Sunday, February 16, 2014

The Flogger "Selective Outrage" Mindset

They're sooooo affronted when Southern heritage folks get history "wrong" (i.e., when they have a different view of it than the floggers do). But does that apply to everyone? Nope.

With no legal authority, a judge in Virginia thwarts the vote of the people and overturns the voters' ban on homosexual marriage. A citizen and resident of Virginia makes a short post about it on her Facebook page.

In the comments following the post, Billy Bearden makes an extremely inappropriate sarcastic remark about the judge. Although people who know Billy know he didn't mean it -- that it was an expression of anger over illegal and very dangerous judicial action -- it was nevertheless inappropriate, and it was removed by the OP as soon as she saw it.

Before she did that, Brooks D. Simpson, who constantly trolls the Internet looking for anything he can use to besmirch heritage folks , whom he hates, puts a screenshot of the thread on his filthy blog. (I wonder if  he even has a life outside cyberspace, or any interests beyond spreading hate for heritage folks.)

Did he happen to acknowledge that this sort of judicial activism that legislates in violation of the law and the separation of powers, is a grave danger to the existence of the republic? No. Brooks D. Simpson and his peanut gallery floggerettes didn't mention that at all. Presumably, they don't care about the future existence of the United States.

And did this sick stickler for "correct history" happen to mention that this FLIPPIN' FEDERAL JUDGE claimed that the phrase, "all men are created equal" IS IN THE US CONSTITUTION? Why no, he didn't call the judge on either her dangerous judicial activism OR her ludicrous and pathetic history error.  Why ?

'Cause she be black.


_________
Update 2/17/14 -- Hat tip to Brooks Simpson for pointing out my typo, now corrected.

118 comments :

  1. I wonder if Simpleton and his ilk would care if such judicial violations were talking place in an America where Tea Party Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and say Rand Paul or Ted Cruz...or even a black Conservative like Alan West were President?
    I have a feeling under those circumstances they'd suddenly rediscover a new-found respect for constitutional precedent.

    Nobody should have the power to by-pass the Constitutional precedent, even those who have ideals you support.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liken brooks to a soap opera writer not a professor of history. The professors I know don't waste their time hunting down Southern Heritage people for comments they make. He must be tenured or else they would gotten rid of him by now at ASU.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The idiot "judge" actually asserted that the Constitution declares that "all men are created equal". What a pathetic moron.Oh well, it's liberal totalitarianism, not history. I wonder if Simpson will ridicule her for that rather egregious historical error.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just a few notes:

    1. The judge's decision is based on Constitutional law.
    2. It is grounded in the 14th Amendment, a part of the Constitution.
    3. The misattribution of the phrase "all men are created equal" is dicta and is not intrinsic to the decision.
    4. If, a you claim, the decision is not based on precedent, then the Supreme Court will overturn it. The American Republic stands unthreatened by it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, if judges are going to overturn the vote of the people, why vote? Why not just do away with voting, and let dictatorial judges legislate? The vote in Virginia didn't deprive anybody of equal protection, etc.

    The misattribution does speak to the Judge's knowledge, or lack thereof, regarding the Supreme Law of the Land and certainly does not inspire confidence in her fitness for the job.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Simpson makes a " Historical " post and gets 6 comments,
    Simpson makes an anti Southern post and gets 40+ comments,
    numbers don't lie -------

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just a few more notes:

    1. The judge's decision is based on her political preferences.
    2. It is grounded in her left-wing political agenda, and nothing else.
    3. The misattribution of the phrase "all men are created equal" is indicative of the fact that she is a crude left-wing affirmative-action political hack.
    4. The 14th amendment is an ugly lawless stain which continuously degrades the Constitution

    Reply

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Austin:

      1. The 14th Amendment is the basis for the extension of equal rights to non-whites, immigrants, and now LGBT.

      2. It is part of our nation's Constitution.

      3. It is important to note that under the "original" Constitution, the nation split apart and 660,000-750,000 Americans were slaughtered in a Civil War. Under the Constitution as amended by the Reconstruction Amendments there has not been any subsequent civil wars and only confined incidents of political violence because all Americans now have recourse to the courts.

      Delete
    2. The 14th Amendment is the basis for the extension of equal rights corporations, too -- poor beleaguered corporations, don't forget them. From "The Cost of Union" by Douglas Harper:

      After the war, state legislatures trying to protect their people against predatory trusts and capitalists were thwarted by the Supreme Court, which swept away state laws to regulate corporations (230 in 1886 alone), using the argument that corporations were "persons," and thus protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Between 1890 and 1910, of all the 14th amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court, 19 dealt with black people, and 228 with corporations. http://www.etymonline.com/cw/intro.htm

      LGBT are not being deprived of equal rights.

      There have been no more civil wars because the feds have amassed constantly growing power that allows no disssent, violent or otherwise.

      Delete
    3. Patrick,
      The 14th amendment is an odious and lugubrious symbol of lawlessness tyranny. The amendment, as you must know, was enacted by illegal strong-arm Gestapo tactics, and its subsequent application, particularly the hideous and ridiculous incorporation" doctrine, more closely resembles a series of Stalinist show-trials than a testament to law and order. Taken as a whole, the 14th is to be mourned rather than celebrated.


      PS. As for the it is "part of our Nation's Constitution" nonsense, so was Article 1, section 9, clause 1. Does that provision also deserve our respect because it was "part of our Nation's Constitution"? Yeah, didn't think so.

      Delete
  8. Hi there, Connie.

    Pat is right. The decision is solidly grounded in the 14th Amendment, as has been every other Federal judicial decision regarding marriage equality since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, including the ruling by Judge Heyburn, a Republican, in Kentucky. It looks like the Utah case, the Oklahoma case, or the Virginia case may make it to the Supreme Court by next year. I think at that point the Supreme Court, using the 14th Amendment, will strike down laws against marriage equality.

    The people of a state, according to the Constitution, cannot deny their fellow citizens equal rights under the law unless there is a compelling government interest, and the right to marry the person you love is recognized as a fundamental human right. The people defending the law could not demonstrate a compelling government interest for the law. The people of a state don't have the legitimate authority to vote for an unconstitutional measure. For example, if the people of Florida were to vote to bring back slavery [not that they ever would in reality], that would be unconstitutional and even if the vote was 100% for the measure, it would be struck down in the Courts. There's nothing dictatorial about it. It's abiding by the Constitution.

    As to the misattribution, when I first saw the ruling Sunday night it had already been corrected, so at some point Judge Allen recognized her error and corrected it. If more people were able to recognize their errors and correct them, we'd all be much better off. I don't know about you, but there have been a couple times in the past where I meant to write one thing and actually wrote another thing. That's certainly a possibility in this case. In any event, she recognized the error and corrected it.

    I hope things are going well with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The constitution never protected sexual perversion before, and attempted to elevate it to normal, mainstream status. This is the forcing of the will of a few on the many, using the power of the federal government.

      Delete
    2. The Constitution protects all of us, including those whom God made different. This is simply applying the Constitution as it is written.

      Delete
    3. Protecting "us" is different from protecting and promoting deviant behavior.

      Delete
    4. So you think getting married is deviant behavior?

      Delete
    5. This is about marriage. They are already having sex as it is.

      Delete
    6. It is an attempt to normalize and mainstream deviant sexual behavior by coloring it with the respectability of marriage.

      Delete
    7. It's an attempt to apply the right to get married to the person you love equally to all people. Marriage is not just about sex. If you read the complaints of gays who want to get married, having sex is not one of them.

      Delete
  9. I'm on my way out so I can't reply to all of this yet. However, let me ask this:Can you point me to something verifying that Judge Allen recognized her error herself, and that it wasn't pointed out to her by someone else, before she corrected it? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know what caused her to recognize the error. She corrected it, and the rest of the ruling is solid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So it's possible her historical error was genuine -- an error, btw, that would have raised hideous cackles of ridicule from floggers and floggerettes if a Southern heritage person had made it.

      Delete
    2. The ruling, btw, is another nail in the coffin of the USA.

      Delete
    3. I don't know where the error came from, but I do know she corrected it. I don't see corrections to historical errors made by confederate heritage advocates.

      Delete
    4. And you know everything written by every Confederate heritage advocate?

      Delete
    5. Yep. I know everything written by a confederate heritage advocate that I have highlighted at my blog.

      Delete
    6. But you didn't put that qualifier in your original accusation.

      Delete
    7. When I come across a confederate heritage advocate who behaves differently I'll add the qualifier.

      Delete
    8. You come across a small sampling. I hope you realize that.

      Delete
    9. I know how many I come across, and how many I don't highlight.

      Delete
    10. And do you sincerely imagine you come across ALL of them.

      Delete
    11. BTW, a lot of what you floggers call "errors" are just differences of opinion.

      Delete
  11. When did a male/male (or female/female) combination become a marriage? Based on what? In the history of the world...no civilization, nation-state, or religion has ever legalized such a combination.

    It's a modern invention of the left-wing mindset - someone's having their "rights" violated. BS.

    It's invalid. It's no more a marriage than a man and a giraffe.

    But how far will the Left take this? How far will they enforce the new found "right" of marriage between homosexuals. Will they jail people for "hate crimes" (quoting the Bible)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are convicted of committing a hate crime, then you should be punished for the hate crime. Whether that punishment includes jail time depends on the crime.

      Delete
    2. How come the idea of "hate crimes" was not recognized until the politically correct era? Hate crime laws make some victims more important than others.

      Robbing and killing someone because you want their stuff -- not a hate crime.

      Robbing and killing a white person because they're white -- not a hate crime.

      Robbing and killing a black because they're black -- hate crime.

      Delete
  12. Ms. Chastain:

    Hate crimes were not "recognized", they were created legislatively. Hate crime legislation is largely a product of the Civil Rights revolution. Hence most hate crime statutes were written in the last half century.

    I give a short course on hate crimes for high schoolers and I would love to help you understand the nature of such crimes, if you would like. I am only an expert on the New York statute, but in this state the race of the victim is irrelevant.

    Anyway, let me know if you want a tutorial on New York hate crime legislation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeo. Making up a new crime... like making up new "rights."

      I don't know anybody who is prohibited from marrying under our existing laws.

      I know what hate crimes legislation is for. Oh, and the "Civil Rights revolution" coincides with the era of Political Correctness. Isn't that a coinky-dink?

      Delete
    2. At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.

      Delete
    3. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coinkydink

      It is no coincidence that the rise and entrenching of political correctness accompanied the civil rights era.

      As far as I know, there are no laws against marriage. There are only prohibitions against who (or what) one may marry -- animals, very close family members (though cousins may marry in many states), and persons of the same sex. As far as I know, those laws apply to everyone. So, as long as you aren't trying to do that, you are not prevented from marrying.

      Mackey says "...the right to marry the person you love is recognized as a fundamental human right," unless the person you love is your biological sibling, your parent, etc. So it's not as simple as he's trying to make it. Homosexuals aren't being unfairly singled out. These prohibitions exist for very good reason.

      Delete
    4. Homosexual "marriage."

      Anyone with half a mind knows this is BS.
      Even leftists know it.

      So why do they promote it?

      Votes. Placating the LGBT.

      They proclaim it a "right"...but all the while know it's a pile of BS.

      Delete
    5. It is very simple. There is a compelling interest in preventing marriages between siblings and parents/children, and that is the increased chance of producing offspring who suffer from mental retardation or other defects. These family members are already recognized as family members, so they don't fall into any of the situations faced by gay partners that being married would resolve. Sorry, but your example doesn't hold water, Connie.

      Delete
    6. There is compelling interest? Whose compelling interest?

      Delete
    7. It's a compelling public interest not to have an increased rate of homozygosity. It tends to lead to decreased mental and physical fitness of the population. Because a compelling public interest in preventing marriages between close relatives can be objectively shown, then the marriages can be prevented with no equal protection concerns.

      Delete
    8. So they CAN'T marry "who they love."

      Delete
    9. Every right can be limited if there is a compelling public interest to do so. It's the old example of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Opponents of marriage equality can't demonstrate a compelling public interest to prevent it; therefore, same-sex couples should be granted the equal protection of the law and be allowed to marry the person they love.

      Delete
    10. Close relatives who wish to marry could undergo surgery or take other measures to prevent reproduction and thus prevent homozygosit; some states permit cousin marriage with this requirement.

      Yes, there is a compelling public interest in prohibiting same sex marriage. It s a deliberately orchestrated attack on the family, the basic unit of society. It will open the floodgates for a host of society-destroying legal changes in the recognition of sex differences (on of the major goals of the left) and against the free practice of religion (i.e., preaching and teaching against sin).

      Delete
    11. Perhaps you can bring that up to the Florida legislature for their consideration, then, Connie. They already allow first cousins to marry even without that requirement.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

      Having people who love each other get married is not an attack on the family. There have been same-sex couples getting married in the US for awhile now, and guess what? Families have not been destroyed by it. Families have been destroyed by heterosexuals leaving their families for another woman or man. Families have been destroyed by heterosexuals drinking. Families have been destroyed by heterosexuals being violent. Yet you don't appear to be concerned about those cases and defend someone who believes a woman should be violently raped.

      Treating people equally under the law does not destroy society, Connie. It makes society better.

      Delete
  13. Pat Young:
    "If you are convicted of committing a hate crime, then you should be punished for the hate crime. Whether that punishment includes jail time depends on the crime."

    And if this is done...you'll be the ones committing violent acts (arresting/throwing people in jail) in the name of the new found "right"-homosexual 'marriage.'
    Maybe you'll burn some Bibles too...or even a few churches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burning a church is a hate crime in New York State.

      Why would I burn a church anyway, Border Ruffian? I am a member of St. Brigid's Roman Catholic Church in Westbury, NY and I attended Catholic schools for 12 years. I may well have had more religious education than you. I own a half dozen Bibles and I read them regularly.

      Sorry to burst your prejudiced bubble.

      Delete
    2. I've read the Bible too. I must have missed the part about homosexuals being allowed to marry.

      Delete
    3. I never saw the 65 mph sped limit in the Bible either. So what? If you want to live in a country where the laws come from a holy book, there is always Saudi Arabia. For me, I'd prefer to live in the good old USA with legislatures, courts, etc.

      Delete
    4. Duh. As a lawyer, do you really think that's a reasonable argument? There weren't cars and highways back then, but there were men, women, marriage, sex -- and sexual sin that was denounced and prohibited for believers. I believe the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and societal acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, As a Catholic, how do you square that with your support of same?

      Delete
    5. The Catholic Church has its moral teachings, but the United States is not governed by religious law. The Church is opposed to sex outside of marriage by heterosexuals, but I would not favor laws enforcing those moral teachings either.

      Delete
    6. I'm not talking laws, now. I'm talking about you, as a Catholic, supporting something your church opposes.

      Delete
    7. He's supporting the equal treatment of people before the law. As Pope Francis said, "When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem ... they're our brothers."

      Delete
    8. What Pope Francis, or anybody. does on a personal level should not be confused with the law. It is also important to distinguish between the person and the behavior. To advocate against homosexual marriage is not necessarily condemning or marginalizing people who engage in homosexual activity;

      Delete
    9. It is indeed, since you are advocating they should not be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

      Delete
    10. CC-
      "I'm not talking laws, now. I'm talking about you, as a Catholic, supporting something your church opposes."

      No reply from Mr. Young on that one...

      Delete
  14. My Goodness, isn't middle aged white male All Mackey the very embodiment of magnamity! And he writes so well in English! Here he is, fresh from his all white blog to forgive the "learned judge"! But remember how viciously he attacked even the slightest error if the Flaggers? What a fraud. Oh yeah, he pronounced the decision "sound" lol. This from guy who thinks that new States are admitted to the Union with "the permission of the other States". I still giggle at that

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Comments that contain abusive language, insults, threats, etc., will not be posted."

    I suppose that only counts for some people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Only the ones who post abusive language, insults, threats, etc. Too bad you can't see what I've sent to the spam folder. You'd understand what I'm talking about if you could.

      Delete
    2. So you don't consider calling someone "a fraud" to be an insult?

      Delete
    3. Not if they engage in fraudulent behavior. Then it's just an accurate descriptor.

      Delete
    4. Considering that when I first saw the ruling the error had already been corrected, kindly identify the fraudulent behavior.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, Connie, but that's a cop-out. You, and you alone, are the arbiter of what is acceptable in your comments section; therefore, you are the one who bears the responsibility for determining whether something is acceptable or not. So since you approved the comment, it's up to you to answer.

      Delete
    6. I don't agree with a lot of what gets posted, Al. If you want to know what Austin thinks is fraudulent behavior about your stand on different issues, ask him.

      Just so you understand, if somebody considers certain stands, beliefs or behavior to be fraudulent, that's an opinion about the stands, beliefs or behavior (although it is sometimes expressed by a label on the person stating said beliefs, etc.) The kind of insults I do not allow -- this comes after a spate of it several weeks ago -- is basically the flogger practice of denigrating somebody's intelligence because they disagree with them. You know, "troglodyte" and names like that.

      Delete
    7. You're still copping out, Connie. Since you allowed the comment and explained your allowing it by saying, "Not if they engage in fraudulent behavior. Then it's just an accurate descriptor," then it's up to you to show how it's "just an accurate descripter" by showing how there was "fraudulent behavior." I take it you can't do that. Am I right?

      Delete
    8. You engage in fraud all the time on your blog, Al.

      Delete
    9. And now you're lying about me, so you're the one engaged in fraud. Gee, what a fun game.

      Delete
    10. Not lying. I see fraud on your blog, Al, particularly where the VaFlaggers are concerned.

      Delete
    11. We can go back and forth on this all day, Connie. There is no fraud there, but I'll let you have the last word on this.

      Delete
  16. Homosexual "marriage" is not about marrying who you love. That's what's being palmed off, but that's just for show. Homosexual leaders have acknowledged their purpose in pushing homosexual marriage is an attack on the church, on religion, specifically the Christian religion, and Judeo-Chistian culture.

    It is step one in making it illegal for religious people to teach that homosexuality is a sin. It is laying the groundwork for imprisoning ministers who preach against it. It is creating the situation of pitting the government against religion (and we all know how that usually ends; government has guns and tanks, churches don't.)

    It is blatant and open rebellion to God, to "male and female, created He them." It is about nullifying the legal recognition of male and female.

    If you don't think that will fundamentally change our culture FOR THE WORSE in ways we can't even imagine right now, you have your head in the leftist sandpile.

    This "equal rights" crap, this "marrying who you love" crap is the usual leftist deception put forth when the left tries to foist off on society a culture-killing change. And that IS what it's about. Killing western culture, reducing it to third world wretchedness with a socialistic government and society. THAT is what's behind ALL leftist change -- rampant immigration, abortion, same-sex "marriage" etc.

    Leftism is a worldview, and ideology, and an effort, that is at war with God/religion, the family, and private property. It always has been, it always will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So two people who love each other get married and you think that leads to the "killing" of western culture? Imprisoning ministers? Have you heard of the First Amendment, Connie? Come on, now. Is the First Amendment going to vanish because people get married?

      Delete
    2. Destroying western culture is the aim of the "homosexual" leadership, by destroying legal recognition of sex differentiation, parental authority and the family itself. Do you really imagine that homosex couples will not try to become "parents"? Already, homosex adoption, like homosex "marriage" is on the culture-changing agenda of the left (using some of the same "Oh, but they just want..." language).

      The First Amendment will be one of the first things to go, Al. It's already under attack.

      Delete
    3. Why shouldn't two people who can provide a loving and safe home rear children?

      The First Amendment has been under attack since it was first ratified, Connie, and it's still here. One really has to be paranoid to imagine the repeal of the Bill of Rights or any part of the Bill of Rights.

      Delete
  17. Well, Austin said, "Here he is, fresh from his all white blog to forgive the "learned judge"! But remember how viciously he attacked even the slightest error if the Flaggers?"

    Yep. I do remember. And other Confederate heritage people, when often they are simply expressing a different view of something. So your defending the judge (and we don't know when or why she corrected her error, but it was an error no federal judge should have made to begin with) but smearing private citizens whose view of the war doesn't begin to have the consequences of judicial rulings is at best hypocritical.

    You are practicing fraud on your blog when you twist and distort what people you disagree with say about the war and such -- especially when you do it as an excuse to throw off on their intelligence, rather than just acknowledge they have different views. That is fraudulent, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I don't twist or distort anything, then I'm not practicing fraud. And so you're the one engaging in "smearing." Also, since Judge Allen corrected her error, and the confederate heritage advocates I highlighted on my blog didn't, I see a very substantive difference. Nobody's perfect, but correcting one's error stands out as being better than not knowing enough to correct one's error. And we don't know how the error was made. There are a number of possibilities that don't deal with a lack of knowledge on her part, all the way from she meant to write "Declaration of Independence" while thinking ahead about the Constitution and inadvertently wrote "Constitution" to a clerk doing some proofreading didn't know any better and changed it to read "Constitution." We simply don't know. On the other hand, the errors I highlight are made over and over again by the same people who never recognize they're making errors and even if told, they disregard the corrections.

      Delete
    2. Maybe they don't agree that they are errors. The judge obviously did, or somebody did, if they made a correction. However, something isn't an error just because you disagree with it. Somebody isn't in error just because they disagree with the spin you put on stuff.

      Delete
    3. And that's exactly their problem, Connie. They don't know enough to agree that they've made errors. The judge obviously knew enough to recognize she made an error.

      Delete
  18. OK, first thing first. It seems almost impossible to believe that Mackey is complaining about being the victim of an "insult". Mackey himself, both at his own blog "Bad Student of the Civil War" and at "Crossroads" is typically among the nastiest and most mean-spirited of all the posters (and they are an very nasty bunch) and he ROUTINELY denigrates and insults those with whom he disagrees. At his blog right now is a thread entitled " WHY DO SOME SOUTHERNERS INSIST KIDS BE TAUGHT LIES ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR?" where, predictably enough, Mackey calls everyone with whom he disagrees "liars". Indeed, insults like "stupid", "ignorant", and "liars" flow from his website as routinely and predictably as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. And he complains of being insulted?! The guy is too much. Now, insofar as the term "fraud" being simply a matter-of-fact adjective describing Mackey, or an insult, I submit the following:

    1. Mackey heartily cheered the eight language Coke Super Bowl Commerical as a celebration of diversity and multi-culturalism, yet Mackey posts in English, and English only, on his website

    2. Mackey bitterly and viciously criticized every perceived mistake made by the Virginia Flaggers during their Flag raising project along I-95, but generously and happily tolerated a liberal Federal "judge" who, shockingly, and quite mistakenly, confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution in her written "opinion".

    3. Mackey repeatedly, and bitterly mocked and criticized the Virginia Flaggers "mistakes", but offered no criticism whatsoever of the Air Force when the Air Force lost operational control of the country's nuclear warheads.

    4. Mackey, who claims to be deeply offended by any display of bigotry, refuses to criticize the Air Force Academy for its policy of not hiring African-Americans for its faculty in the departments of Aeoronautics, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Math, and Computer Science.

    5. Mackey, who again, overtly demonstrates tremendous indignity at even the hint of racism, offers no criticism of the prestigious Air Force Thunderbirds, who do not have even a single African-American Pilot.

    6. Mackey positions himself as a fierce advocate of diversity and multi-culturalism, yet spent a career in the lily-white Air Force, pursues a lily-white hobby (Civil War History), and hosts a lily-white blog. Go ahead, pay a visit to his blog. Just count the number of minority scholars he presents there; count the number of ethnic minorities in the audience of the video lectures he presents; count the number of ethnic minority authors he references; and go ahead and count the number of languages Mackey posts in. Have any of you ever read the 'Where's Waldo" childrens book series? If not, you are woefully unprepared to identify the influence or presence of ethnic minorities at Mackey's blog. But Mackey you see, just LOVED the Coke commercial. So yeah, "fraud" cannot possible be considered an insult to Mackey. It is simply who and what he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As someone who reads Student of the Civil War several times a week, I would just like to post a brief response to Mr. Austin's mischaracterization of that blog.

      Mr. Mackey frequently posts materials on African American participation in the Civil War and on the African American experience more generally. He also posts lectures given by African American scholars on a regular basis.

      It is true that the audiences for many of the Civil War-related lectures he posts are disproportionately, sometimes overwhelmingly, white, but since he is not the creator of these lectures I don't see how he can be responsible for that fact.

      My own facebook community, The Immigrants' Civil War, was created by people working in the immigrant community, and, while it has grown to be a national community of more than 4,750 people, many of whom are white native-born folks, it continues to have a largely Latino and Asian American base. At The Immigrants' Civil War we are happy to direct our community to materials posted by Mr. Mackey. Many of the immigrants in our community tell me they have learned a lot about American history from the videos that he has brought to our attention.

      I hope this clears up how Mr. Mackey is perceived among Asian and Latino students of the Civil War.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, Pat, some folks aren't interested in the truth.

      Delete
    3. Indeed. That includes floggers and some of their followers.

      Delete
  19. You charged "With no legal authority, a judge in Virginia thwarts the vote of the people and overturns the voters' ban on homosexual marriage."

    The judge had the legal authority, and the decision was grounded in the US Constitution.

    You said "Billy Bearden makes an extremely inappropriate sarcastic remark about the judge. Although people who know Billy know he didn't mean it--that it was an expression of anger over illegal and very dangerous judicial action"

    You're upset at the person who highlighted advocating violent rape of a woman, not the person who advocated the rape.

    You write "Brooks D. Simpson, who constantly trolls the Internet looking for anything he can use to besmirch heritage folks , whom he hates, puts a screenshot of the thread on his filthy blog. (I wonder if he even has a life outside cyberspace, or any interests beyond spreading hate for heritage folks.)"

    You're mad he got caught. You know Brooks has a life outside cyberspace.

    You ask "Did he happen to acknowledge that this sort of judicial activism that legislates in violation of the law and the separation of powers, is a grave danger to the existence of the republic? No."

    It's not judicial activism. The case was brought before the judge and she decided it based on a clear reading of the Constitution. There was no violation of the law or separation of powers. Allowing people who love each other is not a threat to the future existence of the republic.

    You say "Presumably, they don't care about the future existence of the United States."

    We know you don't. Allowing two people who love each other to get married is no threat to the future existence of the United States.

    You ask "And did this sick stickler for 'correct history' happen to mention that this FLIPPIN' FEDERAL JUDGE claimed that the phrase, 'all men are created equal' IS IN THE US CONSTITUTION? Why no, he didn't call the judge on either her dangerous judicial activism OR her ludicrous and pathetic history error."

    When I saw the ruling the error had already been corrected. I suspect the same with Brooks. Why take someone to task over an error they corrected before you saw it? You want that, but you give a pass to someone who advocates the violent rape of a woman and, to my knowledge, has not apologized or retracted that statement.

    You say "Why? 'Cause she be black."

    Her race is important to you. I didn't know she was black until after I read the ruling. I don't know about anyone else. Her race doesn't appear to be important to others.

    We've seen contrary to your claims, you do allow abusive language and insults, provided they are directed against people with whom you disagree. You accuse other people of engaging in fraudulent behavior, but you claim Brooks "admitted to being a troll" when in fact he didn't, and you allow a known actual troll to post at your site on a regular basis.

    As to my blog's diversity, I don't limit who can follow it, nor is there a racial test for who can comment. I've posted about the USCT on the blog, especially the 22nd USCT, highlighting three veterans of the 22nd whose graves I had found. I've also linked to Alan Skerritt's blog. Alan is an African-American online friend who blogs about African-Americans in the Civil War, among other things. Last year at a Civil War Institute conference I said publicly that the historical community had dropped the ball when it came to getting African-Americans more involved. I blogged about that here: http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/civil-war-institute-2013/

    What this revealed is your tendency to hurl hysterical charges with no basis in fact, accusing others of doing what you, yourself, do, attacking those who point out the outrageous behavior of people you agree with while you give those people a pass, and your willingness to allow insults to be hurled by other commenters in violation of your own rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Al: "The judge had the legal authority, and the decision was grounded in the US Constitution."

      I disagree. I think the Constitution is wrongly interpreted a lot by our courts, and this is one example.

      Al: "You're upset at the person who highlighted advocating violent rape of a woman, not the person who advocated the rape."

      As noted, I don't believe for a minute that Billy meant it. I explained that. Was your reading comprehension out of whack when you read that? On the other hand, the person who "highlighted it" has a years-long history of lying about and fudging the truth about Southern heritage people. I am CERTAIN he knows Billy wasn't serious, but he and his minions screech and screech and screech about it as if they genuinely believe he was. Apparently, such pretense gives them the warm fuzzies of moral superiority.

      A: "You're mad he got caught."

      He didn't "get caught." Simpson deliberately portrayed as literal Billy's hyperbole, which is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally. (Wikipedia) I am supposed to believe a college professor doesn't understand hyperbole, or know it when he sees it?

      Al: "You know Brooks has a life outside cyberspace.

      You people are just irony illiterate, aren't you? You are so accustomed to believing your own lies, you can't relate at all to rhetorical devices except to believe they are lies.

      Al: "It's not judicial activism. The case was brought before the judge and she decided it based on a clear reading of the Constitution. There was no violation of the law or separation of powers. Allowing people who love each other is not a threat to the future existence of the republic."

      It certainly is a threat, as I have already explained. Twice.

      Al: We know you don't [care about the future existence of the United States].

      Yep, I do. As long as the South is connected to it, I care about the USA.

      Al: "Allowing two people who love each other to get married is no threat to the future existence of the United States."

      But that isn't the sole impact that homosexual marriage will have, and the whole impact will be detrimental to it. In fact, the remaining (very destructive) "impact" is the reason leftists are pushing it.

      Al: "When I saw the ruling the error had already been corrected. I suspect the same with Brooks. Why take someone to task over an error they corrected before you saw it?

      Well, you and he can claim it was corrected before you saw it, but we'll never know for sure.

      Al: "You want that, but you give a pass to someone who advocates the violent rape of a woman and, to my knowledge, has not apologized or retracted that statement."

      Because I can identify hyperbole when I see it.

      Al: Her race is important to you. I didn't know she was black until after I read the ruling. I don't know about anyone else. Her race doesn't appear to be important to others.

      Her race is not important to me. I was outraged at the ruling before I knew anything about her, and assumed her to be a white man (as most federal judges are). You "civil war bloggers" are the ones eaten up with race, race, race, race, race. And it is SOP for "anti-racists" such as you all to overlook ignorance, error, crime, etc., where minorities are concerned, just as you refuse to acknowledge conservative blacks and their position on the issues, with your "built-in" excuse that it doesn't "relate" to the "civil war." How convenient. However, homosexual marriage doesn't relate to the civil war, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, any more than "corporate personhood" does..

      Delete
    2. Al: We've seen contrary to your claims, you do allow abusive language and insults, provided they are directed against people with whom you disagree. You accuse other people of engaging in fraudulent behavior, but you claim Brooks "admitted to being a troll" when in fact he didn't, and you allow a known actual troll to post at your site on a regular basis.

      Brooks admitted to troll behavior. I put the matching label on it. That, BTW, is an example of "turn about," as he untruthfully and often claims people "freely admit" to things they never admitted, freely or otherwise. He is a colossal liar, more so than all you other floggers combined.

      Not "contrary to my claims." I disallow what *I* define as abusive and insulting. You disagree with my view of what constitutes abusive and insulting? What a surprise.

      Al: "As to my blog's diversity..."

      Austin can answer that if he wishes. The only thing that interests me about your blog is when it becomes a flog and attacks Southern heritage and its advocates, or distorts the issues that concern them. I don't read posts from any flogs about other things.

      Al: What this revealed is your tendency to hurl hysterical charges with no basis in fact, accusing others of doing what you, yourself, do, attacking those who point out the outrageous behavior of people you agree with while you give those people a pass, and your willingness to allow insults to be hurled by other commenters in violation of your own rules.

      I hurl charges, but not without basis in fact. I simply consider facts you don't consider. I attack those who purposely misconstrue -- and frequently lie about -- behavior (or comments) of people I agree with. I don't allow what *I* consider to be insults. You disagree with what I define that way? Again, what a surprise.

      You know, Al, if you find it so unpleasant here, what are you doing in my comment section?

      Delete
    3. "Brooks admitted to troll behavior." No, he didn't. Nothing in that post you linked was troll behavior.

      "Not 'contrary to my claims.' I disallow what *I* define as abusive and insulting. You disagree with my view of what constitutes abusive and insulting? What a surprise." For all your alleged outrage over lying, you have no outrage when someone lies about another commenter and insults them with those lies. Instead, you join in.

      "I hurl charges, but not without basis in fact." Certainly not in this case, since you've claimed the judge had no legal authority to rule in the case, when she clearly did, and you've made completely insane charges regarding the outcome of treating people equally before the law.

      "You know, Al, if you find it so unpleasant here, what are you doing in my comment section?" Highlighting your errors and fraudulent behavior.

      Delete
  20. "I disagree." Yes, I know, but you're incorrect. The Federal Court has jurisdiction due to the Constitutional question involved between individuals and the state, and the judge correctly applied the Equal Protection provision of the Constitution to the case.

    "I don't believe for a minute that Billy meant it." He wrote what was in his heart, otherwise he wouldn't have written it.

    "He didn't 'get caught.' Simpson deliberately portrayed as literal Billy's hyperbole, which is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech." A person openly wishing that another person is violently raped is no figure of speech. He quite obviously meant what he wrote.

    "You people are just irony illiterate, aren't you?" Well, I know what irony is, and that wasn't irony. Of course, you can freely and falsely accuse others of fraudulent behavior, but when called on your own we have "Oh, it was just irony."

    "It certainly is a threat, as I have already explained. Twice." And you've been wrong. Twice.

    "Yep, I do. As long as the South is connected to it, I care about the USA." You and I both know that's not true, Connie. You and I both know that you've openly wished for the dissolution of the United States.

    "But that isn't the sole impact that homosexual marriage will have, and the whole impact will be detrimental to it." It isn't any impact that treating people equally before the law will have, and treating people equally isn't detrimental.


    "Well, you and he can claim it was corrected before you saw it, but we'll never know for sure." Do you have any concrete evidence to the contrary?

    "Because I can identify hyperbole when I see it." You can be an apologist for someone who advocates violent rape of a woman.


    "Her race is not important to me." Your the only one who brought it up, so your actions are contrary to your words.

    "However, homosexual marriage doesn't relate to the civil war, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, any more than 'corporate personhood' does.. " This remark is really revealing. You don't see how treating people equally before the law is related to the 14th Amendment and you don't understand how the 14th Amendment came out of the Civil War.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Al: "Brooks admitted to troll behavior." No, he didn't. Nothing in that post you linked was troll behavior.

    Yes. He did. "Tiptoeing through the internet," as he puts it, is cyber-stalking, and cyber-stalkers are a type of internet troll.

    Al: "Not 'contrary to my claims.' I disallow what *I* define as abusive and insulting. You disagree with my view of what constitutes abusive and insulting? What a surprise." For all your alleged outrage over lying, you have no outrage when someone lies about another commenter and insults them with those lies. Instead, you join in.

    'I don't think Austin lied. He expressed his opinion. He thinks your forgiveness of the judge while viciously attacking the VaFlaggers, who have done nothing wrong, makes you a fraud. I don't think it is a deliberately lie -- certainly not the kind of lies Simpson shoots like a nail gun with the intent to damage, and not with the reach and audience and with the influence Simpson has.

    Al: Certainly not in this case, since you've claimed the judge had no legal authority to rule in the case, when she clearly did, and you've made completely insane charges regarding the outcome of treating people equally before the law.

    I think judges do not have the legal authority to mis-apply the Constitution. You may disagree that she did that. Ho-hum. And yes, what I charged is exactly what homosex marriage leaders have planned.

    Al" "You know, Al, if you find it so unpleasant here, what are you doing in my comment section?" Highlighting your errors and fraudulent behavior.

    No, you're not. You're here to be a pain in the neck. You're here to argue because you want to argue, and you've painted yourself in a corner by not allowing it on your blog.

    Al: "I disagree." Yes, I know, but you're incorrect. The Federal Court has jurisdiction due to the Constitutional question involved between individuals and the state, and the judge correctly applied the Equal Protection provision of the Constitution to the case.

    Nope. She is using the power of the courts to force society to normalize and mainstream sexual perversion by equating it with genuine marriage -- which it isn't.

    Al: "I don't believe for a minute that Billy meant it." He wrote what was in his heart, otherwise he wouldn't have written it.

    You can see into Billy's heart? You're God, now?

    Al: A person openly wishing that another person is violently raped is no figure of speech. He quite obviously meant what he wrote.

    Nope. It was hyperbole; an expression of anger over use of government/judicial power to wrongly deny the will and rights of the people.

    Al: Well, I know what irony is, and that wasn't irony. Of course, you can freely and falsely accuse others of fraudulent behavior, but when called on your own we have "Oh, it was just irony."

    Yep. Because I can tell the difference. Although I acknowledge that Simpson uses speech trickery to smear, bash, trash, denigrate, harass and persecute. I could never reach his standard of language trickery for negative purposes even if I tried.

    Al: And you've been wrong. Twice.

    Time will tell. But if they've got this far with their agenda of razing our culture, why would they be stopped at the next level?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Yes. He did. 'Tiptoeing through the internet,' as he puts it, is cyber-stalking, and cyber-stalkers are a type of internet troll." No, Connie. Looking at different websites to see how history is handled at those sites is not cyberstalking. Seriously, you need to get a grip.
      http://www.cyberangels.org/security/stalking.php

      "I don't think Austin lied. He expressed his opinion." No, the troll alleged certain things about me that are patently false.

      "I think judges do not have the legal authority to mis-apply the Constitution." Have you read the Equal Protection Clause? She's not misapplying it.

      "what I charged is exactly what homosex marriage leaders have planned." Where can we all find and read these secret plans to which you allege you are privy?

      "You're here to be a pain in the neck." It can be a pain for you to have your errors and fraudulent behavior exposed.

      "You're here to argue because you want to argue, and you've painted yourself in a corner by not allowing it on your blog." I've addressed this case on my blog from the standpoint of it being a legacy of the Civil War. Whether or not marriage equality should be allowed is not a part of that. Just as I wouldn't go to the library to purchase a set of hand tools, I wouldn't discuss modern politics in a place reserved for issues about and stemming from the Civil War.

      "Nope. She is using the power of the courts to force society to normalize and mainstream sexual perversion by equating it with genuine marriage -- which it isn't." If people have a marriage license and are married by a person legally qualified and authorized to perform marriages, it's a genuine marriage. She is simply correctly applying the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in a case that was brought before her. I think it's revealing you can't seem to grasp that simple fact.

      "You can see into Billy's heart? You're God, now?" No more than you are God when you claim to know what others want to do; however, the human tendency is to express what one believes when in an emotional state. He believed what he typed. I notice that to my knowledge there has been no apology from him, nor any statement of remorse or retraction from him.

      "Nope. It was hyperbole; an expression of anger over use of government/judicial power to wrongly deny the will and rights of the people." I know you're trying mightily to be an apologist for him, but it's just not working. In affirming the equal rights of a group of people, the judge is not wrongly denying rights of other people.

      "Yep. Because I can tell the difference." Apparently not.

      "But if they've got this far with their agenda of razing our culture, why would they be stopped at the next level?" I've seen no razing of our culture. Have art museums burst into flames? Are symphony orchestras being mowed down as they play? We still have plenty of heterosexuals on television and in the movies having sex without being married, having sex with other people's spouses, shooting people, murdering people, and torturing people, just like it's always been.

      Delete
  22. Al: "Yep, I do. As long as the South is connected to it, I care about the USA." You and I both know that's not true, Connie. You and I both know that you've openly wished for the dissolution of the United States.

    Dissolution? Not according to my view. Separation, which is not the same thing as I see it. Dissolution would be all the states pulling out, so there is no USA anymore. THAT would dissolve the USA. However, I don't care if the USA continues without Dixie. Not in the least. Fine with me. In fact, it would be fine with me if the USA and a southern nation were friends and allies, as long as the USA minded its own business and didn't attempt victimization or manipulation the way it does other countries now.

    Al: "But that isn't the sole impact that homosexual marriage will have, and the whole impact will be detrimental to it." It isn't any impact that treating people equally before the law will have, and treating people equally isn't detrimental.

    In this case, it will be. It will impact differentiation of the sexes, it will impact parenthood, and numerous other aspects of the culture. It will impact them NEGATIVELY.

    Al: "Well, you and he can claim it was corrected before you saw it, but we'll never know for sure." Do you have any concrete evidence to the contrary?

    Nope. And I didn't say I did. I said we'll never know for sure. But don't expect me to believe it just because you say it. You have a record of fudging the truth about the VaFlaggers. Not as long or as egregious as Simpson's, but enough to make me take whatever you say with a huge grain of salt.

    Al: "Because I can identify hyperbole when I see it." You can be an apologist for someone who advocates violent rape of a woman.

    I can? Since I haven't done that, you're hallucinating.

    Al: "Her race is not important to me." Your the only one who brought it up, so your actions are contrary to your words.

    I brought it up in response to Simpson because I know how you floggers are about race, race, race, race, race. Al, you're not good at mind reading, ya know? . Maybe you need to make a second call to Miss Cleo. Or take your crystal ball in for re-calibration. Or get some new chicken bones to throw.

    Al: "However, homosexual marriage doesn't relate to the civil war, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, any more than 'corporate personhood' does.. " This remark is really revealing. You don't see how treating people equally before the law is related to the 14th Amendment and you don't understand how the 14th Amendment came out of the Civil War.

    So corporate personhood relates to the civil war?

    Not as revealing as some of the cockamamie stuff you've claimed here. Most of the people on both sides of the war would be scandalized, appalled, at the idea of same-sex marriage.

    Because there are restrictions on who one may marry, that doesn't mean marriage itself is prohibited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Dissolution? Not according to my view. Separation, which is not the same thing as I see it. Dissolution would be all the states pulling out, so there is no USA anymore. THAT would dissolve the USA." Even if one state were to unilaterally withdraw, that would be a dissolution of what we know as the United States. A dissolution of a country is when the country breaks into more than one part and the central government no longer controls all the parts.

      "In this case, it will be. It will impact differentiation of the sexes, it will impact parenthood, and numerous other aspects of the culture. It will impact them NEGATIVELY." Again, Connie, you really need to get a grip. Marriage equality does nothing to differentiate between men and women. Having parents of children does not negatively impact parenting. If the minority of heterosexuals who beat their children, shake their babies, and otherwise abuse their children haven't negatively impacted parenthood to the point where you're this outraged, then having loving, caring parents who just happen to be of the same sex won't. Treating people equally has no negative impact on the culture.

      "Nope. And I didn't say I did. I said we'll never know for sure. But don't expect me to believe it just because you say it." Any statement you make alleging anyone saw it before it was changed, especially me, is simply a lie, then.

      "You have a record of fudging the truth about the VaFlaggers." I have a record of telling the truth about the flaggers. I know it's inconvenient to you and them, but sometimes the truth is inconvenient.

      "I can? Since I haven't done that, you're hallucinating." You've done it again in the previous post.

      "I brought it up in response to Simpson" He didn't bring it up, you did, because it's on your mind, not his.

      Al: "However, homosexual marriage doesn't relate to the civil war, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, any more than 'corporate personhood' does.. " This remark is really revealing. You don't see how treating people equally before the law is related to the 14th Amendment and you don't understand how the 14th Amendment came out of the Civil War.

      "So corporate personhood relates to the civil war?" Note that I said nothing about corporate personhood. More fraudulent behavior on your part.

      "Not as revealing as some of the cockamamie stuff you've claimed here. Most of the people on both sides of the war would be scandalized, appalled, at the idea of same-sex marriage."
      There is nothing cockamamie or appalling about equal protection of the law.

      "Because there are restrictions on who one may marry, that doesn't mean marriage itself is prohibited."
      Just because Charles can't drink out of the Whites Only water fountain doesn't mean he can't drink water. Just because Eleanor has to sit in the back of the bus doesn't mean she can't ride the bus. Just because James and Laura can't marry each other because they are different races doesn't mean they can't get married. Bigotry is still bigotry, Connie. Own it.

      Delete
    2. He was stalking Helga Ross, He did it in more than one post, Al. The link you provided sez,"

      "Although no universally accepted definition exists, it is generally considered as use of the Internet, e-mail or other electronic communications device to stalk or harass a person. Stalking is defined as repeated harassing or threatening behavior."

      It says no universally accepted definition exists, but then defines it, rather schizoid, but in any case, Simpson is certainly guilty of repeated harassing behavior, particularly of the VaFlaggers.

      Yes, I've read the equal protection clause. There are no laws preventing a person from marrying just because they are a homosexual. How will "gays" change society? They've already destroyed the Boy Scouts. They are using the power of the courts to force Christians to violate their beliefs (see Masterpiece Cake Shop, Chick fil A). There has already been a report of a preacher being sued for saying homosexuality is sinful.

      Here's a good recap of the harm done by homosexual "marriage" http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

      The kind of destruction I'm talking about is not run of the mill crime. I'm talking about attacking and destroying the cultural institutions that under-gird our civilization.

      You have your view of dissolution, I have mine. If Part A left the country and Part B remained, Part B wouldn't dissolve. It would be the whole country now, get it? Sheesh.... Virginia still exists, it didn't "dissolve" even though part of it was stolen by Lincoln.

      If two men "marry," they deprive their children of a mother in the home/family. If two women "marry" they deprive their children of a father in the home/family.. This is why the DOJ sez children don't have the right to a mother or a father. It is elevating the "importance" of the "parents'" sexual deviancy above the need of the children.

      You have repeatedly fudged the truth about the VaFlaggers, and did it out of hostility, too.

      Delete
    3. Since there's a 4,096 character limit I'm going to divide this response.

      He was stalking Helga Ross, He did it in more than one post, Al. The link you provided sez,"
      --
      He was no more stalking Helga than you stalk him. Are you a cyber-stalker? The troll meets that definition and you have no problem.

      "There are no laws preventing a person from marrying just because they are a homosexual."
      --
      They are prevented from marrying the person they love because they are gay. That's a denial of equal protection under the law. For this particular issue you claim they can marry anyone they want, as long as that person is of the opposite sex. Used to be a person could marry anyone they want as long as they were the same race and the opposite sex. Bigotry is bigotry.

      "They've already destroyed the Boy Scouts."
      -
      The almost three million American youths involved in scouting programs across the country will be surprised to hear the organization in which they are active has been destroyed. They must be imagining that they're going to those pack and troop meetings, earning merit badges, becoming Eagle Scouts, etc.

      "They are using the power of the courts to force Christians to violate their beliefs"
      -
      They are using the power of the courts to ensure the law treats everyone equally. Just because you have a bigoted belief doesn't mean you get to act like a bigot to the general public.

      "There has already been a report of a preacher being sued for saying homosexuality is sinful." Are you talking about the guy in Britain? Without any details I can't comment, but I'm pretty sure you're not giving the whole story.

      Delete
    4. Here's a good recap of the harm done by homosexual 'marriage' http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html
      -
      1. It Is Not Marriage - A lie. A marriage with a license issued by the state is a marriage.
      2. It Violates Natural Law - Another lie. There is no natural law of marriage. Marriage is defined by actual law.
      3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother - Then will they take away the children of single parents because they are denies either a father or a mother? That's ridiculous.
      4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle. Silly. It provides equal protection of the law. As to the "Homosexual Lifestyle," it's been with us since man first existed.
      5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right - There is a civil right to get married to the person you love. It's been affirmed by the Supreme Court. If you think it's morally wrong to be married to the person you love, then you have a great many problems.
      6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union - Better annul all those marriages of heterosexuals who can't reproduce, then, because they have a naturally sterile union. Connie, since you don't have any children we'll expect you to get divorced forthwith
      7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage. This is related to child-bearing. So Connie, your marriage "defeats the state's purpose of benefiting marriage." Let us know when your divorce is final.
      8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society. Yes, imposing the principle of equality before the law. I think it's good for everyone to be equal before the law. Your mileage may vary.
      9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution. This is really meaningless. We're getting to 50 years past the '60s. Wake up. Human beings are sexual animals. That's the way God made us.
      10. It Offends God. If that's the case, why did God make them gay? You want to point to the Bible? How many "translaters" have had their hands on it over the millenia? How many monarchs and princes have imposed their own dogmas by directing the scribes to add them to the manuscript? And if you're going to follow the Bible, then follow the whole thing.
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs
      "I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
      "My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
      "Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
      "Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

      Delete
    5. "The kind of destruction I'm talking about is not run of the mill crime. I'm talking about attacking and destroying the cultural institutions that under-gird our civilization."
      Nothing gets destroyed by two people who love each other entering into a marriage.

      "You have your view of dissolution, I have mine."
      -
      Mine happens to be correct when the term is applied to political entities such as the United States.

      "If two men 'marry,' they deprive their children of a mother in the home/family. If two women 'marry' they deprive their children of a father in the home/family..
      --
      So are you next going to advocate taking away the children of single parents, Connie? They are deprived of a mother/father. Or are you going to have laws requiring a single parent to find a marriage partner of the opposite sex?

      "You have repeatedly fudged the truth about the VaFlaggers, and did it out of hostility, too." I've posted what they said and did--and also what they didn't do. I've told the truth about them.

      Delete
    6. Yes, the ability to have children and give them a mother and father is destroyed by it. It is your opinion that your view is correct. No, Al, I'm not going to suggest that. But it is a well known fact that the best and safest place for raising children is in a two-parent home where the mother and father are married to each other. You have not told the truth about the VaFlaggers.

      Delete
    7. Your response about the Bible betrays your ignorance that the laws of the Old Testament were written for the Israelites at a specific time in their history for two specific reasons: (1) to provide a lineage for Christ to be born on earth and (2) to show mankind that he cannot save by obeying rules, because he is fallen, and cannot obey.

      However, some principles of Old Laws were carried over into the Christian era. Guess which ones....

      Delete
    8. He was stalking Helga for the purpose of mocking and ridiculing her, and her views on history. I do not stalk him..I react/respond NOT to his views on history (I don't even read them) but to his attacks on Southern heritage and people who defend it.

      Some "bigotry" is not "bigotry" and some prohibitions are necessary.

      Scouting has been destroyed. Something is going on by the same name, but it is not the Scouting organization that was originally formed. Whatever it is now, it will continue to weaken and die, especially when reports of sexual abuse begin to leak out. (It will have to leak out because the leftist press will not report it).

      The law is being used to force Christians to not practice their faith -- a violation of the First Amendment.

      Delete
    9. According to Connie, "Yes, the ability to have children and give them a mother and father is destroyed by it."

      That's funny. There seem to be plenty of births in states that allow marriage equality. Is it your contention that even a majority of these births are to homes without a mother and a father?

      Connie says, "No, Al, I'm not going to suggest that."

      Then your self-contradictory opinion can be dismissed.

      "You have not told the truth about the VaFlaggers." I have. You just don't like the truth.

      Delete
    10. Connie claims: "Your response about the Bible betrays your ignorance that the laws of the Old Testament were written for the Israelites at a specific time in their history for two specific reasons: (1) to provide a lineage for Christ to be born on earth and (2) to show mankind that he cannot save by obeying rules, because he is fallen, and cannot obey. "

      The parts quoted have nothing to do with that. Read them again.

      "However, some principles of Old Laws were carried over into the Christian era. Guess which ones...."

      Where does Jesus condemn gay marriage?

      Delete
    11. Connie claims: "He was stalking Helga for the purpose of mocking and ridiculing her, and her views on history. I do not stalk him..I react/respond NOT to his views on history (I don't even read them) but to his attacks on Southern heritage and people who defend it." You're engaging in fraudulent behavior again, Connie. By the definition you are using, you are cyber-stalking Brooks.

      "Some "bigotry" is not "bigotry" and some prohibitions are necessary."
      -
      Bigotry in your case is bigotry. Some prohibitions are necessary, but there must be a compelling public interest for them. You have no such case.

      "Scouting has been destroyed. Something is going on by the same name, but it is not the Scouting organization that was originally formed."

      That's a laugher. You grow more hysterically funny with each post, Connie. Who are all those Eagle Scouts, then? How was it that my cousin and his son went to a Jamboree last year? They certainly believe it was for the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts don't think they've been destroyed. Only Connie self-importantly proclaims their destruction as they carry on without any problem.


      "Whatever it is now, it will continue to weaken and die, especially when reports of sexual abuse begin to leak out. (It will have to leak out because the leftist press will not report it)."
      -
      There was sexual abuse by a tiny minority of heterosexuals before. Pedophilia is a crime, and it's not limited to homosexuals.

      "The law is being used to force Christians to not practice their faith -- a violation of the First Amendment."
      Interesting. I've seen no signs saying that churches are closed due to the law. I've seen nobody stopped from practicing their faith because of gay couples being married. I have seen bigots being prevented from practicing bigotry, though. I think that's a good thing. You obviously wish to defend bigotry as you defend people who wish that women be violently raped.

      Delete
    12. Connie claims, Homosex is a violation of the way human bodies are made, and what their function is."

      If that were the case, it would be impossible to perform.

      Delete
    13. It can be performed. It's still a violation of what they're made for.

      Delete
    14. Al sez, "There seem to be plenty of births in states that allow marriage equality. Is it your contention that even a majority of these births are to homes without a mother and a father?"

      Al, please. It destroys it in that "marriage."

      Delete
  23. Patrick Young's defense of Al Mackey's website is deeply troubling:

    1. Patrick's defense of Mackey is offensive because Young, a white male, presumes to speak on behalf on the hundreds and hundreds of non-English speaking Latino men and women who regularly visit Mackey's webiste. These members of the Latino community do not need a white male to speak on their behalf. That notion is offensive.

    2. Mr. Young does not explain how the hundreds and hundreds of non English speaking men and women who regularly read Mackey's English-only webiste have it translated, so they can all "learn a lot".

    3. Not a single one of these hundreds and hundreds of non English speaking Latinos, who regularly visit Mackey's English-only blog, and who have "learned a lot", has ever posted so much as a single word in Spanish.

    4. Mr Young limits his interest to only the Spanish speaking Latino community. Why are Mr. Mackey and Mr. Young so callous and insensitive to the thousands and thousands of American non English speaking Korean, Vietnamese, Arab, Chinese, Yiddish, African, Polish, Italian, German, French, Finish, Danish, Japanese, Norwegian, Latvian, Greek and Italian speaking people who have a keen interest in the American Civil War? Why doesn't Mackey post commentary in all of these languages? After all, he so loved the Coke commercial and its message of diversity and inclusiveness, he absolutely has an obligation to stop excluding all these peoples from his blog. For Heaven's sake, he could at least post in Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Arabic, Yiddish, Japanese, French and German.

    5. Mr. Young defended Mackey's all-white English-only blog audiences on the flimsy basis that Mackey does not influence who participates in either. Yet when Mr. Young observed an all-white audience attending a Virginia Flaggers event, he smugly and sardonically referred to its composition as "white and off-white". Why does Mr. Young not refer to Mackey's all white English-only audiences as "white and off-white"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just few notes in response to Mr. Austin keyed to his numbered statements:

      1. Mr. Austin writes: "Young, a white male, presumes to speak on behalf on the hundreds and hundreds of non-English speaking Latino men and women who regularly visit Mackey's webiste. These members of the Latino community". I never mentioned non-English speaking Latino men or women. It may not have occurred to Mr. Austin, but most Latinos living in the U.S., male and female, speak English.

      2. Mr. Austin write: "Mr. Young does not explain how the hundreds and hundreds of non English speaking men and women who regularly read Mackey's English-only webiste have it translated, so they can all "learn a lot"." See #1 above.


      3. Mr. Austin writes: "Not a single one of these hundreds and hundreds of non English speaking Latinos, who regularly visit Mackey's English-only blog," See #1 above.

      4. Mr Austin writes: " Mr Young limits his interest to only the Spanish speaking Latino community." Simply not true. I am interested in the non-Spanish speaking Latino community as well, and in other, non-Latino immigrants as well. A year ago I was the official host of a large Korean celebration in Queens, New York for my work on behalf of that community, for example. I also write extensively about German, Irish, Polish, Italian, and other non-Latino participation in the American Civil War. I served seven terms at the chairman of the New York Immigration Coalition, made up primarily of non-Latino immigrants from 240 organization.

      I hope this clarifies things for Mr. Austin.

      Delete
    2. Patrick has deliberately avoided the one and only point under discission. The undisputable fact is Al Mackey hosts a lily white, English only website that excludes non-English speakers. Mackey is an outrageous fraud.

      Delete
    3. Actually, Mr. Austin, I addressed point after point that you made. If you did not want me to address them, then you should not have raised them.

      Delete
    4. Quite the contrary Patrick. You have failed to admonish and criticize Mackey for excluding non English speakers from his lily white blog. You have also failed to haughtily refer to the plethora of white speakers and scholars Mackey references as "white and off white". When you do, we will discuss the matter.

      PS- How's that angry protest letter to Hofstra coming along?

      Delete
    5. Mr. Austin, I wrote: "Actually, Mr. Austin, I addressed point after point that you made."

      You responded: "Quite the contrary Patrick. You have failed to admonish and criticize Mackey"

      In other words, I did address your points, I just did not do your bidding.

      Delete
  24. Al: "Bigotry is still bigotry, Connie. Own it."

    Normalizing and mainstreaming sexual deviancy is not the same as those examples you gave. Not analogous at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Deviancy" used to be defined as blacks and whites having the same rights. Bigotry is bigotry, Connie. Own it.

      Delete
    2. Not sexual deviancy. Homosex is a violation of the way human bodies are made, and what their function is.

      Delete
    3. Connie already owned something Mack-a-Doodle....your ass.

      Delete
  25. Too much. Al Mackey is, hilariously, at it again. Above he dramatically and theatrically expresses profound indignation and complete intolerance for the even the very prospect of "bigotry". And leaving no room for doubt, Mackey defines bigotry in clear, absolute terms; "bigotry is bigotry" he says. Referring to that same "bigotry", Al then proceeds to imperiously command others to "own it". Below is a link containing a report on the blatant bigotry in the Senior Leadership within the Air Force. It reflects the fact that a full 94% of Air Force Generals are white. This is wildly disproportionate to the white population within the Air Force, as the report also reflects. Remembering that on Martin Luther King Day, Mackey glowingly and effusively praised King for "speaking truth to power", is Al is going to confront and criticize the Air Force Senior Leadership in the same aggressive, unforgiving, and acrimonious manner in which he attacks the "bigotry" of the Virginia Flaggers? Or is he a Grandstanding, posturing, pusillanimous fraud who will say and do nothing because the Air Force Senior Leadership is not quite so easy a target for him as the Virginia Flaggers are? My opinion; Al Mackey is a Grandstanding, posturing, pusillanimous fraud who will do and say nothing because the Air Force Senior Leadership is not as easy a target as the Virginia Flaggers.

    http://abetterairforce.org/documents/Troubling%20Air%20Force%20Statistics_March2013.pdf

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome, but monitored.