Sunday, December 27, 2015

Jazz Interlude

Incredible. Two men and two pianos and that's all. No strings no horns or woodwinds, no percussion. 

I've looked for these songs on YouTube for years. I recently discovered they were uploaded just three months ago. I've had this album/CD since the mid-1990s and it's one of my favorites and I really wanted to share it online. Now I can! There are some songs on it I like better than others, but none I dislike.

I heard the title tune, We Meet Again, on a local jazz station probably in 1993 or so and bought the album for that, but discovered other tunes I liked, too. Nigerian Marketplace (written by Oscar Peterson), is a very close second favorite.  Django and Cooking at the Continental are great, too.

There is so much ambience and memory/emotion/nostalgia wrapped up in these tunes. Some bittersweet, and We Meet Again, has a haunting, dark quality to it. It was written for these two great pianists, Ramsey Lewis and Billy Taylor, for this album, by Chick Corea.

If you like crossover jazz, enjoy!

Nigerian Marketplace (Oscar Peterson)

We Meet Again (Chick Corea)

Django (John Lewis)

Cooking at the Continental (Horace Silver)

I Guess I'm Just A Lucky So And So (Duke Ellington)

Friday, December 18, 2015

Setting Another Simpson Commenter Straight

In a comment thread following a post about the monument removal effort in New Orleans, a commenter sez:
The slave owners (sic) rebellion is at last understood for what it was.
It wasn't a slave owners' rebellion. Only about 12% of Southerners owned slaves, but huge numbers of non-slave owners fought -- didn't rebel, but fought -- to protect families, homes and communities from a barbaric army of invasion.
The largest act of treason and sedition in American history.
Nope. No treason. Only those who owe allegiance to the US can commit treason; Southerners no longer owed allegiance to the US after their states seceded.
There is nothing glorious or of value in extolling the virtues of the slave owning South.
There is great glory and value in extolling the virtues of the Southern men who fought to defend families, homes and communities from a brutal military invasion, and who fought for their country's political independence.
Take these monuments and break them up.
No. The answer is no.
In so doing we can take one step away from the idea of state rights and the embedded racism behind America’s shame.
Shame? Then remove every monument to the US government and its military because whatever sins one believes are attached to the Confederacy, the same and worse are attached to the United States.

The USA was born in treason and rebellion. Confederacy -- slavery for 4 years. Under the US flag -- slavery for 89 years... this in a country founded on "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with ... liberty." Northern states abolished slavery within their borders, (but sold rather than freed their slaves, mostly to reduce their states' black populations) but they were still armpit deep in slavery. Northern textile interests got rich processing Southern, slave-grown cotton in their mills. New England maritime interests got rich shipping Southern, slave-grown cotton to Europe. Northern banks got rich financing the purchase of plantations and slaves, and northern insurance companies got rich insuring slaves. If the north had really wanted to end slavery, they didn't have to send an army to kill Southerners. All they had to do was quit buying the cotton. They didn't.

Remove all items that honor the US government because of its official policy of killing off the buffalo to genocide red people -- the Plains Indians -- by starvation and take their land for white settlers; and for confining more red people to concentration camps artfully known as "reservations" in conditions worse than plantation slavery; the same government that imprisoned Japanese Americans -- yellow people -- in concentration camps during WWII.  Grind to dust every monument to the US military, which dropped the atom bomb on more yellow people ... and the government and military which fought and killed, and still fights and kills, brown people in the Middle East.

America's shame continues, but not everything called "racism" is racism; and not everything bad that happened is because of "embedded racism." And you'd better not be so anxious to vaporize states rights because that's one of the few things that will keep the federal government -- already colossal and incomprehensibly dangerous -- from becoming a terrifying totalitarian force nobody is safe from.

I repeat; whatever sins one believes are attached to the Confederacy, the same and worse are attached to the United States. That is truth. Deal with it.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Correcting Brooks Simpson's Commenter

Some commenter at Simpson's blog answers an earlier comment about secession this way:
 Which is it? Some pro-secessionists say because the Constitution doesn’t say anything about secession, it’s legal. Others say the 9th and 10th Amendments make secession legal. Neither are (sic) correct. Which I guess underlines why they can’t get their stories straight.

Although, if you are saying secession is legal through the Constitution, then Article 1, Sec. 10 says it isn’t.
This is incorrect, as we shall see. It's not about legalities and illegalities. It's about prohibitions. Secession is not prohibited to the states. The power to prohibit secession is not delegated to the US, thus it is not prohibited.

Article 1, Section 10, which he cites, sez:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
"No state..." it sez. Now, first let's establish what states this referring to. Obviously, the individual states of the United States. Not, say, Chihuahua or Sonora in Mexico. Or the Canadian provinces (Canada's "states") like Ontario or Manitoba, or the states of any other country. Just the United States. Can we agree on that?

The 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
The powers prohibited to the states are identified in Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution. Secession is not among them, so it is not prohibited.

The power to prohibit secession is not listed among the powers delegated to the United States, so it is not prohibited.

Secession is withdrawal -- formal withdrawal. Per, to secede is to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.

What one does after withdrawing is not part of the withdrawing, correct?

Now, look carefully at Article 1, Section 10 again....
  • Entering into a treaty, alliance or confederation is not secession, i.e., not formal withdrawal.
  • Granting letters of Marque and Reprisal is not secession, i.e., not formal withdrawal.
  • Coining money is not secession, i.e., not formal withdrawal.
  • Emiting bills of credit is not secession, i.e., not formal withdrawal.
  • Making something besides gold or silver coins tender for payment of debts is not secession, i.e., not formal withdrawal.
  • Passing any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts is not secession, i.e., not formal withdrawal.
  • Granting titles of nobility is not secession, i.e., not formal withdrawal.
Obviously, Article 1, Sec. 10 does not make secession illegal.

The commenter is trying to de-legitimize the states of the Confederacy by saying they violated some or all of the provisions of Section 10, particularly entering into a Confederation. But what he is not taking into consideration is that none of the Confederate states did any of these things while they were still states of the USA and parties to the Constitution. They did some of them after they seceded, when the Constitution and those Article 1, Section 10 prohibitions no longer applied to them -- when they were no more a state of the USA than Chihuahua or Manitoba...

The Confederacy was formed on February 4, 1861. The following states were admitted to the CSA on February 8, 1861. The date beside each state is the date it seceded from the union and was no longer subject to Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution, or any other Section, Article or Paragraph of that document. Thus, none of them entered into a Confederation while they were still subject to the US Constitution.

Admitted to the Confederacy February 8, 1861:

South Carolina: which seceded December 20, 1860
Mississippi: which seceded January 9, 1861
Florida: which seceded January 10, 1861
Alabama: which seceded January 11, 1861
Georgia: which seceded January 19, 1861
Louisiana: which seceded January 26, 1861
Texas: which seceded February 1, 1861

The following list shows states that were admitted to the Confederacy later. The date they seceded from the union is shown first, followed by the date of admission to the CSA, clearly establishing that none of them violated Article 1, Section 10, either.

Virginia: seceded April 17, 1861. Admitted to the CSA May 7, 1861
Arkansas: seceded May 6, 1861. Admitted to the CSA May 18, 1861
North Carolina: seceded May 20, 1861. Admitted to the CSA  May 21, 1861
Tennessee: seceded June 8, 1861. Admitted to the CSA July 2, 1861
Missouri: seceded Oct 31, 1861. Admitted to the CSA Nov. 28, 1861
Kentucky: seceded Nov. 20, 1861. Admitted to the CSADec. 10, 1861

(North Carolina's dates of withdrawal and admission are the closest in time of all the states -- one day. But that's enough to remove North Carolina from the prohibitions of Article 1, Section 10 before entering into the Confederacy. What a difference a day makes, huh....)

I suspect Simpson's commenter will dismiss all this without a single neuron firing...  In any case, I'm not expecting him to try to refute it, or to acknowledge it at all.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Interesting Comparison

US Uncut has compiled a list of anti-Muslim hate crimes that have occurred in the USA since Donald Trump's comments about temporarily barring Muslim immigration.

==========Compare these (some injuries, property damage, verbal threats and ranting)...
In Florida, Islamic Center windows smashed, furniture overturned.

St. Louis, Former Marine threatens to chop off the heads of any Muslims who come to his home.

Manhattan -- Restaurant customer goes off on antiMuslim rant, punched an employee who attempted to intervene. Escorted out of restaurant, returned and threw a chair through a glass partition.

U.S. Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.), one of only two Muslims members of Congress, received a death threat.

In Philadelphia, a pig's head is thrown from pickup truck at dorr of Islamic Society.

Islamic Center in Idaho vandalized with words “HUNT CAMP?” spray painted on windows.

New Jersey mosque received an anonymous letter telling members to “go back to the desert.”

Somali-owned restaurant in North Dakota set on fire with Molotov cocktail.

A Penn State student threatens an Indian student and is charged with felony ethnic intimidation, and faces misdemeanor charges of terroristic threatening, simple assault, disorderly conduct and stalking and harassment.

Owner of food mart in Queen assaulted by attacker who said "I kill Muslims."

Sikh temple 50 miles from San Bernardion vandalized.

Ride-share driver in Seattle was assaulted by a man who accused him of being a terrorist.

A Somali-born teen was beaten and thrown from a sixth-story window in Seattle (I have not been able to find anything confirming this was Islam related)

In Texas, a Muslim family had their windows smashed twice by an unknown assailant; they believe the attacks are due to their religion.

A California Department of Corrections employee was was caught on video attacking two Muslim men praying in a public park with her fists and a cup of hot coffee.

California, CAIR office received letter tht said, "Die a painful death, Muslims" and contained suspicious white powder, which was tested and determined harmless.

Tampa. One woman reported being shot at as she was leaving a mosque. Another woman reported that a man cut her off in traffic, threw rocks at her vehicle, exited his vehicle and screamed at her.

Windows were smashed and an office under construction was ransacked at the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

Mosque in Coachella, California, not far from San Bernardino, was firebombed.
==========...with these (murder, death, injury, bloodshed)
Murdering terrorist jihadists have beheaded children in Syria, burned alive, drown and blown people up, thrown homosexual men to their deaths off the rooftops of multi-story buildings. An estimated 138,858 have been killed in Syria.

In the United States....

Jihadists murdered 2,977 and injured 6,000+ people in the September 11 attacks.

Ft. Hood jihadist victims: 13 murdered and 30 and injured.

Boston Marathon bombing victims: 3 dead, 264 injured.

Woman in Moore, OK, beheaded by Shariah advocate terrorist.

Chattanooga -- 5 murdered, 2 injured by a jihadist terrorist.

San Bernardino -- 14 murdered, 17 injured by a pair of radicalized Islamic jihadists...

This comparison is not to say it's okay to destroy the property of Muslims, or to injure them, or threaten them, etc. It is just to show the difference.... A difference that DeStroy can't discern. How sad....

Sunday, December 13, 2015


DeStroy is beside himself over my sidebar=====>> comment about mosque closings in France and the French authorities uncovering hundreds of weapons stockpiled by jihadists, because -- to him -- I made it sound like the weapons were found in the mosques. 

He sez I'm lying.

But my comment doesn't say "France shut down three mosques where they found hundreds of weapons."

That is the association HE makes. That is what HE fills in the ellipses with.

Let's break down my statement like he did:
"France shut down three mosques..."
True statement, according to news reports.
"... found hundreds of weapons."
Also a true statement, according to news reports.

De'Stroy says, "Chastain purposely followed up the report of the closure of three  mosques in France by deceptively trying to tie it to reports of hundreds of weapons being found. The problem? They are generally unrelated."

No deception. Moreover, the mosque raids and the discovery of weapons are NOT "generally unrelated."  They both occurred as a result of the November 13th Muslim jihadist terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 130 people and injured 368 others.

Interesting that DeStroy doesn't mention a syllable about that.

Then he takes this quote of mine, "How many churches in the USA stockpile weapons?" and sez, "This is  where the slimeball gets really slimy though..."
He follows this with some questions I will be most happy to answer:

DeStroy: Oh, why? Is it because people who go to church are always nice, wholesome people?

Me: Nope.  It's because Christianity (and those are primarily the US churches I had in mind) is concerned with the afterlife more than earthly life. Islam teaches about an afterlife, but seems more focused on temporal existence, particularly establishing a theocracy to rule the entire world and all people, achieved by violence, if necessary. By contrast, Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Yes, Christians in the US are concerned with what goes on in the here and now, but they are not concerned with establishing a Christian theocracy to rule all the people of the earth.

DeStroy: Whatever. The  takeaway that Chastain hopes her readers will walk away with is that Christians are not like Muslims.

Me: DeStroy's crystal ball seems to be on the fritz, especially the mind-reading component. What I'm saying is that Christianity is not like Islam.

DeStroy: She  is trying to paint ALL Muslims as violent, hateful people.

Me: I'm not sure where he gets that from. You won't find it in anything I've written. He must be projecting, since his MO is to paint all heritage folks as violent, hateful white supremacists.  That's the takeaway he wants his readers to come away with.... I, on the other hand, am quite diligent to identify the Muslims I object to as "jihadists" and "terrorists" -- who certainly are not all Muslims. I've clearly stated before that my problem is with Islam, the ideology masquerading as religion -- with Shariah law, and the attempts by Muslims in America to elevate Shariah law above the laws of the United States.

 DeStroy: It is because she hates Muslims, and she wants  you to hate them too. ALL of them.

Me: He's gone off the deep end here. Pathetic, but there's likely a reason for it, in his little mind.  DeStroy hates heritage folks -- ALL of them -- and wants you to hate them, too. Nevertheless, one has to wonder if he agrees with Islamic law....

Frankly, I feel sorry for most Muslims, trapped in such a horrific religion (i.e., ideology) and many ending up victims of it. (I've read that the largest group targeted and murdered by Islam is ... Muslims).

He ends with this truly jaw-dropping, breathtaking disconnect: "False and misleading Anti-Islamic rhetoric like what Chastain is known to espouse (I don't espouse that; that's DeStroy's deliberately false "interpretation") is likely to be a  contributing factor is cases of bigoted Americans who take matters into their own hands. (Laughably ludicrous! My little blog -- which doesn't even say what what he's falsely claiming?) This is why we think Chastain is at the very least irresponsible. (That's not what you think; you know you're lying, but you do it anyway, so strong is your hatred for Confederate heritage folks) At some point, someone is really going to get hurt, and the  root cause will be the Anti-Islamic hate speech being parroted by haters like Chastain."

Someone's really going to get hurt? You mean like this?
Murdering terrorist jihadists have beheaded children in Syria, burned alive, drown and blown people up, thrown homosexual men to their deaths off the rooftops of multi-story buildings. An estimated 138,858 have been killed in Syria.

Jihadists murdered 2,977 and injured 6,000+ people in the September 11 attacks. 

Ft. Hood jihadist victims: 13 murdered and 30 and injured.

Boston Marathon bombing victims: 3 dead, 264 injured. 

Woman in Moore, OK, beheaded by Shariah advocate terrorist.

Chattanooga -- 5 murdered, 2 injured by a jihadist terrorist.

San Bernardino -- 14 murdered, 17 injured by a pair of radicalized Islamic jihadists...
And except for mentioning Syria, I haven't recounted jihadist terrorist murders outside the United States.

Here's a list of Islamic terrorists attacks since the 1980s.   Note, this doesn't list those in the 1960s (including Bobby Kennedy's assassination by Sirhan Sirhan) and 1970s (including Israeli athletes murdered at the Olympics in Munich, 1972),

THAT is where "anti-Islamic hatred" comes from, DeStroy. The murdering, terrorist jihadists, not from my obscure little blog.

What's really interesting about all this, folks, is how het up he gets over words but not acts and deeds. This is where authoritarian political correctness has brought us. If you hate somebody the way DeStroy hates heritage peeps, what those peeps say (or, in some cases, what they don't say) is vastly more important to you than what other people do. For example, to people like DeStroy, pointing out the horrific level of black crime in the US is worse than, well, the horrific level of crimes committed by blacks.

He ends by saying, "Some might even call it incitement," -- "it" being my comments against Islamic jihadist terrorism or even the incompatibility of Shariah law with the Constitution.

If that's what he thinks incitement is, his blog is nothing but a huge, steaming, fetid, gag-inducing  pile of hatred for and incitement against Confederate heritage supporters.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Continued Analysis of Brooks Simpson's Lying

More from "The League of the South Calls for Violence?" at XRoads.
We believe that these mass killings and the threat of more mass killings have become a problem that must be addressed, even as we are aware that it will be a difficult process that will rouse intense debate. But for someone to rant about San Bernardino as a way to attack Islam while ignoring what sparked Dylann Roof (enamored of the Confederacy) and Michael Hill & Pat Hines (see above), to say nothing of complete silence concerning Colorado Springs … well, it’s just more evidence that Connie Chastain isn’t outraged about mass murders (actual and threatened) unless she can cultivate her bigotry.
First, the horror in San Bernardino was an instance of Islamic jihad, and it deserves to be attacked.

Second, Dylann Roof was not enamored of the Confederacy. That is a huge lie perpetrated by those wishing to use his mass murders to wage war on Confederate heritage and people who honor it. His "manifesto" doesn't contain the words "Confederacy" or "Confederate" at all. Not once. Zero, zip, nada. The closest he comes to mentioning it is this rambling, unfocused paragraph:

Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished. I have read hundreds of slaves narratives from my state. And almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these narratives the slaves told of how their masters didnt even allowing whipping on his plantation.

Aside from this single paragraph about Southern slavery, he had a couple of pictures made holding a Confederate stick flag, and a couple of other pictures where flags appeared on items in the background.

Sorry, that does not even begin to meet the definition of "enamored," and saying so is not ignoring what "sparked" Dylann Roof. It is clearing up a falsehood.

You wanna see enamored?  Take a look at Simpson's 338 posts and/or comments about the Virginia Flaggers.

Third, I haven't ignored Michael Hill and Pat Hines, far from it.

Fourth, I wonder what Simpson would have me say about Colorado Springs, and why he thinks my saying nothing about it is significant or even relevant to the discussion. But to humor him, I'll say something: The shooter was a lunatic, okay?

I will add that if complete silence about Colorado Springs is evidence of not being outraged about mass murder, Simpson is not outraged about mass murder because there was no mention of Colorado Springs on Crossroads until this post where he is falsely using it to accuse me of bigotry.

Well, we're almost finished with Simpson's icky post... one more blog entry ought to finish it. Then we'll deal with some of the comments by his floggerette sick-o-fants....

Setting Brooks Simpson Straight, continued....

More from Simpson's blog post "The League of the South Calls for Violence?"

Sez he:
    ... If Ms. Chastain really believes that we must condemn a whole religion because of the horrible behavior of a few people who profess allegiance to these ideas, then she needs to notice how Hill reminds us all the time that his understanding of the South he wants is not only white but also Christian. Thus it stand to reason that unless Ms. Chastain is a bigoted hypocrite, she wants Christians ousted from the United States to protect Americans from violent acts.
This is so full of bullcrap, you can almost see Simpson sitting at his computer making it up as he goes along...

First I haven't said "we must" condemn a whole religion. I said I don't want it in the United States. I further explained, clearly, that the likelihood of terrorism was not the ONLY reason I do not want it here. I said that Islam isn't compatible with the Constitution, and the two cannot co-exist.  Actually, I do not believe Islam is a religion; it's a pseudo-religion plus political system -- an ideology made for nations that are man-made Islamic theocracies. If someone wants to live under Sharia law, let them immigrate to one of those nations. Do not try to make the U.S. an Islamic theocracy.

And no, what Simpson says does not stand to reason. I have stated repeatedly that there are things I disagree with the "new" League about, and Simpson knows this. This conclusion he draws, as if its the only conclusion that can be drawn, is more of the slimy linguistic trickery he loves to employ.

Vis a vis race, I agree with how the League used to conceptualize the South -- that European settlers from the British Isles created the core culture of the South, which was further enriched by the contributions of its sub-cultures; blacks who were originally brought here as slaves, native Indian tribes of the Southeast, Cajuns in South Louisiana....  The first two, in case Simpson doesn't realize it, are not white.

Moreover, if Hill is saying he wants a Christian theocracy in an independent South, I vehemently disagree, because it's my belief that theocracy is instituted only by God, not man, and He has instituted only one -- ancient Israel.  Humans may construct a country/government based on some religious creed or other, and we may call it a theocracy, but it would not be a God-created theocracy and thus counterfeit.

I would want a government that does not suppress Christianity or oppress Christians; and I would like to see a return to the respect for Christianity that used to be shown everywhere in the United States, from the government to Hollywood movies and TV, to the popular culture -- a respect that was attacked and gradually shattered by destructive leftist forces starting around the middle of the 20th century.

Only in fragile minds like Simpson's could these preferences and likes I've identified be construed to support a Christian jihad.

I would note, however, that a fight for survival by those who are mostly Christians would not begin to approximate Islamic jihad because Christianity isn't remotely like Islam (and fighting for survival is not aggression and conquest). Christianity does not mandate stoning, cutting off limbs, beheadings, etc., for punishment. It does not condone adult-child sex, bestiality, or the "honor" killings of one's family members. It does not mandate conversion by the sword.  There are many more differences but that should get the idea across. Yes, there have been those who called themselves Christians who practiced unChristian acts and behaviors, but they were violating New Testament teachings, not following them. Many of the reprehensible things Islamics do are mandated by their "holy" book, or at the least, permitted by it.

I'll close this installment by noting that it is not bigoted hypocrisy to agree with someone about some things, and disagree with them about others.

More discussion of Simpson's scummy post coming up....

A Pack of Lies from Brooks Simpson's Crossroads

Simpson has titled the blog entry I'm currently discussing thusly: "The League of the South Calls for Violence?" This is a prime example of his slimy manipulation of the language. He ends a statement with a question mark so he will have an out, if needed.
Somebody: "You said the League of the South calls for violence!"
Simpson: "No, I didn't. I merely asked if they do."
XRoads is full of this kind of smelly, slimy butt-covering.

So he pretends to ask if the League calls for violence and replies, "Well... you tell me..."

And, after the screenshot of Hill's post, and a photo, Simpson says, "Then again, Michael Hill is rather fond of Pat Hines. That’s right, Pat Hines."

And later, "Yet you won’t have Ms. Chastain take Hines seriously. Why is that? Skeered that she’d fall out of favor with her fellow white nationalists? Or is it okay for people to threaten terrorist violence, so long as they are white people like Ms. Chastain? Or maybe she just doesn’t like children unless they are sweet (white) southern boys."

This is such a pack of lies, it's hard to know where to start. First, what I didn't take seriously was a comment Pat Hines left on an old Facebook group of mine years ago. However, just because I didn't take his blow-hard swagger seriously, that doesn't mean I think it's okay for people to threaten terrorist violence. Simpson knows this. This is just more of his deliberate slimy falsification.  (Unless, of course, he really is developing Alzheimer's, and doesn't remember all this... the likelihood of which I think is slim to none.)

This is all covered extensively at the links below. Skim them and see if you can find where I consider "white nationalists" to be my fellows. Try to find where I say it's okay for white people (or any people) to threaten terrorist violence. Try to find where I don't like children. And then try to come away from this believing that Brooks Simpson is not a hater and a despicable liar.

And Simpson's lies and distortions are found here:

You will also find in those links discussions that clearly delineate what I disagree with the League about, and why I am no longer a supporter. I also think the League has marginalized itself and greatly reduced its influence and impact, which is unfortunate because I still believe the South would be better off as a nation on its own, out from under the corrupt thumb of Washington, D.C., which makes me a Southern nationalist. I think the region needs an independence movement headed up by a savvy, viable organization, but whether one will arise remains to be seen. 

So there is much I disagree with the League about, much to criticize about the organization. However,  I draw the line at lies about the League. Hill's "The End Game" is clearly about the threat of violence (invasion that threatens land, property and life itself) and what will stop it -- fighting back. If Simpson disapproves of self-defense and survival, by anyone, he has again lowered his already deeply deficient measure of moral authority.  


Simpson has updated his slime with this:
[UPDATE: Note: Ms. Chastain labels these mass killings as terrorism. Fine by me. She’s thus admitting that the League of the South’s Hines advocates terrorism, and she’s not all that bothered by it. At most she thinks it’s tactically flawed.]
Admitting? I called it that when Hines first posted it. Simpson knows this; he posted it at his hate blog:

Skim this post folks, which has a copy of a private Facebook message thread between myself and Michael Hill, and try to come away believing I'm not bothered by Hines' advocating terrorism and that at most I think it's tactically flawed.  Read all the posts I've linked to above and see just what a slimy lie Simpson's "update" is.

Stay tuned, folks. I'm not done with this. Not by a long shot.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Brooks Simpson: Is It Dementia or Is It Dishonesty?

"We believe that these mass killings and the threat of more mass killings have become a problem ..." *   Brooks D. Simpson
Yeah. And the Paris attacks were a "setback."

Problems and setbacks, setbacks and problems....

No, they were terrorism, Mr. Simpson. Deliberate, murderous terrorism.

From a recent post at XRoads:
Now, if there are folks out there who want to remind me that the recent mass murders at San Bernardino, California, are “Why I Do Not Want Islam In the United States” (right, Connie Chastain?) … meaning that she believes that all people of that faith are potential terrorists, then what are we to make of southern nationalists like herself … given that the threat of violence is the current trademark of the League of the South (an organization that has called Ms. Chastain a member more than once)?
Not "mass murder, Simpson." Islamic terrorism.

Columbine was mass murder. The U of Texas clock tower shootings were mass murder. The Aurora theater shootings were mass murder.

San Bernardino was terrorism. The 9/11 attacks were terrorism. The Beltway Sniper shootings were terrorism.

"...she believes all people of that faith are potential terrorists..." is not true. Yet another Simpson lie, (which can't be chalked up to memory loss).  Islam is a faith with which terrorism and violence are compatible, even authorized, but that doesn't mean all who believe it are willing to live it. Many just aren't willing to oppose it.  Besides, all people of that faith don't have to be terrorists to make the faith very dangerous to Americans. Those who are represent too great a threat.

However, I have not identified the likelihood of terrorism in the U.S. from Islamic jihadists as the ONLY reason I do not want Islam in the United States.

Herman Cain, Ben Carson and others are right about this. Islam/Sharia are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. Well, incompatible doesn't begin to describe it. They are in so deep and fundamental a conflict, they cannot co-exist.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Allowing Sharia any authority in the USA would violate the supremacy clause and undermine the entire Constitution.**

Muslims in America have called for the implementation of Sharia law in the US, and in June, 51% of the Muslims polled told Polling Co. they preferred having "the choice of being governed according to Shariah," or Islamic law. And 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 told Pew Research they're more loyal to Islam than America.***

Presumably Simpson doesn't mind the Constitution being violated and undermined this way, in the interest of letting Muslims in the U.S. practice their godforsaken religion.... But I do mind. I am completely opposed to it.

Appearing in this post at XRoads is a screenshot of a Facebook post by Michael Hill titled The End Game.  In reference to that essay, the XRoads liar continues, "...what are we to make of southern nationalists like herself … given that the threat of violence is the current trademark of the League of the South..."

Well, first of all, that is not a given. That is a Simpson lie. Anyone who can read with objectivity can see that Hill is not "threatening violence" but is talking about responding to being threatened with violence...threatened, in fact, with more than just violence. Threatened with being dispossessed of land, prosperity and life itself. When faced with such a threat, he says, "You will fight... Or you and your progeny will perish from the earth."

That's a little different than "threatening violence." In fact, it is poles apart from "threatening violence." It is about self-defense and survival.

Maybe Simpson can't see the difference. Maybe he believes there is no such threat to fight back against. I would think a historian, though, would see that the attempts at violent conquest that provoke violent resistance, occur repeatedly throughout human history. Does he think something magical has happened to humankind to end this cycle? Or does he know about it, but think he wouldn't mind being dominated by the ideology (not religion) that produced ISIS?

Simpson finishes this slimy paragraph with, "... (an organization that has called Ms. Chastain a member more than once)?" 

What is this? Early onset Alzheimers? He knows that I not only  resigned from the League twice, he also knows I have publicly communicated what I disagree with the League about, in this very blog. So what is the point of mentioning this, if not to attempt to associate me with what he mischaracterizes as "threatening violence"?

Actually, Simpson may be developing Alzheimer's, (judging by the way he brings up irrelevancies from the past over and over and over) but that does not account for his dishonest and repugnant attempts to associate me with those aspects of the current League that I do not hold with. But that's what Simpson gets off on -- trying to slime people he doesn't like (mostly heritage folks) with lies, half-truths and innuendo. It's a long-standing undertaking with him.

I admit to having trouble relating to someone whose life is so devoid of joy and purpose that he has to resort to trashing others to give it meaning (also characteristic of De'Stroy, and, to a lesser extent, Odious Andy Hall and Kevin Levin)....

More from this demented XRoads post later....

* We who? You and your tapeworm?
This is why the Confederates withdrew from the Constitution before creating new laws for their new government, and thus not violating it. They did it right.
Can you imagine the hue and cry should 51% of heritage folks say they'd prefer to have a choice to be governed by U.S. or Confederate law? And if 60% of us said we are more loyal to the Confederacy than the USA?

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Hoist by His Own Petard

Sez De'Stroy, "Our favorite Flagger has FAILed again. In a now deleted post to her blog Backsass, Connie Chastain ran with a partly erroneous story because she didn't take the time to check the information for accuracy and truthfulness before posting it herself."

He's talking about a comment I made in the Notices, Quickies and Updates sidebar:
Alternative news sites are reporting that a neighbor of San Bernardino killers did not report the pair to authorities after witnessing suspicious activity at their apartment for fear he would be labeled racist. And so 14 people were murdered, with 21 wounded. INFO HERE. As one Facebook poster noted, "We would rather see innocents killed than to be call racist." Thanks to people who call innocents "racists" like the typical Flagger-haters I do word-battle with.
Actually, it's De'Stroy who can't take the time to check what he posts for accuracy.  My post is not "now deleted." It was moved from Notices, Updates & Quickies sidebar to the regular post area. It is part of a blog entry titled,  Mr. Simpson, THIS Is Why I Do Not Want Islam In the United States.

The indented paragraph above was copied from the sidebar to the main post area word for word.

Destroy further sez, "It wasn't a neighbor at all who witnessed whatever the person claims to have witnessed, it was a 'man who has been working in the area'."

Ah, but De'Story, that's not the person I was talking about. I was talking about the terrorists' neighbor, not somebody working in the neighborhood. Maybe there were news stories reporting on comments by two different individuals, but the one I'm talking about is a neighbor of the late jihadists.  Here, read these and take the time to check what you post for accuracy.  This is what I was talking about:!/804224014132540697.html

What I commented on was truthful and accurate. De'Stroy is a liar, or else a shoddy researcher. Either one demonstrates his hatred of heritage peeps, and either one proves that what he says cannot be trusted.

I mean, seriously, this is about the point that we are at right now in this country. Moronic Americans who think like this sit around reading erroneous info on dumb blogs like "Restoring the Honor" and "Crossroads" that come nowhere close to having even a shred of journalistic integrity, which in turn fuels their hatred. They then in turn spout their hatred at people they don't even understand and have never met because they think they know what Confederate heritage is all about.**

De'Stroy -- hoist by his own petard... Doing what he accuses others of doing.... It's the flogger way....

** Paraphrased from De'Stroy's blog

Mr. Simpson, THIS Is Why I Do Not Want Islam In the United States

"We would rather see innocents killed than to be call racist."
Facebook Poster      

San Bernardino Shooting: At Least 14 People Killed
By Devlin Barrett and Jim Carlton
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif.—At least two shooters stormed a holiday gathering for county employees here Wednesday, killing at least 14 people in the deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. in the past three years, authorities said.
Breitbart: **LIVE UPDATES*** San Bernardino Shooting Day Two: The Jihadis Next Door
Alternative news sites are reporting that a neighbor of San Bernardino killers did not report the pair to authorities after witnessing suspicious activity at their apartment for fear he would be labeled racist. And so 14 people were murdered, with 21 wounded. INFO HERE. As one Facebook poster noted, "We would rather see innocents killed than to be call racist." Thanks to people who call innocents "racists" like the typical Flagger-haters I do word-battle with. MORE INFO HERE.
Forget ISIS, mass shooters and other assorted Islamic terrorists. The greatest threats to America (after climate change) are Southern heritage folks (like the VaFlaggers) and their dangerous, violent Confederate flags. Just ask Brooks Simpson, DeStroy and their followers.
PBS mass shooting map is misleading  Designed to push the gun control agenda that would leave more Americans defenseless and set them up to be slaughtered, as in San Bernardino.
The Terrorist's House Was A 'Bomb Making Factory'
By Joel B. Pollak for Breitbart
Fox News reports that the suspects’ apartment was a “bomb-making factory,” with improvised explosive devices (IED) and remote-controlled cars for delivering explosives to their targets.
The suspects are said to have attacked the holiday party wearing body armor and GoPro cameras to record their exploits.
San Bernardino killings a result of the left's P.C. war against 'hurt feelings'  Herman Cain
Facebook Recap:
Due to climate change, yesterday's workplace violence took place in San Bernardino, CA. So, in order to ensure that we can combat this from happening in the future, we must have stricter gun laws; because discharging weapons creates a "greenhouse" effect that only affects Muslims. This type of violence doesn't take place anywhere else in the world, only in America. And, because God isn't fixing this...we must. ~Daniel Garrett