News and Notes, April 16, 2014

Ah, the pause that refreshes …

  • Many of you were interested in what Jim DeMint had to say about emancipation. I was not.
  • Kevin Levin had some interesting observations about the impact of the sesquicentennial. I’m never sure how one measures such things. What was the impact of the bicentennials of 1776 and Lincoln’s birth in 2009? Hard to tell.
  • Al Mackey wants to draw your attention to a stunning presentation.
  • As for more stunning presentations, check out what Jill Titus of Gettysburg College’s Civil War Institute has to say about the upcoming June 2014 conference:
  • This week Connie Chastain thought it was proper to post profane and ugly lyrics on her blog, just as one time she posted pictures of mostly unclad women. For the record, I don’t know Goad Gatsby and I don’t select his playlist. I think he’d be far more effective with clean lyrics (maybe he should add The Battle Cry of Freedom and John Brown’s Body/Battle Hymn of the Republic). However, it seems to me that he has as much right to do what he does as the Flaggers have to do what they do, and if he’s violating any laws or ordinances, then by all means, ask one of Tripp Lewis’s friends in uniform to have a talk with him. Connie, by the way, apparently still has no problem with atrocities, racism, bigotry, and violence against women. When her buddy John C. Hall Jr. uses the same language she claims to deplore in rap lyrics, she says nothing; recall that she once defended Pat Hines’s antiSemitism … really? Same goes for Connie defending Hall’s antiSemitism. Maybe she can spend some time telling us how her views differ from those of Glenn Miller.


33 thoughts on “News and Notes, April 16, 2014

  1. Thelibertylamp April 16, 2014 / 7:09 am

    Goad is a nice guy, I would much rather hang out with him than Connie’s KKK friends, and I think most sane people would.

  2. Lyle Smith April 16, 2014 / 7:40 am

    If Connie Chastain was a true anti-semite wouldn’t she be more vocal about it? Glenn Miller was loud and proud about it, and now he has murdered people he thought were Jews. Ms. Chastain is loud and proud about some things as well, but not about all of the same things Glenn Miller was loud and proud about. Ms. Chastain can speak for herself of course, but If she thinks Jews control the Federal government and whatever else lets hear it from her. In perusing her blog, I’m not really seeing much writing about how Jews control everything. If she didn’t like Jews like Miller didn’t like Jews, one would expect she would write about them as much as she writes about you and Kevin Levin. 😉

    • Brooks D. Simpson April 16, 2014 / 9:21 am

      Connie’s weapon of choice is her keyboard and internet connection. She seems to excuse or explain away a lot of behavior normal people see as bigoted, while she seems obsessed with Gann Academy, claiming it’s segregated (although she really doesn’t mind the concept for people she likes). She’s not exactly a model of tolerance or consistency.

      She’s been invited to highlight the differences that are more than distinctions. She has her own blog where she can do so. I’m sure she’ll express herself on the issue in characteristic fashion. 🙂

    • John Foskett April 16, 2014 / 10:57 am

      She defended this statement by Hines:

      “A large percentage of anti-south rhetoric and activities are by Jews, particularly from the northeast, that hate Christians. Since the south is a bastion of Christianity in America, they reserve their nastiest venom for us.”

      As I’m sure you can see, that is indistinguishable from statements made in past history by legendary anti-semites. What say you about her defense/”explanation” of this statement?

      • Lyle Smith April 16, 2014 / 4:35 pm

        Well Pat Hines’ words aren’t Connie Chastain’s words. Her defense of that statement re-words what Pat Hines said, and she softens his words up into something else. Nowhere in her explanation does she herself say anything anti-semitic like Pat Hines does. She then goes on to say what Hines said was not anti-semitic, which shows she is at the very least ignorant of what kind of speech constitutes anti-semitism. That statement of ignorance doesn’t itself constitute anti-semitism though.

        Her explanation isn’t strong enough evidence to suggest she holds the same views of Jews that Glenn Miller does. She couldn’t even just say she agrees with Pat Hines. She had to say something entirely different in trying to defend his statement.

        What I’m getting at John is that it should be really, really easy to find statement after statement of hers that would damn her as being as anti-semitic as Glenn Miller. She writes her own blog for crying out loud. You should be able to go there and find 5 or more examples of her ranting about Jews. I didn’t do an exhaustive search of her blog, but the quick search I did yielded no rantings about Jews. Maybe I just didn’t dig down far enough. You’re just going to have to do better than Pat Hines’ statement and her re-wording of it to convince me that she hates Jews as much as Glenn Miller.

        I’m open to being convinced otherwise, if there is evidence that her heartfelt views are no different than Glenn Miller’s, but so far I’m just not seeing it. I’m not saying she doesn’t dislike or even hate some people, but I’m not seeing much evidence that she thinks of Jews the way Glenn Miller does.

        • Brooks D. Simpson April 16, 2014 / 4:37 pm

          She’s free to explain the difference. What she says and what she believes may be two different things. We’ve seen her rant about racial differences and religious differences. Surely you would not deny that.

          After all, Lyle, read what I said: “Maybe she can spend some time telling us how her views differ from those of Glenn Miller.” Your responses imply that I think they are identical. I haven’t said that. Nor have I said that she voices them the same way. But when it comes to defending others from the charge, well, that’s another thing entirely. Are you telling me that you don’t think that either Hall or Hines offered anti-Semitic sentiments?

          • Lyle Smith April 16, 2014 / 7:39 pm

            I just said that what Hines said is anti-semitic. I said Ms. Chastain is at the very least ignorant to not know what Hines said constitutes anti-semitism. Hall is clearly a bigot too, but Chastain didn’t say anything ugly about Jews in defense of him either.

            And why does she need to explain the difference to us Professor Simpson, if you don’t think her thinking is comparable, if not identical, to Glenn Miller’s thinking? She has a blog and from what I can tell there isn’t a lot of ranting on and on about the evil Jews. Maybe she doesn’t say what she truly believes, like you say, but all we have to rely upon is her blog and whatever else she puts out there with her keyboard and the internet.

            I want to be shown, not told what she is. If she’s comparably anti-semitic to any of these guys there should be example, after example, after example of it.

            I personally think her thinking is all over the place and inconsistent as you say. I think she reflexively disagrees with you and will side reflexively with whoever it is you’re criticizing. She’s a white southern apologist, but she also doesn’t side with the League of the South on the Crimea. She’s pro-western civilization and anti-Left. She needs to learn to distinguish Muslims from Islamists. I don’t think she understands you, or Kevin Levin, or Andy Hall at all. She’s wrong to view you as anti-southern, or whatever else. She’s defensive about all things white southern. I wish she would come to appreciate how ugly the Confederate battle flag can look and understand that the Civil War was about slavery. That said she’s not nearly as ugly as Miller (clearly), Hines, or Hall. She just doesn’t type out the same words that they do (unless they’re out there somewhere). Maybe she’s being dishonest, but she’s perfectly honest in her disdain for you and others, and so why wouldn’t she also be about Jews?

          • John Foskett April 17, 2014 / 8:27 am

            Lyle: I think it’s semantics. It may be true that she hasn’t made a direct statement of anti-semitism. But when you defend/ explain/do verbal gymnasics regarding a statement by somebody else which is clearly and beyond any question anti-semitic, you’re indulging in anti-semitism yourself.

          • Lyle Smith April 17, 2014 / 8:50 pm

            I disagree. That isn’t enough for me. It’s not even coded words she’s using. I think her thinking is inconsistent and therefore what she thinks doesn’t nicely add up to with their more consistent thinking. Her thinking just isn’t in total agreement with theirs.

            Just my thinking man. 😉

          • John Foskett April 18, 2014 / 7:28 am

            Well, leave us toss this one in to the mix. What did she pick as an example of Kevin Levin’s alleged “hypocrisy” on “segregation”/”racism”? The school he attended which just happens to be ………., well, you know. Put aside the defects in her deductive apparatus (i.e., religion-based school which is unlikely to be a magnet for those of other faiths, just as, for example, BYU is unlikely to attract non-LDS, or any other denominationally-affiliated school is likely to attract others). See a common theme here? And that’s just my thinking. 🙂

          • Lyle Smith April 18, 2014 / 8:17 am

            I think she and some others are just saying there are no black kids at Kevin’s school. I think they’re mocking him for not teaching any black kids. That’s wrong headed to say the least, but it’s not anti-semitic.

            Ms. Chastain is more multiculturalist than she thinks. For one she accepts religious groups setting up their own schools (well, not Muslims apparently). That’s accepting differences in the American people right there, with the exception of Muslims of course.

          • Lyle Smith April 18, 2014 / 7:40 am

            Oh… I just remembered this: doesn’t Connie Chastain stand accused of being a “Rainbow Confederate”? Isn’t this because she’s wishy-washy in her hate? Apparently some people think Connie Chastain has been touched a little too much by the diversity of America.

            She may try and say she’s not a “Rainbow Confederate” and she may wail against multiculturalism, but she apparently doesn’t articulate her views the way some other people would like her to. They’re questioning how much of a hater she really is, aren’t they?

          • John Foskett April 18, 2014 / 9:36 am

            You’re trying too hard, I think. One can “explain” everything to get a desired result but after awhile there are just too many “explanations”. As you suggest, she accepts “religious groups” setting up their own schools but it’s actually a pretty narrow collection of “religious groups”. And her “Rainbow Confederate” persona is actually focused on the mythology of Black Confederates, which in turn is a contrivance to try to deflect the whole “war caused by slavery” problem. In the end, in my view your interpretation of what is and is not anti-semitic is overly literal. Just my opinion. 🙂

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 18, 2014 / 10:33 am

            Folks, when I post material showing that John C. Hall., Jr., uses the n-word, in a post she refers to later on at her blog, but she then has the effrontery to assert: “I’m unaware of John using such language,” we must assume that she’s a liar, stupid, or both. So let’s start from there.

  3. John Foskett April 16, 2014 / 7:56 am

    Kevin makes a good point about measuring impact. Now if you want to see the Rodney Dangerfield of commemorations, how about the War of 1812. Other than an uptick in some books (mostly on that good old Navy/USS Constitution stuff), crickets…

    • Andy Hall April 16, 2014 / 8:50 am

      “Now if you want to see the Rodney Dangerfield of commemorations, how about the War of 1812.”

      Couldn’t possibly be worse than the official bicentennial remembrance of the Battle of Trafalgar in which the reenactment of the battle, to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of the UK’s NATO allies France and Spain, was fought between “red” and “blue” teams.

  4. Rob Baker April 16, 2014 / 9:16 am

    Haha. Connie is arguing against you because someone else played some music with profanity in it. And to make this argument more “awesome”, she includes clips of Grand Funk Railroad! That is too rich.

  5. Mark April 16, 2014 / 10:48 am

    Levin doesn’t give DeMint a fair shake with his dismissive retort that “the Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation”. It seems clear to me DeMint is talking in the most basic and general terms, and I’m struggling to see how he’s wrong in what he says, rather than in what Levin’s caricature wants him to say. When he says “people like Wilberforce” I read that as referring to the American abolitionists, none of whom were as famous as the Brit and thus the reference. The abolitionists were the driving force behind, well um … abolition. It’s shocking I know.

    And on and on Levin’s tendentious analysis goes. We all know that the Emancipation Proclamation was made under war powers as the Commander in Chief, not merely as president. Is DeMint denying that the war was “waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States” as Levin smoothly retorts? If he is, I’m not seeing it in Levin’s quotes of him. If there are quotes where he’s doing that (I’ve not listened to the audio) then Levin should have used them. DeMint is making a finer point than Levin’s politics wish to credit him in his zeal to turn DeMint into an ignoramus since his Conservative politics is repugnant to him. Here is Lincoln in his Cooper Union speech:

    “Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution – the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.”

    And later:

    what will convince them? (“the southern people” that Northerners would “let them alone”) … We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. …

    Levin wrote a hit piece on a Conservative politician, and Mr. Simpson loved it. What a surprise. And you can’t guess there politics, nosiree!

    • Brooks D. Simpson April 16, 2014 / 12:07 pm

      Your last paragraph says a great deal about your perspective and absolutely nothing at all about mine. In fact, I offered a link without comment that did not direct someone to Kevin’s blog but to the original claim. So as we witness this hop, skip, and a jump to conclusions what are not warranted by an examination of what’s before you, we wonder why you took such a journey. Forget about guessing your politics: all I see is intellectual sloppiness and shoddiness.

      • Mark April 16, 2014 / 12:46 pm

        Levin’s post is before me because of you, and I’m an ingrate to comment about it on your blog. But respect for authority was never my strong suit, though I’m seldom unmindful of it when I’m displaying it. And I’m confident the worth of the trip, whatever that is, can be judged well enough by those who trouble to read it.

        • Brooks D. Simpson April 16, 2014 / 12:55 pm

          Pray tell me how I forced you to read anything, let alone a blog entry to which I did not link.

          Let’s show some respect for logic and common sense.

          • Mark April 16, 2014 / 1:50 pm

            I said Levin when I should have said Tashman at Right Wing Watch in your link to his piece “Jim DeMint Asserts The Federal Government Played No Role In Freeing The Slaves”?

            Or maybe the link crawled onto News and Notes all by itself.

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 16, 2014 / 2:52 pm

            Now you are blaming me because you don’t know who wrote the piece?

            Goodness. So much for one’s taking responsibility for one’s own actions.

    • John Foskett April 17, 2014 / 11:14 am

      With all due respect, you should lose the political slant here. This is about yet another history-ignorant politician who spews about the Constitution, the Emancipation, etc. without really knowing what he’s talking about. You may have missed the post on this site a month or so ago about the “liberal” Congresswoman who was shown up for doing the same. Uninformed politicians – conservative, liberal, left, right, center, Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Green Party, Libertarian – should really just shut up rather than spouting off on an issue in which they have no background. Diment doesn’t get a pass because he’s a “conservative” and his display of ignorance isn’t protected because it’s brought to light by somebody you disagree with politically. By the way, point me to the language in the Constitution to which Diment refers. The fact that he once took an oath to uphold that document is, to quote Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan, “disconcerting”.

  6. Brooks D. Simpson April 16, 2014 / 1:29 pm

    Connie’s sidekick Austin … the “man” of many screen names (some of which have been women, so his/her gender is up in the air) asserts:

    “Brooks also indignantly calls Connie a bigot as he defends the segregationist whites only admitting policies of the Gann Academy.”

    Either document that policy with specific reference to a document or stand revealed as a lying coward (just the kind Connie likes).

    After all, Connie is a bigot. Prove me wrong.

  7. Brooks D. Simpson April 18, 2014 / 11:22 am

    Re: John and Lyle’s Discussion–As I see it, both of you are debating more over matters of degree than of kind. Both of you have raised questions about her intelligence and logic: as Connie likes to quote Lyle approvingly, that in itself is interesting. My taste is that her white supremacist views are far more detailed than her views on Jews, which are far less bigoted than her views on Muslims. However, she has a blind spot when it comes to what her sidekicks say: for her to claim that she’s unaware of John Hall’s bigoted statements strikes me as absurd and dishonest. So we are back to the issue of whether she simply is intellectually muddled, hateful, or both. I take the third option, although her bigotry is more extreme and developed in some areas than in others. Her objection to Gann Academy appears race-based, for example, although there’s not a shred of evidence that Gann excludes students based on their race. Indeed, she’s openly said she doesn’t oppose segregation, and in other places she’s embraced it.

    My guess is that both of you have set forth your positions fairly well, and that you agree a great deal more than you disagree. Would that be a fair assessment?

    • John Foskett April 18, 2014 / 12:20 pm

      I think that’s a fair assessment. I would close by adding only that I have a hunch (and that’s all that it is) that she is incapable of even seeing the plausible implications of her approach to both issues (Hines and Gann) and therein lies my problem.

    • Lyle Smith April 18, 2014 / 1:09 pm

      I agree, fair assessment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s