Monday, September 30, 2013

Andy Hall and Google Earth

A match made in Heaven -- for folks looking to disparage the Virginia Flaggers?

Well, let's see. There's been much made over the "woods" and the "trees" at the location making the flag impossible to see. Andy also -- with what passes for humor with him, I guess -- noted, "Good luck moving the overpass." He was referring to the overpass that lies just to the north of the flag's location and hides the site from view for southbound motorists..

The problem with that is, way back when the project was first generating publicity, Susan Hathaway told the Times Dispatch that the flag would be visible to northbound motorists...  She didn't explain what would obscure the view for southbound motorists -- the overpass -- because, presumably, she didn't want to give such an enormous clue to the location.

When I pointed out Susan's comment, references to "moving the overpass" miraculously dried up.

So then, it was the trees or nuthin'. Andy posted these graphics. If you can't read his yellow caption, it sez, "Flag behind these trees."

He also includes this comment with the image below: "If they’ve going to make the flag visible from the northbound lanes of I-95 in any meaningful way, they’re going to have to cut a lot more than the narrow strip directly in front of their leased plot. Clearing the trees directly in front only makes the flag visible for a second or two was you come abreast of it, roughly 75-90 degrees off to the left from the driver’s view looking ahead."

What Andy seems to forget is that Google Earth photos sometimes aren't updated for three years. The Google Earth image of the leased property is not current. But even more pertinent than that, is this: Andy's triangle of necessary tree-clearing and the approximate location of the flag pole are way off.

I have some Google Earth images and photographs with info for folks to consider, too.  Let's start with this one, just to get our bearings.

What Andy doesn't convey to his readers is that a great many of the trees showing in his GE images have been cut down. You can tell from the above image that the tree cover is substantially thinner than his "Flag-behind-these-trees" image.  The image above was shot, BTW, from the Bermuda Hundred Road overpass that lies roughly perpendicular to the Interstate. It is looking southwest.

This image of the Dedication contains a number of interesting elements. It was taken from the overpass embankment, looking south (the backhoe is a reliable element for orienting the viewer). Most of the trees that were on the wooded lot in the Google Earth images are gone, daddy, gone. We can see the fence that marks the VDOT right of way. According to one Flagger, structures have to be twenty feet back from the right of way. In this case, it's not just the pole, but the flag itself that  is ubject to this requirement. Thus, add fifteen feet to the 20-foot clearance, and the pole stands about 35 feet back from the fence.

Through the remaining trees around the perimeter of the cleared area, one can see I-95 to the left and the grassy area and some buildings on the right, which are clearly discernible in the Google Earth images. (My image below is north looking south.

This puts a whole new way of looking at Andy's gigantic un-overcomable tree argument...

What we see is that most of the trees have already been removed. Looking at the Dedication photo, and the Times Dispatch photo, we see that most of the remaining large trees that would obstruct the view of the flag are on the private-property side of the VDOT fence. (Andy's location of the flag pole is in error, as well. It is not backed up to the overpass embankment, as he depicts,.)

That being the case, once the remaining trees are removed from the location, northbound travelers will have no problem at all seeing that big, beautiful flag welcoming them to the Capital of the Confederacy!

Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Truce Is Over

I'm posting a speech by Dr. Clyde Wilson, from 2003, because it has never been more applicable.

We allowed our heritage to be suppressed for several decades -- sometimes
because we were cowed, sometimes because we were simply trying to be courteous. But our attempts at courtesy were far too often met with a bootheel in the teeth,
Now, we are increasingly facing down intimidation with righteous anger and determination.

The Virginia Flaggers are proving to be an electifying example of courage and purpose for Southern heritage advocates. The raising of the I-95 Battle Flag has inspired others all across Dixie to repeat this event, and big Confederate flags will be rising  from one end of Dixie to the other.

But we must never lose sight of the fact that we have enemies and they hate us. As Dr. Wilson notes, "We have been for several years now fighting brush fires instead of realizing that we are in a war---a cultural cold war with an enemy who wants us dead. Our Confederate heritage is being banished to a dark little forbidden corner of American life labeled 'Slavery and Treason.' ... If we are going to save our heritage it will have to be done by us. After us, it will be too late."


Dr. Clyde Wilson's Speech at the Order of the Southern Cross banquet, 
SCV National Convention, Asheville NC 
August 1, 2003

As the direct descendant of a private in the 42nd NC and a sergeant in the 20th NC, I am honoured to talk to a group descended from notable officers in our War of Independence---or the War to Prevent Southern Independence, as I like to name it.

Nobody gave me any orders as to what to talk about, which is a happy situation. I am going to talk about "Southern Heritage Then and Now," about the place of Southern heritage in American life.

We all know that before and during the war, and during Reconstruction and for years afterward, our ancestors were officially the demons of American history. We were the evil people who tried to "destroy the greatest nation on earth" because of our lust for slavery.

This is easy to believe if you start out with the assumption that everything Yankees do is always righteous and that, obviously, any people who don't want the inestimable blessing of being governed by Yankees are by definition bad people.

There were always decent Northerners who decried this bloody-shirt mentality. It was, interestingly, the Northerners who had actually fought in the war who wanted to treat defeated Southerners with respect and to do what they had fought for---restore the American Union--- rather than continue to oppress, exploit and slander the South.

Joshua Chamberlain at Appomattox saluted the defeated. He later wrote of the Confederates: "There stood before us . . . the embodiment of manhood, men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve...." And he remembered his feeling was not of triumph but rather that ALL Americans should fall down on their knees and beg forgiveness.

Another hard fighting Union soldier, Ambrose Bierce, was enraged by a Republican orator who wanted to prevent the decoration of Confederate graves. He wrote these verses:

The brave respect the brave. The brave
Respect the dead; but you---you draw
That ancient blade, the ass's jaw,
And shake it o'er a hero's grave.

But such generous foes then were a minority.

In the 1890s things began to change. A truce was called to which most Northerners and Southerners subscribed in good faith. It was symbolized by Charles Francis Adams Jr., who in 1907 made a speech on the centennial of R.E. Lee's birth called "Lee, the American." This speech was delivered in Boston and Charleston and others places. (Charles Jr. was the only one of the Adamses who actually fought in the war, by the way.)

The TRUCE was also symbolized by Fitz Lee and Joe Wheeler and many Southern volunteers joining up for the war with Spain and by joint reunions of Union and Confederate veterans. And by D.W, Griffith, the genius of early American cinema and son of a Confederate soldier, who produced "The Birth of a Nation," which combined a sympathetic account of Southern experience with an admiring portrait of Lincoln.

The terms of the Truce went something like this. Northerners agreed to stop demonizing Southerners and to recognize that we had been brave and sincere and honourable in the war, even though misguided in trying to break up the Union. Northerners agreed also that Reconstruction was a great wrong that would not have happened if Lincoln had lived. And they willingly accepted Confederate heroes like Lee and Jackson as AMERICAN heroes.

For our part, Southerners agreed, in exchange for a little respect, that we were glad that the Union had not been broken up and that we would be loyal Americans ever after, something which we have proved a thousandfold since.

And both agreed that the war had been a great tragedy with good and bad on both sides, a great suffering out of which, thankfully, had emerged a better and stronger United States.

The Truce held pretty well for a long time, till past the middle of the 20th century. I have seen a photograph of Franklin D. Roosevelt making a speech before a huge Confederate battle flag. Harry Truman picked the romantic equestrian painting of Lee and Jackson for the lobby of his Presidential Library. Churchill wrote admiringly of Confederates in his HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES. "Gone with the Wind," book and movie, was loved by audiences worldwide.

If you look at the Hollywood movies and also the real pictures from World War II, you will see battle flags painted on U.S. fighter planes and flying over Marine tents in New Guinea.

Well, my friends, that truce is over.

Let me tell a few stories from recent history. George W. Bush, while governor of a Southern state and running for president, sent his henchmen in the middle of the night to remove two harmless UDC plaques from a state office building. Governor Pataki of New York banned the true Georgia flag from the display at the state capitol.

More recently, Vice-President Cheney refused to come to the funeral of a longtime respected Congressman if that Congressman's wishes to have a Confederate flag and "Dixie" at his funeral were followed. The Secret Service was on hand to make sure that the VP was not embarrassed by any display of evil symbols of the Confederacy. (Nevertheless, a few months later, he came back and South Carolinians gave him a dinner at which they contributed $300,000 to his campaign chest.}

These are not leftwing multiculturalists. These are so-called "conservative" Republicans. These are people who could not have been elected without the votes of Confederate descendants.

I could spend the rest of the month talking about the total unconditional surrender of Southern institutions to organized hatred of the South. Right now, there is a carpetbagger who holds an endowed chair in history at a major Southern state university who teaches that America would be a better place if Southerners had been exterminated at the end of the war. Another carpetbagger in another endowed chair in history in the South teaches that so-called Southern honour was nothing but crude, violent suppression of dissent.

Another teaches that Southern women did not really support the war and their menfolk, but were in secret rebellion against the white male ruling elite. Another teaches that every favourable thing we believe about our ancestors' courage, skill, and honour is a "Lost Cause Myth," a pack of lies made up after the war to cover up our evil and failure.

When the Confederate flag controversy was raging in my state, some 90 historians in the state signed a statement which said that the Confederate flag represented slavery and nothing but slavery, and that that was not an opinion but a "fact" established by their expert knowledge. The unstated premise was that South Carolinians are deluded about our own history and need to be corrected by wiser people.

Of course, many of these historians were in other fields and knew nothing about the War. Some were recent imports from strange places like Burma or California. Their position did not rest on study and knowledge. It is a party-line that you must agree to to be a member of the club of so-called "experts," an officially proclaimed "truth" not too different from what used to pass for history in the late Soviet Union.

But my main point is: The Truce is over. Those times are gone, gone, gone. Yet many of those who are charged with the defense of our heritage are living in a dream world, pretending that it is still 1950. The breaking of the truce has nothing to do with us. We did nothing to cause it. We kept our part of the bargain. It has happened because THEY have changed and THEY are in a mode which requires them to scapegoat US--- and not for the first time in history.

We have been for several years now fighting brush fires instead of realizing that we are in a war---a cultural cold war with an enemy who wants us dead. Our Confederate heritage is being banished to a dark little forbidden corner of American life labeled "Slavery and Treason." And incidentally, all the vast admirable contributions of Southerners to American history over four centuries are redefined as "American" and not really "Southern."

The people who are after our heritage are not folks we can win over by presenting historical evidence and assuring them that we are good, loyal Americans free of hate. They could not care less about truth or heritage. In fact, they don't even know what we are talking about when we speak of honouring heritage, that is, respecting our forebears. We are not in an argument over the interpretation of the past. Our very identity as Southerners---today and tomorrow, as well as yesterday---is at stake.

If I am right, what should we do? First, I think, we need to embrace and claim all of Southern history, from Captain John Smith and Pocahantas right up to this moment. The four years of war, as important as that is, is only a part of the long history of Southern people. The SCV summer camps are a great idea. So is the "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference recently sponsored by the Virginia SCV and other groups and the League of the South summer institute. We need many more such events where respectable scholars can be mobilized to challenge THEIR, our enemies, mythology. We ought to commission a thorough, comprehensive documentation of Union army atrocities, which are now being played down as insignificant, and perhaps mount a campaign for reparations---for after all, Southerners are a people who have been, and still are being, economically exploited through the whole existence of the United States.

But most of all, we need to reorient our thinking and fight this war rather than the last one. And I must say, many of those Southerners who have the most power and influence have betrayed the Southern people and left the real fight to be carried on by blue collar Southern white males, who have less public power than any group in the United States today. We need action from Southerners who have influence, who make campaign contributions, who can call up governors and state legislators and newspaper editors and put on some real pressure.

In one of the the greatest of all war films, the 1964 "Zulu," there is a scene just before a few hundred British soldiers are attacked by thousands of war eager natives. An anxious young soldier asks: "Why us?" The veteran unflappable old sergeant major replies: "Because we're here, son, that's why." We are here. If we are going to save our heritage it will have to be done by us. After us, it will be too late.

Dr. Clyde Wilson is a retired professor of history at the University of South Carolina and editor of The Papers of John C. Calhoun.

After the Trees Are Thinned....

We'll Do It Our Way

(With a nod to the Chairman of the Board.)

A response to Michael Rodgers, who left a comment following Do Scorn and Derision Destroy Intelligence? But before I get to that, I want to mention a couple of observations I've made about Mr. Rodgers, based on his comments about the Pelham Chapel flags flying "anachronistically and against protocol."

This betrays a rigid, authoritarian mindset. It's the antithesis of liberty. What's sacred about "chronisticy" (to coin another term) and "protocol"? Who says everything must conform to such arbitrary requirements? (What if the pole is fiberglass and the halyards are polyester? Is that not allowed because these materials didn't exist in the 1860s?) The only reason the floggers make this kind of argument is to stop the VaFlaggers in particular, and Southern heritage folks in general, from honoring Confederate heritage, using whatever cockamamie excuse whatever.

Now, to Mr. Rodgers' comments about the extreme and disgusting derision of the VaFlaggers activities by his flogger buddies.
What they are expressing the most is revulsion at the wasted effort towards an honorable goal.
That is complete hooey. Utter bullcrap from one end to the other. Total shuck, up, down and sideways. They are expressing their disdain for white Southerners, past and present for being lowest form of humanity on the planet -- "wacists" and "white supwemacists"-- with the exception of themselves, of course, if they happen to be Southern (like Hall and Baker). That's what lies behind their whole approach.
If your goal is to remember the service and sacrifice of Confederate soldiers, then your goal is an honorable one and you have many more colleagues than you currently believe that you have.
Not from floggers and their followers. One can remember the service and sacrifice of Confederate soldiers and still spit on their motives, their concerns, their beliefs, their culture, and generally portray them as earth's greatest scourge and the lowest form of humanity. I suspect flogger types are willing to acknowledge the service of Confederate soldiers, because if all memory of them is wiped out, it will make the righteous armies of the north look supremely foolish for coming South to fight ... what? The air? To shoot at pines and magnolias?
Kevin Levin and Andy Hall, among others, certainly want to propagate remembrances of all of the soldiers of the Civil War, including, yes absolutely including, Confederate soldiers.
Yeah, they want to propagate remembrances of Confederate soldiers as the scum who fought to keep an ENTIRE RACE in BONDAGE and gave them no more rights than HEAD OF CABBAGE, blah, blah, blah. Andy's motivation comes through repeatedly, loud and clear not only in blog posts but in the "about" posts introducing his blog.

The primary motivation of civil war floggers is the demonization of white Southerners, past and present. They may try to disguise it with what they evidently perceive to be "fair" treatment in their blogs and occasional comments in posts to have on hand for plausible deniability. (Smirk.) Their true motivation punches through frequently, for all to see.
If what Flaggers and other groups (such as the SCV) were doing was more clearly designed to solely and unequivocally promote that one honorable goal, the support would skyrocket and the disdain would disappear.
If there were nobody going toe to toe with these floggers in defense of Confederate soldiers, if the floggers had free rein and nobody to question them, demonization of Confederates in particular, and white Southerners in general, past and present, is what would skyrocket, Mr. Rodgers. So we should sell out our forebears and go along with the notion of solely and unequivocally promoting Confederate soldiers as diabolical enslavers -- i.e., the most evil people on earth -- who, it so happened, could fight good?

No. The answer is no.

We'll do it our way, and the disapprovers and deriders can huff and puff all they want to.

Do Scorn and Derision Destroy Intelligence?

It's been fun reading some of the comments at the flogger flogs about the Virginia Flagers'  I-95 Confederate battle. As noted in my earlier post, Whiskey Plank, there is more work to be done at the flag's location, as the site is unfinished. Of course, why let facts get in the way of harassment and verbal persecution?

Over on Dead Confederates, Georgia Flagger Billy Bearden reminded Andy, "The pix you have now will be vintage soon as the landscape will be altered more soon (just as it was full of trees a month ago, but not now, the trees now will soon disappear also)."

Andy replies, "I thought today was the big day. Maybe I got my calendars mixed up. Anyway, good luck moving the overpass!?

So Andy perceives himself outsmarted by the Flaggers, re: the trees (they will be coming down later), so he changes horses in midstream (shouldn't a Texan know better than to do that?) to the overpass. He's likely talking about the overpass of the Old Bermuda Hundred Road that lies just north of the flag site, and blocks the view of the flag from the South-bound lane.

Either Andy has forgotten, or is disregarding in order to scorn and deride, this passage from a Times-Dispatch article about the flag:
The flag will fly on a 50-foot pole, and will be visible from the northbound lane, said Susan Hathaway, founder of Virginia Flaggers...
Just to make sure Andy gets it:


Oops... No need to move the overpass for the flag to be visible from the northbound lanes, once the remaining trees are removed....

Then we have LibertyLip, he of the Crossroads Comment Thread threat to the Flaggers... they who "always win..." He's reduced to copy-catting the other floggers, with all the finesse and glib of a junior high school newspaper writer....

I'm sorry, folks. I cain't hep it... I just have to include this, from Levin's flog:
Patrick Young September 28, 2013 at 2:47 pm   

I am the proud owner of over 100 trees. I’ll let you in on a little insider’s secret. Trees grow. You may be barely able to see the flag now, but in a couple of years the trees will grow a bit taller and you won’t see it at all.

I have a little insider's secret, too, Mr. Young:

Keep it up, floggers and floggerettes. You are doing a great job exposing your own intolerance and hatred.

Image: U.S. Government

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Whiskey Plank!

In the old days of wooden shipbuilding, when the last plank of the hull was fastened in place, a celebration often ensued. It was at this point that the hull was considered a vessel, although the ship was far from complete. Interior work, rudder, and rigging were still to be added.

Although the age of wooden ships has passed, the term "whiskey plank" is still widely used in the boating community, and sometimes shows up in up in other industries and applications, as well. My sister, a novelist,  uses the term when the writing of a first draft is complete.

So it is with the I-95 flag in Richmond. The flag is up. The whiskey plank stage has been reached.

The hideous cackle you hear is echoing from the floggosphere. Apparently, the floggers think the project is over, and the flag is obscured by trees.

But ya know what? Methinks the floggers have jumped the gun a little with their orgiastic ridicule.

Even from wa-a-ay down here in Florida, I can see the heavy equipment still at the site in some of the photos.

There's a reason why it's still there.

I know from earlier news reports that there will be a fence and lighting at the flag site. I guess the floggers don't have very long memories, or don't retain what they read.

Since the fence and lighting are still to be installed, obviously, the site is not finished yet. I do love watching floggers when they let their hatred get the better of them, though.

Photos: Judy Smith Photography, Richmond Times Dispatch

The I-95 Flag, Richmond, Virginia

The spirits of Southern soldiers are smiling today....


Photos: Susan Hathaway, Grayson Jennings Video: David Tatum

Friday, September 27, 2013

Like They Care About Honoring Confederate Soldiers

Brooks Simpson posts an entry on his flog titled, "Should We Honor Confederate Soldiers? How?"

As of this writing, 64 comment have been posted in reply. I've skimmed post and comments, and while they don't warrant an in-depth analysis and discussion, a few things deserve mention.

First, who is "we"? I don't see it defined? Is "we" Confederacy-haters? The general public? People in the USA? On Planet Earth? In the entire flippin' universe?

Second, what's the point of the exercise? To reach a consensus and then try to force that "how" on everyone? What if the consensus violates Free Speech (i.e., getting the feds involved in dictating the "how")?  What if the consensus is something Confederacy-haters disagree with?

Unless something concrete results, this question, and the replies, are so much wasted bandwidth -- the digital equivalent of hot air.

The only entry in the comment thread that really catches my eye comes from Michael Rodgers, who sez,
"Flaggers’ main argument is that Confederate flags shouldn’t be removed from where they are flying anachronistically and against protocol because they have been flying at those places anachronistically and against protocol for some time (perhaps decades).

"Flaggers argue that taking the Confederate flags down from where they fly anachronistically and against protocol is somehow an admission of tarnishment of their flag that sends us all on a slippery slope of tarnishment that must result, they argue, in the taking down the Stars and Stripes too (slave ships and all that). Since that last step is nonsensical (they don’t bother to argue, but that’s the drift), we shouldn’t ever take down any flags that the previous generations ever flew regardless of how anachronistic or against protocol the flying was."
Actually, the Flaggers' main argument applies to only one instance -- two battle flags on the facade of the Pelham Chapel. But what I really want to address is his carping on "anachronistically and against protocol". says anachronistically relates to anachronism, the entry for which is:
[uh-nak-ruh-niz-uhm] Show IPA

1. something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

2. an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.
Well, golly, that makes the Chapel itself an anachronism.

And what is an earlier time? Except for the measureless "present moment" all time is an earlier time so everything is an anachronism....

Okay, enough silly philosophizing, My question is --  are Confederate battle flags the only objects, the display of which must be determined by, um, chronisity (to coin a term)? If so, why? If not, what else should chronisity apply to?

And as for "against protocol" -- who sets protocol, and what are their credentials/authority? The VMFA? As far as I can determine, the VMFA's raison d'ĂȘtre. is art, not history.

Here's another question I'd love to have answered. Since the VMFA had no problem for YEARS with the SCV displaying flags anachronistically and against protocol on the Pelham Chapel -- why did they suddenly, out of the blue, up and decide to prohibit them? How did that process take place and what caused it?

While Rodgers doesn't mention this, others have mention the "historical inaccuracy" of nylon flags (as if they know the fiber content of all flags flown by heritage advocates). But who's to say that either side, or both, during the war wouldn't have ordered and used nylon or even polyester flags if those fibers had been available?

IMO, Rodgers is nit-picking, as anti-flag, anti-Confederates are wont to do. They pick and choose what is history, and then declare that anyone who thinks differently, who has a different view -- and who's activities and activism do not conform to their arbitrary views -- are not 'historically accurate" and their views should be drowned out, and their activism hounded out, of existence...

Thursday, September 26, 2013

The Floggosphere...

...has gone very quiet about the I-95 Battle Flag. Considering how long, loud and vociferous the anti-flag crowd has been for weeks on end, I can't help but wonder about this development.

Why the silence?

Not that I'm complaining, you understand. These characters should have shut up about the project long ago, and the respite from the moaning and bellyaching, the threats and intimidation, the lies and slanders, the denigration and animosity is wonderful.

I just can help but wonder about the reason for it....

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Austin and All...

I have a little project for you folks, should you care to accept it.  Follow the link below and look over the PDF document. It is the "DISCUSSION GUIDE: The Confederate Flag on Interstate 95 In Richmond."

It is put out by the Virginia Center for Inclusive Communities (isn't it hilarious that this bunch of "inclusionistas" are trying to exclude the Virginia Flaggers from freedom of expression in Richmond?).  It comprises "Facilitation Guidelines" the "Discussion Norms" and the "Discussion Questions."

Notice the description of Facilitators. Anybody else find that a little creepy?  Do people really need to have this kind of herding and prodding in order to have a meaningful discussion? Do they really think people are THAT stupid?

(As an aside, although I don't cotton to his kind of leftist hooey, don't y'all think I'd make a good facilitator?)

Moving on to Discusson Norms (wonder why Norms? Why not Rays or Mortys or Felixes....)  I like the last one -- be "real and truthful" coming from a woman who makes a Facebook Community and posts a pack of lies on it....

Finally, please comment on the Discussion Questions.  Answer some or all, if you like. I think they're just fascinatin', don't you?

Honest, I see shuck like this and I wonder how they have made such inroads in the process of tearing down this country, basically in less than half a century. Is it because we sat around doing nothing while they were Facilitatin' Discussion Groups with cockamamie Guidelines like this?

Y'all chime in on the comments section, if you are so inclined.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

So There's a Flogger Mini-Convention... Kevin Levin's flog. He posted a picture of the Virginia Flaggers on the steps of the capitol, which he, great learned high school teacher spelled capital, and started what floggers do best -- derision and ridicule.

BTW, for any other high school teachers or college perfessers who may be confused...

Capital = Richmond
Capitol = Statehouse

So the sour grapers are claiming the Flaggers' I-95 flag is not historically accurate. The stars aren't evenly spaced -- there's too much space between the center star and the ones adjacent to it, and too much space between the stars and the corners of the flag.

I posted links to the historic flags below that clearly show extra space between the center star and the adjacent ones, or space between the stars and the corners of the flag, thus proving that the Flaggers' flag is indeed historically accurate. I accompanied the links with this comment: "Somebody needs to go back in time and tell these soldiers their flags are not historically accurate…."

What did Levin say in his own defense?
Interesting examples, but most of them appear to be poorly constructed and loosely based on what appear to be uniform parameters for most other ANV battle flags.
That may or may not be true, but it isn't the point, it is? The point was the floggers and floggerettes claimed the unevenly placed stars made the I-95 flag historically inaccurate.

That is not true. See for yourself:



Besides, if what they're interested in is HISTORY, and if this is just HERITAGE as they claim, why are they soooo obsessed with it?

Who Cares What They Think?

So, Simpson posts,

Just One More Week …

… aren’t y’all excited?
Well, some people aren’t.
And he posts links to a critical article in some Richmond magazine or whatever, full of comments by a bunch of critics ... leftist hedonists, the kind of people who war on family and church, on decency and honor. You can tell that by reading their filthy comments.  With orgiastic pleasure, they wallow in self-made hatred, saying things about the Flaggers they'd be excoriated for if they were said about some folks.

It's like I said. Leftism gives people a way to indulge their hatred, to express and enjoy it, while pretending to be morally superior. Actually, the best thing you can say about people like this is that they're hypocrites ... i.e., moral scum. I shall refrain from saying the worst about them...

I will say this:

Who cares what they think?

Not me.

He includes this example of schizoid conclusion-jumping:

"See what happens when Susan Hathaway’s too afraid to talk?"

Is he serious? As if the left's indoctrination of hatred for the Confederacy, which has been ongoing for generations, has something to do with Susan. Has he completely lost it? Lost the ability to see and evaluate how he's coming across? Has his obsession with the VaFlaggers and the I-95 flag blunted his self awareness this much?

When the flag goes up, there are going to be people who are really surprised that Richmond doesn't fall into the sea ... or get swallowed up by the earth ... or suffer stunning economic desolation and become Detroit South... 

Boy, are they in for a surprise. Things are going to clip along pretty much as they always have. That's what's happened everywhere else that big Confederate flags have gone up along side busy thoroughfares in the South.

Let me end by saying it again:

We don't care what critics think. Capsice?

Friday, September 20, 2013

Brooks Simpson Blowing Trumpets

Simpson stands on a street corner and blows a trumpet to keep elephants away. It's working. You don't see any elephants roaming around the streets of Tempe, do you?

So it is with the claims of the VaFlaggers taking his advice. This is the best YET! Better even than claims of a nonexistent mole in the Flagger organization!

The "decisions" he talks about were made long before his suggestions. (Would love to see his face if it were revealed to him just how long this project was in the works before it nudged into his awareness.) But hey, if that's what his ego demands, it's no skin off Flagger noses.

But as funny as that is, what's even better is Jimmy Dick's pronouncements in the comments section.

Love the "playing with fire" analogy. Apparently Mr. Dick doesn't know about the giant Confederate flag that's been flying in Tampa, Florida for YEARS, with no fires or detrimental effects to the city, or surrounding suburbs, or the state of Florida (except the usual brush fires in Volusia County, but those are caused by drought, not flags).

Ditto the flag on I-65 between Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama. Still no fire. Ditto the big flag near Tifton, Georgia, and the dozen or so others in the Peach State flying from 50 foot poles. Or the 20 feet-by-30 flag atop an 85-foot flagpole at the Dyer/Obion county line in Trimble, Tennessee. No fires reported that were caused by flags.

Despite Dick's ominous prediction, and Simpson's ongoing, weeks-long kicking and screaming tantrum about the I-95 flag and the VaFlaggers, he admitted weeks ago that Confederate flags beside highways were old hat and no big deal.

So which is it? Playing with fire, or no big deal?

Dick talks about the people they (the VaFlaggers, presumably) will attract, of course painting it in the negative -- but then he gives only two by name. Well, golly, gee, liberal causes attract more lunatics than that. Alec Baldwin and Wonkette prove that.

Simpson and his followers get madder and madder every day that they see their tantrum throwing and "wise counsel" go unheeded.

The flag is going up. The only people pissed off by it are oh-so-tolerant leftist-liberals who are eternally pissed off by pretty much everything.

Image: Sons of Confederate Veterans

Hoax Flag (Smirk)

It was on the TV news. Quite a hoax y'all have goin' there....

Photo: Judy Smith

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Sometimes It Makes You Want to Throw Up

Brooks Simpson has his verbal taser-tipped cattle prod out looking to provoke somebody into a confrontation.

He sez, "Neither Hathaway nor her supporters have been forthcoming on why she’s been so silent on these matters..."

What matters?

And how does he know? Just because HE hasn't heard anything, that doesn't necessarily mean she's been silent. (There's the Crossroads Pre-schooler Mentality, again. If they don't know about it, it ain't happened. If it hasn't been posted in the comments of his flog, it ain't happened.)

This man has kept up a relentless barrage of harangue and invective against the VaFlaggers for TWO YEARS. And since the I-95 Flag Project announcement, he has harassed and intimidated them, especially Susan, almost EVERY FREAKING DAY. And he expects the Flaggers to NOTIFY him ... about ANYTHING?

Isn't that a scream?

Maybe when hell freezes over.

Nah. Not even then.

He sez,"What I must say astonishes me is that the Flaggers, who are all about free speech, say nothing about Hathaway’s free speech rights in this instance."

What instance?

"You would think that they would stand up for the free speech rights of their leader, but they don’t."

As Simpson's Crossroads Flog First Amendment Staffer, M. D. Blough, often points out, the First Amendment restricts government intervention/regulation of controversial speech and as far as I know, the feds haven't restricted the speech of any of the Flaggers, including Susan's -- yet.

"I’ve stood up for her free speech rights in this matter..."

What matter? And how have you "stood up" for her free speech rights in whatever you imagine the matter is, when the federal government has not attempted to restrict them? And why all of a sudden pretend to "stand up for her" about anything after two years of spewing verbal abuse and persecution at her and the VaFlaggers?

"... and she’s never thanked me."

Pore widdle Bwooks.... PORE WIDDLE BWOOKS....PORE WIDDLE BWOOKS.... (Cue Red Buttons): NEVah GOTta thanked.... Iddinat awful? Iddinit just awful? He's sooo put upon.

Hey, Simpson. Listen, you fraud. Keep flogging. Just keep it up. Nobody cares but your floggerette peanut gallery, and eventually, even they will get bored with your inability to draw blood, and they'll look elsewhere for juicy red lies, innuendo and character-assassination entertainment.

(Note: I am not speaking for the VaFlaggers. This post is my opinion, but I believe it is basically accurate, based on what I have learned about the VaFlaggers and their leader by some direct communication but much observation. ~Connie)

Monday, September 16, 2013

For the RVA Citizens....

Unity -- Floggerette Style

"Diversity and Inclusion for the Commonwealth of Virginia," sez their website. Except there's no inclusion for people who honor Confederate soldiers and their flag. Not diverse enough? Or too diverse?

"Say 'NO' to the Interstate 95 Confederate Flag" it sez -- a rejection (the opposite of inclusion) of diversity.


Graphic composited by C. Ward with images from

Friday, September 13, 2013

The Texas Scalawag Speaketh

Andy Hall has weighed in on the Heimbach Maneuver at Crossroads. Basically, he has weighed in on ME, on what I've said -- or on what he imagines I've said, or on what he misconstrues I've said. Or whatever.

See, Andy won't deal with me directly. He has long since banned me from posting comments at his blog. He doesn't reply to me on my blog -- but he will reply to me, not by name, of course, but to things I've written ... in the comment sections of OTHER flogger flogs... Why?

Here's a little background. Way back in August 2011, I wrote a blog titled Academic leftism and the Civil War. You can read it here:

For some reason, that -- in combination with some stuff I put in comments at Dead Confederates, like those in this thread -- really pissed Andy off and he put his foot down and banned me from his blog. You can read the comment thread where he did that here:

And my recap of the whole thing, here:

I've never made a secret of the fact that I examine the motives, or agenda, or character of critics of Southerners, the South, and Southern heritage. What you have here is odious hypocrisy. Andy, and all the floggers, for that matter, don't like having their motives, or agenda, or character questioned, or even examined -- but they do love to do the same to those they deem historically inaccurate, ignorant, stupid, evil and Southern/white/racist.

So, Andy is skeered to tangle with me directly but I often say things he really, really wants to answer, so he answers me at Kindred Blood or Crossroads or CW Memory, maybe even in the comments of flogs I am unfamiliar with... 

Look at how he words his reply. "I seem to recall..." instead of "Chastain said..." But, enough quibbling. Let's get to his argument.

... I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach just happened to get his picture taken with the Flaggers at Richmond in 2012 — until he showed up on video, marching in the parade with them, front-and-center.

Same event, Andy. Sheesh.

I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach wasn’t a Flagger at all — until it turned out that the Flaggers sent out an announcement congratulating him as one of “our own Va. Flaggers,” along with Hathaway, Jennings and others, winning a national award from the SCV.

It was a mistake, probably made because he was one of the 500 who, according to a quote in the Times-Dispatch, attended events put on by the group.

I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s presence at that parade was probably a chance encounter at that one event — until it was acknowledged there were other flagging events he participated in, too.

Name them, Andy. Dates, places, events. Name them all. Unless we have the total picture, we can't draw conclusions. And since you know so much about it, name the flagging events he participated in, Andy. Name them all.

I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers was a long time ago — except that one of the more prominent and high-profile Virginia Flaggers goes on the record that Heimbach is “a good guy” whose “white pride” graffiti then and current Nazi fetish is, even now, an “other issue” that’s irrelevant to the Flaggers, because he embraces Confederate heritage.

Well, Andy, your two statements separated by "except" are neither mutually exclusive or mutually reinforcing. And Tripp's comment did not mention "white pride graffiti and current Nazi fetish," so basically you're lying. The "other issue" was probably considered irrelevant at the time of the Heritage Rally, and even later, likely because nobody knew Heimbach's beliefs about race, or didn't know him. Or both. Unlike floggers, who zero in on such matters looking for something to generate the warm fuzzies of moral superiority and righteous indignation in themselves, most normal people, including Flaggers and other Southern heritage folks, aren't zeroed in on wacist-witch hunts.

No single one of these drip-drip-drip revelations about Heimbach is especially significant by itself. Taken together, though, they reveal a loose but real and ongoing affiliation between Matt Heimbach and the Virginia Flaggers, that seems plenty substantive given his previous situation as a full-time student in another state.

The reality of the "affiliation" is gossamer, the bulk of it imaginary. As for ongoing -- events, dates, places, Andy....

It also shows that while they really dislike being associated with the guy who goes around in swastika t-shirts, they also can’t quite publicly come to terms with who he was in 2012 when they were publicly praising him, who he’s become since, even as a leading Virginia Flagger continues to publicly embrace him.

Nah, it's just not that important. Again, I doubt most of them have ever seen Heimbach in the flesh, or even in a picture, and likely never in a swastika T-shirt. Personally, as a supporter of Southern heritage in general, and the Virginia Flaggers in particular, it is of monumental indifference to me (1) who Heimbach is, (2) what he believes (3) his imaginary "affiliation" with the Flaggers. He hasn't influenced them in any way.

I understand Heimbach is (or certainly should be) an embarrassment to the Virginia Flaggers, but this could have been cauterized two weeks ago, when it was first widely known, with a little bit of candor and direct, unambiguous language on their part, acknowledging who Matt Heimbach is and what he believes.

No. That supposes there was an actual, substantive connection, not some phantom connection dreamed up by people who hate the Flaggers, have had it in for them since their beginning, and have lied about them over and over. Repeatedly over and over.

They could have drawn a bright, shining line between themselves and Heimbach, but haven’t.

No need. Nobody cares except people who hate the Flaggers anyway.

(The formal response from the Flaggers doesn’t mention Heimbach by name, and only indicates he’s been called a white supremacist, as if there’s really legitimate doubt on that point.)

No, it indicates they (1) they don't know the particulars of the charge and (2) have more important things to do than jump through flogger hoops for people who won't be satisfied with anything they say.

(Andy's mention of a "line" gives a glimpse into what he WISHES he had -- a brand new, bright, shining verbal whip to flog the Flaggers with -- I mean, only an idiot believes a critic and hater hundreds or thousands of miles away can diagnose child abuse from a few seconds of video, so that particular cat-o-nine-tails is getting very worn; the Rob Walker thing went away for everybody except Simpson when it was explained by Susan's statement. And the disturbing of imaginary Confederate graves never got off the ground ... so to speak. So if they couldn't inflate the Heimbach blow-up doll all out of proportion, far beyond truth and reality, their Hate-the-Flaggers Express would out of gas and sputter to an ignominious stop.)

Instead, they’ve spent the last two weeks denying and making arguments — several of which have been subsequently contradicted by the evidence — that Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers wasn’t what the Flaggers themselves actually claimed it was before, and the really horrible people in this business are the wicked, wicked bloggers who used the Flaggers’ own photographs, videos and blog posts to document it. The real bad guy is not the “white pride” activist the Flaggers claim as one of “our own,” but the bloggers who talk about it.

No, no, no, Andy, that opener is NOT correct. The Flaggers have issued ONE STATEMENT. You can read it HERE.

Most of the arguments made have come from ME, CONNIE CHASTAIN WARD, on Facebook and my blog, Backsass. I am not a Virginia Flagger, although I have achieved a sort of honorary Flagger status through my defense of them. Although I am in limited communication with some of the Flaggers, most of my arguments in their defense have been made from information I found researching online. The core group of Flaggers are busy folks, have jobs, families and other responsibilities; I'm reluctant to encroach on their time. I am retired and have a lot more time to spend in online research.

Moreover, my arguments and explanations blew away every one of the arguments in your comment BEFORE YOU MADE THEM. As I'm sure you know, considering how much you lurk at Backsass.

The long history of attacks on and lies about the Flaggers -- the animosity, the jealousy, the drumming up hatred for them by you floggers is INDEED WICKED. (I still can't get over the "child abuse" accusations, considering the silent acceptance of some of the long-term, regular peanut gallery floggerettes warmly welcomed at flog comment sections.)

But it won't stop the I-95 flag from going up, and it won't stop the flaggings of the VMFA.

Let me ax you a question, Andy Hall. What do you have to say about Brooks Simpson posting Susan's private sector job information in the midst of a blizzard of attack posts at Crossroads? I mean, besides, "That's awkward and look what Bobby Edwards said..."

I have said that the floggers are tying to take  "an incidental, gossamer 'connection' and morph it into the anchor chain of the Emma Maersk." Maritime-Andy will certainly understand that reference, but maybe I need to dumb it down a little for flogger readers. Pictures, maybe.

Yeah. Pictures.

What Andy is trying to do is take some ripples in a rain-puddle ....

and morph them into a tsunami about to swallow up Richmond...

or maybe just the Flaggers.

But only gullible leftists, anti-racists, and evilizers of Southern white people buy that. Everyone else knows a puddle when they see it.

P.S. LibertyLip has made a blog post about the I-95 flag showing the usual intellectual vacuity of ultra-leftists resulting from narrow obsessiveness... I left a comment. Likely it won't get through moderation, so here it is:
Very amateurish and unrefined, LibertyLip. You got a long way to go before your snark gets as snot-slick as Simpson's. But keep trying. And in the meantime, thank you for making yourself the poster-kid for lies and filth. I love to see lies and filth coming from your side. Shows your true ... colors... LOL!
What really gets me is how much he IGNORED me. I mean, in a rather schizoid approach, he mentioned me in an article that claims I'm not article-worthy (obviously in disagreement with Simpson), but he didn't use my name. Hmmm. Anyway, he said, "We could start pointing fingers and naming names of some of the more moronic individuals in the group, like some mentally unbalanced trash novelist out of Pensacola FL, but demented histrionics– however embarassingly funny– are not article worthy.

How come no coverage, if my "demented" histronics (note, dear readers, that I used "demented" in this ongoing blog fracas before this copy-cat did) are funny? Funny is always article-worthy. I suspect he doesn't know how to do genuine humor, just derision.

Anyhoo, if anybody can help me come up with methods for parlaying this non-mention into trashy novel sales, please leave a comment. Thanks!

Update Update Update

So, what do y'all think? Should I change the name of this post to The Texas Scalawag Squeaketh?

Images: Malene Thyssen, and unknown photographer, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license; and the Public Domain.

Fun With Comments at Crossroads

Brooks sez, "Here’s the question: why’s he still in the group?"

Probably to piss you off.

"You would think that if they didn’t want to associate with him, they’d block him."

A name on a Facebook group list and four comments are not an association.

And here is the perfect example of gooey glib snarky lie, Simpson style:

But when the group’s leader hails Nathan Bedford Forrest as her model of behavior, we know who they really are.

What she really said: I’m determined to stand, fight, and never back down...but I'm gonna fight like Forrest…NOT Sherman.

He's her model for FIGHTING heritage battles, not entire life-defining BEHAVIOR, as Simpson implies. It's a clear as day, so his misstatement is deliberate.

Rob: I asked the same thing the other night. I didn’t get a response from anyone, not surprisingly.

Who'd you ask?  Why did you ask?  Your well known animosity for the Flaggers may have something to do with it, ya know?

This is from Rob, again, about moi:

Though it would appear the only morality to her, is a morality based on her biblical interpretation. Her comments in the past prove that to be a rather scary concept.

Hey, Rob! BOO!!! Muaahahahahahahaaa. (Y'all skeered yet?)

Poor Widdle Bwooks says, "Her little pronouncement came after efforts to shut down the blog and get me in trouble by her supporters were thwarted (free speech, remember?). It contained lies, as usual."

He keeps saying that, but he hasn't yet identified any lies.  Oh, and whose efforts? Why so close-lipped?

Connie Chastain? Two previous efforts to contact my employer came at her behest.

LOL. No behestin' done by me. Behesting is against my religion. The voices in his head musta told him that one.

Here's another lesson in slimy-glib snark, y'all.

Simpson: The Flaggers don’t disavow Matthew Heimbach because they agree with what he believes and think he’s a nice guy.

Tripp Lewis is one Flagger -- not Flaggers. And what Tripp agreed with was Heimbach's honoring his Confederate ancestors.

And, as I've noted before, there are probably things Heimbach believes that even Floggers agree with.

They invite him to their functions, including social ones.

His one. single auto-invite via Facebook is not plural, as Simpson is dishonestly claiming here. (Students, pay attention. If you wanna learn how to write slimy-glib snark, here's a great lesson; take one instance of something and pluralize it. Simpson has a long history of attempting to smear a large number of people with the comments of one or a handful of folks.)

They can no longer claim they didn’t know, and it’s now clear that they have known for years.

Clear? Known WHAT? What's clear is that probably most of them don't know NOW. Don't know  what he believes, don't even know who he IS. Simpson is a LOT more interested in Heimbach than the Flaggers are.

It’s time for the rest of us to recognize who the Flaggers really are. Just as Forrest lied before Congress, they lie about themselves to the American people. Why should anyone be fooled?

LOL!  He's layin' it on thick, now. Lie to the American people?  Oh, that's rich. The Flaggers don't lie, except in Simpson's hallucinations, while his lies reach far more "American people." (The American people? He must be watchin' politics shows on TV.)

I’m surprised that Connie Chastain didn’t give her usual apology for Forrest, although that’s not as frequent as her attacks on Julia Ward Howe.

Hehehe! Posting what Howe herself WROTE is an attack on her. Oh, that's rich. Just another example of how out-of-touch Simpson's Flagger obsession is making him.

Note we’ve never seen Connie comment on the racial composition of her neighborhood or count the number of non-white friends she has (she’s made bizarre claims about other people, sometimes without much in the way of evidence: she went after Tim Wise’s place of residence, so identifying homes is not problem for her). I believe she calls that lying by omission.

Ah, Simpson, I didn't "go after" Tim Wise. Somebody posted the information that he, big wacist-witch-hunter, lives in a really, really white neighborhood of majority-black Memphis. I verified the data online before repeating it far, far fewer times, I might add, than you have attacked the Flaggers. Besides, how is it "going after" somebody to tell the truth -- verified with demographic data -- that their personal life contradicts their public persona -- that he attacks people for living in the manner he does?

And following up the violent rhetoric coming from the anti-racist left, how about this post from oh, so superior Mr. Wise?

My information in those areas is not germaine, because I don't go around in racist-witch-hunt mode, seeking to slandering people as racists and haters.  I'm a reactionary. I don't attack. I defend or counterattack.  (Pick nearly any post in Backsass, and the probability is extremely high that it will be a response to an attack.)

I can't believe I'm having to explain this -- it should be obvious to somebody so highly intelligent and educated, but since it appears to be necessary, I'll explain that it's about hypocrisy. If you're gonna attack and slander people for something, you should expect scrutiny for the same thing. However, if anybody wants to "investigate" me, my life, my past, my background in those areas, please, be my guest.

lenastorheim/Kristin Konate/Wonder Woman sez: Fear inhibits them from speaking their truthful agenda – but their actions tell us. Shameful conduct. The Flaggerettes are an inflammatory and intentionally divisive group.

Lena, take your crystal ball in for re-calibration. It's giving you very bad readings.

More Tiptoein' and Pogo Stickin'

Ever wonder how much time Simpson spends combing the Internet, following links and leads, taking screenshots ... hunting for something he can splatter all over Crossroads to smear the VaFlaggers with? It must take hours and hours. Pathetic, isn't it?  I wonder who does his work while he's AWOL looking for mud...

And it's even more pathetic when he thinks he's found something. But his conclusion-jumping pogo stick is calibrated higher than Wonder Woman's. Now he's screeching about Matthew Heimbach getting an invitation to the Virginia Flaggers 2nd Anniversary Picnic.

What hooey. A blanket invitation to members of a Facebook group doesn't mean that everyone in the group is a Virginia Flagger.  Duh.

Heimbach hasn't been removed from that group because nobody cares what Facebook groups he's in (well, except busy-body leftist professors and demented commie racist-hunters and such as that).  Heimbach's posts have not been removed from the group, either, because as long as they don't disappear, they can't be lied about by, oh, I don't know, busy-body leftist professors and demented commie racist-hunters and such as that.

Speaking of demented commie racist hunters, I've been told that LibertyLip (Thanks, David Tatum!) belongs to a group that is "non-violent." Hmmmm. Well, as I've already noted....
Maybe the project is non-violent (or claims to be) but it is eminently possible for an individual member to be personally violent; it is also possible for their rhetoric to inflame a reader to violence. This person has publicly implied that the Flaggers are murderers, i.e., KKKers -- or comparable to murderers. He's drumming up hatred for them, too.
There is, of course, the threat posted at Crossroads:
"Well, they should be scared of us, we win at this game, always have and always will. We would like to help put a stop to this flag going up, but we need a little assistance."
There's this interesting text on this Twitter profile:

They're in the Nazi killing business, it sez.  Wonder how many Nazis they've killed, and when, and where, and by what method.

Then there are these disturbing images posted in the photos section of his Twitter account.

Kill whitey, too?

What's with the amateur-drawn chalk outline of a dead body, I wonder. 

Next the Tarot Death card...  Death, death, death....

And a photo denying God and making fun of the Bible ("Pics or it didn't happen."). Rejecting the book that leads to the Book of Life might explain the preoccupation with death, sure enough.

A lot of people are opposed to racial bigotry, but in my opinion, some people become anti-racist activists because it gives them a way to enjoy their hatred and have fun expressing it, while they and a duped society considers them to be good, even superior, people.

It's so ironic that LibertyLip "killz Nazis" but rejects God because if God doesn't exist, there's no such thing as good and evil. So if nothing is evil, obviously there is nothing wrong ... so  there was nothing wrong with what the Nazis did. Racism is a okay, murder is no big deal, lying and hurting somebody is no different than loving and uplifting them.

That would mean there's no difference between Matt Heimbach and LibertyLamp.....

Image of Flybar by Palos at Wikimedia Commons
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Poor Widdle Bwooks

He can't decide whether he's a thunderous, righteous revealer of dark and terrible secrets, or a poor widdle put-upon victim of a couple of big, bad Southern gals.

I guess he's entered a permanent state of pissed-off ... except for the interludes of self-pity.

He sez, "In yet another stunt typical of the Flagger movement, Susan Hathaway issued this 'plea' for her followers and supporters not to go after me … after the attempt to go after me failed," and "Her statement asking for restraint comes after an effort at retaliation failed."

Do you suppose he imagines if he repeats it enough, people will believe it? 

So, somebody did to him what he tried to do to Susan, only not in nearly as public a manner as he did. But the timing of her statement had nothing to do with him or the "attack" on him. If he knew as much as he lets on, he'd know the reason for it.

Make that pissed off, self-pitying, and paranoid.

So then he says, "You’ll note that the post was uploaded by Flagger spokesperson Connie Chastain, who has posted personal information about me in the past."

Yes, I've posted the personal information of where he's employed and his job title, many, many times:


And I've posted the name of the city where he lives:


Where do you suppose I got that information? Has he got enemies and spies in the Grand Canyon State willing to sell his info to retired insurance secretary bloggers in Florida?  Well, no, not exactly.

I got the city from Simpson's own Twitter feed.

And for his title and employer, from his own blog.

Of course, it's all over elsewhere on the WORLD WIDE WEB -- on Wikipedia, and ASU's website and C-SPAN and, well, look here at this search index and see how many of these entries include his job title and place of employment:

Keep in mind that this man DID MY GENEALOGY in a deliberate effort to find something he could post on his blog and embarrass me with. It didn't embarrass me, alas...all that work for nuthin'. He's tried to do similarly embarrassing things to other people, too. You gotta wonder what it does for him....  (And it's real peculiar what he considers to be embarrassing)

So anyway, he backs a petition seeking to stop the free expression of the Flaggers, he spews Twitter blasts to the Richmond media with his white supremacy lies/hallucinations, he gives a forum to a leftwing lunatic who used it to issue a threat to the Flaggers on Simpson's very blog, and he posts information about Susan's private sector employment and employer, and HE SAYS THE FLAGGERS ARE TRYING TO LIMIT FREE SPEECH?

It's interesting to speculate on WHY he posted Susan's private sector employment information. What did he expect to come of it? What did he WANT to come of it?

In any case, now he's pitching a pity party because somebody contacted his employer. He he knows nothing will come of it because (A) the educational establishment in this country leans as far left as Simpson does and (B) he has tenure.

(He sez,"Arizona State University stands behind the constitutionally-protected free speech rights of its employees acting as private citizens."  Isn't that funny? Isn't it just hilarious? Can you imagine how rightwing professors [if such a thing could be found] would fare at the hands of ASU officials if, acting as private citizens, they did the rightwing equivalent of what Simpson does? Absolute scream, isn't it?)

So he's whining and moaning about ... two women. TWO SOUTHERN WOMEN.

Simpson. Dial 1-800-W-A-A-A.

Let this be a lesson to all you men out there, especially floggers. Do NOT cross a Southern woman, whether she's a pretty, plucky lady in a red top like Susan or an ol' broad like me. We are baaaaad, man. You post private information about us, we will take your already-public information and MAKE IT PUBLIC! Got that?

Victory Will Be Ours

"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good
to accomplish what is now being done..."
                                                          Genesis 50:20

Image composited by C. Ward