Confederate Heritage, the KKK, and Mary Phagan

I recently came across this rather interesting Facebook post:


The Virginia Flaggers posted this on June 1, 2015.

Now, to the always revealing comments:

Phagan 2

Hmm. Yup, Phagan’s death led to the formation of a group determined to avenge her murder: “The Knights of Mary Phagan” sparked the second coming of the KKK … and made Stone Mountain, Georgia, a landmark for Confederate heritage.

Note that the Flaggers dive right into the dispute about who killed Phagan and conclude it was “most likely” Leo Frank. My, but I thought we had this discussion some time ago.

All of us can regret the murder of a thirteen year old girl back in 1913. But not all of us seem to regret what followed. Perhaps this was another case of white southerners taking matters into their own hands to “protect” so-called “decent citizens” … where have I heard that before?

It’s always interesting to see what we choose to remember, what we choose to forget, what we choose to omit, and what we assume needs no explanation.

136 thoughts on “Confederate Heritage, the KKK, and Mary Phagan

  1. Spelunker June 3, 2015 / 2:57 am

    “Dare I ask who the perpetrator was”

    I wonder what was so important to them about this particular, supposed perpetrator? I have found in my reading that many people talk about this incident because Frank was a Jew, and many of those who talk about this incident are Anti-Semitic. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the same thing? This incident is quite popular with the Neo-Nazi crowd I have found, as it fits their narrative (at least in their own minds), that all Jews are bad.

    If memory serves me correctly, one person very involved in Confederate Heritage used to run a webpage/blog dedicated to rehashing this incident. My memory does tend to get a little foggy sometimes though. Does anyone else recall this, or recall whom I might be thinking of?

  2. Spelunker June 3, 2015 / 4:35 am

    I have read back through my notes. It appears as though the claim that a well known Heritage personality is the author of a site dedicated to Leo Frank is unfounded. So my memory, like I said was foggy, but it turns out that it was not the case. My apologies.

    What’s not unfounded is that this incident is red meat for Anti-Semites. IMO, Paul Oberle Sr. apparently recognizes the delicate dance one has to do when bringing up this incident for fear of being painted as an Anti-Semite.

    As far as this being the story of the founding of the Klan, that is not the case. The Klan was founded in Pulaski, TN, but has gone through 5-6 rebirths since its founding. I believe that the Klan of Stone Mountain, Georgia was the first rebirth, second iteration of the group.

    • Rob Baker June 4, 2015 / 9:40 pm

      There is a website which seeks to deconstruct any argument made in favor of Frank.

  3. Spelunker June 3, 2015 / 4:48 am
        • Rob Baker June 4, 2015 / 9:44 pm

          I should mention that when the state of Georgia awarded Frank a posthumous pardon, it first attempted to re-open the trial to ascertain Frank’s innocence. The state had lost the majority of the evidence so modern forensics could be applied.

        • Hunter Wallace June 4, 2015 / 9:56 pm

          Leo Frank was a convicted murderer.

          He had his day in court. In fact, he appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Under pressure from the Jewish community, the governor of Georgia commuted his sentence. Hence, the controversy and subsequent lynching.

          Frank’s demise was no great tragedy. He was guilty and was sentenced to death anyway.

          • jclark82 June 5, 2015 / 4:38 am

            As Rob said, his day in court could not remotely be called justice.

            This is another of the litany of barbarities committed in the name of “justice” through the means of lynching. Just another example of “southern chivalry” and “southern honor.”

            I’m not saying Leo Frank was innocent, we’ll never know. What I can say is there is no way he received a fair trial.

            Jerry Sudduth Jr.

          • Rcocean June 5, 2015 / 7:46 am

            Agreed. Much of the anti-Semitism was caused by the misguided attempt by the Jewish community – outside of Georgia – to get him released despite his obvious guilt. Their efforts to help their fellow Jews would have been better spent elsewhere. Its funny we’re still discussing Frank, when probably 10 nameless innocent blacks were probably lynched in Georgia in 1915. Oh well, no soup for them.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 5, 2015 / 9:23 am

            You are always free to discuss white supremacist violence against blacks. After all, at least some of the people in the mob that lynched Frank were probably experienced in the practice. The choice of lynching as the form of execution was no accident.

          • James F. Epperson June 5, 2015 / 8:10 am

            Actually, a post-trial investigation established that Frank was probably innocent; this effort was confirmed in the 1980s. Regardless, his lynching was a crime.

          • Rob Baker June 5, 2015 / 11:43 am

            There was also the testimony of Alonzo Mann in the 1980s. He took of polygraph and gave the testimony that Jim Connely threatened to kill Mann if he said anything about the former carrying Phagans body to the basement. He swore an affidavit to this fact. He also stated that his family urged him to keep quiet out of fear of…you guessed it…lynch mob mentality toward black citizens.

            Also, it’s erroneous to say the Governor caved in to pressure from the Jewish Community and granted a stay on execution to Frank. His response to the incident is well documented. Slaton investigated the crime scene himself and told reporters that, “some of the most powerful evidence in Frank’s behalf was not presented to the jury which found him guilty.” Conley’s own attorney interviewed witnesses after the lynching and himself came out in declaration of Frank’s innocence.

            I can’t grant Frank his innocence, but unfortunately for him, he never got a fair trial. Unfortunately for Mary Phagan, her real killer goes unknown and without justice. It’s a sad story.

          • John Foskett June 5, 2015 / 12:13 pm

            Here’s what Holmes. Jr., a war hero wounded three times fighting,for our country, said about Frank’s “day in court”: we ought to “declare lynch law as little valid when practised by a regularly drawn jury as when administered by one elected by a mob intent on death.” You apparently prefer judicial procedurss that were in vogue in the Third Reich.

          • Hunter Wallace June 6, 2015 / 1:58 pm

            Weren’t several of the jurors who convicted Frank also Jews themselves?

          • Hunter Wallace June 6, 2015 / 2:12 pm

            All the courts which heard Frank’s case or handled his appeals including the Supreme Court determined he was guilty of murder. The governor of Georgia, too, found him guilty and only changed his sentence from death to life imprisonment.

          • Rob Baker June 7, 2015 / 11:05 am

            HW needs to bone up on law. Appeals courts are not necessarily retrials. The appeals were overturned on procedural grounds, they were not retrials of Frank’s case. Frank’s Georgia attorney’s did a poor job of arguing the appeals. Of course, this is an excellent example of the type of lynch mob mentality that got a conviction and subsequent lynching in the first place.

          • Connie Chastain June 7, 2015 / 8:50 pm

            “You are always free to discuss white supremacist violence against blacks.”

            But kindly forego mentioning that every seven months or so, blacks murder as many blacks as were lynched in the 86 years between 1882-1968. Maybe somebody should tell these black murderers that black lives matter.

      • Rob Baker June 4, 2015 / 9:40 pm

        Convicted in an incredibly unfair trial; which is why he received a posthumous pardon years later.

      • Brooks D. Simpson June 5, 2015 / 9:35 pm

        BTW, Brad, it seems you have really goofed in thinking you’ve outed someone (and then proceeded to direct your white supremacist friends to harass him). I thought you were brighter than Chastain. Good luck with law enforcement.

        • Mark W. June 6, 2015 / 6:41 am

          Publishing someone’s private information is a crime:

          “Once you outline the address or location of a person, within which a person can be placed at risk, YOU have VIOLATED THE LAW. PERIOD.

          In all cases if you outline the physical location of any individual with the intent to harm, shame, stalk, humiliate, endanger, or otherwise compromise the safety and security of ANY individual you have placed that person in a position of risk and you are in violation of ALL State Stalking laws.

          THIS is the most commonly crossed line.”

          A lot has to do whether or not there is a threat and whether or not a pattern has been established.

          “Cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.

          Cyberharassment. Cyberharassment differs from cyberstalking in that it may generally be defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual. Some states approach cyberharrassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.”

          The Alabama Flaggers have made themselves newsworthy by becoming involved in the “controversy” at Union Springs. They should expect commentary and criticism since they have made themselves newsworthy. Commentary and criticism is protected speech. However, it’s very odd that they would reveal a persons personal information and then make the claim they are being harassed. They also urged people to contact the persons employee.

        • Hunter Wallace June 6, 2015 / 2:09 pm

          Oh, that is him.

          All right then. They know where to find me.

          • The Lamp June 6, 2015 / 4:44 pm

            No it’s not him, but continue to target a random person while breaking the law.

          • Spelunker June 7, 2015 / 5:19 am

            Actually the information was published, several times. At least once by Brad. Even if it’s been deleted, it was published and a record still exists whom it was published by and when.

            There are only a few places where the information does or did appear, and only a few people it can all be traced back to.

            It is indeed a crime to publish a persons private information, especially so when the information is used in a manner which is threatening or harassing, I know, because I spoke to law enforcement about it.

            The fortunate thing for Brad, so far at least, is that it’s not my information, so legally I have no recourse. I can
            Imagine that at some point, the person who’s information was put out there may tire of the games, and at that point things may not be so amusing any longer.

          • The Lamp June 7, 2015 / 12:55 pm

            Brad you’re really making an ass out of yourself, but go ahead, don’t let us get in the way of your own stupidity.

          • Connie Chastain June 7, 2015 / 8:54 pm

            “It is indeed a crime to publish a persons private information, especially so when the information is used in a manner which is threatening or harassing…”

            You mean like publishing the identity of a person’s private sector employer in a harassing manner on a hostile blog?

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 11:44 pm

            Simply explaining why Susan Hathaway was no longer flagging the VMFA and standing up for her free speech rights (which is far more than you did) is not a crime. Get real. More victimization ranting from Pitiful from Pensacola, who had her friends try to go after me through my employer. What a fine hypocrite you make.

            Back to your blog, Connie. You can keep telling your tales of woe to your sweet southern boyz. Take care and try not to get too upset.

          • Connie Chastain June 8, 2015 / 4:54 am

            “Simply explaining” why Susan Hathaway was no longer flagging the VMFA is not what you did. Otherwise, why all the dropped hints like it was some big secret or mystery? Why the glee when using it to smear her for “not standing up for her free speech rights” when you know it has nothing to do with that (haven’t you paid attention to M.D. Blaugh’s explanations of what constitutes freedom of speech?)

            I haven’t had anyone “go after” you through your employer (though I have wondered about the wisdom at ASU for hiring and keeping you). Contacting employers about non-work related stuff is nearly always an exercise in futility.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 8, 2015 / 8:25 am

            Try again. I defend Susan’s right to protest against reprisals from her employer. You don’t. That is different from First Amendment protections. You clearly are unable to understand that.

            As for the rest, you lie. Simple as that. You go after the free speech rights of public employees. That is because you know that you are not able to win on the battlefield of ideas. You whine about my moderation policies, but practice your own arbitrary policies. I don’t delete comments while offering long-winded rants to those deleted comments. You so. You’re skeered. I’m bored. Bye bye.

            Take care.

          • Rob Baker June 7, 2015 / 11:41 am

            Something about someone supposedly outing somebody and posting their personal information online?….I’ve been on vacation.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 12:08 pm

            The story as I understand it is that Brad “outed” one of his critics on blog radio … but it was a case of mistaken identity. The person involved was harassed, and we’ll see how that person chooses to respond.

            The blog radio episode in question suggests that several folks in Alabama did the outing, complete with contact information.

          • Rob Baker June 7, 2015 / 12:14 pm


          • Hunter Wallace June 7, 2015 / 8:19 pm

            Spelunker is stalking and harassing people again on his new blog. They found out his real identity and contacted his employer. That’s all.

  4. bob carey June 3, 2015 / 5:30 am

    One of the flaggers states Mary was a martyr for the Confederate cause, what rationale causes him to come up with that? Mary was a victim of a crime , performed by a sick individual. This could have happened anywhere in the world. It just so happens it took place in Georgia. To give this poor girl the status of martyrdom is a bit of an overreach, even for a narrowminded flagger.

    • Joshism June 3, 2015 / 5:39 pm

      By the logic of the SCV it would seem every juvenile who dies on their way to a veterans-related event should be honored with burial among veterans.

      • Brooks D. Simpson June 5, 2015 / 1:10 pm

        Interesting how the SCV is all about Mary Phagan but really silent when it comes to Lilly Baumann. Then again, so are the Virginia Flaggers.

  5. Cotton Boll Conspiracy June 3, 2015 / 6:42 am

    So do these misinformed folks take pride in the fallacy that the KKK’s formation was associated with avenging Mary Phagen’s murder, or are they merely spouting misinformation? It’s not entirely clear, though I suspect the former.

    I’m loathe to cite Wikipedia as a defining source, but all it takes is a quick glance at that site’s page on the Klan to see that the second iteration of the KKK didn’t come about until 1915, approximately two years after Mary Phagen’s murder.

    I understand that facts can be an inconvenient thing to those pushing an agenda, but wouldn’t you want to at least seem like you know what you’re talking about? It’s not like 25 years ago, when one had to actually pick up a book or go to a library to track down information – although that’s still not a bad idea.

      • Cotton Boll Conspiracy June 6, 2015 / 8:44 am

        Frank was lynched in August 1915; the Klan wasn’t formed, at least formally until November of that year. I don’t doubt that many, if not most all of the individuals involved in the lynching became members of the Klan, but is it accurate to say that the Klan lynched Frank, since it wasn’t formally begun, at least in its second iteration, until later in the year?

        Was the group that lynched Frank an informal version of the Klan that was more or less was formalized in late November 1915?

        • Brooks D. Simpson June 6, 2015 / 10:17 am

          I’d say “the Knights of Mary Phagan” were an interesting group.

  6. James F. Epperson June 3, 2015 / 11:51 am

    When I lived in the Atlanta area (1980-87) the anniversary of Mary Phagen’s tragic death was almost always the occasion for a lot of re-hashing of the case in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. One letter-writer, a direct descendant of the prosecutor in the case, could be counted on for a vituperative letter to the editor complaining about the coverage. It is fairly well-established that Frank didn’t do it.

  7. Joshism June 3, 2015 / 5:42 pm

    Of all the Jewish conspiracy theories I have ever heard, that they scheme to rape and murder Protestant teenagers is not one of them. Was that plan buried in the back pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and better known to Southerners in 1913?

    • Brooks D. Simpson June 3, 2015 / 7:21 pm

      Usually they lynched blacks for this reason. Whether the individual actually committed the crime didn’t seem to matter.

      • neukomment June 4, 2015 / 8:18 am

        Dr. Simpson, For some reason this comment immediately brought to my mind the time I along with my siblings and a cousin were sitting in the movie theater in Archbold, Ohio back in the early 1960’s watching the black and white images of To Kill a Mockingbird unfold across the screen. The starkness of the tragedy of Jim Robinson remains etched in my mind to this very day.

        • neukomment June 4, 2015 / 8:20 am

          Error;”Tom Robinson”

    • The Lamp June 4, 2015 / 12:36 pm

      Unfortunately there are those who still believe the protocol of the elders of Zion. I am sure if you ask Matthew Heimbach and Michel Hill who are white nationalists and close to the flaggers you will find them in agreement with that nasty book.

  8. Connie Chastain June 3, 2015 / 7:42 pm

    “All of us can regret the murder of a thirteen year old girl back in 1913.”

    All of us CAN, but apparently not all of us DO.

    • Brooks D. Simpson June 4, 2015 / 8:36 am

      Name who doesn’t. I think it was a tragedy.

      Of course, I also think the kidnapping of little Lilly Baumann is a tragedy. Not everyone agrees. Look at the lack of concern expressed by a certain heritage group … or by you.

      I thought all lives matter. I guess some people don’t agree.

      • Connie Chastain June 4, 2015 / 9:52 am

        Presumably, according to reports, she’s with her mother, her primary care-giver for her entire life. It’s a family disagreement, a crime only because it violates some court’s visitation decree.That doesn’t conform to my concept of a tragedy. I suspect your only interest in the little girl is that you can use her circumstances to denigrate the VaFlaggers.

        Some people seem to think the tragedy is what happened to Mr. Frank, and Mary is sort of a footnote or afterthought with them.

        • Brooks D. Simpson June 4, 2015 / 12:50 pm

          I asked you to name names to support your accusation. You are too skeered to do that. So much for southern courage.

          You simply don’t care for men’s/father’s rights or the rule of law. Thanks for the admission. Your false rape claptrap can’t be based on respect for men, because you don’t respect their rights as fathers.

          • Connie Chastain June 4, 2015 / 7:22 pm

            Re: the Mary Phagan case, it’s just something I’ve noticed over the years since I first learned about it. I didn’t take names. There was an offhandedness to the discussion — “Yeah, it goes without saying that her murder was awful,” but then the discussion spotlighted the tragedy of Mr. Frank and stayed there… I first noticed this in printed material, decades before the Internet.

            It’s ludicrous to say I don’t support fathers’ rights because I don’t equate what happened with Lilly to what happened to Mary Phagan. The Baumann case is a rather sordid family dispute and very likely the whole circumstance is not known by people not directly involved. People whose sole or primary interest in the case is as a weapon to attack the VaFlaggers actually seem to think that what has appeared in online reports is all there is to know about it….

            I do respect men, especially in the face of the feminist trashing of men but I also acknowledge that not everything men do is respectable. My views of false accusations of rape aren’t claptrap. I simply believe in innocence until proven guilty and I disapprove of news reports calling accusers “victims” before it is proved that they were actually raped. What’s claptrap is “Women never lie,” and the long disproved one-in-four myth of sexual violence/abuse/attack, and other ridiculous feminist memes like, all men are potential rapists (per Sarah Silverman, but also others).

            Are all you men in this group potential rapists?

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 5, 2015 / 9:07 pm

            In short, you made an accusation, but you failed to name names. Typical.

            Either you know something about the Lilly Baumann case or you don’t. It’s clear from what you say elsewhere that you are not in possession of information that would demonstrate the the Virginia Flaggers know nothing about this matter (if you did, you would broadcast it). So either you have no knowledge (as you claim elsewhere), or you’re hiding damning information. As you say you’re not the spokesperson for the Flaggers, what you say is immaterial and irrelevant. The Flaggers remain silent. You simply babble.

            You are evidence that the notion that women never lie is false. In the Baumann case, you have demonstrated that your concern for the rights of men is a sham, because you don’t give a damn for the rights of fathers. You are interested in talking about false accusations because you engage in the practice all the time. Typical projection.

        • Jimmy Dick June 4, 2015 / 1:28 pm

          So much for respect for the law. It is only the law when it works in your favor. You are despicable. If you know where that girl is and are not telling the police you are nothing but a criminal.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 4, 2015 / 1:29 pm

            The Flaggers and their supporters think they are above the law.

          • Connie Chastain June 4, 2015 / 7:38 pm

            It’s not my prerogative (nor yours) to insert myself into the domestic dispute of a family I’m not a member of and do not know. I have never met nor talked with a single person involved in that case. I got my information about it the same place/way you did. Thus, if I know where the girl is, you do, too. If I’m a criminal, so are you. The primary difference is that you, Simpson and your fellow travelers hate the Virginia Flaggers and want to see harm come to them, and you think/hope this might do it, while I do not hate them and do not what them harmed.

            All you people who are so certain the Virginia Flaggers are involved in, or at least have knowledge about, this case… have you notified the police or the FBI? If not, why not?

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 5, 2015 / 9:14 pm

            “I have never met nor talked with a single person involved in that case.”

            You’ve met Susan Hathaway. She held poor Lilly in her arms. But I don’t see her interested in the girl’s welfare. However, if you know nothing about the case outside of normal media outlets, then what you have said about the case is meaningless. Yet you keep on talking as if you know something. Make up your mind.

            You seem a lot more worried about your bogus claims of harm against the Flaggers than you are about what harm might come to a little girl who’s been kidnapped. You simply don’t give a damn about Lilly Baumann. You make up pretend victims while ignoring real victims. Amazing … and typically disgusting. You have no shame.

            As to what people may have said to federal investigators, that’s not your business. If it was, then you would ask the same question of your buddy and hero, Susan Hathaway. Skeered? Or worse?

          • Connie Chastain June 6, 2015 / 11:13 pm

            Lamprey, I found Heimbach’s blog via Google two days ago — well, I saw his name on it and I scrolled down to see “WordPress” at the bottom, so I assumed it was his blog. Of course, you’re far more interested in (obsessed with) Heimbach than I am, and know much more about him than I do. In any case, whether he owns or contributes to it, judging by my quick scroll-through, it’s clearly vastly different from the Virginia Flaggers’ blog. Ditto Griffin’s blog.

            I don’t usually get *upset* (i.e., overly emotional) about people who are falsely accused of something — it’s more cognitive than emotional. I know that leftists, who operate basically on feelings, don’t understand the concept of emotion being subordinate to cognition but there it is.

            I’m not obsessed with, and don’t know every detail of, the the Phagan and Till cases, but as far as I know, everyone involved in them is dead, so it’s a bit late to “give a damn” about them. However, I’ve stated publicly that the Till murder was an atrocity. I don’t know whether Frank was falsely accused but even if he was guilty, that doesn’t justify how he was killed. What would you have me do? Fall on my knees and wail like the Gieco Gecko next to his flat tire? I guess so — leftists are more focused on melodrama than gumption; more riveted on show than substance, more attracted to glitter than gold.

            My greater concern is with (1) the feminist war on men that encourages and promotes false accusations and (2) the current epidemic of hookups and consensual sex followed by morning-after regrets that can lead to accusations of rape.

            You say I claim that people cite this kidnapping simply to strike out at the Virginia Flaggers… Actually, I claim that YOU cite it for that reason, although there are others who do so, too.

            “… but some sweet southern boys used Phagan’s murder to revive a terrorist group … and that’s fine by her.” (1) There’s no relation between Lilly’s case and the Knights of Mary Phagan, and (2) referencing my book title in an effort to equate my characters with terrorists so you can claim that I’m fine with terrorism … well, that’s typical Simpson hate expressed for the purpose of damaging my book and its author. (It’s also completely irrelevant to the story — you know, the one you haven’t read but posted a false review about at…) Such integrity! Great example you’re setting there, Professor.

            “The gospel of hatred is preached all the time on her angry, bitter blog.” You couldn’t find hatred to copy/paste from Backsass if your life depended on it.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 7:43 am

            Of course you’re not upset, Chastain. You’re not upset for blog post after blog post after blog post.

            Since everyone who fought in the Civil War is dead, you clearly don’t give a damn about them, either, so your interest in Confederate heritage has nothing to do with those who fought. Thanks for the admission.

            Now keep battling those “anti-racists” just as a child of a whites-only college who embraces racists would. It’s just like your other wars on equality and tolerance … typical for the bigot you are.

            Interesting that while I was talking about Mary Phagan and Lilly Baumann, you talked about Lilly Baumann and the Knights of Mary Phagan. That makes no sense. Hmmm. Maybe you meant the Knights of Mary Phagan and the Virginia Flaggers. As for Emmett Till, nice to see you are now concerned about him. Your previous posts show that wasn’t always the case. Perhaps you discovered that people don’t buy self-published fiction written by bigots.

            Now back to your blog and your circle of jerks, including the one too skeered to post under his own name who claims that blacks, Indians, and Asians are white. How stupid can you all be? Rhetorical question.

          • The Lamp June 7, 2015 / 8:02 am

            So Connie’s only concerns are to condemn rape victims and bump up the misogyny movement?

            Oh, and to make up blogs that don’t exist.

            Heimbach is monitored very closely by not only the anti racists but by the Feds as well, most of us know his every move and what he is doing and no, he doesn’t have a blog of his own.

            Brad’s blog is just a demonstration of his misspent writing skills that he could have put to more productive use if he hadn’t messed up his life by becoming part of this moronic.

            But, at least he is a bit more honest than Connie is about where he stands with his racism.

            He’s a racist, he admits it and there is no hiding behind paragraphs of babbling nonsensical text trying to squirm out of it.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 8:26 am

            Well, as Chastain and company deplore “anti-racists” (people who deplore racism), we know what they like. But she’s aware of the consequences of revealing her ties to racist America (thus her friendship with Michael Hill) while yelping about race elsewhere (Chastain dropped her whining about neighborhood demography after I demonstrated that her home was more white than mine). Note that several of her posters don’t want you to know about their racist past even as they prattle about race … which is why they don’t offer any signs that would identify them. They don’t want to be subjected to the same scrutiny … perhaps because they have something to hide. Perhaps they fear of being subjected to the same treatment Brad is dishing out right now in a case of mistaken identity. I have a feeling that story is ongoing.

          • The Lamp June 7, 2015 / 9:47 am

            Well, I live in a very diverse neighborhood that is in way better shape than Connie’s.

            And no, it is not from government aid either.

            The demographic is made up of African Americans, Hispanics and Asians who are a lot more educated and successful than Connie and many of her silly compatriots.
            They are more successful than Brad too

            I bet she can’t wrap her head around that one…it’s completely out of her narrow scope.

          • Connie Chastain June 7, 2015 / 12:26 pm

            The terms “racist” and “racism,” in common usage, have “definitions” so fluid, so elastic, they can be stretch to cover whatever beliefs or behavior the accuser wishes (thanks to the hypocritical efforts of people like some in this thread). Same thing with “anti-racist.” You can live a lily-white life like Simpson does, and still be considered a champion of anti-racism just by making the right noises…Hypocrisy and double-standard bearing at its finest.

            There are people Simpson (and others) call racists whose observable lives are a lot less racist (i.e., a lot less lily-white) than his….

            “… her college years at a whites-only school …”

            Simpson is a colossal liar.

            Of the 77 students in the graduating class my last year there, 11 were black. Of the 109 students in the freshman class, 21 were black. My roommate on chorus trips was a black girl.

            And, yes, my motive for honoring Confederate soldiers is more a matter of belief and conviction than emotion. I have long since ceased to expect upset, emotion-driven liberals (or even emotion-driven heritage folks) to understand that. Emotions exist for a reason and serve a purpose, but they are too subjective, fleeting and capricious to be relied on for motivation. The anger I frequently feel over Simpson’s lies about and harassment of the VaFlaggers and heritage folks in general (and similar inducements from others) is an energizer, but not a motivator.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 2:51 pm

            I knew that the only way to get Chastain to answer my repeated questions about the racial composition of her college’s student population was to suggest that her reluctance to answer the question was due to something she wanted to hide (she claims she missed it, which usually happens when I ask questions she doesn’t want to answer, given her close reading of the blog). We won’t ask about why the rate of attrition was larger for black than for white students. Now that we know that blacks did attend her school, we have to ask whether non-Christians attended it. The composition of one’s educational institution by race and religion seems to be a big concern for the people who comment on her blog.

            I wonder what her classmates make of her now.

            Of course, Chastain has no idea what kind of life I live or who my friends are (I’ve already noted that my neighborhood is far more diverse than hers, so, by her own definition, she’s admitted she’s an extreme racist). But she has never let her ignorance stand in the way of her stupidity. She excuses racism and bigotry all the time among her own folks, while attacking “anti-racists,” a term she even admits “can be stretch[ed] to cover whatever beliefs or behavior the accuser wishes.” Guess who also attacks anti-racists? Brad Griffin. Of course, some of Brad’s people aren’t happy with his views, either, given that a white supremacist discussion board highlighted the information about Brad given in the third link. And guess who else attacks anti-racists? Matt Heimbach.

            So, as we’ve said, there really isn’t much difference between Chastain, Griffin, and Heimbach. The latter two are simply more candid about what they believe.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 3:11 pm

            Perhaps she wants to discourage people from helping to find Lilly by saying it’s nobody’s business. Not quite obstruction, but not exactly hands-off, either.

            Clearly, if the Virginia Flaggers were cooperating with the investigation, Chastain would rush on here to tell us and to call us all liars. 🙂

          • C. Meyer June 7, 2015 / 3:23 pm

            Right…and with all the claims of changing hearts and minds and all the people they claim to be reaching you would think they would be a vital key in finding Lily.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 3:38 pm

            Well, Chastain’s not the spokesperson for the Virginia Flaggers, so we can safely disregard what she has to say as worthless and uninformed.

          • C. Meyer June 7, 2015 / 5:58 pm

            Can we call her the Webmaster for the flaggers?

            Although you have to give them so credit for being so unorganized…that way no one person can be blamed for their hate.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 6:19 pm

            She’d say no. But she performs the functions of a webmaster. She just doesn’t speak for them (and they are too skeered to speak for themselves).

        • John Foskett June 4, 2015 / 3:14 pm

          And then some people – actually a lot of people – think that the murder of Mary Phagan and the lynching of a man who may well have been innocent of the murder by an ignorant mindless mob were both tragedies. I assume that, like any right-thinking American, you’re in that group, of course…….

    • jclark82 June 5, 2015 / 4:47 am


      I’m of a mind that one can be absolutely revolted by the death of Mary Phagan as well as the “justice” Leo Frank received at the hands of the citizens of the state of Georgia. I know I am.

      Miss Phagan was the victim of a sick, disgusting individual who had no business amongst human beings.

      Leo Frank was a victim of a power structure who wanted to maintain the status quo at all costs and put people who they saw as trying to upset that power “in their place.”

      Both are tragedies and are a disgrace to humanity.

      Jerry Sudduth Jr.

  9. Spelunker June 4, 2015 / 12:23 pm

    Matt Heimbach is back and he’s bashing “Rainbows” in his newest podcast on the Neo-Nazi blog Daily Stormer with LOSer Kentucky State organizer Coleman Lacy:

    and check this out, wherever Heimbach goes, the Neo-Nazis are sure to follow:

    Susan still can’t say a bad word about the Flagger who shall not be mentioned by name… But we won’t forget.

    • The Lamp June 4, 2015 / 12:59 pm

      You know Matty and Brad bash those they call “rainbow” all the time but they all are friends with each other and work with together in real life. I think it’s a way they try to help the heritage folks by putting on an act that they are at odds, but it’s really just an act.

      Heritage folks and nationalist folks are one big dysfunctional family.

      • Brooks D. Simpson June 4, 2015 / 1:22 pm

        As I’ve said before, the racial beliefs of the Virginia Flaggers and their supporters, with a handful of exceptions, are not all that different from these particular critics. You don’t see the Flaggers distancing themselves from either person. They don’t want to lose the support, and they are too skeered to say otherwise.

        • The Lamp June 4, 2015 / 1:29 pm

          I would even go as far as to say it is more than support it is also about consensus. They are all pretty much on the same page they are cut from the same rag …I mean flag 😎

          • Hunter Wallace June 4, 2015 / 6:04 pm

            Some of them are just average Americans who are uneducated while others are miseducated by deceitful books and Facebook pages.

          • The Lamp June 5, 2015 / 11:25 am

            Brad, the whole scene is riddled with ignorance including your big black X crew.

        • Brooks D. Simpson June 5, 2015 / 1:19 pm

          You knew Connie Chastain had to pipe up on this:

          “For those interested in truth, compare Brad Griffin’s blog and Matt Heimbach’s blog to the Virginia Flaggers’ blog and just see how drastically Brooks Simpson lies in his obsessive quest to bring harm to the Virginia Flaggers.”

          First, compare Connie Chastain’s blog to these blogs. Not a lot of difference when it comes to racial attitudes and matters of tolerance.

          Second, Connie claims she’s not a spokesperson for the Virginia Flaggers. So she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about, and we can dismiss her prattle. The point remains: the Virginia Flaggers don’t distance themselves from these folks. We see that here, here, here, and here. Virginia Flagger Tripp Lewis has spoken favorably of Matt Heimbach, and the Flaggers themselves counted Matt among their number. Matt even won an award from the SCV.

          When confronted directly with some of this evidence, Chastain turtled.

          The Virginia Flaggers are too skeered to lose the support of white nationalists and white supremacists, so they remain silent on this issue. Chastain’s whining is easy to dismiss, because, by her own claim, she doesn’t speak for the Flaggers. They are too skeered to speak for themselves. As for Chastain’s own bigotry, that’s been documented here. Recall her own silence when I asked her if the college she attended in Alabama admitted blacks while she was there.

          Chastain finds it difficult to defend herself. The same goes for the Virginia Flaggers.

          • The Lamp June 5, 2015 / 1:55 pm

            Matt Heimbach has a blog? Since when?

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 5, 2015 / 8:42 pm

            Clearly Chastain is an avid reader of such blogs.

          • Hunter Wallace June 6, 2015 / 2:14 pm

            I don’t have any problem with the Virginia Flaggers.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 6, 2015 / 2:36 pm

            And they don’t have any problem with you. Otherwise they might say so. Chastain admits she doesn’t speak for them.

          • The Lamp June 6, 2015 / 4:56 pm

            And no Matt Heimbach doesn’t have a blog, this is all in Connie’s crazy keppy. He does on occasion write for Trad Youth Network’s blog, but Matt Parrott pretty much runs that show not Heimbach.

            Heimbach is not really a blogger, he is paid by Willian Johnson to travel around and galvanize white nationalists of all kinds to help create Johnson’s dream of a white power boy scout club.

      • Hunter Wallace June 4, 2015 / 5:56 pm

        I’ve never had any objection to preserving Southern and Confederate heritage. I have been to heritage related protests in Atlanta, Oxford, Tallahassee and Columbia, SC.

        • The Lamp June 5, 2015 / 12:05 pm

          Brad we know you are all connected and much closer behind the scenes than this front you all are putting on.

          Just admit it, the southern heritage scene and Southern Nationalism = pretty much the same thing and it’s one big mishpachah (yes that is yiddish go look it up!)

          • Hunter Wallace June 6, 2015 / 2:17 pm

            I think there is some overlap.

            I mean … I support Confederate heritage as much as anyone, but that doesn’t mean that I see eye to eye on race and other subjects with Rainbows.

            Don’t you also watch Game of Thrones? We might watch some of the same television shows while having radically different political views.

          • The Lamp June 6, 2015 / 4:40 pm

            Brad, no I don’t watch game of thrones and no, I don’t think you and the “rainbows” have any differences when it comes to race and racial issues.

            I think the only difference is that you’re more honest about your racism and they are playing PR games.

          • Hunter Wallace June 7, 2015 / 8:21 am

            I don’t think so.

            I’ve had too many arguments with these people to believe they are all secret racists. But whatever, you are going to believe what you want to believe.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 8:28 am

            I disagree, Brad. They are simply more subtle … or at least they think they are. Every once in a while a Flagger or Flagger support reveals their own racist. See Jerry Dunford’s blog. Recall what Billy Bearden’s said.

          • The Lamp June 7, 2015 / 9:36 am

            Brad, just because Karen Cooper is propped up in their photo shoots doesn’t mean they aren’t racist.

            Heck, your fellow LOSer group member Shane Long posed in photos with Cooper.

            We can also safely assume that the LOSers and Susan Hathaway have a nice cosy relationship that is probably a lot closer behind the scenes.

            Susan, who has praised the white supremacist “red shirts” in the past and very possibly loves to show her support to them by always donning a red shirt (just speculation but I think might really be on target).

            And then of course you have John Grigsby n VA who is a good pal to the flaggers if not a member himself who is so obnoxiously racist he was kicked out of his local Tea Party and Republican groups.

            And then of course the moron who walked around with the “Confederate Lives Matter” sign during the SCV parade in Lexington this past winter when Denny and a good handful of your other white nationalist LOSer brothers joined right in with no objection from the SCV or the Flaggers. And there were no objections to the racist Free Magnolia rag they were all handing out either.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 10:06 am

            Brad realizes that the Flaggers are often inept and embarrassing, which is why he’d like to maintain a plausible distance from them. Ben Jones of the SCV has the same problem with both the Flaggers and Brad’s people. But the web of associations is rather obvious.

          • The Lamp June 7, 2015 / 11:22 am

            To some extent, I disagree. I think Michael Hill and Brad both are quite fond of Susan. I believe Susan has a lot of common ground with them and they see her as ally in areas that parallels their own issues within the LOS, which very possible includes their views on race.

            Many League players are also friended up with the Flaggers on FB.

            The SCV’s issue with the flaggers doesn’t seem to be the fact that they are questionable on racial issues but that the Flaggers like to co-opt and leach onto their events.

            I am sure the public buffoonery of Trip and others isn’t smiled on by the SCV but it seems to be more of a personal issue with Trip than the fact that he is a Flagger.

            We have always seen the Flaggers as that fluid stepping stone between the SCV and the LOSers.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 11:24 am

            I think they see Chastain’s ranting as a liability because they don’t want to be associated with a fool.

          • The Lamp June 7, 2015 / 11:32 am

            Connie is a babbling fool, and I am sure Brad sees it, although I cannot speak for him.

            But, if he is trying to create a public distance from her, it is because she is like that crazy aunt at a family gathering who everyone rolls their eyes at but has to smile to for family peace.

            Brad doesn’t disagree with her politically, and when it comes to race issues Connie doesn’t disagree with him.

            They are on the same side, they believe in the same things, and the funny part is, in the bizarro world if Brad got all his dreams of secession Connie would then be his problem to deal with.

            Be carful what you wish for, Brad, if your wish comes true you might have bitten off a lot more than you can chew through! 🙂

          • Hunter Wallace June 7, 2015 / 8:25 pm

            I’ve been involved in our scene for almost 15 years now and people who are really what you call “racists” don’t sit around and publish crap about “black Confederates” and “heritage not hate” on Facebook all day.

          • OhioGuy June 7, 2015 / 9:12 pm

            Perhaps, I’m missing something here, but I don’t exactly understand what you are saying. If you support the concept of more than a few hundred black Confederates, you are at the very least trying to cover up for the racism of the Confederacy, and perhaps that of your own ancestors. Warts and all genealogy is not pleasant, but it’s the only intellectually honest approach to take. All of us have things from our genetic past that are painful and that we wish weren’t there, but the best thing to do is to face the music. In this context, the first thing to do is to acknowledge that the CSA was founded on the principle of the superiority of the “white race” over those of African descent and that wittingly or unwittingly the rebel solider, even if he didn’t own slaves, was fighting to preserve a system based on white supremacy. Once you understand that fact and accept it, I find no problem with honoring your Confederate ancestors for their bravery and for doing their duty as they saw it. I’m no expert on the neo-Confederate or Confederate Heritage movements, but it seems clear to me that there is much denial of reality that permeates the public pronouncements of at least some of the leaders of these movements.

            IMHO, these words of U. S. Grant. which were said in the context of Lee’s surrender, ought to guide the honest Confederate Heritage activist: “I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.” In other words, admit your ancestors were wrong and fought for a bad cause but honor their service and their devotion to duty. The Japanese have done that and so have the Germans. And, those wars were within the lifetimes of some of us. I was born during that conflict. And, we have veterans still alive from that war. The Rebellion was a century and half ago. Get over it already! 😉

          • Hunter Wallace June 7, 2015 / 8:37 pm

            I haven’t been on good terms with Connie since we had it out on Facebook over the shacks and hovels of Lowndes County, AL back in 2012. She doesn’t have any ties to the Florida League of the South.

            Connie is just someone who wants to have it both ways. She wants to preserve her Confederate and Southern heritage, but she isn’t willing to fully repudiate the modern values which are eroding it. We don’t suffer from that type of cognitive dissonance.

          • The Lamp June 8, 2015 / 12:03 am

            Brad, Connie is a loon, I doubt there are are many people she hasn’t sparred with including those from her own side.
            Being that she is not in your favor as Susan is, she is still one of your Southern Nationalist comrades, and you are welcome to her and others like her as she sure doesn’t fit in with decent people.

          • BorderRuffian June 8, 2015 / 7:01 am

            “the first thing to do is to acknowledge that the CSA was founded on the principle of the superiority of the “white race” over those of African descent”

            Where is this “founded” at?

            The superiority of the white race was a generally accepted idea across both North and South (see statements by Lincoln and Alex. Stephens for example) but there’s nothing in the US or Confederate Constitution, US Declaration of Independence, etc, that explicitly states racial superiority.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 8, 2015 / 8:21 am

            Not responsive. A cornerstone is a cornerstone. Foundings are not limited to constitutions. Then again, you can’t tell black or brown from white, so we know hour powers of observation are flawed.

            Of course, we wonder what you are hiding, BR. Perhaps your realize you would never survive such scrutiny.

      • Hunter Wallace June 4, 2015 / 5:57 pm

        I’ve never had any objection to preserving Southern and Confederate heritage. I have been to heritage related events in Atlanta, Oxford, Selma, Tallahassee, and Columbia, SC.

  10. OhioGuy June 4, 2015 / 9:42 pm

    On the emergence of the 2nd Era KKK in 1915, I should point out that Woodrow Wilson was an admirer and fellow traveler. A better man in the White House might have attempted to counter this deplorable development rather than cheer it on. If Wilson were alive today he might well want Federal subsidies to support flaggers! 😄

  11. Brooks D. Simpson June 6, 2015 / 10:53 am

    All I know is that Connie Chastain is all about getting upset about people who are falsely accused of something … except when the person is Jewish (Leo Frank) or black (Emmett Till). That these people were then murdered by mobs … well, she’s kinda quiet about that.

    Meanwhile, Lilly Baumann remains missing, and Chastain doesn’t give a damn … and she doesn’t want you to give a damn, either. She claims that people cite this kidnapping simply to strike out at the Virginia Flaggers, but some sweet southern boys used Phagan’s murder to revive a terrorist group … and that’s fine by her.

    The gospel of hatred is preached all the time on her angry, bitter blog.

  12. OhioGuy June 7, 2015 / 9:41 am

    Though I agree with very little that Connie writes, and her understanding of the history of the Late Rebellion is completely off-base, I will have to say that there was a lot of truth in the following observation she made in a response to Jimmy Dick: “My greater concern is with (1) the feminist war on men that encourages and promotes false accusations and (2) the current epidemic of hookups and consensual sex followed by morning-after regrets that can lead to accusations of rape.” As one who lives in a college town, I would have to admit the oft-repeated litany, which goes under the banner of “rape culture,” is intellectually dishonest. You can hardly pick up any edition of a local paper without running into such mind-numbing statements as “women never lie about rape,” and “men shouldn’t be allowed to talk in public forums about rape,”

    • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 10:04 am

      Then Chastain should devote her energies to this issue, because she admits she doesn’t give a damn about dead people. The danger in recent discussions is the discounting of real rape stories and the dismissal of rape victims.

      Chastain claims women change their stories all the time and make false accusations. She should know.

      • Connie Chastain June 7, 2015 / 11:11 am

        So, what should be done? Discussions of false rape accusations should be prohibited? All stories put forth by a “victim” woman should be taken as gospel, even when they contradict each other? Maybe in rape accusation cases, the presumption of innocence should be done away with? Maybe an accusation of rape should be all that’s necessary for a conviction? Maybe the dismissal of charges against the falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players should be revoked and they should all be thrown in prison for 30 years?

        The purpose of the justice system is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Maybe in cases of rape accusations, the justice system should no longer have a role?

        I haven’t seen any men in this comment thread answer my question. Are y’all potential rapists?

        Are YOU a potential rapist, Simpson? Feminist orthodoxy says you are.

        • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 11:26 am

          Thanks for giving us a glimpse into how your sick mind works.

          • Connie Chastain June 7, 2015 / 9:04 pm

            Logical questions, after seeing what you’ve said.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 11:37 pm

            I am sure you believe that. Your obsession with rape and false rape continues. Not that you really care.

        • Jimmy Dick June 7, 2015 / 11:31 am

          Women can be rapists as well. You also do not know feminist orthodoxy, just a bastardized form of it twisted to suit your imagination.

          • Connie Chastain June 8, 2015 / 4:35 am

            Jimmy, I could say the same thing about your bastardized views of the civil war and Confederate heritage, which you’ve twisted to conform to your godforsaken ideology.

          • Jimmy Dick June 8, 2015 / 10:05 am

            Show me some facts or shut your hole. You never have anything to show but your idiotic whining and ranting. The facts speak quite clearly. I can’t help it if you refuse to accept them.

            Put up or shut up.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 8, 2015 / 12:36 pm

            Are you suggesting that by Chastain’s own ranting about feminists, she, too, would be considered a potential rapist?

    • Jimmy Dick June 7, 2015 / 10:58 am

      There is a lot to what is going on regarding sexual assault on campuses. For a very long time school authorities have been ignoring sexual assault for a variety of reasons. That is now changing. What Connie and some others call the feminist war on men is simply a changing of attitudes from predatory male behavior being acceptable to it not being acceptable. Connie hates change of any kind.

      I had to go through the sexual assault training at my school and it was sobering. I have not seen any statistical information or any data regarding these issues at my institution, but I am aware that our school takes it very seriously and that substantiated claims have been made in the past which were followed up on via school and legal authorities.

      I served in the military and we had issues there with the rape culture too. However, we also had actual rape and sexual assaults occurring and we needed to change the attitudes of people. Any time you begin to change things there are always going to be backlash and errors. People did take advantage of this change, but it was short lived.

      The bottom line is rape and sexual assault is not acceptable behavior. No means no. It is not open to discussion by anyone. The people that object to that are the problem.

  13. Connie Chastain June 7, 2015 / 10:34 am

    Simpson: “You’ve met Susan Hathaway. She held poor Lilly in her arms.”

    As I said, I have never met nor talked with a single person involved in that case. Susan was not involved in that case. Do you sincerely believe that having a photo made holding a child means a person is involved in a subsequent kidnapping? Would that be anyone/everyone who held any subsequently kidnapped child for a photo, or does this bizarre reasoning only apply to Flaggers and/or heritage folks?

    YOU don’t see Susan’s interest in the girl’s welfare? So? What is that supposed to prove? There’s a lot you haven’t seen — unless you’re claiming omnsicience?

    I have expressed opinions about the incident based on media reports, and my opinions make more sense (and are a lot less malicious) than the opinions you’ve expressed about it — or about people you believe/hope/wish to be involved in it.

    My claims aren’t bogus. I sincerely believe you wish to drum up hostility for the Virginia Flaggers that brings harm to them.

    I care about Lilly Baumann just as I care about the tens of thousands of other kids (under age 18) who’ve been kidnapped across the country — some the victims of parental kidnapping and some not. (I haven’t noticed you emoting over any of them except Lilly. Does that mean you don’t give a damn about them?) However, I’m more concerned about those kidnapped by people like John Couey, who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford, or Richard Allen Davis, who strangled Polly Klaas, or Alejandro Avila who murdered Samantha Runnion. In other words, I don’t think Lilly’s life is in danger. What YOU mean is that I haven’t got online and pretzeled up in agony over the Lilly incident and I haven’t emoted about it all over the Internet, and I haven’t accused the Virginia Flaggers of involvement in it. THAT is what you mean by not giving a damn.

    I have read nothing that indicates Lilly’s mother intended to victimize her and cause her harm — and harm, injury, destruction, etc., are required in order for somebody to be a victim. On the contrary, from the reports, the mother fled with her daughter out of concern, however midguided, for the little girl’s wellbeing.

    Despite your claim that you are interested in the VaFlaggers because you find them amusing, you have well documented your hatred of them your blog — over 260 posts or comments about them since December 29, 2011. Thus far, to my knowledge, the Virginia Flaggers haven’t become actual victims of harm yet, but it’s not because of your lack of trying.

    • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 11:30 am

      You continue to confuse “amusement with” with “hatred for.” The Flaggers are worth hating. Neither are you. Wanting harm to come to them? How bizarre and stupid. That you believe otherwise tell us more about your obsessions than about what anyone else believes. But it is interesting to see how your warped mind “works,” complete with your victimization syndrome. Get help.

      Susan Hathaway can speak. We know that. She just is too skeered to speak about this.

  14. Connie Chastain June 7, 2015 / 9:14 pm

    Corey, the FBI poster has been up on the agency’s website for a long time. Are you just now finding it?

    Lamprey, so your only concerns are to condemn innocent men and pump up the misandry movement? Oh, and to say that blogs that are mis-identified don’t exist?

    Simpson, exactly how do you imagine I can discourage people from helping to find Lilly? I don’t write malicious blog posts about people who would help; I don’t post their pictures on my blog; I don’t threaten them or call them names. I have called you out for your attacks on the Flaggers over it, but I don’t think your concern for the little girl is genuine. I think for you, she’s just a convenient tool for smearing the Flaggers.

    Saying that *I* had no business INSERTING *myself* into another family’s dispute, (people I don’t know and have never met) — that is, screeching about it on my blog or Facebook — is certainly not the same thing as saying finding Lilly is nobody’s business. An educated man like you sincerely believes that’s the same thing? Really, tell me how you get one from the other.

    It would make as much sense to find a parental abduction in some family I don’t know from Adam’s housecat, and start screeching about it on my blog and on Facebook.
    As I’ve said, know nothing about the case except what I’ve read online. Would you suggest that I (and anyone else who’s read the same thing) call the authorities and tell them what we read online? Ludicrous.

    If it’s none of my business what people may have said to federal investigators (or any other authorities) about it, it’s not your business either. The fact is, you don’t know WHO has talked to them about the case (and who hasn’t) and what they said or didn’t say, so your claims that the VaFlaggers haven’t helped and don’t want to is something you cannot know, and just more evidence of your animus for them.

    Re: questions about my “white-only” school. No, I didn’t know you had asked. You need to get over the idea that just because you’re a habitual liar, everyone is.

    Yes, nonChristians attended the school. I don’t recall any Buddhists or Muslims or Shintos or Bahias … most of the nonChristian kids were just unchurched, and they and their families had no particular religious beliefs; if asked, they might exhibit familiarity with some cultural ideas about Jesus found on TV and in movies, but most were unfamiliar with the New Testament itself. A kid that sat behind me in one class was an atheist.

    Simpson, you have no idea what kind of life I live, or who my friends are — and you don’t know the same things about the Virginia Flaggers. You don’t even know what you find online because you immediately run it through your handy-dandy awfulizer, and what comes out that you “know” — and that you present to your readers — is, basically, abusive fantasy.

    Here’s another example of a classic Simpson lie: “…by her own definition, she’s admitted she’s an extreme racist.” What “own definition” of mine? Where do you imagine I’ve stated this phantom definition? BTW, I don’t believe you know the demographics of my neighborhood.

    My previous posts about Emmett Till? At Backsass? You mean the ones that explain your lies about my comments re: the Till case? You remember, don’t you? My comments about it here at XRoads that you deceptively edited?

    I don’t believe most anti-racists deplore racism; maybe some do, but for others, it’s an act necessary to be accepted in school, in the job market, etc. Others who present themselves as anti-racists do it for money (i.e., the SPLC crowd) or simply because they’re self-appointed thought cops who like to tell other people what to do (i.e., bullies). Then we have those who secretly, shamefully harbor racist thoughts and beliefs (which are reflected in the reality of their lives), and who feel compelled to absolve themselves of it, not by changing, but by pointing and screaming, “Racist!” at others.

    I’m not confusing amusement and hatred. If it was amusement, you wouldn’t have tried to sic the Richmond media on the Flaggers re: the Chester flag. You wouldn’t have lied about them re: everything from “disturbing Confederate graves” to accusing them of putting Kristen Konate’s address on Facebook (she did that herself, as I have proved). There’s more that betrays your malice. Much, much more. Amusement? No. Unless its your own malice and attacks that amuse you.

    • Brooks D. Simpson June 7, 2015 / 11:33 pm

      Yadda, yadda, yadda. I am sure you believe your claptrap.

      As for demography, I did what you have done: demography by zip code. Easy to do, right? Just use your friend Google to find out that information. You missed that. You miss a lot. But you do it yourself, so you are discrediting your own methodology. How Chastain of you.

        • Brooks D. Simpson June 8, 2015 / 8:22 am

          Yadda yadda yadda. You’re just an angry woman, and it’s fun to see you deny it … even your blog heading says you’re “mad as heck.” Many people agree that you’re mad … one way or another … or both.

        • Brooks D. Simpson June 8, 2015 / 10:29 pm

          It is when it’s your nine-digit zip code. You’ve done exactly the same thing with Tim Wise.

          It is hard to figure out whether you are a greater fool or liar. As folks who know me well can attest, I don’t suffer fools gladly. Once in a while, however, one amuses me.

          But, since you think I hate you, you won’t mind if I tell you that it’s time for you to return to your land of misfit boys and tell them that you’ve struck another blow for truth, heritage style.

    • C. Meyer June 8, 2015 / 1:44 pm

      No Connie, I have known about the FBI page from the beginning and this isn’t just some family dispute…How many family disputes that you know of include the FBI? The FBI involved because a child has been kidnapped..and the kidnapper is associated with the Virginia Flaggers.

      • Connie Chastain June 8, 2015 / 6:48 pm

        She was associated with her family. She was associated with people where she worked. She was associated with who knows how many people, but you focus solely on the VaFlaggers. We know why , don’t we?

        It appears her ex-boyfriend was jealous of her boyfriend, and because the boyfriend was associated with the Flaggers, the ex-boyfriend dragged them into it, and since you have pre-existing animosity for the flaggers, you’re eating it up. The FBI is involved because the mother fled with her daughter AFTER, or as a result of, the custody dispute.

        • Brooks D. Simpson June 8, 2015 / 10:36 pm

          You seem to know a lot about what you claim you know nothing about. That just might suggest that you know even more than you are willing to admit. Let’s just leave it at that. We know that if the Flaggers were cooperating with the FBI and doing all they could to help find Lilly Baumann, you would be telling us that.

          One of the reasons I let your comments through is because you have a wonderful propensity to shoot yourself in the foot … sometimes repeatedly. Oops, you did it again.

        • Goad Gatsby June 9, 2015 / 12:03 pm

          This is not a case of ex-boyfriend verse boyfriend. The sister and mother of the suspect have been very vocal about their opposition to Virginia Flaggers. It is disgusting that you have to make up stories.

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 9, 2015 / 12:32 pm

            Chastain can’t make up her mind whether she knows or doesn’t know about the case beyond media reports. This tells you that she’s lying about her sources being limited to the media. Wonder what her sources might be?

  15. OhioGuy June 8, 2015 / 10:09 am

    Hunter, In trying to compare statements by Lincoln on race issues with those of Stephens you are barking up the wrong tree. In Stephens famous cornerstone speech he said: “The prevailing ideas entertained by . . . most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were: that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. . . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it — when the ‘storm came and the wind blew, it fell.’ Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”

    Now find anything roughly analogous to this coming from the mouth or pen of Abraham Lincoln. You can’t. He did say some things questioning whether blacks were the complete equal of whites socially. These questions disappeared once he issued the EP and saw the bravery with which black troops fought. He even once said that Union would not have been saved without them. He also said some things that in his strict constructionist view of the Constitution he felt bound to say as president about the rights of the slave states and of slaver owners. It wasn’t until he was convinced that his position as commander-in-chief in wartime gave him extraordinary powers did he feel free to violate his reading of the slavery provisions of the Constitution and let his own personal views be his moral guidepost. And, please don’t quote for me the Greeley letter unless you quote the last line, which makes my point about the distinction Lincoln makes between his legal and personal views perfectly clear: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”

  16. taxsanity June 9, 2015 / 5:44 am

    If you want to play word games, play with all the words.

    Lincoln was kicking slavery in the ass by his actions, as far as politically possible, from 1846 on. His stand against Polk — he spoke openly about Mexican war being about expansion of slavery — and everyone knew it was.

    Lincoln tried to get Wilmont Proviso passed, 40 times, according to his letter to Speed.

    He tried to get slavery outlawed in DC in his term as Congressman.

    Lincoln got back into politics because of David Rice Atchison loud, proud killing sprees in Kansas, after he got Kansas Act passed (Yes, Atchison got Kansas Act passed, and boasted of it, at the time).

    Lincoln knew — why doesn’t everyone — about Charles Sumner two day speech, wherein he named Atchison as the guy who pushed Kansas Act through, then went to Kansas and started killing and terrorizing to stop folks from even speaking against slavery.

    Lincoln’s FULL speeches are stunning — yes, he had to parse words, he was, after all, trying to get votes and support from a public that included people who would not walk across the street to spit on a black person if they were on fire. Lincoln also LOST that 58 election because Douglas painted him — go read the non-cleaned up LD debates — as “obsessed with equality for the *igger” Lincoln wants your daughters to sleep with and marry with *iggers”

    Lincoln then had to get up and explain himself — did he want white women to marry *iggers”?

    Try to grasp that. Lincoln kicked ass in his answer — read the full answer, not one part of it. Show me anyone who went where LIncoln did, trying to get elected, then and in that part of IL, who brought down the thunder about how ANY slave woman, was the equal of ANY whte man. Why is that quote not the go-to quote?

    There is a video clip — yeah, I know it’s not real LIncoln — that is the best reveal of Lincolnls way way of handling this. Not only the accusation that Lincoln wants your daughters to sleep with and marry with *iggers” but the Dred Scott erection Stephen Douglas got every time he turned around.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s