On Thursday, March 9, a Stafford County jury recommended that Confederate heritage advocate Jason Sulser spend the next 127 years in jail for charges connected with the possession of child pornography.
Stafford County, just north of Fredericksburg, hosts one of the Virginia Flaggers’ prime achievements: a large Confederate flag flies along I-95 above land rented from just the sort of person who supports the Virginia Flaggers.
Confederate heritage supporters, especially the Virginia Flaggers and people who sometimes pretend to speak for them, have been very quiet about Mr. Sulser, in marked contrast to their outbursts in other matters. However, one can recall when Susan Hathaway welcomed Mr. Sulser’s support.
Let the usual distancing and obfuscation commence. It is interesting, however, to observe the types of people with whom Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers do business. Think Susan will visit Jason in his cell?
After all, he’s a sweet Southern boy.
Are you publishing this article because he is a Confederate advocate? Is it at all possible that Civil War historians that support the Union side of the war and fly the American flag in their front yard could possess or be involved with child pornography?
I fly an American flag in my front yard and have for 23 years.I am President of a Civil War Round table in Scottsdale Arizona that has 403 members. We present both sides of the conflict at our meetings and do not take sides because we consider this history, And I personally think it is wrong to try and rewrite history and take sides.
I’m noting this event because of the close association between this person and a Confederate heritage group. This person has also harassed a federal employee at the NPS–a person you hosted at your roundtable. Do you find that harassment acceptable?
You might want to do a little research before you offer your opinion.
Pray tell me about “both sides” and about “rewriting” history. What happens when the history in question is found to be wrong? Are you still against “rewriting”? Is revising our understanding of the past taking sides (but the original writing was not)?
Case in point: Birth of a Nation was a version of history that celebrated white supremacist terrorist activity. Was that not taking sides? Is revising our understanding of the KKK a “rewriting” that you deplore, or that constitutes “taking sides”?
Are you calling Mr. Sulser a historian? I don’t think that’s what authorities found on his computer.
Finally, you say you fly an American flag. Is it a United States flag? I ask because Confederate history advocates tell me that the Confederate flag is an American flag.
Rewriting history based on the actual facts is what historians do. It is what they are supposed to do. If you want your history based on lies, then you have no need for historians.
The Civil War was started by the people who chose to secede over slavery. The facts are very clear on this. There is only one side and that is the correct one based upon facts.
Who are “Civil War historians that support the Union side of the war”? Are they historians who, based on overwhelming and undisputed facts, have concluded that the slavery question drove secession, for example? If a historian, after doing thorough research, comes up with a fact-based conclusion, that isn’t “taking sides” simply because somebody whose great granddaddy took up arms for the CSA is personally offended.
Clearly the good doctor sees historians as cheerleaders in a contest between two sides. He suspects some of them of trafficking in child pornography, apparently.
Well, we do apparently live in an era in which “alternative facts” are acceptable.
Remember the old canard “you are who you surround yourself with”? The POS in the article above is pervert and a bully. He is just one of several “colorful” characters who populate or affiliated with the flaggers. One such recent graduate Matthew Heimbach has his own legal issues to sort out, but mostly he’s known for organizing and participating in White Supremacists rallies. Let’s not forget the other fellow who called for the gang rape of a female official. The list goes on. Why publish this article? Because the next time you see Susan’s smiling face flapping her jaws about “heritage”, think good and hard about what sort of “heritage” they are celebrating, if this is the standards by which they measure character — not to mention the lack of basic decency.
It’s always interesting to see Chastain act as the shrill mouthpiece for Hathaway, who’s simply too damned skeered to stand up for decency. I wonder why that is.
Should we follow Chastain’s lead and ask why such people adore her? After all, Chastain thinks that’s a proper question to ask.
Oh, those sweet Southern boys. Just ask Sulser and Chastain.
Ms. Chastain showed up to spout her drivel at the Southern Poverty Law Center website, which was the least likely place for her to win adherents. I guess she likened doing so to Lee’s men holding the trenches at Petersburg. She obviously forgot that Lee was defeated at Petersburg, and waging internet flame wars are not exactly feats of heroism…
Nor is her lying that she sent her comment to me. But she’s made that false claim before.
Wonder what else she lies about.
The only difference between Chastain and Kellyanne Conway is that Conway has had some success.
Jason seemed to really enjoy Susan’s stirring rendition of ‘Dixie’ at the Flaggers rally…
The man in the sleeveless t-shirt really nails it, don’t you think?
Are all Flagger events that boring? People just standing around looking at each other in various degrees of “Confederate” fashion. I noticed that nobody was reading the historical marker in the park.
Well, it’s heritage, not history.
The least they could do is eat Confederate food, and dance Confederate dances, and play Confederate instruments, and make Confederate crafts as is done at other heritage festivals.
But I’ve never been to a Scottish Highland festival where the participants merely walked in circles with Scottish flags.
Isn’t Confederate food crow?
Wins the thread.
Small tweak – ersatz crow.
Wow…a Confederate flag activist who has child pornography on his computer. I guess he’s carrying on another tradition of the old South — white planter lust for black girls on slave row, and many of those poor women who got repeatedly knocked up by their owners and their families and guests had to be less than 18 years old…
Of course, I’ll be that if this guy heard that some black man wanted to date his daughter, or had naughty pictures of his daughter on his computer, he’d be screeching in rage about the situation…
Just another sweet Southern boy.
These are the same people who named a school after Hammond, of course.
Yep; in South Carolina, naturally.
One wonders how they make such choices in South Carolina, but then the “too small for a republic, to large for an insane asylum” comment comes to mind and one no longer has to wonder.
Chastain continues to forget that I barred one of those people and that she befriended the other (and had a friend who was aware of the individual’s activity but concealed it for personal advantage). But she’s always had a fondness for falsehood and distraction.
I understand that Chastain and her ilk don’t want us to pay attention the the Virginia Flaggers and their dubious associations with bigots, racists, kiddie porn fans, and so on. The problem is that these people keep on popping up around them, and the Flaggers seem to welcome their company. Someone down in Pensacola seems to be befuddled by that (but then we’ve documented her bigotry as well).
We can well ask of her what she asks of others: “What is there about you that attracted these followers? And how many other of your followers are the same, but they just haven’t been outed yet?”
Perhaps kiddie porn folks like someone who yells about false rape accusations, for example. I wonder why. After all, she had no problems with the kidnapping of a minor.
Sweet southern boys, indeed.
Defenders of Confederate heritage would do well to distance themselves from such people. As for those folks who criticize efforts to highlight such associations, I wonder what really concerns them, because they don’t seem too disturbed by the actual associations.
I notice that Connie is playing the victim again, accusing you of censorship. She has the victim gig down to an art form much like the person she supported in the last election.
She’s charming when she lies.
About as charming as a dock strike.
Not sure who is more of a sucker: I could not resist; I followed the link 🙂
If Connie is trying to make the case that the flaggers have no choice who “attends” their rallies, ie, it does not represent an “association”, than how does she explain that oh-so-cozy picture of Heimbach and Hathaway marching shoulder to shoulder in that now infamous picture? Heimbach had already established his racial views by then, so no excuse of ignorance permitted. It leaves me wondering: are the Flaggers so desperate for numbers, that they will overlook anything? Since they have claim of 40,000 members, thus the luxury of refusing who they wish, it does suggest that perhaps there is a tacit acceptance of the nafarious doings of their participants.
Their claims of membership are based upon Facebook “Likes.”