Thursday, July 31, 2014

Fold the Flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sherwin Dillard
Wygota College
Wenucanskipitin, Virginia

This 'n' That

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Texas Scalawag Runneth at the Mouth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, July 29, 2014


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Levin, will the VaFlaggers get their apology?

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

Will they get it?

Washington and Lee University owes them all an apology.

Will they get it?

We shall see....

Talk about yer moral bankruptcy....

Apology timeline countdown...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Floggasms Abounding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

=====  May 11th  =====


=====  12th =====



=====  13th =====





=====  14th =====




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's just what they do.

Monday, July 28, 2014

ANOTHER Call for Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search of the VaFlaggers' blog:

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

Search of Dixie News and Talk  FB group.

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

Search of Confederate American Pride  FB group.

Other search results I didn' t take screenshots of:


Confederate Archives

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

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

Sunday, July 27, 2014

What Kevin Levin Gets Wrong

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

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

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

More Dishonesty from a Flogger

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

Does Simpson never tire of perpetrating chicanery?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, July 26, 2014

He's Predictin' Again....

From Kevin Levin's blog:

What's it to ya?

You're not in the SCV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 24, 2014

A Call for Information

Maybe some SCV members can provide this info. If not, I'm sure floggers who are constantly combing the internet for dirt, trash and garbage they can use to smear Confederate heritage can provide it.
(1) Tell me how many gatherings, events, activities, etc., have the Sons of Confederate veterans sponsored and/or attended during the past, oh, say two years.

(1) Of that number, at how many did SCV members perpetrate violence, intimidation, inflammatory language, threats, and otherwise cause unsafe conditions for any facility or people?
I would prefer independently verifiable third party substantiation of said misbehavior be provided, but simply identifying the event, date and location -- and the misbehavior -- ought to be enough for me to verify it myself.

The point of my call for info, of course, is to show that the concerns of officials at the chapel are baseless at best, and made up, at worst.

So they've received inflammatory and threatening letters, emails and phone calls? So what? The notice doesn't give the slightest indication that they came from SCV members. 

Frankly, folks, I don't believe for a New York minute that officials at the chapel are concerned for the safety of the facility and its staff. I think this is a total fabrication designed to portray the SCV as bullies and dangerous, and the chapel staff as poor widdle innocent wictims.

They obviously don't give a flip about Lee and his legacy. They're happy to knuckle under and tarnish Lee and his legacy to appease spite activists.

And the closing of the chapel? That's pure spite, too.

Our heritage is in the hands of our enemies, who are determined to erase it -- enemies who hate us.

It's enough to bring on projectile vomiting.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

A Short Musical Interlude...

...before I get back to some kick-bootay bloggin'.

The artist here is Jonathan Butler, and these tunes are hauntingly beautiful, especially High Tide, which even has a bit of scatting. Barenese is the name of Butler's wife. Wikipedia notes that his music is classified as R&B, jazz fusion and worship music. These two tunes are smooth jazz.

Butler is from Cape Town, South Africa. Internet says he was born during apartheid, and lived in a cardboard shack with his parents and fifteen siblings, and grew up hungry.

Unfortunately, many in SA who experienced the same thing then aren't faring much better under the ANC now. Like so many other places where do-gooder collectivism, socialism and/or communism has gone to "help" the poor and oppressed, the only ones who are really helped are those who seize power. I've read from several sources in SA that a great many blacks are actually worse off now than they were under apartheid.

I hope any family he has remaining in South Africa are enjoying better days.

These beautiful sounds are from 1987.

High Tide


Sunday, July 20, 2014

Unused Reading Rooms at W&L In the News?

Referring to the comment thread following Is This Why He Sends Flowers to a Funeral?,  this is what I mean by Tu Quoque throwing in everything but the kitchen sink.  He sez, "The flags are not with anyone, anymore. Yet, they used to be on a daily basis among the student body. Your argument that the flags stood in a secluded place on campus is sort of interesting. You make the location out to be an unused book room where only people in the know visited."

MY argument that the flags stood in a secluded place on campus? The "secluded place" was an alcove in the Lee Chapel with the statue, The Recumbent Lee. It's only been in the news and in the news and in the news.

The flags used to be "on a daily basis among the student body"?  The whole student body crowded into the Chapel on a daily basis? Or, more to the point, they crowded into that tiny alcove where the flags were -- on a daily basis?
An unused book room? Where in the heck did he get that? Somebody check through my comment (time stamped July 20, 2014 at 8:40 PM) and identify for me what he could possibly be misconstruing that way.

The committee is made up of civil rights wannabees. We know this because they took the name "the Committe" after the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The SNCC didn't pay attention to flags. Read about them here: SNCC.

These college kids at W&L are trying to create their own "glory days" -- imagining themselves the heirs of Stokely Carmichael, Julian Bond, John Lewis, Marion Barry, H.Rap Brown...

Ruscio caved because leftism has taken over academia.

Shrewd and smart both have multiple meanings. The meaning of "shrewd" I had in mind was "artful," and the meaning of "artful" I had in mind is 1. slyly crafty or cunning; deceitful; tricky

But after reading this risible crap about unused book room and the rest of it, I may have to reassess my view that Bakur is shrewd.  He apparently is just a product of what passes for the educational establishment in this country....

Friday, July 18, 2014

Is This Why He Sends Flowers to a Funeral?

(I mean, assuming he does such a thing.)
~ Or ~


Link to any post where I have said,
"It’s not about honoring the past or Confederate heroes, it’s about making oneself feel self-righteous and mighty good. The display of the Confederate flag in the Lee Chapel is primarily to appease the living, not to honor the dead."
You have until July 30th to provide the link and the quote.

The reward? I will make no posts on Backsass until January 1, 2015.

Rules: Copy and paste the passage I have written that says what Simpson claims.  Add a link to the post with the passage in it.  Put it in a comment following this post. Remember, the passage written by me has to say what Simpson has claimed, to wit:
"Remember, folks: as leading Confederate heritage advocate Connie Chastain says, it’s not about honoring the past or Confederate heroes, it’s about making oneself feel self-righteous and mighty good. The display of the Confederate flag in the Lee Chapel is primarily to appease the living, not to honor the dead.

Someone should remind the Virginia Flaggers of what Chastain says the next time they pretend that their display of Confederate banners is to honor the Confederate soldier … and that flying those banners is not something Lee would have liked in any case."
Yes, he flatout said "Connie Chastain says..." so you have to find where I have said, "... it’s not about honoring the past or Confederate heroes, it’s about making oneself feel self-righteous and mighty good." You can't link to some other post I have made and falsely spin/construe it to mean what Simpson has said. None of this, "Well, this means the same thing..." He said I said it. You have to find where I said it.

Everybody can tell already that Backsass will be going strong the rest of the year, because Simpson hasn't simply mis-understood or mis-reported what I said.

He is flatout lying. 

Here's what I said,
" ... the flags in the chapel alcove serve the same purpose as flowers at a funeral. They are for the living, for those who remember and honor."
For those who remember and honor Who really thinks that says, "'s not about honoring the past or Confederate heroes"? How is remembering and honoring not about honoring the past or Confederate heroes?

FOR THOSE WHO REMEMBER AND HONOR. Somehow, that went right over Simpson's head. Did he miss it? Or is he ignoring it in order to lie, defame, smear, denigrate and disparage? How did he get "making oneself feel self-righteous and mighty good," out of remembering and honoring?

The analogy I used was the act of sending flowers to a funeral. Now, maybe Simpson sends flowers in order to make himself feel self-righteous and mighty good (and it wouldn't surprise me at all); but most people do it to the memory and for the honor of the deceased.

(Note: As far as I can tell, the only appeasing going on is the administration at Washington and Lee appeasing a tiny, I mean tiny, handful of student spite-activists.)

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

The Texas Scalawag Speweth

People who have trouble with my analogies for The Committee's actions have nary a syllable to say about Andy's verbal excesses. Gee... I wonder why.

It Is Fascinating.... watch all the haters of  Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy telling us with such assurance what Lee was like... what he wanted, what he didn't want, what he intended, what he felt about his service to the Confederacy, and his service to Washington and Lee and, get this -- who and what he would like and approve of today, and who and what he would scorn.

The understanding that these people are totally missing -- I mean totally and completely missing -- is that the flags in the chapel alcove serve the same purpose as flowers at a funeral. They are for the living, for those who remember and honor.

So while the removal of the flags was done from the motive and desire of dishonoring Lee, it was done more as a boot heel in the teeth of those living today who honor him.  And while Lee-haters are experiencing a pleasurable buzz over the extreme dishonor smeared upon Lee, they are positively delirious with rapture over the bloody gums of Southern heritage supporters.

But what else can you expect from the civil war left?

Injecting a Little Reality...

...Into Flogger Assumptions

A recurrent theme in flogger flogs is the "failure" of heritage groups to stand against the tidal wave of destruction aimed at Confederate heritage by the American left. The VaFlaggers and the SCV failed in the flag prohibitions in Lexington; they failed to oust Mimi Elrod. Now they've failed re: the flags at W&L.

One thing these people seem to not understand (although I don't doubt for a minute that they indeed do understand, perfectly) is that in the last 40 to 60 years, the country has taken a  harrowing lurch leftward. It began with the transformation of America's colleges and universities by the likes of the Frankfurt School. It continued with Gramscian "organic intellectuals" conducting the long march though our culture's institutions. (see )

What happened? Well, there were certain aspects of American culture that needed improvement, no doubt.  No human endeavor is without flaws. But what happened was that the American left-- socialists, communists, collectivists, liberals -- saw an opportunity to do much more than improve the problem areas. They saw an opportunity to use the need for improvement, and the efforts toward improvement, to dismantle what they hated about the USA (religion, strong families, decency, tradition) and replace it with their vision.

The problem is that their vision is deeply destructive.

Americans of the baby boomer generation and younger have been robbed of their cognition. They've been taught to feel, not think.  They've been taught to have visceral reactions to certain perceptions -- what they've been told is "racism" and "sexism" and "homophobia."

The change did not come quickly. It was gradual, and took decades to bring about. But by now it is firmly entrenched. People who hold deeply to leftist tenets now control education, business and industry, the media and government -- even some churches.

Homosexual activist leaders admit that the true agenda behind "gay marriage" isn't "marrying who they love" because the majority of homosexuals prefer promiscuity. The true agenda is the destruction of the traditional family and the silencing of the churches.

The most ludicrous claim to come resounding from the left is that there's a war on women in the United States. The feminist movement has fabricated "rape culture," increasingly removed young men from colleges and universities, encourage women to divorce, take every penny they can squeeze out of their ex-husbands and instill in their children alienation from and hatred for their fathers. They, too, are doing what they can to destroy families and churches.

Hardly a day goes by in this country without "racism" being in the news. But the same news industry mutedly reports items confirming that it isn't white people who are motivated by a racial/racist agenda. And, overall, it is not people of color who are victimized by whites. Quite the opposite. But acknowledge that truth and you will be labeled "racist."

The enemies of Confederate heritage are liberally sprinkled throughout positions of authority in the South. Unless they're running for national office, most Southern, or "Southern", politicians don't campaign on a blatantly anti-Confederate heritage platform. There are still too many voters that would alienate. They wait until they are in office -- like Mimi Elrod --  to show their true anti-Confederate colors.

Southern universities are home to anti-Confederate faculties and administrators. And the hatred of Confederate heritage in the media rivals that in academia.

Our flags, monuments to our heroes, the commemoration of those heroes -- like our culture at large -- are in the hands of our enemies.  So of course standing up to them is not going to accomplish much.

At least, not yet.

It took decades -- two or three generations -- for the left to get where it is today. And it will take a long time to undo the destruction. But each "defeat" re: Confederate heritage, brings the reality about the left's war on Southern culture and heritage to the attention of ever more people. Those big flags flying proudly beside highways across Dixie, without bringing war, pestilence, the renewal of slavery, and all sorts of horrors in the gloom and doom predictions of critics, awakens more Southerners to their heritage, to how much of it has been lost, and why it needs to be preserved and restored.

So go ahead and gloat while you can, Andy, Brooks, Kevin, Al -- along with your peanut galleries and wannabes -- about heritage "defeats."  Because they are destined to end.  They're already ending. (See the license plate victory for the Texas SCV.)

My Stuff Came In!!!

Got my cameras, got my floppies, got my floppy drive. What fun! The late 1990s digital photo technology is still amazingly good. The pictures aren't as good as the ones my husband's Fine Pix camera shoots, but they're better than the ones my Fine Pix camera turns out.

Here are some "point and shoot" images I made without doing any adjustments to the camera settings.

This is Flipper (so called because he lays on his back and flips from one side to the other a lot) -- aka Old Blue Eyes, aka The Chairman of the Board. You can tell he's a boy cat just looking at his face.

These images are shot from my yard.

It has been sixteen years since I first used a Sony Mavica MVC FD-73 when I was a campaign volunteer for Joe Scarborough. I experimented a lot, shot under a variety of circumstances ("town hall" meetings, his kids' T-ball games, interior, exterior, flash, no flash...) There aren't a lot of settings on the camera, but I will have to re-acquaint myself with the few there are, to get the most out of my new old cameras.

But it sure beats that lame Fine Pix with its blurry images....

Monday, July 14, 2014

Symbols and Smears

If you compare symbols, you compare what they stand for.  Don't say you don't.  If you compare a Nazi swastika to a Confederate battle flag, you are comparing Nazis and Confederates. You are comparing what Nazis did with what Confederates did, and likely to attempt to draw similarities between the two.

Comparing symbols without comparing what they symbolize reduces you to, "Well, this one is red, white and blue, and that one is red, white and black." Ludicrous.

Simpson has a post up doing just that -- comparing a Confederate flag with a swastika, and he attempts to forestall criticism with this, " not invoke Godwin’s Law, for in this case the issue is the use of symbols, not an argument that the Confederates were Nazis or vice-versa. That’s not an argument I would make."

Actually, that's exactly what he's doing.

He's leading up to the utterly risible notion that Confederate heritage people should join forces with the Raelians, a "religious" group, who are attempting to rehabilitate the swastika. Sez Simpson, "It would seem to me that there might be some common ground here for people who decry “political correctness” and “presentism” and “revisionism” in their advocacy of flying Confederate flags to join forces with the pro-Swastika crowd. Both groups argue that their cherished symbol has been twisted out of context to represent something it never was meant to represent."

I don't believe for a New York minute that "it would seem" that way to him. This is just a typical, visceral Simpson smear job of Confederate heritage.

He says, "There’s not a lot of difference between a group that wants to rehabilitate a symbol used by a hate group in the twentieth century and a group that wants to rehabilitate a flag used by a hate group in the twentieth century … just ask Matthew Heimbach."

Let's examine how utterly ridiculous this is... Two "hate groups" in the 20th century is so idiotic I have to wonder if Simpson doesn't know he's assassinating his own intelligence by making this claim.

First, the swastika, as he means it, symbolizes the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which existed from 1920 to 1945. They were a political party that came to power in Germany and took control of the government.  The party's leader, Adolf Hitler, established a totalitarian government. Under his dictatorship, Germany aligned with the Axis powers during WWII, and sought to maintain power by imprisoning and/or exterminating groups it considered to be a threat to the "master race."

That is, in a nutshell, what the Nazi swastika symbolizes. I make a point here of noting that it is a far more complex subject than my recap covers, because Simpson has a history of wallowing in derision (because he loves derisi-gasms) when I write a recap of a historical era or event, implying that I'm ignorant of what isn't covered in the recap.

The Ku Klux Klan, on the other hand, has had three incarnations. The first started in 1865 as social club for a handful of Confederate veterans in Tennessee. It grew into a vigilante group protecting ex-Confederates from the excesses of Reconstruction, but it devolved into violence, and was disbanded by its leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest. Since Simpson confined his comment to the twentieth century, this incarnation is not pertinent to this discussion.

The second incarnation -- the first incarnation in the 20th century --  was a nationwide fraternal group organized at the national and state level. With a membership in the millions, it was anti-Catholic, nativistic and sometimes, at the local level, violent.

The third KKK -- the second incarnation of the 20th century, which is likely what Simpson is zeroed in on -- arose in the South in the middle of the century in response to the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation. It was not organized much beyond the local area, and it was extremely violent and used terrorist methods.

Since the 1960s, the KKK has been heavily infiltrated by FBI informants. who numbered in the thousands. It has steadily lost power since then, but it is still filled by government informants, which sometimes make up entire local chapters, and holds leadership positions in others,

Obviously, it is ludicrous to imply that the Third Reich and the KKK both "hate groups" to further the implication being that there's little to no difference between them. Simpson's reason for making himself look stupid this way seems to be so he can use one of his weasel phrases --  "Just ask..."  In this case, "Just as Matt Heimbach,"

Exactly what are we supposed to ask Matthew Heimbach? What's the difference between Nazi Germany and the KKK? Why ask him? You can find out everything you need to know by going to Wikipedia. And if you do a little additional surfing, you'll find out tons more stuff about it.

So why bring up Heimbach? Well, Heimbach is a tar-dipped brush Simpson loves to use to smear people with. Usually it's the VaFlaggers, for whom he harbors the worst hate and bile. But in this case, it happens to be SCV CIC Michael Givens, because one time he and Heimbach had a picture made together at some event or another. And in the flogger mentality, smearing Givens smears the whole organization he leads.

But as the flog post wraps up, we see who Simpson actually has in his crosshairs. Sez Simpson, "After all,..." (another weasel phrase) "...what is the difference between this..." and he posts a photo, below, of the proSwastika group's symbols on an airplane banner, and continues with "and this?" after which he posts a photo, also below, of the Virginia Memorial Flag at Fredericksburg.

The implication -- the pretense -- is that he's comparing groups trying to "rehabilitate" a symbol.  Tissue-thin cover for what he's really doing -- smearing the Confederate flag with the swastika because they both have proponents -- and, by extension, smearing those proponents. Namely, the Virginia Flaggers. Ludicrous.

His peanut gallery responses range from incredulity to more derision. I won't mention any of them -- they're just sooo obvious -- except from Kristen "Wonder Woman" Schroeder, who says, "There are those symbols that have too much “hate” attached to them – rehabilitation is not an option. These people need to find new symbols and stop with the sand pounding."

I could tell her it's not her prerogative to decide that for other people. I could say that Americans need to find a new symbol because the starzenstripes is smeared with the hate and destruction of the most powerful government in the world -- which attempted to genocide the Plains Indians, put others in concentration camps artfully called "reservations" in conditions worse than plantation slavery, which did put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, which destroyed the black family with "welfare", and which aided and/or allowed horrific torture in Central and South America during the Cold War.

 But I won't bother with Shroeder/Konate more than that... She forfeited whatever moral high ground she thought she had when she put her home address on Facebook and then accused Barry and Grayson of doing it.

For those who are unclear, or blinded by Simpson's implications, let me give you just a few vast differences between Nazis and Confederates...

There were nine million Jews in Europe before the Third Reich -- three million afterward. By contrast, the black population in the United States, before the war, during it, and afterward -- both during slavery and after emancipation -- grew at basically the same rate as the USA's white population. Some sources I've read said it grew at a rate of 7% during the war -- and that's with privation the entire South suffered under.

There were no concentration camps that slaves were herded into in the Confederate states. Inmates in death camps were worked to death and/or given rations scientifically calculated to starve them in three months. By contrast, American slaves ate much the same thing white people ate -- at least, in the South. What they ate is called "soul food" today and it's viewed very positively -- tasty and nutritious, if rather high in starch.

Laws in various states mandated that slave owners support aged slaves who were no longer able to work and that pregnant slaves be given lighter duties. I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that my opinion is right in line with reality; and my opinion is that those who would claim Confederates were on a par with Nazis are engaging in hate speech.

The attempts to smear the VaFlaggers is unspoken or implied hate speech, as well. The only reason anybody would portray the VaFlaggers, even by implication, as on a part with Nazi apologists is the hope that their smears would incite somebody to harm or injure the VaFlaggers.

If you think that's not the desire and aim, you tell me what you think it is.

(Simpson can't tell the difference between these two photos, or the two groups responsible for them. At least, he wants to convince his followers that there's no difference. )


The Taliban destroyed historic commemoration....

ISIS destroyed historic commemoration.

As Kevin Levin sez, "The Committee's work."

Destroying historic commemoration.

And for what?

Spite. Pure spite.

Big Congrats, Texas SCV!!

Appeals court rules in favor of Confederate flag license plate

Austin—The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Texas branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has the right to have the state issue license plates adorned with the Confederate battle flag.  More

I guess all the bleedin' heart liberals in Texas who were gloating about the plate's defeat last year are cryin' in their beers tonight. Yes, the decision can be appealed. but people who've watched these license plates fights in other states know the SCV always wins.


A Quick Observation...

...before I go fix supper.

Prohibitions and censorings are not inclusion. People who say they champion diversity and inclusion and then practice prohibitions and censorings (particularly by manipulating authorities) are not speaking the truth. Their actions tell the truth.

Simpson Screws Up

Someone Simpson is trying to disparage (which is what Simpson gets off on most) sez:
After all, under the United States flag, slavery did start in this country. Anyone want to challenge that statement here in an open debate? Brooks, Baker, Mackey, Hall????? Any of you willing to step to the plate????
Simpson's risible reply:
Well, as it’s now MLB’s All Star Week, here I come.

Slavery did not start in what we now call the United States under the flag of the United Sates. Rather, African slavery began in British North America in the seventeenth century, and was present in each of the thirteen colonies at the time of the composition of the Declaration of Independence.
You see what the problem is, don't you? The original poster wasn't talking about when slavery started in British North America, was he? He explicitly said in this country.  Let me reiterate -- not in British North America, but in this country.

And in this country, the United States of America, slavery started when the country did -- and, thus, it started under the United States flag.  Slavery in this country, the USA, could not have started before the country did, regardless of when it started in British North America.

See, what you have here is a deliberate "misunderstanding" of what the original poster said, just so Simpson can get off on disparagement, which he evidently loves.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

(Updated) Spite Activism

“Students don’t have to sit in the same room as the flags anymore. I feel like we made a tremendous difference.” Brandon Hicks, "Committee" member

Students didn't have to sit in the same room as the flags before, brilliant law student. In fact, couldn't sit in the same room as the flags... There is no place to sit -- no chairs, benches, stools, anything, in the alcove where the flags were.
"Sitting 'in the room' of the Chapel - one cannot see any flags, you racist bigot. In fact, there isn't even any chairs in the room where 'Recumbent Lee' resides"  Billy Bearden, Georgia & Virginia Flagger

Absolutely right, Billy. I was going to do a
photoshopped "before and after" pics of the alcove as seen from the chapel, with and without the flags, to show how little difference it makes, viewed from the chapel auditorium.  I couldn't, because in the "before" picture, the flags can't be seen, anyway.

Mr. Brandon Hicks is quite the activist, having been a speaker at "Race for the Ballot," a forum against the homosexual marriage ban.  Reports Pam's House Blend, "One of the kickoff sites is North Carolina Central University’s Student Union and Law School, which hosted a forum moderated by student leader of NCCU’s LGBT group COLORS, Brandon Hicks..."

Hmmm.... If Mr. Hicks was a law student at NCCU, why did he switch to W&L? I'm not saying I think he deliberately switched schools just to engage in spite-activism against Lee and the flags ... but then again, I'm not saying I don't think that.

"These are huge steps. We are ecstatic."  Brandon Hicks to CNN

Steps? Plural? What other steps is he referring to? IOW, what's next? The statue? The family crypt and Traveler? The name?

Floggers and other would say it's his right... maybe it is a right, but that doesn't make it right, ya know?

It's one thing to work to change the world for better, but attempting to re-write history, from spite, and doing things that weaken and tear at the family -- the basic unit of society without which a society crumbles -- are not working to change the world for the better. 

Sorry, it's just not.

Brandon, if you want to do something really beneficial, go to the country's southern border and help take care of the multitudes of sick and unsupervised children our government has separated from their parents, and help get them back to their real homes.

The newest faces of legalistic bullying.

H/T to Brooks Simpson for correcting my erroneous assumption that Brandon Hicks was a law student at NCCU, based on a passage at "Pam's House Blend."

Since Hicks is a law student, and was involved in a forum at NCCU's Student Union and LAW SCHOOL, I assumed he was a law student there, and since he's now a law student at W&L, I assumed he switched universities as a law student. 

It's a simple mistake anybody could have made unless they're the type who "tiptoes" through the Internet with a find-toothed comb, looking for things they can lie about and/or humiliate people with. (That's one of the differences between me and the floggers and floggerettes; I make mistakes. They're dishonest. [See How Dishonest Can Floggers Get?])

I myself did not fine-tooth comb "Pam's House Blend" (like Simpson did) to ascertain any more about Mr. Hicks, such as the years of his education. I had all the info I needed about him, and as I am not interested in homosexual activism, I did not read much beyond the passage I copied here.

But my suspicions remain about whether Mr. Hick chose W&L specifically to lead an Alinsky-ish attack on the flags and General Lee -- regardless of whether he came as a laws student or an undergrad.

I certainly believe I am right about Mr. Hicks' and the committee's motives, based on two, very telling comments he made reported in the press.  Although neither I nor anyone else I've discussed this with feel personally threatened, since the committee did issue a threat, it seems logical to see them as a threat.

I'm not sure why Simpson thinks I'm humiliated though. Simply because he tried to humiliate me, I guess. And yes, he does love to try to humiliate people, to harass, to denigrate, to disparage. He really gets off on that... kinda like the committee apparently gets off on spite activism...

Thursday, July 10, 2014

This 'n' That, July 10, 2014

Corey, I'm not going to "friend" Lucas Goodman, Caleb Granger or Michael Addams on Facebook, capisce? Nor any of your other fraudulent profiles, capisce? Act like an adult. Give. It. Up.

FOLLOW UP:  Deny it till doomsday, Corey. You're a proven liar.


From the Old Virginia blog: "Some Boston bloggers are deflecting some of the criticisms about this issue by trumpeting the fact that W & L will be displaying the original flags in the museum below Lee Chapel.  So? That could have been done without removing the other flags."


The floggers have shown their true interest in the W&L brouhaha. The Virginian Flaggers. I'm not making this up.  Levin takes this affront to all Southerners, this desecration of the greatest Southerner who ever lived, this defeat for the entire region, and what does he make of it? 

A defeat for the Virginia Flaggers. 

I kid you not. 

Your field of view is a little bit narrow, there, iddinit Kevin?


A Letter to W&L University

The writer, Bill Dennison, posted this letter to Facebook and noted that contact information was removed because Facebook does not allow it. The letter is reproduced here with Mr. Dennison's kind permission.
July 10, 20114

Mr. Kenneth Ruscio, President
Washington and Lee University

Mr. Daniel Wubah, Provost
Washington and Lee University

Mr. James D. Farrar, Jr., Secretary of the University
Washington & Lee University

Ms. Katherine Brinkley, Executive Assistant to the Board of Trustees
Washington & Lee University

Re: Restriction and Removal of Southern Confederacy Related Items, Action and Speech

Dear Sirs and Madam:

The purpose of this letter is to express my concern regarding action(s) announced by President Ruscio relative to the Army of Northern Virginia regimental flag replicas surrounding the Edward Valentine sculpture, "The Recumbent Lee", the Lee-Jackson Day parade entering onto the Washington & Lee campus and the censorship of presentations made by private groups in Lee Chapel.

Straying a bit from the heart of the matter at hand, I would point out two things that I would have thought would have been obvious. First, because of the location in Lexington of Gen. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s home, his burial place and the presence of the Virginia Military Institute where Jackson taught and which produced many renowned Confederate leaders, coupled with the fact that the final resting place of Gen. Robert E. Lee is on the campus of Washington and Lee University that many credit Lee with saving from extinction because of his efforts there, people throughout the South, the nation and the world hold the City of Lexington as an almost iconic place and travel great distances to visit.

With that thought in mind, I would submit that while the physical location of the flags and the others symbols of the Confederacy may be situate on the Washington & Lee campus, in a larger sense they belong to the people of this country, particularly those of us who happen to be Southern and especially we Virginians.

I know that "The Committee" claims, that the flags symbolize slavery and because of that they find them “offensive”. I would submit to you that a thorough review of Confederate history will demonstrate conclusively that the issues were, and are, far more complex than that simplistic viewpoint and that these people are “offended” primarily because they choose to be. In fact, one of them, at least, was in his third year of law school before the "offense" became intolerable. Contrary to current "progressive" thought, no one has an unalienable right not to be offended. To paraphrase a comment from another who opined on the matter, for a student holding sentiments such as those of "The Committee" to apply to and attend a university named Washington and Lee is akin to someone enlisting in the Navy when they know they are prone to seasickness.

I included this observation in an earlier letter, but I think it bears repeating. The targeted flags are regimental battle flags representing some of the regiments that Lee commanded in the Army of Northern Virginia. They are soldiers' flags, not, as many would have you believe, symbolic of anything other than the brotherhood of valor that comprised that gallant body of men, Lee's "boys". Those flags are there representing the devotion and respect of those veterans for their old commander, "Marse Robert".

President Ruscio's statement that, " “The purpose of historic flags in a university setting is to educate. They are not to be displayed for decoration, which would diminish their significance, or for glorification, or to make a statement about past conflicts . The reproductions are not genuinely historic, nor are they displayed with any information or background about what they are. The absence of such explanation allows those who either ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ them to assert their own subjective and frequently incorrect interpretations.”, is disingenuous at best and a bald-faced distortion of the true history of how the flags came to be there in the first place, and why. They were not placed there to be "in a university setting" at all. They were placed there to honor the man who led those regiments and the fact that the current flags are reproductions and have no information or background regarding them is moot . . . neither did the originals and the reason there are reproductions there at all is because the originals were deteriorating. The entire statement is pure spin, and amateurishly done at that.

Finally we get to the "marching" and the addresses in the Chapel. The only "marching" that transpires is a single event on a single day out of an entire calendar year is by people who gather in Lexington for the Lee-Jackson Day parade and memorial service in Lee Chapel. This is done solely to honor the memory and service of two great Virginians, not to espouse or advance any agenda. Whether "The Committee" likes it or not, Lee Chapel is an icon, a beacon that draws people from all walks of life and from all parts of the country for this one hour service, once a year. To deny them this privilege for the sake of the demands of .4 of 1% of the total enrollment of the institution is outrageous.

The final restriction on what may or may not be said during lectures or presentations in Lee Chapel is pure, unadulterated censorship, completely out-of-place in a venue where freedom of thought and expression should be encouraged and defended.

This entire exercise in nothing but a thinly veiled effort by the university administration to kowtow to the racially charged demands of a vocal minority and relegate salient portions of the true history of the university to the dustbin of history. It is unfair, unwarranted, based largely on fallacy and is, above all, cowardly.

Very truly yours,

W. A. Dennison, Jr.
I will have more to say about this, and other W&L related items in future posts. ~Connie