Wednesday, March 12, 2014

History Errors That Floggers Don't Care About

The Constitution is 400 years old? From The Blaze.

“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not." 
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas
March 12, 2014

Yep. This is a member of Congress. This is the same woman who said on the House floor, "“I stand here as a freed slave....”

These statements have a direct connection to history, which is what the floggers claim to care about. But did you see any mention of this on their flogs? Of course not. The only history "errors" they care about are those made by Southern heritage folks -- and sometimes what they classify as errors is merely an opinion they disagree with.

These flogger-types pretzel up and gnash their teeth when heritage folks identify personally with Confederates -- when they talk about "we" and "us," referring to Confederates during the war --  but you never hear a peep out of floggers when other folks make similar statements.

Simpson claims we "need" to feel hated, but it isn't about need. It's simply that we have the ability to discern hate that is directed toward us, in many types of expression. For example, take a look at this comment thread at Simpson's flog:

  There's no history there, but there's lots of scorn and ridicule from people who would rather die than correct -- or even acknowledge -- blatant and egregious errors made by a protected class member...  Can you say hypocrisy?

Oh, and
Mr. Buchanan, what did P. T. Barnum say? Lots of things. My favorite is: "Without promotion, something terrible happens: Nothing."

NOW we know what it takes to goad floggers into admitting that protected class members (which certainly is not confied to race) make history (and other) errors. If the admission presents an opportunity to denigrate Southern heritage folks, they'll do it. Of course, they'll do it reluctantly, softly, with kid gloves, and they won't show the same scorn and derision for the protected ones that they'd show for Southern heritage folks who make a similar or even lesser errors.

I mean, heck, they don't need Southern heritage folks to make an mistake in order to criticize and drum up animosity and derision. Remember Simpson criticizing Susan for wearing red tops?

I don't have a problem with Andrew Napolitano going off the deep end? Well, it's not that I don't have a problem with it. It's that I don't care about it, one way or another. I don't even care about Jackson-Lee's many displays of ignorance, except as a vehicle for showcasing flogger hypocrisy and double standards.

And while we're at it, let's correct the latest Simpson lie -- that I have "confessed" I "don't really understand history." I await a link to said "confession." Hell will freeze over before anyone provides it, though, because I never made such a confession.


Simpson claims he supplied a link to where I "confessed" I "don't really understand  history." As he commonly does, the "proof" he links to is his own claims made in his own posts on his own blog, which are commonly filled with lies and distortions of whatever he's chosen to lie about and distort.

In this case, in his blog post that comes up at the URL he supplied --surprise!-- there was actually a link to something I wrote -- this: Confederate Clones.  But there's no "confession" that I "don't really understand history" in that post. Read it yourself. Then, afterward, go read Simpson's utterly bizarre "interpretation" of what my post says/means. It isn't just a distortion -- it's more like a hallucination and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Read it here: It's Heritage, Not History...A Candid Admission.

Hell's still burning as hot as ever, and I'm still waiting for a link to my "confession."


  1. Connie you must be mistaken. Surely Al Mackey, who adamantly and superciliously demands historical perfection from the Flaggers, jumped all over this stupidity. Surely Mackey came out snarling and growling and excoriated the ignorant blowhard Representative. Or did that miserable doughy two-faced fraud do and say absolutely nothing. Yeah, thought so.

  2. Here Simpson knocks me for displaying the battle flag wrong
    However here he says nothing about a violation of the US Flag Code
    §175. Position and manner of display
    "(i) When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag's own right, that is, to the observer's left. When displayed in a window, the flag should be displayed in the same way, with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the street."
    But Brooks only sees what Southerners do wrong !

  3. Sheila Jackson-Lee is a dandy. She also believes our astronauts planted a flag on Mars.

  4. Simpson is soooo transparent. I'm certain he has enough edumacation to understand what my comments about race are really about -- the left's preoccupation with it.

    He says, "Once more someone has race on her mind. After all, the good judge is white, but our friend from Pensacola remained silent."

    I remained silent because I don't care what he said; in fact, I don't even KNOW what he said. He's not a member of one of the left's protected classes, so he's not front and center on my radar screen.

    He says, "But I didn’t say anything about her unwillingness to discuss a white man’s shortcomings because of her fear that it would undermine her claims of white superiority."

    I haven't made any claims of white superiority. I HAVE mentioned some achievements of white cultures and some white individuals, which I believe results in large measure from the influence of Christianity on said cultures. Typically, however, my motive in such discussions is to counter the pervasive leftist claim that white people are to blame for all the world's ills, without acknowledgement of white achievements that benefit the whole world.

    He says, "But when it comes to Connie Chastain, it’s always about race … or sexual preference … or bitterness against non-Christians"

    No, when it comes to me, it's about the use of race by leftists to push a destructive leftist agenda. It's about my disapproval of the use of race by leftists to demonize white people -- especially Southerners -- past and present ... for example, the lies aimed at smearing and persecuting the VaFlaggers as racists by claiming that a few chance contacts with Matt Heimbach at some public events, and indirect communication via the Internet, amounts to "embracing" him ... and that they think exactly like he does about race.

    As for sexual preference -- I think organized homosexuality is a partner with radical feminism in the war on the traditional family. And any "bitterness" I have against nonChristians involves their attacks on, and war against, Christians and Christianity. Although I do admit to disapproving of "religion" that punishes victims and has world political conquest and tyrannical domination as a goal...

    I would have thought that anyone with the smarts to acquire the education Simpson has could easily, readily determine this, but maybe I've been giving him more credit than he deserves. Of course, there's always the possibility -- in fact, the extreme likelihood -- that he DOES know exactly where I'm coming from, but chooses to distort and lie about it....

  5. Oh, one other note: he sez, "But I didn’t say anything about her unwillingness to discuss a white man’s shortcomings because of her fear that it would undermine her claims of white superiority."

    In fact, he DID say something about that, didn't he? Just in the comments rather than the blog post. Slimy....


Comments are welcome, but monitored.