News and Notes, April 29, 2014

Spanning the globe … and finding little minds. Please skip if you don’t like reading about Confederate heritage hypocrisy … we’ll have something else to whet your appetite soon.

  • I always found the ranting at the Facebook version of Backsass to be amusing. However, Since Connie Chastain’s abandoned her efforts to maintain that page, the placeholder blog for certain Confederate heritage folks, now called Dixie News and Talk, is struggling. Moderator David Grove attempted at first to cut and past the contents of blogs that he didn’t like to make sure that his readers didn’t have to contribute to those blogs’ hit counts, but, as he recently confessed, “I can’t do it anymore. It has caused me to get behind and untimely with posts from their blogs. I have not had the time to add new members.” I’m sure there are many people rushing to join that page … which has taken on a far more political tone now, reinforcing the impression that fans of Confederate heritage are overwhelmingly conservative. No surprise there. Foil hats optional.
  • It also didn’t surprise me that David Tatum on his attack blog had a problem with reading comprehension … or honesty … in his latest hit piece, in which he called a woman “a mutt.” Anyone who goes to the comment in question can see that I reacted to the comment, which I thought was, to use the words of Ms. Chastain, “inappropriate.” As to whether David’s simply stupid, illiterate, dishonest, or some combination thereof, I leave to others to determine. At least we now know he compares women to dogs. Wonder what that tells us about him.
  • I note that over at Connie’s blog that they’re demonstrating how liars play with statistics. For the record, in my zip code, 68.2 percent of the population is white (2010 US census). Moreover, anyone with a lick of sense knows that in the American Southwest, racial diversity is not simply a matter of black and white, although I understand that Connie and her fans are obsessed about black people. By the way, for Connie’s zip code, the population is 73.4% white, so, if you are going to claim I’m a racist by the racial demography where I live, then the same reasoning suggests that Connie’s an even more intense racist … right, “Austin”? Of course, “Austin” is afraid to reveal his identity, lest we discover just how much a white supremacist he is … just like all those white people who comment on Connie’s blog (which to “Austin” is another sign of racism, so, once more, he’s calling Connie a racist). Connie knows where he lives, but she won’t say because she knows I’m right (she has no problem discussing where other people who visit her blog live, so she’s just shielding him). But that’s life in the bizarro world of Connie Chastain and friends, real and fictional.
  • Oh, and yes, Connie did defend Michael Hill and his FB friends. She apparently likes Cliven Bundy, too. Maybe she can figure out a way to get into the big time … as opposed to when she wrote “usually about off-the-wall subjects
    like Bigfoot hunters in the South, Mobile Bay’s jubilees, and photos of Area 51 snapped by Soviet spy satellites.” You heard it here first.

That’s enough for now. I’m sure I’ve given someone the inspiration to rant away once more. 🙂


6 thoughts on “News and Notes, April 29, 2014

  1. Rob Baker April 29, 2014 / 5:30 am

    Anyone who goes to the comment in question can see that I reacted to the comment, which I thought was, to use the words of Ms. Chastain, “inappropriate.” As to whether David’s simply stupid, illiterate, dishonest, or some combination thereof, I leave to others to determine. At least we now know he compares women to dogs. Wonder what that tells us about him.

    I pointed this out to Dav in a comment a few days ago. He is aware, whether he wants to admit to that or not speaks volumes about his character.

    You should see what Austin says on other blogs such as Occidental Dissent and Jerry Dunford’s blog under his other screennames “Caldwell” and “Carmichael”.

    • Brooks D. Simpson April 29, 2014 / 10:28 am

      David’s problem is that he confuses being a character with displaying character. He’s a minor league Falstaff of Confederate heritage.

      Austin’s a cowardly racist. Connie protects him, which tells you something about Connie’s own racial views at the all-white Backsass.

      • Rob Baker April 29, 2014 / 6:15 pm

        I’m not quite ready to bash Dav’. He a bit of a grouch. Even he’ll admit that, but he is pretty cordial in direct conversation.

        The coward on the other hand is a real piece of work. It likes Connie’s blog because it can say what it wants there without people calling it out. Connie changed her comment policy to be accepting of it, because it agrees with her. For someone like Connie, who says it is “PC” to label people racist who disagree with “whiteness,” she sure does give racists free reign on her blog. Like I said, Austin/Reed/Carmichael/Caldwell made some interesting comments all over the web.

  2. Sandi Saunders April 29, 2014 / 9:18 am

    I am extremely new to this blog, but certainly not this argument. It is often cited that secession as not illegal. Which by assuming nothing is illegal until a law is written making it so, I suppose is plausible. But contending that secession is legal, by what mechanism was it provided for in the Constitution? If it was conceivable, surely it had to have a process. Accepting the “cause I said so” answer is not credible. It is dishonorable enough to go back on an oath or ratification of the Constitution but to claim it has an “opt out” clause for states is preposterous IMO. Can anyone show me where the authority for secession could come from and what process was required?

    • E.A. Mayer April 29, 2014 / 4:20 pm

      I could think of two process that might be deemed to be within the spirit of the Constitution. A state might ask to be released, in which case a vote similar to the one that allowed them in would be required. It would therefore not be unilateral and would require the consent of the rest of the ‘We the People’ through their representatives in the national legislative process. But I think the founders would have saw it more as an issue for a Constitutional Convention. However, in any case it could not be by the unilateral action of a state or states, it would be a national issue.

      “The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [US Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 389] 1821

      If you check the search function, there are pages on this blog where your question is more on topic and which discuss this in more expert detail. Enjoy.

      • Sandi Saunders April 29, 2014 / 4:45 pm

        Thank you, I will indeed keep looking for more posts on this site to get familiar. I am just happy to find a choice besides secessionist and indifferent.

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