It's Not History -- It's Anti-Heritage

 UPDATE ~ UPDATE ~ UPDATE 

Didn't I tell ya? These flogger guys feed off each other's blogs -- NOT about history, but about attacking heritage. Today, Brooks D. Simpson has joined in the current round of bash-the-Flaggers.  With references to Kevin's and Corey's posts on the same subject, he's posted 370 words of claimed indifference about a subject about which he has shown almost morbid interest in the past -- just like the other floggers.

One thing these floggers have never done, however, is explain WHY they post about the Flaggers -- or any other heritage advocates and their activities. The flogger claim is that they're interested in HISTORY. The Virginia Flaggers are CONTEMPORARY. Heritage activities are CONTEMPORARY. Why are these guys so eaten up with obsession -- and animosity -- for the flaggers?

Judging by the tone of his post and comments, Simpson has been about to bust a gut to post a derogatory critique of the Flaggers throughout his recent series of long, boring posts about the future of civil war history, and his trip to Gettysburg. His animosity for Southern heritage and those who honor it is so great, is such an obsession, he can't keep it contained with pretended indifference, and it just has to burst forth onto his blog from time to time.

One wonders why he even pretends indifference. The other floggers, while often touting their interest in history, don't try to hide their compulsion to denigrate heritage folks, most especially the Flaggers.  Especially when his indifference is so poorly executed and displayed. (3/30/13)

~END OF  UPDATE ~ 

Now Andy's trying his hand at psychoanalyzing, presumably without a license. He's posted a comment at Corey's blog about a post Corey made referencing Kevin's blog (what WOULD these floggers do without each other's blogs to inspire their own blog posts?) about -- you guessed it ... The Virginia Flaggers.

The floggers still haven't given a reasonable explanation (or any explanation at all, that I've found) why "history folks" who openly scorn "heritage folks" for putting heritage above history (so they say) turn right around and abandon history in order to attack heritage.

If anybody sees any history in this post or Andy's response,  please, do paste it in a comment here at Backsass. 

Andy's current effort at Corey's blog is to claim Virginia Flaggers are just into it for attention.  "I’ve never seen the Flaggers do anything that they don’t make, first and foremost, about them," he says.  (Emphasis Andy's.)

I'd be curious as to what Andy has seen the Flaggers do... and whether it was in person, or whether he "saw" it on the Internet. And, if he's getting his "views" from the Internet, who put them there? Someone hostile to the flaggers, or friendly to them, or neutral?

Even if Andy's source is neutral, he clearly is not. Anyone who writes crap like this is conspicuously displaying his hostility: "Even when they participate in larger functions, like the Decoration Day event in Fredericksburg or the memorial service at Sharpsburg, they go out of their way to make sure everybody knows that da Flaggers are in da house! (They call this establishing a 'Confederate presence.')" (Emphasis Andy's.)

Sounds to me like what they're doing IS establishing a Confederate presence. Of course, Andy is against a "Confederate presence" exactly as he is against Da Flaggers so naturally it's gonna leave a bad taste in his mouth, that he then spews it out in comments like this one (and numerous others at  his own blog).

Here's where he gets positively Freudian... "They’re very much like PETA — anything valid they have to say is quickly eclipsed by their shameless self-promotion and quest for public attention. It ultimately undermines their supposed goals of engaging the broader public, but I’m not sure they really care about that as much as the adulation of their small fan base, whose resentments demand more-or-less constant fluffing."

Let's deconstruct this.

"Anything valid they have to say..."  Why even bring this up?  Andy doesn't think ANYthing they say or do is valid.

"...eclipsed by shameless self-promotion and quest for public attention." I haven't noticed  either one from the Flaggers. I think these are phony labels Andy is putting on (1) the promotion of flagging, to inspire similar activity in other states and (2) showing the public the difference between people who honor their heritage and those who misuse it.

Of course Andy doesn't want the public to know about that. (Yes, folks, I can do remote psychoanalyzing, too.) He wants everyone to hate Confederate heritage, and to see anyone who honors it as inbred scum-sucking racist morons.

"It ultimately undermines their supposed goals of engaging the broader public..." he says, without a particle of substantiation, except his own bitter/sour disapproval. And why even mention this, as if he cares whether their goals are undermined, which he clearly does not.

"...but I’m not sure they really care about that as much as the adulation of their small fan base..."  So Andy views the support of the Flaggers by the heritage community as "adulation" by "fans"...  I wonder if that's anything like the "adulation" of "fans" showing up at his book signings, or the awed comments of blog visitors about his ship renderings...

And finally, "...whose resentments demand more-or-less constant fluffing."  Well, golly.  If the "resentment" of the Southern heritage community is so weak and/or artificial that it has to be "fluffed" why on earth is it such a visceral problem for the floggers?

No. Like all the floggers, Andy hates the heritage that we respect and honor. He will paint that heritage -- and our respect and honor -- in the worst possible light. Part of the reason why the Flaggers must do what they do for our heritage, is because people who hate it, like Andy, have for so long had the upper hand in public discourse and used it to influence the public to adopt the same hatred of Confederate heritage that they hold.

And now that Heritage folks are fighting back (and doing so with dignity and determination -- and fun!) it is really, really sticking in flogger craw. I mean, look at his risible PETA analogy. There is absolutely no comparison between PETA whack jobs and their insane demonstrations, and the Virginia Flaggers.  For Andy to make such a comparison, he either has to be knowingly lying, or so infuriated he can't tell fact from fantasy.

If history truly was what these floggers are interested in, they'd blog about history, and neither heritage nor anti-heritage would enter into it for them -- I doubt they'd even notice it. But history is not what they're interested in. It is a convenient excuse, a plausible cover, for indulging in their hatred of the Confederacy, its people, its memory, and the honor it receives from supporters and defenders today. And when someone challenges their hatred, it'll make your head spin how fast they abandon history to take up the tools of heritage-hatred -- the mocking, the ridicule, the lying...

Andy's At It Again ...

... doing two of the things he does best -- being a hypocrite and wielding his two-fisted double standard like a Highland claymore. Problem is, it rarely makes contact, let alone draw blood.

His current effort is to chronicle Flagger "failures" to get Mimi Elrod voted out of office, or to pressure Lexington businesses economically to support ending the city ordinance that bans flags (except official state and local flags) from flagstaffs attached to city-owned light poles.  I left a comment on his blog, but of course, he won't post it.  He's very thin-skinned that way...

My comment:

Andy, you're mighty eager to pronounce flagger efforts as failures because they don't accomplish within months what will likely require years; and because they don't accomplish within years what may take decades.

Do you know how long it took flag attackers in South Carolina to get the flag off the dome? How many years they introduced legislation to remove it that produced no result, session after legislation session? Did you counsel them to give up because they didn't get the flag removed the first time they tried?  Did you tsk-tsk the NAACP for hurting South Carolina's economy with their boycott. and post charts on line about it?

You seem disappointed that the flaggers and other heritage defenders are not short sighted and are in it for the long haul -- but mostly because they don't pay any attention to your periodic, very transparent -- but ultimately irrelevant -- carping meant to discourage them.

Hope you get some kind of enjoyment calling city officials in a state you don't live in and posting your little charts here because, as material meant to discourage flaggers, your efforts are a total bust (though it might get you some atta-boys and cyber slaps on the back from your fellow floggers).

BTW, if the flaggers -- many of whom are citizens of Virginia --  have no business being concerned with Lexington, how is it that you do? 

Wouldn't you love to hear Andy's answer to that last question?  We may as well forget about it, though. Hell will freeze over before Andy explains his penchant for engaging in what he berates others for.

Flogger "Scholarship"? (Smirk)

Flogger Al Mackey has recently featured two posts on his blog accusing the Georgia SCV of lying in videos, the first about the Corwin Amendment, the second about John Brown.

In the second, Mackey writes:

The video claimed that the first person killed was a free black man who tried to stop them.  Shepherd Hayward didn’t try to stop anyone. He worked as a baggage handler for the railroad  He was walking on the trestle, looking for the night watchman, when  he encountered Oliver Brown and Stewart Taylor.  They pointed rifles at him and told him to stop, but instead he turned around and was walking away from them, heading back to the office when they shot him.  [Source: David S. Reynolds, John Brown, Abolitionist:  The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights, p. 316]

Here is a screenshot of Mackey's source:

I was intrigued by the description of Hayward as bewildered. How'd Reynolds know that? Did Hayward say something to that effect before he died? And if he did, how do we know it wasn't delirium from blood loss? Or some other reason. In the End Notes, I found this reference:

Ah, a quote from Mr. Hayward. If a person were given an order, and didn't know what a word in the order meant, that could result in bewilderment, no doubt. The quote was apparently recorded in another book about John Brown. So I looked that one up and found this:

Note this in the above excerpt:

The command to halt probably meant as little to Hayward as it had to Higgins.

Huh? Probably? Well, did it or didn't it? Saying something "probably" happened is one way a writer can get across a point he wants to make without providing substantiation.

(And don't you just love that passive voice?  "...a bullet passed through his body..."  Perhaps it was just hanging in the air, waiting for a body to come by that it could "pass" itself "through."  Nothing about it being fired from a gun though we can assume it was fired by Brown or Taylor, despite this author's seeming reluctance to point a finger at them even in so obvious a situation.)

The reference to Higgins was accompanied by an asterisk, so I checked the bottom of the page and found this:

Well, well, well, well, welllllll.... So Reynolds' reference to the quote "proving" Hayward's "bewilderment" wasn't spoken by Hayward at all, though anyone reading the page note would assume so. It was spoken by a different person altogether. Villard assures us that the command to halt probably meant as little to Hayward as it meant to the man quoted, Patrick Higgins, though there is nothing in these passages to substantiate Hayward's "bewilderment" or the claim that the command "probably" meant little to him. So we really don't know that, do we?

So from Villard we have a quote from a different person used to suggest that Hayward didn't understand the command to halt; and based on that, Reynolds states, with no reservation or qualification (not even a "probably"), that Hayward was "bewildered."

Is that how flogger "scholarship" works? A quote by one person is used to suggest the mental state of an entirely different person, though there's nothing referenced to substantiate the connection?  It was just "probably" that way?

And speaking of lying, let's go back to Mackey's first reference -- the paragraph by David S. Reynolds, which ends with this whopper:

"A black man was the first casualty of the war for black liberation."

War for black liberation?  There was no "war for black liberation." The so-called civil war was for the purpose of violently bullying the seceded states back into the union. "Freeing slaves" was tacked on well into the war to give the north's "cause" (greed) the illusion of moral superiority.

I ask again, is that how flogger scholarship works? Cite a source and imply that is supports your contention but don't bother to substantiate it? Just expect your readers to accept your "take" on it?

Ah, no. I already suspect that their true motives include demonizing white Southerners, past and future and that will have a direct influence on their writings.

Al Mackey's beliefs (expressed to me in a discussion group I'm no longer a member of) about Julia Ward Howe's declaration that abolitionists wanted to "blow up" the union, further illustrate the flogger-style faith in unsubstantiated (i.e., made up, fabricated) "history." I've already referenced that HERE

What a bunch of hypocrites.

We Are All Just Prisoners Here

Corey sez, "As for taking the money for Ft. Sumter...your (sic) kidding me right... give in to secessionists?"

Why not?  There's nothing wrong with secession.

Corey's concept of "union" is "a prison for states." A sort of political Hotel California where "you can check out any time you like but you can never leave."

The colonial patriots did not fight a war for independence from the crown just to incarcerate themselves and their posterity in a prison for states for all time.

It's Corey's Turn to Lie

Flogger Corey Meyer has big, fat lyin' headline at his blog which reads, "Susan Hathaway Despises USCT History." As "proof" he posts a screenshot of a Facebook post where Susan informs members that the taxpayer supported Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission is promoting a book about USCT Troops from Virginia.

I know Corey has been paying attention, so he can't use ignorance as an excuse; but the primary complaint about the commission is that it has from the beginning insulted Confederates who fought for Virginia by ignoring their service and sacrifice, and promoting everything else under the sun, including those who warred on and subjugated Virginia and her people.

If the Sesquicentennial Commission had not chosen to spit on Virginia's Confederate defenders and their history and heritage, it likely wouldn't be such a big deal that Virginians who traitorously supported the Union be recognized.  But that is not the case. 

Corey knows this.  He chooses to lie about it. Par for the course for floggers ... much of what they write about Southern Heritage advocates and activists is lies.  But just how superior is moral superiority based on fraud and falsehood (and just how moral)?

 

The Superior North?

If the South was, and is, so wicked and corrupted, and if Southerners are and have always been  a bunch of scum-sucking inbred racist hicks, a region of boorish imbeciles, what does it say about the "intellectually superior" north that they couldn't make it as a nation on their own, without Dixie? 

What does it say about the "morally superior" north that they had to fight a war that killed hundreds of thousands on both sides to keep the brutish, morally inferior slavers and hick farmers in the South under their wealthy and powerful yankee thumb?

The north did not send a brutal army of invasion into the South to free slaves. That "cause" was tacked on well into the war. Read Lincoln's initial executive order calling for volunteers to make up the invasionary force; not a word, no a syllable about slavery.

At first, it was about "preserving the union."

Why was it necessary to keep the wicked Southern states in the union in order to preserve it?  Well, it wasn't. It only required ratification of the Constitution by nine states to create the federal government -- the union -- and set it in operation.  If the Southern states had been allowed to leave in peace, there would have been twenty-two (22) states left in the union -- more than twice the nine required to create it -- and they could have remained just as united as heck, if that was what they wanted.

Confederacy-bashers have told me it was necessary to keep the South as part of the USA in order to "form a more perfect union."  But wouldn't it have been a more perfect union without the "dirty South" than with it?

Let's face it. The north knew it was missing some vitally important component -- some element necessary to survive as a nation -- that it lacked and that the South possessed. That is why the South had to be violently forced to remain in the union. Even after the war, when carpetbaggers and other assorted yankees came South and robbed state treasuries blind, bought up miles of virgin timber for pennies an acre, paid wretched Southern sawmill and mining workers with "scrip" instead of real money, to keep them enslaved to the company store, instigated discriminatory railroad freight rates so it woud be prohibitively expensive for Southern companies to ship finished goods (textiles, steel) to the north -- or even to other places in the South -- so all it could ship was cheaper, raw goods (which was then turned to finished goods in northern factories, which, of course, sold them at a handsome profit)... 

It's time people realized that the north is not morally or intellectually superior to the South -- not at all.  What the north excels in is greed, hypocrisy, exploitation of others and falsification.

More Lies and Insults, Flogger Style

On Sunday, February 24 -- four days ago -- I noted the influence of group-think on flogger attitudes toward Southern heritage supporters.  Specifically, I wrote:

Corey's question to me betrays his leftist, "group-think" mentality, which attempts to categorize people, lump them together in groups, and then make everyone in the group mental clones who all think alike and believe alike. Thus, if you can find something to smear one member with, it can be applied to the group as a whole. So if you're a supporter, defender or advocate of Southern heritage, you think exactly like all the other supporters, defenders and advocates of Southern heritage.  It simply cannot be acknowledged by these floggers that a variety of thought -- and some disagreement -- exists within the Southern heritage community.

And just days afterward, two floggers -- veteran Kevin Levin and newbie Al Mackey -- make blog entries that so marvelously illustrate what I said above, it's almost like I had them made to order.

Let's start with Levin.  First, I must acknowledge that my statement above isn't entirely accurate, especially the last sentence. Oh, it can be acknowledged by floggers that some disagreement exists within the heritage community, but not realistically. When floggers blog about it, they are likely to blow it waaaay out of proportion, which is exactly what Levin has done at Civil War Memory in a post dated February 27. The title reads, "Confederate Heritage Advocates Devour Their Own."

Devour their own? A bit melodramatic, don't you think? Or, as my daddy used to say, in imitation of his mountaineer forebears, "That's high meller drammer."

You can go read it, if you're interested in seeing the extremes he goes to in order to mischaracterize the situation. The title alone is hyperbole so extreme it qualifies more as an outright fabrication than as hyperbole.

About the situation itself, Levin makes some ass-umptions, as he is prone to do.

"No one on this page seems to know why the Covington (Tenn.) chapter of the SCV chose to remove the battle flag from the cemetery in favor of a First National Flag and as far as I can tell no one has bothered to ask," he sez. 

Well, maybe you have to look farther than a thread on a Facebook page, Levin. Not every action or aspect of a situation gets posted about and commented on, ya know?  (Shades of Brooks Simpson, who thinks if he doesn't know about it -- particularly if nobody has posted about it on his blog's comment threads -- it never happened.)

I wonder if floggers like Levin and Simpson really believe that what they know about any given subject is the sum-total of knowledge about it...  I dunno, folks, but that seems to me to be skirting very close to megalomania...

In this case, in the very post that started the thread, Billy Bearden wrote that SCV officer Wallace "removed the Battleflag from the pole flying over the graves of Confederate Veterans and replaced it with a 1st National because he didn't want to offend anyone..." Billy ends the comment by noting that "no one had complained" about being offended by the battle flag. 

Do you suppose Kevin was so obsessed with finding something in the thread that he could bellyache about on his blog that he completely missed the fact that, yes, Billy reported exactly why Wallace replaced the battle flag?

Levin then takes a couple of guesses about the motives of those who replaced the battle flag, ending with, "Ultimately, what is more important, debating the divisive history of the flag or sharing the stories of the men the SCV are committed to honoring and a time when that project is under assault?"

First, why should discussions of the flag's history be prioritized out of the debate? It's under attack, Mr. Levin. That necessitates a defense. We know you'd like the defense to end, and the flag removers to win, but -- surprise! --  Southern heritage advocates don't see that issue the way you do.

Besides, the same people who want to eradicate displays of the flag also wish to eradicate all positive commemorations of Confederate soldiers -- and perhaps all memory of them -- from the cultural landscape and from American memory. Defending the flag is itself a defense of the men who fought beneath it.

Kevin then mentions, "What I find fascinating, however, is just the sheer nastiness of the comments that follow as well as the ones that didn’t make it into the pic." I'll deal with that later in this post, although I can tell you right now, for sheer nastiness, nothing in that entire Facebook thread even comes close to the toxic slime about Southern Heritage folks you find in comment threads by floggers and their followers.

Levin ends with this sentence, which he no doubt thinks is a fitting stinger to wrap up with: "Billy Bearden is fond of pointing to the NAACP as the most significant threat to Confederate heritage.  It’s clear to me that the problem is much closer to home."

What's clear to Kevin, though, is probably more a product of his imagination and wishful thinking and than it is reality.

The second flogger post I want to discuss was made by Al Mackey, with the title, "They Only Love Their Ancestors Who Fought For Slavery." This is apparently a reference to, or follow up of, an earlier Mackey post dated February 15 and titled, "Do They Love Their Ancestors Or Not?" which I will deal with in a separate blog post.

What I want to note is how marvelously Mackey illustrates my point: "Thus, if you can find something to smear one member with, it can be applied to the group as a whole."  Note that in Mackey's blog title, the"They" (plural) he mentions is actually one (that's one, (1), o-n-e) individual.  Mackey sez, "Here we have an instance of an individual who 'loathes' one of his ancestors who fought against treason."

Actually, the individual mentions nothing about loathing an ancestor "who fought against treason." In fact, he explains that in fighting against the Confederacy, this ancestor was committing treason, not fighting against it.  So basically, Mackey is lying.

But let's get to that "sheer nastiness" part.

In my February 24th post already mention, I also wrote that "...disparaging the intelligence of people they disagree with is a front-line attack of the flogger mentality." And I listed some of the choice name-calling and intelligence insulting that flows so easily from the keyboards of these haters.  Here are some new ones, from these two new articles under discussion:

Levin: Once in a while he [Bearden] offers something worthy of reflection, but this clearly represents a walk off the deep end.

Mackey: If this clown didn’t have an IQ less than the outside air temperature ...and ... he can spout such moronic idiocy ...

Mackey is actually the one walking off the deep end, going beyond the usual odious insults to this individual's intelligence, and accusing him -- out of the clear blue -- of supporting terrorism:  "He probably cheers for the Taliban, too.  I wonder if he was one of those who were dancing in the street on 9/11." 

And I wonder who he's talking about. I don't remember reports of anyone in the USA dancing in the streets on 9/11.  There were some reports of Palestinians celebrating the attacks, but the claim is disputed.  So who is Mackey hallucinating about, just so he can insult someone he disagrees with?

We see the mentality of the floggers clearly in posts like this. They think it's good and right to lie about people's intelligence just because those people see the civil war differently than they do; and its okay to lie about the same people and imply that they support terrorists jihadists, for the same reason.

They tell these lies about people they don't know.  All they know of these folks is what they find in a handful of sentences on the Internet -- and they have to LIE about that. 

I have speculated before on the cause of such hatred exhibited by floggers and their comment thread followers, so I'll forego that this time.  I will only observe ... these are not nice people, folks. They're liars and mini-totalitarians...  You have to hope they confine their hatred to discussions of the civil war, and never get any real power over other people...

What's Behind Flogger Name-calling

Because I posted about Al Mackey's flogger practice of name calling that denigrates people's intelligence, Corey Meyer sends me this comment, "So Connie do you agree the (sic) Hitler and Lincoln a (sic) virtually the same as the secessionist claimed and that Lincoln did not extend liberties to certain people?"

Although I posted an answer in the comments, responding to that question is worth a blog post all its own.

First, what difference does it make whether I agree or disagree? That doesn't change the facts of what I wrote about Mackey and the floggers -  that disparaging the intelligence of people they disagree with is a front-line attack of the flogger mentality.

It doesn't change the fact that they throw around terms like "lunacy" and "clown" and "idiots" -- or, in the case of Eric Wittenberg and his sycophants, "galactically stupid" and "troglodytes" and "knuckle-draggers." And we can't forget Brooks D. Simpson and the Crossroads crew -- "rampant idiocy" and "ignorant morons" and "cretins" -- and that's just a tiny sampling.

Corey's question to me betrays his leftist, "group-think" mentality, which attempts to categorize people, lump them together in groups, and then make everyone in the group mental clones who all think alike and believe alike. Thus, if you can find something to smear one member with, it can be applied to the group as a whole. So if you're a supporter, defender or advocate of Southern heritage, you think exactly like all the other supporters, defenders and advocates of Southern heritage.  It simply cannot be acknowledged by these floggers that a variety of thought -- and some disagreement -- exists within the Southern heritage community.

The same assumptions are evident in Brooks Simpson's attempt to smear groups like the Southern Heritage Preservation group, with the statements of one or two members, and then to expand the smear to all Southern heritage advocates.  He occasionally attempts to create negative significance of the fact that someone in the group didn't make a comment -- and then attributes the "ominousness" of the silence to the whole group, and from them to the whole Southern heritage community.

Andy Hall's take is a bit different. He apparently thinks you're a fake Southern heritage advocate unless you think and believe exactly like "real Confederates." Although when he quotes a "real Confederate" he doesn't say how he knows everyone in the Confederacy held the identical thought or belief.  At least, I've never encountered such substantiation from him.

You see, leftism despises individuality and it shows up all kinds of ways. Among these floggers it is an intolerance for anyone who arrived at their views of history in any way but the accepted one -- that is, via the teachings of professional educators who all churn out classrooms full of mental clones...

In a broader application, you see it in Obama's and the feds' eyeing -- drooling over -- private pensions. They'd like nothing more than for the feds to sieze this enormous pool of money... Why? To help the totally-broke and deeply-in-debt federal government? That may be the excuse, but what lies behind it is the leftist/progressive/socialist mentality that cannot stand the idea that people are individuals rather than undifferentiated unit of the hive -- and they especially can't stand for the individual to OWN something, like a private pension, that not everyone has.  In the most extreme view, socialists believe no individual should own anything. The state should own everything, and administer it for everyone else.

But back to the floggers. Apparently the only thing they love more than portraying people they disagree with as morons is portraying them as ... you guessed it ... racists. This is why Brooks D. Simpson attempts to associate me with Brad Griffin (Hunter Wallace) and why he puts the false idea that if you haven't denied something on his blog then you support it. That is the reason for Corey posting about it time and again at his blog, such as his recent post about modern Southern Nationalists (which really has nothing to do with his purported interest, the civil war).

The obsession with racism and with denigrating people's intelligence clearly (to borrow a Levin/Hallism) demonstrates that their interest in the "civil war" is to use it as a tool for evilizing or stupidizing people they don't like.

Agree? Or Disagree?

Massive Cognitive Dissonance of the Floggers

(Well. of one of them anyway...)

Rookie Flogger Al Mackey is ketchin' on to what it takes to be a flogger in good standing, real fast. Disparage the intelligence of people you disagree with.  Throw around terms like "lunacy" and "clown" and "idiots".  Real intellectual, ain't it?

He used these words to describe a video on the Daily Show Website here ...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-21-2013/tyranny---texas?xrs=playershare_twitter

... and asks, "...I really wonder if these folks are serious or if they’re intentionally part of the gag."

Gag? What's completely lost on Mackey is that the Daily Show is leftist comedy -- that is, leftist hatred with an overlay of ridicule that passes for comedy in the leftist mentality. Stewart and the producers of that show craft it to ridicule people they politically and culturally disagree with, and look down on. I can't believe Mackey doesn't know this.

But then, this is the guy who "covered" Julia Ward Howe's hoop-skirted rear end after her admission that she and her fellow abolitionists wanted to "blow up the union" by explaining that what she really wanted was for the pieces of the union, after the great kablooie, to reassemble themselves exactly as before -- but minus slavery...

Once again, we see the massive cognitive dissonance of anti-Confederate floggers....