Sunday, January 11, 2015

He Couldn't CHECK First?

An interesting e-mail exchange ....

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:57:13 -0600
From: "Connie Ward" <>
To: "editor" <>

Subject: Olaf, did you have Susan Hathaway's permission

 .... to reprint her battle flag article?
Please let me know the answer to this ASAP.

Connie Ward

* * * * * * * * * *

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:42:50 -0600
From: "Olaf Childress" <>
To: "Connie Ward"  <>

Greetings, Connie. No, I thought it was in the public domain. Why, is she angry or something?
(Emphasis added. --cw)

In a hate-post attacking Susan Hathway (Yeah, another one. Again.) at XRoads, Simpson says:
Over the years Crossroads has carefully documented the ties between the Virginia Flaggers and various white supremacist and nationalist  movements. There’s no need to revisit that now.
Complete bullcrap. There are no such ties. What there is, is Simpson stalking the internet looking for any crumb he can distort, spin, stretch and magnify into hate-based slander against the VaFlaggers, especially Susan Hathaway. (And why? Why are they ANY of his business? They've never done anything to him.)
"... recent information shared with Crossroads merits attention ... and once more raises serious questions about the company Hathaway and the Flaggers keep in their efforts to “promote” Confederate heritage ..."
Shared by whom? <Gasp!> He doesn't say! Imagine that! Why is he presumably unwilling to identify his informant? Would people have doubts about the veracity of the information if they knew who was supplying it? But this mega-super-hypocrite gets all bent out of shape with my protecting the identity of a Flagger visitor to Pensacola...

Pots and kettles, motes and beams, and all that... (Brooks D. Simpson -- the "D" stands for Double-Standard, y'all).

And he obviously didn't even TRY to document this latest attack on Susan, although contact info is right there on the First Freedom website. I know this because I sought, and obtained, information crucial, indeed essential, to his claim in a little over 24 hours. The info: that the editor of The First Freedom neither sought nor received permission to reprint Susan's article. His email implies he had no contact with her whatever.

Frankly, Simpson's failure -- or is it refusal? -- to verify whether he was publishing the truth or not THIS time is, in my opinion, nothing new. I don't recall him ever revealing his sources who "share" dirt and crap with him that he throws at the Flaggers from the safety of his Arizona blog. Maybe he did, but it was too infrequent to remember. I also don't recall him ever posting verification of what he claims. Instead of verification, he uses gooey glibness, language manipulation, innuendo, distortion, omission, and outright lies.

So his boasting about "careful documentation" is simply another of his Long, Long List of Lies.

I have been unable to determine when the January 2015 issue of The First Freedom went online. I suspect it was on or before January 6, as that is the only date my browser could find associated with either the .html or .pdf documents. It is identified as the date modified, which admittedly may have nothing to do with upload date.

In any case, I suspect Simpson didn't have the information in question on January 7 or earlier, or he would have posted it then, with quivering eagerness and excitement, instead of the hum-drum, yawn-yawn post about a "short essay" he prepared for Arizona Humanities, blah-blah-blah that appeared on the 8th..

Another day goes by before he posts, on January 9, a diatribe titled Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers: In Bed With AntiSemite White Supremacists?

The question-mark is one of those plausible deniability devices ("Hey! I didn't SAY she was. I just ASKED if she was!"). In that post he says, among other things:
It is only when one examines The First Freedom’s monthly newsletter that we discover something that should trouble people who claim that Crossroads has been unfair to Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers.
"Unfair" doesn't begin to describe it. It takes the following to begin to describe the evidence of Simpson's hatred of the VaFlaggers, especially Susan Hathaway: lies, innuendo, denigration, harassment, intimidation, persecution. Yep, that begins to describe it.

Now, y’all know how this will go. Connie Chastain will scream and rant;
Absolutely. He's lying and attacking and trying to hurt and injure Susan and the VaFlaggers; that needs to be exposed, and I'm happy to do it.

But I did more than scream and rant. I emailed the editor of The First Freedom. My email and the reply are posted above -- and they prove that Simpson's hatred of Susan Hathaway is so strong, he's so eager -- nay, he's so deeply and voraciously desirous -- of attacking and smearing her that he can't take the time or go to the trouble of verifying his attacks.
Susan Hathaway will lose her voice;
Susan has never lost her voice. Not deigning to address Simpson's lies and filth is not losing her voice. But it does get his goat. Bigtime.
...and others will counterattack …
Absolutely. He's attacking, and needs to be counter-attacked, and I'm happy to do it.
...but they won’t denounce, and they won’t disassociate themselves from their comrades.
There is no association to disassociate from.
Ask Matthew Heimbach.
Ask him WHAT?

As for Susan's "silence" and refusal to "disavow" anything, nobody is asking her to do that except people who hate her.  Everyone who knows her knows that her very LIFE is a disavowal of what Simpson and others mendaciously claim.


In the comment thread following is lyin' blog post, Simpson sez,

"The associations are not imaginary. They are documented."

No, they're not. What Simpson is calling "documentation" is photos and snippets of video made at public events, that take anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or so to make.  That's not an association

Associations are with people who show up on the Boulevard every week, twice a week, for THREE-PLUS YEARS. People who fellowship together, who hold each other in high esteem, commemorate the passing of members and who visit to console the families, who clear the cemeteries where their ancestors are buried, who help each other, encourage each other, and deeply care about one another. (And who volunteer time, money and work to the Interstate battle flags projects.)

"Indeed, one of the great things about the Virginia Flaggers is that they expose these associations themselves."
In addition to the above activities, they attend public heritage events. They can't control the guest list unless it's their own event, so anyone can show up, and they sometimes get photographed together. Simpson, apparently in all seriousness (or else in total intentional deceit, I'll let you decide which) takes a handful of photos and videos where this has happened, and totally ignores the dozens, nay, the hundreds of photos and videos of VaFlaggers that truly document associations. (If the handful of photos he has posted documented associations, he'd have lots more photos, new ones posted online all the time, so he wouldn't have to keep posting the same handful year after year to try to make his case. In scientific terms, what he does is known as 'grasping at straws'.)

"Recall how Tripp Lewis called Matthew Heimbach a “good guy”? How would he know if there was no association?" 
By observation? A conclusion drawn based on Heimbach's wanting to participate in a heritage event? Does this highly edumucated professor of academia seriously believe one can only draw conclusions about another person unless they have an association with them?

"And here’s Susan smiling on the streets of Lexington with another white nationalist, Shane Long:"

So, Shane Long is at a heritage event, and sees the well-known VaFlagger founder and asks to have a selfie made with her, and it takes all of five seconds and that's what Simpson conceptualizes as an association?  The time it takes to snap a selfie with somebody? Is this little man for real?
"We are used to Connie lying and dissembling. She confuses her persistence in these endeavors with skill in practicing them."

Well, I was taught not to lie when I was growing up. I was taught that it is charged with grave, eternal consequences, so I don't do it. Thus, if I tried to, I wouldn't be any good at it. But I don't lie or dissemble, Simpson. So I guess what you're mistaking for my unskilled dissembling is your own malicious delusions.

" is the case with her writing."

 If that's a reference to blogs and FB writings, it's wrong. My writing is at least as skilled as Simpson's. (Note: dull, dry, academic writing isn't the only writing that falls under "skillful.") If it's a reference to my novels, it's also wrong. The only people I've ever encountered who say my novel writing isn't skilled are (a) people who haven't read my novels and (2) people who are motivated by animosity for the author. Simpson fits into both categories, as his fraudulent reviews of my novels on Amazon attest.

"Now, either Connie speaks for Susan or she does not. If she does, then her flailing around amounts to a “no comment.” If she doesn’t, then let Susan speak for herself."

As if he would believe it, even if Susan did say it. In fact, I do not speak FOR Susan, but I certainly speak in her defense. But what he calls my "flailing around" was actually action he didn't know was occurring -- my contacting the editor of the tabloid newspaper and awaiting a reply -- and it resulted in proof of Simpson's lies and his animosity that spawns them.

"So thanks, Connie. I’m sure the media coverage in Lexington will find this information … informative."

Have you sent it to the media covering Lexington? Do you imagine they'll report it without verifying it with the tabloid's editor, the way you were so slaveringly itchy to do? If you send it to them, and they contact the editor, do you imagine they might find it more informative (and a lot more interesting) to ask why some mendacious professor over a thousand miles away is sending them slanderous material....

Go back to soporific history writing, Simpson,  and you won't have to endure me exposing your lies and what lies behind them -- your ugly animosity for people you don't even know, and who have never done a thing to you. 

My posts below prove Flogger lies (i.e, Simpson's lies) about Heimbach and the VaFlaggers. Yes, it's old news, but as long as he keeps beating this dead horse, I can keep showcasing his baseball-bat fury.


  1. Simpson sez, "Note Connie’s continuing obsession with sex"

    Sex a metaphor for all kinds of things, used throughout history and literature, Mr. Edumucated Professor. You didn't know?

    "Note also that she does not know anything–she thinks, but she doesn’t know."

    At the time I wrote that, I didn't know; but that was exactly what I thought, and it turns out I was right.

    "Think she’s going to ask?"

    Oh, but I did ask, and the answer I got proves you're a liar. So now I know -- and so do you, and everyone who reads this.

  2. Connie,

    I checked out the First Freedom website. I didn't see Childress making any racist statements or calling for a whole region of people to be wiped out.

    Please help me out and point me to racist article. Perhaps Shrimpson will help???

    1. George, at the top of the website, under the name, there's a large red button that says Click Here. It opens the PDF copy of the tabloid newspaper.

    2. Connie,

      I am sorry but at a glance, I just don't see the racism. I found nothing no worse than what might be said by Sharpton, Obama, Holder, Jackson or Buck over on Crossroads.

      In short I am asking where exactly does Shrimpson find the hate and racism. Even he displays hate and bigotry. Is this just his opinion???? I do understand you cant speak for him but---

      Now the media is on the free speech kick ----------------

  3. Just more of Simpson's base mendacity.

  4. Yankees don't lie. Everything they say is true, because they said so. The sky is blue, but if they say it's green, it's green. Only their reality is the real. The rest of us are lying or deluded. Or too stupid to know the difference.

  5. Simpson only has influence with his fellow floggers and peanut gallery. Collectively, they're a tick on a cow's but.

    1. BR, what are you saying? That the media in Lexington are not jumping up and down, waiting to hear from him? LOL!


Comments are welcome, but monitored.