Thursday, July 31, 2014

Fold the Flag?

Letter by Sherwin Dillard that appeared in, in response to a letter, Folded flags are more respectful of Lee's wishes, by Carlton E. Knight. Jr.   Many thanks to the author for permission to reprint this awesome response here.
It has been lately suggested that Robert E. Lee had accepted with grace the outcome of the war he had waged and it has become fashionable to play paper dolls with his mind (dressing him up in modern style) regarding the Confederate flag based on what he did not say or do in Lexington. In addition to the fallacy of arguing from the negative, it ignores the realities of his precarious circumstances as well as the contemporary account related by one of his chaplains, R.L. Dabney.

Lee, during his Lexington years was a man awaiting a determination of the restoration of his citizenship rights. He had met the paperwork requirements and had taken the required allegiance oath and was awaiting the official restoration.

I know an immigrant who was awaiting her naturalization. When a political matter of intense interest to her arose, she confided that while she desperately wanted to take an active role in commenting publicly on it, she dared not until her citizenship was established. She could not involve herself in political affairs or controversies until her status was settled and fixed.

I know another young lady, a Filipina, who is in the same muzzle until she has her naturalization completed in Chicago next week.

Certainly Lee, as the foremost recognizable military leader of the Southern cause, would have to closely mind his words and deeds---and took extraordinary pains to do so---in order not to jeopardize that restoration of his right to vote and partake in everyday liberties again.

Sadly for Lee, however, he died waiting. Washington, D.C., typically, lost his paperwork for a century. Not until President Gerald Ford restored his citizenship in 1975 was Lee able to speak freely again, by which time, of course, it was much, much too late.

"General Lee had given a very polite good-morning to each man as he passed out;...he gently closed the door before me, keeping the door-knob in his left hand, and said to me, as follows: 'Governor Stockdale, before you leave, I wish to give you my thanks... You know, Governor, what my position is. Those people (his uniform term for the Yankees) hold me as a representative Southerner; hence, I know they watch my words, and if I should speak unadvisedly, what I say would be caught up by their speakers and newspapers, and magnified into a pretext for adding to the load of oppression they have placed upon our poor people; and God knows, Governor, that load is heavy enough now; but you can speak, for you are not under that restraint...’ "

“Again, said Governor Stockdale, I thought he would dismiss me; but he still held the door closed... after a time he resumed and uttered these words: 'Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me.' Then, with rising color, throwing back his head like an old war-horse, he added these words, 'Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.' He then dropped his head, and, with a sad look, added, 'This, of course, is for your ear only..." - LIFE AND LETTERS OF ROBERT LEWIS DABNEY- Thomas Carey Johnson, 1903

If Lee’s wishes are the supreme rule at Washington & Lee University today, they will, of course, hasten to evangelize their student body with the Christian Gospel, for Lee said, “Our greatest want is a revival that shall bring these young men to Christ. I dread the thought of any student going away from the college without becoming a sincere Christian. I shall fail in the leading object that brought me here, unless these young men all become consistent Christians.” Surely we may rely on Ruscio and the faculty to hold prayer meetings and special religious services to that end, since they are so careful to follow Lee’s example in all things.

We will see that about as soon as we see President Ruscio worshipping in Lee’s Chapel seat six days a week. Lee is a prop the school uses when they believe it furthers their political agenda and which they ignore entirely when they wish. They profess, “This chapel…shall not be used for any meetings or purposes not in keeping with its consecrated character and the memorial and sacred purposes to which it is dedicated.” Is that why they hosted a debate on “gay marriage” in April 2012 in Lee Chapel? Was that its sacred purpose intended in 1866? Of course not. Not according reason and not according to the Board of Trustees’ minutes, of which I have photocopies.

The pretended reverence for Lee and his wishes is a convenient sham no intelligent person believes for a moment.

Sherwin Dillard
Wygota College
Wenucanskipitin, Virginia

This 'n' That

Thanks, Mimi!
Lexington had highest jobless rate in June
(Click link for the AP/ABC story.)

So how's that whole hatin' on the Confederacy thing workin' out for ya?
Corey and Bakur think Gann Academy, where Levin teaches, is not segregated. I guess these two highly edumacated, learned individuals think segregation means separating black from white, and that only.

According to,
verb (used with object), seg·re·gat·ed, seg·re·gat·ing.
1. to separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group; isolate: to segregate exceptional children; to segregate hardened criminals.
2. to require, often with force, the separation of (a specific racial, religious, or other group) from the general body of society.

verb (used without object), seg·re·gat·ed, seg·re·gat·ing.
3. to separate, withdraw, or go apart; separate from the main body and collect in one place; become segregated.
4. to practice, require, or enforce segregation, especially racial segregation.
5. Genetics. (of allelic genes) to separate during meiosis.
Gann Academy is a Jewish school. Presumably, it doesn't admit non-Jews. It discriminates against any and all who are not Jewish. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with someone who practices segregation and discrimination, based on what HE thinks is okay, putting down others for doing the same thing in the past.

If integration, diversity, mingling, etc., is so wonderful, why create a school just for Jewish kids? Why deprive them of the benefits of coming in contact with students of other faiths and cultures, if it so wonderful an experience for all other kids?

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Texas Scalawag Runneth at the Mouth

Over on Simpson's blog, Texas Scalawag Andy Hall sez this about what I'm calling the T-shirt incident at Washington and Lee on Saturday:
"The information from W&L doesn’t corroborate any of the details alleged by the SCV. The Confederate Heritage crowd has a history of exaggerating claims, staging confrontations, or telling stories that were made up entirely from whole cloth. They’ve shown themselves over and over again to be untrustworthy in telling a full and complete story, and people are entirely justified in being skeptical of any story of this sort that they propagate."
What details?

It would be nice if he would have linked to whatever "details alleged by the SCV" he's talking about, because what I've found is certainly corroborated by W&L's statement. You can read both in their entirety here, but now I want to compare the SCV's description of what happened with W&L's description -- and let you be the judge of just how truthful Andy Hall's accusation is.

In fact, the SCV's description of what happened consists entirely of a condensed version of the account written by the teenaged boy.

The overall statement does add that some visitors reported to the SCV that they had been told they had to remove any likeness of Robert E. Lee in order to enter the campus, and that the University had blocked the main roads to other destinations in Lexington. But those are peripheral to the main issue (the incident with the teen boy, for which they're asking an apology) and do not constitute details about it. Besides, that W&L's statement did not address these does not necessarily mean they did not happen.

Here's what the SCV reported about the T-shirt incident itself.
The boy had attended the rally hosted by the SCV and gave the following account of his mistreatment in his own words: [photo attached]

"Since it was my first time in Lexington I wanted to see the Lee Chapel and the grave of Lee's horse Traveller. As I began to head for the Lee Chapel, a [campus] Police Officer stopped me and said that I could not enter the campus property with my Battle Flag or any images of Confederate Flags on any of my possessions including my clothing. I really wanted to pay my respects to General Lee and Traveller so I had to turn my shirt inside-out, take off my hat, and take off my badge."
Here's what W&L said about it:
According to our Office of Public Safety, our officers reported four occasions when they interacted with individuals who were participating in the July 26 rally sponsored by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in downtown Lexington.

The officers characterized all of these interactions as respectful. They did not record names or ages of any of the individuals.

In each instance, the officers requested individuals not to carry Confederate flags or to wear attire with Confederate emblems on the campus. The individuals all complied with these requests.
The rest of W&L's statement offers some half-baked, keister-covering excuses for the restrictions ("We wuz skeered and sore afraid,") but none of it denies or even disagrees with the SCV's report of the incident.

If Andy's talking about some OTHER SCV statements and OTHER W&L responses, he needs to identify them, because the ones every one knows about -- the ones Levin linked to -- do not support Andy 's contention.

Incidentally, Kevin Levin has put this sentence from the W&L statement, in boldface, on  his updates: The officers ... did not record names or ages of any of the individuals. Apparently, he thinks it's important in undermining the SCV account or something. In one way, it isn't significant. It doesn't in any way deny the actions of the university.  On the other hand, it does show sloppy security procedures -- and, more significantly, accountability issues -- in the university's security and policing methods.

I notice Andy didn't mention that. Neither did Levin. In fact, as far as I know, I'm the only one to mention it thus far.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014


"The Virginia Flaggers ... have now gone to great lengths to stage another conflict to garner sympathy for their cause."  K. Levin

"...this little fabrication takes the cake." K. Levin

"...the story is likely fabricated. There is no way to corroborate the story since no names are used and there were no police patrolling campus on Saturday."
K. Levin

"The story was most likely fabricated. It is interesting how often minors are the centers of these stories." K.  Levin

"Though it’s possible, I find it hard to believe that no one else was around campus on Saturday. W&L denies that there was any incident which is a very risky thing to do if others witnessed this supposed exchange."  K. Levin

"All I can see is moral bankruptcy."  K. Levin
 ____________________ officials initially denied the allegations being brought against it. Brian Eckert, the spokesperson for Washington and Lee, stated there is no indication the incident took place.

However, on Tuesday the University admitted that because of "safety" reasons they forced 4 people "not to carry or wear Confederate flags or emblems on the campus."
According to our Office of Public Safety, our officers reported four occasions when they interacted with individuals who were participating in the July 26 rally sponsored by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in downtown Lexington....In each instance, the officers requested individuals not to carry Confederate flags or to wear attire with Confederate emblems on the campus. The individuals all complied with these requests. (Emphasis mine. ~cw)

General Lee would be sooooo  proud of the university that bears his name ... intimidation, harassment and LYING....

So, Levin, will the VaFlaggers get their apology?

Levin also owes the SCV, the heritage visitors, the young man whose existence he doubted an apology ...

Will they get it?

Washington and Lee University owes them all an apology.

Will they get it?

We shall see....

Talk about yer moral bankruptcy....

Apology timeline countdown...

1:51 PM CST -- WNCN, Raleigh NC, publishes story
5:02 PM CST -- No apology or acknowledgement by Levin at Civil War Memory
7:20 PM CST -- Checked Levin's blog. He has "updated" it to acknowledge that the university admits that four individuals were told that they could not bring “carry (sic) Confederate flags or to wear attire with Confederate emblems on the campus...." but no apology.
7:45 PM CST -- Levin issues a belated apology that sez, "My apologies to the Virginia Flaggers and SCV."  Added to the previous update. I'm surprised.

I guess it helps to be on a book promoting mission at Petersburg when you gotta eat crow, I guess.

Levin adds, "Let me state for the record that I have no problem with the university taking measures to secure their campus if it is deemed necessary."

Lame attempt at obfuscation. Let me state that have no problem with that, either. But this wasn't only about that, and I have very little suspicion that the campus was under any kind of threat that it needed to be secured from, anyway. I've already established that the SCV has no history of violence.

What this was mostly about was Levin calling the young man and the Virginia Flaggers LIARS. It was about accusing them of STAGING A CONFLICT to "garner sympathy for their cause," an accusation of which they were totally innocent. It was about implying they were habitual liars and false conflict-creators, which I proved was not true, here.  It's about claiming they are morally bankrupt.

Do y'all suppose Levin doesn't know that?

Floggasms Abounding

On Saturday, a rally was held in Lexington, Virginia in support of returning the Confederate flags to Lee Chapel. The chapel itself closed the day of the rally 'cuz the powers that be wuz afraid the big, bad, evil SCV was gonna raze the chapel and beat up the staff.  (I know, I know....)

So anyway, at one point, a teenaged boy went to visit the grave of Traveler at the chapel, and was stopped by a (campus) police officer, who said he could not visit the site with his Confederate flag,  and with items that had the image of the battle flag on them, a badge and his T-shirt. He had to turn his T-shirt inside out.

The incident was reported in several FB groups, and here:

Now, a frenzied floggasm is underway at Civil War Memory over the incident Levin believes is a fabrication, a conflict "staged" by the Virginia Flaggers to "garner sympathy for their cause."  He concludes, "We’ve been here before, but this little fabrication takes the cake."

He made other comments, and I'd like to post a few here, along with my responses.

"I’m not entirely certain," he sez, "that the 'recollections' of the 15 year old are honest either." Well, I am entirely certain that a lot of flogger statements aren't honest.

"I make no claim to knowing who this is, but I do find it curious that this story contains not a single name for verification." Maybe it depends on where you read it. Maybe the, um, I dunno, police report names names. Maybe the young man's verbal report, made to people other than Levin, contains names. Remember, floggers, just because you don't know about it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Surely this child was not walking alone through campus."  Why not? But it's possible someone was with him. It just doesn't say.

And, "The story was most likely fabricated."  In your imagination it's fabricated because you want it to be. You want to believe bad things about the VaFlaggers, and to influence others to do the same.

"It is interesting how often minors are the centers of these stories." How often are minors the centers of "these stories"? How about identifying "these stories" and then identifying the minors? Cuz if you don't supply this information, you're doing exactly what you're complaining about here, which renders your complaints null and void.

"Again, no names are mentioned in the FB posts so there is no way to corroborate the story." It's entirely possible that the names are mentioned somewhere, and the story has been and is continuing to be corroborated, for those who need that information. Have you ever considered, Levin, that maybe nobody cares whether you have the info necessary to corroborate something or not? 

It's quite possible that nobody cares what you believe or don't believe about Southern heritage, the SCV, the VaFlaggeres. You've already established, over several years, that you can't stand the Virginia Flaggers, you hate everything they do, and you're going to do your dead-level best to bring trouble their way, including falsely painting them in the worse possible light.

"There is still not one piece of evidence to support these allegations." Still, huh, after all this time -- two whole flippin' days.

Obviously, Mr. Levin thinks "evidence" just magically appears, and no time is required to gather it.  We will see where he has exhibited his misconception about magic evidence before, later in this post.

But first, it's not just Levin's comments I want to address. One of his minions posts this:
M.E. Martin July 28, 2014 at 10:06 am   

Remember when Susan Hathaway and Tripp Lewis were caught spreading what turned out to be a fake police report about vandalism on Monument Ave. all over the internet? Even if VaFlaggers didn’t manufacture this and learned it was another “Southron” supporter, they would never admit the mistake. The apparently fake story makes great propaganda to whip up their peeps.
Well, Mr. Martin, Tripp and Susan spread no police reports, fake or otherwise. If it was all over the internet, as you claim, you should be able to provide a link to the fake police report and substantiate your statement. But they didn't so you can't. In that case, it's not a good idea to go around making false claims.

They would never admit their mistake, huh? Maybe you should retract that statement, too.

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, Susan issued this public statement on Facebook:

I dunno, Mr. Martin ... that sounds like admitting a mistake to me, and not only that, but an apology to those who were affected by the mistake. A classy person made that statement, someone showing a lot more class than you.

See, here's what happened. Four days earlier, on Friday, May 10, 2013, Susan had posted online an account of the vandalism incident as told to her by Rob Walker. The next day, Saturday, May 11, the Flaggers received an email from some Navy personnel who had seen the account, and disputed what Rob had claimed about his USS Cole service.

What transpired between receiving that email from the Navy personnel and issuing the Tuesday statement is chronicled in this timeline:

(Note, some of the communication about the incident occurred by phone and some by email, but much of it occurred by phone text messages between Susan, Tripp and Walker. I received images of the phone messages, with time stamps, which made it possible to compile the timeline.)

You will note that in those four days, while Susan was attending her son's graduation, Mother's Day activities with her family, and while she and Tripp were contacting and communicating with Rob Walker about his failure to get a police report, Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson posted about the incident eleven freaking times.


Eleven harassing, bulling posts in four freaking days. You can read 'em at these links:

=====  May 11th  =====


=====  12th =====



=====  13th =====





=====  14th =====




One of the similarities in the flogger reaction to these incidents is the sheer impatience these supposedly grown men exhibit. Their patience isn't as long as their pe-- pe-- pinky. The very DAY AFTER Susan's Rob Walker account appeared, when it was determined that no police report had been filed, one super-bully post claimed Susan was "still silent." One flippin' day.

She issued a statement three days later, and Simpson says "better late than never."  Three days is late?

You can read my blistering coverage of the floggosphere's shameful harassment of Susan and the VaFlaggers over this incident here:

Do you begin to see the pattern of lying and harassment?

Kevin Levin has also said he believed the VaFlaggers staged the theft of Grayson Jennings' excavator from the Chester flag site:

Of course, the law enforcement agency that found the excavator knew who actually stole it, after their investigation found it, and returned it. But Levin doesn't know that, and floggers think if they don't know about it, it hasn't happened.

Simpson also falsely implied that Grayson cut down trees on the state right-of-way at the Chester flag site.

Resolution of that issue didn't involve the VaFlaggers at all. Don't know if Simpson's Virginia moles either didn't know about it, chose not to tell him, or did tell him and he's playin' dumb.

In any case, what all this shows is that the floggers hate and despise Southern heritage, especially the SCV and most especially the Virginia Flaggers.  Hate them so much, they're willing to forego even the most rudimentary adult analysis of these incidents, and eager to jump to negative conclusions based on faulty and incomplete information -- or sheer delusion, when necessary. And then spread it all around to their minions and lurkers.

It's just what they do.

Monday, July 28, 2014

ANOTHER Call for Information

Sez Kevin Levin, "Southern heritage advocates such as the Virginia Flaggers and Sons of Confederate Veterans love to talk about and claim to live by a Southern code of honor that I assume includes integrity and honesty. ... These are the same people who with a straight face claim to be living according to a higher moral code."

Well, that's interesting. Granted, I'm not in the loop re: the SCV, and don't follow them closely, so I can't really say, but I do follow the Virginia Flaggers -- and frankly, I don't recall when either one, as groups, have ever claimed to be living by a "Southern code of honor" or "according to a higher moral code."

Again granted, some -- probably many-- Southern heritage folks are Christians, and Christianity does call for its members to eschew worldly standards, and live by a higher calling. Scripture also concedes that this is difficult, particularly in a non-Christian world, and people sometimes fail, stumble and fall. That is why redemption is an ongoing enterprise.

But I don't think that's what Levin is talking about. He's talking about something more specific -- a Southern code of honor and Lee's higher moral code.

How accurate is his claim? Since he would not dare to reveal his "sources" or link to pages, groups, comments, etc., that substantiate his claim above, we will have to do it ourselves.

I've started with a few searches, with the results below. I'm asking my readers, occasional lurkers, and monitors from the floggosphere to send me links that will substantiate Levin's claim. Specifically, I want links to or screenshots of:
~ Virginia Flaggers talking about a Southern code of honor
~ Virginia Flaggers claiming to live by a Southern code of honor
~ Sons of Confederate Veterans talking about a Southern code of honor
~ Sons of Confederate Veterans claiming to live by a Southern code of honor
~ Any Southern heritage advocates talking about a Southern code of honor
~ Any Southern heritage advocates claiming to live by a Southern code of honor

 I used the search term "code of honor" and sometimes just "honor." But you can use any search term you think will bring up what Levin's babbling about.

Search of the VaFlaggers' blog:

Search of the SCV national website:
Search of Brandon Dorsey's SCV camp's FB group.

Search of Dixie News and Talk  FB group.

Search of  Southern Heritage, Fight for it or Lose it FB group.

Search of Confederate American Pride  FB group.

Other search results I didn' t take screenshots of:


Confederate Archives

Google Search results on the term "neo-confederate code of honor"

So, it looks like, once again, we have either a flogger lie or a flogger hallucination or delusion... To borrow a Simpsonism, I leave it to you to figure out which.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

What Kevin Levin Gets Wrong

In his post, What the Protest at Washington & Lee University is Really About, Levin sez, 
Yes, the people who gathered in Lexington, Virginia are incensed about the removal of replica Confederate flags from Lee Chapel. They view it as a threat to their preferred narrative of the history of the Confederacy and the symbolism of the flag both during and after the war.
Ah, no. They view it as what it is -- the first salvo in an effort to dishonor General Lee. Because if Lee can be attacked and tumbled, all commemoration of the Confederacy and its army can be wiped out.
The fact that the replicas will be replaced by original flags appears to have been lost by just about everyone.
Ah, no. The flags in the Chapel alcove where The Recumbant Lee rests will not -- that's N-O-T, NOT -- be replaced. (That they were replicas is not significant in any way, except that their use preserved historic flags.) The original flags will be placed in the basement museum, not in the alcove, where the flags were removed.

Besides, original flags could have been placed in the basement museum without removing the flags in the alcove -- a fact that appears to have been lost by just about everyone on the flogger side, especially Kevin Levin.
 It suggests to me that this is not entirely about the removal of flags, but about who instigated it.
The operative words here, "It suggests to me..."  That's because his mindset predisposes him to such suggestions.
This is about the fact that it was a group of African-American students who successfully petitioned their school to acknowledge their interpretation of the Confederate flag. It is a reminder that African Americans will never subscribe to their preferred interpretation of this history and its iconography.
Nope. It's not about African American interpretations or some leftist understanding like that. It's about deploring any dishonor and besmirching of heritage, any effort to eradicate it, regardless of who does it. I guess Kevin's memory is short, or his powers of observation limited -- BUT Mimi Elrod and Anna Brodsky are not African American and thus their interpretation of the Confederate flag is not an African American interpretation.  But their besmirching and dishonoring of Confederate heritage, as justification for eradicating it (in the form of flags in Lexington) was deplored and opposed.
The Confederate heritage movement has gone to great lengths in recent years to shape their stories to appeal to African Americans and other minorities. This butchering of the Lost Cause narrative likely goes beyond what most Confederates themselves would acknowledge as a realistic depiction of their cause. The rise of the black Confederate narrative in the 1970s is the most obvious example of this revisionist agenda.
Some within the community have done that. Most have not. I have not. If African Ameicans and other minorities want to participate in or commemorate Confederate heritage, that's fine with me. But I don't have the leftist mindset that these folks must be recruited to legitimize a cause (like NASCAR some years back, desperately recruiting black drivers and fans to a sport they largely were not interested in -- as if they were needed to legitimize NASCAR).
In the end groups like the Virginia Flaggers can highlight their black member and post all of the photographs of black passers-by on the Boulevard they want on their websites. The SCV can schedule an unlimited number of appearances with H.K. Edgerton. The racial profile of the students is a reminder that this project has largely been a failure.
The Virginia Flaggers don't highlight their black member any more than they highlight any of their other members -- it's just that "black" is what rivets Levin's attention, and thus what he focuses on. The VaFlaggers post photos of those who stop and talk... some of them are black. What should they do, hide the photos of black visitors?
The hysteria on display by the Confederate heritage community belies the fact that the students in question actually got very little of what they demanded. You decide.
The hysteria is on display primarily in Kevin Levin's imagination. The student activists got what they wanted -- victory in the first small salvo in the dishonoring of Lee and his role in the Confederacy.

Topple Lee and the whole of Confederate heritage will crumble under the Gramscian-leftist onslaught that will follow. And that, folks, is the ultimate goal of Committee-types and floggers.

More Dishonesty from a Flogger

Boy, do I know how to get Brooks Simpson steaming! He's ticked off about my retort to Kevin Levin's ludicrous put-down of the SCV re: the Lexington rally.

Does Simpson never tire of perpetrating chicanery?

He notes that, like Levin, I'm not in the SCV; I'm not a student of W& L U.

Interesting how he stops there, iddinit? -- if it doesn't fit with his need to denigrate, harass and put down, he doesn't mention it -- but, unlike Kevin, I AM descended from Virginians, and I DO have forebears who fought for the Confederacy.

So Simpson's dishonest reporting of my post -- that the VaFlaggers, Carl Roden, Dave Tatum, etc., should step aside,  "according" to me, because Lexington is none of their business -- is a blatant lie. Most of them are Virginians, and most if not all have forebears who fought for the Confederacy.

Significantly, (and it's mindboggling that this has to be explained to someone as, presumably, intelligent and edumucated as Simpson implies he is) none of these people he mentioned issued ludicrous put-downs of the SCV's Lexington rally.

No, Kevin hasn't said he hates Confederate heritage -- but his blog is basically a vehicle for expression of it, whether he comes out and states it that way or not -- just like Simpson's blog, and Andy's blog, and Mackey's blog, and the hangers-on and wannabee blogs.

Back when I could walk, I was on the front lines, and if I could walk now, I still would be, although it's doubtful I could afford to journey to Virginia every time haters attack our heritage in the Old Dominion.

Then Simpson makes his claim -- oft-repeated, and wrong every time -- that I, or we (Confederate heritage supporters) need to feel hated.  As I indicated unmistakably here, we don't feel a need to be hated (what a ridiculous thing to claim). We just recognize it when hate IS aimed at us. 

The VaFlaggers don't employ me to carry their message. (Eyeroll.) I simply upload content that they write to their blog. I speak for myself, nobody else.  Simpson knows this; anybody have any guesses why he repeated lies about it?

Why has Simpson mentioned Susan Hathaway's employer again? Is he so disappointed he didn't get her fired and destroy her livelihood (in the midst of Obama's destruction of the economy, when jobs grow scarcer every day) that he has to bring it up again and again? If that's not a sign of hatred, what IS it?

And that's just one dead horse he repeatedly beats.

Ah, my readers should note that "uppity" is Simpson's word, not mine, regardless of his fraudulent attempt to attribute it to me.

As for his claim that I can't figure out who The Committee members are ... mistakenly assuming that Brandon Hicks was a law student at NCCU is not the same as not knowing who he is. Do you suppose Simpson is incapable of distinguishing the difference? Or has he simply grown incapable of telling the truth?

Nope, I'm not confused about who they are, as I've noted before, I know what they're about. The Committee members are spite activists. They're not about diversity and inclusion. They're about banning and restricting and disallowing. They're also civil-rights wannabees. Their name, per Hicks, pays homage to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. And Hicks has a history of homosexual activism. Does Simpson not know this? Does he not know what the SNCC was?

As for not taking Confederate heritage advocates seriously, why has Simpson addictively posted about the VaFlaggers over 185 times since December 29, 2011?  When you consider his additional posts about individual heritage folks or other groups, it all adds up to a whopping Simpson obsession. 

That is an act of taking something seriously. And the contents of his obsessive posts are expressions of hatred.  Plain and simple.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

He's Predictin' Again....

From Kevin Levin's blog:

What's it to ya?

You're not in the SCV.

You're not a student at Washington and Lee, or a member of the administration, or the faculty. You don't live in Lexington. You don't even live in Virginia. And I don't believe you had any forebears on either side of the War Between the States....

What does the rally mean to you, beyond use as a club to bash the SCV, which you hate, and all Confederate heritage supporters, which you also hate? 

Look, you see the removal and hiding away of all Confederate flags -- replicas or historic -- as a drastic improvement.

You would see the eradication of all manifestations of Confederate heritage as a drastic improvement.
"Today’s rally, like previous rallies in Lexington organized by the SCV, will achieve nothing." K. Levin, July 26, 2014
Is that a prediction? Like this one?
"Prediction: There will be no Confederate flag on I-95 near Richmond." K. Levin. Aug. 18, 2013

The Problem with Anti-Confederate Floggers... the blatant and egregious double standard they use. Take, for example, the efforts to protect Ulysses S. Grant from the term "slave owner" with this (from Al Mackey, but it's a common defense) "Grant did free the only slave he ever owned, William Jones, in 1859 at a time when he needed money and could have gotten upwards of $1,000 if he sold Jones."

So if you own a slave and free him instead of selling him, that nullifies and neutralizes your slave-ownership? Well, if you're barbaric Union army general, I guess so.

But then Mackey notes this, "Julia Dent Grant, though, never owned 18 slaves.  There is no evidence she ever owned any slaves.  The best we can establish is that she had the use of four of her father’s slaves."

So Grant and his wife Julia were members of a slave-owning family.... hummmm....

In my blog post, "Cookin' the Books on Slave Ownership," I noted that critics of the South frequently wave away the number of slave owners -- people who actually held title to slaves (393,975 persons, according to the 1860 census) -- and focus instead of slave holding families.

I had asked about this on Facebook (basically asking how the number of slave holding families was arrived at) with a link to information about it on the website of James Epperson, an anti-Confederate professor. I was surprised when I got a private message from Mr. Epperson about it.
Epperson: "Each slaveholder in the census is assumed to represent his own family. Some of these would be individuals, some would be extended families (patriarch/ matriarch, children and spouses, etc.), some would be nuclear families. I don't see a problem with this." (Emphasis mine. CW  So Julia would be the child of a slave holder and Grant the spouse of the child of a slave holder -- and thus counted as one who was affected by, benefited from slavery, etc., which is implied as the same thing as slave-ownership by anti-Confederate floggers.)

Me: "It seems to me that a figure of 26% looks much more weighty and impressive than 13.8% -- particularly to people who won't take the time to discern the difference in what the two figures represent. The term "slave holding families" could be construed by some to mean all members of the family were slaveholders; to such people, that means 26% of the Southern population, not 13.8%, owned slaves. I think it gives a false impression."

Epperson: "The point of the exercise is to discern how many people were affected by or benefitting (sic) from or exposed to slavery. It would be more than the individuals who legally owned the slaves---it would include their wives and children. I am not the originator of this, it is the standard metric used by historians."
Unless they're flogger historians, and unless one member of the slave-owning family was Ulysses S. Grant. Then the idea is to distance him as far as possible from slave-ownership and benefit.

This is by no means the only example of the flogger application of a blatant double standard. I've blogged about it before and you can read about it here. This is just the latest example of it.

A lot of things substantiate the flogger hatred of white Southerners, and their efforts to evilize them, past and present. The wielding of their despicable double standard is just one.