...to watch all the haters of Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy telling us with such assurance what Lee was like... what he wanted, what he didn't want, what he intended, what he felt about his service to the Confederacy, and his service to Washington and Lee and, get this -- who and what he would like and approve of today, and who and what he would scorn.
The understanding that these people are totally missing -- I mean totally and completely missing -- is that the flags in the chapel alcove serve the same purpose as flowers at a funeral. They are for the living, for those who remember and honor.
So while the removal of the flags was done from the motive and desire of dishonoring Lee, it was done more as a boot heel in the teeth of those living today who honor him. And while Lee-haters are experiencing a pleasurable buzz over the extreme dishonor smeared upon Lee, they are positively delirious with rapture over the bloody gums of Southern heritage supporters.
But what else can you expect from the civil war left?
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Injecting a Little Reality...
...Into Flogger Assumptions
A recurrent theme in flogger flogs is the "failure" of heritage groups to stand against the tidal wave of destruction aimed at Confederate heritage by the American left. The VaFlaggers and the SCV failed in the flag prohibitions in Lexington; they failed to oust Mimi Elrod. Now they've failed re: the flags at W&L.
One thing these people seem to not understand (although I don't doubt for a minute that they indeed do understand, perfectly) is that in the last 40 to 60 years, the country has taken a harrowing lurch leftward. It began with the transformation of America's colleges and universities by the likes of the Frankfurt School. It continued with Gramscian "organic intellectuals" conducting the long march though our culture's institutions. (see http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/11/still-pertinent-after-all-these-years_23.html )
What happened? Well, there were certain aspects of American culture that needed improvement, no doubt. No human endeavor is without flaws. But what happened was that the American left-- socialists, communists, collectivists, liberals -- saw an opportunity to do much more than improve the problem areas. They saw an opportunity to use the need for improvement, and the efforts toward improvement, to dismantle what they hated about the USA (religion, strong families, decency, tradition) and replace it with their vision.
The problem is that their vision is deeply destructive.
Americans of the baby boomer generation and younger have been robbed of their cognition. They've been taught to feel, not think. They've been taught to have visceral reactions to certain perceptions -- what they've been told is "racism" and "sexism" and "homophobia."
The change did not come quickly. It was gradual, and took decades to bring about. But by now it is firmly entrenched. People who hold deeply to leftist tenets now control education, business and industry, the media and government -- even some churches.
Homosexual activist leaders admit that the true agenda behind "gay marriage" isn't "marrying who they love" because the majority of homosexuals prefer promiscuity. The true agenda is the destruction of the traditional family and the silencing of the churches.
The most ludicrous claim to come resounding from the left is that there's a war on women in the United States. The feminist movement has fabricated "rape culture," increasingly removed young men from colleges and universities, encourage women to divorce, take every penny they can squeeze out of their ex-husbands and instill in their children alienation from and hatred for their fathers. They, too, are doing what they can to destroy families and churches.
Hardly a day goes by in this country without "racism" being in the news. But the same news industry mutedly reports items confirming that it isn't white people who are motivated by a racial/racist agenda. And, overall, it is not people of color who are victimized by whites. Quite the opposite. But acknowledge that truth and you will be labeled "racist."
The enemies of Confederate heritage are liberally sprinkled throughout positions of authority in the South. Unless they're running for national office, most Southern, or "Southern", politicians don't campaign on a blatantly anti-Confederate heritage platform. There are still too many voters that would alienate. They wait until they are in office -- like Mimi Elrod -- to show their true anti-Confederate colors.
Southern universities are home to anti-Confederate faculties and administrators. And the hatred of Confederate heritage in the media rivals that in academia.
Our flags, monuments to our heroes, the commemoration of those heroes -- like our culture at large -- are in the hands of our enemies. So of course standing up to them is not going to accomplish much.
At least, not yet.
It took decades -- two or three generations -- for the left to get where it is today. And it will take a long time to undo the destruction. But each "defeat" re: Confederate heritage, brings the reality about the left's war on Southern culture and heritage to the attention of ever more people. Those big flags flying proudly beside highways across Dixie, without bringing war, pestilence, the renewal of slavery, and all sorts of horrors in the gloom and doom predictions of critics, awakens more Southerners to their heritage, to how much of it has been lost, and why it needs to be preserved and restored.
So go ahead and gloat while you can, Andy, Brooks, Kevin, Al -- along with your peanut galleries and wannabes -- about heritage "defeats." Because they are destined to end. They're already ending. (See the license plate victory for the Texas SCV.)
A recurrent theme in flogger flogs is the "failure" of heritage groups to stand against the tidal wave of destruction aimed at Confederate heritage by the American left. The VaFlaggers and the SCV failed in the flag prohibitions in Lexington; they failed to oust Mimi Elrod. Now they've failed re: the flags at W&L.
One thing these people seem to not understand (although I don't doubt for a minute that they indeed do understand, perfectly) is that in the last 40 to 60 years, the country has taken a harrowing lurch leftward. It began with the transformation of America's colleges and universities by the likes of the Frankfurt School. It continued with Gramscian "organic intellectuals" conducting the long march though our culture's institutions. (see http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/11/still-pertinent-after-all-these-years_23.html )
What happened? Well, there were certain aspects of American culture that needed improvement, no doubt. No human endeavor is without flaws. But what happened was that the American left-- socialists, communists, collectivists, liberals -- saw an opportunity to do much more than improve the problem areas. They saw an opportunity to use the need for improvement, and the efforts toward improvement, to dismantle what they hated about the USA (religion, strong families, decency, tradition) and replace it with their vision.
The problem is that their vision is deeply destructive.
Americans of the baby boomer generation and younger have been robbed of their cognition. They've been taught to feel, not think. They've been taught to have visceral reactions to certain perceptions -- what they've been told is "racism" and "sexism" and "homophobia."
The change did not come quickly. It was gradual, and took decades to bring about. But by now it is firmly entrenched. People who hold deeply to leftist tenets now control education, business and industry, the media and government -- even some churches.
Homosexual activist leaders admit that the true agenda behind "gay marriage" isn't "marrying who they love" because the majority of homosexuals prefer promiscuity. The true agenda is the destruction of the traditional family and the silencing of the churches.
The most ludicrous claim to come resounding from the left is that there's a war on women in the United States. The feminist movement has fabricated "rape culture," increasingly removed young men from colleges and universities, encourage women to divorce, take every penny they can squeeze out of their ex-husbands and instill in their children alienation from and hatred for their fathers. They, too, are doing what they can to destroy families and churches.
Hardly a day goes by in this country without "racism" being in the news. But the same news industry mutedly reports items confirming that it isn't white people who are motivated by a racial/racist agenda. And, overall, it is not people of color who are victimized by whites. Quite the opposite. But acknowledge that truth and you will be labeled "racist."
The enemies of Confederate heritage are liberally sprinkled throughout positions of authority in the South. Unless they're running for national office, most Southern, or "Southern", politicians don't campaign on a blatantly anti-Confederate heritage platform. There are still too many voters that would alienate. They wait until they are in office -- like Mimi Elrod -- to show their true anti-Confederate colors.
Southern universities are home to anti-Confederate faculties and administrators. And the hatred of Confederate heritage in the media rivals that in academia.
Our flags, monuments to our heroes, the commemoration of those heroes -- like our culture at large -- are in the hands of our enemies. So of course standing up to them is not going to accomplish much.
At least, not yet.
It took decades -- two or three generations -- for the left to get where it is today. And it will take a long time to undo the destruction. But each "defeat" re: Confederate heritage, brings the reality about the left's war on Southern culture and heritage to the attention of ever more people. Those big flags flying proudly beside highways across Dixie, without bringing war, pestilence, the renewal of slavery, and all sorts of horrors in the gloom and doom predictions of critics, awakens more Southerners to their heritage, to how much of it has been lost, and why it needs to be preserved and restored.
So go ahead and gloat while you can, Andy, Brooks, Kevin, Al -- along with your peanut galleries and wannabes -- about heritage "defeats." Because they are destined to end. They're already ending. (See the license plate victory for the Texas SCV.)
My Stuff Came In!!!
Got my cameras, got my floppies, got my floppy drive. What fun! The late 1990s digital photo technology is still amazingly good. The pictures aren't as good as the ones my husband's Fine Pix camera shoots, but they're better than the ones my Fine Pix camera turns out.
Here are some "point and shoot" images I made without doing any adjustments to the camera settings.
This is Flipper (so called because he lays on his back and flips from one side to the other a lot) -- aka Old Blue Eyes, aka The Chairman of the Board. You can tell he's a boy cat just looking at his face.
These images are shot from my yard.
It has been sixteen years since I first used a Sony Mavica MVC FD-73 when I was a campaign volunteer for Joe Scarborough. I experimented a lot, shot under a variety of circumstances ("town hall" meetings, his kids' T-ball games, interior, exterior, flash, no flash...) There aren't a lot of settings on the camera, but I will have to re-acquaint myself with the few there are, to get the most out of my new old cameras.
But it sure beats that lame Fine Pix with its blurry images....
Here are some "point and shoot" images I made without doing any adjustments to the camera settings.
This is Flipper (so called because he lays on his back and flips from one side to the other a lot) -- aka Old Blue Eyes, aka The Chairman of the Board. You can tell he's a boy cat just looking at his face.
These images are shot from my yard.
It has been sixteen years since I first used a Sony Mavica MVC FD-73 when I was a campaign volunteer for Joe Scarborough. I experimented a lot, shot under a variety of circumstances ("town hall" meetings, his kids' T-ball games, interior, exterior, flash, no flash...) There aren't a lot of settings on the camera, but I will have to re-acquaint myself with the few there are, to get the most out of my new old cameras.
But it sure beats that lame Fine Pix with its blurry images....
Monday, July 14, 2014
Symbols and Smears
If you compare symbols, you compare what they stand for. Don't say you don't. If you compare a Nazi swastika to a Confederate battle flag, you are comparing Nazis and Confederates. You are comparing what Nazis did with what Confederates did, and likely to attempt to draw similarities between the two.
Comparing symbols without comparing what they symbolize reduces you to, "Well, this one is red, white and blue, and that one is red, white and black." Ludicrous.
Simpson has a post up doing just that -- comparing a Confederate flag with a swastika, and he attempts to forestall criticism with this, "...do not invoke Godwin’s Law, for in this case the issue is the use of symbols, not an argument that the Confederates were Nazis or vice-versa. That’s not an argument I would make."
Actually, that's exactly what he's doing.
He's leading up to the utterly risible notion that Confederate heritage people should join forces with the Raelians, a "religious" group, who are attempting to rehabilitate the swastika. Sez Simpson, "It would seem to me that there might be some common ground here for people who decry “political correctness” and “presentism” and “revisionism” in their advocacy of flying Confederate flags to join forces with the pro-Swastika crowd. Both groups argue that their cherished symbol has been twisted out of context to represent something it never was meant to represent."
I don't believe for a New York minute that "it would seem" that way to him. This is just a typical, visceral Simpson smear job of Confederate heritage.
He says, "There’s not a lot of difference between a group that wants to rehabilitate a symbol used by a hate group in the twentieth century and a group that wants to rehabilitate a flag used by a hate group in the twentieth century … just ask Matthew Heimbach."
Let's examine how utterly ridiculous this is... Two "hate groups" in the 20th century is so idiotic I have to wonder if Simpson doesn't know he's assassinating his own intelligence by making this claim.
First, the swastika, as he means it, symbolizes the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which existed from 1920 to 1945. They were a political party that came to power in Germany and took control of the government. The party's leader, Adolf Hitler, established a totalitarian government. Under his dictatorship, Germany aligned with the Axis powers during WWII, and sought to maintain power by imprisoning and/or exterminating groups it considered to be a threat to the "master race."
That is, in a nutshell, what the Nazi swastika symbolizes. I make a point here of noting that it is a far more complex subject than my recap covers, because Simpson has a history of wallowing in derision (because he loves derisi-gasms) when I write a recap of a historical era or event, implying that I'm ignorant of what isn't covered in the recap.
The Ku Klux Klan, on the other hand, has had three incarnations. The first started in 1865 as social club for a handful of Confederate veterans in Tennessee. It grew into a vigilante group protecting ex-Confederates from the excesses of Reconstruction, but it devolved into violence, and was disbanded by its leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest. Since Simpson confined his comment to the twentieth century, this incarnation is not pertinent to this discussion.
The second incarnation -- the first incarnation in the 20th century -- was a nationwide fraternal group organized at the national and state level. With a membership in the millions, it was anti-Catholic, nativistic and sometimes, at the local level, violent.
The third KKK -- the second incarnation of the 20th century, which is likely what Simpson is zeroed in on -- arose in the South in the middle of the century in response to the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation. It was not organized much beyond the local area, and it was extremely violent and used terrorist methods.
Since the 1960s, the KKK has been heavily infiltrated by FBI informants. who numbered in the thousands. It has steadily lost power since then, but it is still filled by government informants, which sometimes make up entire local chapters, and holds leadership positions in others,
Obviously, it is ludicrous to imply that the Third Reich and the KKK both "hate groups" to further the implication being that there's little to no difference between them. Simpson's reason for making himself look stupid this way seems to be so he can use one of his weasel phrases -- "Just ask..." In this case, "Just as Matt Heimbach,"
Exactly what are we supposed to ask Matthew Heimbach? What's the difference between Nazi Germany and the KKK? Why ask him? You can find out everything you need to know by going to Wikipedia. And if you do a little additional surfing, you'll find out tons more stuff about it.
So why bring up Heimbach? Well, Heimbach is a tar-dipped brush Simpson loves to use to smear people with. Usually it's the VaFlaggers, for whom he harbors the worst hate and bile. But in this case, it happens to be SCV CIC Michael Givens, because one time he and Heimbach had a picture made together at some event or another. And in the flogger mentality, smearing Givens smears the whole organization he leads.
But as the flog post wraps up, we see who Simpson actually has in his crosshairs. Sez Simpson, "After all,..." (another weasel phrase) "...what is the difference between this..." and he posts a photo, below, of the proSwastika group's symbols on an airplane banner, and continues with "and this?" after which he posts a photo, also below, of the Virginia Memorial Flag at Fredericksburg.
The implication -- the pretense -- is that he's comparing groups trying to "rehabilitate" a symbol. Tissue-thin cover for what he's really doing -- smearing the Confederate flag with the swastika because they both have proponents -- and, by extension, smearing those proponents. Namely, the Virginia Flaggers. Ludicrous.
His peanut gallery responses range from incredulity to more derision. I won't mention any of them -- they're just sooo obvious -- except from Kristen "Wonder Woman" Schroeder, who says, "There are those symbols that have too much “hate” attached to them – rehabilitation is not an option. These people need to find new symbols and stop with the sand pounding."
I could tell her it's not her prerogative to decide that for other people. I could say that Americans need to find a new symbol because the starzenstripes is smeared with the hate and destruction of the most powerful government in the world -- which attempted to genocide the Plains Indians, put others in concentration camps artfully called "reservations" in conditions worse than plantation slavery, which did put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, which destroyed the black family with "welfare", and which aided and/or allowed horrific torture in Central and South America during the Cold War.
But I won't bother with Shroeder/Konate more than that... She forfeited whatever moral high ground she thought she had when she put her home address on Facebook and then accused Barry and Grayson of doing it.
For those who are unclear, or blinded by Simpson's implications, let me give you just a few vast differences between Nazis and Confederates...
There were nine million Jews in Europe before the Third Reich -- three million afterward. By contrast, the black population in the United States, before the war, during it, and afterward -- both during slavery and after emancipation -- grew at basically the same rate as the USA's white population. Some sources I've read said it grew at a rate of 7% during the war -- and that's with privation the entire South suffered under.
There were no concentration camps that slaves were herded into in the Confederate states. Inmates in death camps were worked to death and/or given rations scientifically calculated to starve them in three months. By contrast, American slaves ate much the same thing white people ate -- at least, in the South. What they ate is called "soul food" today and it's viewed very positively -- tasty and nutritious, if rather high in starch.
Laws in various states mandated that slave owners support aged slaves who were no longer able to work and that pregnant slaves be given lighter duties. I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that my opinion is right in line with reality; and my opinion is that those who would claim Confederates were on a par with Nazis are engaging in hate speech.
The attempts to smear the VaFlaggers is unspoken or implied hate speech, as well. The only reason anybody would portray the VaFlaggers, even by implication, as on a part with Nazi apologists is the hope that their smears would incite somebody to harm or injure the VaFlaggers.
If you think that's not the desire and aim, you tell me what you think it is.
Comparing symbols without comparing what they symbolize reduces you to, "Well, this one is red, white and blue, and that one is red, white and black." Ludicrous.
Simpson has a post up doing just that -- comparing a Confederate flag with a swastika, and he attempts to forestall criticism with this, "...do not invoke Godwin’s Law, for in this case the issue is the use of symbols, not an argument that the Confederates were Nazis or vice-versa. That’s not an argument I would make."
Actually, that's exactly what he's doing.
He's leading up to the utterly risible notion that Confederate heritage people should join forces with the Raelians, a "religious" group, who are attempting to rehabilitate the swastika. Sez Simpson, "It would seem to me that there might be some common ground here for people who decry “political correctness” and “presentism” and “revisionism” in their advocacy of flying Confederate flags to join forces with the pro-Swastika crowd. Both groups argue that their cherished symbol has been twisted out of context to represent something it never was meant to represent."
I don't believe for a New York minute that "it would seem" that way to him. This is just a typical, visceral Simpson smear job of Confederate heritage.
He says, "There’s not a lot of difference between a group that wants to rehabilitate a symbol used by a hate group in the twentieth century and a group that wants to rehabilitate a flag used by a hate group in the twentieth century … just ask Matthew Heimbach."
Let's examine how utterly ridiculous this is... Two "hate groups" in the 20th century is so idiotic I have to wonder if Simpson doesn't know he's assassinating his own intelligence by making this claim.
First, the swastika, as he means it, symbolizes the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which existed from 1920 to 1945. They were a political party that came to power in Germany and took control of the government. The party's leader, Adolf Hitler, established a totalitarian government. Under his dictatorship, Germany aligned with the Axis powers during WWII, and sought to maintain power by imprisoning and/or exterminating groups it considered to be a threat to the "master race."
That is, in a nutshell, what the Nazi swastika symbolizes. I make a point here of noting that it is a far more complex subject than my recap covers, because Simpson has a history of wallowing in derision (because he loves derisi-gasms) when I write a recap of a historical era or event, implying that I'm ignorant of what isn't covered in the recap.
The Ku Klux Klan, on the other hand, has had three incarnations. The first started in 1865 as social club for a handful of Confederate veterans in Tennessee. It grew into a vigilante group protecting ex-Confederates from the excesses of Reconstruction, but it devolved into violence, and was disbanded by its leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest. Since Simpson confined his comment to the twentieth century, this incarnation is not pertinent to this discussion.
The second incarnation -- the first incarnation in the 20th century -- was a nationwide fraternal group organized at the national and state level. With a membership in the millions, it was anti-Catholic, nativistic and sometimes, at the local level, violent.
The third KKK -- the second incarnation of the 20th century, which is likely what Simpson is zeroed in on -- arose in the South in the middle of the century in response to the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation. It was not organized much beyond the local area, and it was extremely violent and used terrorist methods.
Since the 1960s, the KKK has been heavily infiltrated by FBI informants. who numbered in the thousands. It has steadily lost power since then, but it is still filled by government informants, which sometimes make up entire local chapters, and holds leadership positions in others,
Obviously, it is ludicrous to imply that the Third Reich and the KKK both "hate groups" to further the implication being that there's little to no difference between them. Simpson's reason for making himself look stupid this way seems to be so he can use one of his weasel phrases -- "Just ask..." In this case, "Just as Matt Heimbach,"
Exactly what are we supposed to ask Matthew Heimbach? What's the difference between Nazi Germany and the KKK? Why ask him? You can find out everything you need to know by going to Wikipedia. And if you do a little additional surfing, you'll find out tons more stuff about it.
So why bring up Heimbach? Well, Heimbach is a tar-dipped brush Simpson loves to use to smear people with. Usually it's the VaFlaggers, for whom he harbors the worst hate and bile. But in this case, it happens to be SCV CIC Michael Givens, because one time he and Heimbach had a picture made together at some event or another. And in the flogger mentality, smearing Givens smears the whole organization he leads.
But as the flog post wraps up, we see who Simpson actually has in his crosshairs. Sez Simpson, "After all,..." (another weasel phrase) "...what is the difference between this..." and he posts a photo, below, of the proSwastika group's symbols on an airplane banner, and continues with "and this?" after which he posts a photo, also below, of the Virginia Memorial Flag at Fredericksburg.
The implication -- the pretense -- is that he's comparing groups trying to "rehabilitate" a symbol. Tissue-thin cover for what he's really doing -- smearing the Confederate flag with the swastika because they both have proponents -- and, by extension, smearing those proponents. Namely, the Virginia Flaggers. Ludicrous.
His peanut gallery responses range from incredulity to more derision. I won't mention any of them -- they're just sooo obvious -- except from Kristen "Wonder Woman" Schroeder, who says, "There are those symbols that have too much “hate” attached to them – rehabilitation is not an option. These people need to find new symbols and stop with the sand pounding."
I could tell her it's not her prerogative to decide that for other people. I could say that Americans need to find a new symbol because the starzenstripes is smeared with the hate and destruction of the most powerful government in the world -- which attempted to genocide the Plains Indians, put others in concentration camps artfully called "reservations" in conditions worse than plantation slavery, which did put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, which destroyed the black family with "welfare", and which aided and/or allowed horrific torture in Central and South America during the Cold War.
But I won't bother with Shroeder/Konate more than that... She forfeited whatever moral high ground she thought she had when she put her home address on Facebook and then accused Barry and Grayson of doing it.
For those who are unclear, or blinded by Simpson's implications, let me give you just a few vast differences between Nazis and Confederates...
There were nine million Jews in Europe before the Third Reich -- three million afterward. By contrast, the black population in the United States, before the war, during it, and afterward -- both during slavery and after emancipation -- grew at basically the same rate as the USA's white population. Some sources I've read said it grew at a rate of 7% during the war -- and that's with privation the entire South suffered under.
There were no concentration camps that slaves were herded into in the Confederate states. Inmates in death camps were worked to death and/or given rations scientifically calculated to starve them in three months. By contrast, American slaves ate much the same thing white people ate -- at least, in the South. What they ate is called "soul food" today and it's viewed very positively -- tasty and nutritious, if rather high in starch.
Laws in various states mandated that slave owners support aged slaves who were no longer able to work and that pregnant slaves be given lighter duties. I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that my opinion is right in line with reality; and my opinion is that those who would claim Confederates were on a par with Nazis are engaging in hate speech.
The attempts to smear the VaFlaggers is unspoken or implied hate speech, as well. The only reason anybody would portray the VaFlaggers, even by implication, as on a part with Nazi apologists is the hope that their smears would incite somebody to harm or injure the VaFlaggers.
If you think that's not the desire and aim, you tell me what you think it is.
(Simpson can't tell the difference between these two photos, or the two
groups responsible for them. At least, he wants to convince his
followers that there's no difference. )
Chilling....
The Taliban destroyed historic commemoration....
ISIS destroyed historic commemoration.
As Kevin Levin sez, "The Committee's work."
Destroying historic commemoration.
And for what?
Spite. Pure spite.
ISIS destroyed historic commemoration.
As Kevin Levin sez, "The Committee's work."
Destroying historic commemoration.
And for what?
Spite. Pure spite.
Big Congrats, Texas SCV!!
Appeals court rules in favor of Confederate flag license plate
Austin—The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Texas branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has the right to have the state issue license plates adorned with the Confederate battle flag. More
________________________
I guess all the bleedin' heart liberals in Texas who were gloating about the plate's defeat last year are cryin' in their beers tonight. Yes, the decision can be appealed. but people who've watched these license plates fights in other states know the SCV always wins.
Ha!
A Quick Observation...
...before I go fix supper.
Prohibitions and censorings are not inclusion. People who say they champion diversity and inclusion and then practice prohibitions and censorings (particularly by manipulating authorities) are not speaking the truth. Their actions tell the truth.
Prohibitions and censorings are not inclusion. People who say they champion diversity and inclusion and then practice prohibitions and censorings (particularly by manipulating authorities) are not speaking the truth. Their actions tell the truth.
Simpson Screws Up
Someone Simpson is trying to disparage (which is what Simpson gets off on most) sez:
And in this country, the United States of America, slavery started when the country did -- and, thus, it started under the United States flag. Slavery in this country, the USA, could not have started before the country did, regardless of when it started in British North America.
See, what you have here is a deliberate "misunderstanding" of what the original poster said, just so Simpson can get off on disparagement, which he evidently loves.
After all, under the United States flag, slavery did start in this country. Anyone want to challenge that statement here in an open debate? Brooks, Baker, Mackey, Hall????? Any of you willing to step to the plate????Simpson's risible reply:
Well, as it’s now MLB’s All Star Week, here I come.You see what the problem is, don't you? The original poster wasn't talking about when slavery started in British North America, was he? He explicitly said in this country. Let me reiterate -- not in British North America, but in this country.
Slavery did not start in what we now call the United States under the flag of the United Sates. Rather, African slavery began in British North America in the seventeenth century, and was present in each of the thirteen colonies at the time of the composition of the Declaration of Independence.
And in this country, the United States of America, slavery started when the country did -- and, thus, it started under the United States flag. Slavery in this country, the USA, could not have started before the country did, regardless of when it started in British North America.
See, what you have here is a deliberate "misunderstanding" of what the original poster said, just so Simpson can get off on disparagement, which he evidently loves.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
(Updated) Spite Activism
“Students don’t have to sit in the same room as the flags anymore. I feel like we made a tremendous difference.” Brandon Hicks, "Committee" member
Students didn't have to sit in the same room as the flags before, brilliant law student. In fact, couldn't sit in the same room as the flags... There is no place to sit -- no chairs, benches, stools, anything, in the alcove where the flags were.
"Sitting 'in the room' of the Chapel - one cannot see any flags, you racist bigot. In fact, there isn't even any chairs in the room where 'Recumbent Lee' resides" Billy Bearden, Georgia & Virginia Flagger
Absolutely right, Billy. I was going to do a photoshopped "before and after" pics of the alcove as seen from the chapel, with and without the flags, to show how little difference it makes, viewed from the chapel auditorium. I couldn't, because in the "before" picture, the flags can't be seen, anyway.
Mr. Brandon Hicks is quite the activist, having been a speaker at "Race for the Ballot," a forum against the homosexual marriage ban. Reports Pam's House Blend, "One of the kickoff sites is North Carolina Central University’s Student Union and Law School, which hosted a forum moderated by student leader of NCCU’s LGBT group COLORS, Brandon Hicks..."
Hmmm.... If Mr. Hicks was a law student at NCCU, why did he switch to W&L? I'm not saying I think he deliberately switched schools just to engage in spite-activism against Lee and the flags ... but then again, I'm not saying I don't think that.
Steps? Plural? What other steps is he referring to? IOW, what's next? The statue? The family crypt and Traveler? The name?
Floggers and other would say it's his right... maybe it is a right, but that doesn't make it right, ya know?
It's one thing to work to change the world for better, but attempting to re-write history, from spite, and doing things that weaken and tear at the family -- the basic unit of society without which a society crumbles -- are not working to change the world for the better.
"These are huge steps. We are ecstatic." Brandon Hicks to CNN
Steps? Plural? What other steps is he referring to? IOW, what's next? The statue? The family crypt and Traveler? The name?
Floggers and other would say it's his right... maybe it is a right, but that doesn't make it right, ya know?
It's one thing to work to change the world for better, but attempting to re-write history, from spite, and doing things that weaken and tear at the family -- the basic unit of society without which a society crumbles -- are not working to change the world for the better.
Sorry, it's just not.
Brandon, if you want to do something really beneficial, go to the country's southern border and help take care of the multitudes of sick and unsupervised children our government has separated from their parents, and help get them back to their real homes.
 |
| The newest faces of legalistic bullying. UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE |
Since Hicks is a law student, and was involved in a forum at NCCU's Student Union and LAW SCHOOL, I assumed he was a law student there, and since he's now a law student at W&L, I assumed he switched universities as a law student.
It's a simple mistake anybody could have made unless they're the type who "tiptoes" through the Internet with a find-toothed comb, looking for things they can lie about and/or humiliate people with. (That's one of the differences between me and the floggers and floggerettes; I make mistakes. They're dishonest. [See How Dishonest Can Floggers Get?])
I myself did not fine-tooth comb "Pam's House Blend" (like Simpson did) to ascertain any more about Mr. Hicks, such as the years of his education. I had all the info I needed about him, and as I am not interested in homosexual activism, I did not read much beyond the passage I copied here.
But my suspicions remain about whether Mr. Hick chose W&L specifically to lead an Alinsky-ish attack on the flags and General Lee -- regardless of whether he came as a laws student or an undergrad.
I certainly believe I am right about Mr. Hicks' and the committee's motives, based on two, very telling comments he made reported in the press. Although neither I nor anyone else I've discussed this with feel personally threatened, since the committee did issue a threat, it seems logical to see them as a threat.
I'm not sure why Simpson thinks I'm humiliated though. Simply because he tried to humiliate me, I guess. And yes, he does love to try to humiliate people, to harass, to denigrate, to disparage. He really gets off on that... kinda like the committee apparently gets off on spite activism...
Thursday, July 10, 2014
This 'n' That, July 10, 2014
Corey, I'm not going to "friend" Lucas Goodman, Caleb Granger or Michael Addams on Facebook, capisce? Nor any of your other fraudulent profiles, capisce? Act like an adult. Give. It. Up.
FOLLOW UP: Deny it till doomsday, Corey. You're a proven liar.
From the Old Virginia blog: "Some Boston bloggers are deflecting some of the criticisms about this issue by trumpeting the fact that W & L will be displaying the original flags in the museum below Lee Chapel. So? That could have been done without removing the other flags."
FOLLOW UP: Deny it till doomsday, Corey. You're a proven liar.
==========
From the Old Virginia blog: "Some Boston bloggers are deflecting some of the criticisms about this issue by trumpeting the fact that W & L will be displaying the original flags in the museum below Lee Chapel. So? That could have been done without removing the other flags."
==========
The floggers have shown their true interest in the W&L brouhaha. The Virginian Flaggers. I'm not making this up. Levin takes this affront to all Southerners, this desecration of the greatest Southerner who ever lived, this defeat for the entire region, and what does he make of it?
A defeat for the Virginia Flaggers.
I kid you not.
Your field of view is a little bit narrow, there, iddinit Kevin?
==========
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)