The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False

The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!

Sherrod Story False

By Jeffrey Lord on 7.26.10 @ 6:09AM

(Page 2 of 5)

In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the basic facts of the case agreed to by all nine Justices in Screws vs. the U.S. Government, says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched. Why? Because it never happened.

So why in the world would Ms. Sherrod say something like this?

No idea. It's possible that Ms. Sherrod simply doesn't know the truth. As with any family, stories from generations past can get handed down and over time the truth gets rubbed away and fantasy or fiction replaces it, younger generations none the wiser. This event took place before Ms. Sherrod was born, so that is certainly possible.

It's also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching. Anyone who has lived in the American South (as my family once did) and is familiar with American history knows well the dread behind stories of lynch mobs and the Klan. What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack -- and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday -- a very long time -- of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal "anti-black jack" or "anti-fisticuffs" laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling. Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add "glamour" to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?

Again, I have no idea.

There is also a third possibility for what appears to be a straight-out fabrication. Having watched Ms. Sherrod's speech and read the transcript, I think it's abundantly clear that she is a liberal or progressive political activist.

She is clearly enamored of President Obama and the progressive ideas that once fueled the New Deal and is the rock upon which progressives would build their Utopia. Her fierce devotion to the idea that government programs are the source of all good is not to be missed, whether she is championing the idea of working in the federal government or the idea that a particular program where she doles out millions is a source of agricultural nirvana. Here's how you get an "automatic job" in the Agriculture Department she enthuses. Come to the Farm Service Agency. Or the Rural Development Agency. How about the Natural Resource and Conservation Agency. This line of thinking about government in general, here seen with a focus on agriculture, is the age-old progressive liberal view in giddy excitement mode.

She is far and away not the first to speak this way -- and we will come back to two notables in this area shortly.

God bless America for her use of her freedom. Elections have consequences, and her side won. She had a right to hold the job. As she accurately says at one point, this kind of activism once upon a time in the not far-distance past would simply not have been possible. She herself would surely have been under threat of death for daring to speak at all about anything.

But much has been made of Andrew Breitbart's selectively edited tape -- with all manner of people using this as an opportunity to question his credibility. There is no proof -- none -- that Breitbart deliberately edited this tape to fashion the image of Ms. Sherrod as a government racist. Say again, not a shred of evidence. Whatever else, Mr. Breitbart is no fool. To know that chances were high an unedited version of this tape existed is what he is in the business of knowing. To think he would willfully put out a selectively edited tape -- knowing full well someone somewhere would surely appear to make him look like a lying idiot -- is idiocy on its face.

Be that as it may, that's the charge. And as the saying goes, if one lives by the sword, one can die by the sword. Having now insisted that the slightest deviation from the truth can only be deliberate falsehood that ruins credibility rather than a mistake, Sherrod's defenders are staring at the cold, hard text of a 65-year old Supreme Court case in which nine Supreme Court Justices, eight of them FDR appointees, have unanimously agreed to the facts in the Bobby Hall murder. Facts that make Sherrod appear, to put it mildly, prone to exaggeration if not worse.

Will Anderson Cooper of CNN, who angrily snapped of Breitbart that "we think the truth matters," be investigating this untruth of Sherrod's? Rick Sanchez of CNN asked of Ann Coulter: "Doesn't Breitbart deserve to lose his credibility for this? …What matters is he published this stuff. Something that turned out to be wrong." Ms. Sherrod stood up in front of the NAACP and said "something that turned out to be wrong." Will Sanchez ponder this if Sherrod gets her job back in the Obama Administration? Frank Rich at the New York Times, who blasted Fox News on Sunday for allowing Breitbart to be "hustling skewed partisan videos" (as opposed, I guess, to hustling skewed partisan newspapers), never even mentioned a word of Sherrod's considerable untruth. Not a word. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, according to his Media Matters friends, barked that "I think [Breitbart] has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time." By the O'Donnell standards apparently Ms. Sherrod must now sit down and shut up. And speaking of Media Matters, Eric Hananoki chimed in that "The way to avoid another ACORN or Sherrod debacle is simple: Don't trust Andrew Breitbart." To which, of course, the obvious question is whether Media Matters or any of the rest of the media will and should ever again trust Shirley Sherrod after the debacle of her lynching untruth.

Again, I have no idea what Sherrod's motivation in saying something so factually untrue could be. Is she simply ignorant of the facts? A serial exaggerator who got caught? A political activist hard at work spinning for credibility? No idea. I simply know she said something --indeed made a big deal of it -- that is factually, provably untrue.

And her new liberal media buddies, predictably, are unwilling to call her on it.

There's more.

Page: < 12 3 4 > Last ›

Letter to the Editor

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Comments

Ret. Marine| 7.26.10 @ 6:30AM

Liberalism is a mental disorder. Seems Shirley is on top of her game, the blame game that is.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:29AM

Beaten to death-- worse than if Hall had been lynched.
But here is where I take issue, with a comment from this weekend by RacerJim:

"Blacks should be careful how they pay whites back -- lest whites take back the freedom they gave them."

So this is to say whites giveth, and whites taketh away?

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:40AM

The attitude expressed in the articles concerning blacks doesn't make sense, and the comments make even less: first, by violently reacting to the Civil Rights Act, Southerners radicalized blacks... or at least it was one reason many blacks admired the Panthers (the old Panthers). But most of many here appear to be saying it is a one way street, "we can do whatever we want, but blacks can't; we can mess with them if we have a mind to, but they can't mess with us. They can't compete, but we can."

Bob K| 7.26.10 @ 11:52AM

You have it exactly backwards!

Prometheus| 7.26.10 @ 2:51PM

No, actually Alan does have it right. Slavery was not instituted by blacks, it was instituted by whites; Jim Crow was not instituted by blacks, it was instituted by whites; The KKK is not a black organization it was (and in some places still is) a white organization. The majority of blacks want to be left alone and to allowed to live a free and equal citizens of the US, but we get progressive and neo-con instigators agitating blacks to anger. Some blacks are radicalized and want to "mess with" (as Alan put it) whites, but it definitely appears to be "one way". Blacks are just supposed to forget as if nothing really happened (or happens), but any opinionated or disagreeable black needs to be shut down. Anything can be done and said to/about blacks and it's ok, but anything said about whites is treated like a national security breach, at least that's how the NeoCons treat it. The one thing about Ms. Sherrod's speech that should get us all thinking is the fact the true problem with the US is rich vs poor. We have elite Republicans (white and black) and elite Democrats (white and black) crushing the rest of us (white and black). If we deal with that, it will go a long way in helping to bridge the racial divide.

amny| 7.26.10 @ 6:39PM

What will go a long way to bridge the racial divide is for people to stand up to injustices,dispute false claims,refute wrong accusations and do so WITH A BLIND FOLD ON.This will never happens as long as there are those are making millions of dollars by fanning the fire with blatantly false accusations of racism and misrepresentations of facts.And those who inflame will continue to do so because it's how they make their money.The fact that you practicaly justified the behavior of those 'disagreeable blacks' just proves you are part of the problem.DENOUNCE RACISM IN ALL FORMS..not just what pleases you!

Hmmm....| 7.26.10 @ 8:58PM

So amny, does this mean you're denouncing the blatant racism and disregard for fact or logic in the article above? For some reason, your post doesn't make that clear.

Or are you one of those people who see it as racism when black folks are so uppity as to join the civil rights movement, or to call an extrajudicial killing of a family member a lynching?

Your post is so full of weasel words it's hard to tell.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 9:23PM

yea......right on! one could never imagine balack on black violence!

Hmmmm...| 7.26.10 @ 9:34PM

Hi, carnot.

I invite you to look up the phrase "non sequitur"

kate| 7.26.10 @ 9:47PM

Amen Brother!

Fox News and articles like the above have begun to bring out the racism that has steeped silently in this country while many progressives tromped around in the 70's, 80's and 90's with the illusion that the Civil Rights Act and 60's activism had solved everything.

It did not, it just buried it where it slowly seeped back to the surface, as it always does, to be used as a tool to calm civil unrest due to the grotesquely rising economic inequalities in this country.

Racism divided this country and kept the bondsman in bondage and the white man as the "tool" of the wealthy plantation owner who ruled and exploited both by dividing them with hatred and jealousy.

What has changed? Not a lot as events in the last year have demonstrated.

kate| 7.26.10 @ 9:48PM

I meant "amen" to Prometheus's statement.

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 2:07PM

Perhaps you can explain this away too...

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=30346

Cat got your tongue?

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:07PM

A conservative blog .. how special, wonder which side they're on? Want to read some Huffingtonpost in response?

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 5:35PM

After decades of difficulty making up my mind on political issues I've found it is best to err on the side of justice. After thinking about the Civil War for years, realized that it was time to make a decision: in favor of the Union's position. The South wanting to gain the lands west of the Mississippi as its satellite territories; and most of all, the Fugitive Slave laws attempting to force Union states to return slaves to slavemasters in the South-- where was the justice in that?
It is making a choice in erring on one side, even if one side is no better ethically than the other. Northern wage slavery was bad, but the Dred Scott decision was what pushes it IMO to the side of the Union. Then, as has been pointed out many times, there was Jim Crow, redlining in housing, KKK intimidation, lynchings; and so forth.
And today in matters of black vs. white, it appears blacks are more sinned against than sinning... if Latinos in LA dominate blacks then how are blacks a threat? if Latinos outnumber blacks today then how will blacks be a threat to whites?
I remember the '60s well, it was white rage that instigated the extremism of Reverend Wright, the original Black Panthers, and the other hotheaded radicals.
So the South unknowingly brought about the opposite to what it had intended.

Nicole| 7.26.10 @ 9:07PM

"the Fugitive Slave laws attempting to force Union states to return slaves to slavemasters in the South-- where was the justice in that?"

And the real irony is that the Southern states, the supposed defenders of "states' rights", were the ones who pushed to force non-slave states to treat human beings as properties, even as it violated their own laws and constitutions. And of course, the Confederate constitution expressly forbid any state to outlaw slavery.

So the pretense that the South fought the Civil was as a fight for the rights of states against creeping federalism is nothing but a huge, whopping lie. It was about slavery first and foremost, and any pretense to the contrary is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 9:35PM

"It was about slavery first and foremost, and any pretense to the contrary is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization."

Yes, and beyond that the South wanted not merely to defend slavery in the South, but also to push Southern influence and power into the vast Western territories, which was too ambitious for their own good-- fortunately the South overreached itself.

Pubrik Skool| 7.26.10 @ 9:44PM

And that's what they taught me in pubric skrewl, so I'm sticking to it!

Actually moron the Fugitive Slave Act was Federal Law, which some northern states were ignoring based on--wait for it--the fact the it was unconstitutional and therefore null and void. In other words, STATES RIGHTS! Wow what a concept! Only thing Southern States could do about it was b*tch to the Fed Govt.

But yeah, unfair tariffs forcing the Southern States to pay disproportionally to the Fed Govt had NOTHING to do with the WBTS. It was ALL slavery.

One thing I always ask "conservatives" but NEVER get an answer to is this: If it is accepted conservative doctrine that the public schools educate our children poorly, and particularly with respect to History education, why is it that you believe everything they teach about the "Civil" War and Reconstruction? Are you telling me that they get everything wrong EXCEPT the period from 1860 - 1880?????

We never make it to this follow up but here goes: If then the LEFT WING KOOK LIBERAL public schools get the History of the CW correct from teaching out of their LEFT WING KOOK LIBERAL textbooks, what does that tell you about the war? What does the fact that the kook libtards top three presidents are FDR, TR, and Abe the Tyrant?

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:51PM

"But yeah, unfair tariffs forcing the Southern States to pay disproportionally to the Fed Govt had NOTHING to do with the WBTS. It was ALL slavery."

Economically, you are correct; yet please answer this: how was it in any way ethical or Christian for the South to want slaves in the North returned to the South? That is the main question, not the rationalizations you present.
After the Dred Scott decision, why were the undecideds obliged to support the Southern position? you cannot answer that-- because there is no answer to it.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:06PM

People don't usually sit on the fence forever, when something happens to crystalize their positions they concentrate their minds.
The Fugitive Slave statutes and the Dred Scott decision were catalysts. Decisions had to made; they were. The North couldn't serve two masters, could it? it couldn't serve the Northern wage slavemaster, and also the Southern agricultural slavemaster. My judgment call is: the North was correct politically. You don't change YOUR positions every day merely because someone is contrary, do you? you are not political whores; you are not weathervanes blowing in different directions to please the winds of change-- you seek some continuity.
You don't want to be all things to all people.
And you grant that prerogative to others, without writing "moron, libtard, kill kill kill..."

If you're looking for a replay| 7.26.10 @ 11:58PM

Go to bed and get up happy. You do not want to reargue this, you will lose. Just ascribe it a period of time and let's not defend slavery today, k?

Gerard| 7.27.10 @ 1:01AM

"Actually moron" ... He's got no chops. Insults are for people without ammo.

Hmmmm...| 7.26.10 @ 9:37PM

Oh I get it, rainmaker: when in doubt, change the subject. The more irrelevant the better.

Yeah. That's the ticket.

kendahke| 7.26.10 @ 10:42AM

whites cannot take anything from anyone. Anyone who believes they can are delusional. And unfortunately for the delusional, when their delusions are ripped out from under them, they go cling to their bibles and guns and commit mass murder in a tantrum fit of not being able to remain in denial.
The train is moving forward, not backwards. Get on, sit down and get your tickets out or get off and get left behind in irrelevancy.

NavyBrat| 7.26.10 @ 11:08AM

"...and commit mass murder in a tantrum fit of not being able to remain in denial."

Really? Because so many CONSERVATIVES are beating up a woman & her boyfriend on a New Orleans street, just cause they were coming from a Republican dinner @ Brennan's? Because so many CONSERVATIVES are going to the homes of executives & terrorizing their families? Beacuse it was CONSERVATIVES that beat up a black guy handing out conservative literature at a town hall? Beacuse it was CONSERVATIVES who bit off the finger of an elderly man in California during the health care debate?

Oh, wait, that wasn't conservatives, was it? Mass murder? Close the abortion factories you cling to, Mr. Eugenecist, then come talk to me about mass murder, hypocrite. Your self righteous indignation is laughable.

timb| 7.26.10 @ 11:14AM

Hell, Navybrat, it's a conspiracy. Libs all over the country gather together and decide which conservative to assault next. They get volunteers and then go to work....

like that liberal who killed that abortion doctor. or that liberal who libeled Shirley Sherrod. I could go on, but they'd find us next and try to treat us like Poor Kenny Gladney. lord knows, I don't want a scratch on my arm!

LiveFreeOrDie| 7.26.10 @ 11:27AM

"I could go on, but..."

But you're out of material aren't you? All those examples above and you come back with the Tiller murder and a libel accusation? That's it? That's all you got?

Jen| 7.26.10 @ 12:04PM

Lessee here...

Right wing nut job blows up Murrah building
Right wing nutjob ambushes police in PA
Right wing nutjob shoots a security guard at the Holocaust Museaum
Right wing nutjob gets in a shootout with CHP outside of Oakland

Shall I go on?

Also, note to the author. The fact that Hall was beaten to death while handcuffed means he was lynched. Killed for being a black man. There is no exclusivity of method i.e. hanging for a lynching.

NavyBrat| 7.26.10 @ 12:25PM

"Right wing nutjob shoots a security guard at the Holocaust Museaum"

Try again, Junior. That asshat was a registered DEMOCRAT in the state of MD. He also had the headquarters of "The Weekly Standard" & hated Bill O'Reilly.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....arget.html

http://www.americanthinker.com.....o_rig.html

Next lie to debunk?

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 12:36PM

This just prooves that you can be a democrat AND a crazy conservative.

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 12:36PM

This just prooves that you can be a democrat AND a crazy conservative.

brick| 7.26.10 @ 4:00PM

Eat a dick you Navy Faggot

sleeper| 7.26.10 @ 4:32PM

Such a high standard of political discourse should be aspired to by all.

sleeper| 7.26.10 @ 4:33PM

Such a high standard of political discourse should be aspired to by all. I salute you, sir. Eat a dick, everyone. I yield the floor.

amny| 7.26.10 @ 6:43PM

LMAO..IN NY

sara| 7.26.10 @ 4:05PM

Um, there are plenty of racist, conservative Democrats, particularly in the South which had been strongly Democratic until only the last few decades. They're often referred to as Dixiecrats, and plenty of them hate Jews and Black people, and gays, and Latino's, etc, etc.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 5:19PM

Well, most Dixiecrats either changed their views (Byrd) or kept their views became Republicans (Thurmond). Google "Southern Strategy" sometime and see where the racist Democrats went and were warmly greeted. But if there are really any left, then I think that most mainstream Democrats would glad go on record condemning their racism. I certainly would. I condemn the racism of every remaining Dixiecrat.

Care to reciprocate?

sara| 7.26.10 @ 10:43PM

Oh, Rob, we're on the same team. I was addressing the dude who said that the Holocaust Museum shooter must have been a liberal because he was a registered Dem. And I was simply pointing out not all Democrats are liberals. I agree with everything you said, although I definitely think you can still find some hugely socially conservative Democrats in some districts, like where I used to live in NC, that are still Democratic strongholds, but where you'll never see a candidate speaking out in favor of gay rights, or immigrant rights, etc.

Nicole| 7.26.10 @ 9:13PM

Yes, the south used to have a lot of racist Democrats. That is, until the national party pushed for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. Then, Nixon saw an opening for a Southern Strategy - which, to make a long story short, is how the party of Lincoln became the party of David Duke.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 9:29PM

cmon now...Liberals are the ultimate rascists. they treat Blacks like so much poltical chattel...

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:12PM

Seems you missed a few in his argument - why didn't you debunk them? Did you want to debunk the Tiller murder?

BJ Tabor| 7.26.10 @ 1:06PM

What do you expect to happen Jen after what Jimmy Carter did to America when he was President? It shows the maturity of us conservatives that there aren't more exercises of Second Amendment RIGHTS from concerned REAL Americans.

Prometheus| 7.26.10 @ 3:02PM

BJ Tabor wrote: >>It shows the maturity of us conservatives that there aren't more exercises of Second Amendment RIGHTS from concerned REAL Americans.

Prometheus| 7.26.10 @ 3:08PM

Sorry BJ Tabor, I had a comment to go with the rest of the above post, but I guess it lost in digital translation...lol

Marg| 7.26.10 @ 5:58PM

How do you know a real American from the fake
Americans??

Blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 7:33PM

I usually start with a certified copy of a long form birth certificate--not some cheesy website printout.

democrats take anything that their party bosses shove up their asshats.

Albert| 7.26.10 @ 1:36PM

LEFT WING nut job (Mao Zedong) murders 50 million of his own people, through the power of Government. LEFT WING nut job (Josef Stalin) murders tens of millions of Ukrainians and Russians through famines created by Socialized Farming ("Obama-Grow?"). Not much comparison to "right wing nut jobs."

Jelperman| 7.26.10 @ 2:03PM

Mao and Stalin didn't kill anyone in this country -you know, the subject under discussion.

msgal| 7.26.10 @ 3:57PM

you mean like hitler?

sara| 7.26.10 @ 4:07PM

yeah, those were totalitarian dictators, not social liberals, but nice try

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 9:31PM

errr...what's the difference?

sara| 7.26.10 @ 10:45PM

If it has to be explained to you how Stalin wasn't socially liberal, then there is no hope for you.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:14PM

Stay on point .. we're discussing America, not the rest of the world. I know it's hard 'cause you have to reach hard to find bad Left wing people in this country. But try and stay on point.

JimE| 7.26.10 @ 6:04PM

Buffoon.

kmichaels| 7.26.10 @ 2:00PM

Lynching is with a rope, hanging. You are delusional if you figure every death is a lynching. Or do you call it when blacks kill blacks a lynching? And the holocaust museum thing was done by an anti-semite. And most anti-semites are LIBERALS.

Jelperman| 7.26.10 @ 2:08PM

You are a liar:

http://legal-dictionary.thefre.....m/Lynching

Violent punishment or execution, without due process, for real or alleged crimes.

The first politician to take a visible stand against lynching was President Harry S. Truman, in 1946. Shocked by a lynching in Monroe, Georgia, in which four people—one a World War II veteran—were pulled off of a bus and shot dozens of times by a mob, Truman launched a campaign to guarantee Civil Rights for blacks, including a push for federal anti-lynching laws.

The inherent racism of the Right (as shown by this column) is like Dr. Strangelove's right arm: the more you bigoted morons try to suppress it, the more forcefully it pops back up.

sasob| 7.26.10 @ 2:23PM

Lynching doesn't mean hanging? Hm. Wonder why it used to be called a necktie party?

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 2:41PM

Sasob,

"Necktie party" was a nickname because hanging was a common practice. However, that doesn't mean -- and it really doesn't -- that lynchings required hangings in order to be lynchings.

That kind of phony, cynical definition parsing is the basis of Lord's interpretation of the events, actually (and by the way, of course the witnesses "claim" he was going for a gun. They lynched him).

It is discouraging, sasob, that you and Lord think a vulgar nickname, as well as the resulting incorrect understanding of what lynch-law was, somehow vindicates Brietbart's release of the video tape or the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod.

Very discouraging.

sasob| 7.26.10 @ 8:51PM

Yes, you bet "hanging was a common practice." It was so common and so associated with lynch law that even today the mere display of a hangman's noose near an african-american is considered an act of provocation and intimidation, if not an actual act of violence. In the public mind the terms hanging, "necktie party" and lynching are for practical purposes synonymous with each other - dictionaries nothwithstanding. Legal definitions are an entirely different matter, of course.

You needn't be discouraged, Tom, by any supposed misunderstanding on my part of what lynch-law was or is - I assure you, I have none. Though I cannot speak for Lord, I must urge you to take heart in the fact that I, too, do not think a bit of slang or misconception of legal niceties vindicates Brietbart's release of the video tape. On the contrary, I do not think the release requires any vindication.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:15PM

why do you think, Bubbles?

Michael Dodson| 7.26.10 @ 3:33PM

If the details of Bobby Hall's death are as included in the U.S. Supreme C0urt decision, he was lynched. Mr. Jeffrey Lord is simply too ill-informed to know that, and has built his entire article on a foundation of sand.

A couple of years ago, I edited the book "Lynchings in Oklahoma." One of the instances of lynching profiled in that book is the case of two young Indian men who were burned at the stake just outside Maud, Oklahoma in 1899 even though they were innocent of the murder for which an enraged mob did, indeed, LYNCH them.

Most, but not all, of the remaining profiled cases were of gruesome hangings. Nonetheless, all the elements of a lynching seem to have been present in Bobby Hall's unfortunate death.

In my opinion, Jeffrey Lord's lack of knowledge on this central point completely destroys the credibility of the remainder of his article. One would think that he would have checked the definition of lynch before so publicly exposing his ignorance.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 9:33PM

yawn.....

Jelperman| 7.26.10 @ 2:11PM

Yeah, liberals are anti-Semites:

Glenn Beck, who just claimed that the Jews killed Jesus

Pat Buchanan, who claims Jews weren't gassed at Treblinka

You can tell by the Birkenstocks they wear.

Charlie| 7.26.10 @ 2:36PM

Sorry, but that is factually incorrect. Please check a dictionary.

Blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 7:37PM

exactly.

"NEOCON" is liberal/progressive code for "Jewboy." Pick out a "Neocon" the left is ranting about and they are almost always of the Jewish faith.

Liberals are the biggest racists in America. They hide their defect with their "compassion" for the poor. They want their votes and to keep them on the DNC plantation.

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 2:08PM

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=30346

Tell us your interpretation of right wing nuts, now...

What's the matter? Run out of racist rants?

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:17PM

Let me teach you something - if you want to have an impact on a conservative blog, bring us links to non-conservative blogs ... we all know they share your stilted view of the truth already. POINT not made.

JimE| 7.26.10 @ 6:07PM

Purpleasswipe,
Why do you demand links but never prodcue any yourself.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 7:25PM

You just ain't paying attention; but stay on point - where are your links? No proof, huh?
Look Harder and you will find plenty of links from me.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 9:38PM

pls....beacuse Mr Specious (aka Purp) produces a few links those are ipso facto authoritative? cmon now......the guy is ankle deep and just playin what he imagines to be provocative games. he can't reason his way out of a paper bag and assumes knowledge (as I learned in an exchange about the military mos ago) where he knows...well...very little. that's usually where the bravura kicks in and all the "deny all" strategy comes to the fore.

enjoy it! see him for the entertainment and anvil that he is. he's irrelevant.

worn| 7.27.10 @ 2:07AM

aka, bring us information from those we agree with or by definition it's false?

Ralph Novy| 7.26.10 @ 4:34PM

"There is no exclusivity of method [-- e.g., hanging --] for a lynching. "

Bingo.

Ergo: whole article = nasty bullshit.

factician| 7.26.10 @ 10:02PM

Thank you, Jen! It seems that many folks aren't aware that lynching doesn't require hanging. Lynching is merely an extrajudicial group murder. While it has often been hanging, it isn't necessary.

DesertDavey| 7.26.10 @ 6:34PM

How about that wacko Obama-hater who carved the letter "O" into her own cheek and then tried to claim that it was some crazy black guy who did it. How about the black Congressmen who got spit on by TeaPartiers a few months ago?

Face it, LiveFreeOrDie: Your problem is that you ONLY SEE WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE, AND DISREGARD THE REST. Just like the Simon/Garfunkle song suggests that people do. It's nothing to be ashamed about, but to be a MAN, you must be willing to examine and admit your flaws. Especially the obvious ones!!!

sasob| 7.26.10 @ 9:12PM

"How about the black Congressmen who got spit on by TeaPartiers a few months ago?"

I believe I read that it had been determined that it was more a case of someone "spraying it instead of saying it" rather than an intentional spitting on anyone. But regardless, I fail to see any overt racism there. I'm not a Tea Partier per se, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Tea Partiers probably had enough spit to go around for white Congressmen as well, if there was one handy and feeling left out.

2ysur| 7.26.10 @ 9:10PM

"He could go on," but (you choose):

1) the guys with the white jackets are calling him back to his protective bed.
2) His reasoning gives idiots a bad name.
3) He could go on, but he can sum it up in one word: IAMARACIST.

If you get one of them, you are brilliant. If you don't get any of them: you need to lay off the tea.

NavyBrat| 7.26.10 @ 11:56AM

Hmm. As Live Free or Die has correctly pointed out, you're out of incidents. A killer of an abortion doctor? Yes indeed, a killer. And last I checked, the laws of man have judged him & soon, so will the Law of G*d. Fry him. Like all murderers. No sympathy here.

A case of libel? Dude, I'm spewing Sprite all over my monitor laughing at your hypocrisy. Libel never bothers liberals does it? Claiming Sara Palin tried to ban books? False. Labeling anyone who attended Strom Thurmond's B-day party as a racist, while LAUDING Robert the Sheethead Byrd? Really?

Let's see. What else can I add to the list? How about those CONSERVATIVES who stood in front of a polling place with a billy club in 2008? What about that CONSERVATIVE & his little diatribe about killing "crackah babies?" The same diatribe in which he BERATED a fellow black man for walking arm in arm with his white girlfriend?

Yeah, paragons of virtue, you lefties. Behold, liberal tolerance in action.

PopeRatzo| 7.26.10 @ 5:56PM

Sara (sic) Palin is a public figure. She chose to become a public figure.

Shirley Sherrod was not a public figure when Breitbart libeled her. She did not seek to be a public figure and did not ask for the attention. Calling her a racist, Breitbart committed textbook libel. Especially since certainly knew the tape he was looking at was edited (unless he believed Sherrod's entire speech was just a few minutes long).
That "conservatives" are now scrambling to provide cover for Breitbart is not a good sign. It means that they now believe the ends justify the means, so there's no tactic that's off the table because it's immoral, or unethical, or ugly.
That the Spectator is giving Mr Lord a platform for his uninformed smears of Sherrod is a bad sign for a magazine that has at least tried to present a reasoned and decent forum for opinion. Until now, that is.

stephanie| 7.26.10 @ 6:11PM

But I bet Pope, ole Shirley has enjoyed her 15 mins. of fame on all 5 of the irrelevant "News" stations giving her account of the event.
AND I bet she cashes in in the form of a lawsuit of one form or another. yeah, I'd say she's groovin' on her "being liabled". Give me a break.

amny| 7.26.10 @ 6:54PM

which came first..the firing of Sherrod or the airing of the tape?

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 9:41PM

BS.

She's a public servant and she was engaged in racial loaded dialogue with a very public advocacy group NAACP.

Shark| 7.26.10 @ 6:34PM

You guys must have missed the weekly crazy republican act of last week.

I-580 Shooter's Targets: ACLU and Tides Foundation
By karoli Friday Jul 23, 2010 8:00am
Here's a rather disturbing update on Byron Williams, the liberal-hating, parolee right-wing crazy guy who opened fire on the CHP last weekend.

Via KGO:

Court documents released Tuesday say Williams told investigators he intended to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco to kill people at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation, an organization that says it promotes economic justice.

"His plan was to go there and wait until it opens up in the morning; our investigators brought up to him that those organizations are probably closed on Sundays and he said he was going to wait until they opened up," Oakland Police Department spokesperson Jeff Thomason said.

Armed to the teeth, and as a third-striker, not particularly concerned with his fate, too:

When the officers tried to contact Williams, a 12-minute-long gun battle ensued. Williams, armed with three guns, including a .308-caliber rifle that can penetrate ballistic body armor and vehicles, eventually surrendered and exited the vehicle.

Williams was arraigned in Alameda County Superior Court Tuesday on four counts of attempted murder of a peace officer and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He received enhancements for wearing body armor. [Read more]

http://www.sfexaminer.com/loca.....z0uOF1HFuJ

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:26AM

This is the one issue AS is being thoroughly unconvincing on. let's take an example from post- Civil War, so you don't think it is to dredge up slavery; it illustrates what is wrong:
5,711 blacks were killed in Vietnam. Of those, a certain unknown number had been drafted, and tens of thousands of blacks were injured in Vietnam, and even the blacks who were not casualties were drafted, or at the very least 25 percent were conscripted. And blacks served in World Wars I, II, Korea-- at that time being in segregated units. So you can't say that they did not serve their country. Now, it is water under the bridge, including the Civil War and slavery. Yet still, there is something wrong here, it is almost as if some of you are saying, "we don't have to like blacks, but they have to like us because we imported them from Africa and eventually gave them AFDC, Food Stamps, General Assistance. So today it is all even-Steven."

If you don't like blacks, say so; it is IMO better to say you hate someone than to pretend you like them.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:40AM

This is the full comment from RacerJim, so you don't think anything is being taken out of context:

"Bottom line is you are saying blacks have no reason to like us even though they are many times better off in America thanks to us than they would be if they had never left Africa.
No wonder we don't like how they have been paying us back -- they give us every reason not to.
Blacks should be careful how they pay whites back -- lest whites take back the freedom they gave them."

Not to pick on Jim, but he expresses what many whites think, and there's something not... quite right about it. What was most puzzling was Carnot replying that I was "stirring the pot"
Well, isn't that what AS is about? what, is American Spectator a group of Girl Scouts selling organic cookies door to door for charity? Are they Gandhis weaving on their spinning wheels?

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 7:00PM

Brooks' Next Assignment .

Go into a black bar and give Equal Treatment Criticism of blacks for their flaws and then see what happens .

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 9:49PM

"Go into a black bar and give Equal Treatment Criticism of blacks for their flaws and then see what happens."

Why would they want me to be in one of their bars? whites don't particularly like blacks in white bars, do they? you can't expect them to say, "good to have you here, Tim, Alan; sit right down and we'll make you feel at home. Now, if you want some appetizers I will fetch 'em right away."

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 9:55PM

nice try. but...uhhh...nope.

the warp and woof of the Left is class warfare and racial hatred. that is their message - has been, always will be. when the argument is lost...like in AZ and the refusal to enforce the LAw...that is always the last recourse. nope...it's the Left that ALWAYS resorts to tried and true irrational and divisive social categories - it's how they maintain the support of the base.

this thread is a perfect example. myself...I'm rtaher uninterested/unconvinced by the authors hairline distinction between beatings and lynching. what is imminently more newsworthy is how this woman completely sees the world in terms of Black and White. THE COLOR DIVIDE EXISTS IN THE VERY CONSTRUCTS SHE EMPLOYS TO ADDRESS THE WORLD SHE LIVES IN. she can't get beyond that....and that suits Democrats/Liberals just fine! they need that psychological/ontological schism to persist in perpetuity - all their policies have served, in the end, to sustain it.

Liberals generally, liberal politicians specifically, are ironically the greatest slavemasters of all. they simply substitute the ghetto for the whip. the Black man - some of them anyway -needs to free himself from racists on the Right AND the Left.

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 12:32PM

Because it was CONSERVATIVES who scratched a backward B into their own face and said it was black Obama supporters who did it....btw the New Orleans story was just a robbery...not politically motivated says the New Orleans police.

Jules| 7.26.10 @ 1:14PM

Or how about those conservatives who killed the cops in Memphis a month or so ago or the guy that shot a cops in CA OR the dude that killed Tiller OR maybe the guy who shot those folks at the Chruch in TN because they were liberals.
But you are right. Conservative right-wing folks NEVER commit violence.

NavyBrat| 7.26.10 @ 1:25PM

"But you are right. Conservative right-wing folks NEVER commit violence."

What? You've never seen footage from a G-20, G-8, or G-Whatever Conference? Tell those people in Pittsburgh who had their businesses vandalized that it was conservatives that did it. You pukes have a corner on the violence market.

Again, save your crocodile tears. Until you repudiate abortion, your concern over any other type of murder is sheer hypocrisy on its face.

Wilson| 7.26.10 @ 4:35PM

"Until you repudiate abortion"@NavyPuke

Don't you mean "refudiate"? That's the new conservative English you folks are using these days.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:22PM

So now you support government control over a woman's right to choose? Really? Are you advocating government control now? Well, until you foreswear the death penalty and wars of choice, don't throw your sanctimonious attitudes at us...

stephanie| 7.26.10 @ 6:16PM

Hey purpleguy, call it what it is. You libs want to wrap an abortion is this "right to choose" crap. I wish they would show a film to all school age children what an abortion looks like, and the partial birth abortion as well. They want to tell them how gays have sex and how to put on a condom at age 8, let them see what happens when you have an unwanted pregnancy. Or is that too controversial for you? Hmmmm? Right to choose. We women have a right to keep our legs shut or take a flipping birthcontrol pill too.
NOT KILL OUR UNBORN CHILDREN.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 7:23PM

I find it completely remarkable I have to tell a woman this - but - emotions aside (and I suspect that's the problem), until a fetus can live on it's own, it isn't a baby, it's part of you, like your leg, kidney, or arm. It draws its means for existence from you, it is not on its own.
Now, you can choose to donate a kidney, or piece of your liver, which is your choice... why should you not choose what becomes of that piece of you prior to the prescribed but arbitrary 3rd month?
Does ability to raise a child even occur to you as a reason to decide not to have a child?

amny| 7.26.10 @ 7:32PM

Does a woman who WANTS to have a baby say she is expecting a 1)kidney2)arm or3) a leg when they find out they are pregnant at 4 weeks?Are they picking out names,colors,schools etc for a fetus?So what changes in the opinion of said woman when the pregnancy is not planned?

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:12PM

There you go, throwing emotion into it. But why would you give up a kidney? Why would you give up a piece of your liver or a lung? That isn't an emotional decision? Of course it is - but the body part analogy still holds.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 10:09PM

an therein lies the problem...you have no real principles. your morality is entirely utilitarian..which means it has no bedrock foundation.

jeez...you can't be this big a knucklehead...can you? you equate DONATING an organ to removing and TERMINATING a fetus? not even the same instrumentally..let alone morally.

though I must confess there are comical aspects to your quid pro quo (another odd aspect of your "morality") vis the death penalty. what is the moral dimension there? right to life? btw.... someone who suffers an accident and is kept alive by a machine - would terminating this victim be the equivalent of donating an organ?

darcy| 7.27.10 @ 1:44AM

~until a fetus can live on it's own, it isn't a baby~

And how old were you when you could live on your own? Three years old? Big enough to climb on the chairs to get to the bowl of fruit? Or big enough to open the cupboard to get out the bread or crackers?

By your standard, any child under about age three is fair game for murder. That fits right in with your, ahem, mentor perhaps, Dr. Singer of Princeton.

amny| 7.26.10 @ 7:26PM

You mean show a girl or boy ALL aspects of abortion?Are you crazy?Then they would have ALL the facts and well...that's just anti-liberal..HOW DARE YOU!!

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:15PM

Why not show them? We show them the result of your brain on alcohol or your lungs after a lifetime of smoking, or even the aftermath of a DUI car accident. They should have all the facts - including what it's like to raise a child in poverty, when you are a baby yourself and might have to raise your child alone, worse if you don't really want the child, show the results of the unwanted child. Show it all, not just one side, and then yes, show it all.

amny| 7.26.10 @ 7:23PM

blahhhh...something wrong about a 'man' using that 'woman's right to choose' expression.How brave of you.And yet when a man stands up for the un-born child(no matter WHAT color) he's accused of being sanctimonious.I suppose you would 'foreswear' the death penalty if a crime was done against you or yours.As for wars of choice..well now,aren't they all a matter of choice?

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 9:18PM

Not at all - I'd beat the shit out of anyone harming my family - but that isn't the law, now is it?
All wars are wars of choice? Really? Revolutionary War? Civil War? How about WWII? Are you high?

You knew exactly what I meant - Iraq - Iraq was not necessary and Papa Bush knew it, as well as you. Without the "Mushroom Cloud" rhetoric, we never would have gone to war, and you know that too.

Alex| 7.26.10 @ 7:32PM

But nobody has been murdered (except by police) at G-8, G-20, or G-Whatever conferences... So on the right, you have murderers; on the left, you have people who throw bricks through Starbucks windows and torch police cars. Murder versus destruction of property; sounds equivalent to me. (Dipshit)

Prometheus| 7.26.10 @ 3:24PM

Or as one poster put it: >>LEFT WING nut job (Mao Zedong) murders 50 million of his own people, through the power of Government. LEFT WING nut job (Josef Stalin) murders tens of millions of Ukrainians and Russians through famines created by Socialized Farming ("Obama-Grow?"). NOT MUCH COMPARISON to "right wing nut jobs."