Saturday, March 28, 2015

Showin' Their Twoo Cuhwurs

UPDATE: A commenter named Leo at XRoads posts, "You are assuming these flagging groups want to be relevant. Judging from their tactics and history, I believe these flagging groups are more interested in getting in the faces of people who disagree with them or are offended by the Confederate battle flag than offering any positive solutions. They appear to have no interested (sic) in history or any form of compromise. They often site (sic) 'the right to offend' as justification for their actions even though doing so harms their cause in the end."

I think she means "cite" and I'm not sure how she defines "often" so I left a comment asking, but of course, Simpson has a long, long history of not posting comments from people he doesn't like. In any case, here's what I posted:

Hi, Leo. I have an observation and some questions. First, just because one perceives that one's face has been "gotten in to" doesn't mean the Flaggers are getting in one's face. That could just be he perception of someone who disagrees with what they're doing.
Positive solutions to what? Compromise what?

I'm not sure how you conceptualize "often" but could you provide some proof -- links, preferably -- of the Virginia Flaggers citing the right to offend? Not all Flagger groups are the same, and the focus on Mr. Simpson's blog is overwhelmingly the Virginia Flaggers, so that's who I'm asking about here, not other groups.

I try to keep up with them as much as I can, but since I'm so far away, and I my contact with them is via the Internet, it's possible that this has slipped past me. However, I've never seen them cite the right to offend, and I really wan to see at least one example of it. If they do it often, as you claim, it shouldn't be difficult to provide one example, or several.

I have seen heritage folks, including some Flaggers, say that being offended is not a right, and it is not justification for trying to silence others or mislabel and remove their beliefs and positions about their heritage. But that's not the same thing as claiming the right to offend.
Too bad Simpson won't post it. I would love to know what the commenter is talking about.

As for getting in the faces of people, the Virginia Flaggers have publicly made reference to Simpson and other hostile critics -- and often not by name -- perhaps dozen times in three years, while Simpson has posted
247 "flagger" (or "heritage") posts at Crossroads blog, virtually all of them unnecessary and untruthful attacks. Who is in whose face?

Leo, I can provide proof of what I just claimed about Simpson. Look at the left sidebar  <==== where the posts are identified. So please, identify just one example of what you're claiming.

~
End of Update~

I just LOVE watching the haters in floggerland show their true colors....

"Today the Virginia Flaggers will dedicate yet another flagpole bearing the Confederate navy jack, this time along I-81 near Lexington, Virginia. How many people really care? I know I don’t."    Brooks Simpson.        On the very day the flag went up.

He couldn't wait one day to express his, um, total indifference? (Smirk.)

Also note that this, the very post where he "doesn't care" about the VaFlaggers raising the flag is his 15th post of 2015 that is about the VaFlaggers (or Southern heritage) or makes reference to them.

And remember, eleven weeks ago he said he was only going to post about Southern heritage once a week ... meaning there should be eleven denigrating and hate-laced heritage posts, instead of the TWENTY there are.

Methinks Simpson is not telling the truth.
UPDATE: From XRoads:   
“He couldn’t wait one day to express his, um, total indifference?”

So says our favorite Confederate heritage fanatic. Actually, the post was composed before the event and appeared before the event. But please don’t let the truth get in the way of Confederate heritage’s “lust to denigrate.”
If it was composed before the event (which readers have no way of knowing), how does that answer my question? It means his claim of "not caring" is an even greater lie. The fact is, his blog post on the flag raising was expressed (by uploading to his blog) the day of the event, as I said. Unless Wordpress puts fraudulent dates on his posts? It says "March 28" and the day of the flag raising was March 28.

So, what I said was the truth. His eagerness in showcasing his obsession with the VaFlaggers belies his claim of "not caring."

And that he would "review" the flag raising event in Lexington before it even happened (according to him), mirrors his act of "reviewing" (with verbal violence) of one of my novels that I haven't even written yet. How's that for obsession? I have no doubt it would be up on Amazon, along his vicious, fraudulent reviews of my current books, if Amazon allowed reviews of as-yet unwritten books.

Simpson is obsessed with  the Confederate heritage community, but especially the VaFlaggers, to an unhealthy degree.
~End of Update~

Then you have comments that show the bigotry of a couple of heritage critics.

First we have Corey Meyer who says, "Today’s ceremony was a private event. I am guessing it was private so that they can use that excuse to push the notion that the small numbers in attendance was only because those were the invited folks."

Don't guess, Corey -- first, you show your hatred when you do, and second, you guess wrong. Interested in facts? Of course not, what a silly question. Nevertheless, here are some facts for you, chump.  No invitations could be reliably sent in time for crowds to attend because the setting of the pole had to be put off so many times because of the weather.  The flippin' pole wasn't set until Wednesday. (And temps were below freezing, and it was snowing when the ceremony began.)

Then you have Ohioboi who says, "Oh, I forgot, these guys and gals want to live in the Old South with slaves to do their bidding and be their underclass." Presumably, by "these guys and gals" he means the Virginia Flaggers. If his life depended on his proving this, he'd have to put in his order for his last meal, because the only "proof" comes from the statements of critics and haters -- statements like the one he just made. Try to find the Virginia Flaggers saying ANYTHING like what this lyin' scum just said.

I've never seen ANY evidence that the VaFlaggers, or the vast majority of Southern heritage folks, want to live in the Old South. The oft-stated (both publicly and privately) purpose of the Virginia Flaggers (and other heritage groups and individuals) is to honor Confederates for fighting to defend their states, communities, homes and families from a brutal military invasion.

I wonder if Ohioboi knows he's lying, or if he's delusional and actually believes the sewage he spouts....

Despite Simpson's obviously false claim to the contrary, he and his minions are vitally focused on the Virginia Flaggers and the big flags they're putting up around the state.  In a little over three years, this group has grown from one woman and her flag to the most powerful and influential Southern heritage organization in existence -- and the cause of a heritage tsunami that has energized other people from one end of the Confederacy to the other. 

This, btw, shows that Ohioboi is wrong about something else, too. Sez he, "The only thing these large flag poles with the CBF (or Navy Jack) accomplish is to reinforce the belief among cultural bigots in the North who happen to be traveling down the road and see the flag that most southerners are racial bigots..."

Ah, no, cutie pie. That is FAR from the only thing these highway memorial flags accomplish ... and, as you demonstrate, they aren't even necessary for northern cultural bigots such as yourself to reinforce your lyin' beliefs about the South.

This is truth the floggers hate, but then "...the truth has never distracted them from their beliefs..." (about Southern heritage and the VaFlaggers), to paraphrase Brooks Simpson.

Yes, I do love it when the floggers and floggerettes show their true colors...

Thursday, March 26, 2015

OhioGuy Confirms VaFlagger Claims

In a post at XRoads, OhioGuy tells about his tourist stop in the  Capital of the Confederacy. I was struck by some of what he said. I include them here, along with my comments -- some to him, some about his claims. Sez OhioGuy: 
 Well, ... just visited the Museum of the Confederacy ... It’s a very impressive museum, which is run by a very professional staff. What probably angers the flaggers more than anything is that they no longer present the Lost Cause mythology in their interpretation of either the causes of the war or the conduct of the war. 
What you mean is that it's no longer a museum of the Confederacy. It's a civil war museum, which is not the same thing.
They actually seemed to be trying very hard to present history with integrity and to be as accurate as possible.
I.e., they presented what YOU agree with -- and it's not the history of the Confederacy.
I noticed a few editorial comments that showed some bias, such as referring in one display to “Sherman’s infamous March to the Sea . . .” However, in total it was objective and well presented history.
Meaning, it agreed with your biases.
I had interesting discussions with both the senior curator and the director of public relations while there. I pointed out an error in a video segment on the Emancipation Proclamation. They seemed anxious to make the necessary correction. Being open to this kind of correction, to me, shows intellectual integrity. 
They're going to change their presentation on the say-so of one museum visitor whose credentials and qualifications they presumably do not know? Are they gonna change their presentation every time some visitor says he's found something wrong with it? No wonder some folks consider the museum unprofessional and biased.
 Something that I haven’t noticed in abundance among flaggers.
What is your experience with the VaFlaggers, except what you see limited by the Internet, or filtered through their critics and detractors? And do you consider that reliable?

Yep, OhioGuy has just confirmed what the VaFlaggers have been saying or hinting at for so long -- it's not the Museum of the Confederacy. It's the Museum of Dishonoring the Confederacy.

A Man of His Word...

On January 6th, Brooks Simpson posted at XRoads:
This Week in Confederate Heritage
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.
 That was eleven weeks ago -- meaning, there should be eleven "Confederate Heritage" posts subsequent to that date.

There are not. There are twenty. That's only two shy of TWICE eleven... The large numbers on the calendar above represent heritage posts.

He also said, "Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule, but only in cases I find particularly interesting."

I think it's pretty clear that he find so many cases "particularly interesting" because he is obsessed with Confederate heritage and its supporters, because they are grist for his denigration mill. You have only to look at the subjects of the 20 posts in eleven weeks to see that:
 1 -- 1/6/2015
This Week in Confederate Heritage
This year I’m going to try something different ...

2 -- 1/9, 2015   
Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers....

3 -- 1/15, 2015   
Proper Flag Etiquette

5 -- 1/16, 2015   
Civil War Arithmetic

6 -- 1/19, 2015   
Quote of the Week: January 11-17, 2015

7 -- 1/1, 2015The Past Two (Boring) Weeks in Confederate Heritage

8 --  2/9, 2015   
Attention John Stauffer and Jim Downs …

9  -- 2/25, 2015   
Remembering … and Misremembering … Reconstruction

10  --  2/28, 2015   
The Persistence of Myth in Confederate Heritage

11 --  3/6, 2015 The Last Five Weeks of Confederate Heritage

12 --  3/8, 2015 Call for help from author

13 --  3/15, 2015 What they don't teach you

14  --  3/16, 2015 Confederate Heritage Fantasy Fiction

15 --  3/17, 2015 Connie Chastain Outs Karen Cooper and Valerie Protopapas

16 --  3/19, 2015 “Restore the Honor!”

17 --  3/20, 2015 The Ignorance and Lies of H. K. Edgerton and Robert Mestas

18  --  3/22, 2015 This Week

19 --   3/24, 2015 Poll Questions: The VMFA, the SCV, and the War Memorial Chapel

20  --  3/25, 2015 Research Exercise: Where Are the Flags?
A man of his word, huh....

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Another Lie from the Floggosphere

Challenges for My Readers

(1) Find on this blog or elsewhere any "blindingly racist statements" made by me about the Pakistani birthplace of Mayor Huja of Charlottesville, Va.

(2) Find on this blog or elsewhere any statements made by me that indicate my view of the Civil War is based more on “Gone with the Wind” than anything factual.

Put your findings in a comment following this post. Thanks!

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

How a Liar Lies, Part .... Geepers, I've Lost Count....

Cowanon sez, "Now, please do be specific when you make accusations of lying, smearing, and libel. We're waiting."

In my previous post, I said, "There are lots of ways to lie ... outright stating an untruth, but also implication, omission, pretended ingnorance, etc."

Here's how Cowanon does it:


This is known as the "links and ties" method of character assassination, perfected by the $PLC (Socialist Pecunious Lawyer Crowd), but in widespread use by other assorted leftists, including "anti-racists" and the civil war left. Person A and Person F may have little to nothing in common, but the links-and-ties chain that separates them is used to imply that they do.

This is the method used in the attempted smear of the Virginia Flaggers with Matt Heimbach. He attended some events they attended and he shows up in a couple of photos/videos with them. The implication by the smear-meisters is that they have the same beliefs he does. They don't always come right out and say that -- perhaps they don't wish to be challenged to prove what they cannot prove... So they make certain implications and hope the reader will do the rest. Which their readers are usually eager to do.

Couple of other interesting things to note about Cowanon... S/he says:

And...
But Fair Use is not for smearing, lying about, falsely accusing and mendaciously implying associations that don't exist.

Cowanon's visceral hatred of those he falsely implies are racist, using the false associations/links-and-ties method of mendacity, is reflected in his visceral obsession with them. To have such a need, and to indulge it, is truly pathetic and Cowanon seriously needs to get a life....

    UPDATE         UPDATE         UPDATE         UPDATE    

A well known Southern heritage advocate illustrates the links-and-ties smear method this way: "My hairdresser's first cousin's ex wife's insurance agent's mother once dated a guy whose second cousin's ex husband was in the klan. That makes me a racist." LOL!!

And speaking of the various methods of lying (outright stating an untruth, but also implication, omission, pretended ignorance, etc.) Simpson has just posted a blog entry that employs several of these methods. He's been particularly poisonous recently, after being silent for several days. I think he's pissed that I exposed his mean-spiritedness, as revealed in his false reviews of my books. I'm not sure why he would be angry about that ... I mean, he loves being mean and mendacious, so what's the problem?

Cowardly Anonymous Flogger Also a Liar

There are lots of ways to lie ... outright stating an untruth, but also implication, omission, pretended ingnorance, etc.

Over in the Quickies widget, I said, "The Fair Use doctrine does not mean images or written passages used without permission were donated, so 'Courtesy of' is a lie."

Cowardly flogger dishonestly truncates that to this:

 "The Fair Use doctrine does not mean images or written passages used without permission." Connie Chastain"

She doesn't end with ellipses to indicate there was more. She attributes it to me exactly as she misportrayed it, with a period after "permission". This, of course, totally changes the meaning of the sentence I wrote. My point was that Fair Use doesn't give the passages used the status of DONATION.

Cowardly Anonymous Flogger -- Cowanon for short --sez the entire point of the Fair Use Doctrine is that images or passages are used without permission and are donated.  Not true. Fair use allows images and passages to be reprinted without permission under certain conditions, for certain reasons, and with certain restrictions -- but it doesn't give the images and passages the status of donations or courtesies.

From Merriam Webster:
 courtesy of

If you say that something has been provided through the courtesy of or (by) courtesy of a person, organization, business, etc., you are politely saying that they paid for it, gave it, or let it be used.
~The flowers were provided through the courtesy of a local florist.
~This program is brought to you courtesy of our sponsors. [=it has been paid for by our sponsors]
I have given no text or images to Cowanon. I have not donated them to her. I am not allowing them to be used. She has stolen them and the Fair Use doctrine simply protects her from the consequences of theft and copyright infringment. So her use of "Courtesy of" is a blatant and very characteristic lie.

This kind of moral bankruptcy is rampant in the ranks of heritage critics.  I hope to show more of this kind of disgusting lack of integrity from other critics as time permits. But, I have an author services job to finish, and several more possibly coming in soon. It'll have to wait for a while.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Working Covers and Inspiration Images...

for my historical novel and sequel....
The protagonist of After the Stars Fell (tentatively named Morgan Walraven) was born in the "big house" of his father's modest plantation, Valhalla, on November 13, 1833, the night of a spectacular Leonid meteor storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonids).  Born in Valhalla's slave quarters on the same night, and almost at the same moment, was a male slave (tentatively named Dorsey) who would eventually be given to young Morgan as a companion and playmate.

I was inspired to give Morgan this date of birth by a passage from the Foreward of Carl Carmer's book, Stars Fell on Alabama: "M
any an Alabamian to this day reckons dates from 'the year the stars fell' -- though he and his neighbor frequently disagree as to what year of our Lord may be so designated. All are sure, however, that once upon a time stars fell on Alabama, changing the land's destiny. What had been written in eternal symbols was thus erased -- and the region has existed ever since, unreal and fated, bound by a horoscope such as controls no other country." (Emphasis mine.)
 

Morgan and Dorsey are 28 when they go off to war to fight the yankees. Morgan leaves behind a young wife and baby. It will be in interesting to see how the fall of the stars on their birth night influences their lives -- whether they're charmed or cursed.

Valhalla is located on a fictional river in Baldwin, Monroe or Clarke county, probably Baldwin. The house was inspired by Crumptonia near Orrville, Alabama. It has a front porch covered with a triangular pediment roof supported by four square columns with very plain capitals. However, Crumptonia is a bit too grand for Valhalla's big house -- it served as the inspiration, not the pattern. Valhalla is smaller and much more modest.



Crumptonia restored:



These are more what Valhalla would look like:

The Dellet House, Claiborne, Alabama


Black Thistle Plantation, the Underwood Home, Pleasant Hill, Alabama


Glencairn Plantation, Greensboro, Alabama (Don't know if it's been restored.)


Dry Fork Plantation, Coy, Alabama

Although the plantation house and outbuildings will look like those in more inland areas, Valhalla's land and vegetation was inspired by those that surround Kingsley Plantation in Jacksonville, Florida. But the house won't look like this one....

 














The plantation will border on a fictional river, a tributary of the Alabama or Tensaw. It will also border on, and in some areas encompass, wetlands thick with saltmarsh cordgrass.















In antebellum times and in the 21st century, the house is visible from the main road, but one must travel a short distance through coastal woodlands like those below to reach it.

Valhalla is still owned by the descendants of the Walravens who built it. The current owner (in the sequel) is Julian Walraven.  By the time of the sequel, in the 21st century, the plantation has transitioned to a dairy farm.  Julian, in his late 20s, and he and his father run the farm.




















____________________
(Note: Some of these images found on the net are for illustration purposes only.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Addressing the Escambia County Commissioners

Background: In December 2014, it was reported in the Pensacola media that the Escambia County Board of Commissioners would vote on the five flags display at the Pensacola Bay Center. Everyone, including the late Earl Bowden of the Pensacola News Journal (PNJ), assumed the vote would be to replace the Confederate battle flag with the First National flag of the Confederacy, known as the Stars and Bars. This would make the county display the same as the city of Pensacola's five flags displays. I didn't attend that meeting because this change seemed a foregone conclusion.

In a move few if any foresaw, the commission voted 4 to 1 to remove all the five flags except the US flag, and to add the Florida flag to the display.

The community was stunned. I believed from the moment I heard about the vote that it was a mistake and would eventually be corrected. When Bowden editorialized that the flags should be returned to the display, with the First National instead of the battle flag, I was even more convinced. The PNJ editorial by Commissioner Grover Robinson cinched it for me. It was just a matter of time before the decision would be reversed.

January's and February's commission meetings passed with no discussion on the matter, but it was on the agenda for the March meeting. Although I knew I would have zero influence on the matter, I decided to attend the meeting.

____________________

The March meeting of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners began at 5:30 p.m. the 5th. I would not be able to get there until 6:30 or later. I assumed that would be too late to request to speak to the board, so I had no plans to do so. That being the case, I didn't take time to put on make-up or put up my hair, and delay my arrival for the meeting even more.

After dealing with various items county business, the commission brought up the subject of the Pensacola Bay Center five flags display. A number of citizens spoke to the board, and several extolled the U.S. flag as a lofty contrast to the Confederate flag with its symbolism of racism and slavery.

These comments echoed others made recently in letters to the PNJ and on social media: The only flag we should display and be proud of is the American (sic) flag.

The more I heard this sentiment at the meeting, the more I squirmed in my seat at the back of the chamber. Finally, I went to the woman who took requests from attendees to speak to the commissioners, and asked if it was too late to sign up. No, it wasn't. She gave me a slip of paper with a few blanks to fill in, and I did so.

My hastily scribbled notes
Back at my seat, I rummaged through my purse, looking for paper to jot some notes on.  I had just cleaned out my purse earlier in the day, and the only paper I could find was a couple of convenience store receipts. I scribbled notes as the subjects I wanted to call attention to came to mind; I was still writing when my name was called.

Here's what I told the commissioners:
What's worse? A country created on the principle that all men are created equal and allows slavery for eighty-nine years, or a country founded on the principle of slavery that's ready to give it up in four. Jefferson Davis sent Duncan Kenner to Europe at the end of the war-- close to the end of the war -- to offer to free the slaves in exchange for recognition from Britain and France. That's not taught in our schools. It took the Confederacy four years. It took the United States eighty-nine.

And there are other things that that flag stands for, like the genocide of the Plains Indians by the Grant Administration. It was U.S. policy to kill off the buffalo and starve the Plains Indians and take their lands for white settlers. It was under that flag that native Americans were imprisoned on reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery. Under that flag MK Ultra experiments on unknowing-- CIA experiments on unknowing subjects, Abu Ghraib, torture in Central America approved of and perhaps achieved with help from the CIA. So that flag is not stain-free.

And the claim that it offends African Americans. Pew Research poll showed that -- recently 48 percent of African Americans are indifferent to the Confederate flag, only 41 percent disapprove.
The crux of my brief remarks was that the US flag, which some people had extolled as if it symbolized unsullied righteousness and represented impeccable loftiness, was not stain free. My point was to remind people that, when it came to negatives, the two countries represented by those two flags shared more similarities than differences.

I was the last speaker, and the board carried on their discussion afterward. Although Commissioners May and Underhill weren't prepared to change their votes, I was not at all surprised that the other three did indeed vote to return the five flags, with the First National, to the bay center. I don't believe for a moment that my comments had any bearing whatever on that decision. But I hoped I had given people something to think about.

Commissioner Underhill was not pleased with my remarks, and said, "And to that last speaker who spoke and talked about all the sins committed under this flag, this is the flag of sinners. This is the flag of a bunch of people who got together and said we can do it better and we have made some mistakes but to sit there and articulate all the things that have been done wrong under this flag, I'm really sorry that your experience brings you to focus on all of those things when we should in fact be focusing on all the things about this flag that bring us together."

It would probably be pointless to try to explain it to him, but very little about the US flag brings us together, and it grows less powerful to do that every day. In fact, it has become increasingly targeted for removal in various places and by various groups and individuals around the country. Confederate heritage folks know what that feels like first hand, and we've warned people for years that the US flag was next.

Although I don't really think Commissioner Underhill is interested, my experience that caused me to focus on those negative things is the experience of having my Southern and Confederate heritage and culture continuously attacked and dishonored. I believe the north/union had no moral authority for coming South to kill Southerners 150 years ago, just as those targeting Confederate heritage for removal today have no moral authority for doing so.

In any case, I have to wonder how many disappointed, appalled, even angry constituents the commissioners heard from during the period from December to March... In January, WEAR-TV reported, "Commissioner Grover Robinson says as soon as the county made that decision, he started getting a lot of complaints." It quoted Robinson as saying, "(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.”

Indeed, there is. Those people who complained to the county commissioners are the reason the flags went back up. Kevin Levin's calling it a victory that "rings hollow" is simply his attempt to save face because it runs counter to his long-standing prediction that Confederate heritage is disappearing from the earth.  This was a victory not only for Confederate heritage but for the people of west Florida who have strong desire to identify with our history and culture.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

The Silence of Colossal Hypocrites

  UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE 

While Andy and his commenters are tsk-tsking over some spoken words that hurt nobody -- and are intended to hurt nobody -- they completely ignore appalling brutal incidents like this.


This kind of senseless violence occurs constantly, and can be found in news reports on the 'net virtually every day -- but they are totally ignored by the left, including the civil war left. 

An Aussie baseball player shot in the back in Oklahoma, a baby shot in the face in Georgia, a beloved preacher is killed in Memphis for his car, a harmless dog shot and tied to a railroad track ... and on and on and on -- incidents given perfunctory reports in the media, but not frenzied over.  The media frenzies over Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Eric Garner. But because there are so few white-on-black murders in the country, they also frenzy over Phil Robertson's WORDS and Cliven Bundy's WORDS and Pat Godwin's WORDS. And so does Andy Hall and other floggers and their followers.

Do we begin to see the utter bankrupt morality of the left -- including the civil war left -- occasioned by their race-based ideology?

 ~ End of Update ~

They're talking about the Friends of Forrest video interview by The Guardian over on Andy's blog.

Sez somebody posting anonymously as "MsB" -- "This enables a tiny group to embarrass Southerners and by extension all Americans on a global scale."

I left a comment, but Andy has long since been too skeered to post my comments, so I'll put it here to illustrate not only how selectively blind self-styled "anti-racist" anti-heritage folks are, but to show what a hypocrite Andy is:

My comment: "How is it that this tiny, obscure group embarrasses Southerners and Americans on a global scale, but Rachel Jeantel, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Cornel West, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and countless other high profile black supremacists making idiotic remarks doesn't embarrass blacks and Americans?"

He won't post it, of course. He's skeered of what I might say. You wouldn't think somebody with Andy's arrogance would be skeered of little ol' me, but there it is.

Here's how it happened. Just before he banned my comments at his usually soporific blog, he told me he was banning me because, "You ... seem to have no interest in doing anything other than finding a way to question the motives, or agenda, or character ... of those who challenge your preferred historical narrative."

Here on Backsass, I replied, "Why, that is partially right!  In fact, my purpose is exactly to question the motives, or agenda, or character, of certain folks, but not because they challenge my 'preferred historical narrative.'  ... I question the motives, agenda or character of folks who 'civil-war-blog' with a political/racial agenda of stroking their overblown egos and showcasing their own 'anti-racist' credentials by misportraying others as evil racists." 

I guess Andy's skeered of having his motives, agenda or character subjected to scrutiny, so I'm outcast from Dead Confederates.

It's a shame, too, because this is a question I would love to pose to self-promoting, puffed-up "anti-racists" because I've never, ever seen any of them address it. You won't see it addressed on any of the usual flogs or the skeered-anonymous blogger at "Restoring the Honor."

Which makes them all colossal hypocrites...

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

What Does It Do For Him?

I recently noted elsewhere on this blog, "The flogger frenzy over what they imagine to be my 'racism' is amusing, but I'm busy, you know? I don't have time to pay attention to such sound and fury, signifying nothing. There may be a few things I care about even less than I care about flogger fantasies and lies about me, but I can't think of any at the moment."

No, I don't care what they think of me in terms of what they consider to be negatives. But I do admit there's something I'm curious about. Simpson's (and others') "interest" in my novel writing. Actually, I'm more than curious. I'm mystified by it.

From a post at XRoads:
Brooks D. Simpson's harassment

The first thing that comes to my mind when I read this is -- can't he comprehend what he reads? The first sentence sez: "To my history-savvy friends."

Except for the occasional heritage person whose comments Simpson lets through, nobody at XRoads is my friend. Especially him. I'm frankly not interested in "help" from people who hate me and my heritage.

Simpson, of course, is the fellow who has made numerous references to the title of my third novel for the purpose of ridiculing the author; and referenced it in connection with completely irrelevant subjects, just to besmirch it.

Here's a google search index of his flog using the search term "sweet southern boys".  Sweet Southern Boys at Xroads

What does that do for him? He doesn't need to reference my books in order to indulge his lust to denigrate -- he can, and does, do that (a lot) without mentioning my novels at all. So what's the point of this obsession?

But this is the most curious of all -- why did he post negative reviews of my books on Amazon, when he hasn't read them, by his own admission? I think this goes beyond the usual desire to denigrate me; it is an action designed to hurt my book sales. What kind of animosity does someone have to feel to do such a thing? And why? I've never done anything to him except counter his attacks on Southern heritage and its advocates.

It's one thing to spend money on a book, read it, be disappointed in it for some reason, and to post that disappointment in a review. It's quite another to smear and lie about stories he hasn't read and to personally attack the author.

And why didn't he post his name to the reviews?  It was only because his reviews were connected by Amazon to "Brooks Simpson's wish list" that I knew for certain he wrote them. (Of course, I confidently suspected he did before I found that proof.) He has since changed his made-up reviewer name several times and deleted his wish list, presumably to keep people from knowing the reviews were his. Does he not want his friends and acquaintances to see the fruits of his mean-spiritedness?

I have posted on this blog evidence that the bad/attack reviews were his, and to my knowledge, he has not denied it.


Given his history of animosity for me, his lies about my books, and his efforts to hurt the sales of my books, and given the same animosity for me expressed by his floggerettes, what on earth gives him the idea I'd be interested in help from any of them?

Well, of course, he doesn't have that idea. His post is not to encourage his sycophants to help me with historical information, but to chime in with the hate and ridicule he has already expressed for me, and with the targeting of my books. I wonder why. What does that do for a person?


(Note, the only books he has reviewed are mine. Also note the review of the wristwatch he bought for his "hubby." Hmmm....)

(Note: I may soon post here some of my early ideas about the historical novel, that currently has the working title, After the Stars Fell.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Jimmy Dick's Version of "Integrity" in Online Discussion

The following is edited from one of the usual heritage-hating blogs. It's an exchange between Jimmy Dick and myself that occurred in the comment thread of a particular post about veterans. (The "she" he mentions here is me.)
J. DICK: She and the other Neo-Know Nothings say the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery.

CONNIE: Mr. Dick, I challenge you to find where I have ever, ever, ever said “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery”. I’ll tell you right now, you won’t find it, because I’ve never said it, ever. EV-VER. Which makes YOU the liar. Why? Why did you tell this lie? Either prove where I have said it, or apologize to me.

J. DICK: Oh, so you are ready to announce that the Civil War was caused by slavery? You’re ready to admit that the slave states seceded in order to preserve slavery? Say it clearly and I will be more than happy to apologize.
Note how he attempts to change the subject. He refuses to prove that I said what he claims I said, and brings up something totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHAT I'm ready (or not ready) to announce. It doesn't change the fact that he accused me of already having said something that he refuses to prove I said. I remind him of that....
CONNIE: Mr. Dick, you said I SAID , “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery”. The burden of proof is on you.

If you can’t produce a link, a copy-paste, anything, where I have said, “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery,” then you owe me an apology. 
Look what he does next. Pointing out that my not making a statement about slavery has nothing to do with his claim of what I've already said. And he says I want proof of what started the war? No, I'm asking him to prove where I said what he's claiming I said.

Question for my readers. Is Mr. Dick truly confused about the proof I'm asking for? If so, what does that say about academic-level reading comprehension? And if he KNOWS that's not the proof I'm asking for, what does that say about his intellectual honesty?

J. DICK: As expected and anticipated Connie Chastain is not going to make the statement that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. She wants proof...
...Well, open your eyes and mind and start learning. Read the primary sources such as the Secession documents. Read Charles Dew, James McPherson, Eric Foner, etc.

Connie, you said you wanted an apology. You will never get one because you can’t admit the truth. The evidence is overwhelming that the secession conventions were over slavery and that slavery started the Civil War. You reject the facts in favor of fiction [edit].

You get no apology.
I don't really care about an apology from you. I simply acknowledge that if you can't prove your accusation against me, it is a lie, and you owe me an apology for it. Whether you offer it or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans to me.
J. DICK: “I will be extremely pleased to announce to the world that I would be apologizing to Connie Chastain because she has stated for the record that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that the men who fought for the Confederacy fought for the right to own human beings, and the men at the secession conventions chose to secede over slavery.”

When Connie Chastain makes that statement she will no longer be [avoiding the truth]. Until then she is.
That is all irrelevant to the fact that Jimmy Dick accused me of already having said something that he refuses to prove I said. Also, I do not believe Jimmy Dick has a corner on truth; what he has stated here is, at best, his opinion, his spin.
Do not bother to post anything unless you make that exact statement, Connie. I will accept and apologize for nothing but you stating that statement as fact. I will not be holding my breath.

CONNIE: Mr. Dick, you claimed I said something I’ve never said. You lied about me. These other demands you are making are irrelevant to the fact that you lied about me.
For my part, this exchange was to make the point that he cannot prove I said what he claims I said and without proof, his claims are lies. It's funny to watch him squirm, to try to change horses in midstream, to reframe the discussion to take the heat off himself, to move the focus from the past, i.e., what (he claims) I've already said, to the future, what he's demand that I say.

This is a sleazy, slimy discussion technique on Mr. Dick's part; but it's a hallmark of flogger discussion techniques one encounters all the time. He needs a nickname ... How would "Tricky Dick? do? Hahahahaha.


Friday, March 6, 2015

Flags Flying at the Pensacola Bay Center

March 7, 2015

S. Hamilton

Kevin Levin's Hopelessly Divisive Melodrama

Kevin Levin has weighed in on the Pensacola Five Flags news with a lite-weight argument that does little to inform folks about Confederate heritage, but gives a clear, crisp, concise look at his motives.

Hey, Kevin!                          
Sez Levin, the return of the flags to the Pensacola Bay Center with the First National instead of the battle flag is a victory that "rings hollow" to him. My question is -- who cares how it rings to him? He hates the Confederacy, heritage advocates, and the evil white South in general. So who cares about him and his opinion? Screw 'im.

But the fact is, this is a victory for Confederate heritage, and it just kills Levin, so he's doing what he can to minimize the victory. But my gosh, THREE of the five county commissioners have Confederate soldier ancestors who they say weren't fighting for slavery and who they are proud of.

Citing the war against Confederate heritage in Virginia, he says, "...perhaps this does feel like a victory. Somehow this victory will have to accommodate the fact that the decision reinforces the community’s belief that the battle flag is a hopelessly divisive symbol."

Ah, no. What it reinforces is that the battle flag was not a national flag of the Confederacy -- and the five flags displays in Pensacola were the national flags of the countries to which Pensacola has belong in its 4+ centuries of existence. 

From the Fiesta of Five Flags website:  Fiesta of Five Flags History
In the late 1940's, a group of community leaders began to develop the idea of an annual summer festival to promote tourism in the Pensacola area. That idea developed into the Fiesta of Five Flags Celebration, and it may have been the first community attempt to recognize and develop tourism as an industry.

Calvin Todd, President of the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce in 1949, proposed the concept of combining a historical theme with tourism promotion. Thus, the focus of Fiesta was based upon the founding of Pensacola, America's oldest city, by Don Tristan de Luna in 1559. It would also be a salute to our history under the flags of five governments that have flown over our city: Spain, France, England, the Confederacy and the United States.

...Throughout the 64 years of the Fiesta’s history, the mission has remained the same: "To celebrate our heritage, promote tourism and build pride in Pensacola through festive activities which enhance the quality of life in our Community." Today Fiesta mobilizes community support for its year-round events, contributes funds to the promotion of Pensacola's history, while providing exciting entertainment and events for the entire community to enjoy.
Now, I don't know why the Fiesta organization back then chose the battle flag to represent the Confederacy in its five flags displays. And you know what? I don't care. Today, in 2015, flying a national flag of the Confederacy in a display of national flags rather than the soldier's flag is not a problem for me.

One thing this minor "flag flap" has done, however, is reveal just how badly more information about the Confederacy is needed in west Florida (pretty much just like everywhere else).

As for the battle flag being "hopelessly divisive," so what? I think the "hopelessly" is a ridiculously melodramatic attempt to manipulate. I do concede the battle flag is, or can be divisive. But, again, so what? Total accord and harmony aren't possible... and who would want them to be?

Here's a picture of the complete absence of divisiveness, from the pen of Madeleine L'Engle in "A Wrinkle in Time":
Below them the town was laid out in harsh angular patterns.  The houses in the outskirts were all exactly alike, small square boxes painted gray. Each had a small, rectangular plot of lawn in front, with a straight line of dull looking flowers edging the path to the door. Meg had a feeling that if she could count the flowers there would be exactly the same number for each house.  In front of all the houses children were playing. Some were skipping rope, some were bouncing balls. Meg felt vaguely that something was wrong with their play. It seemed exactly like children playing around any housing development at home, and yet there was something different about it. She looked and Calvin, and saw that he, too, was puzzled.

"Look!" Charles Wallace said suddenly.  "They're skipping and bouncing in rhythm! Everyone's doing it at exactly the same moment."

This was so. As the skipping rope hit the pavement, so did the ball. As the rope curved over the head of the jumping child, the child with the ball caught the ball.  Down came the ropes. Down came the balls. Over and over again. Up. Down.  All in rhythm. All identical. Like the houses. Like the paths. Like the flowers.

Then the doors of all the houses opened simultaneously, and out came women like a row of paper dolls. The print of their dresses was different, but they all gave the appearance of being the same. Each woman stood on the steps of her house. Each clapped. Each child with the ball caught the ball. Each child with the skipping rope folded the rope. Each child turned and walked into the house.The doors clicked shut behind them....

"How can they do it?" Meg asked wonderingly. "We couldn't do it that way if we tried.  What does it mean?"

"Let's go back." Calvin's voice was urgent.  ....

"Come on." Impatience made Meg squeak.  "You know we can't go back. Mrs. Whatsit said to go into the town." She started on down the street, and the two boys followed her. The houses, all identical, continued as far as the eye could reach.

Then all at once, they saw the same thing, and stopped to watch. In front of one of the houses stood a little boy with a ball, and he was bouncing it.  But he bounced it rather badly with no partiacular rhythm, sometimes dropping it and running after it with awkward, furtive leaps, sometimes throwing the ball in the air and trying to catch it. The door of his house opened and out ran one of the mother figures.  She looked wildly up and down the street, saw the children and put a hand to her mouth as though to stifle a scream, grabbed the little boy and rushed indoors with him. The ball dropped from his fingers and rolled out into the street.

Charles Wallace ran after it and picked it up, holding out for Meg and Calvin to see. It seemed like like a perfectly ordinary, brown ball.

"Let's take it in and see what happens," Charles Wallace suggested.....

They went up the path to the house. [Charles Wallace] walked briskly up the steps and knocked at the door. They waited. Nothing happened. Then Charles Wallace saw a bell and this he rang. They could hear the bell buzzing in the house and the sound of it echoed down the street.  After a moment the mother figure opened the door.  All up and down the street other doors opened but only a crack, and eyes peered toward the three children and the woman looking fearfully out the door at them.

"What do you want?" she asked. "it isn't paper time yet; we've had milk time; we've had th is months Puller Prush Person; and I've given my Decency Donations regularly.  All my papers are in order."

"I think your little boy dropped his ball," Charles Wallace said, holding it out.

The woman pushed the ball away. "Oh, no! The children in our section never drop balls! They're perfectly trained. We haven't had an Abberation for three years."

All up and down the block, heads nodded in agreement.

Charles Wallace moved closer to the woman and looked past her into the house. Behind her in the shadows he could see the litltle boy, who must have been about his own age.

"You can't come in," the woman said. "You haven't shown me any papers. I don't have to let you in if you haven't any papers."

Charles Wallace held the ball out beyond the woman so that the little boy could see it. Quick as a flash the boy leaped forward and grabbed the ball from Charles Wallace's hand, then darted back into the shadows. The woman went very white, opened her mouth as though to say something, then slammed the dor in their faces instead. All up and down the street doors slammed.

"What are they afraid of?" Charles Wallace asked. "What's the matter with them?"
Well, Charles Wallace, they are the result of unity, of accord, of harmony ... of hopeless non-divisiveness. Oddly enough, this kind of sameness is what those who champion "diversity" really want....  Charges of "divisiveness" are simply an excuse for removing whole swaths of unique heritage and culture -- because it might not be the heritage of everyone, so some people are "left out" .... therefore, the heritage must be erased.  And that will move society in the direction of homogenized sameness.

To the Kevin Levins of the world, the only choices are "hopeless divisiveness" and L'Engle-style uniformity...

No thanks. I don't think even opponents of the battle flag would want to live in that neighborhood...


 ____________________  
Bronx Cheer video -- Wikimedia Commons

Flags Going Back Up In Escambia County!

The Escambia County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 Thursday night to overturn December's vote (the second vote)removing the flags from the Pensacola Bay Center. That means the earlier vote (the first vote) takes effect -- the vote that allows the Commission to authorize the Five Flags display at the Bay Center and replaces the battle flag with the First National....

Hats off to the Commissioners Steven Barry, Grover Robinson and Wilson Robertson for correcting the Board's December error.

It's worth watching the video of the meeting to hear Robinson, Robertson and Barry discussing the subject. They each have Confederate soldiers in their ancestry, and said they weren't fighting for slavery. They said they were proud of their Confederate ancestors.
                     
Pensacola Today
 Kevin Levin will be soooooo disappointed. He is all into predicting the demise of Confederate heritage and cheering gleefully when some politician somewhere takes a sledge hammer to Confederate commemoration.

Yet three of our five commishes not only refused to pick up the sledge hammer, but said some very positive things about Confederates. You don't often find politicians willing to say such.

It's a reminder to the Kevin Levins of the world that Pensacola is not Charlottesville or Lexington, where proximity to the District of Corruption (among other things) influences local elected officials to take anti-heritage stands, giving the Virginia Flaggers their raison d'ĂȘtre. Recently, Confederate heritage successfully withstood another attack in Arkansas. (Little Rock isn't Charlottesville or Lexington, either.)

Confederate heritage isn't nearly as dead as Kevin Levin and his fellow travelers wish, and as he is fond of portraying.

Media coverage of the County Commissioner's meeting:

Pensacola News Journal       WEAR-TV Channel 3       Pensacola Today

Video of the County Commission Meeting, segment on the flag display:


Be sure to listen to the commissioners discuss Confederate soldiers, their flag and the war (after guest speakers address the board) beginning at mark 32:38. (Do y'all suppose the citizens of Charlottesville could learn some manners from the attendees of Escambia County, and the Charlottesville city council could learn about pride and heritage of locale from Commissioners Robertson, Robinson and Barry?)

  UPDATE  *  UPDATE  *  UPDATE  

Well, Simpson has reported on the vote of the County Commission to return the flags, with the First National, to the civic center display. Of course, reporting just the facts is not compatible with his agenda. Remember, this is the man with a lust for the put down, the desire to denigrate, so he brought in something totally irrelevant ... my extreme opposition to Islamic jihad.

He asks why I oppose one religion, Islam, because some terrorists do bad things in its name, but do not oppose Christianity because other terrorists, specifically the KKK, did bad things in its name.

I am constantly amazed at how willing Simpson is to assassinate his intelligence in order to indulge the put down of people he hates (in this case, moi). I'm sure he knows the answer to that, but I'll humor him and explain it.

When ISIS murders people -- beheads them, burns them alive, etc. -- they are OBEYING what their religion, Islam, says. When the KKK or other purported Christians murder, terrorize, etc., they are DISOBEYING what their religion, Christianity, says.

See? Understand the difference between OBEYING and DISOBEYING?

For example, Islam justifies a man cutting off a woman's nose or ears, throwing acid in her face or otherwise disfiguring her if he is displeased with her (for not wearing a veil, or even for wearing one too loosely, or for some other trivial or imaginary "infraction") ... while Christianity teaches, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it..."

Got it now, Simpson? No? (I'm not surprised.)

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

HOLD THE PHONE!!! CHARLOTTESVILLE TRANSFORMED!!!

The Charlottesville City Council managed to obliterate Lee-Jackson Day without even taking a vote... the kind of shenanigans that give politicians a well-deserved reputation as sleazy...

BUT WAIT!

In just the ONE DAY since it happened, Charlottesville has been transformed! Sickness  has been wiped out! The only people in the hospitals are those awaiting elective surgery -- rhinoplasty, lip or butt augmentation, liposuction, hair transplants, sex reassignment, and the like.

Debts have miraculously disappeared! Nobody OWES anything.. not even mortgages, rent or student loans! Speaking of students, all attending the UVA will graduate summa cum laude!

Crime disappeared overnight! No murders, no rapes, no grand or petty larceny, no blue or white collar crime, no tax cheats (cuz there are no taxes assessed anymore!). No playground bullies, no arrogant cliques, no country club snobs.

But two spectacular changes overshadow all the rest.

There is no more racism or sexism because there appears to be no more races or sexes. Everyone's skin color is a pale beige, hair medium ash brown, neither curly nor straight. Southern and/or Virginia accents are gone and everyone speaks in a sort of generic TV commercial dialect (even the mayor, who is curiously without his Sikh headwear ... or Sikh anything). Everyone speaks in the same mid-range timbre.

But the strangest thing of all -- nobody has any memory. Nobody has a past. They don't know who they are, or where they came from. They don't know that the name of their city is Charlottesville ... or why. They have become soulless nonentities, rootless automatons, a perfect populace for a city that has decapitated its past.....

Monday, March 2, 2015

Apology Owed -- Will It Be Given?

Last November, in conjunction with Veterans Day, Al Mackey exercised great nastiness by employing his bigotry and blind spot where heritage folks are concerned.

He called "many" confederate (sic) heritage advocates "despicable scum," for "trying to palm off the lie that confederate (sic) veterans are American veterans." They're not, Al sed. They're "civil war veterans."

Actually, Congress apparently hasn't designated anybody as "American veterans" -- only as "veterans," without the "American." So I posted this today at Al's flog:
Revisiting this, Al. I can’t find where the US Code defines “American veteran” at all. A cursory search of Title 38 brings up the terms “native American veterans” and “disabled American veterans” a few times, but no “American veterans.”

The purpose of the Department of Veterans affairs “…is to administer the laws providing benefits and other services to veterans and the dependents and the beneficiaries of veterans.” The point of defining veterans is to determine who is eligible for said benefits.

The language (1) defining veterans AND (2) designating/defining CSA veterans as veterans appears almost identical:

===38 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions includes this:

For the purposes of this title—
(2) The term “veteran” means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.

And…

===Public Law 85-425 Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1957 includes this:

“(e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433,
the term ‘veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term `active, military or naval service’ includes active service in such forces.”

What those two passages define is the term “veteran,” not “American veteran” and not “Civil War veteran.” And the term “veteran,” as of 1957 includes Confederate veterans.

A on-site search of the US Code at Cornell University’s Law School’s Legal Information Institute appears to indicate that the term “American veteran” does not occur in Title 38, VETERANS’ BENEFITS.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/American%20veterans?f%5B0%5D=bundle%3Ausc_node

Thus, it seems to be a generic or popular designation — and by virtue of the nearly identical definitions above, if “American veteran” can be applied to U.S. vets, it can be applied to Confederate vets with the same accuracy.
Well, Al went into a tizzy, posting all kinds of irrelevant definitions in an effort to not see the obvious -- the difference between "veteran" and "American veteran." Smart man like him, can't tell the difference between one word and a two-word phrase.

I made a last ditch effort to get through to him with this follow up comment:
"38 US Code 101 (2 defines the “The term ‘veteran’ — not American veteran. The word AMERICAN appears no-flippin’-where in the definition. Read my comment again, Al. I didn’t say “veteran.” I said AMERICAN veteran. I quite plainly said it defines VETERAN. But not AMERICAN veteran. The definition does not use that term, “AMERICAN veteran.” Can’t you READ man?
It's really kinda pathetic when people who pride themselves on being so smart are so willing to sacrifice their brains in order to maintain their hatred of Confederate heritage and its supporters.

So will the apology be forthcoming? Of course not. What a silly question.

Great Flogger Quote

"...more people see those flags flying along the interstate every day than read one of [Gary Gallagher's] books in a year."
Brooks Simpson
on the Virginia Flaggers'
Interstate Memorial Battle Flags

Transparency and Black-hearted Deception

I'm somewhat busy offline, and when I visit Facebook or the floggosphere lately, I barely have time to look around and and make a few posts. I see a lot more than I have time to comment on, but I'll make time to comment on these.

Anonymous flogger continues to tip her hand and reveal her unseemly motivation with every post. Like most floggers, she singles out one or a handful of people in one or two threads, and tries to convince everyone, (however many visit her basically unknown blog) including herself, apparently, that they are the whole of Confederate heritage.

The latest? A thread from a FB group I've never heard of about an imagined Southern rebellion that lacks, shall we say, personnel -- and a suggestion that Mexican troops could fight our battles for us. Note this is thread is one among literally THOUSANDS of Southern heritage threads continually posted on Facebook and it comprises all of eight or so commenters.

Does anonymous flogger really expect people to take her seriously? I mean, people with sense. Of course floggers and floggerettes will take her seriously -- they share her hate.

In other news, I joined a FB civil war group where somebody posted a link to one of Simpson's attack pieces on  Susan Hathaway, although it has nothing to do with the civil war. Ostensibly, the poster was seeking opinions about the hit piece, but really she posted it to be provocative. And she was promptly given the facts. Facts she evidently didn't want to know because she went boo-hooing to XRoads.

The Facebook post and its comments were removed. I have since urged heritage folks who post in such groups and admins in our groups to never delete attack posts/threads like this until they've been copied and saved.

The comment below was posted in the thread of the original XRoads hit piece on Susan that the whiner had taken over to the civil war group:



Now, let's look at this. I participated in that thread and I can attest that there were NO threatening comments on the thread, and there's no proof that she received threatening PMs. She posted no proof whatsofrickin'ever. The whole tone of her tattle-telling sounds childish and made up. "That of course only endears the Flaggers and their cause even more to me," she says facetiously, proving her pre-existing animosity for the VaFlaggers, and providing strong circumstantial evidence that her initial post about Susan at the civil war group was indeed an attack.

After Simpson humors her, she comes back with, "I had not said anything about Ms. Hathaway at all." No, she had only linked to Simpson's egregious hit-piece, rendering it unnecessary for her to say a flippin' syllable.

No, sweetheart, our grasp on reality is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar, and your obviously pretended artlessness, not to mention your running to Simpson's flog, shows you to be a blackhearted deceiver.

You poor thing. You and anon flogger. Perpetrating inept deception. That's no way to go through life, girls. You're making yourself look way, way worse than the people you're trying so hard to drum up hatred for.