News
Famous Alamo Defender’s Granddaughter Fights George P. Bush Plan To ‘Relocate’ Memorial
George P. Bush wants to dismantle the Alamo. Descendants of the Alamo’s defenders want to stop him.
AUSTIN, TEXAS — Liz Case Pickens, the great granddaughter of Col. William Barrett Travis, recently scolded lawmakers and Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush’s plan to “relocate” the iconic 60-foot Alamo Cenotaph memorial, warning that any such”relocation” will destroy the monument.
Pickens and many other Texans took to the podium at Tuesday’s hearing held to consider delaying George P. Bush’s plan to dismantle and move the Alamo monument.
Emboldened by her family lineage, Ms. Pickens drew her own “line in the sand” to defend the Alamo yet again, but this time to defend her ancestor’s “gravemarker,” as she refers to the Cenotaph.
Trending: More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats
Ms. Pickens’ great grandfather Col. Travis, who famously drew his “line in the sand” on that fateful third day at the Alamo, asked for only those to remain who would fight to the death. Not a single denizen of the Alamo was a coward that day, if history’s legendary brew is accurate.
Citing detailed, scientific engineering studies that all conclude the monument shouldn’t be moved, Pickens cautions that Bush really wants to destroy and store the monument.
“The cenotaph sits on sacred ground. It is in the geographic center of the footprint of the Alamo — it’s also the gravemarker for our defenders who we cherish as Texans. I wouldn’t be standing here today if I were just a Texan,” she stated. “But I happen to be a descendant of Col. William Barrett Travis,” she continued. “If somebody was coming to move, desecrate or destroy the gravemarker of one of your … grandparents, you would not be happy … .”
“In 2000, an engineering study was done, and they did a 27-page study of the Cenotaph, which you can find at SanAntonio.gov — which Coppini [the artist who designed the monument] said should never be moved — that this great marker will be damaged, if not destroyed,” Pickens stated.
The saber-rattling descendant of the saber-wielding Travis of 1836 Alamo fame, is leading the charge against Bush plans to “relocate” the Cenotaph, which has ground anchors that extend 20 feet into the Earth.
Here’s a speech she gave as part of the “Save the Cenotaph” rally in Feb. 2018:
Quite simply, Pickens believes (as do others who testified Tuesday) that such design and solid construction (weather-worn, or not) will respond about as well to being dug up as a corpse freshly buried.
“This is sacred ground. Our ancestor’s gravemarker needs to be left where it is,” Pickins said, closing her remarks to the Texas House Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism.
Big League Politics obtained the following video of the hours-long citizen testimony given overwhelmingly in favor of HB 1836, a bill that will effectively stymie Bush’s headlong rush to rip the monument from its current location.
WATCH:
Read our original report here.
Land Commissioner George P. Bush signed an Alamo redesign plan that includes dismantling and relocating the Cenotaph, an 80-year-old, 60-foot memorial to the 189 (or more) men who gave their lives for Texas.
In February, 2019, Texas State Rep. Kyle Biedermann introduced HB 1836, a measure ostensibly for the “PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE, AND RESTORATION OF ALAMO CENOTAPH.” The hearings were to review that proposal — not other historical preservation legislation.
The tall, marble monument salutes the fallen heroes of Alamo, e.g Col. William B. Travis, James “Jim” Bowie, and David “Davey” Crockett who died in 1836 at the old Spanish mission fighting Mexican dictator, Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
“Several potential locations were considered. The proposed location … will provide appropriate context and symbolism for the structure.”
San Antonio City Council wants to “honor” the men of the Alamo by moving their tombstone to the place where Santa Anna burned their carcasses following his disreputable and savage order of “Deguello” (take no prisoners, kill everyone, women, children, etc.).
Bush assures the people of Texas, “the Cenotaph will always stand,” while signing a plan to relocate it.
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?
Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.
Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.
Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?
Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.
Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”
However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.
The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.
In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.
One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.
The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”
The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”
Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”
Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.
His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”
Sanders responded, “Yes.”
Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.
All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.
Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.
-
News3 days agoBernie Sanders 2020 ‘Win’ in NH Netted a LOSS OF 80,000 VOTES from 2016
-
News3 days agoVirginia State Police are Silent About Door-to-Door Enforcement of Suppressor Ban
-
Violent Left2 days agoNew Mexico Bureaucrat Arrested for Vandalizing State GOP Headquarters
-
Tech3 days agoMore Censorship: Controversial Right-Wing YouTuber Nick Fuentes is Booted From Platform, Even Ben Shapiro Says It’s Too Far
-
Violent Left3 days agoNew Hampshire Thug Arrested After Assaulting ‘MAGA’ Hat-Wearing 15-Year Old at Polling Site
-
Deep State3 days agoBill Barr Pushes Back Against Trump, Criticizes President’s Comments on Stone, Drops Case Against McCabe
-
Violent Left4 days agoWife of ‘Proud Boys’ Member Imprisoned for Self-Defense Pleads for Help for Their Three Children
-
News2 days agoMS-13 Thug Gets Life Sentence in Virginia for Rape and Abduction
-
Culture2 days agoHow Vulture Capitalists Use Their Ill-Gotten Gains to Push Transgenderism Onto Children
-
The Swamp2 days agoSWAMP: FBI Press Officer Accepted Baseball Tickets From CNN Reporter
-
News3 days agoGUILTY: Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti Convicted in Extortion Trial
-
Politics3 days agoMIT Warns That Voting App Used in Several States is Vulnerable for Hackers to ‘Alter, Stop or Expose’ Votes
