I’ve tried hard to avoid the burial of BLM terrorist/Congressman John Lewis. This late in the game, everybody should realize that only the most loathsome of humans get a well-attended state funeral send-off like he got. But then a fake missionary chided a decent man for standing against that media circus.
Pastor resigns after celebrating KKK leader
by BP Staff, posted Thursday, July 30, 2020
PRATTVILLE, Ala. (BP) — A bivocational Southern Baptist pastor resigned from his church Wednesday (July 29), after backlash resulting from his participation in an annual birthday celebration for Nathan Bedford Forrest, a leader in the Confederate Army and the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
Will Dismukes, who is also a first-term Republican state representative, resigned from his position at Pleasant Hill Baptist Church after a deacons’ meeting.
State rep AND a pastor? He wasn’t one for honest work, then. *GQ ducks*
Four days earlier, he gave the invocation July 25 at the birthday celebration for Forrest. The event was held in Selma, Ala., on the same day as ceremonies honoring the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis.
He’s a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans so this wasn’t just American history he was celebrating, it was family history.
Lewis, a leader in the civil rights movement and an Alabama native, was a longtime member of Congress from Georgia. In 1965, during a march in Selma that became known as “Bloody Sunday,” Lewis suffered a fractured skull when he was beaten by Alabama state troopers.
Back then, that’s what happened to trouble-makers. The author might as well have said Lewis was guilty of rioting in 1965.
[In July 2015 and using] a bullhorn, Lewis urges the BLM activists to “change America…you can do it…organize…never give in[.]” In the last 30 seconds, after pumping up the crowd, the Janus-faced Lewis tells them to “never hate” – not because it is wrong or sinful or evil, but because “it is too big a burden to bear.” (Especially when a video surfaces of four black adults torturing a mentally disabled teen shouting, “F— Trump,” “f— white people,” eh, John?)
Lewis’s public and racist swipe at President-Elect Donald Trump this past Sunday isn’t the first time he’s tried to delegitimize the opposition. Lewis falsely accused Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin of “sowing seeds of hatred and division” at their rallies in 2008, even invoking the name of George Wallace to shore up his attack.
In 2010, he ratcheted up the hatred by alleging that Tea Party protesters shouted racial epithets and spat on him during an anti-Obamacare rally. The late Andrew Breitbart offered to pay $100,000 to anyone with proof the racial incidents occurred. At a time and place where nearly everyone had a phone in his hand (I was there), not one video surfaced of Lewis’s spit-riddled face.
Lewis’s Alinskyite tactics have ties to the civil rights movement itself. The roots of the movement beginning in the 1930s are rotten with communist influence. According to Discover the Networks, there is ample evidence that CPUSA members infiltrated SNCC. Seventy-six-year-old Lewis himself wrote for communist periodicals, fronted for communist groups, received awards from socialist organizations, and has supported socialist candidates.
The aging former SNCC leader is still “marinating” in his hatred of white America. After P.E. Trump responded to Lewis with tweets calling out the congressman’s “all talk and no action” record when it comes to fixing the mess in the inner cities, Lewis’s pals in the mainstream media came to his defense, whining about Lewis’s iconic status as a civil rights “hero” –fifty-two years ago! Isn’t that Trump’s point?
Lewis’s socialist solutions and anti-white vitriol hardly make him a hero unless chaining “his people” to poor schools, fatherless homes, and generations of government dependency is heroic.
More to the point, he was a leader of BLM, ensuring that even in these troubled times under President Fauci’s leadership, we have no shortages of bricks and graffiti.
In a post to Facebook Sunday (July 26), Dismukes wrote: “Had a great time at Fort Dixie speaking and giving the invocation for Nathan Bedford Forrest annual birthday celebration. Always a great time and sure enough good eating!”
The post was later removed, but Dismukes’ actions drew sharp rebukes and calls to resign both as a pastor and a legislator. He had been pastor at the church, in a rural area near Prattville, since February 2019.
“We are saddened and grieved to learn of the recent Facebook post by state Rep. Will Dismukes,” said Rick Lance, the executive director of the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions. “… In the wake of tremendous controversy we reaffirm our opposition to any kind of racism.”
Problem glasses. Narrow nose indicates introversion and his mouth is a bit smaller than I would expect for a talky job. A rectangular face indicates bursts of energy rather than a steady supply. Not what I would have expected for a missionary. Let’s check.
Education: Bachelor of Arts in Religion and Speech, Samford University; Master of Divinity in Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministries, New Orleans Seminary; Ed.D. in Pastoral Counseling and Preaching, New Orleans Seminary; D.D., Judson College; Doctor of Humane Letters, Samford University.
Buying advanced degrees is not missionary work. His work history is one bureaucracy after another. The closest Lance’s bio ever comes to missionary work is “student pastorates in Birmingham”.
Rick and his wife, Pam, are members at First Baptist Church, Montgomery. They have two daughters and two grandchildren.
Dad Of Daughters Only!
The Facebook post included a photo showing Dismukes standing behind various Confederate flags. After initial criticism, he issued an apology. According to the Montgomery Advertiser, he said in a statement that the post “was in no way related to disrespecting the passing of” Lewis.
Never apologize, because…
But the apology, which did not address Dismukes’ participation in the event, was seen by many as insufficient.
Every. Single. Time.
Terry Lathan, chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, said in a statement issued Tuesday that Dismukes “offered no explanation for why he participated in a birthday celebration of Nathan Bedford Forrest,” adding he found Dismukes’ “statement to be shallow in understanding why his activities are deeply offensive to so many Alabamians. His constituents will be the final decision-makers of his political future.
“It is one thing to honor one’s Southern heritage, however, it is completely another issue to specifically commemorate the leader of an organization with an indisputable history of unconscionable actions and atrocities toward African Americans.”
“You can honor Southern heritage generally but not specifically. And not with statues.”
Alabama Sen. Clyde Chambliss, R-Prattville, was among prominent leaders in both political parties calling on Dismukes to resign.
“The post is bad enough, the timing is even worse, but the real problem is that an elected official in 2020 would attend a celebration of life of someone that led a group that terrorized and killed other human beings,” Chambliss wrote in a Facebook post, as reported by the Montgomery Advertiser.
In other news, the pot called the kettle… black.
BLM called, Senator Chambliss. They need a lawyer, real fast. Something about a FedEx driver, a mostly peaceful protest and a wardrobe malfunction.
Wade Perry, executive director of the Alabama Democratic Party, told the Montgomery Advertiser, “It’s 2020 and it’s time for racial extremists like Will Dismukes to go away.” Perry and the party had called in June for Dismukes’ resignation from the state legislature because of his “public support of the lost Confederate cause,” including his role as a chaplain for a local branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
This wasn’t the first time the Demonrats tried to get rid of Dismukes for his Confederate advocacy. Dismukes denied them at the time and still hasn’t resigned as a legislator. But he did resign as pastor.
Here’s Rick Lance’s hatchet job.
[This repost came with this preface:]
We are saddened and grieved to learn of the recent Facebook post by State Representative Will Dismukes who also serves as a bivocational pastor. In the wake of tremendous controversy, we reaffirm our opposition to any kind of racism. On July 27, each of us affirmed a June 4 blog article “A Personal Credo Concerning Racism” written and posted by Rick Lance, executive director of the Alabama Baptist Convention State Board of Missions.
TIM COX, ABSC president; pastor, Liberty Baptist Church, Chelsea
BUDDY CHAMPION, ABSC first vice president; pastor, First Baptist Church, Trussville
MORGAN BAILEY, ABSC second vice president; pastor, Macedonia Baptist Church, Ranburne
GREG CORBIN, chair of SBOM trustees; pastor, Lakeside Baptist Church, Birmingham
MEL JOHNSON, vice-chair of SBOM trustees; lead mission strategist, Autauga Baptist Association, Prattville
Like so many others, I am heartsick concerning the recent ugly events which have highlighted the sin of racism among us. As one who remembers the civil rights movement and the various efforts by people of the past and present seeking the breakdown of racial barriers that have plagued our society, I grieve over the images of African American people being killed by law enforcement officers and vigilantes.
What vigilantes? Oh right, the convicted-felon jogger being shot for resisting arrest by the now-retired cop who arrested him the first time. Also, watch me not cry about cops whacking “mostly peaceful” African American protesters, either. Vote me for mayor and I will legalize the ugly stick! and tear gas. *singing* Gonna party like it’s Nineteen Sixty-Five…
So, why is racism bad? Serious question, why?
Is it bad because it’s a stereotype that doesn’t apply to every single member of the race? That’s stupid. Nobody argues for that.
Is it bad because racism is about noticing that some races are inferior to others? Deal with it, because noticing is not causation.
What is Lance’s answer?
The following thoughts come from the flawed heart of one who has been saved by God’s grace.
WHERE IS IT?! *GunnerQ rips through his medicine cabinet, grabs a testosterone autoinjector, pops the cap and jabs it in his thigh.* Ahh… whew… just reading this Churchian drivel can make a man cry. I began keeping these autoinjectors handy ever since I wandered into a baby shower.
Prefacing your opinion with your general failure as a human being is an astonishingly bad way to establish your credibility.
I do not wish to be either a social commentator or a partisan in a highly polarized time in our nation. Here is my personal credo concerning racism:
1. I value each life as a precious gift from God. Far too many times, we have seen images on television and in other media outlets which depict life as being disposable and lacking in value. Everyone of all races and backgrounds is made in the image of God! Those words should never be considered as “cheap talk” but as an unchanging and non-negotiable core value.
Racism is bad because… black people have souls? Also stupid.
2. I want to express the fact that I condemn racism in any form. I remember well the civil rights movement decades ago. Progress in race relations seems to have improved, but much work is left to be done. I have heard the words of Simon Peter echoing in my mind as of late, “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). He is a God who does not show partiality toward people. He created every life! He wishes to redeem people too!
Racism is bad because it’s favoritism? But we’re supposed to care first for our family. Lance hating on Dismukes for remembering his family history is disobedient against God.
For the record, the reason racism is “bad” is because the Jews want to hide in plain sight. By criminalizing anybody who notices their xenophobia-level racism, they’re free to play favorites with a “you’re being racist” pass in their back pocket. This is also why only white people are capable of racism, because they’re the population the Jews wanted to disarm and destroy after coming here en masse in the wake of WW2.
3. I believe in the right of people to peacefully protest against wrongdoing in our society. People who peacefully protest are seeking to send a message. As an American, that is the right of every citizen. However when people choose to turn violence toward others, then those committing violence do not contribute to the betterment of our way of life. Their actions are wrong and cannot be seen as acceptable in a civil society.
Did Rep. Dismukes advocate violence? Citation, please. Maybe he was ray-ciss for remembering a man with questionable associations but that is not violence.
4. Like you, I want to see better race relations. I would like for us to build upon the contributions of those made in the past. I would say a hearty amen to what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” In that spirit, I want to be a person of the Light and of God’s love.
Good luck becoming a “person of God’s love” by exterminating your own race and history in the name of not being racist, Lance.
I end with Nathan Forrest because I like remembering my white past. Me so raycisss! The Battle of the Pillow alone made it worthwhile.
Before the war, Forrest amassed substantial wealth as a cotton plantation owner, horse and cattle trader, real estate broker, and slave trader. In June 1861, he enlisted in the Confederate Army and became one of the few soldiers during the war to enlist as a private and be promoted to general without any prior military training. An expert cavalry leader, Forrest was given command of a corps and established new doctrines for mobile forces, earning the nickname “The Wizard of the Saddle”. His methods influenced future generations of military strategists, although the Confederate high command is seen by some commentators to have underappreciated his talents.
I am impressed that a wealthy plantation owner enlisted as a private. That indicates a humility that history does not directly acknowledge.
In April 1864, in what has been called “one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history”*, troops under Forrest’s command massacred Union troops who had surrendered, most of them black soldiers, along with some white Southern Tennesseans fighting for the Union, at the Battle of Fort Pillow. Forrest was blamed for the massacre in the Union press, and this news may have strengthened the North’s resolve to win the war.
*Written by David J Eicher in 2002. The 21 Century disagrees much with the 19th and 20th, and not because of a new trove of source material. One reason I persist in using Wikipedia is because it has a Leftist slant. If I can prove my point using Lefty sources then my hardline Right conclusions are that much more secure.
Because of the events at Fort Pillow, the Northern public and press viewed Forrest as a war criminal. The Chicago Tribune said Forrest and his brothers were “slave drivers and woman whippers”, while Forrest himself was described as “mean, vindictive, cruel, and unscrupulous”. The Southern press steadfastly defended Forrest’s reputation.
The North won, thus Forrest is a war criminal?
As a former slave trader and slave owner, Forrest experienced the abolition of slavery at war’s end as a major financial setback. … He later found employment at the Selma-based Marion & Memphis Railroad and eventually became the company president. He was not as successful in railroad promoting as in war and, under his direction, the company went bankrupt. Nearly ruined as the result of this failure, Forrest spent his final days running an eight-hundred acre farm on land he leased on President’s Island in the Mississippi River, where he and his wife lived in a log cabin. There, with the labor of over a hundred prison convicts, he grew corn, potatoes, vegetables and cotton profitably, but his health was in steady decline.
So, definitely a slaver type but not a man who deserves to be written out of the history books for that reason alone. I find prison labor to be a worse offense than slave labor because it creates a financial inventive to falsely accuse a man. Either punish the criminal and return him to society as quickly as reasonable, or just execute them.
The Battle of Fort Pillow, also known as the Fort Pillow massacre, was fought on April 12, 1864, at Fort Pillow on the Mississippi River in Henning, Tennessee, during the American Civil War. The battle ended with a massacre of African-American Union troops and their white officers attempting to surrender, by soldiers under the command of Confederate Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Military historian David J. Eicher concluded: “Fort Pillow marked one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history.”
That name again. Did I mention that Wikipedia is a very Lefty-biased source of information?
It remains unclear whether Forrest ordered the massacre, encouraged it, ignored it, or – as he later claimed – was unaware of it.
The battle happened quickly enough that the latter is plausible.
Needing supplies, Forrest planned to move on Fort Pillow with about 1,500 to 2,500 men. He wrote on April 4, “There is a Federal force of 500 or 600 at Fort Pillow, which I shall attend to in a day or two, as they have horses and supplies which we need.”
The Union garrison at Fort Pillow consisted of about 600 men, divided almost evenly between black and white troops. The black soldiers belonged to the 6th U.S. Regiment Colored Heavy Artillery and a section of the 2nd Colored Light Artillery (previously known as the Memphis Battery Light Artillery (African Descent)), under the overall command of Major Lionel F. Booth, who had been in the fort for only two weeks. Booth had been ordered to move his regiment from Memphis to Fort Pillow on March 28 to augment the cavalry, who had occupied the fort several weeks earlier. Many of the regiment were former slaves who understood the personal cost of a loss to the Confederates—at best an immediate return to slavery rather than being treated as a prisoner of war.
Which would have been so much better?
They had heard that some Confederates threatened to kill any black Union troops they encountered. The white soldiers were predominantly new recruits from Bradford’s Battalion, a Union unit from west Tennessee, commanded by Maj. William F. Bradford.
Forrest arrived at Fort Pillow at 10:00 on April 12. By this time, Chalmers had already surrounded the fort. A stray bullet struck Forrest’s horse, felling the general and bruising him. This was the first of three horses he lost that day.
One tough hombre.
He deployed sharpshooters around the higher ground that overlooked the fort, bringing many of the occupants into their direct line of fire. Major Booth was killed by a sharpshooter’s bullet to the chest and Bradford assumed command. By 11:00, the Confederates had captured two rows of barracks about 150 yd (140 m) from the southern end of the fort. The Union soldiers had failed to destroy these buildings before the Confederates occupied them, and they subjected the garrison to a murderous fire.
Rifle and artillery fire continued until 3:30, when Forrest sent a note demanding surrender: “The conduct of the officers and men garrisoning Fort Pillow has been such as to entitle them to being treated as prisoners of war. I demand the unconditional surrender of the entire garrison, promising that you shall be treated as prisoners of war. My men have just received a fresh supply of ammunition, and from their present position can easily assault and capture the fort. Should my demand be refused, I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command.” Bradford replied, concealing his identity as he did not wish the Confederates to realize that Booth had been killed, requesting an hour for consideration. Forrest, who believed that reinforcing troops would soon arrive by river, replied that he would only allow 20 minutes, and that “If at the expiration of that time the fort is not surrendered, I shall assault it.” Bradford refused this opportunity with a final reply: “I will not surrender.” Forrest then ordered his bugler to sound the charge.
So, Forrest offered a surrender that was rebuffed? Bradford should have known that his position was untenable… green troops surrounded and being picked off by snipers. We know from history that he didn’t have any reinforcements coming so his request for an hour’s delay was simple indecision. I can’t have much sympathy for an outmaneuvered force that refuses surrender until after the final assault begins.
Also, I have ZERO sympathy for the North complaining about war crimes.
The Confederate assault was furious. While the sharpshooters maintained their fire into the fort, a first wave entered the ditch and stood while the second wave used their backs as stepping stones. These men then reached down and helped the first wave scramble up a ledge on the embankment. All of this proceeded flawlessly and with very little firing, except from the sharpshooters and around the flanks. Their fire against the New Era [supporting gunboat] caused the sailors to button up their gun ports and hold their fire.
As the sharpshooters were signaled to hold their fire, the men on the ledge went up and over the embankment, firing now for the first time into the massed defenders. The garrison fought briefly, but then broke and ran to the landing at the foot of the bluff, where they had been told that the Union gunboat would cover their withdrawal by firing grapeshot and canister rounds. Because its gun ports remained sealed, the gunboat did not fire a single shot. The fleeing soldiers were subjected to fire both from the rear and from the flank. Many were shot down. Others reached the river only to drown, or be picked off in the water by marksmen on the bluff.
Although Confederate sources say that Forrest’s forces kept firing in self-defense, some historians and official Union reports emphasize that a deliberate massacre took place. Union survivors claimed that even though all their troops surrendered, Forrest’s men massacred some in cold blood.
I’m sure they did. It’s exactly like Antifa demanding their civil rights after throwing firebombs at riot cops. “But I’m not hurting you RIGHT NOW, am I?”
A 2002 study by Albert Castel concluded that Forrest’s troops had killed a large number of the garrison “after they had either ceased resisting or were incapable of resistance”. Historian Andrew Ward in 2005 reached the conclusion that an atrocity in the modern sense occurred at Fort Pillow, but that the event was not premeditated nor officially sanctioned by Confederate commanders.
Recent histories concur that a massacre occurred.
Yes, the recent histories written by radicalized “historians” convinced that the Confederacy were inhuman slaving slave-trading slavers who were the only such slavers in all of human history and could not possibly have been capable of humanity.
We get it. The North won. But that doesn’t mean General Forrest was a murderer anymore than Ex-Slave Owner Forrest being part of the KKK made him a inhuman racist. To wit, going back to Forrest’s entry:
After the lynch mob murder of four blacks who had been arrested for defending themselves in a brawl at a barbecue, Forrest wrote to Tennessee Governor John C. Brown in August 1874 and “volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks”, offering “to exterminate the white marauders who disgrace their race by this cowardly murder of Negroes”.
Thus Spake the KKK Grand Vizier?
It’s a pity that Social Justice Warriors lack the attention span for more than a slogan. They might have been able to appreciate how the greats of history could be flawed as well as great, instead of reducing the life of Nathan Forrest to “punch a Nazi!”