So, Aye believes such-and-such about thus-and-so issue. Bee believes the same way about the same issue. That does not mean Bee and Aye believe the same thing about every issue, or many, or even a few.
To get an accurate view of someone, the prudent person will see how many issues Aye and Bee agree on and -- just as important -- on how many issues they differ.
But not floggers and floggerettes. As political and cultural leftists, they embrace moral relativism. (Yes, rightists also accept it to a degree -- it permeates our culture -- but the left positively embraces it.)
I'll not go into a philosophical discussion of moral relativism. I will simply express my observations about moral relativism in the current culture, including pop culture, of the US. I will discuss the conclusions I've drawn and beliefs I've formed based on my observations, including some of the ways moral relativism manifests in the criticism of Confederate heritage.
The left has fundamentally transformed the standard of right and wrong. In their view, there is nothing wrong with drug use, shacking up without commitment, killing the unborn for the sake of the "mother's" convenience, etc., so long as nobody gets hurt. It's okay to lie about somebody if you disagree with their beliefs. Rioting, arson, beatings, looting, even murdering cops -- these are, if not acceptable, then understandable, when committed by members of an oppressed group.
This is why the leftist press focused so much on Muslim "alienation" in Europe rather than Muslim terrorism, following the Charlie Hebdo murders.
Of course, people do get hurt, but depending on who they are, it's not a big deal in leftist thought. That is why the horrific murder of Emmett Till in Mississippi is still an outrage six decades later, but the horrific burning-alive death of Jessica Chambers by unknown assailant(s), an hour from where Till was murdered, has fallen out of the news in less than six weeks.
Lying, cheating, stealing, property destruction, character assassination and other "old timey" wrongs -- these aren't serious cultural sins. Not like they used to be, and only if they are related, somehow, to today's sins. What's considered egregiously wrong today: racism, sexism, "homophobia," hate speech, etc., -- in short, anything that violates diversity, multiculturalism and inclusion.
Today, in some circles, accusation of racism or race-hate is the same thing as proof of it. It is probably the worst cultural sin in the leftist handbook.
But there's the problem. It's how racism is defined. The definition is so broad, so fluid, so elastic, it can be stretched to cover whatever beliefs or behavior the accuser wishes. Disapprove of the Islamization of our culture? You're a racist (though Islam is not a race). Disapprove of the violation of immigration law? You're a racist.
One aspect of human nature defined as racism is the individual's affinity for those who are similar to him. It appears to be natural and present in infancy. (Google "racist babies".) I have observed over my lifetime, that when the human attribute is race, there are a relative few who prefer to associate with those who are different, but the majority of people prefer to be with those like themselves.
When leftists detect in themselves this natural affinity, interpreted as an egregious wrong, they are so pained and guilt-ridden, they HAVE to obtain relief. One of the most common ways to do this is to find or fabricate those who are even guiltier (or are perceived to be so) and focus attention and vilification upon them. This creates the greatly desired warm fuzzies of moral superiority. It also serves to remove the spotlight from the accuser's life which will show telltale signs of his forbidden feelings in things like choice of career, choice of neighborhoods, who he associates with, etc.
So Aye believes in honoring his Confederate ancestors, but does not hold white supremacist beliefs. Bee also believes in honoring his Confederate ancestors, and does hold white supremacist beliefs.
Anti-Confederate Cee, a left-leaning white person guilt-ridden over a deep personal secret --his natural affinity for those like himself -- dehumanizes Bee, strips him of all his human traits, accomplishments, thoughts, beliefs, relationships, and totally defines him as a white supremacist and nothing more, and then throws verbal rocks at him on the Internet.
It feels good. It generates those warm fuzzies. But not enough. In fact, the fuzzies are addicting, and it takes more and more to appease his need. So, based on the fact that Aye, just like Bee, honors Confederate ancestors, Cee puts forth the notion that Aye is a white supremacist, as well, even though Aye as never said or done anything to indicate that. Nevertheless, Cee accuses Aye of being a white supremacist because he honors his Confederate heritage, just like that evil, racist Bee does -- and the fuzzy-generating vilification begins.
This is known as the "links and ties" method of trashing somebody's reputation, honed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but not invented by them. It's also known as Guilt by Association, and it is a logical fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
It is also glaringly overused by floggers and floggerettes in their rock-throwing at the VaFlaggers and other Confederate heritage advocates and activists. Since it generates such powerful, pleasurable (if bogus) feelings of moral superiority, it seems unlikely that they will develop an appreciation for intellectual honesty and drop the guilt by association accusations and vilification anytime soon.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Happy Birthday, General Lee
A great man admired by the world.
A military genius beloved by his soldiers.
A military genius beloved by his soldiers.
I don't think his like will ever be seen again.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
It's Enough to Give Floggers and Floggerettes...
... a ginormous case of heartburn and a humongous keister-chapping....
_________________________________
Comments left on XRoads about the VaFlaggers at Lexington and my responses:
A Hintz -- While I had my difficulties with freshman calculus at W&L, even I know that formula doesn’t add up.
http://imgur.com/N65Hgn6
http://m.roanoke.com/news/virginia/lee-jackson-day-focus-shifts-to-education-though-some-flag/article_c74618d9-7e6e-5dcd-a86e-7fa29fdc41e4.html?mode=jqm
Silent Susan strikes again.
I wonder if the SCV still has a bad taste in it’s mouth over the White Nationalist photo ops from the last get together? They were probably waiting to see if the Flaggers doubled down on doopid before they decided to keep their distance. It’s a good idea too because based on the guest list over at the Flaggers FB event, it’s looking like almost a repeat of the SCV event over the summer. Maybe Shane Long can snap another selfie with the “Silent One” this weekend. I imagine she will be able to put together quite a scrapbook.
leo -- Flagging groups are essentially stupid and void of any real impact beyond hurting their own cause. They are an evolutionary dead-end.
Three years, zero impact, zero flags returned, zero economic impact from boycott. Countless hours wasted.
Deo We’ll-pick-you-up!!!!
“17 Jan 15, 01:37 AM
Connie: Almost 250 VaFlagger posts or comments at XRoads since the Flaggers were founded.”
“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: Most of them made-up crap meant to smear, denigrate, intimidate, silence, harass, persecute.”
“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: What difference would it make if Susan made a “statement” about the unauthorized reprint? You people who hate her smear and slash her no matter what she does.”
Connie Chastain has been throwing around the word “smear” like it’s candy for children on Halloween. So what is a smear? According to the definition provided by my Iphone, a “smear” is:
“damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.”
Now we know that Connie is going to have problems with this one, so let’s give her a hand. Connie, the key word here is “false”.
I’m glad Connie wrote “most of them”, because that means she is admitting that “some of them” aren’t “made-up crap”. Unfortunately, Chastain has declined to cite “any of them” that are “made-up crap”. We have to wonder if this is because “none of them” are? You all know the answer to that one.
No, I think Connie knows darned well there’s been no smearing, just a bunch of facts she and the “Silent One” can’t refute. How unfortunate.
Maybe the SCV doesn’t want to associate with people who aid and abet kidnappers or hang out with the League of the South and associated racists. According to Ben Jones, the SCV is opposed to racism. His silence on the subject has been deafening lately.
_________________________________
The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
Proverbs 18:17 NIV
Comments left on XRoads about the VaFlaggers at Lexington and my responses:
A Hintz -- While I had my difficulties with freshman calculus at W&L, even I know that formula doesn’t add up.
Me -- Mr. Hintz, you can't go by one or two images Simpson chooses; you have to also see what he's deliberately leaving out. If you don't, it makes you look dumb, ya know?jclark82 -- I think they might be referring to the three’s combined IQ…
See reply to Mr. Hintz.Alan -- Now that’s what I call fuzzy math. Even if there’s 500 or 5,000, it won’t change anything, just like the LULZ-cott!
But it will expose yet another in a long, long list of Simpson's lies.Schroeder -- Poor dears… bless their hearts.
Back atcha, Wonder Woman.Sarah -- I hear that the local merchants in Lexington are closing up shop right and left, and begging for subsidies because of how hard hit their economy has been due to the boycott. It’s pretty dire straights in Lexington if you are a business owner these days. That makes perfect sense anyway, boycott businesses that had nothing to do with the issue. They’re really showing Washington & Lee who’s boss!
Yes, Sarah, alas, the Lexington boycott seems to be having little effect -- like the NAACP's boycott of South Carolina.
From "Rebel flag quietly goes back up" by Trace Gibbs, The State, Tuesday, March 16, 2010: "...the boycott had no effect on South Carolina's $14 billion in annual tourism revenue..."
By my observation (and admittedly, studying boycotts doesn't loom large in my view of what's important) boycotts against companies, especially a local boycott of a local company, works better than a boycott against a place -- a state, a municipality, etc.
http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/why_boycotts_succeed_and_fail
Of course, there can be more than one effect of a boycott. It can bring boycotters together, strengthen their sense of solidarity, regardless of how successful or not it is in affecting the entity being boycotted.Brooks D. Simpson --Actually, according to other folks business is improving in Lexington. But then sarcasm does not travel well online. :)
Just like SC under the NAACP boycott...The Lamp --The news report doesn’t say 50, it says “a few dozen” but it barely looks like that either:
http://imgur.com/N65Hgn6
Well, Lamprey, hon, you should have waited until more pics got posted, capisce? Now you look silly for jumping the gun.Alan -- So even the SCV doesn’t want to be linked to the Flaggers? That’s good stuff.
Actually, one guy, Brandon Dorsey, said the SCV doesn’t support some of the Flaggers’ tactics, according to roanoke.com. However, Brandon Dorsey is not the SCV. He isn't even the VIRGINIA SCV. He's the commander of one camp in Virginia -- that's one, count 'em, one, o-n-e, (1) -- of something like 80 camps in the Old Dominion -- not to mention all those in other states and elsewhere.
The SCV doesn't want to be linked to the VaFlaggers? I do believe you're mistaken. Well, it seems the Bedford Rifle Grays, Camp 1475, doesn't mind being linked to the VaFlaggers. In fact, the person with the brilliant smile sitting on their beautiful palamino is none other than the Head Flagger in Charge.
Doesn't seem to be the case with these camps or individuals, either. Note the Virginia Division Brigade Commander, and both a past and current CIC of the whole SCV. And these are just a few of the SCV camps that have awarded Susan with recognition for her efforts on behalf of the memory of Confederate soldiers....
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Image 6
Image 7 1 -- Delaware Grays Camp #2068 Seaford, DE
2 -- Sgt. William Hamby Camp #1750 Crossville, TN
3 -- Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648 Arlington, TX
4 -- Major Robert M White Camp 1250 Temple, TX
5 -- Then Commander In Chief Michael Givens flagging the VMFA.
6 -- Flat Top Copper Head #1694 Princeton, WV (with current Commander-in Chief C. Kelly Barrow
7 -- Receiving Va Division SCV Sesquicentennial Medal from 2nd Brigade Commander Everette Ellis
And this is just a drop in the bucket.Sarah --“Attempts to reach the flaggers for comment were unsuccessful.”
http://m.roanoke.com/news/virginia/lee-jackson-day-focus-shifts-to-education-though-some-flag/article_c74618d9-7e6e-5dcd-a86e-7fa29fdc41e4.html?mode=jqm
Silent Susan strikes again.
I wonder if the SCV still has a bad taste in it’s mouth over the White Nationalist photo ops from the last get together? They were probably waiting to see if the Flaggers doubled down on doopid before they decided to keep their distance. It’s a good idea too because based on the guest list over at the Flaggers FB event, it’s looking like almost a repeat of the SCV event over the summer. Maybe Shane Long can snap another selfie with the “Silent One” this weekend. I imagine she will be able to put together quite a scrapbook.
Silent? Well, not exactly.
Flaggers are dissenters, picketers, which have a long, honored history in the USA.Alan -- Here’s some math for the Flaggers. In three years time, they’ve raised three flags. At that rate, they’ll overtake Virginia with Confederate Pride in…. Nevermind, it’ll take forever.
Three years, zero impact, zero flags returned, zero economic impact from boycott. Countless hours wasted.
From your vantage point, Alan. Not from everyone's, and certainly not from theirs.Eek-a-mouse -- But their new Lexington flag is in a primo location. Lest anyone at Enterprise Rent-a-car or the Hardee’s Drive-thru forget!
Deo We’ll-pick-you-up!!!!
New Lexington flag? Which one?Sarah --Maybe Connie can use some of her photoshop skills and add some Flaggers to that photo? That’s just pitiful. Poor Flaggers.
Don't need it. Miss Judy's photos of reality tell the story you smear-mongers were too anxious to wait for. https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630Al Mackey -- How incompetent do you have to be for Brandon Dorsey to say he doesn’t agree with your tactics?
I keep telling y'all, don't trust what Brooks tells ya. He will steer you wrong and you end up looking like idiots.
Is incompetence the only reason to not agree with something? Al, Al, Al ... don't let your animosity make you look like such a dunce!Joshua Chamberlain -- My first impression of their pictures is that there is hardly anyone else walking around besides them. It calls to mind sets in The Walking Dead, with Tripp, Susan, Creech, et al playing the walkers/zombies/flaggers?
Ah, Josh ol' boy. They made pictures of their event, get it? When you throw a party, do you take pics of your guests, or do you go around taking pics of strangers who aren't even coming to the party? Folks, seriously, don't let your lust for the put-down cause you to assassinate your common sense.Sarah -- From the Backsass Chatterbox:
“17 Jan 15, 01:37 AM
Connie: Almost 250 VaFlagger posts or comments at XRoads since the Flaggers were founded.”
“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: Most of them made-up crap meant to smear, denigrate, intimidate, silence, harass, persecute.”
“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: What difference would it make if Susan made a “statement” about the unauthorized reprint? You people who hate her smear and slash her no matter what she does.”
Connie Chastain has been throwing around the word “smear” like it’s candy for children on Halloween. So what is a smear? According to the definition provided by my Iphone, a “smear” is:
“damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.”
You need to edumucate your iPhone, Sarah, hon.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smear
~~ an untrue story about a person that is meant to hurt that person's reputation
~~ a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively <a smear campaign> <a smear job>
~~sully, besmirch; specifically : to vilify especially by secretly and maliciously spreading grave charges and imputations
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smear?s=ts
~~ to sully, vilify, or soil (a reputation, good name, etc.).
~~ vilification:
Now we know that Connie is going to have problems with this one, so let’s give her a hand. Connie, the key word here is “false”.
Not in the definitions I posted, shweethaht.
I’m glad Connie wrote “most of them”, because that means she is admitting that “some of them” aren’t “made-up crap”. Unfortunately, Chastain has declined to cite “any of them” that are “made-up crap”. We have to wonder if this is because “none of them” are? You all know the answer to that one.
No, I think Connie knows darned well there’s been no smearing, just a bunch of facts she and the “Silent One” can’t refute. How unfortunate.
Why, no, darling. Some of what Simpson says is not made up -- like his complaints about Susan's clothes, and her traveling around the South to speaking engagements. He means them to be slurs and smears, because that's his mentality, but of course, there's nothing wrong with her clothes and travels.Jimmy Dick -- What does she have to say about the SCV dissing the flaggers? That is more telling than anything. Here the flaggers run around waving CBFs and putting them up in the air, but when it comes time to make real decisions and actually discuss things the flaggers are not invited or allowed to be part of the discussion even in a controlled environment like the one the SCV set up.
Skim my blog, Sarah-kins. It's full of proof of Simpson's made up crap (or crap from commenters that he allows), from "disturbing Confederate graves" to cutting trees on the VDOT right of way, to accusations of putting Wonder Woman's address online, when she did that herself, and on and on and on.
Maybe the SCV doesn’t want to associate with people who aid and abet kidnappers or hang out with the League of the South and associated racists. According to Ben Jones, the SCV is opposed to racism. His silence on the subject has been deafening lately.
Alan -- @ Sarah What I don’t understand is if they are being slandered, that is, people are telling lies about them that are damaging their reputation, why aren’t they taking legal action? That’s an easy win for them if there are lies being peddled about them.
The SCV didn't dis the Flaggers, Mr. Dick. See my reply to Alan above.
Because the people doing it are TRYING to damage Flagger reputations; they aren't being very successful at it. The people who believe it are people whose opinions the Flaggers don't value, like you floggerettes. And most people in the Southern heritage community aren't litigious like leftists and liberals.
A Flag Raised High...
above a place is a universally understood proclamation that the place has been conquered.
 |
| In Lexington, Virginia (Photo: SAB) |
Saturday, January 17, 2015
News and Pics from Lexington
Here are some early pics of the Virginia Flaggers in Lexington for Lee Jackson Day.
And here's reports from the local media. Looks like they didn't find Simpsons information ... informative. At least, not enough to use in their initial reports.
http://www.thenews-gazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1925%3Aflagging-the-holiday&catid=77%3Abreaking-news&Itemid=395
http://www.wset.com/story/27871939/lee-jackson-day-brings-crowds-to-lexington
http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/lee-jackson-day-focus-shifts-to-education-though-some-flag/article_c74618d9-7e6e-5dcd-a86e-7fa29fdc41e4.html
So, once again, Simpson jumps the gun, anxious to ridicule the VaFlaggers for the entertainment of his slavering blog audience. And once again, it backfires, he trips, and lands flat on his face.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy....
______________________
Lexington Images, Judy Smith Photography
Slip and Fall Image, the Public Domain
Image processing by C. Ward
And here's reports from the local media. Looks like they didn't find Simpsons information ... informative. At least, not enough to use in their initial reports.
http://www.thenews-gazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1925%3Aflagging-the-holiday&catid=77%3Abreaking-news&Itemid=395
http://www.wset.com/story/27871939/lee-jackson-day-brings-crowds-to-lexington
http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/lee-jackson-day-focus-shifts-to-education-though-some-flag/article_c74618d9-7e6e-5dcd-a86e-7fa29fdc41e4.html
So, once again, Simpson jumps the gun, anxious to ridicule the VaFlaggers for the entertainment of his slavering blog audience. And once again, it backfires, he trips, and lands flat on his face.
______________________
Lexington Images, Judy Smith Photography
Slip and Fall Image, the Public Domain
Image processing by C. Ward
Friday, January 16, 2015
Fun at XRoads....
Cute comedy post has gone up at XRoads, though it's error-ridden, as usual. Just some quick corrections.
The flag behind me in the photo of me flagging the county is not on the ground. It's on the concrete base that supports the lamp post. You can see that beneath it, it casts a very small, faint shadow on the concrete of the lamp post base. If the flag were not on the concrete base but behind it, it still wouldn't be on the ground. It would be leaning against the hedge bordering the entry to the courthouse, as the hedge runs right up against the base.
 |
| (Photo: S.H.) |
 |
| (Photo: Google.com) |
Since he had to use Scott Hamilton's FB avatar image to give his readers an idea of what the flag looks like, one must wonder if his graduate students who comb the net for him are slacking off. Here's a better picture, with red instead of gold stars.
http://www.anyflag.com/Merchant4/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AFG&Product_Code=35NY74T
The rest of the post ... Meh... On to the comments.
OhioGuy, I displayed my small battle flag the first time I flagged, at the Pensacola Bay Center (the mayor's silly name for the civic center) because my other flags were still packed away. I've used the First National ever since, because, purportedly, the Five Flags are supposed to be the national flags that represented nations of which Pensacola was a part at various times in her history.
Just a suggestion for future reference. Don't get your info about Confederate heritage and our causes from Simpson. He's extremely prejudiced and known to distort and to lie profusely about us.
The following is edited from a message I wrote for people who show interest in a local flagging effort:
Folks, I don't think Pensacola and Escambia County will ever return the battle flag to Five Flags displays. And I'm actually okay with one of the national flags being in the display. I think the Third National would be the most appropriate. I do love the First National, but the fact is, the Confederate Congress voted to replace it.
When the city replaced the battle flag in its displays, people here made a big deal of Confederates abandoning Pensacola and its being in Union hands for much of the war... and that is their reasoning for sticking with the First National. Pensacola was occupied when the flag changes were made.As for Simpson's "position" being misrepresented ... he has a position? I mean, besides denigrating, attacking, harassing, and lying about folks who honor their Confederate heritage? Who knew?
But...what they don't take into consideration is that the government of Pensacola, rather than sit and take being under federal occupation, up and moved to Greenville, Alabama for the remainder of the war, and carried on city business from there. A lot of Pensacola residents did, too. The State of Florida recognized and approved of the city's move. So the city of Pensacola remained Confederate throughout the war. Thus, I think the proper flag for the displays -- IF the criteria is that they are flags of nations that governed Pensacola -- is the Third National. ~Connie
Leo, I am protesting the removal of ALL the flags that were removed -- the Confederate, Spanish, British and French flags -- from the display. If I had the latter three flags, I would be flagging with them, too -- and I may get them.
Also note, Leo, that the Confederacy, its heritage and legacy, are under attack. That is why we defend it. By my experience and observation, Confederate heritage advocates and activists deeply love the South, Southern culture and Southern tradition. But Southern food, music, literature, art, etc., are not under attack, generally speaking, (though there have been a few instances....).
Loss of focus on my blog, Simpson? My blog's header explains it for anyone who isn't determined to misrepresent and misconstrue: Defending Dixie ~ Commentary on pro-Southernism and Southern culture; Confederate history, heritage and activism; religion, politics and America's pop culture; and whatever else I feel like writing about. (Semicolons added to designate line breaks.)
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
Sarah the Sleuth is back with all kinds of, um, sleuthing that will bore you out of your gourd. And then we have Liberty "Kill Whitey" Lamprey posting this....
The LampThis from a person with a death fetish who gets off on disturbing, death-themed images like these she posted on her twitter feed...
January 16, 2015 at 12:05 am
Of course she is unhappy, just look at her! she looks like one of those people Reagan threw out of St Eves back in the 80s and had to live on the streets!
She is a sad reminder of how bad the mental illness problem is in America today.
Keep in mind this person's warning to the Virginia Flaggers in the run-up to the raising of the first I-95 battle flag in Chester:
"Well, they should be scared of us, we win at this game, always have and always will. We would like to help put a stop to this flag going up, but we need a little assistance."When somebody with a death fetish who posts "Kill Whitey" talks like that, we get a glimpse of real mental illness problems...the sociopathic kind.
BTW, Lamprey, you know there's hope, don't you? Psychiatric medicine progresses all the time. Have you considered treatment? Perhaps anti-psychotic drugs?
Incidentally, have any of my readers ever seen where Simpson admonished Lamprey for her violent Twitter images and the threat to the VaFlaggers she posted on HIS blog?
(Pssst, I'm not unhappy in that picture ... it's just that my knees are killing me, despite which I'm more than happy to stand up for my Confederate heritage in the face of the actions of misguided politicians and assorted haters who want to erase it.)
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Promises, Promises II
January 9 -- Article smearing Susan Hathaway (second heritage smear of the week).
January 14 -- Second "weekly" Confederate heritage denigration, smearing and harassment post.
January 15 -- Article using "proper flag etiquette" to denigrate and smear Confederate heritage people (second heritage smear of the week, and the week's not over yet).
So far, his once-weekly commentary has been doubled, for two consecutive weeks. True, he did say, "Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule, but only in cases I find particularly interesting." Apparently, nearly anything heritage is "particularly interesting" to him, because he's obsessed. That's why there are over 242 posts and/or comments about the Virginia Flaggers at XRoads.
The little man from Gilbert, Arizona can't be believed, can't be trusted. His love of denigration, his dedication to stirring people to hatred, his hope to someday see someone he disdains hurt or injured, far outweighs his integrity....
Promises, Promises I
Obstinacy and Arrogance
From a post at XRoads:
1. Lee was speaking in the aftermath of the bloodiest war in American history, the memory of the carnage still fresh, the loss of the dead still an excruciating wound in the living, the people of the entire region enduring the yoke of the conquerer's oppression and still suffering devastation and privation. Anyone who thinks that did not influence his thoughts on the matter is either an idiot or a deceiver.
2. Lee did not know what we see when we look back to the past; he could not look into the future and see what we know today.
There's no way to know this, but if he could have, maybe his thoughts would have been different. No guarantee that they would; but there's no guarantee that they wouldn't.
People can believe what they wish. We -- or, at least, I -- won't tell floggers and floggerettes what to believe, or how to interpret historical writings. Too bad their obstinacy and arrogance prevents their extending the same courtesy to us.
Quote of the Week: January 4-10, 2015Some things the veddy, veddy knowledgeable and edumucated Professor Simpson fails to take into consideration:
For this week’s quote we go back in time to 1869, when the president of Washington College, Robert E. Lee, sat down to reply to a letter from the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association. The association had asked him to join in an effort to memorialize the field with monuments to those who had fought there. Lee declined, adding:
I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavoured to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.Those people who plan to travel to Lexington, Virginia, this coming week to honor Robert E. Lee should keep what Lee said in mind. Not that they would be the first to ignore the wishes of someone they claim to honor. The same holds true for the first effort to erect a monument to Lee on the battlefield. Eventually, of course, Virginia honored its general, and every year thousands of people gather there to embark upon a walk across the very same fields where Confederates charged on July 3, 1863.
1. Lee was speaking in the aftermath of the bloodiest war in American history, the memory of the carnage still fresh, the loss of the dead still an excruciating wound in the living, the people of the entire region enduring the yoke of the conquerer's oppression and still suffering devastation and privation. Anyone who thinks that did not influence his thoughts on the matter is either an idiot or a deceiver.2. Lee did not know what we see when we look back to the past; he could not look into the future and see what we know today.
There's no way to know this, but if he could have, maybe his thoughts would have been different. No guarantee that they would; but there's no guarantee that they wouldn't.
People can believe what they wish. We -- or, at least, I -- won't tell floggers and floggerettes what to believe, or how to interpret historical writings. Too bad their obstinacy and arrogance prevents their extending the same courtesy to us.
Some Comments To, and About....
... XRoads floggerettes, and the head flogger in charge.
So Simpson tweeted to Susan a link to his article about the First Freedom column. It doesn't necessarily follow that she saw it. My understanding is that she purposely doesn't read his crap (or any other hate crap from floggers). Except occasionally, when her friends think she might like a good laugh, and send her a link. Her ignoring him is probably one of the reasons Simpson can't stand her.
Well, Simpson, I'm glad you haven't tarnished my blog with a visit, but it's understandable that I would think so, since the chatter parroted things you've said almost word for word. If it wasn't you, fine. I don't really care.
Lamprey, I don't think you are an assortment of characters. I think you have an assortment of online identities and profiles.
Some floggerette using the handle Sarah who is really pedantic (puts you in mind of some of M. Blough's snooze-worthy offerings) thinks Childress's claim was odd (for thinking Susan's article was in the public domain). She's gone into full Inspector Clouseau mode (with apologies to the great Peter Sellers). Perhaps we should nickname her Jacques....
First, I note that she offers a definition of public domain, but doesn't attribute it. It's found at Wikipedia but she doesn't say that, so using Simpson's standard, she's a plagiarist. (I guess plagiarism is okay with him when HIS side does it).
She says, "It doesn’t appear that Hathaways (sic) work fits that description."
Dictionary.com defines public domain this way: "the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection." (Emphasis added. --cw)
I suspect Childress thought the last phrase of the definition applied -- that the article never had copyright protection, and was thus in the public domain. But only he knows for sure, meaning all of Jacques' sleuthing doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
She notes that the VaFlaggers' blog displays a copyright notice, so presumably she thinks Childress should have known he needed permission to reprint it. See, this is what happens when people learn a few things on the Internet, but remain ignorant of others. The Sticks and Stones essay was posted numerous places -- on Facebook, where it was shared a bunch of times, and on other blogs that may or may not display a copyright notice. Unless he's asked and says so, there's no way of knowing where he got it.
"What does Chastain mean by “verifying it?” Verifying that the paper didn’t have her permission to publish? That’s established, so I doubt they’d waste the time."
You're not a journalist, are you, Inspector? The media standard for establishing and/or verifying something is NOT the private blog of a retired insurance secretary. They have to verify it themselves.
Jacques says, "Again, what is slanderous about pointing out that her work was reprinted in that paper? That’s a fact."
But Simpson didn't just point out that her work appeared in the tabloid. If he had, it would have gone something like this: "An article written by Susan Hathaway of the Virginia Flaggers appears in the January 2015 issue of The First Freedom, a right-wing tabloid newspaper that includes racist content."
That is a factual statement; it's 28 words long. What Simpson posted is 519 words focusing almost exclusively on the racist content and interpreting it for his sycophants who he perhaps thinks aren't savvy enough to understand what he's trying soooo hard to get across...
As for anger and/or concern, the impression I've developed of Susan since I've been acquainted with her is that she cares about the opinions of those who care about her, and she doesn't give a fig about the opinions of people who denigrate, attack, smear, lie about, harass, persecute and hate her and who disparage her cause.
Simpson's slander is implied, Jacques, and couched in plausible deniability, as I explained. That's his stock in trade, and I have pointed it out numerous times.
He and his floggerette peanut gallery are not "watching, noting, and even reporting on" what the VaFlaggers are doing. He is continuing his campaign of denigration, smears and attacks on Susan and the Flaggers, which he has been doing the past three+ years. Do you REALLY think the 242+ VaFlagger posts (or mentions or comments) at XRoads are just "watching, noting and reporting on?" No, they are evidence of animosity that is, at once, deep and petty (complaining about the color of Susan's clothes, for example).
Don't believe it? Then you're part of the problem.
The primary reason for mentioning Simpson's hiding the identity of his informant was simply to show his gargantuan hypocrisy. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain that....
"The most revealing thing though is that Chastain feels that you pointing out that Hathaways work was reprinted in the Newsletter is damaging to the group. She recognizes that it is a negative."
Depends on where you think the negativity lies. There is an extreme probability that most people whose opinions matter do not read the tabloid, do not know it exists, and never even heard of it. The reason I think Simpson's pointing it out could be damaging is because that's exactly what he wants, intends and is trying to bring about.
Anybody who thinks Simpson's writings about the VaFlaggers is "just factual" is either lying or hasn't been paying attention. Want an example?
Remember when Simpson implied Grayson had cut trees on the right of way beside the Interstate adjacent to the Chester battle flag site? Sed he:
"Seems there was a lot of police activity by the flag site on January 2 as five police vehicles checked on the results of more tree-cutting … this time reportedly across the property line that divides the trailer park from the interstate. You’re not supposed to do that, Grayson … and one Richmond station carried the news last night. Given that the Virginia Flaggers openly boasted about their plans to cut down those trees, I imagine this might get interesting."
See, this is typical Simpson slimy-slick manipulation of the language accompanied by plausible deniability and implication. He doesn't come out and say Grayson cut the trees. But his followers, with their drooling eagerness to believe any negative about the VaFlaggers, probably went away from that blog post believing Grayson had cut the trees. (The claim that the VaFlaggers "openly boasted about their plans cutting trees on the right of way" is, of course, unaccompanied by verification, links, source, etc.)
BTW, did Simpson post the outcome of the right-of-way tree cutting? I've seen no post at XRoads about it, so presumably not. Was it because (a) it didn't turn out the way he wanted or (b) he doesn't know how it turned out? He does that a lot, posts grand pronouncements like they're fact, often wrong because they are based on partial knowledge. Knowing the whole story can paint a very different picture.
(Incidently, I do know how the tree-cutting incident turned out, and have known since it was resolved. In any case, this is proof positive that Simpson's interest in, and writing about, the VaFlaggers is not "just factual.")
Clouseau also says, "This is a great point. She (Susan) chose to have a selfie made with a White Nationalist."
I seriously begin to doubt this woman's ability to read. It wasn't Susan's selfie. A guy named Shane Long, who was an attendee at the event, took a selfie with her.
Sarah shows her true leftist colors here. Typically, leftists dehumanize people who believe things they disapprove of (most especially about race, gender or "sexual orientation"), and totally define such people by what they disapprove of, as she has done here. Based on some of Long's Facebook comments, you could just as easily say Susan posed for a snapshot with a Ravens fan. (And her a Steelers woman!)
Jacques would have to ask to make certain, but presumably, some nationalists attend heritage events because they support Confederate heritage.
"Could it be that “Heritage” is just White Nationalism light?"
If, by heritage, you mean the VaFlaggers, the answer is no. I know this disappoints you, Inspector. Sorry. Careful, don't trip over that umbrella stand.
What's slanderous about Simpson's First Freedom post is his implications, and if he transmits his implications to the media, he will be sending them slanderous material. It's established that the paper didn't have permission to publish Susan's essay? It wasn't when Simpson posted about it. He was striving to make it appear she had written it FOR that publication. That's what the reference to "careful documentation" is supposed to get across.
I think it's safe to say that Susan doesn't care what people like floggers and floggerettes think. She has no desire to explain herself to people who hate her. She cares about what her people think, and I'd wager that if any of them express concerns, she'll address them -- to those people. Otherwise, she focuses on what truly interests her (and keeps her super busy).
Me, now, I'm different. I inherited a lot of pure cussedness from my Appalachian ancestors, and I don't mind tangling with floggers and other assorted haters, because they reveal a lot about themselves that way.
I also don't mind in the least "revealing" why I'm on a first-name basis with Mr. Childress, but I believe the revelation will be a disappointment to Simpson, who seems to live to find (or fabricate) dirt to sling. (Pathetic, huh.)
Ready? Here ya go:
Sometime in 2001, I attended a meeting to discuss the feasibility of a Southern Heritage Festival along the upper Gulf Coast, perhaps Pensacola or Ft. Walton Beach. I met Mr. Childress at that meeting.
On January 13, 2002, I attended an event at the University of West Florida at which Morris Dees was the speaker. Mr. Childress also attended, and I saw him and talked with him there. He was thrown out of the refreshments segment of the event by campus police, who manhandled him two to one, pushing him backwards out the heavy glass doors onto the sidewalk. I was talking with someone near the exit when it happened, and we witnessed it. I later wrote a report about it for my e-zine, 180 Degrees True South.
I also exchanged a handful of emails with him mostly about the possible festival and the Dees appearance.
I believe the last time I saw him (though I don't remember us conversing) was at a rally for the Ten Commandments in Montgomery on December 17, 2002.
If I saw him other times, it didn't register enough for me to remember.
Back to the present. Because it's been that long, I initially sent an email that reminded him who I am, in case he didn't remember me. He did not respond to that one. I sent a second email. I received a reply a little over 24 hours later.
I don't know why he didn't answer the first one, or whether he even saw it. Perhaps he didn't need a reminder of who I am, since I have several open and public web venues (blogs, websites, Facebook, Twitter, and various author/book sites) and Olaf is evidently quite a web surfer since the web, presumably, is the source of a lot of his tabloid's content.
So Simpson attempts to impute grave significance to the "first name basis" of the emails, but he does so based on incomplete information -- and, once again, falls flat on his face when the whole story is revealed.
_______________
Image of Peter Sellers in the public domain. Image processing on all photos by C. Ward.
So Simpson tweeted to Susan a link to his article about the First Freedom column. It doesn't necessarily follow that she saw it. My understanding is that she purposely doesn't read his crap (or any other hate crap from floggers). Except occasionally, when her friends think she might like a good laugh, and send her a link. Her ignoring him is probably one of the reasons Simpson can't stand her.
Well, Simpson, I'm glad you haven't tarnished my blog with a visit, but it's understandable that I would think so, since the chatter parroted things you've said almost word for word. If it wasn't you, fine. I don't really care.
Lamprey, I don't think you are an assortment of characters. I think you have an assortment of online identities and profiles.
 |
| I'm looking for racist minkeys. |
First, I note that she offers a definition of public domain, but doesn't attribute it. It's found at Wikipedia but she doesn't say that, so using Simpson's standard, she's a plagiarist. (I guess plagiarism is okay with him when HIS side does it).
She says, "It doesn’t appear that Hathaways (sic) work fits that description."
Dictionary.com defines public domain this way: "the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection." (Emphasis added. --cw)
I suspect Childress thought the last phrase of the definition applied -- that the article never had copyright protection, and was thus in the public domain. But only he knows for sure, meaning all of Jacques' sleuthing doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
She notes that the VaFlaggers' blog displays a copyright notice, so presumably she thinks Childress should have known he needed permission to reprint it. See, this is what happens when people learn a few things on the Internet, but remain ignorant of others. The Sticks and Stones essay was posted numerous places -- on Facebook, where it was shared a bunch of times, and on other blogs that may or may not display a copyright notice. Unless he's asked and says so, there's no way of knowing where he got it.
"What does Chastain mean by “verifying it?” Verifying that the paper didn’t have her permission to publish? That’s established, so I doubt they’d waste the time."
You're not a journalist, are you, Inspector? The media standard for establishing and/or verifying something is NOT the private blog of a retired insurance secretary. They have to verify it themselves.
Jacques says, "Again, what is slanderous about pointing out that her work was reprinted in that paper? That’s a fact."
But Simpson didn't just point out that her work appeared in the tabloid. If he had, it would have gone something like this: "An article written by Susan Hathaway of the Virginia Flaggers appears in the January 2015 issue of The First Freedom, a right-wing tabloid newspaper that includes racist content."
That is a factual statement; it's 28 words long. What Simpson posted is 519 words focusing almost exclusively on the racist content and interpreting it for his sycophants who he perhaps thinks aren't savvy enough to understand what he's trying soooo hard to get across...
As for anger and/or concern, the impression I've developed of Susan since I've been acquainted with her is that she cares about the opinions of those who care about her, and she doesn't give a fig about the opinions of people who denigrate, attack, smear, lie about, harass, persecute and hate her and who disparage her cause.
Simpson's slander is implied, Jacques, and couched in plausible deniability, as I explained. That's his stock in trade, and I have pointed it out numerous times.
He and his floggerette peanut gallery are not "watching, noting, and even reporting on" what the VaFlaggers are doing. He is continuing his campaign of denigration, smears and attacks on Susan and the Flaggers, which he has been doing the past three+ years. Do you REALLY think the 242+ VaFlagger posts (or mentions or comments) at XRoads are just "watching, noting and reporting on?" No, they are evidence of animosity that is, at once, deep and petty (complaining about the color of Susan's clothes, for example).
Don't believe it? Then you're part of the problem.
The primary reason for mentioning Simpson's hiding the identity of his informant was simply to show his gargantuan hypocrisy. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain that....
"The most revealing thing though is that Chastain feels that you pointing out that Hathaways work was reprinted in the Newsletter is damaging to the group. She recognizes that it is a negative."
Depends on where you think the negativity lies. There is an extreme probability that most people whose opinions matter do not read the tabloid, do not know it exists, and never even heard of it. The reason I think Simpson's pointing it out could be damaging is because that's exactly what he wants, intends and is trying to bring about.
Anybody who thinks Simpson's writings about the VaFlaggers is "just factual" is either lying or hasn't been paying attention. Want an example?
Remember when Simpson implied Grayson had cut trees on the right of way beside the Interstate adjacent to the Chester battle flag site? Sed he:
"Seems there was a lot of police activity by the flag site on January 2 as five police vehicles checked on the results of more tree-cutting … this time reportedly across the property line that divides the trailer park from the interstate. You’re not supposed to do that, Grayson … and one Richmond station carried the news last night. Given that the Virginia Flaggers openly boasted about their plans to cut down those trees, I imagine this might get interesting."
See, this is typical Simpson slimy-slick manipulation of the language accompanied by plausible deniability and implication. He doesn't come out and say Grayson cut the trees. But his followers, with their drooling eagerness to believe any negative about the VaFlaggers, probably went away from that blog post believing Grayson had cut the trees. (The claim that the VaFlaggers "openly boasted about their plans cutting trees on the right of way" is, of course, unaccompanied by verification, links, source, etc.)
BTW, did Simpson post the outcome of the right-of-way tree cutting? I've seen no post at XRoads about it, so presumably not. Was it because (a) it didn't turn out the way he wanted or (b) he doesn't know how it turned out? He does that a lot, posts grand pronouncements like they're fact, often wrong because they are based on partial knowledge. Knowing the whole story can paint a very different picture.
(Incidently, I do know how the tree-cutting incident turned out, and have known since it was resolved. In any case, this is proof positive that Simpson's interest in, and writing about, the VaFlaggers is not "just factual.")
Clouseau also says, "This is a great point. She (Susan) chose to have a selfie made with a White Nationalist."
I seriously begin to doubt this woman's ability to read. It wasn't Susan's selfie. A guy named Shane Long, who was an attendee at the event, took a selfie with her.
Sarah shows her true leftist colors here. Typically, leftists dehumanize people who believe things they disapprove of (most especially about race, gender or "sexual orientation"), and totally define such people by what they disapprove of, as she has done here. Based on some of Long's Facebook comments, you could just as easily say Susan posed for a snapshot with a Ravens fan. (And her a Steelers woman!)
Jacques would have to ask to make certain, but presumably, some nationalists attend heritage events because they support Confederate heritage.
"Could it be that “Heritage” is just White Nationalism light?"
If, by heritage, you mean the VaFlaggers, the answer is no. I know this disappoints you, Inspector. Sorry. Careful, don't trip over that umbrella stand.
What's slanderous about Simpson's First Freedom post is his implications, and if he transmits his implications to the media, he will be sending them slanderous material. It's established that the paper didn't have permission to publish Susan's essay? It wasn't when Simpson posted about it. He was striving to make it appear she had written it FOR that publication. That's what the reference to "careful documentation" is supposed to get across.
I think it's safe to say that Susan doesn't care what people like floggers and floggerettes think. She has no desire to explain herself to people who hate her. She cares about what her people think, and I'd wager that if any of them express concerns, she'll address them -- to those people. Otherwise, she focuses on what truly interests her (and keeps her super busy).
Me, now, I'm different. I inherited a lot of pure cussedness from my Appalachian ancestors, and I don't mind tangling with floggers and other assorted haters, because they reveal a lot about themselves that way.
I also don't mind in the least "revealing" why I'm on a first-name basis with Mr. Childress, but I believe the revelation will be a disappointment to Simpson, who seems to live to find (or fabricate) dirt to sling. (Pathetic, huh.)
Ready? Here ya go:
Sometime in 2001, I attended a meeting to discuss the feasibility of a Southern Heritage Festival along the upper Gulf Coast, perhaps Pensacola or Ft. Walton Beach. I met Mr. Childress at that meeting.
On January 13, 2002, I attended an event at the University of West Florida at which Morris Dees was the speaker. Mr. Childress also attended, and I saw him and talked with him there. He was thrown out of the refreshments segment of the event by campus police, who manhandled him two to one, pushing him backwards out the heavy glass doors onto the sidewalk. I was talking with someone near the exit when it happened, and we witnessed it. I later wrote a report about it for my e-zine, 180 Degrees True South.
I also exchanged a handful of emails with him mostly about the possible festival and the Dees appearance.
I believe the last time I saw him (though I don't remember us conversing) was at a rally for the Ten Commandments in Montgomery on December 17, 2002.
 |
| Screenshot of first email to Olaf Childress |
Back to the present. Because it's been that long, I initially sent an email that reminded him who I am, in case he didn't remember me. He did not respond to that one. I sent a second email. I received a reply a little over 24 hours later.
I don't know why he didn't answer the first one, or whether he even saw it. Perhaps he didn't need a reminder of who I am, since I have several open and public web venues (blogs, websites, Facebook, Twitter, and various author/book sites) and Olaf is evidently quite a web surfer since the web, presumably, is the source of a lot of his tabloid's content.
So Simpson attempts to impute grave significance to the "first name basis" of the emails, but he does so based on incomplete information -- and, once again, falls flat on his face when the whole story is revealed.
Image of Peter Sellers in the public domain. Image processing on all photos by C. Ward.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Found On Facebook....
President Obama: This is why you didn't go to France.
It was you who told an Islamic dinner - "I am one of you."
It was you who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."
It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict -"I will stand with the Muslims."
It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that - "I am a Muslim."
It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator" - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Quran.
It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.
It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the WH.
It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.
It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.
It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities.
It was you who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the WH, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help "empower" the British Muslim community.
It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.
It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.
It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.
It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.
It was you who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
It was you who appointed s your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett , who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It was you who told an Islamic dinner - "I am one of you."
It was you who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."
It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict -"I will stand with the Muslims."
It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that - "I am a Muslim."
It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator" - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Quran.
It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.
It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the WH.
It was you who ordered both Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited adjust their decor.
It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.
It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities.
It was you who as an Illinois Senator were the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the WH, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help "empower" the British Muslim community.
It was you who embraced the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in your quest to overthrow the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.
It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.
It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.
It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.
It was you who was un-characteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
It was you who appointed s your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett , who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)