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

The following is edited from one of the usual heritage-hating blogs. It's an exchange between Jimmy Dick and myself that occurred in the comment thread of a particular post about veterans. (The "she" he mentions here is me.)

J. DICK: She and the other Neo-Know Nothings say the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery.

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

J. DICK: Oh, so you are ready to announce that the Civil War was caused by slavery? You’re ready to admit that the slave states seceded in order to preserve slavery? Say it clearly and I will be more than happy to apologize.

Note how he attempts to change the subject. He refuses to prove that I said what he claims I said, and brings up something totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHAT I'm ready (or not ready) to announce. It doesn't change the fact that he accused me of already having said something that he refuses to prove I said. I remind him of that....

CONNIE: Mr. Dick, you said I SAID , “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery”. The burden of proof is on you.

If you can’t produce a link, a copy-paste, anything, where I have said, “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery,” then you owe me an apology. 

Look what he does next. Pointing out that my not making a statement about slavery has nothing to do with his claim of what I've already said. And he says I want proof of what started the war? No, I'm asking him to prove where I said what he's claiming I said.

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

J. DICK: As expected and anticipated Connie Chastain is not going to make the statement that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. She wants proof...

...Well, open your eyes and mind and start learning. Read the primary sources such as the Secession documents. Read Charles Dew, James McPherson, Eric Foner, etc.

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

You get no apology.

I don't really care about an apology from you. I simply acknowledge that if you can't prove your accusation against me, it is a lie, and you owe me an apology for it. Whether you offer it or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans to me.

J. DICK: “I will be extremely pleased to announce to the world that I would be apologizing to Connie Chastain because she has stated for the record that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that the men who fought for the Confederacy fought for the right to own human beings, and the men at the secession conventions chose to secede over slavery.”

When Connie Chastain makes that statement she will no longer be [avoiding the truth]. Until then she is.

That is all irrelevant to the fact that Jimmy Dick accused me of already having said something that he refuses to prove I said. Also, I do not believe Jimmy Dick has a corner on truth; what he has stated here is, at best, his opinion, his spin.

Do not bother to post anything unless you make that exact statement, Connie. I will accept and apologize for nothing but you stating that statement as fact. I will not be holding my breath.

CONNIE: Mr. Dick, you claimed I said something I’ve never said. You lied about me. These other demands you are making are irrelevant to the fact that you lied about me.

For my part, this exchange was to make the point that he cannot prove I said what he claims I said and without proof, his claims are lies. It's funny to watch him squirm, to try to change horses in midstream, to reframe the discussion to take the heat off himself, to move the focus from the past, i.e., what (he claims) I've already said, to the future, what he's demand that I say.

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

Flags Flying at the Pensacola Bay Center

March 7, 2015

S. Hamilton

Kevin Levin's Hopelessly Divisive Melodrama

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

Hey, Kevin!                          

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

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

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

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

From the Fiesta of Five Flags website:  Fiesta of Five Flags History

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

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

...Throughout the 64 years of the Fiesta’s history, the mission has remained the same: "To celebrate our heritage, promote tourism and build pride in Pensacola through festive activities which enhance the quality of life in our Community." Today Fiesta mobilizes community support for its year-round events, contributes funds to the promotion of Pensacola's history, while providing exciting entertainment and events for the entire community to enjoy.

Now, I don't know why the Fiesta organization back then chose the battle flag to represent the Confederacy in its five flags displays. And you know what? I don't care. Today, in 2015, flying a national flag of the Confederacy in a display of national flags rather than the soldier's flag is not a problem for me.

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

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

Here's a picture of the complete absence of divisiveness, from the pen of Madeleine L'Engle in "A Wrinkle in Time":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What are they afraid of?" Charles Wallace asked. "What's the matter with them?"

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

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

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


 ____________________  
Bronx Cheer video -- Wikimedia Commons

Flags Going Back Up In Escambia County!

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

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

It's worth watching the video of the meeting to hear Robinson, Robertson and Barry discussing the subject. They each have Confederate soldiers in their ancestry, and said they weren't fighting for slavery. They said they were proud of their Confederate ancestors.

                     

Pensacola Today

 Kevin Levin will be soooooo disappointed. He is all into predicting the demise of Confederate heritage and cheering gleefully when some politician somewhere takes a sledge hammer to Confederate commemoration.

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

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

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

Media coverage of the County Commissioner's meeting:

Pensacola News Journal       WEAR-TV Channel 3       Pensacola Today
Video of the County Commission Meeting, segment on the flag display:


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

  UPDATE  *  UPDATE  *  UPDATE  

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

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

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

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

See? Understand the difference between OBEYING and DISOBEYING?

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

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

HOLD THE PHONE!!! CHARLOTTESVILLE TRANSFORMED!!!

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

BUT WAIT!

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

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

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

But two spectacular changes overshadow all the rest.

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

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

Apology Owed -- Will It Be Given?

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

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

Actually, Congress apparently hasn't designated anybody as "American veterans" -- only as "veterans," without the "American." So I posted this today at Al's flog:

Revisiting this, Al. I can’t find where the US Code defines “American veteran” at all. A cursory search of Title 38 brings up the terms “native American veterans” and “disabled American veterans” a few times, but no “American veterans.”

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

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

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

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

And…

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, it seems to be a generic or popular designation — and by virtue of the nearly identical definitions above, if “American veteran” can be applied to U.S. vets, it can be applied to Confederate vets with the same accuracy.

Well, Al went into a tizzy, posting all kinds of irrelevant definitions in an effort to not see the obvious -- the difference between "veteran" and "American veteran." Smart man like him, can't tell the difference between one word and a two-word phrase.

I made a last ditch effort to get through to him with this follow up comment:

"38 US Code 101 (2 defines the “The term ‘veteran’ — not American veteran. The word AMERICAN appears no-flippin’-where in the definition. Read my comment again, Al. I didn’t say “veteran.” I said AMERICAN veteran. I quite plainly said it defines VETERAN. But not AMERICAN veteran. The definition does not use that term, “AMERICAN veteran.” Can’t you READ man?

It's really kinda pathetic when people who pride themselves on being so smart are so willing to sacrifice their brains in order to maintain their hatred of Confederate heritage and its supporters.

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

Great Flogger Quote

"...more people see those flags flying along the interstate every day than read one of [Gary Gallagher's] books in a year."

Brooks Simpson

on the Virginia Flaggers'

Interstate Memorial Battle Flags

Transparency and Black-hearted Deception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

She's Still Confused

  UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE  

Why yes, Blogger-too-skeered-to-identify-yourself. I remember the "I learned it from you, Dad" anti-drug commercials. But for your cockamamie post and the commercial to be analogous, the kid in the video would've had to learn from his father's drug abuse that hasn't occurred at the time of the confrontation -- and won't occur until ten years in the future.

You really should think through some of the >cough cough< ideas you dream up before you, you know, put 'em on the Internet....

And another look at flogger dishonesty....

In the next post at her anonymous smear-blog, you'll find this:

Well, what we can expect from AnonFlogger is tight-focusing on what she thinks is great material for smearing heritage folks, and ignoring everything else.  She didn't show us, for example, all the people who DIDN'T respond the way Stephen Burns did, just she didn't show us all the heritage folks who DIDN'T flag MLK's church in Montgomery.

That's the way it is with these attack-floggers. Zero in on the tiny, tiny negative element, and hope people are stupid enough to imagine they are the whole. Whatever you do, don't show the multitudes of good, decent folks in Southern heritage -- don't acknowledge in any way that they exist...

Injure the innocent. That's the flogger way....

---

See, this is what happens when you find stuff on the internet you know little to nothing about and draw delusory conclusions about it.

Anonymous Flogger makes a post titled, "I learned it from watching you Matt." The post begins with a screenshot of Facebook comment thread discussing an image of a girl running with two Third Nationals billowing out behind her. She's in front of a monument with a quote from MLK engraved on it.

Presumably, the title of the post is supposed to reflect the thoughts of the girl in the photo and, by extension, the Southern heritage community.

It is impossible to tell from the screenshot what Facebook group or personal timeline it was taken from. In any case, a comment by Susan Hathaway suggests that "we don't have any business near monuments like that with our flags. What's the point of this?"

Someone replies, "You'd have to ask the girl."

Susan: "Well then, I don't think posting or sharing helps our cause. Just my opinion."

Someone asks what monument it is. The original poster says, "It's some MLK thing," and Susan confirms, "It is an MLK Monument." (Actually, that is a mistake, as we shall see, although one can see how someone who is unfamiliar with it might think it's an MLK monument, judging by the engraved quote.)

AnonFlogger asks, "Now where oh where would the Confederate heritage crowd pick up an idea like this? Oh, yeah..." ("This" being what she mistakenly assumes is flagging MLK monuments.)

She follows that  with a photo of Matt Heimbach standing in front of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church with a battle flag.

There's just a couple of problems with the associations she's making and the conclusions she's drawing -- but those problems make all the difference in the world. Moreover, they illustrate clearly that AnonFlogger is interested in smearing, and she'll take anything that looks smearworthy -- truth and accuracy be hanged.

First, as I said, the people discussing the photo in the Facebook thread are mistaken about the memorial in the picture. It is not a memorial to MLK, though he is quoted. It is the Southern Poverty Law Center's Civil  Rights Memorial.

Second, protesting the SPLC -- an ultra-leftist, anti-Christian "watchdog" group that slanders, smears and lies for money -- is NOT the same as protesting an MLK monument. Not even close.

And that's what the girl in the photo is doing. She's protesting the SPLC. Although she is only about a block from the church where Heimback is photographed, she is separated from him in time by about TEN YEARS.

Heimback's photo appears to be dated around 2012.

The protest of the SPLC, on the other hand, occurred in 2002 or 2003 or so, after the League of the South** National Conference in Montgomery.

Just out of curiosity, how can somebody learn from watching something that won't happen for another decade? And since Heimbach took his sleazy stand in front of the church in 2012 or so, how many Southern heritage folks have followed his lead and shown up to protest MLK memorials? If so, where, and why doesn't AnonFlogger have pictures?

If memory serves, the photo of the girl with the Third Nationals was made by a photographer with the Montgomery Advertiser, and appeared in the newspaper. It's entirely possible that the photographer staged the photo by asking the girl to run past the civil rights memorial. Most of the protesters were a little way down the sidewalk from the memorial, the better to be seen by folks across the street in the Poverty Palace.

So really, the only thing we're learning here is that people who slander Southern heritage folks (trying to smear them with the white nationalists they are so obsessed with) is that they aren't very smart, or else they aren't real scrupulous.  Maybe both.
----------------

**This was also long before the League radicalized, accepted young, overly race-conscious members, and took down its statement on racism:

League of the South Statement on "Racism"
LS Board of Directors

The League of the South has never before issued a statement denying that it is "racist" because racism is a wax nose charge. Those who resort to this charge can never be satisfied. The more we deny it, the more we will be forced to deny it, until at last all that we will have time to do is to repel the latest charge of "racism." However, we make this one statement, to satisfy strangers of good will, that we bear no ill will or hatred to any racial, ethnic, or religious group.

We believe that Christianity and social order require that all people, regardless of race, must be equal before the law. We do not believe that the law should be used to persecute, oppress, or favour any race or class.

We believe that the only harmony possible between the races, as between all natural differences among human beings, begins in submitting to Jesus Christ's commandment to "love our neighbours as ourselves." That is the world we envision and work for.

We believe that the politics of race -- baiting whites against blacks and blacks against white has been profitable for politicians but catastrophic for the South and Southerners.

We believe that all Southerners - black and white - want and need the same things: a safe country for their families, liberty, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We believe that the last thing the South's enemies want is to see black and white Southerners sitting down together to determine their common destiny and work for authentic harmony, a just social and economic order, and an independent South. We can't foretell precisely what that order will look like, but certainly it will not make room for diversity police and political correctness. Rather, we hope it will bring the greatest freedom for the greatest number of all races, and good will among them all.

The League of the South Board of Directors

Behold More Flogger Dishonesty....

...(or is it, um, flogger confusion?)

You may remember that anonymous flogger said in an earlier post, "So we will continue to hear this crowd crying "We're not racist! We're not racist!'"

I replied, in part, "I don't hear heritage folks crying that. Where do you hear it? How often? Try to find on my blog where I've said it. Try to find it on the VaFlaggers blog.... I suspect ... that when a heritage advocate denies racism, they have a completely different concept than the person accusing them of it."

So now she has posted a few quotes -- nine, to be exact -- which she is presumably offering as proof that heritage folks say, "We're not racist. We're not racist!"

In fact, EIGHT of the nine are NOT saying "We're not racist!" -- they are saying Confederate flags are not symbols of slavery, racism and hate.

That's not the same thing, is it? Can Flogger-Anon not tell the difference between people -- human beings -- and flags, banners, pieces of cloth, which have no will, no volition, no beliefs?

She quotes ONE PERSON saying he did not consider himself to be a racist -- but it is in response to a question posed to him..

Perhaps Anonymous Flogger needs a little help. Okay, here ya go, sweetie:

See the difference?

Tell ya what. Since you seem to be having difficulty with this, let's try something simple and work our way  up to persons and flags. Okay?

Which is which? (1) Butt. (2) Hole in ground.

Don't give up. Keep trying and eventually you'll get it.