sat down in black despair.
"I'll write a book," he thought, "and then
This madness I will bare!"
"Let swimmers swim, let hoppers hop,
Let each go his own way
Let none coerce a fellow bird!"
Was what he had to say.
"'Twas wrong to force the hens to swim,
So here's the problem's crux:
It's just as bad for hens to try
To CHICKENIZE our ducks!"
"I can't print that," the printer said,
"'Twill put me in a mess!
My shop is mortgaged to the hens -
The chickens own my press!"
This worried duck then tried to warn
His friends by speech and pen,
But young ducks fresh from school just jeered,
"He's a vicious ANTI-HEN!"
Now up the stream a little way
Was Gooseville, on the lake
The hens had come to Gooseville too,
But the geese were more awake.
When the hens began to spoil the young
And Gooseville's laws to flout,
The geese rose up in righteous wrath
And simply threw them out.
Of course you know where they all ran
- On Duckville they converged.
"We've got to take these REFUGEES"
Was what the hens all urged.
The Duckville Daily Quack declared:
"Those geese will stop at naught!
They plan to conquer all the world!
Atrocities they've wrought!"
"That's right!" the young ducks all agreed,
"We'll help our fellow birds!
Those geese have plans to conquer us!
We've read the Quack's own words!"
They let the hens from Gooseville in,
The whole bedraggled pack
And every hen took up a job
On Duckville's Daily Quack.
When Duckville's Mayor's term was up,
The Quack put up its duck.
A vain and stupid duck was he
- A veritable cluck!
But when he praised the wild young ducks
And cursed the evil geese,
The Quack declared he was "all-wise";
His praise would never cease.
The hens chipped in to help this cluck
Give grain away for free.
The old ducks sadly shook their heads-
The writing they could see.
And sure enough, this stupid duck,
He was elected Mayor.
From this point on, the Duckville ducks
They never had a prayer.
The Mayor said, "Gooseville must go!
We'll wipe them off the map!"
While Duckville slept, the scheming hens
For Gooseville set a trap.
They called the geese by filthy names;
They filled their pond with sticks.
They helped the weasels catch the geese,
And other hennish tricks.
The geese got mad and threw some rocks.
"IT'S WAR!" the Quack announced.
"We ducks must fight those evil geese
Till they've been soundly trounced!"
The ducks (who knew not of the tricks
Indulged in by the Mayor)
Were filled with "patriotic zeal"
And pitched right in for fair!
Now when the ducks had whipped the geese
The Mayor called "Retreat!
Our Henville friends should really take
Goosevilles's big main street!"
The hens are back in Gooseville now;
They starved and beat the geese.
They prayed for peace - but organized
The Henville ARMED POLICE!
They drained the Gooseville swimming pond;
And "De-goose-ified" the schools.
They wrung the neck of Gooseville's Mayor
On lately made-up rules.
They formed a council of the hens-
"UNITED BIRDS" the name.
The other birds who joined the thing
Did not perceive the game.
No sooner had they set this up,
Than they announced their plan
To seize up Swanville as a home
For all their hennish clan.
They took a vote amongst themselves,
And every one approved!
"Swanville was for hens!" they said,
"Way back, before we moved!"
And so they kicked the swans all out
With Duckville's help and power
And Duckville could not understand
Why swans on them turned sour.
By this time, Duckville was a mess -
The young ducks had gone mad.
They stole and laughed at truth and law;
They'd gone completely bad.
The hens were selling loco weed
In every nasty den.
But ducks who dared to mention this
Were labelled "ANTI-HEN."
The hens all preached of "Tolerance";
They invoked the "Golden Rule."
But they subsidised the indigent,
The greedy and the fool.
At last the very dumbest ducks
Began to smell a rat.
"This Mayor is no good!" they cried,
"And we will soon fix that!"
But the hens had planned for even this
- A candidate they had,
Whom even wise old ducks believed
Just never could be bad.
This hen-tool duck had whipped the geese;
A soldier duck was he.
Although the hens had set him up,
The ducks all thought him free.
This hen-tool got elected
Through ignorance and greed,
Through hennish lies in press and speech,
And bribes of "chicken feed."
The hens now kicked the ducks around
Without a blush of shame,
Until the Mayor ran the town
In nothing else but name.
They pumped the swimming pond all dry;
They taught the ducks to crow.
While duckish numbers dwindled,
The hens began to grow.
The hens stirred up the happy crows
From out the piney wood
To fight and mix and marry ducks
In the name of "Brotherhood."
Things got so bad that fifty ducks
Who knew of days gone by,
Took up their wives and children
And decided that they'd fly.   
They flew through storm and tempest;
They froze, and many died.
But on they drove, until at last,
A lovely lake they spied.
They settled down exhausted,
But soon went straight to work
To build and clear and cultivate -
No danger did they shirk.
Now after many years of toil,
This little band had grown.
The fields around were full of grain
From seeds that they had sown.
The first ducks now were long since dead;
Their struggles long had ceased.
Through hard work and through suffering,
Their joys had been increased.
One day down near the entrance gate
There was an awful din.
A hundred hens, all out of breath,
Were begging to come in.
"Oh, let us in!" these poor birds cried,
"Before we do expire!
'Tis only by the merest INCH..."
This epic has no end because
No matter how you fight 'em,
Those HENS will show up EVERY TIME
- And so ad infinitum!


For a limited time, we are offering single-insertion banner ads like the one below for just $9. And you can pick the week of insertion. So you can order the ad now, take advantage of the special price, and we will wait to insert the ad on the week of YOUR choosing. 

Order a 1-week single insertion banner ad:  undefined

I am NOT sharing this article because I agree with it. But because every once in awhile, even a liberal will write something that forces me to think. This was one such article. I share it so that our readers may get some insight into the liberal mind and how the Yankees view we in the South - and how they wish to use us to fulfill their political agenda. 

Have Liberals become the new Confederates?
February 6, 2017

"The South will rise again." 

How often did that rallying cry echo throughout a certain portion of the country following the Civil War? A lot. Actually, the South has risen in any number of very positive ways in the century and a half since that terrible, but terribly necessary, war. This is especially true in recent decades.
But the South never did rise again as any reborn confederacy. The postwar North may or may not have seen to that, but it is indisputable that the North saved the country in the middle of the 19th century.

Something else is likely to be true as we head into the heart of the 21st century-and into the teeth of a very different kind of civil war. And it is this: if the country is to be saved at some point in this century, it will be the South that will be doing the saving. This is not meant in any military sense, but it is meant in this sense: the country will either become more like the South of today or the country will be lost.

None of this is meant to suggest that the South will again attempt to secede from the Union. There certainly have been no calls of consequence since the Civil War for that Confederacy to rise again. Actually, if southerners were to promote secession today it would not be to preserve the chattel slavery of the pre-Civil War period, but to escape the bureaucratic stranglehold that Washington has on modern American life. 
While the Constitution is entirely silent on this matter of secession, the Civil War did seem to take care of this issue. Lincoln's message was clear: try to leave the Union and you will be stopped-and stopped by force, if necessary.

So, the brief experiment that was the Confederacy of 1861 to 1865 was just that, a brief experiment. No political entity has seriously attempted a similar experiment since then. At least that's been the case until now.
But will it remain the case? After all, what are our American "sanctuary cities" if not fledgling experiments in secession? They are incomplete experiments, to be sure. Hesitant experiments? Possibly. Abortive experiments? We shall see. Abandoned and/or crushed and/or successful experiments? Once again, we shall see. 

No doubt those who support sanctuary cities would be appalled that anyone would place them in the same category as those despised southern, slaveholding confederates. If anything, today's advocates of sanctuary cities see themselves as closer to the abolitionists who harbored runaway slaves in northern cities prior to and during the Civil War.
To be sure, harboring legally owned, but runaway slaves is somewhat comparable to offering refuge to those who have entered the country illegally. It's also true that some abolitionists at least flirted with secession. Curiously enough, the founder of the American Anti-Slave Society, William Lloyd Garrison, was one of them. Equally curiously, Garrison never explained how letting the South leave the Union would have helped end slavery. That remains an unsolved mystery. Of course, had Garrison's flirtation with secession been realized he could take some comfort in being able to claim that his geographically reduced country was at least free of slavery.

What do advocates of sanctuary cities want to be able to say? That they live in a country free of borders? That they live in a country where people are free to live, work, and play, no matter their place of origin? Or will they be content to say that they simply live in a city where all these freedoms are freely practiced by any number of citizens and non-citizens alike? 
Perhaps "sanctuaryites" will one day take refuge in knowing that they are part of a confederacy of such cities, united, if non-contiguous, in their opposition to a federal government bent on breaking them. If so, they are confederates of sorts. They may prove to be a confederacy of dunces (with a bow to the late John Kennedy Toole's great novel), but they are confederate-minded nonetheless.

More than that, they would constitute a confederacy that shares other similarities with the original southern Confederacy of the mid-19th century. Curiously enough, these similarities override any parallels with the refuge-minded (and even secessionist-minded) abolitionists of the mid-19th century.

These urban enclaves are not just home to large numbers of undocumented, i.e., illegal immigrants. They are also home to plantation-minded whites and blacks, all of whom are Democrats. In fact, these cities are dominated by the same party that once ruled the pre- and post-Civil War South. And just as the pre-Civil War South was home to paternalistic whites, so are these cities home to paternalistic whites, albeit almost exclusively white liberals today.

In either instance the plantation mentality prevails, whether the plantation be devoted to producing a cash crop or simply distributing cash. In both cases the idea is to reduce choice, keep people in place and just content enough to live lives of mostly quiet desperation. 

In the pre-Civil War South family life for the white paternalists was both vibrant and stable, not to mention essentially traditional. Such is largely the case for paternalistic whites today. Not so rural southern blacks then, and not so for too many urban blacks today. White paternalists placed little emphasis on traditional family life for the black slave then; and our modern white paternalists dismiss family breakdown as a non-problem for black (and lower-class white) America today.

Of course, today's white paternalists can be quite content to share power with blacks, especially if those blacks share the paternalistic ethos. In any case, both are products of-and devoted to-one-party rule. They are also singularly devoted to using the power of government to keep the status quo in place. Such was also the case with the white paternalists of the antebellum South. 

Those same white paternalists of that bygone era were also quite willing to call upon the federal government to preserve the status quo that was the slave system. The same holds true for white paternalists today. But if that same federal government should turn against them, then what? We know what white paternalists, southern-style, finally did in 1861. Given the trajectory of thought and action in our sanctuary cities, and given a hostile federal government, what might confederacy-minded white (and black) paternalists do at some point in our increasingly uncivil 21st century? Is today a prelude of much worse to come?  And if it is, wouldn't it be terribly ironic if our southern warrior class would be called upon to take the lead in putting down a confederate rebellion?

A stretch? We shall certainly see, won't we?

John C. "Chuck" Chalberg has a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Minnesota. He writes from Bloomington, Minnesota.    

Here is a picture of two of our Dixie Heritage subscribers (James Bessenger and Braxton Spivey) displaying a large Battle Flag at Fort Sumter:

"The park ranger tried to tell us we couldn't (display the flag) because it's not a free speech area," Bessenger told us.  "I asked him if he was going to arrest me and he said 'no,' then I asked if I was breaking any laws and he said 'no,' so I told him to have a nice day and kept doing it."

Fort Sumter used to fly two versions of the Confederate Flag but they were taken down two weeks after the shooting Charleston.



Your direct donation of even the smallest amount enables Dixie Heritage and other pro-confederate organizations in the never-ending battles to preserve and advance our common heritage. 
Donate $1 to Dixie Heritage: undefined


This will ensure that your weekly newsletter does not end up in a SPAM folder by accident. 


If you have not already done so please take the quick moment to like our Dixie Heritage Page on Facebook:
And then, more importantly, click this link to our website:

When you are there request a free copy of my book The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag. When you do, not only will you receive a copy of the book - you will also be subscribed to receive the weekly Dixie Heritage Letter by eMail. This will ensure that you never miss an issue. 

Until Next Week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed