Controlling Present, Past and Future

Generally speaking, academics in the USA, including civil war historians, are liberals, that is, ideological leftists.

That means they are about control, as in "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past," a slogan of Ingsoc in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.

They are the gatekeepers of knowledge and information about the past. They control the spigot, determining when information about the past trickles and when it gushes. They not only control the rate at which the info is released into the culture, they control what information flows through the spigot.

They are less interested in the reality of the past than they are interested in controlling the past to control -- to determine what happens in -- the future.

But their apple cart has been upset, if you will pardon the mixed metaphors. In the present, somebody is messing with their control of the past. A whole 'nother spigot -- the Internet -- has come along and given control of information about the past to whoever wishes to take it.

Thus, these days nearly anybody can control the future by controlling the past.

And the gatekeepers are UPset...

Why I Do Not Want Islam in the USA

ISIS Savages Behead Syrian Man Screaming for His Life

All you spineless PC cowards talking about "religious freedom" for Islam, if this does not make you heartsick, if it does not fill your soul with grief and fury, you have forfeited your soul and your humanity .

...There Is a Strong Desire to Identify With Our Culture....

Lee-Jackson Day is a Lost Cause
 
... the public display of the Confederate flag is in full retreat in the South....you should fully expect these calls (to remove Confederate symbols and commemorations) to increase in the next few years, along with decisions that reflect the South’s changing demographic...

Kevin Levin, Civil War Memory blog

Oh, really?

Pensacola has a changing demographic, and is home to a lot of people from elsewhere, especially military retirees. So what does that mean for Confederate heritage here?

A Confederate flag could soon be seen at the Pensacola Bay Center again

From WEAR-TV Channel 3, Pensacola

Along with the confederate (sic) flag, the county also decided to take down the French, British and Spanish Flags.  Commissioner Grover Robinson says as soon as the county made that decision, he started getting a lot of complaints.

“(They said,) ‘you took down Spanish, the British, you took down the French, why did you that?’” Robinson said.  “It’s part of our history, it’s our culture and there’s a strong desire to identify with our culture.”

...there is a strong desire to identify with our culture.

Kevin Levin has a blog that documents his years-long, extreme bias against Confederate history and heritage. He teaches at a school for Jewish kids in Boston, Massachusetts. (That really qualifies him as an expert on Pensacola and other Southern cities, don't it?)

Grover Robinson  (http://www.pensapedia.com/wiki/Grover_Robinson_IV) is a 7th generation Pensacolian and a County Commissioner since 2006.  He knows this community and its people.

Who do you think I'm gonna believe? Kevin Levin or Grover Robinson?

Even an Atheist...

...can be right about some things....

Radical Islam has seen us for what we are, a soft touch. It sees that political correcness is like a drug that we just can't stop injecting, even though we know it's going to kill us. And they're taking full advantage of that, turning our sense of fairness against us, and making us despise ourselves for one of our best qualities.     ~Pat Condell

Found Online....

"We have absolutely no idea why people see Southerners and the Confederate Battle Flag as racist." --Facetious comment at a ludicrous smear-site.

Um, because those people are agenda-driven bigots?

According to the Census Bureau, there are about 114,555,744 people who reside in the Southern states.  Of that number, those who abuse the battle flag are statistically miniscule. Somebody who would smear an entire region with a trivial minority is not logical, ethical or trustworthy.

In fact, anybody who would smear the Confederate heritage community with that minute minority of flag abusers is not only not logical, ethical or trustworthy. They are actively seeking to harm people who have done them no wrong. 

Backtalk to M.D. Blough

Over at XRoads, M.D. Blough answers my meme (found here http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-graphic-meme.html) that Simpson posted there.

Sez M.D.:

What she doesn’t deal with, of course, is (1) that the Constitution, in Article IV, Section 3, has detailed procedures and conditions for the ADMISSION of states but is silent on any state leaving, particularly without the consent of the federal government and/or the other states. (Emphasis added. CW)

Well, duh. If it is silent on the subject, of course there are no particulars. How can there be particulars in a statement that doesn't exist? Duh. Also, admission is irrelevant to departure. Sheesh.

If we’re putting our hat on the specific controls the general, that’s a strong indication that the Constitution did not allow secession.

Not really. It implies that admission to the US involved the feds and the other states, but leaving it did not.

 (2) James Madison was quite explicit there was no constitutional right to seceded. This not only can be found in his publicized letters during the Nullification Crisis but also his earlier plans to use military force if the Hartford Convention ended with one or more of the New England state attempting to secede.

James Madison was a brilliant man and the Father of the Constitution. But his opinions are not the Constitution and do not have its authority. If he had wanted there to be no constitutional right to secede, he should have included a specific prohibition in the list of powers prohibited to the states, or the power to prohibit it should have been explicitly delegated to the feds. 

and (3) the Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the authority of a document that does not prohibit secession....

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

Posted on Facebook; shared here with the permission of the author:

Saw American Sniper with some friends tonight. Allow me to vent for a moment. The movie drove home to me the enduring value of Anglo-Celtic culture to to American civilization. 

People who shared the same ethnicity with and embodied the same martial qualities as Chris Kyle drove the British out of much of North America, stood tall against a vastly superior Mexican army at the Alamo, fought the world's most powerful military force at the time - the Union Army - to a virtual standoff during the American Civil War, and, since the Spanish-American War, have carried a disproportionate share of this nation's military obligation on their backs. 

Instead of dismissing these people as hillbillies, rednecks and crackers, the elites had damn well better appreciate how this global empire's fortunes are intimately bound up with the martial qualities of Kyle and other Americans of that highly denigrated, woefully under-appreciated and wantonly ignored ethnic group. Thank you for your indulgence.

Amen, sir. Amen.

Sneak preview of my WIP....

It isn't always Big Brother who's watching. Sometimes it's ...
Little Sister
Legacy of Fortitude, Book Three
by
Connie Chastain

January 30, 2001
Verona, Georgia

On the last Monday in January, three weeks into the new semester, Ainsley Kincaid reached her limit in history class.

Professor Douglas Hobie, his thin face set with drooping eyes and framed with  fly-away hair, put Ainsley in mind of the character actor Vincent Schiavelli. He delivered his lectures in a droning, nasal, northeastern monotone that lulled some students to near stupor. But it wasn't his delivery that bothered Ainsley; it was the content.

She took it as long as she could.  Her patience ran out when he said, "Of course, the entire South is still racist, but there are pockets of racism that are immeasurably worse than the status quo, and this university is surrounded by one of them. Verona, Georgia."

Fury flashed through Ainsley head to toe and she slammed her history book closed with a loud POW! that rocked  the classroom like a small explosion.  Her classmates turned startled expressions toward her as Hobie's lecture abruptly ceased mid-word and he stared at her, open-mouthed. Total silence descended upon the class.

Her face hard and her hands trembling, Ainsley scooped up her books and purse. Without speaking a syllable, without so much as a glance toward anyone, she flounced out of the room.

 * * *

At eight-thirty, Harry Talton skidded into the computer lab in the Morrisette Building and skimmed the room. Between eight and nine in the morning, the cubicles began to fill up and remained occupied until about four p.m.  Only about half were occupied now and he breathed a sigh of relief.

"Hey, Harry!" A fellow who'd entered a step or two behind Harry called a greeting.  Harry turned and gave him an absent nod. The kid was familiar, but his name didn't come readily to mind.

"Hey, what's up? How was break?"

The kid grinned. 'Bout killed me to have to come back. Say, how're you making out with that little blond Baptist?"

Harry shook his head in pretended perplexity.

"You know," the kid said. "Town girl.  Ann something."

Harry allowed recognition to dawn on his face.  "Oh, Ainsley." He shrugged. "She's just somebody I tutored briefly."

Another grin, this one knowing.  "Yeah, right. Tutored her in the arts of love? Or tutored yourself in the art of getting put off?"

Harry didn't dignify that with a reply, and strode to a cubicle in the last row. He liked his privacy online, even if his surfing was usually benign.  He logged on and following established routine, typed the URL to his favorite anti-racism usenet group and skimmed the entries.

The kid's description of his nonexistent relationship with Ainsley Kincaid was closer to reality than he wanted to admit. It was extremely frustrating. She was not his type -- a straightlaced Southern Baptist churchgoer, daughter of missionaries in Central America, political and social conservative, a perfect fit for this cultural backwater.

Harry was from Ohio.  He had enrolled in Verona State specifically for the purpose of learning first hand about rightwingers, especially the Southern contingent, in order to circumvent their ideology. His first few months in south Georgia had been an eye-opener in more ways that one. Political conservativism, he'd learned, was directly related to the pervasiveness of religion, which brought home to him what he'd heard from other progressives, but had not witnessed until now -- that socialism's primary barrier was religion, with the traditional family a close second.

But the other eye-opener -- actually a jaw dropping revelation -- was that these people were happy.  Oh, there were a few dissidents and misfits, but not enough to change the tenor of the general population. These Southerners found fulfillment for their lives in beliefs and activities Harry sneered at, and eschewed those things Harry considered essential.

It was also a problem that he hadn't expected to be so attracted to a little Southern Baptist girl.  It had taken great effort for all of last semester to make a dent in her defenses -- partly because he had to appear as if he weren't making such an effort at all. Most of their dates had been casual --  going for sodas at McDonalds or the student center after a tutoring session. Just before break, she'd finally accepted a couple of actual dates for pizza and a movie.

Since returning to school three weeks earlier, they hadn't gone out at all, and he was playing not-really-interested. In truth, he was growing mildly obsessed with her, and it was never far from his mind how he might break through her defenses.

His thoughts of Ainsley were interrupted by a usenet discussion of -- unbelievable! A cross burning over the weekend? In this day and age?  He speed-read the thread. In Pensacola, not four hours to the south west from where he sat. Unbelievable.

That was the only item of real interest until he reached a discussion about a notice from the Southern Social Justice Group in Biloxi, Mississippi.  They would begin taking applications in March for a very limited number of summer internships as well as for several volunteers to help upgrade their files, and filing system.

Harry was lost in thought for a minute.  He'd passed through the Mississippi Coast a couple of times on trips to New Orleans, traveling along the scenic route, Highway 90 rather than the Interstate.  The beach and ocean, the casinos, the grand old houses shaded with gnarled oak trees that overlooked the Gulf  -- the mental visuals filled him with a surprising wanderlust.

He set an internal calendar for March, but he would start immediately to see about securing a couple of those internships for himself and Ainsley. It wouldn't do to drop the suggestion on her all at once.  He'd have to build up to it gradually. But the idea of spending summer on the Mississippi seacoast with her -- the possibilities -- was too great to resist.

He started to go find her. She would be in Hobie's class in the Crenshaw Complex and would get out about the time it would take him to get there. But he thought better of it immediately. Couldn't look like he purposely tracked her down to tell her about the possibility of a summer in Mississippi together. It would be better to casually run into her in the student center at lunch, and mention it offhand.

 * * *

The student center was moderately crowded when Harry sauntered in and noticed, without seeming to, that Ainsley was seated halfway across the room at a tiny bistro table for two. But the other chair, he noted smugly, was empty.  He paused to talk to a small crowd of girls he was acquainted with on the way to the food counter.

"Hey, Glenda, how's it going?"

"Harry, you yankee!  I'm fine, how were your holidays? Did you go back up to the frozen tundra?"

"Now, now," he wiggled his index finger at her. "Ohio is not the frozen tundra. There's lots of the globe north of Lancaster."

"Lancaster, Ohio?" said a girl he didn't know. "Home of Kerosene Billy Sherman.  Boo, hiss."

"He's one of our city's notables," Harry rejoined, giving her an obviously phony smile. Unbelievable how these hicks and rednecks still took on so about the civil war.

"Well if you-- Who is that?"  The three girls seemed to lose interest in the conversation, and in him, in an instant. All three looked past him with wide eyes and he turned to see who, or what, had so quickly grabbed their attention.  A man he didn't recognize stepped through the wide entry and moved to the side, out of the traffic path, his eyes roaming the lunch crowd.

He cut quite a figure. His camel-colored trench coat, which reached the middle of his calves, was unbuttoned, the ends of the tie belt tucked oh so casually into the garment's slash pockets. The coat fell open just enough to show the natty garments beneath it -- a dark brown tweed suit, beige tattersall checked shirt and a brown silk tie. Harry, a trendy dresser himself, noticed things like that.

The fellow appeared to be in his mid to late twenties. He was uncommonly handsome, which explained his monopoly of Harry's female acquaintances.  A mane of ash brown hair swept back from his forehead. His dark brown eyes ceased roaming the room, as he evidently found who he was looking for. He sauntered -- with a saunter that would put Harry's to shame -- into the crowd. A mild jolt of curiosity hit Harry when the fellow stopped at Ainsley's table.

He said something Harry couldn't make at this distance. A smile brightened his face and put a sparkle in his eyes at Ainsley's reaction. She looked up and her eyes widened as her jaw dropped to admit a deep gasp -- oxygen to fuel the squeal that followed. 

"John Mark!" she cried, shooting up from her chair to throw her arms around his neck. He gave her a squeeze in return, and before stepping back to indulge a chuckle at her reaction.  Harry caught Ainsley's excited, "What are you doing here? Can you have lunch with me?" as she took her seat. The stranger sat opposite her, and Harry caught, "...already had a bite..." in a strong Southern dialect filtering through the ambient rumble of talk that filled the room.

The bolt of jealousy that shot through Harry was completely unexpected. He turned to the lunch counter, relieved to notice that the three girls he'd had been talking to had disappeared. He stepped up to the counter and told the clerk, "Give me the quickest sandwich and cola you've got."  He pulled out his wallet, extracted a bill and left it on the counter when she brought him a pre-made sandwich from the cooler and a canned cola.  He took them and turned to scan the area. 

He spotted several empty places at tables and booths on the other side of the room, and he headed that way. His route through the dining area would take him right by Ainsley's table.  As he neared it, he glanced down, and feigned recognition and mild surprise when he saw her.

"Oh, hey, Ainsley," he said, pausing his trek. "How're your classes going?" He let his eyes roam with feigned half-interest to John Mark, who looked back at him with a neutral expression.

"Hey, Harry. I'm dropping history. I've had all of Professor Hobie I can take. Other than that, not bad. This is John Mark Jordan. He's one of my other-brothers I told you about. John Mark, this is my friend and tutor, Harry Talton."

John Mark nodded and held out his hand.  Harry hastily laid his plastic-wrapped sandwich on the table and completed the handshake, noting that Jordan's grip was firm and confident.

"Good to meet you," John Mark said.

"Pleasure's mine," Harry rejoined, wondering whether this guy was the preacher's son or the all-American halfback's son. "What brings you to this corner of the swamp?"

"He's here as a favor to my brother, Shelby," Ainsley explained. "Checking on my parents' house. The renters moved out not long ago and somebody else wants to move in."

Pretty fancy duds for home maintenance.

But John Mark explained. "I'm on my way to a business fair in Tallahassee, and detoured here to check on the Kincaids' house -- and visit with Little Sister, here. From there, I head up to an international marketing expo in Boston."

Ainsley made a face. "Beantown. Ugh."

John Mark gave her an indulgent smile and a wink. "You're not the one who has to go, sweet shang."

"Thank goodness!"

Yes, thank goodness and good riddance.

Ainsley had mentioned Shelby and her other-brothers, John Mark and Randy, and how they had come by that designation when she was four; but this was the first time Harry had met any of them.

He had been in Verona since last summer and knew that rednecks and yokels made up a sizable proportion of the local population, and he was taken aback by this fellow's appearance and presence. Jordan would be a better fit for the cover of Gentleman's Quarterly than the South Georgia Fishing and Hunting Magazine.

Harry nodded and picked up his sandwich. "Have a good trip," he said, and to Ainsley, "See you later, Blondie."

He continued to across the room to an empty spot in a booth occupied by some people he knew and struck up a conversation that appeared to absorb him. He was very proud of himself for not glancing toward Ainsley and her other-brother -- yeah, right --  the whole time it took him to eat. When he was finished, they were  nowhere to be seen, and two nerdy freshmen were taking the table they had vacated.

 * * *

Ainsley and John Mark stepped out into the brisk afternoon air and were stopped short by a gathering of people crowding the sidewalk and spilling onto the grass. They paused and waited for an opening.

"So that guy back there, the tutor. You said he's your friend."

"More like friendly acquaintance."

"Not a boyfriend, though."

"Well, aren't you nosy?"

"Old habits die hard. Just looking out for little sister."

"Yeah, and it's nice. Nobody's done that in a long time.... We've gone out a couple of times, pizza and a movie. That's all." She paused to change the subject. "I want to go with you to look at the house."

"Don't you have a class or something?"

"I'll ditch it."

People were milling around but not clearing the sidewalk. John Mark skimmed the growing crowd.

"Pep rally?"

"Beats me," Ainsley said.

"Well, hello again," came a voice behind them. They glanced back to see Harry approaching.

John Mark noticed that the smile accompanying Ainsley's "Hi" was polite. Almost perfunctory.

"You know, I thought a bit about what you said in there.  About dropping Hobie's class. I don't think that's a good idea. I'll help you with it if there's a problem with his teaching."

"It's not that."

"You really need that course, though, don't you?"

Ainsley shrugged.

John Mark said, "What's the problem with the professor?"

"He hates the South and he hates Verona. Why would he even take a job here?"

"I don't think he hates it," Harry said. "He might just feel like an outsider." He gave a mirthless chuckle. "I can relate to that."

Ainsley looked skeptical but didn't reply.

The milling of the crowd slowed and people gradually stood in place. Farther ahead, the trio could see a woman step up on a temporary platform. Two others took positions behind her and hoisted a banner on poles that read "SAY NO TO LOWE!"

Ainsley's brow furrowed. "What does that mean?"

"Looks like an impromptu demonstration against Griffin Lowe's visit to the campus next week."

"Who's that?"

"Independent film producer and director. Very conservative religious nut on the order of Kirk Cameron."

John Mark's eyes narrowed at Harry's description, but he said nothing.

"Well, that explains the protest." She glanced about. "Let's see if there's a way around this mob."

As they moved to go, a woman stepped to Ainsley out of the crowd. Two men stood beside her. "Well, hey, Harry.  What are you doing with little Miss Angry Verona?"

Harry gave a slight shrug.

"Excuse me." Ainsley said. She tried to step around the newcomers, but they moved to block her exit. A look of dawning comprehension came to the woman's face.

"Why, Harry, is this your pupil? The little blonde Baptist you talked so much about last term? Is she a huge fan of Griffin Lowe holier than thou  flicks?"

Harry's lips parted, as if he wanted to speak, but nothing came.

The woman glanced to her companions, laughter in her eyes, and back to Ainsley. "So you're a Verona girl? Is that why you got so upset in Hobie's class this morning?

She gave Harry a pointed look. "She made a scene in history class this morning when Hobie called this town racist. Slammed her book closed and made everybody in the class jump outta their skin. Can you imagine getting upset about such an obvious truth?"

Again, Ainsley attempted to step around them, glancing at Harry and muttering, "Let's get out of here."

"So are you a racist, Ainsley? A supremist on top of being a Jebus freak ?" Her expression grew mocking.

Done with watching Harry's indecision, John Mark stepped between the woman and Ainsley.

"Excuse me. We're just leaving." His glance swiftly swept the three, returned to the woman stayed there. Reaching behind him, clasped a hand around Ainsley's wrist and took a step.

The woman stepped aside. She and her sidekicks silently allowed Ainsley and her companions to depart.

At the edge of the crowd, they slowed and John Mark remarked, "Cordial, mannerly folks, aren't they? If they're students here, what's happening to this place?"

Harry finally found his voice. "I don't think they meant..."

John Mark looked at him sharply.

"...anything..." He dried up under John Mark's look of disgust, but then tried for a save.  "But you're right, they were certainly rude." He glanced at Ainsley. "Was she right? Is that why you quit Hobie's class?"

"Yes. He said Verona is  racist."

"Well, he may have  poi--"

John Mark's sibilant sound of impatience stopped the comment.  He slid his hand around Ainsley's upper arm. "Come on, Little Sister. Let's blow this joint."

They walked away without another word to Harry.

 * * *

Harry stood for a moment, awash in humiliation, and watched Ainsley and Jordan walk away.  He still felt dumbstruck by Jody Pence's haughty, prying questions, and annoyed that his secret obsession with Ainsley -- not to mention his "blonde Baptist" nickname -- had been revealed. Whether that would set back any chances he had with her remained to be seen.

But the most embarrassing thing was his pathetic showing in comparison to the smartly attired visitor. Jordan had stood slightly aloof as the confrontation with Jody and her companions played out -- until Ainsley verbally expressed a desire to leave and was met with mocking and insults.

It was a lesson in the lost art of chivalry, the way Jordan had stepped in front of Ainsley, shielding her and reaching back to take her arm, his eyes never leaving the bullies before him. But the most fascinating and annoying thing was the change that had come to his face; the steeliness of his gaze, the slight flaring of his nostrils, the barely perceptible compression of his lips.

His words were harmless enough, but his voice had lowered in both volume and pitch, and carried a tone of authority.  And though it wasn't the authority of rank or position, it was real, perhaps the most real, and oldest, authority of all -- that of the male protecting the female.

Macho crap. Chivalry on steroids. Harry had consciously eschewed the macho interpretation of maleness long ago, and had not been impressed with it since.

Until now.

Remembering how Ainsley had sweetly but effectively defied his influence last fall and winter, and how it infuriated him, he began to think there might be something to learn from Jordan's performance today.

With his embarrassment beginning to ebb, he stepped to the edge of the crowd to listen to the protest.

He heard Jody coming up behind him several seconds before she got there. Her two companions were nowhere to be seen.

"So Harry, that was the little Southern Baptist gal who had you in such a tizzy last term, wasn't it?"

Harry rolled his eyes. "She didn't have me in a tizzy. I tutored her. We went out a couple of times."

"That's not quite how I remember it."

"Well, that's how it was."

"You tutoring her again? Going out again?"

He turned to look at her with an expression of exaggerated patience. "And that's your business because....?"

"Ooooh, touchy, touchy. Just curious.  So, is the hunk with her putting the nix on any future plans you might have? Who was that, anyway? He looked like some kind of beefcake TV preacher.... "

"He's her brother. Sort of."

"Brother? That's no barrier to romance down here in the Deep South, is it? What's a sort-of brother, anyway?"

"He's her brother's best friend. Or one of them. There's another one I haven't met, or her brother, either, for that matter. They all grew up together. And he's no preacher, but he's likely the son of a preacher. Or a college football star. One or the other. Now excuse me. I have to go."

Excerpt is unedited and may differ from published version.
Copyright © 2015 by Connie Chastain

The Lust to Denigrate....

...is too strong to resist.

On January 6, 2015, Simpson posted:

This year I’m going to try something different when it comes to chatter about the antics of various Confederate heritage apologists advocates. As a rule, I’m going to confine my commentary to a weekly column for the normal run-of-the-mill items. Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule, but only in cases I find particularly interesting.

We are starting the third week since that announcement was made (on the sixth, marked below with the star), so there should be three blog columns, right? There are seven. We are in the third week of this new "something different" and there's already seven same-ol' same-ol trash posts and there's no telling how many January will end up with.

Obviously, rules -- even his own -- are meaningless to him ... or else nothing about Confederate heritage is run-of-the-mill to him. Evidently, everything is "particularly interesting" because it all has the potential to accommodate his desire to denigrate, his lust for the put-down.

When the lure is that appealing, rules and self-discipline go out the window.

The Links and Ties Method of Vilification Part 1

So, Aye believes such-and-such about thus-and-so issue. Bee believes the same way about the same issue. That does not mean Bee and Aye believe the same thing about every issue, or many, or even a few.

To get an accurate view of someone, the prudent person will see how many issues Aye and Bee agree on and -- just as important -- on how many issues they differ.

But not floggers and floggerettes. As political and cultural leftists, they embrace moral relativism. (Yes, rightists also accept it to a degree --  it permeates our culture -- but the left positively embraces it.)

I'll not go into a philosophical discussion of moral relativism. I will simply express my observations about moral relativism in the current culture, including pop culture, of the US. I will discuss the conclusions I've drawn and beliefs I've formed based on my observations, including some of the ways moral relativism manifests in the criticism of Confederate heritage.

The left has fundamentally transformed the standard of right and wrong. In their view, there is nothing wrong with drug use, shacking up without commitment, killing the unborn for the sake of the "mother's" convenience, etc., so long as nobody gets hurt. It's okay to lie about somebody if you disagree with their beliefs. Rioting, arson, beatings, looting, even murdering cops -- these are, if not acceptable, then understandable, when committed by members of an oppressed group.

This is why the leftist press focused so much on Muslim "alienation" in Europe rather than Muslim terrorism, following the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Of course, people do get hurt, but depending on who they are, it's not a big deal in leftist thought. That is why the horrific murder of Emmett Till in Mississippi is still an outrage six decades later, but the horrific burning-alive death of Jessica Chambers by unknown assailant(s), an hour from where Till was murdered, has fallen out of the news in less than six weeks.

Lying, cheating, stealing, property destruction, character assassination and other "old timey" wrongs -- these aren't serious cultural sins. Not like they used to be, and only if they are related, somehow, to today's sins. What's considered egregiously wrong today: racism, sexism, "homophobia," hate speech, etc., -- in short, anything that violates diversity, multiculturalism and inclusion.

Today, in some circles, accusation of racism or race-hate is the same thing as proof of it. It is probably the worst cultural sin in the leftist handbook.

But there's the problem. It's how racism is defined. The definition is so broad, so fluid, so elastic, it can be stretched to cover whatever beliefs or behavior the accuser wishes.  Disapprove of the Islamization of our culture? You're a racist (though Islam is not a race). Disapprove of the violation of immigration law? You're a racist.

One aspect of human nature defined as racism is the individual's affinity for those who are similar to him. It appears to be natural and present in infancy. (Google "racist babies".) I have observed over my lifetime, that when the human attribute is race, there are a relative few who prefer to associate with those who are different, but the majority of people prefer to be with those like themselves.

When leftists detect in themselves this natural affinity, interpreted as an egregious wrong, they are so pained and guilt-ridden, they HAVE to obtain relief. One of the most common ways to do this is to find or fabricate those who are even guiltier (or are perceived to be so) and focus attention and vilification upon them. This creates the greatly desired warm fuzzies of moral superiority. It also serves to remove the spotlight from the accuser's life which will show telltale signs of his forbidden feelings in things like choice of career, choice of neighborhoods, who he associates with, etc.

So Aye believes in honoring his Confederate ancestors, but does not hold white supremacist beliefs. Bee also believes in honoring his Confederate ancestors, and does hold white supremacist beliefs.

Anti-Confederate Cee, a left-leaning white person guilt-ridden over a deep personal secret --his natural affinity for those like himself -- dehumanizes Bee, strips him of all his human traits, accomplishments, thoughts, beliefs, relationships, and totally defines him as a white supremacist and nothing more, and then throws verbal rocks at him on the Internet.

It feels good. It generates those warm fuzzies. But not enough. In fact, the fuzzies are addicting, and it takes more and more to appease his need. So, based on the fact that Aye, just like Bee, honors Confederate ancestors, Cee puts forth the notion that Aye is a white supremacist, as well, even though Aye as never said or done anything to indicate that. Nevertheless, Cee accuses Aye of being a white supremacist because he honors his Confederate heritage, just like that evil, racist Bee does --  and the fuzzy-generating vilification begins.

This is known as the "links and ties" method of trashing somebody's reputation, honed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but not invented by them. It's also known as Guilt by Association, and it is a logical fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

It is also glaringly overused by floggers and floggerettes in their rock-throwing at the VaFlaggers and other Confederate heritage advocates and activists. Since it generates such powerful, pleasurable (if bogus) feelings of moral superiority, it seems unlikely that they will develop an appreciation for intellectual honesty and drop the guilt by association accusations and vilification anytime soon.

Happy Birthday, General Lee

A great man admired by the world.
A military genius beloved by his soldiers.

I don't think his like will ever be seen again.

It's Enough to Give Floggers and Floggerettes...

...  a ginormous case of heartburn and a humongous keister-chapping....

_________________________________

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.

Proverbs 18:17 NIV

_________________________________
Comments left on XRoads about the VaFlaggers at Lexington and my responses:

A Hintz -- While I had my difficulties with freshman calculus at W&L, even I know that formula doesn’t add up.

Me -- Mr. Hintz, you can't go by one or two images Simpson chooses; you have to also see what he's deliberately leaving out. If you don't, it makes you look dumb, ya know?

jclark82 -- I think they might be referring to the three’s combined IQ…

See reply to Mr. Hintz.

Alan -- Now that’s what I call fuzzy math. Even if there’s 500 or 5,000, it won’t change anything, just like the LULZ-cott!

But it will expose yet another in a long, long list of Simpson's lies.

Schroeder -- Poor dears… bless their hearts.

Back atcha, Wonder Woman.

Sarah -- I hear that the local merchants in Lexington are closing up shop right and left, and begging for subsidies because of how hard hit their economy has been due to the boycott. It’s pretty dire straights in Lexington if you are a business owner these days. That makes perfect sense anyway, boycott businesses that had nothing to do with the issue. They’re really showing Washington & Lee who’s boss!

Yes, Sarah, alas, the Lexington boycott seems to be having little effect -- like the NAACP's boycott of South Carolina.

 From "Rebel flag quietly goes back up" by Trace Gibbs, The State, Tuesday, March 16, 2010: "...the boycott had no effect on South Carolina's $14 billion in annual tourism revenue..."

By my observation (and admittedly, studying boycotts doesn't loom large in my view of what's important) boycotts against companies, especially a local boycott of a local company, works better than a boycott against a place -- a state, a municipality, etc. 

http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/why_boycotts_succeed_and_fail

Of course, there can be more than one effect of a boycott. It can bring boycotters together, strengthen their sense of solidarity, regardless of how successful or not it is in affecting the entity being boycotted.

Brooks D. Simpson --Actually, according to other folks business is improving in Lexington. But then sarcasm does not travel well online. :)

Just like SC under the NAACP boycott...

The Lamp --The news report doesn’t say 50, it says “a few dozen” but it barely looks like that either:
http://imgur.com/N65Hgn6

Well, Lamprey, hon, you should have waited until more pics got posted, capisce? Now you look silly for jumping the gun.

Alan -- So even the SCV doesn’t want to be linked to the Flaggers? That’s good stuff.

Actually, one guy, Brandon Dorsey, said the SCV doesn’t support some of the Flaggers’ tactics, according to roanoke.com.  However, Brandon Dorsey is not the SCV. He isn't even the VIRGINIA SCV. He's the commander of one camp in Virginia -- that's one, count 'em, one, o-n-e, (1) -- of something like 80 camps in the Old Dominion -- not to mention all those in other states and elsewhere.

The SCV doesn't want to be linked to the VaFlaggers? I do believe you're mistaken.  Well, it seems the Bedford Rifle Grays, Camp 1475, doesn't mind being linked to the VaFlaggers. In fact, the person with the brilliant smile sitting on their beautiful palamino is none other than the Head Flagger in Charge.

Doesn't seem to be the case with these camps or individuals, either. Note the Virginia Division Brigade Commander, and both a past and current CIC of the whole SCV. And these are just a few of the SCV camps that have awarded Susan with recognition for her efforts on behalf of the memory of Confederate soldiers....

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Image 5

Image 6

Image 7

1 -- Delaware Grays Camp #2068 Seaford, DE
2 -- Sgt. William Hamby Camp #1750 Crossville, TN
3 -- Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648 Arlington, TX
4 -- Major Robert M White Camp 1250 Temple, TX
5 -- Then Commander In Chief Michael Givens flagging the VMFA.
6 -- Flat Top Copper Head #1694 Princeton, WV (with current Commander-in Chief C. Kelly Barrow
7 -- Receiving Va Division SCV Sesquicentennial Medal from 2nd Brigade Commander Everette Ellis

And this is just a drop in the bucket.

Sarah --“Attempts to reach the flaggers for comment were unsuccessful.”

http://m.roanoke.com/news/virginia/lee-jackson-day-focus-shifts-to-education-though-some-flag/article_c74618d9-7e6e-5dcd-a86e-7fa29fdc41e4.html?mode=jqm

Silent Susan strikes again.

I wonder if the SCV still has a bad taste in it’s mouth over the White Nationalist photo ops from the last get together? They were probably waiting to see if the Flaggers doubled down on doopid before they decided to keep their distance. It’s a good idea too because based on the guest list over at the Flaggers FB event, it’s looking like almost a repeat of the SCV event over the summer. Maybe Shane Long can snap another selfie with the “Silent One” this weekend. I imagine she will be able to put together quite a scrapbook.

Silent? Well, not exactly.

leo -- Flagging groups are essentially stupid and void of any real impact beyond hurting their own cause. They are an evolutionary dead-end.

Flaggers are dissenters, picketers, which have a long, honored history in the USA.

Alan -- Here’s some math for the Flaggers. In three years time, they’ve raised three flags. At that rate, they’ll overtake Virginia with Confederate Pride in…. Nevermind, it’ll take forever.

Three years, zero impact, zero flags returned, zero economic impact from boycott. Countless hours wasted.

From your vantage point, Alan. Not from everyone's, and certainly not from theirs.

Eek-a-mouse -- But their new Lexington flag is in a primo location. Lest anyone at Enterprise Rent-a-car or the Hardee’s Drive-thru forget!
Deo We’ll-pick-you-up!!!!

New Lexington flag? Which one?

Sarah --Maybe Connie can use some of her photoshop skills and add some Flaggers to that photo? That’s just pitiful. Poor Flaggers.

Don't need it. Miss Judy's photos of reality tell the story you smear-mongers were too anxious to wait for.  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

I keep telling y'all, don't trust what Brooks tells ya. He will steer you wrong and you end up looking like idiots.

Al Mackey -- How incompetent do you have to be for Brandon Dorsey to say he doesn’t agree with your tactics?

Is incompetence the only reason to not agree with something? Al, Al, Al ... don't let your animosity make you look like such a dunce!

Joshua Chamberlain -- My first impression of their pictures is that there is hardly anyone else walking around besides them. It calls to mind sets in The Walking Dead, with Tripp, Susan, Creech, et al playing the walkers/zombies/flaggers?

Ah, Josh ol' boy. They made pictures of their event, get it? When you throw a party, do you take pics of your guests, or do you go around taking pics of strangers who aren't even coming to the party? Folks, seriously, don't let your lust for the put-down cause you to assassinate your common sense.

Sarah -- From the Backsass Chatterbox:

“17 Jan 15, 01:37 AM
Connie: Almost 250 VaFlagger posts or comments at XRoads since the Flaggers were founded.”

“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: Most of them made-up crap meant to smear, denigrate, intimidate, silence, harass, persecute.”

“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: What difference would it make if Susan made a “statement” about the unauthorized reprint? You people who hate her smear and slash her no matter what she does.”

Connie Chastain has been throwing around the word “smear” like it’s candy for children on Halloween. So what is a smear? According to the definition provided by my Iphone, a “smear” is:

“damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.”

You need to edumucate your iPhone, Sarah, hon.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smear

~~ an untrue story about a person that is meant to hurt that person's reputation
~~ a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively <a smear campaign> <a smear job>
~~sully, besmirch; specifically :  to vilify especially by secretly and maliciously spreading grave charges and imputations

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smear?s=ts

~~ to sully, vilify, or soil (a reputation, good name, etc.).
~~ vilification:

Now we know that Connie is going to have problems with this one, so let’s give her a hand. Connie, the key word here is “false”.

Not in the definitions I posted, shweethaht.

I’m glad Connie wrote “most of them”, because that means she is admitting that “some of them” aren’t “made-up crap”. Unfortunately, Chastain has declined to cite “any of them” that are “made-up crap”. We have to wonder if this is because “none of them” are? You all know the answer to that one.

No, I think Connie knows darned well there’s been no smearing, just a bunch of facts she and the “Silent One” can’t refute. How unfortunate.

Why, no, darling. Some of what Simpson says is not made up -- like his complaints about Susan's clothes, and her traveling around the South to speaking engagements. He means them to be slurs and smears, because that's his mentality, but of course, there's nothing wrong with her clothes and travels.

Skim my blog, Sarah-kins. It's full of proof of Simpson's made up crap (or crap from commenters that he allows), from "disturbing Confederate graves" to cutting trees on the VDOT right of way, to accusations of putting Wonder Woman's address online, when she did that herself, and on and on and on. 

Jimmy Dick -- What does she have to say about the SCV dissing the flaggers? That is more telling than anything. Here the flaggers run around waving CBFs and putting them up in the air, but when it comes time to make real decisions and actually discuss things the flaggers are not invited or allowed to be part of the discussion even in a controlled environment like the one the SCV set up.

Maybe the SCV doesn’t want to associate with people who aid and abet kidnappers or hang out with the League of the South and associated racists. According to Ben Jones, the SCV is opposed to racism. His silence on the subject has been deafening lately.

The SCV didn't dis the Flaggers, Mr. Dick. See my reply to Alan above.

Alan --  @ Sarah  What I don’t understand is if they are being slandered, that is, people are telling lies about them that are damaging their reputation, why aren’t they taking legal action? That’s an easy win for them if there are lies being peddled about them.

Because the people doing it are TRYING to damage Flagger reputations; they aren't being very successful at it. The people who believe it are people whose opinions the Flaggers don't value, like you floggerettes. And most people in the Southern heritage community aren't litigious like leftists and liberals.

A Flag Raised High...

above a place is a universally understood proclamation that the place has been conquered.

In Lexington, Virginia (Photo: SAB)

News and Pics from Lexington

Here are some early pics of the Virginia Flaggers in Lexington for Lee Jackson Day.

And here's reports from the local media. Looks like they didn't find Simpsons information ... informative. At least, not enough to use in their initial reports.

http://www.thenews-gazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1925%3Aflagging-the-holiday&catid=77%3Abreaking-news&Itemid=395

http://www.wset.com/story/27871939/lee-jackson-day-brings-crowds-to-lexington

http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/lee-jackson-day-focus-shifts-to-education-though-some-flag/article_c74618d9-7e6e-5dcd-a86e-7fa29fdc41e4.html

So, once again, Simpson jumps the gun, anxious to ridicule the VaFlaggers for the entertainment of his slavering blog audience. And once again, it backfires, he trips, and lands flat on his face.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy....

______________________
Lexington Images, Judy Smith Photography
Slip and Fall Image, the Public Domain
Image processing by C. Ward

Fun at XRoads....

Cute comedy post has gone up at XRoads, though it's error-ridden, as usual. Just some quick corrections.

The flag behind me in the photo of me flagging the county is not on the ground. It's on the concrete base that supports the lamp post. You can see that beneath it, it casts a very small, faint shadow on the concrete of the lamp post base. If the flag were not on the concrete base but behind it, it still wouldn't be on the ground. It would be leaning against the hedge bordering the entry to the courthouse, as the hedge runs right up against the base.

(Photo: S.H.)

(Photo: Google.com)

Of course, reality doesn't matter to Simpson. If he can construe something negatively, he will. (And he calls me bitter and angry!)

Since he had to use Scott Hamilton's FB avatar image to give his readers an idea of what the flag looks like, one must wonder if his graduate students who comb the net for him are slacking off.  Here's a better picture, with red instead of gold stars.

http://www.anyflag.com/Merchant4/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AFG&Product_Code=35NY74T

The rest of the post ... Meh...  On to the comments.

OhioGuy, I displayed my small battle flag the first time I flagged, at the Pensacola Bay Center (the mayor's silly name for the civic center) because my other flags were still packed away. I've used the First National ever since, because, purportedly, the Five Flags are supposed to be the national flags that represented nations of which Pensacola was a part at various times in her history.

Just a suggestion for future reference. Don't get your info about Confederate heritage and our causes from Simpson. He's extremely prejudiced and known to distort and to lie profusely about us.

The following is edited from a message I wrote for people who show interest in a local flagging effort:

Folks, I don't think Pensacola and Escambia County will ever return the battle flag to Five Flags displays. And I'm actually okay with one of the national flags being in the display. I think the Third National would be the most appropriate. I do love the First National, but the fact is, the Confederate Congress voted to replace it.

When the city replaced the battle flag in its displays, people here made a big deal of Confederates abandoning Pensacola and its being in Union hands for much of the war... and that is their reasoning for sticking with the First National. Pensacola was occupied when the flag changes were made.

But...what they don't take into consideration is that the government of Pensacola, rather than sit and take being under federal occupation, up and moved to Greenville, Alabama for the remainder of the war, and carried on city business from there. A lot of Pensacola residents did, too. The State of Florida recognized and approved of the city's move.  So the city of Pensacola remained Confederate throughout the war. Thus, I think the proper flag for the displays -- IF the criteria is that they are flags of nations that governed Pensacola -- is the Third National.    ~Connie

As for Simpson's "position" being misrepresented ... he has a position? I mean, besides denigrating, attacking, harassing, and lying about folks who honor their Confederate heritage? Who knew?

Leo, I am protesting the removal of ALL the flags that were removed -- the Confederate, Spanish, British and French flags -- from the display. If I had the latter three flags, I would be flagging with them, too -- and I may get them.

Also note, Leo, that the Confederacy, its heritage and legacy, are under attack. That is why we defend it. By my experience and observation, Confederate heritage advocates and activists deeply love the South, Southern culture and Southern tradition. But Southern food, music, literature, art, etc., are not under attack, generally speaking, (though there have been a few instances....).

Loss of focus on my blog, Simpson? My blog's header explains it for anyone who isn't determined to misrepresent and misconstrue: Defending Dixie ~ Commentary on pro-Southernism and Southern culture; Confederate history, heritage and activism; religion, politics and America's pop culture; and whatever else I feel like writing about. (Semicolons added to designate line breaks.)

  UPDATE     UPDATE     UPDATE     UPDATE  

Sarah the Sleuth is back with all kinds of, um, sleuthing that will bore you out of your gourd. And then we have Liberty "Kill Whitey" Lamprey posting this....

The Lamp
January 16, 2015 at 12:05 am

Of course she is unhappy, just look at her! she looks like one of those people Reagan threw out of St Eves back in the 80s and had to live on the streets!

She is a sad reminder of how bad the mental illness problem is in America today.

This from a person with a death fetish who gets off on disturbing, death-themed images like these she posted on her twitter feed...

And this one, advocating the killing of white people.

Keep in mind this person's warning to the Virginia Flaggers in the run-up to the raising of the first I-95 battle flag in Chester:

"Well, they should be scared of us, we win at this game, always have and always will. We would like to help put a stop to this flag going up, but we need a little assistance."

When somebody with a death fetish who posts "Kill Whitey" talks like that, we get a glimpse of real mental illness problems...the sociopathic kind.

BTW, Lamprey, you know there's hope, don't you? Psychiatric medicine progresses all the time. Have you considered treatment? Perhaps anti-psychotic drugs?

Incidentally, have any of my readers ever seen where Simpson admonished Lamprey for her violent Twitter images and the threat to the VaFlaggers she posted on HIS blog?

(Pssst, I'm not unhappy in that picture ... it's just that my knees are killing me, despite which I'm more than happy to stand up for my Confederate heritage in the face of the actions of misguided politicians and assorted haters who want to erase it.)

Promises, Promises II

January 6 -- Simpson announces that he's only going to do Confederate heritage denigration, smearing and harassment commentary once a week, unless he finds something particularly interesting.

January 9 -- Article smearing Susan Hathaway (second heritage smear of the week).

January 14 -- Second "weekly" Confederate heritage denigration, smearing and harassment post.

January 15 -- Article using "proper flag etiquette" to denigrate and smear Confederate  heritage people (second heritage smear of the week, and the week's not over yet).

So far, his once-weekly commentary has been doubled, for two consecutive weeks. True, he did say, "Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule, but only in cases I find particularly interesting." Apparently, nearly anything heritage is "particularly interesting" to him, because he's obsessed. That's why there are over 242 posts and/or comments about the Virginia Flaggers at XRoads.

The little man from Gilbert, Arizona can't be believed, can't be trusted. His love of denigration, his dedication to stirring people to hatred, his hope to someday see someone he disdains hurt or injured, far outweighs his integrity....

Promises, Promises I

Obstinacy and Arrogance

From a post at XRoads:

Quote of the Week: January 4-10, 2015

For this week’s quote we go back in time to 1869, when the president of Washington College, Robert E. Lee, sat down to reply to a letter from the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association. The association had asked him to join in an effort to memorialize the field with monuments to those who had fought there. Lee declined, adding:

I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavoured to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.

Those people who plan to travel to Lexington, Virginia, this coming week to honor Robert E. Lee should keep what Lee said in mind. Not that they would be the first to ignore the wishes of someone they claim to honor. The same holds true for the first effort to erect a monument to Lee on the battlefield. Eventually, of course, Virginia honored its general, and every year thousands of people gather there to embark upon a walk across the very same fields where Confederates charged on July 3, 1863.

Some things the veddy, veddy knowledgeable and edumucated Professor Simpson fails to take into consideration:

1. Lee was speaking in the aftermath of the bloodiest war in American history, the memory of the carnage still fresh, the loss of the dead still an excruciating wound in the living, the people of the entire region enduring the yoke of the conquerer's oppression and still suffering devastation and privation. Anyone who thinks that did not  influence his thoughts on the matter is either an idiot or a deceiver.

2. Lee did not know what we see when we look back to the past; he could not look into the future and see what we know today.

There's no way to know this, but if he could have, maybe his thoughts would have been different. No guarantee that they would; but there's no guarantee that they wouldn't.

People can believe what they wish. We -- or, at least, I -- won't tell floggers and floggerettes what to believe, or how to interpret historical writings. Too bad their obstinacy and arrogance prevents their extending the same courtesy to us.

Some Comments To, and About....

... XRoads floggerettes, and the head flogger in charge.

So Simpson tweeted to Susan a link to his article about the First Freedom column. It doesn't necessarily follow that she saw it. My understanding is that she purposely doesn't read his crap (or any other hate crap from floggers). Except occasionally, when her friends think she might like a good laugh, and send her a link.  Her ignoring him is probably one of the reasons Simpson can't stand her.

Well, Simpson, I'm glad you haven't tarnished my blog with a visit, but it's understandable that I would think so, since the chatter parroted things you've said almost word for word. If it wasn't you, fine. I don't really care.

Lamprey, I don't think  you are an assortment of characters. I think you have an assortment of online identities and profiles.

I'm looking for racist minkeys.

Some floggerette using the handle Sarah who is really pedantic (puts you in mind of some of M. Blough's snooze-worthy offerings) thinks Childress's claim was odd (for thinking Susan's article was in the public domain). She's gone into full Inspector Clouseau mode (with apologies to the great Peter Sellers). Perhaps we should nickname her Jacques....

First, I note that she offers a definition of public domain, but doesn't attribute it. It's found at Wikipedia but she doesn't say that, so using Simpson's standard, she's a plagiarist. (I guess plagiarism is okay with him when HIS side does it).

She says, "It doesn’t appear that Hathaways (sic) work fits that description."

Dictionary.com defines public domain this way: "the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection." (Emphasis added. --cw)

I suspect Childress thought the last phrase of the definition applied -- that the article never had copyright protection, and was thus in the public domain. But only he knows for sure, meaning all of Jacques' sleuthing doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

She notes that the VaFlaggers' blog displays a copyright notice, so presumably she thinks Childress should have known he needed permission to reprint it.  See, this is what happens when people learn a few things on the Internet, but remain ignorant of others. The Sticks and Stones essay was posted numerous places -- on Facebook, where it was shared a bunch of times, and on other blogs that may or may not display a copyright notice. Unless he's asked and says so, there's no way of knowing where he got it.

"What does Chastain mean by “verifying it?” Verifying that the paper didn’t have her permission to publish? That’s established, so I doubt they’d waste the time."

You're not a journalist, are you, Inspector?  The media standard for establishing and/or verifying something is NOT the private blog of a retired insurance secretary. They have to verify it themselves.

Jacques says, "Again, what is slanderous about pointing out that her work was reprinted in that paper? That’s a fact."

But Simpson didn't just point out that her work appeared in the tabloid.  If he had, it would have gone something like this: "An article written by Susan Hathaway of the Virginia Flaggers appears in the January 2015 issue of The First Freedom, a right-wing tabloid newspaper that includes racist content."

That is a factual statement; it's 28 words long. What Simpson posted is 519 words focusing almost exclusively on the racist content and interpreting it for his sycophants who he perhaps thinks aren't savvy enough to understand what he's trying soooo hard to get across...

As for anger and/or concern, the impression I've developed of Susan since I've been acquainted with her is that she cares about the opinions of those who care about her, and she doesn't give a fig about the opinions of people who denigrate, attack, smear, lie about, harass, persecute and hate her and who disparage her cause.

Simpson's slander is implied, Jacques, and couched in plausible deniability, as I explained. That's his stock in trade, and I have pointed it out numerous times.

He and his floggerette peanut gallery are not "watching, noting, and even reporting on" what the VaFlaggers are doing. He is continuing his campaign of denigration, smears and attacks on Susan and the Flaggers, which he has been doing the past three+ years. Do you REALLY think the 242+ VaFlagger posts (or mentions or comments) at XRoads are just "watching, noting and reporting on?" No, they are evidence of animosity that is, at once, deep and petty (complaining about the color of Susan's clothes, for example).

Don't believe it? Then you're part of the problem.

The primary reason for mentioning Simpson's hiding the identity of his informant was simply to show his gargantuan hypocrisy. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain that....

"The most revealing thing though is that Chastain feels that you pointing out that Hathaways work was reprinted in the Newsletter is damaging to the group. She recognizes that it is a negative."

Depends on where you think the negativity lies. There is an extreme probability that most people whose opinions matter do not read the tabloid, do not know it exists, and never even heard of it. The reason I think Simpson's pointing it out could be damaging is because that's exactly what he wants, intends and is trying to bring about.

Anybody who thinks Simpson's writings about the VaFlaggers is "just factual" is either lying or hasn't been paying attention. Want an example?

Remember when Simpson implied Grayson had cut trees on the right of way beside the Interstate adjacent to the Chester battle flag site? Sed he:

"Seems there was a lot of police activity by the flag site on January 2 as five police vehicles checked on the results of more tree-cutting … this time reportedly across the property line that divides the trailer park from the interstate. You’re not supposed to do that, Grayson … and one Richmond station carried the news last night. Given that the Virginia Flaggers openly boasted about their plans to cut down those trees, I imagine this might get interesting."

See, this is typical Simpson slimy-slick manipulation of the language accompanied by plausible deniability and implication. He doesn't come out and say Grayson cut the trees. But his followers, with their drooling eagerness to believe any negative about the VaFlaggers, probably went away from that blog post believing Grayson had cut the trees. (The claim that the VaFlaggers "openly boasted about their plans cutting trees on the right of way" is, of course, unaccompanied by verification, links, source, etc.)

BTW, did Simpson post the outcome of the right-of-way tree cutting? I've seen no post at XRoads about it, so presumably not. Was it because (a) it didn't turn out the way he wanted or (b) he doesn't know how it turned out? He does that a lot, posts grand pronouncements like they're fact, often wrong because they are based on partial knowledge. Knowing the whole story can paint a very different picture.

(Incidently, I do know how the tree-cutting incident turned out, and have known since it was resolved. In any case, this is proof positive that Simpson's interest in, and writing about, the VaFlaggers is not "just factual.")

Clouseau also says, "This is a great point. She (Susan) chose to have a selfie made with a White Nationalist."

I seriously begin to doubt this woman's ability to read. It wasn't Susan's selfie. A guy named Shane Long, who was an attendee at the event, took a selfie with her.

Sarah shows her true leftist colors here. Typically, leftists dehumanize people who believe things they disapprove of (most especially about race, gender or "sexual orientation"), and totally define such people by what they disapprove of, as she has done here. Based on some of Long's Facebook comments, you could just as easily say Susan posed for a snapshot with a Ravens fan. (And her a Steelers woman!)

Jacques would have to ask to make certain, but presumably, some nationalists attend heritage events because they support Confederate heritage.

"Could it be that “Heritage” is just White Nationalism light?"

If, by heritage, you mean the VaFlaggers, the answer is no. I know this disappoints you, Inspector. Sorry. Careful, don't trip over that umbrella stand.

What's slanderous about Simpson's First Freedom post is his implications, and if he transmits his implications to the media, he will be sending them slanderous material. It's established that the paper didn't have permission to publish Susan's essay? It wasn't when Simpson posted about it. He was striving to make it appear she had written it FOR that publication. That's what the reference to "careful documentation" is supposed to get across.

I think it's safe to say that Susan doesn't care what people like floggers and floggerettes think. She has no desire to explain herself to people who hate her. She cares about what her people think, and I'd wager that if any of them express concerns, she'll address them -- to those people. Otherwise, she focuses on what truly interests her (and keeps her super busy).

Me, now, I'm different. I inherited a lot of pure cussedness from my Appalachian ancestors, and I don't mind tangling with floggers and other assorted haters, because they reveal a lot about themselves that way.

I also don't mind in the least "revealing" why I'm on a first-name basis with Mr. Childress, but I believe the revelation will be a disappointment to Simpson, who seems to live to find (or fabricate) dirt to sling. (Pathetic, huh.)

Ready? Here ya go:

Sometime in 2001, I attended a meeting to discuss the feasibility of a Southern Heritage Festival along the upper Gulf Coast, perhaps Pensacola or Ft. Walton Beach. I met Mr. Childress at that meeting.

On January 13, 2002, I attended an event at the University of West Florida at which Morris Dees was the speaker. Mr. Childress also attended, and I saw him and talked with him there. He was thrown out of the refreshments segment of the event by campus police, who manhandled him two to one, pushing him backwards out the heavy glass doors onto the sidewalk. I was talking with someone near the exit when it happened, and we witnessed it. I later wrote a report about it for my e-zine, 180 Degrees True South.

I also exchanged a  handful of emails with him mostly about the possible festival and the Dees appearance.

I believe the last time I saw him (though I don't remember us conversing) was at a rally for the Ten Commandments in Montgomery on December 17, 2002.

Screenshot of first email to Olaf Childress

If I saw him other times, it didn't register enough for me to remember.

Back to the present. Because it's been that long, I initially sent an email that reminded him who I am, in case he didn't remember me. He did not respond to that one. I sent a second email. I received a reply a little over 24 hours later.

I don't know why he didn't answer the first one, or whether he even saw it. Perhaps he didn't need a reminder of who I am, since I have several open and public web venues (blogs, websites, Facebook, Twitter, and various author/book sites) and Olaf is evidently quite a web surfer since the web, presumably, is the source of a lot of his tabloid's content.

So Simpson attempts to impute grave significance to the "first name basis" of the emails, but he does so based on incomplete information -- and, once again, falls flat on his face when the whole story is revealed.

_______________
Image of Peter Sellers in the public domain. Image processing on all photos by C. Ward.

Found On Facebook....

President Obama: This is why you didn't go to France.

It was you who told an Islamic dinner - "I am one of you."
It was you who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."
It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict -"I will stand with the Muslims."
It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that - "I am a Muslim."
It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.

It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator" - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Quran.
It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.

It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the WH.
It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.
It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.

It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities.
It was you who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the WH, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.

It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help "empower" the British Muslim community.

It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.
It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.
It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.
It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.

It was you who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
It was you who appointed s your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett , who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This Man Is an Embarrassment....

...for the whole country.

Can't be bothered to attend the unity rally in France attended by over a million people, including 40+ world leaders, following Islamic terrorist murders in Paris.

He Couldn't CHECK First?

An interesting e-mail exchange ....

---

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:57:13 -0600
From: "Connie Ward" <connie_ward@cox.net>
To: "editor" <editor@firstfreedom.net>

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
2015-01-10

* * * * * * * * * *

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:42:50 -0600
From: "Olaf Childress" <editor@firstfreedom.net>
To: "Connie Ward"  <connie_ward@cox.net>

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.

And.

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.

   UPDATE      UPDATE      UPDATE      UPDATE  

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.

"...as 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.

http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/to-correct-disinformation.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-floggers-heimbach-maneuver-part-one.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-floggers-heimbach-maneuver-part-deux.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/oh-those-self-righteous-floggers.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-to-assess-gooey-glibness.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/01/georgia-flagger-sets-record-straight.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-year-and-half-late.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/somewhere-in-arizona.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-liars-lie-and-why.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/nope-hes-still-not-flagger.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/best-laid-plans.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/oh-crap-here-we-go-again.html