Summer Camp for Kids

So now, Kevin Levin has his knickers in a knot over the Sam Davis Youth Camp, which he calls a cult, and about which he makes all kinds of assertion based on reading a few paragraphs online.

His commenters thus far are equally knicker-knotted.

Pat Young, perhaps in anticipation that someone might bring up leftist youth camps, brings them up himself, and attempts to inoculate those camps from criticism. Sez Pat:

It is rare in a summer camp video that the phrase “our enemies” is used so many times.

At first I assumed this was just a conservative version of the leftist Jewish summer camps that many of my friends attended, like Camp Kinderland, set up by Arbeter Ring and other bundists. However, where they promote free discussion, albeit within a set of presumably like-minded kids, Sam Davis seems focused on shutting down critical examination.

NOTE TO CAMP SAM DAVIS: Don’t end a promo for a “fun” camp with sinister music.

I'm not sure what video Young is talking about. Levin doesn't link to one (or else he has the link well-hidden). There are several videos about the camp on YouTube. Most of the ones I played had upbeat music. The only one I found with "sinister" music was not a promotional video. If that was the one Young was talking about, let me note that it is a documentary and it deals with some somber subjects, making the music quite appropriate.

Let me repeat. It was not a a promotional video. It was a documentary.

But when people are motivated by the need to mischaracterize and the desire to denigrate, their own common sense and rationality are usually among the first things they'll throw under the bus.

Also note that what he calls "leftist Jewish summer camps" (which he praises for "promoting free discussion" -- for which we only have his word), are, according to Ron Radosh, communist youth camps. Not leftist, not socialist -- COMMUNIST. And for all the "free discussion" Pat claims they promote, they certainly do turn out a lot of  "progressive" campers.  More from Mr. Radosh, here.

Kinderland was founded in 1923 by secular Jews active in the New York City trade union movement, most of them Communists or socialists. And the camp exists today and it's website claims “Camp Kinderland is true to the vision of its founders,” 
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/19/nyregion/city-lore-the-little-red-summer-camp.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

NetRightDaily has more information on Camp Kinderland --

The article references, "Raising Reds" by Paul C. Mishler which says, "Communist organizations, including Camp Kinderland, 'established children’s organizations, after-school programs, and summer camps with the aim of developing ‘revolutionary consciousness' in the minds of the younger generation."

Revolutionary consciousness, huh?

The article goes on to say, Would you send your kids to this camp that (Obama Admin BLS Commissioner Erica) Groshen did with such a history? The New York Times article from Rosenberg’s granddaughter says they actually locked kids up in their bunks and led them into communal gas chambers to emulate Holocaust extermination techniques, refused to accept packages sent by the children’s parents in solidarity with some truckers who were on strike and even considered lighting their lake on fire to protest the bombing of Hiroshima. Does this sound like a normal camp?

Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2012/07/raising-reds-pictures-of-camp-kinderland/#ixzz2wVn704eF

Free discussion? What a scream!

Please, Pat Young, give me a break.  By comparison, Sam Davis Youth Camp is the very PICTURE of the free exchange of ideas.

Backtalk to the Sun-Herald

This editorial in the Sun Herald of Biloxi/Gulfport about the "flap" at Beauvoir begged for response. So  here it is:

Beauvoir’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina was never a certainty. Yet until just a few weeks ago, it seemed Beauvoir had not only regained lost ground, but was advancing as never before. Now Beauvoir, a landmark on the beachfront since 1852, appears to be in full retreat.

Why does a historical site need to "advance"?

Katrina’s storm surge destroyed five of the seven buildings on the grounds of the Jefferson Davis Home and Presidential Library. It left the two still standing — Beauvoir itself and the new presidential library-museum — heavily damaged. While it was determined that Beauvoir, Davis’ last home, could be restored, it was decided the library-museum building would have to be demolished and rebuilt a little higher above, and a little further from the shoreline. Money could and would accomplish those feats.

 But Beauvoir needed more to move beyond being a static memorial to Davis and the ill-fated Confederate States of America, over which Davis presided.

Sez who? And why?

Remarkably, the ingredients came together to transform Beauvoir into a tourist destination of increasing appeal.

Beauvoir is appealing enough for being what it is.

Bertram Hayes-Davis, Davis’ own great-great-grandson, was hired as executive director. He brought an expansive and inclusive approach to activities at Beauvoir. Andi Oustalet agreed to create from scratch Christmas at Beauvoir, a stunning seasonal attraction that was successful from the start.

What has Christmas light exhibits got to do with Jefferson Davis and the Confederate soldiers for whom Beauvoir is a shrine?

Varina’s Garden, as envisioned by Davis’ wife, flowered back to life after years of planning and delay. Associations were being forged with other state and national institutions to bring exhibits and attractions and speakers to the site.

What KIND of exhibits and attractions?  Dinosaur exhibits? Goofy Golf?  Slot machines? What speakers?  Robert Kiyosaki? Gary Gallagher?

All the while Beauvoir seemed to be serving its historic function as a shrine to both Davis and the Confederacy, hundreds of whose soldiers are buried on the grounds. Memorial services and re-enactments were still regularly conducted to honor and recapture the past even as new and more broadly appealing activities were taking place and shape.

Beauvoir's  raison d'être gets reduced to memorial services and re-enactments. "New and more broadly appealing activities" means more irrelevant stuff designed to disguise, overshadow and outweigh Confederate history and heritage and Beauvoir's connection to them -- and eventually to obliterate them altogether.

It appeared to be a harmonious blend of old and new, the success of which would carry both well into the future. When a convention of travel writers recently visited attractions across South Mississippi, Beauvoir was one of the primary focal points. The closing ceremonies for the convention were held there. Like other Coast attractions, Beauvoir has since received invaluable free — and positive — publicity as a result.

That publicity may now acquire a sharply negative tone.

Why? Because the SCV refuses to let Beauvoir's mission and purpose be compromised and eventually erased?

Hayes-Davis’ resignation has been accepted and Oustalet’s volunteerism — which was recognized statewide — has been deemed unwelcome by the Mississippi Division of the Columbia, Tenn.-based Sons of Confederate Veterans. It was their call to make. Varnia (sic) Davis gave Beauvoir to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, with the understanding that the organization maintain it or it becomes state property.

Still, it is a confusing and bewildering turn of events. The Sun Herald was among those in the community who championed developments at Beauvoir over the last few years as the best approach yet to the institution’s transformation into a site worthy of promotion and visitation.

Why must the site be "transformed"? It is what it is; why must it become what it is not in order to be "worthy" of promotion and visitation?

Like many others, we now no longer know what to think about — or expect from — those in control of Beauvoir.

I can't speak for the Sons, of course, but my guess is that you can probably expect them to not share your eagerness to strip Beauvoir of its historical significance and mission.

Hayes-Davis appeared to be willing to water down Confederate history and heritage with irrelevancies. I'm favorably inclined to visitors interested in history and interested in those for whom Beauvoir -- the soldiers and especially Jefferson Davis -- is a shrine. I'm quite indifferent to visitors who come to see Christmas lights, particularly when you can see Christmas lights nearly anywhere.

Beauvoir needs to make enough money to keep it maintained and viable. It doesn't need to be one of the Mississippi Coast's tourism cash cows.

If Mr. Hayes-Davis is so interested in making historical sites worthy of promotion and visitation, maybe he and Andi can go to DC and plan fashion shows and American Idol competitions to be held at Arlington National Cemetery, and roller derbies at the Tomb of the Unknowns. 

Discord at Beauvoir

Kevin Levin is doing his usual battle flag gloomin' and doomin' at his ha-ha memory flog regarding some personnel issues at Beauvoir in Biloxi, Mississippi, the retirement home of President Jefferson Davis.

There's an article about it in the Sun-Herald, titled The Battle of Beauvoir, but it's pretty incoherent, so there's probably quite a bit we're not being told.

Anyhoo, the battle flag is involved some how, so Kevin writes at his flog:

The dispute is, in part, over the display of the Confederate flag on the grounds at Beauvoir. Beauvoir has undergone extensive renovation since Hurricane Katrina. A new presidential library was built along with exhibit space. From what I can tell the disagreement over the display of the flag has everything to do with lagging visitation and revenue. At the center is Hayes-Davis. (Emphasis mine)

Apparently, management is consulting with the Virginia Flaggers on how to respectfully and tastefully display the Confederate flag. I visited Beauvoir once years ago. It’s a beautiful site and one that deserves to be preserved and professionally interpreted. It looks like the Mississippi SCV is capable to doing neither.

Well, as far as I remember, the SCV did a fine job before Katrina. Of course, that really isn't the issue for Kevin and fellow floggers. The really important thing for these folks is to take (or create) every opportunity possible to (1) club the VaFlaggers, even when the issue/club has nothing to do with them and (2) to trash the battle flag.

Kevin has a track record of pointing out how "irrelevant" and the flag is becoming, and predicting its disappearance from the earth any day now because,  you know, it has such destructive power. I mean, just look at the places where big battle flags have been erected beside busy highways. Pestilence, ruin and death follow and surround the battle flag wherever it goes... like in Tampa:

 And central Alabama.

Of course, it looks pretty silly to attribute a fall-off in Beauvoir tourist visits to the presence of the battle flag, when there is no history of that happening before. But that's what Levin latches onto without a single neuron firing with the possibility that there COULD be other factors involved.  For example, if there was a general decline in tourism to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, that would likely contribute to a decline in visitors to Beauvoir. Ya think?

Yes, but has there BEEN a decline in tourism to the Mississippi Gulf Coast?

Why, yes, there has! Biloxi's WLOX reported on it just last month!

Alabama tourism booming while Mississippi struggles

But do you think Levin will acknowledge this factual information? Not if it deprives him of a "reason" to trash the flag and club the VaFlaggers over the head with a figurative Louisville Slugger. That's just how it is in the floggosphere....

    UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE

Kevin actually let my comment through moderation. He replied, ""Go back and read the post again. I did say that the news article lacks clarity regarding the exact nature of the problem at Beauvoir. I also cited attendance in the post."

He linked them together. "From what I can tell," he sed, "the disagreement over the display of the flag has everything to do with lagging visitation and revenue." The implication is that displaying the flag is causing the fall off in visitation and revenue, which would be right in line with his history of attributing evil effects to the battle flag, from bad breath to sinkholes and from globull warming to the Seattle's shellacking of Denver in the Superbowl. Okay, I made that part up. But he does have absolutely zero objectivity about the flag that always shows up in flog posts like this one.

I Know What You Mean, P.J.

More Hate, Not History...

... more lies disguised as satire ... more of the lust to denigrate ... more of the obsession hurt and injure, harrass and persecute with words as weapons ... on conspicuous display, here:

Top Ten Reasons This Kickstarter Campaign’s a Bust

There are reasons, of course, why Simpson routinely and frequently abandons posts about history on his "history" blog to engage in his lust to injure, hurt, harass and persecute with words. One is simply because he likes it. He has a bullying personality, but he's a verbal bully, so one assumes he didn't pull the wings off flies when he was a kid (was he ever a kid, ya think?) but both stem from the same motive -- pleasure from inflicting pain, or attempting to. And, failing that, to entertain with the attempt.

Which brings us to reason two. He does it because so many of his readers enjoy the same thing themselves, or enjoy watching others do it. They both enable and reward him with comments in the same vein.

Third, he's desperate for readers and commenters. Since he has apparently run off most of his commenters who are actually interested in actual history, he has cultivated another kind of reader/commenter. Fellow denigrators and bullies. He dare not focus on history to the point of running them off because then his blog would have even fewer readers than his books do.

And if there's anything thing a narcissist craves, it's constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others.

Read more about narcissism here and just see how many of these traits he exhibits.

BTW, when you read that Kickstarter post, hover your cursor over the embedded hyperlinks, and notice how often he "proves" his comment -- with links to his own posts.

UPDATE    UPDATE     UPDATE     UPDATE     UPDATE  

In the comments at the hate-post (i.e., the most recent one) at Crossroads  Al Mackey tells David Tatum: 

By the way, David, it’s “fortune’s gaze,” not “fortunes gaze.” Possessive, ya know. Also, it’s not “till,” it’s “til.” it’s a contraction of the word “until.” “Till” is something you do to the soil. Always happy to help.

Izzat right?

From  DICTIONARY.COM:

till

--- preposition

1.  up to the time of; until: to fight till death.

2.  before (used in negative constructions): He did not come till today.

3.  near or at a specified time: till evening.

4.  Chiefly Midland, Southern, and Western U.S. before; to: It's ten till four on my watch.

5.  Scot. and  North England .

     a.  to.

     b.  unto.

--- conjunction

6   to   the time that or when; until.

7.  before (used in negative constructions).
 

Origin:
before 900; Middle English; Old English  (north) til  < Old Norse til  to, akin to Old English till  station, German Ziel  goal. See till²

Usage note
Till  and until  are both old in the language and are interchangeable as both prepositions and conjunctions: It rained till (or until ) nearly midnight. The savannah remained brown and lifeless until (or till ) the rains began. Till  is not a shortened form of until and is not spelled 'till.

 __________________

'til

-- preposition, conjunction

till; until.

Origin:
 aphetic variant of until

Usage note
See till¹ 

 __________________

Note also that 'til is NOT a contraction of until. It is an aphetic variant of until. Aphesis is the disappearance or loss of an unstressed initial vowel or syllable.

Don't quitcher day job to take up teachin' vocab-bull-ary, Al.

History Errors That Floggers Don't Care About

The Constitution is 400 years old? From The Blaze.
 
“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not." 

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas

March 12, 2014

Yep. This is a member of Congress. This is the same woman who said on the House floor, "“I stand here as a freed slave....”

These statements have a direct connection to history, which is what the floggers claim to care about. But did you see any mention of this on their flogs? Of course not. The only history "errors" they care about are those made by Southern heritage folks -- and sometimes what they classify as errors is merely an opinion they disagree with.

These flogger-types pretzel up and gnash their teeth when heritage folks identify personally with Confederates -- when they talk about "we" and "us," referring to Confederates during the war --  but you never hear a peep out of floggers when other folks make similar statements.

Simpson claims we "need" to feel hated, but it isn't about need. It's simply that we have the ability to discern hate that is directed toward us, in many types of expression. For example, take a look at this comment thread at Simpson's flog: http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/an-astonishing-coincidence/#comments

  There's no history there, but there's lots of scorn and ridicule from people who would rather die than correct -- or even acknowledge -- blatant and egregious errors made by a protected class member...  Can you say hypocrisy?

Oh, and Mr. Buchanan, what did P. T. Barnum say? Lots of things. My favorite is: "Without promotion, something terrible happens: Nothing."

 
UPDATE    UPDATE    UPDATE    UPDATE   

NOW we know what it takes to goad floggers into admitting that protected class members (which certainly is not confied to race) make history (and other) errors. If the admission presents an opportunity to denigrate Southern heritage folks, they'll do it. Of course, they'll do it reluctantly, softly, with kid gloves, and they won't show the same scorn and derision for the protected ones that they'd show for Southern heritage folks who make a similar or even lesser errors.

I mean, heck, they don't need Southern heritage folks to make an mistake in order to criticize and drum up animosity and derision. Remember Simpson criticizing Susan for wearing red tops?

I don't have a problem with Andrew Napolitano going off the deep end? Well, it's not that I don't have a problem with it. It's that I don't care about it, one way or another. I don't even care about Jackson-Lee's many displays of ignorance, except as a vehicle for showcasing flogger hypocrisy and double standards.

And while we're at it, let's correct the latest Simpson lie -- that I have "confessed" I "don't really understand history." I await a link to said "confession." Hell will freeze over before anyone provides it, though, because I never made such a confession.

 UPDATE 2   UPDATE 2   UPDATE 2   UPDATE 2   UPDATE 2 

Simpson claims he supplied a link to where I "confessed" I "don't really understand  history." As he commonly does, the "proof" he links to is his own claims made in his own posts on his own blog, which are commonly filled with lies and distortions of whatever he's chosen to lie about and distort.

In this case, in his blog post that comes up at the URL he supplied --surprise!-- there was actually a link to something I wrote -- this: Confederate Clones.  But there's no "confession" that I "don't really understand history" in that post. Read it yourself. Then, afterward, go read Simpson's utterly bizarre "interpretation" of what my post says/means. It isn't just a distortion -- it's more like a hallucination and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Read it here: It's Heritage, Not History...A Candid Admission.

Hell's still burning as hot as ever, and I'm still waiting for a link to my "confession."

Screaming Hilarity at Crossroads

LOCHLAINN SEABROOK= fake name

                         by Thelibertylamp (<----fake name)

For Floggers, It's Hate, Not History

Proof comes all the time. You'll find the latest proof in Simpson's most recent Bash-the-VaFlaggers post at Crossroads, and the attached comment thread. Try to find some history there...just try.

About the new I-95 flag project, he sez, "... it will be the same story all over again, and that bores me."

Sure it does. That's why he got all involved with a group in Richmond trying to stop the first flag project, because it bores him. That's why he sent tweet after tweet after tweet to the the Richmond media, trying to sic them on the VaFlaggers, because it bores him. That's why he he made something like 50 blog posts in the two months leading up to the first flag raising, because it bores him. That is why he immersed himself in Google Earth, trying to figure out the site of the flag project, because it bores him.That's why he has repeatedly harassed Susan regarding her job, because it bores him.

He sez, "They say that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again."

I dunno, folks. This looks pretty successful to me:

Success is saying you're gonna do something and then doing it.

He sez, "It appears that Hathaway and company learned from the missteps surrounding their initial foray into a business that other organizations have pulled off without much trouble. In fact, they’ve taken my advice to find a taller flagpole and to proceed without the usual self-serving fanfare."

Fanfare? The VaFlaggers did not send an announcement to any media outlet concerning the I-95 Flag. Susan was contacted by a guy at Mother Jones who said someone sent info to him. That started the media fanfare.

The rest of the fanfare was played not by the VaFlaggers, but by critics and opponents, like Kristen Konate and her idiotic petition, by the reactionary but unproductive "United RVA" and, most of all, by Simpson's 50 or so posts in the two months leading up to the flag raising, and in the comments of his floggerette peanut gallery; and in the scorn and derision of other flogger blogs. 

The so-called "self-serving fanfare" -- that is, the verbal harassment and attempts at intimidation -- even continued after the flag was raised. Remember, "All That Fuss for This?" when HE was the one making the fuss? And let's not forget Al Mackey's ridicule because the clearing of the trees didn't fit his timetable....

People who support the VaFlaggers understand they are a volunteer, grassroots group. They donate their time and services, and finance their participation themselves. Donations from others are often a spontaneous show of support, or the result of some quiet and modest fundraising efforts, with no "self-serving fanfare."

I found Bob Nelson's comment about crane-rentals to be like deja vu all over again. Remember Liberty Lamprey's nay-saying about the first I-95 flag?

You might be right, they might be successful in getting that flag up, but I think they are going to run into a lot of problems and issues.

I think cost is going to be their major issue.

They estimated $3000 for the flag and pole but have they included the monthly payments for the land it is on?

They signed a lease, I am guessing there is some sort of rental payment for the piece of property?

But, let’s just say some good ol’ boy supporter is letting them install their “performance art” for no charge, then what about this paranoid induced need for fencing, lights and … security cams?

Who is going to pick up the electric bill for these big flood lights and 24 hour camera surveillance?

How are they going to get the wiring done and make it weather proof?

That was from the brilliant, Hollywood fantasy style Nazi-fighter who also said the I-95 flag project was a hoax . But all his doomsaying amounted to nothing. So learn from that and don't worry, Mr. Nelson. They got it covered.

Yep, hate is boring, no doubt. It's a bit brace that bores holes in the hater's heart ... and head.

12 Years A Slave Won Oscars Because of Left-wing Politics

The anti-white propaganda film 12 Years A Slave won Oscars not based on merit, but based on politics. This comes straight from the LA Times. 

Two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn’t see 12 Years a Slave but voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they felt obligated to do so.

More Here: Your Daily Dose of Conservatism

I've Got a Ton of WIPs...

...but I think I'll add this to 'em...