The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
RSS Feed
search
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email

Breaking News

Sherrod Story False

By on 7.26.10 @ 6:09AM

It isn't true.

Shirley Sherrod's story in her now famous speech about the lynching of a relative is not true. The veracity and credibility of the onetime Agriculture Department bureaucrat at the center of the explosive controversy between the NAACP and conservative media activist Andrew Breitbart is now directly under challenge. By nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court. All of them dead.

But first, it's important to say this.

After Shirley Sherrod's firing I wrote a column congratulating Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for removing her -- based on a viewing of the now infamous edited Breitbart clip. I was wrong. I should have waited to see the entire video or read the transcript before writing a word. So my apologies to Ms. Sherrod.

The problem?

I have now done exactly what I should have done originally. So there's no mistake about "selective editing" of videos or speech transcripts, here is a link to the website of the NAACP, where they have made a point of posting the full video of Shirley Sherrod's speech. I have seen the entire speech as supplied by the NAACP. The now-famous speech runs just over 40 minutes. If you don't have the time, here is a link to the printed transcript of her speech supplied by a site called American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank. The transcript is taken in full from the video version of her speech, which American rhetoric also supplies. I have read the transcript as well.

Let's get to this.

In her speech, Ms. Sherrod says this:

I should tell you a little about Baker County. In case you don't know where it is, it's located less than 20 miles southwest of Albany. Now, there were two sheriffs from Baker County that -- whose names you probably never heard but I know in the case of one, the thing he did many, many years ago still affect us today. And that sheriff was Claude Screws. Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights.

Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: "Claude Screws lynched a black man."

This is not true. It did not happen. How do we know this?

The case, Screws vs. the U.S. Government, as she accurately says in the next two paragraphs, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which, with the agreement of all nine Justices of the day -- which is to say May 7, 1945 -- stated the facts of the killing of Bobby Hall this way:

The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him. 

The very first paragraph of the Supreme Court decision states:

1. Upon review of a judgment affirming the conviction, for violation of § 20 of the Criminal Code and conspiracy thereunto, of local law enforcement officers who arrested a negro citizen for a state offense and wrongfully beat him to death, the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial.

Page: 1 2 3   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"

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:14AM

I invite you to reference: tangent.

hmmmm...| 7.27.10 @ 10:13AM

I guess you haven't heard that the two are not mutually exclusive.

See also "red herring".

CARNOT| 7.27.10 @ 9:08PM

only in your mind!

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.

scotchieguy| 7.27.10 @ 4:56AM

You are a classic useful idiot. Rich v. Poor is code for socialism. This is what Obama and the other radicals in power (along w/ the lemings in the MSM)are using so well to turn this country on its head. They LOVE this kind of thinking. And if that doesn't work, they will use racism, as has been illustrated this past week. It is happening so fast my head is spinning. I truly never thought I'd see the day...

Prometheus| 7.27.10 @ 12:34PM

For one, I'm not a "useful idiot" , let alone a socialist. I guess a guy who voted for Bob Barr (meaning me) was truly waiting for a more socialist candidate than Barack, right? What a moron. Maybe the multi-billion dollar bailout schemes that started under Bush II and continued under Barack despite white and black opposition isn't enough for you to realize there is a class war brewing. Or maybe the fact well paying jobs are shipped over-seas to countries where they will do the same work (poorly, I might add) for cheap and blacks and whites loose out , you're dumber than you present yourself to be. Go ahead and fight the "race war", all awhile the elitists continue to squeeze the middle-class into the working poor. Blacks have been the working poor for years, now we'll just have to welcome our white brothers and sisters to the fold.

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.

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 10:10AM

Yeah, he somehow thinks southern propaganda dog whistles like "Abe the Tyrant" trumps actual history. I don't doubt for a second that he also uses phrases like "the war of northern aggression" to describe the aftermath of Ft. Sumpter.

I do find it interesting that 2 out of his 3 top "liberal" presidents are (wait for it) REPUBLICANS. But maybe that's another discussion. Here, we're talking about the lovely success of Reagan's "big tent" party in its outreach to ethnic minorities. Looks like a smashing success to me, eh?

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 3:14PM

Unfair tariffs did NOT have anything to do with the Civil War. It is amazing to me that so many people believe that they did when there are so many direct quotes from Confederate leaders that flat-out state they were perfectly happy with the tariffs at the time that the Civil War broke out. Yet people point to statements about tariffs from 1820 and act like that is proof that this is what caused war to break out 40 years later.

Confederate apologists ignore primary sources that prove the war was about keeping blacks inferior, not about tariffs, and then use the oh-so-popular "public schools suck!" mantra to justify their absurd, illogical, disproven position.

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.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:16AM

seems to be your metiers as well!

Hmmm....| 7.27.10 @ 9:52AM

Brilliant riposte, carnot! Another thoroughly original variation on "I know you are, but what am I?"

Which was sort of the point of the above article, so I guess you're in your element here.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 9:12PM

yawn. I know why you are here. so I play!

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...

lacifaeria| 7.27.10 @ 6:21PM

I won't disagree entirely. I think both have elements of racism within. However, I do think at least the Left can be seen as trying to ameliorate things. The Right would rather just ignore them and when black Americans have a problem, paint them as racist, and convince white Americans that those scary blacks are coming to exact revenge for slavery.

And look! Glenn Beck says health care is reparations. Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist and then says that Obama hates black people. The Southern Strategy in full swing. You want to talk about racism? There's nothing like the blatant use of stereotypes and fear to manipulate a proportion of white voters to voting against their best interest, all in the effort to make sure "those lazy blacks" don't get more than they think they should.

You have white voters being manipulated into supporting policies that leave their communities destitute because of the fear of Others. And meanwhile the wealth gap increases with numbers resembling wealth disparities similar to the Great Depression. But I'm pretty sure after the elitists (top 10% wealth earners hold 90% of property and stocks in the US) have run this country into the ground, they'll go on and convince you that it was Obama, as opposed to stupid ignorance allowing it to happen.

This isn't socialism. This is greed. And frightened people are being fooled into supporting it with the same tired bs thats worked over and over again. So here's my question: When does it finally stop working, or do you have to lose everything before you realize it's not the scary black man/mexican/gay people/atheist that's been screwing you?

carnot| 7.28.10 @ 6:30AM

you know...there are Black people who have written books claiming Obama is a racist.

Wealth envy is a tired, old argument. Look at the budget. You figure out which components are driving it into the dirt. Look at the states with the gravest fiscal problems. You figure out what the principle drivers are for this "destitution". Quit marketing your lies under discredited 19th century socio-economic platitudes.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 9:14PM

um...there are plenty of racist liberal Democrats!

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?

Lacifaeria| 7.27.10 @ 6:12PM

Actually you can start with debunking that very first example of the couple being attacked on their way home from a Republican fundraiser. Further evidence proved that it wasn't politically motivated, but I wouldn't count on you to correct your story since it counters your argument. Cheers.

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.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:17AM

as usual......totally misses the mark. very surprising for a mindset/philosophy that focuses almost exclusively on outcomes.

yawn. have an angry day!!!!

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.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 9:16PM

you don't know squat about America. you are the exemplar of what you lampoon in most every post - an echo chamber for Liberal talking points. If I'm going to have to deal with those..I at least want to tangle with someone skillful at deploying ideas and defending them. you? grist for the mill.

scargordon| 7.27.10 @ 11:07AM

As opposed to Hitler who was a solidly RIGHT WING nut job and loved puppies and crapped out rainbows.

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.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:19AM

and solar flares can really be hot!

what does the temperature elsewhere have to do with the white hot fahrenheits reached by liberal rhetoriticians?

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.

cls| 7.27.10 @ 7:40PM

See the dictionary.com definition of lynch:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lynch

–verb (used with object)
to put to death, esp. by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.

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.

MOS was 71331| 7.27.10 @ 2:06PM

"Ole Shirley" has already cashed in -- with a $100+K annual salary from the USDA.

From what she said at the NAACP meeting, her job was to interview people in danger of losing their farms and decide whether they deserved financial help and how much help to give them. Did she (as I'd hope) have well defined rules to follow [annual farm income less than x AND annual debt service greater than y AND ...] or could she just pick and choose needy farmers and grant taxpayer help as she wished? In a properly run program, I'd expect the ideal USDA employees would be accountants familiar with farming operations and alert to common farm bookkeeping frauds.

So far, I've read nothing suggesting that Miss Sherrod was a CPA. Instead, she seems to be a socialist hack who admits when she started in her USDA job she was favoring black farmers over white farmers when dispensing taxpayer dollars while she herself took home big bucks.

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.

steve| 7.27.10 @ 11:38AM

'THE COLOR DIVIDE EXISTS IN THE VERY CONSTRUCTS SHE EMPLOYS TO ADDRESS THE WORLD SHE LIVES IN. she can't get beyond that.'

What is your explanation of the fact that the white farmer in question talks about her in the most glowing terms as a person who saved his farm?

Yes, people can change, and that is the real story here, but you are too cynical or ignorant to see that.

The real irony is, despite your ridiculous over-generalizations, that you are the one who refuses to recognize that divisons and racism can be overcome.

Final comment. Do you really want to make the statement that liberals are really the greatest 'slavemasters of all'. You can honestly compare being owned by another person to the sometimes negative effects resulting from misguided liberal policies?

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 9:49PM

are you serious? gee..I don't know...self interest maybe? I knew this question was gonna surface eventually. it's the typical Liberal "I approve of the ends so the means must be justified/imbued with moral goodness."

You must have missed the salient point here - she was at the NAACP telling her story in the only terms she understands. She wasn't at the local rotary club - she was addressing an audience and an organization whose whole purpose has morphed into race baiting - see recent history. I never stated she was a bad person or anything of the sort. I stated the obvious: her whole grasp of social reality is predicated on black/white distinctions.

this whole episode is just too telling: an administration/DOJ reeling from its obvious lex talionis approach to the law - they were all too willing to sell her out (or did you miss that little drama?); an AMSPEC columnist too willing (or overly cynical) to stoke the racial embers on the basis of an embarrassingly flimsy terminological twist; and a woman, returning to point, whose whole worldview is dominated by Black and White.

Well...choose your hyperbole. Matters not to me. There are millions of Liberals and their power structure is most certainly built on two principle foundations: class envy and racial enmity. It's the well they dip into EVERY time they sense a turn in the political tide. Minorities are owned - just in a different sense from the common one you are employing.

let's not run to afar astray here. didn't utter one word on the insurmountability of "division" or "racism". though I will concede...not my problem. I have my circle of friends and trusted allies....some black...some white...some oriental. our families look out for one another. I long ago gave up the Liberal affliction of seeing every social context exclusively as a matter of abstractions - of categories defined by skin attributes, income, sexual preference, etc., etc. In the end, what a horrible and limiting way of seeing the world. You never, ever know the individual with that mindset. Liberals see everyone as temporary instantiations of social categories. They group and label....and market the categories for power. I don't much care whether you agree or not. I have lived long enough to know this is the Liberal reality.....just visit the benighted in their exclusive Potomac or Northwest Harbor haunts to enjoy the bright white light.

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 3:29PM

"what is imminently more newsworthy is how this woman completely sees the world in terms of Black and White. "

Gee, I can't imagine why a woman who's father was lynched--yes, LYNCHED--might be a little conscious of race.

The fact is, if you don't think race matters, that's because you have the privilege of not noticing how race matters.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 10:12PM

yea. that must be it. or maybe..for the umpteenth time you are reading impaired. I am making the point that this woman's whole reality is based on Black and White. her prison is self imposed.

and for the record...I had branches of the family tree baked in ovens in the sanguine European culture our soon to be erstwhile Prez so wants to emulate. that hasn't led me to view the world exclusively in terms of Jews and gentiles; or to spend my life joining political advocacy groups built on a single theme.

I understand the point you are making. It's one of degrees. in some respects I feel sorry for this woman....she got caught in the ugly racial cross-fires that both the Left and Right practice for cynical reasons. in the end, I detest the Left more for its hypocrisy than I do the right for its ignorance.

so emote away! I'm weary of the whole racial sham. I'm turning my back on it and living my live according to what I feel is right and associating with people who do the same....one of the few remaining choices I have in a land that increasingly seeks to regulate what I eat, what I say, what I trade, how I trade, what I can own and how long I can own it, where my kids can go to school, who my doctor is....all the while photographing and video taping almost every step/breath I take in any public venue. we've really "progressed" over the last 100 years...but at what cost? and what real progress?

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?

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:56AM

What you don't get is that morality is like religion - it's personal and no one has the right to foist his or her morality on another. As Thomas Paine said "My church is my own Mind".

Of course, the entire line of argument on both sides is completely bogus - what a woman does with an unborn is completely her own decision - no one else's business. She may consult a physician, her mate, her family - but it is her decision alone. She isn't killing, meaning murdering anyone - murder implies malice and I can guarantee you the decision is not meant to harm in any way.

So, just leave the women alone, let them choose as they have for thousands of years .. they have a right to their privacy - remember not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution, but can be implied, so even the Founders are on her side. So, get off your high morality horse and move on.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 10:15PM

another fiat argument from Mr Specious!

Assume what has to be proven!

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 10:21PM

ok..I'm done laughing at your Constitutional legerdemains - like your "morality" open to any interpretation.

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.

c arnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:28AM

and show them to scale.

and while we're at it.....let's trace out all the moral implications of being able to selectively abort fetuses that don't meet preferred human attributes! well within the purview of modern medical capabilities. don't want a child with Purp's limited intellectual potential? don't want a gay son? don't want a white daughter? don't want a downs baby that will keep you from attending your Motown parties? abort it! it has no right to life........Abortion K-Mart! what a wonderful and sublimely responsible world Purp inhabits!

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:49AM

If an unrestricted "right to life" was God's will, you would not know how to abort a fetus as you suggest. And, if perchance, I'm wrong, then as long as YOU don't have an abortion, you won't have to worry about God. You should just shut up and leave others alone. It's not your decision. It's not your business.
I suppose you prefer supporting OctoMom and her brood that she cannot care for alone?

And, don't throw "Thou shall not Kill" at me ... the true translation is "Thou shall not Murder" - which entails killing with evil intention and motive. There is no such thing regarding abortion - as you well know, it is often an emotional, wrenching decision. In any case, there is no malice intended in an abortion procedure.

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.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:31AM

you're sure about that? you know with infinite certitude that all other alternatives are mutually exclusive?

and chemical weapons produce mushroom clouds?

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."

Prometheus| 7.26.10 @ 3:25PM

Somehow right-wing loonies are better than left-wing loonies...lol

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:33AM

yawn.

another product of the public school system intones sweet profundities.

brendan| 7.26.10 @ 12:23PM

Thank you. as the authors of this article should definitely know that 'lynching' does not require hanging. Beaten to death is lynched just as surely as burned at the stake or hanged. The dictionaries and the law have been clear on this for more than a century. This man, in the court's reading just as in Sherrod's, was lynched.
why would they expend all this energy to (incorrectly) 'debunk' this?
and if you decided to do that, why would you not do your most basic research first?
Sherrod did not lie. this is the second very public 'test' of her truthfulness and it seems she is one of our society's invaluable truth tellers.
If i were the Spectator, or these authors anyway, i'd look for someone else to pick on.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.26.10 @ 1:25PM

Here's a video easily available on YouTube where Charles Sherrod, her husband, states, "We must stop the white man and the Uncle Tom from stealing our elections."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrcJ3cBDS7Y

Wilson| 7.26.10 @ 5:22PM

Here's a video easily available on You Tube where Charles Sherrod learned why "We must stop the white man and the Uncle Tom from stealing our elections."

http://youtu.be/isU_OjY94NY

If an entire melanin challenged group of folks went around killing my people for the color of my skin, I'm pretty sure I would feel the same damn way.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:23PM

Yeah, now there's real news - Youtube.

PopeRatzo| 7.26.10 @ 5:59PM

So, in a discussion about a conservative using an edited video tape of questionable provenance to smear a black woman, you choose to use, as evidence of your position, A VIDEO FROM YOUTUBE.

You can't make stuff like this up.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:36AM

why not? MSNBC, HuffPost, NYT, WaPo, Matthews, East Anglia acolytes, PSU ideologues, Barak Obama et al.....all make stuff up. in huge ways.

arguiing "authoritative" sources is a laughable strategy when adopted by Liberals.

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:42AM

Proof please? General attacks from your oh so educated opinionated mushbrain mean nothing.

Squillions| 7.27.10 @ 12:41PM

Right on, Alan!

Ms. Sherrod has every right to "co opt" that particular piece of American history in this case. It's possible that she used the one-word phrase that symbolizes racially motivated murder in the interest of brevity in this speech. The result was the same whether the murder was by hanging or beating. This was a murder of a young, bound, African American at the hands of the three armed, powerful white men who had control of the situation. In this case, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Bobby Hall was murdered by a mob (three, as far as we know) of white men while he was handcuffed and lying on the ground, unable to defend himself in any way. He was kicked, punched, and beaten with a blackjack for fifteen to thirty minutes. All of this because he allegedly stole a tire. And they were found guilty of "Depriving Mr. Hall of his civil rights." Are you serious?! THAT is a figurative lynching if ever there was one.

Ms. Sherrod had every right to use the term "lynched" in a case like this. "Lynching" implies (to me) racially motivated murder, especially one that is committed in such a personal, violent manner. The fact that the defendants were let off the hook is yet another (figurative) lynching.

We all know how much a person's civil rights meant in the South in the sixties. It was 1964, only one year earlier, when James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were brutally murdered in Mississippi for investigating the burning of a church in the African American community. It was later revealed that the local Klan and law enforcement were behind those murders. The entire country was being figuratively lynched on a regular basis by the corrupt, sadistic Southerners who took justice into their own hands, federal law be damned. Effing (figurative) rapists.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 10:39AM

A lynching doesn't have to be a hanging.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lynching

lynch (lnch)
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.

Sounds like a lynching to me. It's a mental disorder to declare what happened to Hall is not a lynching.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:48AM

Hall suffered worse by being beaten (more than once) than he would have if he had been hanged.
Rob, these people have a slight dislike of blacks; why don't they just admit it?
And the most common complaint, that the Great Society was a big waste, is correct; however of course it happened; whites were in effect saying:
"we don't want you around, so here is your AFDC, your Food Stamps, your General Assistance, now go away!"

ECM| 7.26.10 @ 1:19PM

The Great Society was a gigantic, vote-buying, scheme, not a form of reparations under a different guise and, surprise!, it worked and continues to work up through today. (That is to say, there wasn't so much racism behind it as cold, calculated, power base building by LBJ and co.)

Prometheus| 7.26.10 @ 3:33PM

It has been re-visioned as reparations, as a way to prove that blacks are after the glorious riches of whites. They absolutely forget there are more whites who receive these government handouts than blacks.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:29PM

You're an idiot. The Democratic coalition of Northern Liberals and Southern Dixiecrats kept the Democrats in power for 40 years, and when LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation, he said "there goes the South". Sure enough, Nixon pursued the "Southern Strategy" and purveyed to the racist South, who not long before had Jim Crow laws in place, to become Republicans and many still are today. You can see it clearly on the map of the last few elections - the South is a Republican stronghold and the Civil Rights legislation was the instigation. The Republican Party is a primarily a white party, with token minorities for flavor. That's why it's such a big deal that JC Watts is no longer in Congress - a black Congressman. The evidence is all around you if you just look and see.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 5:58PM

Just for starters, the Hall bludgeon-execution was merely one vigilante murder among thousands committed against blacks.
The main issue, though, is: overall blacks have suffered worse than anyone, save for Cambodians, Jews, Roma.
Even Dinesh D'souza admitted it when he wrote that slavery was an "unmitigated evil". But ignoring the distant past and concentrating on today, again: you don't have to like blacks at all, you don't have to go to bed with Bill Cosby or worship Sammy Davis Jr.'s ghost.

But why should blacks respect whites if they know whites don't care about them?

Bob K.| 7.26.10 @ 1:41PM

Call it a lynching if you want to, but it was a lynching by the police which was supported by the Democratic Party leaders who appointed them to their positions. They were complicit in approving this lynching as you are by your continued obfuscation of your Party's policy of inciting racial and ethnic strife in America.

It is no longer possible to sluff this accusation of racial hatred off on Republicans. Go back, look for other lies to tell and try another strategy for your calumny!

Eric| 7.26.10 @ 4:07PM

Which political party the perpetrators belonged to is not particularly relevant to this discussion; Lord calls Sherrod a liar for describing the incident as a lynching when it was, in fact, a lynching - an extra-judicial killing.

Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, or Communist, the perpetrators lynched this man, and no lie was told, and Lord is trying to drum up something that is not there.

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 3:43PM

Yes, it is absolutely wrong to accuse modern day Republicans of racism, because Democrats used to be racist.

Makes perfect sense.

Also, lynching can only mean hanging, except when a right-wing editorialist uses the word, in which case lynching can simply mean being criticized by a liberal.

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 7:11PM

Aaaaand , more than one of AS readers don't want you around either .

That's Free Will .

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 9:57PM

"Aaaaand , more than one of AS readers don't want you around either . That's Free Will ."

But some AS bloggers go to liberal sites. Are THEY gluttons for punishment too?

Phillep| 7.26.10 @ 12:05PM

What was the definition of "lynching" at the time of the event? You want to change what words mean while speaking of an event long ago?

mjcone| 7.26.10 @ 2:16PM

From the time of its inception in the Revolutionary War to today, lynching as always referred to any extrajudicial punishment administered without authority.

Slothrup| 7.26.10 @ 2:31PM

Phillep: 1) The word "lynching" -- which the article calls a lie -- was used in March of this year. So in determining whether the use of the word was a "lie" one should look at the definition this past March.
2) The word "lynch" has always meant to punish someone without legal process.

Petruk| 7.26.10 @ 12:19PM

I guess Clarence Thomas is a liar for calling his senate confirmation hearings "a high-tech lynching".
Can't wait for you to call him on out on that...

Wilson| 7.26.10 @ 5:29PM

That's called a metaphor, idiot.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:32PM

Unfortunately, it didn't work.. he's our token black conservative - that's a metaphor too.

kendahke| 7.26.10 @ 10:39AM

Liberalism is not a mental disorder. It is a political viewpoint. Do not disparrage people who are actually struggling with mental disorders by trying to make a political point on their suffering. It's cruel, inhuman and proof positive of mediocre thinking.

Liberalism has to do with the opening of the mind to allow more than one narrative. On the contrary, a closed, conservative mind is the dictionary definition of stagnation, non-growth and atrophy.

TheOldGeezer| 7.26.10 @ 10:57AM

Being a "liberal" once meant that. That definition died more than 30 years ago, and has been replaced with an intolerant, statist, power-mad ideology of maximum power and control to the central government. Modern "liberals" do not allow dissent, do not believe in rights such as free speech or freedom of religion, and do not respect individual sovereignity. Those have all been sacraficed for expediency at the altar of all controlling and all powerful big government.

Robert M.| 7.26.10 @ 11:18AM

I identify as both liberal and progressive. I also don't particularly trust the "central government" with its increasingly unrestricted military and police powers. I disagree with other liberals frequently, at length and with emphasis. I'm also a member of the ACLU, whose mission and ongoing efforts most certainly include protecting freedom of speech.

I'm also an atheist, which gives me a vested interest in freedom of religion: as a member of a distinct religious minority, any govenrment restrictions on freedom of religion would almost certainly not favor my (lack of) beliefs.

Either your definition is wrong in literally every particular, or I'm actually not a liberal and have just been deluding myself all these years. Which of those do you suppose is more likely?

LiveFreeOrDie| 7.26.10 @ 12:17PM

"I identify as both liberal and progressive. I also don't particularly trust the "central government"

Can't have one without the other.

"I'm also a member of the ACLU, whose mission and ongoing efforts most certainly include protecting freedom of speech. "

In recent years the ACLU has been the biggest enemy of free speech. Repeated attempts to have high school valedictorians silenced if they want to mention God, for example.

"I'm also an atheist, which gives me a vested interest in freedom of religion: as a member of a distinct religious minority..."

Everyone has a "vested interest" in religious freedom, except for maybe atheists. Atheism is a steadfast belief in nothing, which can never be proven or intelligently debated and it's inherently ignorant.

"I'm actually not a liberal and have just been deluding myself..."

Yup.

daddio| 7.26.10 @ 1:03PM

All three of your 'debunks' sound like they came from a third grader. Grow a set asshole and learn to stop spewing bumper-sticker slogans. Think a little.

LiveFreeOrDie| 7.26.10 @ 4:58PM

What a wonderful synopsis! Great argument sir, well done! Typical, you can't come up with a response so you'll just "spew" obscenities and insults without getting anywhere near the topic.

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 3:45PM

"Atheism is a steadfast belief in nothing, which can never be proven or intelligently debated and it's inherently ignorant. "

Please prove to me conclusively that God exists. Do you even proof read what you write?

LiveFreeOrDie| 7.26.10 @ 4:49PM

The point is you can't prove a negative, I'm sorry if you don't understand but it's a rather simple and proven concept.

Wilson| 7.26.10 @ 5:54PM

You can prove a negative by the actual law of logic which is a negative, the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative, so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true!

I'm sorry you are so attached to your invisible zombie dude, but logic is rather complex for a simple guy like you.

Blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 8:00PM

electricity is both positive and negative

LiveFreeOrDie| 7.27.10 @ 11:39AM

You couldn't be more wrong. The law of contradiction, simply stated, says something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time in the same context. You still can't prove a negative, you can't prove God does not exist, you can't prove anything does not exist. To do so would require complete knowledge of everything that exists. Once again simpleton, it's you who is confused. Go google 'logic' and get back to me when you find some other obscure BS.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 6:39PM

Thank you for providing ample evidence of conservatives in denial - it's your way or the highway - ain't it? Liberal doesn't mean Communist or Statist, any more than Conservative mean Fascist or Nazi. Get it through your thick skull.

Scargordon| 7.27.10 @ 11:54AM

"Atheism is a steadfast belief in nothing, which can never be proven or intelligently debated and it's inherently ignorant. "

REALLY?!? You are going to argue that any established religion CAN be "proven or intelligently debated" ?

I think any monotheisitic religion requires an act of faith that stands up as poorly as, if not worse than Atheism under the light of scrutiny.

It is next to impossible to prove a negative, but there is no substantive proof (that does not require faith) offered by Religion that cannot be debunked.

Petruk| 7.26.10 @ 12:24PM

This is utterly insane. Government grew more under Bush and Reagan than it did under the Democratic presidents.

davod| 7.26.10 @ 12:40PM

Rubbish!

daddio| 7.26.10 @ 1:05PM

Rubbish?
Try educating yourself a little before you say something that makes you look like a closed-minded uneducated ass.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2.....nment.html

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 6:41PM

See who buried us under a mountain of debt - it wasn't the Democrats ! http://zfacts.com/p/318.html ... Those damn pesky facts. GW Bush grew the government more than any other President.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108066,00.html

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:40AM

Notice how these dopes don't comment on some facts that don't fit their conservative narrative - it chafes and they ignore what they don't want to know - like ostriches their head is up their a... i mean in the sand.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 6:07PM

"Being a "liberal" once meant that. That definition died more than 30 years ago, and has been replaced with an intolerant, statist, power-mad ideology of maximum power and control to the central government. Modern "liberals" do not allow dissent, do not believe in rights such as free speech or freedom of religion, and do not respect individual sovereignity. Those have all been sacraficed for expediency at the altar of all controlling and all powerful big government."

But what about the corruption of conservatism by demagogues such as the Tea Party. The real Tea Party was a group of Massachusetts guys risking being jailed by dumping tea into Boston Harbor. today's Tea Partiers only risk choking on foie gras at a restaurant.
Palin has shown herself to be a demagogue, too: with that blarney about health care "death squads".

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 6:35PM

Oh, how much in denial you are ... Unfortunately, what you espouse is the narrative pushed by the people that want to unite you against a common enemy. You have drunk the Kool-Aid, that's all. Liberals welcome dissent, don't particularly trust the power of the government, but do see a role for the government in providing for all of us. Liberals do not want to make you believe in Christianity or Evangelism - that's what the Christian Right believes. And, oh, crap, the premier organization for the protection of free speech and other rights is the Liberal ACLU - it's not the Heritage Foundation, Fixed News or Rush Loudmouth.

Doctor D| 7.26.10 @ 2:21PM

Liberals are open-minded? Are you jesting, or delusional? Liberals feverishly work to stifle any speech or even thought that conflicts with their own childish ideology. Look at what our colleges have become.

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:39AM

What a hotbed of close-mindedness, huh? Are you high? Free expression is openly encouraged in the University setting - the fact that most young people are not good little Bundists, preaching the Republican party line, is not the result of the University teaching it, it's the result of freedom from home and parents control - the last thing young people want is more control and braces on their brains that you conservatives admire and expect.
You ever been at a University?

JimE| 7.26.10 @ 6:12PM

kendahke,
Your liberal controllers have taught you well.

Todd Bannon| 7.26.10 @ 1:01PM

You may want to look up the definition of lynching in the dictionary:

"To lynch is to to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority."

So, while lynching usually refers to hanging, it is not defined only by hanging. Sherrod's story is 100% true. You just don't have a firm grasp of your native tongue.

Furthermore, isn't the story horrible enough? Are you really saying that the story would only be adequate if he was hung?

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 6:43PM

Do you know any other source for anything? They obviously are pushing an agenda.

ktinCA| 7.26.10 @ 1:54PM

Dead is dead - no matter how one gets there.

lol| 7.26.10 @ 2:02PM

That's some weapons-grade idiocy, boy.

Toto| 7.26.10 @ 2:12PM

Jeffrey Lord is doing some fancy footwork as he dances around the Sherrod Story.

Lynched? Beaten to death? The horrific beating of Bobby Hall was worse than being lynched.

Having grown up in the South, I recall the severe racism blacks lived under, and they, of all people, have the right to be angry.

Mr. Lord, don't you think that in regards to Sherrod, you should "slacken the rope," so to speak.

DaveS| 7.27.10 @ 8:34PM

A one-hundred word spoken paragraph with the word "lynching" in it sounds on recall like this to 99% of sympathetic listeners: blah blah blah......lynching......blah blah blah. The word is used nearly exclusively for effect. Ask immediately afterward anyone who hears it unprepared and they cannot tell you any of the next four or five words that were spoken. It just drowns out the trailing words and causes the preceding words to peter out. Sherrod was purposeful. Am I, a white guy, supposed to look and act penitent for the rest of my life because of racist white boys who killed, maimed and intimidated others? No sir, I will not. And I won't be categorized as racist because I oppose some aspect of the current President. What race is he?

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 10:28PM

So, what, she isn't supposed to mention that her father was lynched because you might take it as a condemnation of all white people?

What a clear, ugly demonstration of white entitlement.

Not everything is about you.

Joel| 7.26.10 @ 3:17PM

Ad hominem attacks are a classic logical fallacy. It reflects more on the ignorance and close mindedness of the attacker. Congratulations Ret. Marine. You have shown the world what a fool you are.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 6:44PM

Excellent!

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:40AM

classic liberalism!

attacking while ignoring precisely the same behavior among the set of favored posters.

that is why you and Liberals are so dangerous. that is why you are going to...check...have to ... adopt a strategy of forcing your social outcomes rather than convincing that comity and shared responsibility is the best approach. and that is why... in the end .... you will fail.

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:36AM

Actually, no - regarding social issues, Liberals and Progressives are closer to Libertarians - which is why votes in the Rocky Mountain States are voting more and more with Democrats - they want to be left alone regarding abortion, marriage, religion, etc. The more you Republicans push your social mandates, the further away you push what was your base. HA!

tom| 7.26.10 @ 3:27PM

Lynching, also known as Lynch law; named after Charles Lynch (jurist); a form of extralegal judgment and punishment, usually by killing

is the author a complete idiot? the man was lynched

rob| 7.26.10 @ 4:15PM

we'll don't you have egg on your face:
http://spectator.org/blog/2010.....story-true

And stop embarrassing the Corps; it's Marines like you that make it hard for Marine's like me to convince people that we aren't all willfully ignorant racists incapable of critical thought.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 6:48PM

Exactly - the Marines fight for those who can't fight for themselves, and serve our country very well and we are all as proud as we can be of the Marines. Hardly the ignorant racists as displayed by Ret. Marine - if he really was a Marine. But perhaps he was injured and deserves our caring for his condition. Either way, he does not represent the upstanding Marines that are ready to give their lives for our freedom. Thank a Marine today!

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 7:16PM

As Samuel Johnson pointed out when he met Purpleguy , " Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel ."

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 7:35PM

Are you saying you've been hiding there all these years?
I know you don't mean me, since I am retired Air Force, and served my country honorably.
Or are you saying you don't support the Marines? Really? Whatever your point, it doesn't show you in a good light ...

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 8:26PM

DUUUUHHHHH !

The REMF Wingwiper Is A Scoundrel .

Got It !

Arabella| 7.26.10 @ 5:26PM

"The strange thing is that Lord acknowledges that Hall was beaten to death by Sheriff Screws, who dragged Hall's prone body through the country courthouse as he died. The murder was apparently a result of a conflict that began when Screws confiscated a firearm from Hall. Screws didn't think blacks should be allowed to own guns. After Hall sued Screws to regain possession of his weapon, Screws went berserk and beat Hall to death.

When the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division charged Screws with violating Hall's civil rights, an all-white jury found Screws guilty, but the Supreme Court reversed that conviction on a 5-4 basis. It is on that narrow decision -- in which all nine members of the court agreed that Screws had beaten Hall to death -- that Lord's entire attack on Sherrod rests.

The State of Georgia could have charged Screws with homicide, but did not. The U.S. government, however, could only prosecute Screws for depriving Hall of his constitutional rights. And although even in the majority opinion Hall's murder was described as "shocking and revolting," the case turned on the court's interpretation of the Federal law making it illegal for law enforcement to willfully deprive someone of their constitutional rights. The majority chose a "narrow construction" of the law, determining that on a technical level, Screws did not violate Federal law.

Based on this technical determination, and this determination alone, Lord accuses Shirley Sherrod of lying when she said Bobby Hall was lynched.

The amazing thing about Lord's assault on Sherrod is that once he finishes arguing that Sherrod lied about Bobby Hall's lynching, Lord then proceeds to blame FDR and the progressive movement for allowing Claude Screws to get away with the lynching that Lord just said never happened."
Daily Kos, 7.26.10

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:08PM

"the case turned on the court's interpretation of the Federal law making it illegal for law enforcement to willfully deprive someone of their constitutional rights."

If Screws had been a civilian that probably would not have happened; the resources federal prosecutors have is much greater than states have.
Naturally a law enforcement officer gets the benefit of the doubt, that is, depending on how good his attorney is.

SM| 7.27.10 @ 12:59AM

"It is on that narrow decision -- in which all nine members of the court agreed that Screws had beaten Hall to death -- that Lord's entire attack on Sherrod rests. "

"Lynched" means whatever the person saying it wants it to mean. It's not a legal term.

J T GILLICK| 7.26.10 @ 5:55PM

"oh, sher LIED! He wasn't "LYNCHED" - just beasten to death by the sheriff, deputies, while in handciffs"

News for The Fool Who Wrote This:

"lynch" does not mean "hang" - it means "extra-judical execution"

How pathetically desperate TFWWT (oprunounced "Tif-Wit") must be to try and play this sort of grade-school debater word game in the hope his readers are as sub-literate as himself.

Apparently he knows his American Spectator audience well.

SM| 7.27.10 @ 1:00AM

>>"lynch" does not mean "hang" - it means "extra-judical execution"

Sounds like "murder" then.

Quartermaster| 7.26.10 @ 8:29PM

Yepper, Marine - The leftist wingnut posts below yours really make your case. The spittle flinging posts below show a bunch of people that really need to be in a rubber room so that can't hurt themselves or anyone else. No argument, just ad hominem in hopes they can shut people down through intimidation.

Sorry gang. It won't work anymore. The thrust of Lord's piece is on target, and that is why you are acting so insane.

Chris | 7.27.10 @ 10:35PM

What in the hell are you talking about? Your own comment is entirely ad hominem, with no substance whatsoever. You offer no defense of your position that Lord is correct, even though it has been proven that Lord is either lying or uninformed when he says that this man wasn't "lynched." That is the entire thrust of his argument. Oh, wait, you'll now probably say that the REAL argument was something entirely different, just like Breitbart backtracked and said Sherrod wasn't the real story, the "applause" (which never happened) from the NAACP was. What astounding cowardice.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:11PM

Not understood? Was her friend not murdered as an example so that all those "uppity" black folks would learn their place?

Tennessee fiddler| 7.27.10 @ 9:28AM

Sorry, you are so wrong here. Lynching is exactly what happened to Shirley Sherrod's father. You are redefining a word because you don't like it. Her father was lynched. She didn't lie. She told the exact truth.
It's interesting that you can write such a long, impassioned post saying that she lied, when she told the exact truth and called it by its right name. Who's got the mental disorder here?

ex| 7.27.10 @ 10:03AM

This is precisely what is wrong with political discourse today. It is not merely enough to disagree with your opponent it is now necessary to disparage them too (ie. "Liberalism is a mental mental disorder.")
This article has got to be one of the most bizarre spurious example of journalism I have ever seen. The author accuses someone of telling a falsehood based on his own spurious definition of lynching. He discredits himself and the American Spectator. Totally shameless.

Rhonda| 7.27.10 @ 10:31AM

Lynching refers to mob "justice," not exclusively hanging. Bobby Hall was lynched. Lord is purposely obfuscating this in an attempt to exonerate Breitbart.

Shame on The American Spectator for printing this piece of yellow journalism.

Matthew| 7.27.10 @ 11:26AM

Whatever you think of liberals, Jeffrey Lord is the liar here. The term "lynching" is not, by any definition but his, limited to death by hanging.

Radley Balko explained it quite well:

"The term lynching refers to a mob execution unsanctioned by law. It's often associated with hanging, but there are dozens of documented, racially-motivated lynchings in American history that had nothing to do with hanging. (The murder of Emmit Till is probably the most famous example.) "

Please, don't let a dislike of liberal policies or even specific liberals allow you to be taken in by Jeffrey Lord's flat out lies about history and the law.

steve| 7.27.10 @ 11:49AM

It's very popular to denigrate the concept of empathy as some sort of a pussy response that has no place in politics or discourse. But of course, it is the lack of empathy that allows people to make incredibly stupid statements like "being beaten to death is not lynching".

Open your mind and imagine it was someone you knew that was beaten to death by cops -- would you really give a shit that it wasn't technically a 'lynching' by some skewed definition?

To be fair, the lack of empathy is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum. Looking at the venom in the threads below on abortion, one can see how lack of empathy is the main cause for such extreme and aggressive rhetoric.

I am pro-choice, but I can easily understand how pro-life people would have such incredibly strong feelings about the subject. If I believed a fetus was a life in the same way a baby is a life, I would have the same reaction. Therefore, I always try and recognize the emotional weight of their view even if I disagree with it.

Is it really so hard to stop and put yourself in the other person's shoes before you run your mouth off?

Shawn Crahan| 7.27.10 @ 3:47PM

You shame your uniform, Ret Marine, and you shame yourself and all other servicemen.

Jelperman| 7.27.10 @ 5:12PM

Apparently the "Ret." in Ret. Marine stands for Retarded.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 8:40PM

Well, well, well. Guess who turns out to be hooked up with worthies like H. Rap Brown, Code Pink, the communist party and other warm and fuzzy people of the world?

Why it is the Sherrods of all people. Now we know why the Obama Administration wanted this shut down so fast and couldn't wait to cut them loose and then shut them up. We have all these wonderful little chicks in the same henhouse and all of them doing the same things....

Gee, we should have known there was a reason for all the lying, all the phony liberal rage and all the accusations and hysteria.

You thought you could distract everyone enough that nobody would dig below the surface and find out what was really going on. You thought you could get away with it by just being the vocalists that you are...

Once again, shout-out to Big Fur Hat and the staff at www.iowntheworld.com for the initial link:

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=30289

I expect that by this time next week we'll be hearing all sorts of excuses for the perpetrators of this liberal fraud.

Tom Degan| 7.26.10 @ 6:44AM

I'm trying to put myself in Shirley Sherrod's shoes. This is somewhat difficult due to the happy fact that I grew up as an upper middle class white kid in the suburbs north of New York City. When we went on vacation we didn't go by car - we went in a private plane that was owned by my dad! I am at a loss to explain to you how I became as left-of-center as I am. I'm sure that my youthful obsession with people like John Lennon and Dick Gregory had something to do with it. They were both accused by J.Edgar Hoover of corrupting the minds of the impressionable youth of this grand and glorious land of ours. Blame it on those guys.

I didn't grow up (as Shirley Sherrod did) as a poor black kid in the south. I wasn't surrounded on all fronts (as Shirley Sherrod was) by the vile sort of prejudice that told her, day after day, that she was not worthy to drink out of certain water fountains or eat in certain restaurants or use certain rest rooms. When my father died he was at home in a comfortable bed, surrounded by family and friends. Shirley Sherrod's father was murdered - shot in the back by a Klansman who was never even brought to trial. Had I been raised under the same circumstances as Shirley Sherrod, I would not today be a mere Progressive - I would be a freaking bomb-throwing revolutionary, are you kidding me? You might, too, would you dare to know yourselves better The very fact that Shirley Sherrod was able to overcome her own racism is a testament to the woman's character. Let's all raise a glass in her honor. Cheers!

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen NY

Bob K.| 7.26.10 @ 7:12AM

No, let us not raise a glass in her honor.

She was getting even and gloating about it! A very human reaction, but not admirable in any way.

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 11:01AM

Your statement is factually inaccurate. She did not 'get even' nor 'gloat about it'. She helped a family of farmers and then shared her story about how she helped them despite her initial inclination towards prejudice.

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 12:01PM

And we can believe her story because she has proven to be such a repository of truth and credibility in the past...

ChrisO| 7.26.10 @ 12:10PM

No, you can believe it bcause the farmer and his wife both strongly support what Sherrod says. But go ahead and continue to cast aspersions without bothering to check the facts.

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 3:50PM

rainmaker thwarted again!

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 6:55PM

Whites never have been the victims of racism, nor will they ever be. Whites have been held power over blacks for hundreds of years, so don't even try to equate anything a black man says with Slavery, Jim Crow Laws and discrimination. Exhibit is "A" is akin to the "Wise Latina" remark. The only people that can be accused of being racist are the group that created it in the first place. So watch your racist ass before you start spouting your tripe. As a white person, I'm ashamed of all those who have any racist prejudices.

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 7:34PM

"Domestic slave ownership as well as domestic and international slave trades in western Africa preceded the late 15th-century origins of the Atlantic slave trade. Since most West African societies did not recognize private property in land, slaves functioned as one of the only profitable means of production individuals could own. West Africans, therefore, acquired and expressed wealth in terms of dependent people, whether as kin, clients, or slaves. Moreover, caravan routes had long linked sub-Saharan African peoples with North Africa and the wider Mediterranean and Middle Eastern worlds. Not only was slavery an established institution in West Africa before European traders arrived, but Africans were also involved in a trans-Saharan trade in slaves along these routes."

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:33AM

We're talking about slavery and treatment of blacks in this country, dittohead. When we look for justification of our actions by comparisons for what happens in foreign countries, that is a bad thing - Just ask Jeff Sessions or Orin Hatch or Jon Kyl, or any number of Republican Senators sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee - remember them - your Gods?

Prometheus| 7.27.10 @ 2:32PM

Tim*, that's ridiculous! Who taught you that dribble, Rush Limbaugh? Domestic slave ownership in Western African did precede the Atlantic Slave Trade (AST) but it was never on a large scale. Western African slavery was more akin to indentured servitude where slaves were captured after a war. Winners of wars enslaved their battle field enemies for a time, but the slave(s) usually gained their freedom. Slavery in Western Africa was never big, their economies were not based on it since most West African (Sub-Sahara) countries economies were agrarian based (and no, it was not slave worked). Wealth in these countries was measured in the number of cattle/goats someone owned and of the number of children they had, not the number of dependent people. The limited indentured servitude is nothing like the AST. Middle Easterners did traffic in African slaves, and some quite brutally, but the brutality of the Middle Easterners did not compare the brutality of the rape, pillage, whole-sale slaughter, dumping of live bodies (into the ocean), beatings that occurred in AST. Slavery was not an established institution.
By the way, the Africans who participated in the AST (as in helping the Europeans get the would-be slaves) were under the impression that the whites were helping them get rid of their tribal enemies, they did not have an understanding of WHAT exactly they were sending their enemies to. By the time these nations realized what was truly going on, they put up a stiff resistance (like Ghana [including tribal enemies, the Ashanti]) but it was too late.

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 11:09PM

If you think white people created and are the sole practioners of racism you are sadly ignorant of both history and current world events.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:16PM

Peace People. The fact that some folks did bad things in the past is no excuse for bad things being done today. Yup, I'm talking to you Tim and Tom. Nasty attitudes. Pray for forgiveness.

Tom| 7.28.10 @ 8:17AM

Abigail,
Exactly where did I imply that past injustices excuse current ones?
As far as nasty attitudes go, perhaps we have a wee bit too much projection going on here.
Tom

Jules| 7.26.10 @ 1:18PM

So I guess the farmer and his wife are just lying. You know the guy that was at the Battle of Midway.
OR maybe they are LIBERAL plants just there to make Brietbart look bad.

I mean you know there is no way they could actually be telling the truth that without her help they would have lost their farm.

loulou| 7.26.10 @ 12:15PM

Sherrod is a shakedown artist and a poverty pimp. And a racist.

Just wait for her lawsuit, it's coming.

Nikki| 7.26.10 @ 12:28PM

Yup. And Breitbart will be made to pay.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 2:26PM

"She was getting even and gloating about it!"

We can believe you, or we can believe the White family whose farm she helped save. They were there; you were not.
Again: to prove some point only they understand, conservatives resort to lying. Why you think this helps your cause, I do not know . . . .

Bob K.| 7.26.10 @ 7:21PM

B-Rob,
It doesn't matter what she told the White family. We are discussing her demeanor and her words at the NAACP convention. The were meant to cause racial discord. And they did!

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 11:13PM

No, her words were not meant to cause racial discord. They were meant to do the exact opposite of that, which anyone with basic comprehension skills and no desire to play the "blacks are the real racists" card at every opportunity can see.

Her words did not cause racial discord. Breitbart caused racial discord by showing them out of context and lying about the entire situation.

Grzmlyk| 7.26.10 @ 8:50AM

Let's cut to the chase:

There are only two ways we can make this right with black people. One, of course, is to write a check for $5 million to each and every black person in this country, because nothing spells social justice like money.

Please ignore the trillions we've already thrown down that rat hole for things like The Great Society – which was a new way of enslaving blacks, but hey, it was a LIBERAL idea, so it must have been GOOD - or the blatant graft that destroyed cities like Detroit. No, we have to give "those people" their self esteem, and you can’t put a price tag on absolution from white guilt, even if it destroys a few more generations of black families. I can think of no better way to absolve myself of Original Sin than to tell somebody else to give his money to the Chosen People whom we call "African Americans" so that they can then turn around and insist on a new class of entitlements.

After all, each and every one of them is a victim of white people's inherent bigotry, you know. Even Michael Jordan and Oprah Winfrey and Sheila Jackson Lee and Morgan Freeman and Halle Berry and every single middle-class black person who has had to endure odious white people by adopting a dreary bourgeois way of life that runs counter to the pristine goodness and authentic tribal purity from which we ripped these people all those years ago.

Funny how so many black people voluntarily leave their countries to emigrate here, but it's probably not worth it to ponder why - not when we're dealing with making ourselves feel better!

I refer, of course, only to white people who aren't willing to bend over forward and backward to prove they aren't racists. You crackers who know your place and practice noblesse oblige by prostrating yourselves before the Great God Social Justice, well, you're gonna have to go too, but at least you can pat yourselves on the back as we walk you to the cliff.

The second way to make it right is my own idea, and I think it's a winner: We should enslave white people in America for 300 years, after which time we can declare us all equal at last. Of course this ignores the question of what to do with the burgeoning population of "Hispanics" - a word completely made up by liberals to pool all people of Latin blood into a nice, neat voting bloc that can be toted around easily, but who cares? We'll do reparations for them later. We need to act now with the black folks before they lose all of their political power to our invading friends from the south.

What's that you say? Slavery was first and foremost an economic structure, and that it's no longer valid in a post-industrial society? Tut, tut, my sweet: Logic is the first thing liberalism throws overboard. This isn't about reality; it's about making us feel better about ourselves. Let future generations worry about things like ramifications and unintended consequences even as the liberals in the great society left drug addiction and gang violence and broken families and horrible education to us.

By the way, if you think voting for Obama bought you a certificate of absolution, sorry, cracker: You are going to have to feel pain too. And the endgame, of course, is that, ultimately, you are going to have to be liquidated. White people are the scourge of America and liberals' Final Solution is a good one, I think; we must be erased. So forget what I said about us all being equal after 300 years of white slavery. If there is any social justice, there won’t BE any white people left on earth in 300 years, and the planet can be populated by its rightful owners, who will not become corrupt because the white man won’t be there to sully their status as demigods.

But until Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and little Barack get that legislation passed - or deemed to have passed - we have to prove we're not racists, and of course our options are limited.

So I propose the $5 million payment to every black person in American starting today.

Then we can have a "national discussion" led by Eric Holder (no smirking, you in the back) that leads to the enslavement of white people by black people for 300 years. That will cover the amount of time from the founding of evil America to the day Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, along with a portion of the tyranny we visited on blacks prior to our separation from England, as well as the oppression that lingered during reconstruction, Jim Crow and right up to the Civil Rights era.

Think of the exquisite justice to which we can pleasure ourselves as we toil in the fields, the whip lashing our backs if we don't move fast enough or act with sufficient deference to slave owners, knowing that divine retribution will cleanse our souls once and for all - until, of course, we do the right thing and volunteer for the genocide of all evil white people.

Why, not since the flagellants in medieval Europe flailed away at themselves to cleanse the evil spirits that brought on the plague has there been such a swell idea.

Liberals like Tom above subscribe to Rousseau's "Noble Savage" rubric, wherein blacks are the savages whose innate superiority was co-opted, subjugated and hammered down by we inferior, evil white people.

The other great people we oppressed is, of course, the holy "Native Americans," who were pure and good and eco-conscious and peaceful prior to the odious white man's rape of their land and subjugation of their Sacred Ways.

Yes, white people are evil, folks. That's not racism, it's a fact. Right, Tom?

kendahke| 7.26.10 @ 10:46AM

no, let's cut to the chase: nothing spells justice like equality under the law for every citizen no matter what color their skin. Period.

Grzmlyk| 7.26.10 @ 11:29AM

Gee, that's not very sporting of you.

Next thing you know, you'll be talking about how affirmative action is actually corrosive to both blacks and white, or how, if not for white guilt, Obama would have a job commensurate with his abilities - say, assistant night manager at a Wendy's in a suburb of Chicago.

Equality under the law? That's not "FAIR." That's not "SOCIAL JUSTICE."

You'll never be welcomed into the SEIU or the Teacher's Unions - or any other union, for that matter - with that attitude, and you'll never be a member in Good Standing of the Progressive Left.

Now let's get busy recifying the last 300 years of white evil and redistributing our wealth from the providers to the kleptocracy.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 5:34PM

Yeah, that Obama. What a slouch. I'll leave googling Laurence Tribe as an exercise for the reader.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/new.....tribe.html

I [Laurence Tribe] had met Barack Obama and hired him as my research assistant while he was still just a first-year Harvard law student. His stunning combination of analytical brilliance and personal charisma, openness and maturity, vision and pragmatism, was unmistakable from my very first encounter with the future president.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02.....eview.html

The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School.

The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school.

carnot| 7.27.10 @ 8:57AM

you mean the Lawrence Tribe the plagarist?

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:29AM

We have been rectifying (I think you mean that, don't you) , and will continue to do so until you stop defending racism, since there will be no need and until you love your black brethren - God expects us to do it.... we are all brothers under God - but you knew that, didn't you?

the permanent newbie| 7.26.10 @ 10:51AM

You might want to read (if you can find it; been out of print for years, and for good reason) "Farnham's Freehold," AKA "The Day After Tomorrow," by Robert Heinlein at his craziest. If you dare.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:00AM

"We need to act now with the black folks before they lose all of their political power to our invading friends from the south."

Oh now THAT is encouraging. You are admitting that a Tancredo could never get elected because Mexican Power now trumps Black Power, and will someday trump White Power.
Well, you got it right. So what do you propose now that Mexicans probably possess as much power and influence as whites do, and more than blacks?

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 7:00PM

Spoken like a true racist .. go ahead keep defending racism as a reaction to reverse racism... And, yes, there was a time when whites were evil and did evil things ... but we are in search of a more perfect union, and so it goes. We need to purge the country of racists like you. The more you argue or attack, the more racist you show yourself to be - you probably don't even see it, do ya, Bubbles?

Grzmlyk| 7.27.10 @ 9:15AM

Gee, buckethead, I thought you'd be first in line to genuflect at the altar of racial superiority - oh wait - you just did:

"There was a time when whites were evil." Hmm. Because they were white, eh? Not because of socioecnomic realities or geography or a thousand other things (and never mind that Africans themselves practiced - and sold other Africans into - slavery).

Now if you had said "there was a time when blacks were evil," you'd be drummed out of the Daily Kos.

Now you used the term "reverse racism," which presupposes white superiority - I did not. Racism is racism and you have just proven you are a bigot, buckethead.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you an abject, racist fool. Take a bow, PurpleGuy. You've earned it.

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:25AM

As they say, "it takes one to know one ", so take your own bow, Archie.

Blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 8:19PM

Grz,

I'll need a "get outta slavery" free card. My relatives came here from Norway/Scotland/Irealand around 1900. I suppose that makes me a Euro-Cracker?

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:18PM

Cold compress and right to bed with you. Eww. Brain bleach required for that screed.

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 11:19PM

*yawn*

bert| 7.26.10 @ 8:53AM

Tom peedle your cooked left wing up propaganda elsewhere.
Tom we know you lying Obama internet propagandist do your hit and run posts here but just buzz off lefty and takes you bag of radical leftist lies with you !

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:25AM

FYI: the term for the above comment is "Word Salad."

John from Seattle| 7.26.10 @ 11:58AM

LOL!

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 11:38PM

"FYI: the term for the above comment is "Word Salad.""

Buffy fan? :)

Eric Cartman| 7.26.10 @ 9:36AM

And if Tom Degan were a black Tutsi in Rwanda having watched his family being cut up by the black Hutus, he would want revenge, too!

And if he were a Jew in Germany and watched his family gassed in Auschwitz or Dachau, he would be a bomb-throwing radical also.

And I guess if he were a Cambodian that watched his family worked to death and then shot . . . oh, wait. He would have been the one turning his family in to the Khmer Rouge Commies to watch them get shot. Sorry.

Anyway, good thing the others are better than Tom Degan and chose forgiveness and to get on with their lives. You're a shining example of Lefty assholeness, Tommy boy!

Forever Marine| 7.26.10 @ 10:28AM

Great analogies. And all dead on. Forgiveness is Christian. The left does not want forgiveness or faith because they are responsible traits. The left wants victims. Victims need government.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:03AM

"Great analogies. And all dead on. Forgiveness is Christian. The left does not want forgiveness or faith because they are responsible traits. The left wants victims. Victims need government."

But you guys wouldn't even forgive Clinton for shagging Lewinsky.

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 11:14AM

Alan,
I never did give a damn about who Big Willy put his little Willy in. My concern was the recklessness of his actions. Didn't he have enough foresight to realize this particular woman was going to blow up in his face?
Tom

rockgolf| 7.26.10 @ 12:45PM

Actually, Tom, vice versa.

Grzmlyk| 7.26.10 @ 1:56PM

I do give a damn.

One of the most tiresome tropes of liberalism is this faux, "oh, look at me, I'm SOOO evolved that I can separate a person's sexual activities from his performance in a professional capacity." As if it is possible to separate a person's sexuality from the rest of their personality.

I can tell you that if any executive at your average corporation is caught getting fellatio from a 24-year old intern at his desk during working hours, he's going to be dismissed. Once you do it at the office, it's no longer just your business.

And yes, she was technically an adult. But does anyone really think Clinton didn't use his power and iconic status to exploit her naivete? I mean, I'm about the age Clinton was back then and I couldn't imagine using a 24-year old like that.

And in most cases, such craven activity is indicative of a predatory nature, and such natures are usually not confined to one's sexuality. Need we go into the litany of shady business activities and other nefarious shenanigans engaged in by boy clinton?

I mean, why are liberals so quick to demonize the catholic church because many priests engage in gay sex with partners of all ages? Isn't it their business too?

It is moral preening of the most squalid kind to get up on your high horse with phony "objectivity" and pretend that someone's sexual behavior is somehow separate from the rest of their character.

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 2:34PM

If we limited our positions of power to those who have never had an illicit affair we'd be damn short of available talent.

There is a difference between priests who engage in practices they preach against and a politician who if I recall was elected, despite my vote, by an electorate who knew of his adultery.

Grzmlyk| 7.26.10 @ 2:55PM

Look around. We're damned short of available talent now. And while Clinton had talent the same way a successful grifter has talent, I do not think his talents extended to being a leader or an admirable politician in any way.

And there are DEGREES of sexual aberration - you've put forward the classic defense - hey, one sexual transgression is the same as the other, so we'd better just look the other way for all of them. Not true.

A long-standing affair in a loveless marriage is NOT the same as habitually trolling for teeny boppers in one's spare time. Yes, both are transgressions, but they are not equal.

And Clinton is/was a serial womanizer. He is a user of people, and a perfect example is his treatment of women as receptacles. His sexual behavior is consistent with his narcissism.

And it is fair to include that in one's judgment of him, or any politician. I, for one, believe Clinton is also a rapist. And, surprise, surprise, it turns out Al Gore is very likely a sexual predator as well. Who woulda thunk that? Gosh, his craven disregard of the truth and abject and avaricious grab for illegitimate lucre by turning carbon dioxide into a currency kind of makes it not so surprising that he's a scumbag in personal relationships as well, eh?

And let's not even get started on John Edwards. I suppose fathering a child out of wedlock, while his wife was dying of cancer, and then pawning the fatherhood onto a blindly loyal aide says nothing about Edwards' character in the courtroom, eh?

And don't most politicians preach against adultery and position themselves as loyal, monogamous family men? Seems like a double standard to me.

If a friend of yours confided in you that he had a predilection for, uh, excretory bodily functions being part of the sex act, could you ever look at him in quite the same way?

I don't think so.

People's sexual appetities reveal a lot about their personalities and to pretend otherwise is to practice the art of liberalism - ignore reality.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 7:10PM

You forgot to call out your conservative buddies too. Which I"m sure was an oversight - but why don't you memorialize over Mark Foley or Ted Haggart, perhaps Larry "I have a wide-stance" Craig, Mark "I'm on the Appalachian Trail" Sanford or David "I have challenges - with prostitutes" Vitter?
The difference is that the Conservatives don't practice what they preach. Liberals aren't hypocrites like the Conservatives are, that's what makes their transgressions so much worse. Liberals aren't out there spouting they are holier than thou, as do religious Republicans, to be shown up as the immoral bastards that they really are - Newt Gingrich, anyone? Or how about Porn Star Levi Johnston and Bristol "Mama's gonna be mad" Palin under the tutelage of Sarah, in Palin's Place?

Care to comment, now?

Campy| 7.26.10 @ 10:52PM

So let me get this straight, Purp.

Your issue with some hypocritical Conservatives is strictly because they don't live what they preach? But it's okay for Liberal immoral transgression, simply because they keep their mouths shut? Am I reading you right? And yet, we are to look to Bill C., John E., and Al G. as paragons of morality and leadership?

Oh wait...they didn't proselytize, so the same deed is USDA Okey Dokey?

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:22AM

I did not say it's okay to be immoral. What I said is that Liberals don't talk out of both sides of their mouth, preaching morality that we all should abide by, while at the same time violating that which they preach. I should add that Liberals are more inclusive as a group and more forgiving of human frailty. You know "to err is human, to forgive is divine" - you right wingers ought to follow that precept instead of "my way or the highway" .

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:15PM

"It is moral preening of the most squalid kind to get up on your high horse with phony "objectivity" and pretend that someone's sexual behavior is somehow separate from the rest of their character."

So you can't forgive Clinton? it is a yes or no question.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:27PM

Which sitting (if you'll pardon the expression) senator has a diaper fetish? Which retired senator had a wide stance? Which former representative sought out Congressional pages for illicit meetings?

To try and defend Catholic officials for predations is ridiculous. So the guy below, who thinks it's not good for a priest to abuse a child--but not a deal kiier, comes out boldly against sex between consenting adults?

NV912er| 7.26.10 @ 11:16AM

Alan,
Many Presidents have shagged a "Lewinsky", it's about the disrespect for the office and lying when questioned under oath. It's about the principles and values. I'm doing my damnedest to stress that to both Dem & Rep candidates. It's time that ALL American's kick their chosen Representatives in the ass when they fail to live up to their duty.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:18PM

"Alan,
Many Presidents have shagged a "Lewinsky", it's about the disrespect for the office and lying when questioned under oath. It's about the principles and values. I'm doing my damnedest to stress that to both Dem & Rep candidates. It's time that ALL American's kick their chosen Representatives in the ass when they fail to live up to their duty."

But America is similar to ancient Rome, and in Rome you do as Romans do.

Grzmlyk| 7.27.10 @ 9:33AM

It's not a question of forgiving him. Do you forgive a slug for leaving a trail of slime?

He is who he is, and who he is is a self-centered, solipsistic narcissist. And so all of his behavior - whether sexual or political or business-related or with respect to personal friendships - is going to reflect his tendency to see other people as objects in HIS personal universe.

I'm not in the forgiving business, and if you're trying to tie me to a Christian rubric, you will fail - I do not consider myself a Christian.

ncatty| 7.26.10 @ 11:23AM

He didn't shag her. He researched oral sex in the Bible and came to the conclusion that it wasn't adultery, so used her in that way. Be careful, these kind of distinctions (beating versus hanging) can lead to Mr. Lord posting lengthy blogs.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:25PM

But sex doesn't mean anything much post -'70s, it has become commodified into big business, so why pick on Clinton for the Lewinsky bread & Circuses scandal? it sold magazines, newspapers, books, didn't it? Mr. Tyrrell made a bundle on Clinton bashing.

Warrior| 7.26.10 @ 11:35AM

Could care less about his cigar humidor. It was the obstruction of justice and perjury that sealed his fate. You also leave off his actions in the Paula Jones matter which also accoutned for part of his troubles. Fortunately for Slick Willie, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, and Dolly Kyle Browning were not taken all that seriously with their allegations.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 7:13PM

You mean like when GW Bush violated American AND International Law when he approved torture in the interest of security? Just because the Liberals in power aren't being aholes, taking Bush to trial, like the Republicans were with Clinton, doesn't mean he's off the hook now or in the history books.

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 11:13PM

What specific acts of torture did Bush approve?

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:18AM

Are you serious? At the very least, waterboarding fits the category, but so do standing naked for hours, sleep deprivation, and the list goes on and on. And Bush admitted it even after he left the Presidency. OMG.
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory states" For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
If that isn't good enough for you, it is illegal in the United States itself -
" Torture as a punishment falls under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted "

The US Supreme Court has held since at least the 1890s that punishments that involved torture are forbidden under the Eighth Amendment.

In addition -
Torture is also prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

" 1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;"

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 8:45PM

However , we did forgive Clinton for shaggin' your old lady .

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:27AM

Need I remind that it is the LEFT holding up Mrs. Sherrod as a paragon of honor for being able to forgive and forget the evils that were done to her family by racitst,

While it is the RIGHT who continues to denounce her for the old resentment which she moved beyond?

Your comment doesn't make any sense. It is contradicted by the facts of this very case.

Toto| 7.26.10 @ 5:08PM

Eric Cartman's comments are nearly always vitriolic and vulgar.

His writing has the tone of a pubescent, middle-school bully.

His comments certainly lower the tone of this thread of commentary. I think AmSpec should delete offenders like Cartman.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 7:14PM

Here, here!

Eric Cartman| 7.27.10 @ 8:58AM

My comments just come too close for comfort, don't they, Purplehead? How's every "little" thing, BTW? :-)

Purpleguy| 7.27.10 @ 9:08AM

Obsessed with my "little" thing are ya? Hmmm, you're not only vulgar and vitriolic but also perverted I see.

Sam Vaughn| 7.26.10 @ 10:34AM

Tom, bully for you. How typical of an upper-crust liberal to lecture lesser individuals. Unlike you I worked my way through college, three jobs, loading trucks, waiting tables, soldering circuit boards till midnight etc. Due to my race and supposed middle-class status it was a hard slog I wouldn't wish on anyone. Nevertheless, I hold no grudges against you for for winning lifes lottery and growing up with a silver spoon nor the people who qualified for grants that I did not due to my race. You see, once I realized that life wasn't fair and I don't expect it to be, I was liberated. I owe no one anything have not regrets and live my life trying to the right thing everyday in the eyes of people I respect and my God.

The last thing in life I would ever want to wish on anyone is for people like you to take pity on them. Along with that goes their dignity and freedom.

raincntry| 7.26.10 @ 12:50PM

Point of fact, if you took a private plane that your father owned on vacation you can drop the "middle" and just go with upper class.

George True| 7.26.10 @ 1:16PM

Thank you for providing a case study in white guilt.

Hershl| 7.26.10 @ 7:05AM

I wonder when our media will report the following?

Saudi Arabia, the center of the Islam, has now created a government-run SMS system, funded by the taxpayers, which keeps tabs on women. The SMS messages are automatically relayed to the husband so that he can figure out where his property has strayed. Women are legally classified as property in the Koran along with cattle, slaves- Saudi Arabia refuses to sign the anti-slavery conventions since Islam approves of slavery-, goats, and other goods that may be bought and traded. It is important in Islam, where a man can have many wives, cattle and goats, to know if his durable goods are on the loose.

I wonder if the Western leftist, anti-America, anti-Israel rabble are ready to allow their masters to receive SMS messages when they stray? If it's good enough for their Muslim heroes, I assume that it's good enough for them, too.

http://jewishdailyreport.wordp.....-escaping/

stephanie| 7.26.10 @ 7:22AM

The question that always come to mind when I hear these stories of oppression is, WHERE ARE THE WOMEN'S GROUPS?! What a sad joke they are. They showed their true colors during the Clinton/Lewenski debacle and the horrific way they have treated Sarah Palin.

John from Seattle| 7.26.10 @ 12:00PM

Poor Sarah is crying all the way to the bank.

Hysterical Woman| 7.26.10 @ 12:17PM

http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-2002/gender.html

http://feministing.com/2010/01.....100-times/

Maybe if you searched you might find something?

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 11:52PM

Thank you, Hysterical Woman. The "Where are the feminists?!!!" people always crack my shit up. Do they assume that the mainstream media is controlled by feminists, and that if they don't hear any feminist reaction in the MSM, then it doesn't exist? Because...that's just a very, very stupid thing to believe.

Hysterical Woman| 7.26.10 @ 12:33PM

The go-to feminazi Andrea Dworkin thought Lewinsky was abused.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACL.....nton2.html

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 3:56PM

Perharps Newt would like to adopt this from Saudi Arabia as well? It seems that's where he derives his basis in morality.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:34PM

"They showed their true colors during the Clinton/Lewenski debacle and the horrific way they have treated Sarah Palin."

Palin revealed herself as a demagogue by her 'Health Care Death Squads' rhetoric:
"they are coming to get you, Barbara. Look, there's one of them now."

Night Of The Healthcare Death Squads

SM| 7.27.10 @ 1:06AM

>"I grew up as an upper middle class white kid in the suburbs north of New York City. When we went on vacation we didn't go by car - we went in a private plane that was owned by my dad! I am at a loss to explain to you how I became as left-of-center as I am."

You're at a loss? It seems impossible that you could ever have become anything else.

>"The very fact that Shirley Sherrod was able to overcome her own racism .."

She has not overcome it. The woman's a bigot

Katherine| 7.26.10 @ 7:31AM

Merriam Webster, Tenth Edition: Lynch: "to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction." Lynch law: "the punishment of presumed crimes or offenses usu. by death without due process of law."

I am no fan of the speech Sherrod gave. However, Bobby Hall was murdered by white deputies for no good reason, as the Supreme Court pointed out. This meets the general definition of "lynching," even without hanging, and I think you are straining at gnats to call her a liar on this point.

LaneyB| 7.26.10 @ 7:41AM

Regardless of the dictionary's definition, English is considered the most nuanced of languages because each word has a specific, unique meaning giving context and emotion to any written or spoken idea or statement. I don't need a dictionary to instruct me on the accepted meaning of the word "lynching." In the jargon commonly accepted, and particularly when associated with a specific method of murder, we all understand the intent of the term and what it purports to convey.

Her version of the tale she told includes the inflammatory word because it arises a certain judgment about the circumstances of the incident. That it wasn't true was of no import to her. She was going for maximum impact. Sounds like she's a budding politician, no?

Katherine| 7.26.10 @ 7:52AM

LaneyB, "lynching" doesn't always mean "hanging." It is used in general in both black and white Southern speech to mean the killing of a black person by whites operating outside the law. You understood it to mean "hanging," but that is not necessarily how it is always used.

Sure she was being inflammatory. The whole speech indicates that she considers race and economic class to be the only reasons for her to have empathy with anyone. But on this specific point, "lynching" to describe the beating death of a black man on suspicion of stealing a tire is not outside ordinary usage.

Stephen| 7.26.10 @ 8:02AM

I have nothing good to say about Ms. Sherrod's speech, but I completely agree with Katherine. When I started reading this article, I thought it was going somewhere good, but it lost all credibility with me. A black man being beaten by white men while handcuffed is as much of a lynching as if he were hung on a rope. This article is definitely straining at gnats on this one. Thanks for pointing this out Katherine.

Soylent Gringo| 7.26.10 @ 10:07AM

Lynching was a tradition in Southern States prior to the end of the civil war, but it involved clans and families lynching members of rival clans or families in a revenge cycle common to lawless area's where "justice" was decoded by clan leaders, or spontaneously by members of clans when the opportunity presented itself- The Hatfields lynched the McCoys and the McCoys lyched. And lynching during this period was between white rival clans in the centuries that preceeded the civil war, as a result of the population that had emigrated to the south from the equally lawless area between the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England. The people from this area, in what is now the Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool areas, eventually were brought into the United kingdom of Britain, and educated and the 'customs' of the clans there were eradicated. But not before many emigrated to the south and took these tribal and clan customs with them. This is where the word "cracker" comes from i.e. originates. It is a shortened form of the word "wisecracker" and was not originally an indicator of skin color or "race", as all the folks using it in the area between scotland and england were of the same "white" skin color. People from this region were known to be lazy, resistant to real work, and prone to fighting "at the drop of a hat". Anything as minor as how one might look at someone, or if one accidentally bumped into one of a rival clan,could be taken as a slight, and lead to a fisticuffs, or all out brawl, up to and including further lynching. Whereas this custom of honor and manhood died out in Great Britain, before it did, it had emigrated to America, and survived in the deep south, known as "redneck culture". Lynchings prior to the civil war, almost exclusively involved white rival clans. Read all about it in Thomas Sowell's book "White Liberals and Black Rednecks".
He cites all relevant historical scholarship on record, documenting these customs of clans and tribes in pre-civil war southern america.

Soylent Gringo| 7.27.10 @ 10:21AM

@ Abigail, scuze me, but when? and where, did you 'try' "to be pleasant"?

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 10:51AM

"... specific, unique meaning ... ."

After an hour, the alarm went off. Did it start to ring or stop ringing?

The committee refused to sanction her actions. Did they refuse to approve her actions or refuse to punish her?

Jeez, go look up "set," "put" or "get" in the dictionary and remind me again about the single unique meaning.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 10:58AM

Where we all of these people so intent on a strict definition of "lynching" when Justice Thomas refered to his Senate confirmation hearings as a "lynching"?

tfeeney| 7.26.10 @ 12:18PM

"Where we all of these people so intent on a strict definition of "lynching" when Justice Thomas refered to his Senate confirmation hearings as a "lynching"?"

thanks for saying what I was just thinking as well. Thomas was lying, but one thing he didn't do was misuse the word "lynching".

the problem with this article is that the author and editors failed to do the vetting that caused mayhem one week ago today.

i await the spectator's next expose regarding any grammar errors she made in her speech.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:33AM

Lynching does, indeed, have a single, unique meaning: a public mob execution outside of color of law. That is precisely what happened to Mrs. Sherrod's relative. Having been arrested for a crime, he was dragged away from the police and beaten to death by a mob, on the courthouse steps.

Hanging has never been a definitional element of lynching. Truman's "To Secure These Rights" report has numerous examples of lynchings carried out with gunfire and beatings.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 12:22PM

"Regardless of the dictionary's definition, English..."

Wouldn't it just be easier to say "I didn't know 'lynch' mean that, I was wrong"?

Humberto Dunbar| 7.26.10 @ 5:21PM

Obviously by "lynch", Jeffrey meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you", not the pedestrian meaning of "for a group claiming to serve justice/race/tradition to extralegally kill someone". Mr. Lord is obviously a very gifted journalist to make words -- particularly verbs, which are the proudest words, and hard to manage -- mean what he chooses them to mean. Impenetrability!

Bob K.| 7.26.10 @ 8:46AM

The point that Mr. Lord is making is that this was not a killing perpetrated by an unruly populace. It was done by Officers of the Law duly appointed by the politicians elected to run the county and in this case they were Democrats as Mrs. Sherrod well knew.

She was giving a political speech. She knew exactly what she was doing but, like Breitbart, she did not forsee the potential consequences of not telling the entire story.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:34AM

Police officers often took part in lynchings.

The police were not acting as officers of the law, but outside the law, as they so often did in hundreds of lynchings throughout history.

Soylent Gringo| 7.27.10 @ 10:39AM

Police officers taking part in lynchings are doing so as off-duty citizens engaging in behavior as equally illegal as police misconduct is. The police officer was convicted of police misconduct while he was on duty. It was Hugo Black, the former democrat Senator from Georgia, who overturned the conviction of police misconduct handed down by a jury in The State of Georgia Court, that set the formerly convicted police officer -found guilty of violating the civil rights of Sherrod's father in the State of Georgia court- and later provided his reprieve when cyclops and former democrat United States senator Hugo black, who had succeeded to the office of "justice" of the Supreme Court- as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Democrat appointee, and democrat majority Senate confirmed appointee.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 12:01AM

Gee, I wonder who might have a better idea of what "lynching" actually means. Someone whose father was murdered by police officers for being black, or you...

This is a toughie. I'm gonna have to think this one through.

Debbie A| 7.26.10 @ 10:32AM

Excellent piece of investigative journalism! Problem is as always: people who don't want to hear the truth find a way to twist the truth to fit what they want to hear and believe. The general definition of lynching is by hanging. The mob action extrapolation can make lynching become anything you want to make it. It still doesn't change the basic truth. This journalist deserves a huge "Thank You" for the history lesson and background information that has been lost or omitted. The fact that people will choose not to want to know the whole story is how we got to this point in the first place.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:36AM

The general definition of lynching is NOT "hanging." The general definition of lynching is execution by a mob, outside of a legal framework. Read "To Secure These Rights," the civil rights report from the Truman administration. There are plenty of lynchings described that used gunfire and beatings.

Read the language of the anti-lynching laws that were proposed. They didn't mention hanging, either.

Nikki| 7.26.10 @ 12:33PM

Wow. You actually WANT to thank the author for making you dumber after reading his article?

Grace| 7.26.10 @ 12:37PM

You're applauding a "journalist" who didn't open a dictionary before writing a giant article scolding someone for supposedly misusing a word. Not too clever.

The general definition is not "hanging", though that was the most popular mode of execution. As anyone with a particularly sharp high school history teacher knows... well, that anyone who GOOGLED THE WORD.

Believe the so-called history lesson if you want, I guess, but it's revisionist history. The actual definition of "lynch" is not particular to hanging by the neck until dead. Believing your preferred version of history doesn't make it true, it just makes you delusional.

words have meaning| 7.26.10 @ 1:57PM

"The fact that people will choose not to want to know the whole story is how we got to this point in the first place."

Debbie A, you are a confused and damaged person, but on this point you speak the truth -- We have gotten to this point because some people choose not to know.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 10:37PM

You write as if she were the one who beat someone to death.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:36PM

Once again, tried to be nice but you, sir, are a moron.

Ray| 7.26.10 @ 7:38AM

@Tom Degan

No, let's not raise a glass in her honor.

I originally felt that she was treated unfairly by the NAACP, the Obama administration and by Breitbart, but I lost respect for her since then. Why is below...

The Obama administration (per her own words) WAS involved in her ouster, and acted stupidly, and the NAACP vilified her even though they had the full, unedited video - so neither they nor the Obama administration can say that they were "snookered."

Since this all started, she has since said on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that Breitbart wants to "get us all stuck back in slavery." The full video clip is at YouTube for all to listen to and watch. She clearly still has an axe to grind, since she responded to Breitbart's unfairness by engaging in racebaiting. Sick.

Tom, we can let our past define us or we can define ourselves. Were you to become a "bomb-throwing Progressive," you would be letting yourself become controlled by hate, and there is no justification for hate.

Jeremiah| 7.26.10 @ 10:02AM

I, too, am dismayed at the partisan and ugly use Ms. Sherrod has made of her newfound celebrity to attack Fox News and the other usual conservative 'suspects', using false charges. In fact, I am astounded that, when her life was nearly turned upside down by false charges made against her, she now thinks it is just peachy to make vicious false charges against others - if they are conservative.

But let's get serious here. Our side smeared her. That is something I expect from the left. In fact, it is one of their few effective tactics. It is one of the reasons I became a FORMER Democrat before I was even old enough to vote. I do not expect it from the right, where honor generally means something and where most of us believe, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" means thou shalt not bear false witness. I was upset when it turned out we had smeared the woman, but thought it was an incompletely vetted video that a few were too eager to run with before checking it. I am downright sickened to see a few conservatives eager to grasp at straws to show we were somehow right or that she deserved it anyway.

Mr. Lord, I enjoy reading you most of the time. But can you possibly be serious with this? Her relative was beaten to death by police rather than hanged and you want to make Sherrod's description of it as a lynching into a shameless lie? Should we then institute impeachments hearings against Clarence Thomas for describing the hostile smears by the left against him during his confirmation hearings as a "high-tech lynching?"

Please, would you and a few other conservative commentators can it with the Dan Rather impression, spluttering that even if the evidence was entirely concocted and false that it should have been true or is true in some strange interpretation in which we have to argue about what the meaning of 'is' is. For God's sakes, leave such contortions to the left.

One of our own smeared her and we were sucked in by it. Let's not do it again.

AnActualLeftist| 7.26.10 @ 10:50AM

"But let's get serious here. Our side smeared her. That is something I expect from the left. "

Which is itself hilarious considering the right is the party of smears, the party of Limbaugh, the party of Coulter, the party of Savage, the party of concern trollling, of offense mongering, or religion baiting, and the very worst of mankind's demagoguery.

Democrats and progressives are better. They are not better by nearly enough and mainstream progressivism in America is a disgrace I can't abide but to one side is clearly more drive by emotion, fear, and propaganda than the other.

Grzmlyk| 7.26.10 @ 11:19AM

Hey rocket scientist: Is there a coherent thought rolling around there anywhere?

Limbaugh and Coulter do not smear anyone. But let me guess: You've never listened to either one. You just got your marching orders from the Daily Kos and, like a good solider, you don't question them. Of course, THAT'S not propaganda.

Yes, I know, you're a unique thinker. As unique as every other cog in the progressive machine.

By the way, "the party of concern trollling, of offense mongering, or religion baiting, and the very worst of mankind's demagoguery," if I can make sense of your incoherent babbling, is in fact the DEMOCRAT party. But like all libs, your first line of defense is to accuse conservatives of the very travesties of which YOU are guilty.

So how much are YOU hitting the government up for?

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 11:22AM

Oh please. If you want to make the point that the right smears, do so it is valid. However, all those you mentioned are not politicians they are entertainers/commentators. Do you really want to engage in a contest of quotes pitting right wing commentators against democrat elected politicians?

TooManyJens| 7.26.10 @ 12:58PM

"However, all those you mentioned are not politicians they are entertainers/commentators."

Oh, well, that makes it OK for them to lie then. And they certainly don't have any influence!

"Do you really want to engage in a contest of quotes pitting right wing commentators against democrat elected politicians?"

I'd pit quotes from Democratic elected officials against Republican elected officials any day of the week. Y'all elect some really crazy people.

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 2:37PM

There is a difference between commentators/entertainers and politicians in regards to their statements. If you do not see that it is more than likely wullful ignorance.

Ok, you start with your crazy Republican quote.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:40PM

Knock it off would you? The race baiters need their sleep, night GRYZLmk. WTF

Lu D.| 7.26.10 @ 7:44AM

Check out the article in the Washington Examiner by Tom Blumer.There is a lot more to this story.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.26.10 @ 8:03AM

Another interesting connection which may explain the fast dismissal was her participation in the 60's with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. Her husband also participated and was a key member and organizer.

After Charles Sherrod stepped away from the SNCC another person rode to prominence, Stokley Carmichael, who later became a prominent white hater and leader within the Black Panther Party.

Also a major force in the SNCC was Bill Ayers, America's home grown terrorist.

If you will note there is a litany of relationships here and they all lead down the same path, to the Obama White House.

As Jeffrey Lord points out though, it's simply collectivism which leads to racism, It doesn't matter whether the perpetrators are black or white, all collectivism leads to racism.

Maddox| 7.26.10 @ 8:18AM

Well said. That path is leading to the destruction of America using racial division as one of the tools to achieve their agenda.
Many people, like Ms. Sherrod, are eager to serve as the leftists' cause as useful idiots.
The continuation of a vendetta that is decades old and involved no one she meets today is small minded and wrong.

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 4:06PM

LOL at the extrapolation "If you will note there is a litany of relationships here" based on enrollment in a common student group. Did you know Dahmer was a boyscout? And so was McVeigh? The Boy Scouts and anyone who ever was a member of the organization are mass murders!
Try to get your talking points from someone other than Glenn Beck every once in a while.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.27.10 @ 6:00AM

The Boy Scouts are not collectivists. Get your logic from something other then a mail order course.

Making stuff up| 7.26.10 @ 11:42PM

Check it out...buy gold!!!

cat48| 7.26.10 @ 8:11AM

You really need to google "lynched" because it is applicable in the case. As I understand it, the person does not have to be hanged to use lynched.

Chalkdust| 7.26.10 @ 8:24AM

Hugo Black, Robert Byrd and Richard Russell are still alive in the Democratic today. Ironically, in a twist of racial fate, the craft perfected by the the three jackals mentioned above is being used by white/black progressives as a crudgon to beat white Republicans in a socialist quest for power. Ironically, Republicans played little or no part in the evil of yesteryear.
Having spent most of my life being lorded over by progressive Democrats trying to tax my family into serfdom and subsisting on beans and fried squirrels with no plane to fly me on vacation. It's a wonder I'm a law-abiding, tax paying citizen rather than hunting down liberal race baiters.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 11:46AM

"Crudgon"?

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 11:55AM

I've figured "crudgon" out. It's the hybrid offspring of a cudgel and a bludgeon, sort of like a liger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Shira| 7.26.10 @ 2:36PM

Robert Byrd is dead, actually.

Also, you cannot possibly claim that the Democratic party of the pre-Civil Rights era is the same Democratic party of today. "Republicans played little or no part in the evil of yesteryear"? Learn some history. It's true that many Democrats were racist and against the Civil Rights movement. Those people became today's Republicans. After the Civil Rights Act was passed under a Democratic president, there was a gradual but massive exodus of Southern Democrats into the Republican party, fueled in later years by Republican presidents. So many of today's bigoted, racist Republicans lording Lincoln and the Civil Rights Act over the Democrats are yesterday's Dixiecrats who became Republicans out of protest for those very things. That's why it's extraordinarily disingenuous when Republicans try to claim Lincoln as an example of their values, and pretend they were anti-slavery and in favor of the Civil Rights Act. It was a completely different party back then.

Shira| 7.26.10 @ 2:39PM

All dead, actually. That's what I get for trying to take you literally. =) But original posts still stands - comparing the parties then and now is a process meant solely to deceive.

John - TMF| 7.26.10 @ 8:27AM

"Never apologize. It's a sign of weakness...." - John Wayne in more than a few movies of which I can think.

I think of all the "Conservatives" self-righteously lining up to condemn Andrew Breitbart and his story... I shudder... then think of the magic M'caca. Yes, we should coin the phrase as a warning to all Conservatives who get trapped by their own kind in an Alinsky Target.

Maybe all of the "Conservatives" who screamed in pants wetting spineless high dudgeon to "Pleeeezzzeeee, pretty puleeeezzzeeee with sugar and government tribute on top of it... as proof that the R word is so Meeeeeaannn and cruelll... snivvel... sniff... weap... moan..."

Right. AB should apologize for what? Exposing a racist, and a racist organization for what they are? Come on... please give me a break.

My old man taught me a few things about the school yard bully and his toadies. One of them was that "If you choose to stand your ground and fight, you are going to get hit, so you better be prepared for it." He also told me that I might lose a few as well, but "the bully will think twice about the chunk you took out of him the next time..."

The charge of racism is a brutal form of bullying. It is time to quit paying tribute, stand up, and fight back. Breitbart is doing just that...

George Allen made a serious mistake and should have known better. He failed to fight back, and he stated that failure with an apology. The sharks smelled the blood in the water, and now we have WaPo Webbie...

I repeat... Don't apologize, your enemies will see it as a sign of weakness.

r/The Mighty Fahvaag

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 8:51AM

I disagree.

It's a sign of honesty and of honor.

It takes a bigger man to apologize for something he's done wrong than to try and defend his actions as justified.

John - TMF| 7.26.10 @ 9:16AM

1) This is politics, not every day life where you accidentally step on someone's toes... and an apology is due. This is brutal uncompromising political warfare where an apology is an admission of group guilt which brings upon it the massive political beating that will always be meted out to perceived weaklings.

2) Apologize for what? As this article is showing. Breitbart was spot on correct. The woman is a race baiter of long standing, and the NAACP membership was reacting with delight to the sections of her little fable regarding treating a white man poorly because she despised his race. So Breitbart is standing up and refusing to take it anymore. He deserves to be supported, not condemned...

3) I remember you! You were the dweeb who was always sucking up to the bully in public... and cursing him in private where no one could see... You were the guy who kicked me in the shins for standing up to the goon squad... You screamed "Now LOOK what you did!!!!" and ran away...

Hum...

Don't apologize... to your enemies it is a sign of weakness.

Save your apologies for your wife when she accuses you of screwing up the wash, or not mowing the lawn before four days of rain.

-TMF

John - TMF| 7.26.10 @ 9:25AM

BTW.. small correction because of fat fingers... a point was missed..

The sentence should have read:

The woman is a race baiter of long standing, and the NAACP membership was reacting with delight to the sections of her little fable regarding treating a white man less poorly even though she despised his race.

r.TMF

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 11:52AM

"Race baiter of long standing"? Any evidence for that assertion? Who had ever even heard of her before?

blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 8:51PM

long standing refers to a period of time.

He did not accuse her of being a famous racist.

that would be somone like Hymie-town Jackson.

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 10:14AM

Nope, I was the kid who regularly had to stand up to bullies. Knocked a few down here and there.

Your first point is what is wrong with American politics. No apologies - just defending what someone does wrong. I haven't seen a real apology in years in American politics - if ever.

Breitbart should have played most of the video. He may be right about Sherrod - he certainly was about the NAACP - but he also should have known what to do with the resulting firestorm. He fell for what he was good at - presenting the whole context of something. It's far too easy now with the internet to figure these sorts of things out.

Reggie Syriac| 7.26.10 @ 10:50AM

I love how you two seemingly grown men are arguing over which one of you was the best at vanquishing bullies as a child. "Cool stories, bros."

Jeremiah| 7.26.10 @ 10:19AM

In 1973 I attended a week-long national political-type convention for high school kids. I went in as a good liberal Democrat. All week long I listened to Democratic speakers absolutely gloat over the Watergate mess. They could not contain their glee and joy over the agony it was causing the country, in the expectation that it would benefit them politically. The Republican speakers were agonized, hating the political pain it was causing them, but agreeing that it had been wrong and Nixon needed to go.

The Democrats were delighted with the political bonus they had been given. The Republicans wanted to do what was best for the country. I did not want to be associated with the type of people the Democratic speakers represented.

By the end of the week I was certainly not a conservative yet, but I was a Republican. The Democrats had disgusted me. If you had been a speaker there, John TMF, you could have delayed my conversion by convincing me there was no honor in either party. While independents are warily watching us, what wise counsel you give us to do our best to convince them we are as without honor as the left. Are you, perhaps, a deep-cover liberal troll here?

John - TMF| 7.26.10 @ 10:42AM

Nixon was pilloried by the media and crucified by his own party because they wet their collective pants and ran for the tall grass... He was guilty of nothing more than any other of his "judges" were guilty of, his people just got caught. So he was thrown overboard to appease the sharks, who then promptly set about destroying our ally Vietnam by abandoning them in the field... foisted a crippled liberal Republican on us (who at least had the honor to pardon Nixon) and then gave us massive deficits, massive inflation, an oil crisis because of our international weakness, Jimmy Carter, massive stagflation... and at least the rump Liberal Republicans could keep their precious Leftist allowed "honor". Right ... nice to feel so good about one's self.

What you don't see is that the Left used the Moderates like dishrags, and then tossed them in the trash. It took the economic and international disaster of 1974-1980 to bring about the minor miracle of Ronald Reagan... And the moderates tried mightily to destroy him for the Left, too.

Chichester and Potts were old Democrats... Recent Virginia political events showed them for what they really were...

I will repeat... please understand... IN POLITICS... If you apologize you are showing a major sign of weakness to your enemies... and they will make you eat that apology over and over..

Just ask George Allen how the M'caca tastes... he still can't get it out of his mouth. The Washington Post took his apology and crucified him with it.

That is absolute political truth.

The woman is a racist, and the NAACP is a racist organization. That truth need not be apologized for, and stating it in public has now become critical.

r/TMF

AMoralMan| 7.26.10 @ 10:58AM

"I will repeat... please understand... IN POLITICS... If you apologize you are showing a major sign of weakness to your enemies... and they will make you eat that apology over and over.. "

That's why politics is a game for scoundrels. And if you defend the scoundrels then you yourself are a scoundrel. You are a power hungry, domineering, autocratic toadie. As is anyone who defends Breitbart because they fear it will weaken their preferred political party.

Truth needs to be known, issues need to be discussed intellectually, and politicians need to be cast into the sea with their propagandists tied to their ankles.

You care more about political success than people. You care more for looks than reality, for rhetoric than logic, for winning than being right. Thus you are evil and part of the problem and deserve nothing out of life but the same hot air you keep putting in.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:38AM

All you've done with this little screed is demonstrate that nothing you, or anyone like you, says or does in the realm of politics needs to be taken seriously.

The element of truthfulness plays no role in your vision. May God have mercy on your soul.

P. Tardy| 7.26.10 @ 10:26PM

The *real* racists are the people who point out *my* racist statements!

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 4:32PM

"Nixon was pilloried by the media and crucified "

This from a guy defending an article in which Sherrod is called a liar for using the word "lynch."

You have the self-awareness of a goldfish cracker.

Dan Hirsch| 7.26.10 @ 9:28AM

An apology properly includes an admission of one's own error, an expression of intent not to repeat the error, and a request for forgiveness.

Only individuals who have actually perpetrated a wrong can offer an apology.

If I apologize for your misdeed, it is meaningless; my apology does not mean that your mind reflects any of those thoughts.

President Obama can apologize all over the world for any number of things. He may think he is regretful and that he does not mean to repeat the "errors", and that he is asking for forgiveness. He certainly intends others to believe that is his mind. But judging by his behavior, the truest test of one's thinking, he is seeking political position, not forgiveness.

His administration discriminates based on race blatantly, openly, and repeatedly. He judged Professor Gates's arrest "stupid" in the same breath that he said he didn't have 'all the facts.' He slammed Arizona's law trying to protect its citizenry without making the effort to read it. His Justice Department dismisses a voter intimidation case that I saw. His Labor Secretary forced the resignation of the hapless Shirley Sherrod with no second thought.

Ryan, his apologizing is meaningless blather to make you think better of him. Wake up!

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 10:09AM

I wasn't talking about Obama, I was talking about Breitbart. I don't disagree with you on the other end.

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 4:28PM

"Apologize for what? As this article is showing. Breitbart was spot on correct."

The only thing this article shows is that Jeff Lord doesn't know what lynching is. And that he was too busy trying to hold onto anything, anything at all, to ensure that a black woman didn't win a debate about race with a white man, to open a goddamn dictionary before exposing his ignorance to the entire world by publishing a lie in a story in which he is accusing a truth-teller of lying.

"the NAACP membership was reacting with delight to the sections of her little fable regarding treating a white man poorly because she despised his race."

Do you really think that if your side says this enough times, it will magically become true?

There are a few chuckles after Sherrod says that the white man was ACTING SUPERIOR TO HER. Then they laugh when she says that she was trying to decide how much to give him, again, while he was acting superior to her. So convenient how your side keeps leaving that out.

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 4:11PM

You realize you're embracing everything wrong with politics today, don't you? You REALLY think that honesty within a politician is something to be loathed? OOOOOOOOOOHHHHH KAAAAAAAYYYYY big guy, whatever you say.

RWinks| 7.26.10 @ 1:51PM

Right John-TMF. Only apologize to friends or rational people. This doesn't include Democrats, who started a war to preserve slavery, formed the KKK, invented jim crow and "separate but equal" and segregation, and then have the gall to accuse the Reps of "racism". The Democrats will use any apology for any reason to delegitimize and demonize their opponent .

Read the entire transcript. Sherrod's mythical Marxist history accuses Capitalism of inventing racism to hold down the working people. Between her communist ramblings in the speech and her past connections, it's clear she is a Communist. As such, nothing the woman says can be believed.

Good point about bullies. Always stand up to them. As I tried to teach my own sons, after a half dozen scraps you get better at dishing it out and it hurts less. Like most predators they prefer the easy pickings and tend to avoid those who fight back.

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 8:29AM

As conservative as I am, I continually think that it's a bad conclusion to draw that the 20th century white klan-type racists were somehow "progressive," even in their support of the New Deal. Many of them were hard-line anti-communists, and just had bad ideas about economics.

The problem is trying to put modern political thought and ideas onto politics of yesteryear. It just doesn't work. It's a bad argument.

Yes, the Democrat party has never left its ideas about race - they just, in a sense, transferred them in the other direction. Making this argument without mentioning that many of them left the Dems and moved over to the Republican party around the Nixon era ignores historical context.

That being said, I think that Breitbart - who has done a lot to put mainstream media on its toes - overstepped here. He REALLY screwed up, and took a step backward for himself. The only thing that can be said about it was that the other side screwed up as well.

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 4:03PM

"Right. AB should apologize for what? Exposing a racist, and a racist organization for what they are? Come on... please give me a break."

It's comical that you still believe this is what happened.

"The charge of racism is a brutal form of bullying. It is time to quit paying tribute, stand up, and fight back. Breitbart is doing just that..."

This statement is even funnier. If you can't see why, you are seriously irony-deficient.

WTF| 7.26.10 @ 11:44PM

Buy gold!! Glenn said so

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 2:14PM

Whether or not "apologizing is a sign of weakness", apologizing **when you are wrong** is **proof** of strength.

It means you have the inner strength to not care what others think - you won't sell out yourself for the sake of temporarily looking good.

Dan Hirsch| 7.26.10 @ 9:43AM

Modern political thought?

Andrew Breitbart stated on Fox that he intended to get the NAACP to lay off the Tea Party with its plain lies that the Tea Party is racist. They have.

As to "many of them left the Dems and moved to the Republican party around the Nixon era.." If you are suggesting that Democrats were abandoning their party in the mid and late 70's for the Republican party, you must have lived in the OTHER United States.

Cause in this one, their successful putsch of President Nixon caused them to grow mightily. They won the next national elections giving us Jimmy Carter.

You might want to read a little more history.

Ryan, I have a question for you: You write, "As conservative as I am..." How conservative is that? Anyone who thinks there is "modern political thought" that is incongruent with historical politics clearly understands neither.

True conservatives understand that human nature is immutable, only progressives, socialists, and dreamers think we can change people's fundamental nature.

Ryan| 7.26.10 @ 10:06AM

If you read anything I posted over the past few years (I'm "Ryan" in nearly every instance) you wouldn't be questioning my conservatism.

Nixon-era Dixiecrats may have voted for Carter on his first term, but of them abandoned the Dems for the Republican party for Reagan, or simply started voting Republican from that point onward. My Grandfather was one. Remember, Carter lost as well.

What I hate is the ideas on racism that both sides seem to be espousing now. The left can't see past it as an issue, to the point that they don't believe there are any good conservative ideas.

Conservatives are denying that there are and were racists within the movement, trying to pass off all racism as some sort of progressive ideal when that simply isn't the case. Racism has always been independant of right-left politics.

Also, Lord is interpreting the background to Sherrod as though it was happening in the present. It isn't. It IS a different America than the 1920s and 1960s when it comes to race.

I don't completely deny that human nature is immutable - it is inherently sinful, and the only real change typically happens through the power of the Gospel.

RWinks| 7.26.10 @ 2:30PM

Ryan, The Left doesn't CARE about racism. If it will advance their totalitarian agenda to espouse it, they will and vice-versa. They are political sociopaths. Anything that advances government power---with them at the controls---is good. Everything is political to the Left. There are no principles and no human nature. This why they will lie repeatedly without blinking against known facts until some people begin believing the lie.

They say the Republican Party is racist, even though the party was founded to end slavery. Even though a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights law than did Democrats. Even though the law was to end segregation designed by Democrats. They have promoted the myth that the Heroic Democrats stood up for equality to defeat the Racist Republicans who wanted to continue their oppression of Blacks. This "Big Lie" has been taught in the socialist schools for 40 years now.
It doesn't matter what anyone's life experiences have been. There is no place for bias in the application of Federal law, period.

Racism is in nature. All species unconsciously try to protect the integrity of their genetic line by discriminating against the other. Whether it is Robins shunning Cardinals to be with other Robins, or grey wolves attacking a white wolf, racism is as natural as the desire to procreate. Our job as rational human beings is to overcome these base feelings and treat our fellows as we wish to be treated.

The difference between Conservatives and the Left is we seek to overcome our failings rather than score cheap political points.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:48PM

Lived through this one and you are 100% wrong. Richard Nixon overreached and committed a crime and would have been impeached if he had not resigned.

But the interesting for you and yours is that neither Nixon nor Reagan would be electable by you wingnuts today!!

Old Joe| 7.26.10 @ 8:48AM

When the story first broke that the Breitbart tape was published out of context, I felt sorry for Ms. Sherrod. I thought it would be appropriate for Breitbart to issue a profound public apology. After thinking about the situation and viewing the tape again, I no longer feel sorry for her.

First of all, when you hear her telling how she discriminated against the white farmer, you can actually hear NAACP members snickering. Or as should be said, exhibiting a raciest attitude toward whites; as in “way to go sister; stick it to the white man”; a clear indication that the NAACP is a black racist organization.

The second thing is that the NAACP has now officially called me and all my fellow members of the Tea Party racist. By doing so, they have called Breitbart a raciest too. They have done this with absolutely no justification. Who are they to call me, Breitbart, and the Tea Party raciest when they belong to an organization devoted to the advancement of only the black race? How raciest can you get? And remember, Ms. Sherrod is a long time, official card carrying member of this black raciest organization.

Race relations in this country will never improve while there are organizations that promote the black race over the white race; Black Ms. America, Black Congressional Caucus, Black Panthers, etc. Race relations will improve when the black race stops pushing their skin color is white faces.

So, with all things considered, I don’t feel sorry for Ms. Sherrod, she just got some of her own medicine.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 11:05AM

No, the NAACP called upon the tea party movement to condemn the racism that undeniable occasionally surfaces in its ranks.

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 11:30AM

Rob,
Come on. What the NAACP wanted was to drive the narrative. Tea Party = Racist. Did it call on the Democrats to codemn the racism the underniably occasionally surfaces in its ranks? Or the racism that undeniably occasionally surfaces in its own ranks? Of course not. What racism that has surfaced in the tea party movement has been codemned and maginalized already without any input from the NAACP.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 11:50AM

So you agree with my factual correction of Old Joe's post?

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 2:48PM

Rob,
Which particular statement? Since the official statement will not be released till October who knows what it says. All we have are leaks and past statements of NAACP officials. But frankly, I find this particular statement highly charged. It is on the level of when did you stop beating your wife. The fact is there have been racist signs, in an incredible small number of instances, and they have been condemned. Did the NAACP codemn the walk of shame by Congressional Democrats who claimed without any factual basis that racial epitaphs were screamed at them? Of course not, because it does not fit the narrative they wish to pursue.

"Expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take the responsibility for them and their actions," Jealous said. "We will no longer allow you to hide like cowards and hide behind signs that say 'Lynch Our President' or anyone else."

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 8:38PM

After this dust up, the vote in October will be most interesting. Will they proceed or let it drop? Just weeks before the election, what will their political calculus be?

Blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 9:08PM

It all about gining up the liberal black democat vote for November. If the 95% black democrat vote sits it out it will be bad for them. The Kenyan's wife was doing the "rah-rah" get mad/get even/get in their face thing a few weeks ago. Next thing you know the NAACP launches the racism red herring against the TEA PARTY movement. How convenient!

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 12:19PM

"What racism that has surfaced in the tea party movement has been codemned and maginalized already without any input from the NAACP."

ORLY?

Please, inform me about all of the people or groups that were denounced by or removed by the Tea Party movement for racism prior to the NAACP's statement? As opposed to afterwards.

Take your time. I know you've got a lot of Googling to do.

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 11:25PM

Can you find one act of actual racism that has NOT been codemned? And please, do not give me Obama as Hitler or Obama hanging in effigy. All those things were fair game when Bush was president.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 12:17PM

"The second thing is that the NAACP has now officially called me and all my fellow members of the Tea Party racist."

You lie!

The NAACP explicitly stated that the Tea Party movement was not a racist movement, and that the presence of racism was a minority of participants. Their criticism was that the non-racist members aren't doing anything to denounce or distance themselves from that minority undercurrent of racism.

You lied about the NAACP.

Mike Toreno| 7.26.10 @ 4:03PM

"The NAACP explicitly stated that the Tea Party movement was not a racist movement, and that the presence of racism was a minority of participants. "

They're wrong about that. The teabagger movement is based on the idea that the fact that it's an injustice that the people who got the most votes are implementing policies the teabaggers don't like. The teabaggers think their votes should count more than other people's votes. They want to "take their country back" from the majority of Americans who voted against them.

How is it not racist for the teabaggers to think their votes should carry extra weight, that some people's votes should be more equal than others?

Tom| 7.26.10 @ 11:27PM

Actually Joe the NAACP has OFFICIALLY said nothing on whether the Tea Party movement is racist and to what extent. There official statement will be made in October. You may be right, you probably are, but to state it as a fact is a best a stretch.

Louis Jenkins| 7.26.10 @ 4:19PM

Well, I'm a racist. I get racial when I see Mexico unloading illegals across the border. I get racial when I see the NAACP accusing the Tea Party and Brietbart of being racist. I get racial when when I'm accused of being rasict. The term racist is just another name for whatever, no meaning, no definition. Just so much hot air. Promoting one race over another is just that-RACIST. Get over it. The Pretender n Chief had a knee jerk reaction, and now has offered the woman another job, probably a better and bigger job, and we're sitting around debating what racist means. Watcher what they're doing, not what they're saying.

Louis Jenkins| 7.26.10 @ 4:20PM

Well, I'm a racist. I get racial when I see Mexico unloading illegals across the border. I get racial when I see the NAACP accusing the Tea Party and Brietbart of being racist. I get racial when when I'm accused of being rasict. The term racist is just another name for whatever, no meaning, no definition. Just so much hot air. Promoting one race over another is just that-RACIST. Get over it. The Pretender n Chief had a knee jerk reaction, and now has offered the woman another job, probably a better and bigger job, and we're sitting around debating what racist means. Watch what they're doing, not what they're saying.

No justification?!| 7.26.10 @ 11:52PM

Just fyi, the Tea Party Express expelled someone (hmmm) for an over the top racist faux letter to Abe Lincoln. She got what she deserved? You'd better hope she's got nothing more to say after the shabby way you and your friends treated her. Own medicine? Ha, ha. Fool.

Old Joe| 7.26.10 @ 8:48AM

When the story first broke that the Breitbart tape was published out of context, I felt sorry for Ms. Sherrod. I thought it would be appropriate for Breitbart to issue a profound public apology. After thinking about the situation and viewing the tape again, I no longer feel sorry for her.

First of all, when you hear her telling how she discriminated against the white farmer, you can actually hear NAACP members snickering. Or as should be said, exhibiting a raciest attitude toward whites; as in “way to go sister; stick it to the white man”; a clear indication that the NAACP is a black racist organization.

The second thing is that the NAACP has now officially called me and all my fellow members of the Tea Party racist. By doing so, they have called Breitbart a raciest too. They have done this with absolutely no justification. Who are they to call me, Breitbart, and the Tea Party raciest when they belong to an organization devoted to the advancement of only the black race? How raciest can you get? And remember, Ms. Sherrod is a long time, official card carrying member of this black raciest organization.

Race relations in this country will never improve while there are organizations that promote the black race over the white race; Black Ms. America, Black Congressional Caucus, Black Panthers, etc. Race relations will improve when the black race stops pushing their skin color is white faces.

So, with all things considered, I don’t feel sorry for Ms. Sherrod, she just got some of her own medicine.

rongordo| 7.26.10 @ 8:57AM

Now just try to convince HER that she lied.

Grace| 7.26.10 @ 12:44PM

That's bound to be difficult, given that all she has to do is ask any accuser to furnish a definition of the word "lynch" and their argument is instantly blown right out of the water.

"lynch (lnch)
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry."

(Especially, for those in the cheap seats, is not synonymous with "exclusively")

Grace| 7.26.10 @ 12:45PM

That's bound to be difficult, given that all she has to do is ask any accuser to furnish a definition of the word "lynch" and their argument is instantly blown right out of the water.

"lynch (lnch)
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry."

(Especially, for those in the cheap seats, is not synonymous with "exclusively")

Manny Sabisch| 7.26.10 @ 9:02AM

It is ironic that those who attempted to get ahead of this story by asking for Ms. Sherrod's resignation flubbed their apologies thereafter. It's obvious that Ms. Sherrod is a progressive activist who takes great pleasure in threading her racist rhetoric through her public diatribes.

Michelle Anderson| 7.26.10 @ 9:19AM

Mr. Lord, on what planet would a literal hanging be an embellishment of what actually happened? Do you really believe that beating a man to death while he is handcuffed is some how less horrific than hanging him from a tree? If so, there is something deeply wrong with you.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 9:20AM

This doesn't appear to be Mr. Lord's best work. No doubt there is a history of powerful Southern progressive racists, but where is the causal argument that progressives are necessarily racist? Were, for example, the progressives in California as racist? The case can be made that revolutionary politicians try to find a class of people to be the bogey-men -- the aristocrats of the French Revolution, Hitler's Jews, the educated in Pol Pot's Cambodia -- but how was the racism of the South enabling the progressives? Were there no conservative racists? The point was not well made.

The apologia for Breitbart was similarly weak. I personally respect Breitbart and his work and find his exposure of the hypocrisy of the left to be most valuable. I acknowledge his is smart, not prone to self-destruction and knows how the game is played. However, he is the gamesman here and Shirley Sherrod is the pawn. She was not in the public eye. Her speech was ignored until Breitbart released the video and her fifteen minutes of fame are over. I completely accept Breitbart's explanation that the story was about NAACP hypocrisy and not about Sherrod as true and would love to see a serious argument that his motive was not to discredit the NAACP. However, the video clearly left the impression that Sherrod and the NAACP were BOTH racists. At the very least it distracted from the INTENDED message. For this, Breitbart will have to take his lumps.

The progressive agenda is contemptible, in my opinion because it is destructive of individual liberty regardless of the race of the individual. That blacks seem to adopt this agenda is such numbers is something I cannot explain.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 4:18PM

I'm not denying what I see in the link. It's pretty damning. If Breitbart is NOT to be believed -- if he intended to malign Shirley Sherrod -- he could have done worse that picking on her with her casual slam at the Bushs and the Republicans being anti-healthcare because Obama is black. Her associations do not appear particularly savoury, either..

However, this line of debate is pernicious because it invites the observer to claim to know the motivations of the observed. It is a form of arrogance which masquerades as virtue. It also requires the proof of a negative. How does one actually prove one is not a racist. It cannot be done. (Do you still beat your wife? Is Breitbart a racist? Is Sherrod a racist? Prove to me that you, the reader, are not a racist!)

I remain convinced that Breitbart's goal was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the NAACP because it is the simplest explanation which does not require me to impute motives to him which no one can know. For that matter, I cannot know what motivated the NAACP audience to applaud when Sherrod made her initial comment about not fully helping the white farmer. I do know the audience could not know that Sherrod was embarking on a story of personal redemption. So how does one interpret it? The positions taken in this commentary have ranged from obvious glee at a black person exacting a bit of revenge to an extreme politeness or general excitement for the speech.

That is why I write here, and elsewhere, that this sort of racial bomb-throwing is purely destructive. No one wins. The NAACP charges racism in the "tea party" and Breitbart responds with an example in an NAACP meeting. Now everyone is debating who wins. Clearly one side thinks the NAACP are hypocrites (that is my feeling) while the other claims Breitbart is a racist (lot's of those here). Now, can anyone give me any good to come of this? What purpose can this serve?

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 4:50PM

You were busted. You were pimping. You got caught and now you are acting like the typical racist liberal - you're justifying rather than finding a way to make amends. What a turd.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 5:38PM

I appreciate your knowing me better that I do. I grew up in in the South in the 60's and saw this stuff. I remember 1972 when a bunch of black Muslims stomped the brains out of a local reporter (Bob Johnson) covering a rally on North Boulevard in Baton Rouge and I stand by my conservative credentials even if that makes me a "turd" to you.

Thanks for looking into my heart and telling me who I really am. What to you tell God when he calls you in the morning?

Ashley G| 7.27.10 @ 7:33AM

Despite what rainmaker said above, I found your comments incredibly insightful, even if I do not necessarily agree with each point made. I think that there are critical flaws to both the NAACPs actions in arguing against racism and general, and the implied racism that is displayed by some of the Tea Party activists. Until both are recognized and acknowledged, no real action towards "progress," in whatever form, can be made. Further, it is possible that Breibart may have been making a sound argument about racial prejudice within the NAACP itself (I refuse to call it reverse racism because from a sociological perspective, a minority in both concentration of numbers and power can not institutionally oppress the majority in size and power, though it can act in a similarly discriminate and prejudicial manner), but his evidence in this particular instance failed to successfully prove his point. He should have sincerely apologized for the error, and then attempted to revise his case in a way that actually corrected it. Instead, he attempted to defend an argument that was structurally flawed, thus drawing even deeper questions of his credibility.

I openly admit that I am both a "liberal progressive" and a young adult. Though I have been working diligently to bring myself more towards the center politically, it is difficult for me to identify with a conservative agenda that I have interpreted as hostile to many of the people I care about, as well as myself. Further and quite frankly, I think if you're young and are not trying to create a better world than the one your parents had to live in, then you have no heart; the goal should always be to make things better. In the same token, I recognize that my worldview will likely evolve as I get older, and am more able to discern between between the ideal of progressivism and the actual reality that is the progressive movement (in so many ways, this has already begun for me). I say all this because I wanted to say I appreciated the commentary you provided as someone who identifies as conservative, because it illustrates that I do not have to find myself at an extreme at either end of the political spectrum in order to hold a title of "liberal" or "conservative," or even "centrist." That notion is so difficult to observe in this hyper-partisan era.

John Navratil| 7.27.10 @ 9:52AM

Ashley G.,

Thanks for the kind words. I wish you well on your journey to conservatism :) Recall the words of Churchill "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Seriously, I see no great dialogue on race as being helpful, at all. It's not to deny that racism doesn't exist. It does and always will. It's why you and I and everyone you know seeks the company of people who share their common interests. Fortunately, for most, skin color doesn't matter any more. If it did, Obama would not be President.

The institutional racism is gone and has been for almost fifty years. That's a couple of generations. The changes in attitude preceded that passing of the Civil Right Act (or it wouldn't have passed, would it?) Yet, whenever the topic comes up it's about some agrievement and always degenerates into bomb throwing. It's like yelling "Hitler" in an email thread. It's long past time to get past this and it can only be done individually. Isn't that what Sherrod said?

D. Singh| 7.26.10 @ 9:25AM

Sir

I’ve often asked myself why there seems to be a link between progressivism and evil (for example the destruction of the child in the womb).

Why would the sexual revolution of the 1960s induce so rapidly the destruction of the Black family on both sides of the Atlantic (leading to educational underachievement) and greater contact with law enforcement?

Could it be that the progressive is engaged in creating a new system of ethics whereby the (federal) State is answerable for all the arrangements of society (for what other god can the progressive turn to except the State? If the State must be answerable for the arrangements of society then to the State we must concede absolute power resulting in tyranny.

It must be obvious by now to all, except the progressive, that you cannot create a new system of ethics any more than you can invent a new solar system (for to do so only puts men on the road to slavery or serfdom).

Let me take the ethic: to love thy neighbour as thyself.

What the progressive (Justice Black, Senator Russell and Shirley Sherrod) does is snap that ethic in half. Justice Black and Senator Russell elevated ‘love thyself’ into a racist ethic to enrich, by use of federal funds, their class and race.

Shirley Sherrod snaps the same ethic by elevating ‘love thy neighbour’ through taxation (for example, Obamacare); to redistribute wealth to the less well off.

What this creation of a new ethic, ‘equality’, really does is create a more barbaric society: it confuses ‘equality’ with humanity, or justice and equity. As men buy into this illusion they presume humanity, justice and equity will prevail. It does not. It obliterates each man’s individuality. It encourages the unjust maxim: that it is better a few innocent men are shot than a single guilty man goes free.

Randy| 7.26.10 @ 10:25AM

Yes, yes, Mr "D Singh" Beck.

Time for your meds now.

Blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 9:18PM

randy--as your name implies--go fuck yourself.

Progressive turds are thick today.

D. Singh| 7.27.10 @ 4:32AM

Sir

It is fascinating to witness the Progressives losing their intellectual confidence when under sustained conservative attack.

They resort to ad hominem childish and boorish remarks.

Observe Mr Randy at his intellectual best:

‘Randy| 7.26.10 @ 10:25AM

‘Yes, yes, Mr "D Singh" Beck.

‘Time for your meds now.’

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 9:37AM

Where on earth did you get the idea that lynching was carried out exclusively via hanging?

Are you, by any chance, from the United States? Or, perhaps, have you ever read a history book about this country?

Being beaten to death on the courthouse steps by a mob who dragged you out of the squad car is a classic lynching.

I can't believe you are so desperate to continue to smear this good woman that you'd debase yourself like this. You have made yourself a laughing stock with this article.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 10:12AM

I am confused, myself. I believe Mr. Lord's point was that a conviction for lynching was overturned by a progressive court. I had to look it up at...

http://supreme.justia.com/us/325/91/case.html

In reading this, the conviction was overturned because the just had not been instructed that the must consider the intent of the officers. Lord goes on to link the progressivism and racism of Black who was one of the five writing the opinion.

Without tying to speak for Mr. Lord, my reading was that Sherrod claimed he was lynched but the Supreme Court said he was not -- that the officers had acted in defending themselves -- and this was all part of the progressive/racist narrative.

Perhaps Mr. Lord will join the commentary to explain.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 10:21AM

My fat fingers should have written:

...the conviction was overturned because the JURY had not been instructed...

Counterfactual| 7.26.10 @ 10:02AM

I am wondering if the commentators here praising Mr. Lord for exposing Sherrod's story as false even read the article or merely stopped at the headline and said, "I knew it." As already been pointed out, lynching does not, by either legal, dictionary, or common usage mean exclusively death by hanging. That is merely the most common method.

The main thing we can take from this article is that if a black liberal had described a group of white men as killing her father when in fact they had thrown him off a tall building, the American Spectator would publish a story on how she was lying because the men had not actually killed her father, it had been the ground that had killed him when he hit it .. and that some commentators would then praise the Spectator for exposing her lies.

Randy| 7.26.10 @ 10:09AM

CF - right on.

Jesus Christ, you idiots. The man was beaten to death and you all call Sherrod a liar for calling it a lynching...when that's what it was!

That's all you got? Weak, putrid sauce.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 10:15AM

Yes, the District Court convicted, the Appeals Court affirmed, but then the Supreme Court reversed. Then Mr. Lord goes on to lambaste Black. It appears that everyone, Sherrod included, knew what it was, but the Supreme Court did not. I hope that was Mr. Lord's point.

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 4:14PM

"I hope that was Mr. Lord's point."

It very clearly wasn't.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 10:24AM

Did we have this much navel-gazing when there were no WMD's found in Iraq? What's a WMD er uh er Hussein is a baddie and 'we got him'? Is it correct to use them in context? Who was responsible? Was a lawyer's letter advocating law-breaking a crime in itself?
C'mon people, this has gone too far. In politics, there is factual and there is right. Being factual makes us wrong when we start to equivocate on a subject that blew up in everyone's faces. Having academic discussions on 'lynching'? What's next, because blacks use the n-word, we should too? Breitbart should not have done it, nor the people that canned her.

She is a mid-level bureaucrat that now has enormous street-cred, thanks to the ham-handed zeal of a second-rate blogger.
Obama can now say "see, I told ya so", "even my own admin is paralyzed by racial cheap shots". "FNC is the bogeyman, Ailes lied to us, and the jig is up....no front row for you...."

Blackwatch| 7.26.10 @ 9:22PM

WTF??

It sure took a long time for someone to bring up the missing weapons of mass destruction and GWB in abstentia.

It was the Jews and George Bush who did it!!!

Appalled | 7.26.10 @ 10:07AM

This is probably the most disgusting article I have read in a long time, this goes for the comment thread as well. What planet are you people on? Focus on this: "a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds" a nd to think that anyone would have the audacity to call that a lynching, quite unlike what Clarance Thomas had to endure . You people are disgusting and pathetic.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 10:34AM

You are right.

This site is filled with angry white boys living in their momma's basement because some black has taken their birthright. It would be funny if it weren't true.
Wars have started because academic treatments of real-world issues destroying the underlying foundations of an issue.
Our parsing of the WMD issue as a pretext to war. Hitler's systematic "legal" foundation of discrimination against all non-Aryans. Jim Crow laws that advocated a systematic belittling of American citizens - in their own land.
EVERY nation has their failed pasts to conceal - when those in power apply their boots to the necks of the under-privileged. The smarter nations choose to recognize these facts, that all people are created equal in God's eyes, and failing to defend the rule of law only sinks humanity deeper into the abyss.
Reading the red-neck reaction to this story only proves the law MUST and WILL go farther to ensure these things never happen again.

Oops, Arizona is still living in Goldwaterville.

jharp| 7.26.10 @ 10:41AM

Mega dittos.

God conservatives are stupid. And racists as well.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 10:09AM

From the anti-lynching legislation submitted to Congress in 1922:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the phrase "mob or riotous assemblage," when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without authority of law as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense."

Nope, no ropes in there.

Here:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/c.....ts2.htm#20

Is the Truman administration's report on civil rights, "To Secure These Rights." Go ahead and read the Lynching section, and you will find any number of stories of people being beaten to deal, shot to death, and otherwise LYNCHED in manners other than hanging.

You people have lost your humanity, your souls, and your self-respect. You are more interested in making sure that a black woman not win a dispute over race with the white man, and in getting "payback" for Breitbart's self-immolation, than in the truth, and in knowing your own country's history.

Shame on you, and may you someday regrow that which you have so thoughtlessly cast away.

Eric Damon| 7.26.10 @ 10:25AM

Mr. Lord misses the mark here when he tries to turn Ms. Sherrod into a liar by calling the murder of her relative a lynching when the SCOTUS said it wasn't technically a lynching. That is some serious hairsplitting on that one!

Look, the fact of the matter is whether or not the death of the man met the technical/legal definition of the word, his death was a de facto lynching. He was beaten do death by the police while in their custody, outside of the established legal system...doesn't that sound like a lynching to you? And leaning on a SCOTUS decision is pretty weak, because we know how wrong they can get all sorts of things (Dred Scott, Plessey, Korematsu, Roe, McCain-Fiengold, etc) so they aren't the best barometer of what's right or wrong here.

As for Ms. Sherrod herself, she obviously sees racism lurking behind nearly every corner and views the world through an "us vs. them" prism, predicated on race. Attack her for that, but skip the attempts to make her a liar because the SCOTUS ruled that her relative wasn't technically lynched...just murdered under the color of police authority.

dirk| 7.26.10 @ 4:24PM

"As for Ms. Sherrod herself, she obviously sees racism lurking behind nearly every corner and views the world through an "us vs. them" prism, predicated on race. "

The woman sees racism all right - she had a flaming cross planted on her lawn and her father murdered by a white farmer. She spent decades trying to get poor black farmers a fair shake. Despite that, in the very speech at the root of this story, she says specifically that it isn't all about race, but that it's almost always the rich shafting the poor. That's hardly "obviously...predicated on race".

I criticise you here but you at least recognise the preposterous slander for what it is. A depressing but not unexpected number of respondents here ignore or support it.

Gus| 7.26.10 @ 10:28AM

Wow, the writer here is trying to wipe the egg off his face by picking nits over the term "lynching." Any sane person would call what happened Bobby Hall lynching. Only now, we're going to argue about that to totally ignore the real issues.

Anthony| 7.26.10 @ 10:50AM

I agree with Katherine and Stephen. Mr. Lord what were you thinking with your silly semantic game?
Unfortunately, your clumsy attempt at nuiance takes away from the radical nature of Ms. Sherrod, that is not taken out of context, or, the more pernicious point, as to how the MSM continues to shill for the left.
Clearly, the leftist media has been itching to take on Breitbart, however, he, knowing his ememies as well has he does, has never given them the chance, and this episode still doesn't, despite their spin to the contrary.
If you saw that pathetic fool and leftist hack, Howard Dean, on FOX yesterday, you saw the leftist agitprop in full voice. FOX, Breitbart and conservatives in general, are the enemies of the Obama state.
I can see November from my house!!!

Scott| 7.26.10 @ 10:55AM

This article should be re-titled, "Lord Story False." Over at Reason Mag, Radley Balko writes about this article and calls it "...a shameless, ignorant column by Jeffrey Lord."

He also explains that, "Lord also has no idea . . . what he's talking about."

Just one of the many problems with Lord's article is that, rather than refering exclusively to hangings, lynching, in its legal sense refers to "a mob execution unsanctioned by law." That is, it refers to execution by means other than hanging.

So the premise of Lord's article is factually false. Perhaps, he " simply doesn't know the truth," in which case, this article is just another attempt to deceive the public, albiet this time by a more subtle means.

molo| 7.26.10 @ 11:05AM

"Anthony| 7.26.10 @ 10:50AM
I agree with Katherine and Stephen. Mr. Lord what were you thinking with your silly semantic game?
Unfortunately, your clumsy attempt at nuiance takes away from the radical nature of Ms. Sherrod, that is not taken out of context, or, the more pernicious point, as to how the MSM continues to shill for the left."

You're mistake here is to believe that the people you have allied with -- right wingers with 'libertarian' rhetoric -- are in fact genuinely interested in equal opportunity. The silly semantic game is just another part of the larger game: convince people that blacks are a threat using false claims of racism to ultimately extract resources from 'hard working' white people. That was Breitbart's goal. That was Lord's goal in jumping to the same conclusion. That is Lord's goal now. And that is what the Tea Party movement is about -- the intolerance of even moderate federal taxation, even if it is far lower than Nixon and Eisenhower, in a country that is no longer white enough to keep the resultant spending 'in the family.'

Dustoff| 7.26.10 @ 11:06AM

Has anyone seen the video of Sherrod husband?

He has a few racist rants himself.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:21AM

Why would anyone possibly take you seriously?

The last time you cried wold of those evil black racists, it was the estimable Mrs. Sherrod's moving description of how she learned to outgrow her racial assumptions.

The time before that, you assured us that Michelle Obama was an angry black radical who ranted about whitey.

Face it - you see a black person blow his nose, and you reach for pappy's shotgun, because you just know he's coming to getcha.

William| 7.26.10 @ 11:07AM

Clearly, the real lynching was what happened to Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.

Getting beat up and left to die is NOTHING compared to what poor, poor Clarence had to go through.

David| 7.26.10 @ 11:08AM

I have to object to the very essence of this column, which hinges on the utter ignorance of the writer.

A lynching does not have to be done through hanging, although that is the most popular method. A "lynching" is extrajudicial punishment by a mob without legal sanction. And what happened to Sherrod's relative is exactly that. Bobby Hall was lynched, plain and simple.

For you to play a game of semantics on this issue to try and salvage something from what has become a disaster for the Right has shown how bankrupt your movement has become. For shame, sir. For shame.

Marienkaefer| 7.26.10 @ 11:15AM

Breitbart was trying to show that there is a racist fringe in every organization, per the members of the NAACP audience sniggering and egging Ms. Sherrod on when she was talking about not giving the "white" farmer all the help she could have given him. The NAACP challenged the Tea Party to cleanse their group of their "racist fringe" so when will we see the NAACP purge it's own organization of their racist fringe? Never, and plenty of things Ms. Sherrod said in the full video are without doubt racist comments. I am a daughter of the south, raised in Alabama and moving to North Carolina in adulthood. Some people may now be using "lynching" synonymous with a death by beating or other means as well but I assure you when I grew up in the 50's and 60's in Alabama it was not being used synonymously. When we heard whispers about a "lynching" it meant hung by the neck from a tree and struck fear in the heart of whites as well as blacks. The Ku Klux Klan not only visited their brutality on blacks but have been known to pull whites from their beds in the middle of the night if they were breaking some "norm" the Klan supported as well. Progressives promote the racist tag on everything and everyone they want to destroy but they are truly the racists. Most white Americans go to school with, work with and attend church with black Americans on a regular basis and the respect you have for them, or lack of it, is based on shared values and interests which is exactly why I do not support Barack Obama as President. It has nothing to do with his being black, I would never support any white President with the same values, ie Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson. There are blacks I could vote for and wholly support for President, such as JC Watts, Thomas Sowell to name a couple. But progressives would never vote for these "Uncle Tom's", just more racist garbage from progressives!

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 2:52PM

Progressives would not support Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint; so why shoudl they be expected to support similarly minded Black cons? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Have you ever wondered why Black people earning $200,000 per year or more STILL vote Dem? Ever wondered why Asians, South Asians, Hispanics and Black all pretty much vote the same -- for Dems in overwhelming numbers? Here is a hint: don't ask White cons why that is. Ask some Black people. THEN you will get an understanding why church attending otherwise conservative Black people simply refuse to pull the R. lever. Here are a few hints: Reagan kicking off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, practically on the burial site of Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner; George Allen's macacca moment in 2006; Obama monkeys at Palin rallies in 2008; and the anti-immigrant sentiment on the right in 2010. Minorities know the conservative antipathy is actually toward minorities as a people, and not just because they are supposedly "liberal." You cons tend to prove the point from time to time and remind everyone of where you are really coming from. Like in this post here, and Mark Williams pro-slavery letter of two weeks ago. Bravo! We all owe a debt of gratitude.

Libs are idiots | 7.26.10 @ 11:18AM

The sooner we stop responding to these troglodytes and the Apologentsia, the better off we are and AmSpec as well.

Gram; just yesterday I also proposed giving, albeit two million dollars to each nd every adult black person.
Tell them now they are multiple millionaires (I'd even go for your five---why not). Then abolish Welfare, food stamps, federal housing affirmative action and all curricula relating to "fairness", race studies etc. This would be a huge " unfair, unjust" hand out and preference to me because I am an immigrant who came here from Russia and had zip, zero, nada to do with the plight of blacks.

How long before that 5 million runs out and then screams of "we got snookered"? I'd say about a year.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 11:56AM

Why did you leave Russia? Were you not part of the country's elite?
I'm not black, but my friends assure me it is something that they cannot hide with apparel or elocution classes. Their very faces are what conjure a reaction - whether racist or not - of their very beings and their perceived abilities. They have a level playing field legally, but socially, they must pass one more bar before they are let in. If you don't believe it, then check for yourself.
Russkies are lazy and untrustworthy - or so the common beliefs suggest, are you? Assuming you are caucasian, you can change your name and correct your accent and "blend in" with "real" Americans. Blacks cannot do that, until we stop equivocating on the Breitbarts and Becks and Jeffrey Lords of this world.
Incidently, what will you do for the whites that are on food stamps, welfare and federal housing? They make up more than half of all social spending for poverty, hispanics about 25% and all other the rest.

Libs are idiots| 7.26.10 @ 12:34PM

As a child I came here and the only place we could afford to live was in the inner city. I got beat up almost weekly by blacks, Puerto Ricans and one time a very large Native American girl. They stole my coats, hats, and gloves.
My best friend growing up was Greg. He was black.

As for Russkies being lazy------you show your ignorance. While trying to salvage Shirleys you show contempt for others.
And no we weren't part of Russian aristocracy.
Why?
We weren't and aren't Communists. Like yourself perhaps.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 2:46PM

So you get my drift.....you started by suggesting a payoff of blacks would precipitate an end to social programs, because why? They are lazy and stupid and dependent on whitey, and poverty is a black thing?

Why has Russia failed time and again to snap out of paternal rule? Is it a tribal/cultural thing or a genetic thing? I think it's the former and not the latter....I hope. Vodka also has a role.
My point is to separate the two and determine which is the biggest issue. For American blacks, they can assimilate in almost every way, except genetics. It's up to us to refuse to play this game any longer and ignore their skin color when blogging at the moon.
There is no difference between white tea baggers showing up to rallys with AK's than a New Black Panther standing in front of a voting place with a baton. But FNC, Breitbart, Williams, and now Lord can't seem to see the moral equivalency and choose to play on whitey's sensibilities about uppity negroes.
When the governor of Alabama stands in front of NAtional Guard troops refusing to let students of color in, the only recourse is shoving the law down their racist red necks until they yield.
As a white man, a follower of Christ and a believer in "one person one vote", our history on this issue has not been a gleaming testament to our Christ-likeness or democracy - but rather a sad litany of Lords and Breitbarts looking to advance another failed lie. I am not a commie, but always ask: what would Jesus do? A lot more than my feeble body will let me, and I never forget that.

Charles Lemos| 7.26.10 @ 12:10PM

You are, in fact, a racist.

WowJustWow| 7.26.10 @ 11:23AM

So, you are arguing that the man was beaten to death by white racists and not hung on an oak tree that Shirley Sherrod is a liar and should not be trusted? How about the fact that her family didn't know that he was beaten to death, but knew disappeared in the middle of the night after being taken by white men never to be seen again? And everyone in the South during that time knew that if a bunch of white men came and took your relative in the middle of the night, that they were not taking them to Pensacola Beach for vacation---you were as good as dead. Using this SCOTUS case to argue that Sherrod is a liar is like saying Plessy v. Ferguson or the Dred Scott case is good and valid public policy.

This column is reason 50-11 why the right will never win a majority of black voters--they try to spit in their face and pee on their legs and tell them it's rain--by belittling the history of racism and abuse they have experienced.

This is how you hope to salvage the right's reputation after Breitbart and Fox race baited Ms. Sherrod out of a job--through semantics? Really? Really?

God you Libtards are idiots| 7.26.10 @ 11:35AM

Seriously, keep posting stupid Moronic posts like this one. Before you know it all of you will be in a circular firing squad.

This is awesome to watch. You are self-destructing before our very eyes.

Keep up the good work?

You really believe this is the only video Breitbart has? Keep over- playing this-----PLEASE!

A few more days of tis----wham out comes another video even worse than any edited out of context video that MMA has ever come out with.

Then we'll talk about real vindication. Haven't you guys learned anything from ACORN sting?

Rememebr a few weeks ago AB said I have "several REAL " videos of racism. I expect this was a small taste, a morsel. Get ready for demoralization----again.

Why do you think Breitbart hasn't apologized by now? Because after this is all said and done, he won't have to. Shirley will be left in the dust-----sheehaned you might say.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:41AM

*rolls eyes*

Yeah, whatever. Bring it on, champ.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 12:03PM

"Haven't you guys learned anything from ACORN sting?" - yeah that was another fraud perpetrated by the whacko right, and it scared the congress into defunding them.
Pretty soon, as the Salem people found out, the cows come home to roost one day and the inquisitor gets his own treatment.
We have a collective attentio span of 5 seconds in this country. Breitbart and others will go down.

me| 7.26.10 @ 12:41PM

"Haven't you guys learned anything from ACORN sting?" Well, actually we have. We've learned that right-wing bloggers make up ridiculous distortions that get get picked up by Fox News. Out of a false sense of "fairness" all other networks spread these lies. Weeks later it is all proven to be false, but nobody is paying attention any more. Haven't you noticed that Acorn has been cleared of all charges? Not a single person associated with Acorn was ever indited for voter fraud. Not a single person was indited for what supposedly happened in the phony investigative journalism. It's easy to edit bits and pieces to make people sound like they said the exact opposite of what they actually were saying. The right wing totally destroyed a totally legitimate operation with lies. That was vicious and morally wrong.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 2:20PM

PLEASE let Breitbart roll out more misleadingly-edited, unintentionally revealing videos like this one.

The more America sees him for the race-baiting apologists for the modern so-called conservative movement's de facto racism, the better.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 3:58PM

Media Matters generally publishes full transcripts and unedited clips as well as providing context. You need to spend a little more time at that site actually reading and listening, instead of taking the word of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. See for yourself. Don't be a sheep.

Oldefarte| 7.26.10 @ 11:29AM

The whole essence of the extremist-radical Democratic Party is one of LIES, ONE WORD FALSE LABELING AND ...........STUPIDITY!!!!

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 12:26PM

That's four words. Three, if you leave out the conjunction.

Anyway, you were talking about stupidity?

martin j smith| 7.26.10 @ 11:33AM

The issue of accusations of " racism" and all anscillary matters have nothing to do with the " truth" They propaganda tactics to force those who oppose the Left Socialists ( aka Democrat Party )
to be be on the defensive. Actually there is a one word anSWER ( well maybe two ) with follow up. That answer is " YOU LIE'.. What has to happen from now on is an attack on the Left for being 'RICH ELITISTS' , THE RULING CLASS, and this is a big one UN-AMERICAN-Supporting everyone but the American People. H ow about that for a line of attack ?

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 11:42AM

You sound like a crazy person, and you clearly have nothing to say about the column.

TooManyJens| 7.26.10 @ 12:45PM

I'd tell you to look up "socialism", but the original post suggests that recommending dictionary usage may be a waste of time around here.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 4:48PM

"North Korea is a Democracy; it says so right in the name." This is the level of intellectual logic Glenn Beck/Jonah Goldberg use in discussing the link between, say, Woodrow Wilson, Hitler and Barack Obama. (I've actually heard Beck talk about the "Socialist in name Nationalist Socialist" Nazis in this manner.) The American Spectator now joins the ranks of the affirmatively stupid for allowing this article to be published. The most liberal elected politician in America would be considered right wing in places (Europe) that actually have (quasi) Socialist parties. I seldom visit this site, but the number of Right Wing morons posting ahistorical illusory fantasies about the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration is staggering.

BSR| 7.26.10 @ 11:42AM

So it's not a lynching because they beat him to death instead of hanging him? That's some awesome logic. Any definition of the word lynch does not limit itself to hanging only, but simply extra-legal punishment. This is the weakest, most pathetic article I have seen in a long time.

ncatty| 7.26.10 @ 11:46AM

Here is an article idea for Mr. Lord. "W.E.B. DuBois proven a liar. The story of the 20th century AND the 21st century is the problem of the color-line."

Disgusted by the Right| 7.26.10 @ 11:51AM

I want to thank the author and most of the commentators for the delightful experience I had reading through all this, as it is prima facie evidence of what I have been saying for years: that to be a conservative Republican is to be utterly inhuman and devoid of even the slightest particle of morality or character.

Shirley Sherrod is a racist, divisive, anti-white negress because she used the word "lynching" to describe her brother's murder at the hands of racist white cops. AWESOME!

Seventies era Democrats were to blame for the Watergate scandal because they hounded Nixon out of office for what everyone else was already doing (which presumably includes plotting the assassination of U.S. citizens who disagreed with his policies). AWESOME!

I really don't see any difference between Republicans and Nazis any more. I just don't. You all hate every decent thing America has ever stood for, and if George W. Bush had dissolved Congress and declared himself president-for-life, you'd have all stood up and cheered ... and then reported all your liberal neighbors to the Republican Gestapo for "reeducation." The people I really feel sorry for are your children. I can't imagine the shame they must feel for having parents like you.

BSR| 7.26.10 @ 11:51AM

To Mr. Lord being beaten to death by a mob on the courthouse steps with the complicity of local law enforcement doesn’t count as “lynching” because nobody was hung from a tree.

how many times are conservatives going to try and smear this woman before some sense of shame or decency kicks in

Southern Beale| 7.26.10 @ 11:55AM

Thanks Jeffrey Lord for blowing the lid off this sham! Everyone knows it's not a lynching if there's no ROPE! Why, beating a defenseless person to death is TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Shirley Sherrod should be fired for USING THE WRONG WORD!

Can't wait to see the edited Breitbart transcript of this case. [/sarcasm]

Disgusted by the Right| 7.26.10 @ 11:57AM

"how many times are conservatives going to try and smear this woman before some sense of shame or decency kicks in "

Never. Shame and decency are alien concepts to the mind of the Satanic Republicans.

GSR| 7.26.10 @ 11:59AM

You'd think the fool who wrote this would have looked up the word lynch in a dictionary since he does not know what it means. Where are the editors?

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 2:27PM

The editors clearly went along with this, because they are as desperate as the author to find any way that Sherrod can be bad so they won't be the bad guys.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 3:39PM

Sorry, but actions or statements by Person A Liberal don't excuse actions or statements by Person B Conservative.

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 4:53PM

Now you are justifying being a liberal scab. You laid down the challenge. You thought you were right because liberals know they can never be wrong. You were proven wrong and now you don't even have the moral courage to admit you are a scabby partisan who supports racism as long as the racist is a liberal pussbag. Thanks for playing dirtbag.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 6:38PM

I know you are, but what am I?

Now that we've dispensed with that level of your argument, please explain to me how Sherrod's husband possibly saying racist things, means that's Sherrod's brother **wasn't** lynched.

I can't wait to hear this one.

Charles Lemos| 7.26.10 @ 12:02PM

Mr. Lord, you are a despicable human being. Lynching is "the putting a person to death by mob action without due process of law." In this case, the mob was Sheriff Screws and his two deputies who beat Bobby Hall to death with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack" in the absence of provocation following his arrest for the suspected theft of a tire.

Here you go: A Partial Listing of Georgia Lynchings Since 1859. Mr Hall makes the cut.

What's next a defense of slavery? Have you no shame?

agio| 7.26.10 @ 12:06PM

According to Exodus 21:6 it's only slavery if the master bores a hole in his slave's ear with an awl. Therefore slavery did not exist in America. Case closed.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 12:03PM

There is something about Barack Hussein Obama that causes his opponants to lose their friggin minds. A Black man in Jim Crow Georgia being beaten to death on the courthouse steps, with no trial, is not a lynching because there is no hanging? Uh huh. Emmitt Till was beaten and drowned, so by Lord's wacked definition, he wasn't lynched, either. This is, in a word, insane.

I think you cons need to stop while you are behind. Shirley Sherrod and the NAACP were defamed by a falsely edited videotape. Any efforts to rehabilitate the smear at this point simply reinforce the liberal meme that, to cons, facts and truth simply are irrelevant. You are in a hole already, cons. So stop digging!

martin J smith| 7.26.10 @ 12:08PM

Here come the trolls. Do not respond--it is a waite of your time. These trolls represent RACISTS, BIGOTS,HATERS,NATION DIVIDERS,OBSCENE POLITICAL LIARS,PROPAGANDISTS,ENEMIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,. They are the worst slime I have encountered in my lifetime--destructive liars
and need to be totally repudiated as such. They are propangandists--tools of the Regime and nothing more or less. They are out to destroy our country. Thus I say the best resp0onse to them is IGNORE111111111 DO NOT RESPOND TO THEIR BS--IN ANY ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN A DIOLOGUE. You will be frustrated over and over again. When you read a troll just roll-- and move on as if they are not there.

This Public Service announcement is brought top you by SANITY INC.

YOU ALL CAN FIGURE OUT WHO THE TROLLS ARE. And it is best to let it go at that.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 12:21PM

Worse yet, they have DICTIONARIES! And can find the shift key on their keyboards to make an EXCLAMATION POINT!!!!!!!!

Nikki| 7.26.10 @ 12:21PM

Don't you really mean "refudiated"?

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 12:41PM

See "crudgon" above at 8:24. Conservatives seem to be cultivating the invention of new imaginary words made from two (oh, how to say it?) real words that they don't know how to use.

Dictionary Lady| 7.26.10 @ 12:08PM

lynch (lĭnch)
tr.v. lynched , lynch·ing , lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.
or ~
Main Entry: lynch
Pronunciation: \ˈlinch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
Date: 1836

: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction

— lynch·er noun

Seth White| 7.26.10 @ 12:09PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lynch

Just the fact that someone can callously criticize someone about semantics, unmoved by the gruesome manner in which the cops beat the man to death for 3 minutes, and dragged him across the courthouse yard and up the steps and threw his unconscious dying body into the jail. Horrifying.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 12:11PM

Thanks for redefining the word lynching from its dictionary definition to include ONLY hanging.
This is Breitbart-style journalistic thoroughness at its absolute best. I mean, after all, being beaten to death, or castrated while still alive, or burned to death, or dragged from a pickup truck until dead in an extra-judicial process is far more humane than being chased and then hung by a mob, and and is thus, entirely different. Different enough, in fact to write an entire article about it.

http://east.merriam-webster.co.....y/lynching

Elizabeth Ferrari| 7.26.10 @ 12:12PM

Someone supply the author of this piece with a dictionary before he writes again.

Fred| 7.26.10 @ 1:33PM

A dictionary won't fix what's broken in this man.

TF| 7.26.10 @ 12:12PM

According to accepted sources, hanging is just one method of exra-judicial killing that is considered lynching. Here are some examples from the Web.

(1) According to http://www.webster-dictionary....../Lynching:

Definition of Lynch. v. t. 1. To inflict punishment upon, especially death, without the forms of law, as when a mob captures and hangs a suspected person. See Lynch law. [imp. & p. p. Lynched ; p. pr. & vb. n. Lynching.]

(2) Wikipedia:

Lynching is extrajudicial punishment carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake and shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people, however large or small.

(3) Wordnet:

Lynch v : kill without legal sanction, "The blood-thirsty mob lynched the alleged killer of the child"

CPT Geoffrey Prentice| 7.26.10 @ 12:15PM

Lynching: ANY extra-judicial killing without legal sanction. Violates due process; ever heard of it?

a reader| 7.26.10 @ 12:21PM

Did you ever think about buying or using a dictionary? You might actually find out what "lynch" means.

Lying right-wing tool.

LarryG| 7.26.10 @ 12:24PM

Here's the dictionary definition of lynch: "kill without legal sanction." Beating a handcuffed man to death is, by definition, a lynching. It doesn't matter whether or not a rope was used.

LESD| 7.26.10 @ 12:33PM

"Conservatives" are reduced to this? Questioning this woman's integrity again because her relative was beaten to death w hile wearing handcuffs rather than hanged, as the author interprets the word "lynching?"

You folks set a new standard for foolishness and petty bigotry every day.

TooManyJens| 7.26.10 @ 12:37PM

Your ignorance of the meaning of the word "lynch" doesn't make Shirley Sherrod a liar.

Fred| 7.26.10 @ 1:31PM

It isn't ignorance. This guy and some of these commenters are complete sociopaths. There really isn't any indecency they'll shy from.

Jake| 7.26.10 @ 12:41PM

I'm so sick of these lies. The author of this piece has no place in a decent society.

Jeebus| 7.26.10 @ 12:43PM

The word lynch refers to an extra-judicial killing.

And you, sir, are an ignoramus.

And your editors are incompetent.

Good day.

Joe| 7.26.10 @ 12:43PM

Please. Don't you know the definition of lynching? What a mean spirit your soul has. The bottom line is that this poor man was beaten, "lynched" to death by people who had the same skin color as you Mr. Lord. Can't get much lower than this but I'm sure you will try. What a complete and utter moron.

Jim Cramer| 7.26.10 @ 12:43PM

Another take:

http://yesbuthowever.com/breit.....k-9000072/

casey| 7.26.10 @ 12:43PM

I guess James Byrd, who was merely dragged to death behind a pick-up truck in Texas in 1998, wasn't lynched.

Farther Than| 7.26.10 @ 12:44PM

Is Jeffrey Lord simply ignorant, or is he a liar with a racist agenda? His main assertion in this article doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

John II| 7.26.10 @ 12:44PM

Fascinating series of responses so far, especially those from the Left, and doubtless there will be many more before this thread poops out.

Anybody interested in reading Mr. Lord's piece? I know it's a strain for you Lefties to take time away from your smug umbrage, so just try reading the peroration--I mean, the last seven (short) paragraphs, pardoning my use of a big word.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 1:07PM

Do you have anything substantive to say? Other than name calling and condescension?

John II| 7.26.10 @ 1:35PM

Do YOU have anything substantive to say, other than misnomer ( I didn't call anyone a name) and contrived outrage?

Meanwhile, why not read the piece you're allegedly responding to?

It's the optimist in me, I suppose. I'm assuming you did not read it, else I would have to conclude that you're impossibly stupid, which I wouldn't want to do. Stupidity is often more dangerous than mere political fanaticism.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 2:32PM

I read the piece. That's why I'm commenting that the writer is a partisan hack. One who I'm still stunned to notice, is so lacking in ***elemental human decency*** that he would call an already unfairly maligned woman a liar, because her brother was beaten to death by racists instead of HUNG to death.

Is there anything in this comment of mine which is NOT true, or is in conflict with the above article? If so, please list it.

John II| 7.26.10 @ 6:30PM

"Is there anything in this comment of mine which is NOT true, or is in conflict with the above article?"

1. The writer is not a partisan hack. He's a partisan commentator of distinction and a shrewd observer of the Americano political scene.

2. The writer didn't call Ms. Jerrod a liar; he explicitly says, more than once, that he can't presume to understand the motivation for what was objectively false in her remarks.

3. In her speech, Ms. Sherrod does not identify the man who was murdered as her brother.

4. The past participle of "hang" in the sense of put to death is "hanged," not "hung."

5. Your singular question and follow-up challenge "list it" presumes that there is only one thing to "list"--which, by my count, would be your fifth error.

It wouldn't occur to me to call you a liar, Jimmy, but you ARE dropping rather a chunky load of prima facie evidence of stupidity.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 6:57PM

Oh come on.

re: # 1 - partisan hack is as partisan hack does. Claiming someone said something that was false, when in fact they said something that was true, is hackery. Doing this because the person was revealed to have been unfairly maligned and attached, is partisan hackery.

re: # 2 - Oh sure, Lord didn't say she lied - he just claimed what she said was false, and called into question her "veracity and credibility" - which is accusing her of intentionally and knowingly saying something false in order to deceive. In otherwords, the exact definition of LYING.

Woo.

3. You're right - I mentioned the victim being her brother, when it was her father. And? I said **this article**. Lord only calls Sherrod's dead family member "a relative".

If you're going to split hairs, I will too.

re: #4 - My grammar now? Really?

You'll notice what I said was "Is there anything in this comment of mine which is NOT true, or is in conflict with the above article?"

Grammar doesn't count in that definition, to any reasonable person.

But you know what? OK, fine. My grammar is wrong in that case, and the entire premise of this article is utterly wrong in it's fantastically base partisan hackery. I'll work on my grammar. Lord obviously needs to work on the base partisan hackery.

5. Most importantly, your "list" shows nothing I said which is **factually proven wrong** by this article.

So, Johnny-wonny, it would occur to me that if you actually think your list shows that I am wrong, Lord was right and Sherrod said something knowingly false in order to deceive, you are completely divorced from reality.

John II| 7.26.10 @ 9:54PM

You're full of crap, Jimmy (it wasn't her father either; that was later, etc.)--but I like you anyhow. Anybody who can coin a term like "hackery" is a conservative waiting to be born.

Ms. Sherrod's gruesome background would tip a lesser person over the edge, but she's hanging in there pretty well, if you want MY opinion (which wasn't the topic). I would have been happier if the Obama administration's kneejerk response (and that of the now ridiculous NAACP) had awakened her to the frame of reference her life's experience had backed her into.

But as soon as the grovelling started, she reverted to type. Has it occurred to you that THIS too is the long-term consequence of racism and racial violence--the fact that some 85 percent of American blacks are simply in the pockets of the liberal Democrats, who've done NOTHING of consequence to improve the lot of black Americans and EVERYTHING to keep black Americans "on the plantation," beholden to handouts. Don't you recall Clinton's remarks in the South Carolina primaries? And what about Ferraro's canning for saying the obvious: that any white man with Obama's resume would have been laughed off the stage?

Ask people like Derek LeRoy and Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas what THEY think about white Lefty condescension to the underclass.

It's not finally about race, Jimmy. It's about screwball ideology. But you're already a conservative if you have the imagination to coin a term like "hackery," so I'm content with your otherwise idiotic response. As the New Age lefties are fond of saying, thank you for sharing.

jim x| 7.27.10 @ 5:24PM

So in essence:

a) everything relevant I said about this article was accurate AND

b) this article is based on a completely and utterly wrong premise, which could have been prevented by a trip to the dictionary, BUT

c) 85% of African Americans vote Democrat because they've been fooled by Democrats, BUT Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro said racist things AND

d) some African-Americans are conservative and don't like Democrats THEREFORE

e) I'm somehow wrong.

Did I leave anything out?

Oh, that's right - and my response which you were unable to prove logically wrong in any fashion was idiotic.

Alrighty then.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 12:47PM

And here

http://archive.newsmax.com/arc.....3643.shtml

we have those well-known liberals at NewsMax discussing the "James Byrd lynching."

George S| 7.26.10 @ 12:49PM

When a black woman speaks of a lynching to a black audience, does that invoke head scratches and a dash to the dictionary? Of course not, that very word sends ice water through the veins of African Americans. There is no mistaking what the speaker means, and that word is tied to violent racism. A lynching is mob justice, deliberation and execution (with or without a rope). To equate this with the actions of a couple of police offers who were executing a warrant is... well if there isn't a difference, why didn't Sherrod bring up this fact of a warrant? Why not state that that officers used the false(?) pretext of "going for a gun"? Why did the officers wait until the car trip was over (surely a side road detour to the nearest tree would be far neater) in full view in front of a courthouse?

Sure, these may be distinctions without a difference, and I'm no expert in lynching (Sen. Byrd didn't return my call).

But the point is that Sherrod didn't tell the story that her relative was unjustly beaten to death by police but instead left the impression that the sheriff led a lynch mob of racist whites to string up an innocent kid. Is that the truth? Then leave Mr. Lord alone.

What happened here is not an isolated incident. Police have been applying extra justice upon the heads of citizens for decades, irrespective of race. How many news outlets reported the lynching or attempted lynching of Rodney King? Even the most partisan African Studies professor knows there are consequences in challenging the police.

Words paint a picture, and in this case, Sherrod's words attempted to paint something other than what happened. Why? is a good question, especially when a member of government makes the comment.

NICKinNOVA| 7.26.10 @ 1:07PM

Just can't admit this "author" is wrong...must smear...must not admit wrong...you are conservative...hear you stupidly roar.

George S| 7.26.10 @ 1:30PM

One final roar of stupidity:

From Sherrod's speech:

"Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights."

From the facts of the case:

"The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire... petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds... claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car... continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious...(a)n ambulance was called... was removed to a hospital... evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall... had threatened..."

Is that the first thought you had when you read Sherrod's account? Could you have deduced the facts of the case based on the speech excerpts? Is what happened to Hall unique, that is, the police have never beaten to death a white guy AFTER lawful interdiction?

I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach critical thinking... it just gets in the way of mob rule.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 3:43PM

This is about Ms. Sherrod, and more specifically, about a Breitbart-tyle bomb-thrower who wrote a piece calling someone who has already been falsely denigrated and victimized a liar, based on no more the the author's misunderstanding of rudimentary vocabulary and historical meaning. I read the entire article. Did you listen to Ms. Sherrod's entire speech and see the interview with the (white) persons she helped?

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 4:58PM

The point is she has no credibility, but you are willing to assign it to her simply because she is a black liberal. Mr. Breitbart's showing of the clip was to demonstrate this woman is a racist scab and she is married to one as well. It would seem that the supposition made by Mr. Breitbart is borne out by their actual conduct and you'll never admit that Bob because liberals can't be wrong and can't be racists, yet we know it isn't true in either case. The vapid racism and class warfare all comes from you folks because without it, you can't form a ruling coalition. What this really says is that when Black America wakes up and realizes they have been screwed by the liberal-progressive movement for the past 45 years, your days of ruling us for your exclusive profit and at our exclusive expense and risk will not only end, but it will be likely you will face criminal prosecution and that's something I think we both know is going to happen.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 2:37PM

I wish you were kidding me.

How fair are we going to shave this hair?

You said: "But the point is that Sherrod didn't tell the story that her relative was unjustly beaten to death by police but instead left the impression that the sheriff led a lynch mob of racist whites to string up an innocent kid."

What is the actual difference between those two interpretations?

- several police beat a handcuffed innocent to death in public

- a sherriff leads a mob to hang an innocent to death in public

Come on now. There is no useful difference between those two statements. This is not only offensive and disgusting, it is ludicrous.

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 5:00PM

Having grown up in one of the most racist places in America, I can assure you that when she mentioned lynching I didn't think of anything but hanging as did millions of other people. She said it for effect and stretched it. It wasn't honest, it was inflammatory and done for a political reason by a seasoned race-baiter of the worst kind. You're just angry that someone had the gall to out her.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 5:19PM

Your post is just dumb. Let's look at this picture of some good ole boys' handiwork:

http://www.americanlynching.com/pic2.htm

Now he was not hung, was he? But is there any doubt he was lynched?

Emmitt Till was not hung, he was beaten and shot and thrown in the river. Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner were shot. Any question whether they were lynched? Not in a sane mind, no. But, then again, we are talking about conservatives caught with their pants down in a political sideshow that blew up in their faces. So change the subject, we must! So now Sherrod is "lying" because her relative was merely beaten to death on the courthouse steps and not hung from the elm tree in the city part like these lads?

http://www.americanlynching.com/pic6.htm

Keep it coming cons! Keep it coming! You got 'em just where you want 'em!

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 8:47PM

Since her definition is actually the way it's written into the freakin' law for decades, *and* it's how others have very publicly referred to lawless injustice for decades including Justice Clarence Thomas, who referred to his treatment as a "high-tech" lynching -

I think what's actually going on is that you can't admit you were wrong.

Just do it. You'll feel better. I promise.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 5:28PM

But for the fact that these racist cops were convicted under THE FEDERAL ANTI-LYNCHING LAW your counting of angels atop the head of a pin would have some real meaning. Alas, it doesn't. Why not admit he was WAY OFF and be done with it?

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 12:52PM

The last 7 paragraphs are garbage, too.

Apparently, right-wing southern Democrats who called themselves conservatives and denounced progressives were actually progressives, so now, 70 years later, Mrs. Sherrod demonstrates a lack of understanding because she supports progressives who have nothing in common with those conservatives from three generations ago.

Lisa| 7.26.10 @ 12:54PM

Wow. Look at this message thread. We hate each other for stupid political reasons so much that we can't even acknowledge that we agree on the crappiness of this article.

We are likely going to kill each other off very soon in some zombie like rage while screaming "wolverines!". We are so over as a country. No society of such stupid, angry people can last long without hacking each other to death.

This country's epitaph:
America - it was a cute idea.

entymology| 7.26.10 @ 12:54PM

The term "Lynch's Law" (and subsequently "lynch law" and "lynching") apparently originated during the American Revolution when Charles Lynch, a Virginia justice of the peace, ordered EXTRALEGAL PUNISHMENT for Tory acts.

Southern by the grace of God| 7.26.10 @ 12:55PM

Look a here. You boys got your definition of lynching all wrong. We don't have to string 'em up to lynch 'em. Why, we'll take 'em out any ol' way we can. Beatin, hangin, drownin. Whatever we got nearby works. I'm guessin they just didn't have a good tree close by.

Lock| 7.26.10 @ 1:01PM

It’s truly a shame that beating a black man to death while he is handcuffed for allegedly stealing a tire doesn’t meet the exacting definition of ‘lynching’.

Otherwise I’d be outraged by such idiotic comments.

darrell| 7.26.10 @ 1:01PM

Ms Sharrod did say she would take students to "the courthouse in Newton to show where Bobby Hall's body was displayed." a description that suggests something?
That said, the article is insensitive and only serves to inflame a the whole affair

NICKinNOVA| 7.26.10 @ 1:02PM

Ohh...he wasn't lynched, he was just beaten to death on the steps of a courthouse, while being handcuffed. Simply lynching by another name, but that doesn't matter to this author; it only matters that he needs to, somehow, discredit this woman after being smeared by Breitbart. Frum is right, the Conservative mind is closed for business.

Disgusted by Conservatives| 7.26.10 @ 3:52PM

I am pleased to see that you have spent most of the afternoon mindlessly flogging the same video. That means that you haven't spent any time out raping and molesting the neighborhood children, which is how I assume you normally spend your days.

Subhuman. Utterly subhuman.

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 5:01PM

Funny thing, I managed to ensnare you with no problem whatsoever. We know how you spend your days... You ran your mouth. You thought your superior attitude would carry the day and allow you to get away with a lie and you got exposed, just like her. Welcome to reality.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 5:25PM

Can you describe in 10 words or less any contribution you have made to mankind other than your morning BM?

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 3:57PM

In other words, you don't have any facts to debate. You could admit you were wrong, but a distraction is the preferred approach because you can't admit to the facts. Kiss, kiss now. Back to the kiddie pool you go...

aj| 7.26.10 @ 1:02PM

So Clarence Thomas was lying too when he said his hearings were a "high tech lynching"

NICKinNOVA| 7.26.10 @ 1:03PM

Ohh...he wasn't lynched, he was just beaten to death on the steps of a courthouse, while being handcuffed. Simply lynching by another name, but that doesn't matter to this author; it only matters that he needs to, somehow, discredit this woman after being smeared by Breitbart. Frum is right, the Conservative mind is closed for business.

aj| 7.26.10 @ 1:03PM

So Clarence Thomas was lying too when he said his hearings were a "high tech lynching"

definition| 7.26.10 @ 1:08PM

Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill: "To assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching.... Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the phrase 'mob or riotous assemblage,' when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of THREE OR MORE PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING ANY PERSON OF HIS LIFE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense."

facts| 7.26.10 @ 1:19PM

"IsIsraeli TV broadcast the lynching of Israeli soldiers by a furious Palestinian mob in the West Bank town of Ramallah.... Gruesome scenes were visible through an open window as the mob savagely beat and stabbed two or possibly three of the soldiers to death."

- Lynch mob's brutal attack, BBC News, 13 October 2000

Grand Torino| 7.26.10 @ 1:11PM

Can you imagine the reaction if a white federal official went to an all white meeting and stated he hated blacks at some point but "had learned" to help them? How disingenuous. Yes, he would have been fired and ripped to pieces by the MSM.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 1:33PM

Uh, Robert Byrd - who was once a Klansman, but quit and denounced the Klan, and spent the rest of his life explaining how he'd overcome but still regretted his earlier racism - was the longest-serving senator in American history.

So, no. Hating on reformed racists is pretty much a right-wing thing.

RobNYNY195y| 7.26.10 @ 2:11PM

No, no, noooooo! It's unfair to stoop to the use of historical facts! It's much better to read the minds of hundreds of reporters! That's how you win arguments fairly.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 5:26PM

Can you describe in 10 words or less any contribution you have made to mankind other than your morning BM?

Grand Torino| 7.26.10 @ 2:56PM

That's a ridiculous example since Robert Byrd become a Democratic Senator AFTER he left the Klan. However, your example goes contrary to racists being a right wing thing since Byrd was an avowed leftist. But he is a perfect example of a collectivist.

martin j smith| 7.26.10 @ 1:24PM

As I said, here are the trolls--you can spot them easily. They are the racists,the bigots, the fascists,the un-Americans, the ones who are un American and the liars.
Here is fact when ths whole of issue of "racism" about the Tea Party came about, there was NOT ONE IOTA OF CONFIRMED EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. Not one . They lie.

joe from Lowell| 7.26.10 @ 1:35PM

ORLY?

So the National Tea Party Federation and the Tea Party Patriots got rid of the Tea Party Express leadership for racism based on "NOT ONE IOAT OF CONFIRMED EVIDENCE?"

Hokay. Whatever you say, champ.

lynched by beating| 7.26.10 @ 1:24PM

"The Mississippi civil rights workers murders involved the 1964 lynching of three political activists during the American Civil Rights Movement....
They were taken to an isolated spot where James Chaney was beaten and all three were shot to death."

martin j smith| 7.26.10 @ 1:24PM

As I said, here are the trolls--you can spot them easily. They are the racists,the bigots, the fascists,the un-Americans, the ones who are un American and the liars.
Here is fact when ths whole of issue of "racism" about the Tea Party came about, there was NOT ONE IOTA OF CONFIRMED EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. Not one . They lie.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 1:36PM

Keep lobbing those slow, slow pitches:

http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....1748.story

"Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for?" the posting said. "What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bailouts directly to us coloreds!"

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 2:48PM

Would this be the same LA Times as the Los Angeles Times - part of the biggest voter fraud conspiracy in modern times? You need credible sources son and not the Huffington Post quality garbage of crap feeding farts.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 2:12PM

This is what is fascinating: the teabaggers, in general, blew this. The NAACP gave specific examples of racist behavior that had been witnessed, photographed and videotaped at teabagger ralllies. The teabaggers COULD have said "We will exclude racists as we always have." Indeed, there are examples of when they have done just that. But, no, they did not say that. Their first effort was to call the NAACP "racist" . . . but unlike the NAACP giving specific examples of things happening among the teabaggers, they did not ahnd could not show any evidence that the near 100 year civil rights organization that existed and succeeded in fighting Jim Crow had turned into a rabid band of Bull Connors. Second, one of the teabag leaders decides to run a supposed letter that was, in a word, racist. He thus proved NAACP's point. Breitbart, trying to change the subject, responds with a defamatory and false video -- calling Sherrod and the NAACP "racist" using doctored "evidence."

You cons learned nothing. If someone criticizes you, before striking back, have some introspection. Instead, you are digging and digging, still trying to salvage something from the defamatory hit job that was the Breitbart video. Why does your movement chose to allign itself with that piece of sewer-rot?

Disgusted by Conservatives| 7.26.10 @ 3:55PM

And here's another link to the same damn post by well-known child molester and all-around subhuman troglodyte rainmaker1145. Everyone take a drink!

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 5:03PM

And yet you cannot deny the truth and like every liberal-progressive dirtbag, instead of admitting your own failings and seeking to make amends for your crime, you make it worse by making ridiculous charges in hopes of distracting people away from your own lack of moral courage and inability to debate facts.

BUSTED AGAIN!

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 5:27PM

Can you describe in 10 words or less any contribution you have made to mankind other than your morning BM?

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 1:25PM

So, the question now becomes: Will Lord retract this hit piece and apologize for being stupid? All signs point to "No, we were at American Spectator prefer to just let the lies hang out there, because they'll still score us some political points, and that's what this is all about (NOT intellectual discourse or basic decency)."

Chinn Romney| 7.26.10 @ 1:29PM

I thought the condensed version was a joke:

Sherrod lied, her relative wasn't lynched, he was beaten to death.

But no, that about sums it up. Amazing. You do realize the lynching means killing someone without legal footing. Usually - but not always - by hanging.

So there's no "lie" hear. But your attitude is very revealing. I understand though, it's not about informing anybody, it's about keeping your job first, and about keeping the rubes inflamed and pissed at the wrong people.

Pathetic.

Hugo White| 7.26.10 @ 1:29PM

"So my apologies to Ms. Sherrod."

Getting to be a habit, I see.

Chinn | 7.26.10 @ 1:31PM

and where's the freakin' edit feature on this lame site? I guess it doesn't matter, it's not like your base would recognize a misspelling.

Dave Christiansen| 7.26.10 @ 1:38PM

Mr. Lord,
You are either an idiot or a liar. Lynching doesn't not mean to hang somone. It means to take someone's life without the sanction of the rule of law. Look it up if you are an idiot. I suspect you are a pot-stirring liar though.

Dave

ex| 7.26.10 @ 1:38PM

To say that Ms. Sherrod is wrong in describing what happened as a lynching because it did not involve hanging is ludicrous. Mr Lord discredits himself more than he does Ms Sherrod. Talk about clutching at straws!
Doesn't the American Spectator have any editors? The headline is wrong and argument is juvenile. Pathetic.

Maeve Westor| 7.26.10 @ 1:38PM

How dumb are you?

lynch (lnch)
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.

Peter| 7.26.10 @ 1:45PM

Perhaps the editors at AS should invest in a dictionary (and then look up the word "lynch"). It could have saved everyone this painful embarrassment of a "column."

martin j smith| 7.26.10 @ 1:45PM

This entire story is really off the issue which was : The accusation of racism by the NAACP. Let me be very clear as to my view. The entire issue was and is a piece of political propaganda. There is not one piece of hard evidence to prove the charge. Sharrod was made an issue as much by a decsion to fire her by the BHO administration. And, is it not interesting thatt here was no hesitation in the firing--not: "lets take a look at the evidence first". No right away. Why ? Now that is an interesting question. As I have said before--everything about this is political and all of the history of supreme counrt cases and who said what about whom in the 1920's in my view is off the mark. The issue is: The Democrat Party thru the NAACP cannot get away with unsubstantiated political propaganda again without a strong challenge and pushback plus a counter attack. Thus there a price to be paid for lies.

Disgusted by Conservatives| 7.26.10 @ 4:33PM

Drink!

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 5:04PM

We're waiting. Time for your favorite racial slurs. Show us how smart you really are.

wandapanda| 7.26.10 @ 1:49PM

I'd like to say I'm amazed at the lengths conservatives will go to in their defense of Breitbart (who certainly doesn't deserve it), but I'm not. They're STILL attacking the victim and continuing the character assassination started by him.

If anyone is guilty of race-baiting, it's Breitbart. He posted the edited video knowing full well that it would spark outrage among conservatives. His timing was deliberate; he was trying to deflect attention from Mark Williams, the Tea Party Express leader who was forced to step down after posting a very racist screed on his blog (which was written in response to the NAACP resolution condemning racist elements in the Tea Party).

The rest of us are sick and tired of conservatives who deliberately lie or distort facts in order to stir up racial trouble. Yes, we know you're upset because we have a black President. His election certainly brought the racists out of the woodwork. We've all seen the pictures of racists at Tea Party gatherings. We've read their comments on conservative websites (including this one). We're tired of your whining, though.

I'm glad I left the Republican party in 1992. It no longer has the ideals espoused by Barry Goldwater. It has been taken over by religious nuts, racists, and willfully ignorant fools who are brainwashed by talk radio and Fox News.

Sir Craig| 7.26.10 @ 1:52PM

Lynch: To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.

Sherrod didn't lie, and now you owe her another apology. I swear, the easiest job on the planet must be as an editor at the American Spectator. Seriously, pick up a dictionary sometime.

MoeLarryAndJesus| 7.26.10 @ 1:52PM

"–verb (used with object)
to put to death, esp. by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority."

I would say Bobby Hall was lynched.

Idiothicks| 7.26.10 @ 1:54PM

This is the very definition of a lynching, you stupid redneck trash.

Steve| 7.26.10 @ 1:56PM

Oh, so it wasn't done by a street mob using a rope, and was done instead by the police beating him to death - which is far worse. And Jeffry Lord imagines that shows Sherrod to have overstated her story? It shows her to have understated it. The argument Lord presents is totally warped.

Wcollar| 7.26.10 @ 1:56PM

Typical definition of a lynching,'Lynching is the "illegal execution of an accused person by a mob"
The method of killing doesn't matter. The description sure sounds like a lynching to me.

jg cook| 7.26.10 @ 1:57PM

Spot on, Mr. Lord. You know you got the Left's attention when they start screaming as above.

There was no lynching. The US Supreme Court said so. A court populated by the kind of justices the left adores.

The irony is almost beyond words.

Steve| 7.26.10 @ 2:12PM

Sorry, jg cook, but your thinking is obviously warped by (1) some strange idea that anyone who disagrees with what you want to believe is "the Left," and (2) that if they are offended by such an insultingly absurd argument to support the slander an innocent victim for political exploitation by a scoundrel like Breitbart, it must be because of their political ideology rather than because Lord's argument is absurd and the lengths that he goes to justify the unjustifiable really is offensive.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 2:27PM

You are misreading the case. The Courts says this:

"This case involves a shocking and revolting episode in law enforcement."

Lord quotes the facts above, where were not in dispute.

Or perhaps you can point out the passage (see link above to the case) where the Court said what you assert?

Steve| 7.26.10 @ 2:49PM

I am not disputing what the court wrote - Jeffrey Lord presumably knows how to cut and paste correctly. I am disputing Lord's argument based on nitpicking that his meaning of "lynched" vs. the generally accepted meaning makes Sherrod's story untrue in any meaningful way. Saying Sherrod's story of her father being murdered and no one being convicted of it is untrue because she used the word "lynched" and her relative was killed by being beaten to death is a disgustingly fake argument - an artificial and ill motivated effort to evade the real issues involved.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 3:06PM

My reply was directed to jg cook.

TROLL| 7.26.10 @ 1:58PM

WOW! Troll is passed off as news columnist. /b/ has made its way into the mainstream media. Bravo.

Benny Cemoli| 7.26.10 @ 2:06PM

Look up the dictionary definition of "lynch". Seriously, go look it up ... I'll wait ...

When Sherrod said Hall was lynched, she was using the term correctly. The Supreme Court summary describes a lynching.

Lord is just flat-out wrong in his understanding and usage of the word. It isn't very difficult to go and , you know, look it up in the dictionary.

Again, I have no idea what Lord's motivation in saying something so factually untrue could be. Is he 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 he said something --indeed made a big deal of it -- that is factually, provably untrue.

And her old conservative media buddies, predictably, are unwilling to call her on it.

And as the saying goes, if one lives by the sword, one can die by the sword.

Mason| 7.26.10 @ 2:10PM

This would be funny if it wasn't so sick. It's like the author purposely set out to satirize the disturbed, entitled mind set of the extreme right wing. And did so brilliantly. I'd really like to believe that ... but sadly, and frighteningly, I don't think that's the case.

13th Generation American| 7.26.10 @ 2:14PM

Being from a family who has been in this country for 385 years having participated in the liberation of and the freeing of slaves, I am very ashamed to read this article and the racist comments by ignorant bigots. My family certainly did not sacrifice for this.

David Jenkins| 7.26.10 @ 2:18PM

Mr. Lord, you should write your autobiography, and you should title it, "Jeffery Lord: the very embodiment of the phrase, 'mean-spirited'".

Slothrup| 7.26.10 @ 2:20PM

We can be generous and assume that the author was a little more with it when working as a political director at the Reagan White House. But what possibly excuse do the editors of the American Spectator have for running this piece of self-exposing lunacy?

To state the obvious: 1) lynching does not mean hanging; 2) there is no significant difference between a black man being beaten to death (by a sheriff, while handcuffed) and his being hanged to death. There was no lie.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 2:20PM

Mr. Lord, you are an idiot. Your entire article is premised on the claim that the Supreme Court said that Mr. Hall was not lynched. This is simply a lie. Because if they Supreme Court had determined that the cops had not lynched Hall, then they would have granted a verdict for the defendants. That is NOT WHAT THEY DID. Rather, they sent the case back for a new trial. Why? Because, if Lord had actually bothered to read paragraph 3 of the syllabus, and not stopped with paragraph 1, he would have learned what happened. Specifically:

"3. The trial court erred in not instructing the jury that, in order to convict, they must find that the defendants had the purpose to deprive the prisoner of a constitutional right. In determining whether that requisite bad purpose was present, the jury would be entitled to consider all the attendant circumstances -- the malice of the defendants, the weapons used in the assault, the character and duration of the assault, the provocation, if any, and the like. P. 325 U. S. 106."

That is why the lynchers got a new trial: because of a bad jury instruction. There was no determination that Hall was "not lynched." Instead, the jury had to be given the right to determine whether, under all the circumstances, "the defendants had the purpose to deprive the prisoner of a constitutional right." So Lord is not only fobbing off an inaccurate definition of the word "lynched"; he also lied about the Supreme Court's actual ruling in the case. But then again, this is what the right is left to argue with.

CF| 7.26.10 @ 2:23PM

The Supreme Court summary describes a lynching.

It also seems that the decision of the Court was not on whether or not there was a lynching but on whether or not the original ruling, that Hall had been deprived of his civil rights, was valid. Separate questions, which Lord must have understood, which means he wrote one of the slimiest pieces of commentary to come out of this whole Sherrod moment.

BG| 7.26.10 @ 2:33PM

Though I think your argument is good, Jeffrey, if indeed you have listened to the entire Sherrod tape you cannot leave without the feeling that this women is a black racist pure and simple.... She never showed remorse, no repentance, nor offered any sentiment of intelligence that what she did was wrong,..... she only justified her conduct. Like most Progressives, she is truly unaware of her own and her husband's problems of racism and the prejudiced hate that it spews!

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 2:41PM

Wow, BG, thanks for the textbook example of "projection." Talk about being unaware!

Carl Sage| 7.26.10 @ 3:12PM

That video is about a different person whose last name is Sherrod making statements about white people. What exactly does this have to do with whether Shirley Sherrod's story was true? And what exactly do you mean by BUSTED? That you just busted yourself by putting your foot in your mouth?

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 5:06PM

You can't defend that which is indefensible so the only thing a liberal can do is say, "deny what your lying eyes have shown you."

At least you and President Obama have something in common: you both have the unique habit of facing the truth and then denying it could be the truth because it doesn't fit the liberal mold...

sluggo| 7.26.10 @ 4:42PM

Wow.....

Are you dumb!!

Is this a natural talent or did you have to take classes?

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 2:35PM

Reading more of the decision, you get an even better sense of what an idiot Lord is. From the concurring opinion:

"The case comes here established, in fact, as a gross abuse of authority by state officers. Entrusted with the state's power and using it, without a warrant or with one of only doubtful legality, they invaded a citizen's home, arrested him for alleged theft of a tire, forcibly took him in handcuffs to the courthouse yard, and there beat him to death. Previously, they had threatened to kill him, fortified themselves at a near-by bar, and resisted the bartender's importunities not to carry out the arrest. Upon this and other evidence which overwhelmingly supports (140 F.2d 665) the verdict, together with instructions adequately covering an officer's right to use force, the jury found the petitioners guilty.

"The verdict has shaped their position here. Their contention hardly disputes the facts on which it rests. They do not come therefore as faithful state officers, innocent of crime. Justification has been foreclosed. Accordingly, their argument now admits the offense, but insists it was against the state alone, not the nation. So they have made their case in this Court. In effect, the position urges it is murder they have done, not deprivation of constitutional right. Strange as the argument is the reason. It comes to this, that abuse of state power creates immunity to federal power. Because what they did violated the state's laws, the nation cannot reach their conduct. "

If Lord read this and STILL concluded that the Supremes ruled that Hall had not been lynched, then he also has a sever reading comprehension problem. My guess: within 48 hours, this article will be thoroughly scrubbed from the website.

flounder| 7.26.10 @ 2:38PM

I wonder if this guy was the political adviser who influenced Reagan to kick off his presidential general election campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, whose only claim to fame is that some white college-aged civil rights advocates were brutally lynched there in the 1960's? I wouldn't be surprised.

malvo12| 7.26.10 @ 2:59PM

Ignorant or Liar?
Perhaps you did not know how wrong you were in defining lynching. Perhaps you might join the other having to embarrassingly apologize to Mrs. Sherrod.

to lynch a form of violence... under the pretext of administering justice without trial, executes a presumed offender, often after inflicting torture and corporal mutilation. The term lynch law refers to a self-constituted court that imposes sentence on a person without due process of law. Both terms are derived from the name of Charles Lynch (1736–96), a Virginia planter and justice of the peace who, during the American Revolution, headed an irregular court formed to punish loyalists.

to hang to fasten to some elevated point without support from below : suspend b : to suspend by the neck until dead

The Real Sherrods pop up| 7.26.10 @ 3:03PM

http://www.riehlworldview.com/.....toms-.html

Please please keep marching her out!
And her husband.
And her daughter Kenyatta.
And her daughter "Russia" (LOL).

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 3:54PM

It's awesome you think this line of attack (on the innocent victim of a smear campaign) will actually score you points. It's like a moron version of the southern strategy.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:00PM

I note your application of slurs - how ironic, educated and sophisticated a debate you contrive for our edification. What's next? Do you have some racial slurs to offer as well? Hmmmm?

martin j smith| 7.26.10 @ 3:07PM

Mr lord, your article has att5acted too many trool and I really wonder about you and them--for different reasons. But no matter. To all trolls: You lost this debate when two things happended. a) No prooof of any "racism" b when BHO fired Sharrod. Lick it up sonny boy"--you are a racist of the first order . Again do not pass off to any other sites. Eith the proof in right there on TV suchas CNN,MSNBC et6c etc or it is not. And it was NOT. So you all are FOS which as far as i am co ncerned can eat with raw or cooked. Enjoy it. The vast majority of American voter are onto y0ou and see the MSM for what you are. Liars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 3:13PM

Shakespeare, is that you?

Karl Rove| 7.26.10 @ 4:52PM

Son, I'd like to offer you a job.

scott leemis| 7.26.10 @ 3:13PM

You very much damage your reputation by your ignorance of what "lynching" entails. The method of the extrajudicial murder is not what makes it a lynching ( other methods included burning people alive). A lynching occurs when someone takes it upon themselves to mete out "justice"- the proverbial judge, jury, and executioner.

typically this might have been a mob, with or without the condonation of local law "enforcement"
In this case, the "mob" was a sheriff, a deputy and a deputized civilian.

This was all around a shoddy piece of work, which needs to be repudiated.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 5:07PM

"This was all around a shoddy piece of work, which needs to be repudiated. "

You meant "refudiated" didn't you?

Marc Jeric| 7.26.10 @ 3:24PM

In a moment of epiphany (like Paul on the way to damascus) Ms. Sherrod describes in her speech to the NAACP 24 years ago how she stopped being a racist and became a marxist; "I saw that it was not white against black but rich against poor".
And that is progress???

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 3:27PM

You should learn what "marxist" actually means.

dirk| 7.26.10 @ 4:41PM

According to Jesus, yes.

On Behalf of All Writers| 7.26.10 @ 3:35PM

Hey Jeffrey- invest in a dictionary!!!!!

So, shouldn't this Jeffrey Lord fellow be asked to resign for his "lynching" faux-pas? At the very least, he should be required to take a freshman journalism class at a local community college to brush up, don't you think? Or perhaps Mr. Lord should simply take a moment and think before he types, lest he appear uneducated and, frankly, quite stupid.


Lord must have

agio| 7.26.10 @ 3:50PM

Except he's not a journalist. He writes op-eds for AmSpec, and probably every other Scaife rag out there.

martin j smith| 7.26.10 @ 3:35PM

Mr Lord, after further consideration I think it would be wise talk to other bloggers to get "objective views of your article. One thing to consider is if you attract a lot of trolls, that is a symptom you should take seriously. I felt your article was not well thought out and really is not directly relecvant to the issue at hand--which is my view is this: Basically the cheap use of "racism" to disqualify opposition to the Democrat Left by the Tea Party or anyone else. Period . That is the crux of the matter. And, in this case THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY DISPLAYED TO PROVE THE ACCUSATION PERIOD. Secondaril;y the other side issue but interesting is why the BHO regime dismissed Sharrod so quickly without any investigation. This in itself is very interesting and should be looked into. Purely guessing: The BHO folk know full well that they are fakes and the "racist card" is not working. So they decided to cut their losses. This is who they are. They would throw their mothers under the bus if they needed to.

ncatty| 7.26.10 @ 4:00PM

The charge of "racist" has been cheapened to the point that it can be ignored, no matter who asserts it, unless it is accompanied by proof.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 4:59PM

"Secondaril;y the other side issue but interesting is why the BHO regime dismissed Sharrod so quickly without any investigation. This in itself is very interesting and should be looked into. "

I don't understand. What would you investigate? They said why they fired her -- because of the b.s. video. They then rehired her because of the legit video.

But if you think that they fired her to make a martyr out of her, make the NAACP look goofy then stand up, catch conservatives calling a Christian repentent Black woman a "racist" based on no evidence, and eliminate the last shred of credibility on the nutty right -- then Obama may cop to that, too! LOL!

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 5:07PM

You would be wrong. She is a racist and so is her husband. These are two dirtbags you are defending...

Christine Mancuso| 7.26.10 @ 3:38PM

This is a HUGE embarrassment. Couldn't you at least have consulted Wikipedia about the definition of lunching first, Mr. Lord? Even I knew it wasn't limited to hanging and I wasn't writing an in-depth article about it. This makes you look like an idiot.

It also makes you like completely devoid of empathy for quibbling over the semantics of that story in the first place, but that's another matter.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 7:01PM

He had no free hands for the dictionary, after grasping at straws.

Todd| 7.26.10 @ 3:43PM

Can anyone explain why has this article generated so many seminar posters? Did it make the front page of the Huffington post or something?

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 3:46PM

A piece as stupid as this one generates a lot of interest.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:02PM

Don't forget to toss in some racial slurs to allow us the opportunity to realize how clever and erudite you really are at debating.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 3:49PM

Yes, it has been covered by liberal blogs, by persons who understand both the context of Breitbart's original calculated anti-NAACP bomb-throwing and the abject stupidity of someone who could/would write an entire sensational article ("Sherrod Story False" is designed simply to malign and discredit) based on his (the author's) misunderstanding of both the historical meaning and dictionary definition of a single word. But it has been enlightening to read some of the right-wing bluster on this site. I am surprised at how anti-Black much of it it. Do you also think Obama was born in Africa, the world is 6,000 years old and the earth is flat?

Karl Rove| 7.26.10 @ 4:53PM

Everything is going according to plan!

bob| 7.26.10 @ 3:44PM

Jeffrey Lord, you are disgusting scum. It horrifies me that there are people that think like you, and that there are outlets that give you some sort of legitimacy. You are lower than trash.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.26.10 @ 8:16PM

Bob...

Thanks for putting yourself on record as opposing a colorblind America. We disagree - a lot. Gee, the idea of seeing Shirley Sherrod as an equal as opposed to patronizing her clearly terrifies you. What's the insecurity - that she's black? A woman?

That's too bad. It's also sheer meanness.

It is she, not I, who said that to oppose the President on health care makes you a racist.
You obviously look at Barack Obama and see The Black President. I see The President of the United States. Duly elected, the 44th of a long line of presidents of all races and both genders.

And you have a problem with this concept?

Wow.

Jeff Tayler| 7.26.10 @ 3:48PM

Seriously, Am Spec? I read this site every day and used to have a subscription (before I got laid off--thanks BHO!).

This is seriously one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read by a "conservative." Thanks for giving the Libs a softball with this one, Lord.

And do you guys at Am Spec even look at this stuff before it goes online? Do you have editors?

I can't wait to hear how you explain this one, Mr. Lord. Geez.

Broadway Carl| 7.26.10 @ 3:49PM

Is this what passes for intelligent editorials at the American Spectator? For Mr. Lord to believe the word "lynching" is not limited specifically to "hanging from a tree" without even looking it up, and therefore accuse Shirley Sherrod of lying because of it, is the very reason conservatives are painted in broad brush strokes as unfeeling, uncaring, racist boobs.

Really, Mr. Lord? Arguing semantics on the definition of "lynching"? I'm expecting a retraction or better yet, another article formally apologizing for your idiocy, but I won't hold my breath.

martin j smith| 7.26.10 @ 3:51PM

Mr Lord, I told you about attracting trolls. this in instelf is worth looking into by you--your writing not withstanding.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 3:52PM

I keep coming back to the article, wondering where the retraction/correction is. Or was oxycontin abuse involved?

Jeff| 7.26.10 @ 3:57PM

Wow. Just wow.

You guys, go ahead and keep writing stuff like this. If congress is yours to lose this November, you're well on the way to giving the Dems a great big gift.

Also? If Americans didn't think the Tea Party was racist before, they most certainly do now.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:03PM

I don't think there's much fear of Americans thinking the Tea Party is a bunch of racists. History tells us this is a socialist quality not shared by those who are in favor of democracy, freedom and independence.

David| 7.26.10 @ 4:07PM

To Prometheus from way up top who said: "the majority of blacks just want to be left alone and allowed to live as free and equal citizens of the U.S.".

Have you been living in a cave? The two most prominent blacks for decades have been the shakedown artists Jackson Sharpton. Making demands on whitey. The vast majority of black leaders, unless they are conservative, try to shakedown whitey at every turn.

If they just want to be "equal" as you insist, why do they insist on special treatment in hiring and promotions (especially in government jobs), admissions to schools, etc. If they simply want to be "equal" why do they create "their own black organizations"? Black colleges, black beauty pageants, black proms, black college funds. Let whitey try that.

As to who violates whose civil rights to a greater scale in the year 2010, just check out the crime stats from the FBI. There are 5, 6, 7 times as many whites as blacks, yet blacks commit black on white crime about 10 times as much as the reverse. And that is in every category, from burglary and robbery to rape and murder. There is no way to explain that. All you can do is accept it and agree that in this day and time, blacks assault the civil rights of whites to a much greater degree.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 4:47PM

You are a liberal's dream . . . .

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:04PM

Why? Is he advocating stealing?

readthewords| 7.26.10 @ 4:10PM

Ms Sharrod

qoute

'when we have people coming into Southwest Georgia, and wanting to take some tours of -- of things where some events happened during the Civil Rights Movement, I usually take them to the courthouse in Newton to show where Bobby Hall's body was displayed."

DISPLAYED??

(v. t.) To make an exhibition of; to set in view conspicuously or ostentatiously; to exhibit for the sake of publicity; to parade.

Bobby Hall deseved justice. Screws should have been convicted of murder.

Sharrods words suggest the body of Murdered Bobby Hall was somehow displayed at the Newton courthouse in some unthinkable manner.

The picture those words painted in my mind was a public hanging.

Beating someone to death is still murder and by the endless definitions previous still a lynching.

But being beaten, taken to hospital and dieing is different, but just as wrong, as the image Sharrods words paint.

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 5:11PM

The Supreme Court opinion says that he was beaten for half an hour on the courthouse steps, in public. That would seem to be meet the criteria of "To make an exhibition of; to set in view conspicuously or ostentatiously; to exhibit for the sake of publicity; to parade." I admit that Sherrod uses the word "body," which creates some ambiguity about whether she thought he was dead or alive at the time, but "body" may certainly in reference to someone who is barely alive or unconsious.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="bleeding+body"+"barely+alive"&aq=f&aqi;=&aql;=&oq;=&gs;_rfai=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="unconscious+body+lying"&aq=f&aqi;=&aql;=&oq;=&gs;_rfai=

At least you have a dictionary, even if you seem to need practice using it.

And even if we grant you your entire argument, it is not just as wrong to embellish as to murder.

David| 7.26.10 @ 4:07PM

To Prometheus from way up top who said: "the majority of blacks just want to be left alone and allowed to live as free and equal citizens of the U.S.".

Have you been living in a cave? The two most prominent blacks for decades have been the shakedown artists Jackson Sharpton. Making demands on whitey. The vast majority of black leaders, unless they are conservative, try to shakedown whitey at every turn.

If they just want to be "equal" as you insist, why do they insist on special treatment in hiring and promotions (especially in government jobs), admissions to schools, etc. If they simply want to be "equal" why do they create "their own black organizations"? Black colleges, black beauty pageants, black proms, black college funds. Let whitey try that.

As to who violates whose civil rights to a greater scale in the year 2010, just check out the crime stats from the FBI. There are 5, 6, 7 times as many whites as blacks, yet blacks commit black on white crime about 10 times as much as the reverse. And that is in every category, from burglary and robbery to rape and murder. There is no way to explain that. All you can do is accept it and agree that in this day and time, blacks assault the civil rights of whites to a much greater degree.

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 4:26PM

At least David is blatant about his racist views. Way to express them loud and proud, bigot!

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:05PM

Thank goodness we have you amongst us to offer us the services of your judgment. I'll call the White House tomorrow about your appointment as Racism Czar...

Thediva| 7.26.10 @ 6:04PM

David, I am a black woman and I wish to be left alone as does my entire family. You can no more take how TWO black choose to live their lives and paint us with a broad brush than I can say that white want me dead, based on the actions of two KKK members.
Generalization works both ways. *I* don't insist on anything you are accusing US of doing.
With regards to all the organizations you cite,
WE didn't create these organizations out of hate. YOU (see what happens with generalizations?) forced us to create them because you would not let us in your colleges, proms, and beauty pageants, so we did what we had to do. When you finally let US into YOUR colleges, YOU wouldn't give us student aid or loans, so again we took care of ourselves and started our own college funds.
WE, who at times were MORE qualified than YOU.
Same with government jobs. WE were the last hired and first fired even when sometimes we had more qualifications than YOU.

I went to the FBI Website - I, unlike Mr. Lord like to do a little research before saying something - that's my pesky black college education rearing it's ugly head... and I found an interesting fact. For 2008, the most recent stats show that 61.1 % of all hate crimes are committed by YOU with 20.2 % by US. So, I'm 3 times more likely to get beaten by a white person than you are by a black person, and yet blacks are the problem? Maybe I should clutch my handbag and cross the street when I see YOU coming. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/offenders.html

Look at what I found:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius200.....le_06.html
It would seem for the year 2008 (again the last year of reliable stats)
For murder there were 3, 643 White victims The offender (murderer) was white 3,036 of those times and black 504 times.
The other crimes you listed don't appear to have the crimes listed by race. I could be wrong because I didn't look at every single page.

Nonetheless it looks like you are more likely to be murdered by someone who looks like you, and if it's a hate crime, so am I.

Please place a link to where you got your information, I'm interested in seeing the numbers.

It would seem that you have been living in Cave since at least 2008.

readthewords| 7.26.10 @ 4:11PM

Ms Sharrod

qoute

'when we have people coming into Southwest Georgia, and wanting to take some tours of -- of things where some events happened during the Civil Rights Movement, I usually take them to the courthouse in Newton to show where Bobby Hall's body was displayed."

DISPLAYED??

(v. t.) To make an exhibition of; to set in view conspicuously or ostentatiously; to exhibit for the sake of publicity; to parade.

Bobby Hall deseved justice. Screws should have been convicted of murder.

Sharrods words suggest the body of Murdered Bobby Hall was somehow displayed at the Newton courthouse in some unthinkable manner.

The picture those words painted in my mind was a public hanging.

Beating someone to death is still murder and by the endless definitions previous still a lynching.

But being beaten, taken to hospital and dieing is different, but just as wrong, as the image Sharrods words paint.

readthewords| 7.26.10 @ 4:12PM

Ms Sharrod

qoute

'when we have people coming into Southwest Georgia, and wanting to take some tours of -- of things where some events happened during the Civil Rights Movement, I usually take them to the courthouse in Newton to show where Bobby Hall's body was displayed."

DISPLAYED??

(v. t.) To make an exhibition of; to set in view conspicuously or ostentatiously; to exhibit for the sake of publicity; to parade.

Bobby Hall deseved justice. Screws should have been convicted of murder.

Sharrods words suggest the body of Murdered Bobby Hall was somehow displayed at the Newton courthouse in some unthinkable manner.

The picture those words painted in my mind was a public hanging.

Beating someone to death is still murder and by the endless definitions previous still a lynching.

Being beaten, taken to hospital and dieing is different, but just as wrong, as the image Sharrods words paint.

readthewords| 7.26.10 @ 4:15PM

Ms Sharrod

qoute

'when we have people coming into Southwest Georgia, and wanting to take some tours of -- of things where some events happened during the Civil Rights Movement, I usually take them to the courthouse in Newton to show where Bobby Hall's body was displayed."

DISPLAYED??

(v. t.) To make an exhibition of; to set in view conspicuously or ostentatiously; to exhibit for the sake of publicity; to parade.

Bobby Hall deseved justice. Screws should have been convicted of murder.

Sharrods words suggest the body of Murdered Bobby Hall was somehow displayed at the Newton courthouse in some unthinkable manner.

The picture those words painted in my mind was a public hanging.

Beating someone to death is still murder and by the endless definitions previous still a lynching.

Being beaten, taken to hospital and dieing is different, but just as wrong, as the image Sharrods words paint.

B-Rob| 7.26.10 @ 4:45PM

The Supreme Court decision notes that the beating continued for a half hour, in public, on the court house steps. Then he was dragged feet first and thrown in a cell. He only went to the hospital later.

Seems like a "display" to the public to me.

Imagine -- a half hour long beating. How long do you think it takes for three men to beat a handcuffed man unconcious? But they beat him in public for a half hour. In public. That, my friends, is a display and that is exactly what happened at most lynchings.

http://iconicphotos.wordpress......ng-blacks/

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 4:54PM

A HALF HOUR BEATING ON THE STEPS OF A COURTHOUSE!!! Can you even imagine the horror of such a thing? On the steps of the ostensible house of justice? Sickening.

readthe words| 7.27.10 @ 10:38AM

A display of police violence yes, but not the image I had listening to Sharrods words.

Sharrod didnt have to ratchet up the Halls murder, unless she was turning the murder int political points for herself. Are you saying useing Halls murder for political personal gain is ok? Thats what this is about, using a mans murder for your own political gain

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 11:51AM

HAHAHA "A display of police violence".

He was beaten for 15-30 minutes on the steps of a courthouse! And died from the beating!

It's really sick that you're downplaying what happened to Hall in order to accuse Sharrod of "ratcheting up" the murder. You're literally sick.

sigh| 7.26.10 @ 4:20PM

this is just sad.

breitbart needs to apologize to sherrod. period.

as for the lynching definition. seriously? look it up.

and your second point? i think it's safe to say that there were racists of all political persuasions in georgia in 1965. to compare sherrod to these men is really just desperate and irresponsible.

i honestly just have to shake my head at this whole piece.

Groucho| 7.26.10 @ 4:24PM

What the libs posting here don't understand is that Sherrod is just another leftist racist Nazi.

That's what Jeffrey Lord is talking about and that's what Fox has been exposing for all the world to see.

Democrats are Nazi liberal fascists. Democrats started the KKK, and the racism in this country has nothing to do with whites, it's all blacks. Blacks want to get even for racism, so they're racist.

What I'd like one of these fascist liberal communist Nazi terroristic illegal alien environmentalist whacko lesbian faggot types to refudiate is this, I am the Decider!

dirk| 7.26.10 @ 4:44PM

This comment deserves more than two postings. Outstanding parody.

rainmaker1145| 7.26.10 @ 5:11PM

And that's why there's all this "guest" liberal venom. If there is one thing liberals can't stand it is the specter of accountability. Being exposed for who they are is always the quickest way to see a liberal have a nervous breakdown because then the whole scheme becomes apparent. That's why they hate Glenn Beck. Beck doesn't hate, he reports and he believes in freedom (he's preaching it on television as I write) and that's something no liberal will ever support because freedom would mean the end of their ability to rule others for their exclusive profit and at our exclusive risk and expense. Great post.

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 5:42PM

Ha --- you speak of accountability --- why do you think the influx of comments? People want to hold the writer accountable for his false and inflammatory article. If the American Spectator cared about accountability, a retraction and apology would have already been posted, and some internal review of editorial process would be underway. BUT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY HERE, since you're defending this blatantly false post.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:51PM

but neither do Leftist blogs. so doesn't this strike you as an odd sort of equality?

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 7:04PM

Nope, sorry. What we hate is liars. And what liars can't stand are facts. Which is why Glenn Beck hates us, when he isn't trying to sell you gold for the coming apocalypse.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:09PM

He hates you because you seek to rule us for your exclusive profit and at our exclusive cost and risk. We're going to end that. The gold thing is your attempt to distract from the real issue, which is you have nothing to point to that supports your contention that Mr. Beck's positions in these matters is wrong or misleading. If you have the proof, go ahead and post it. If not, revert to more distractions. Either way we know who you really are.

jim x| 7.27.10 @ 5:28PM

If I post the proof, will you read it?

Here's my proof:

http://answers.yahoo.com/quest.....203AAgK2ig

http://www.politifact.com/trut.....en-propos/

thediva| 7.26.10 @ 6:09PM

You had my blood boiling up until here:
" types to refudiate is this, I am the Decider!'

Awesome Parody. I hope everyone can take a joke....

Groucho| 7.26.10 @ 4:25PM

What the libs posting here don't understand is that Sherrod is just another leftist racist Nazi.

That's what Jeffrey Lord is talking about and that's what Fox has been exposing for all the world to see.

Democrats are Nazi liberal fascists. Democrats started the KKK, and the racism in this country has nothing to do with whites, it's all blacks. Blacks want to get even for racism, so they're racist.

What I'd like one of these fascist liberal communist Nazi terroristic illegal alien environmentalist whacko lesbian faggot types to refudiate is this, I am the Decider!

commie atheist| 7.26.10 @ 4:50PM

Now who can argue with that?

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 11:06PM

Only those of us in touch with reality.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:11PM

Well? Where's the proof that you are in touch? Do you have a fact to debate or just want to distract people with a snide remark? Prove who you really are. If you have facts debate them and if you can't repudiate the facts, offer a distraction. Either way we will know who you really are.

James| 7.26.10 @ 4:26PM

So when will Jeff Lord be fired for being at best, an idiot who doesn't understand what the word "lynch" means, or at worst,a horrible sexist racist pig who can't stand to see a black woman in power.

All of you arguing in defense of this idiot should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:12PM

Thank goodness we have you to offer a fair and balanced assessment of the matter.

readthewords| 7.26.10 @ 4:14PM

Ms Sharrod

qoute

'when we have people coming into Southwest Georgia, and wanting to take some tours of -- of things where some events happened during the Civil Rights Movement, I usually take them to the courthouse in Newton to show where Bobby Hall's body was displayed."

DISPLAYED??

(v. t.) To make an exhibition of; to set in view conspicuously or ostentatiously; to exhibit for the sake of publicity; to parade.

Bobby Hall deseved justice. Screws should have been convicted of murder.

Sharrods words suggest the body of Murdered Bobby Hall was somehow displayed at the Newton courthouse in some unthinkable manner.

The picture those words painted in my mind was a public hanging.

Beating someone to death is still murder and by the endless definitions previous still a lynching.

Being beaten, taken to hospital and dieing is different, but just as wrong, as the image Sharrods words paint.

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 4:44PM

Yea, definitely continue the nitpicking nonsense, since clearly your goal is to make yourself look petty and vile. Keep it up! Because arguing whether her story of vile, institutionalized racism is 99.8% versus 99.9% accurate really makes you look like an asshole.

readthewords| 7.26.10 @ 4:53PM

takes one to know one slim

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 4:56PM

Just as wrong?

I thought you were serious until I got to the punch line.

readthewords| 7.26.10 @ 5:02PM

sharrods words suggest Hall was hung right there in public view. My point is Sharrod did not need to ratchet up Halls murder, unless she is playing politcs for her own gain. But it wouldnt be the first time someone used th death of an inocent for their own political purpose

RobNYNY1957| 7.26.10 @ 6:12PM

The Supreme Court opinion says that he was beaten on the courthouse steps for 15-30 minutes. If they were going for concealment rather than display, they made an error in judgment. In any case, even if Sherrod had said Hall was made into kielbasa and served at a church picnic, it's still not remotely as bad as murder.

Huh?| 7.26.10 @ 11:04PM

His murder wasn't as bad as his murder? Explain please?

proud conservative| 7.26.10 @ 4:56PM

Mr lord, your article has att5acted too many trool and I really wonder about you and them--for different reasons. But no matter. To all trolls: You lost this debate when two things happended. a) No prooof of any "racism" b when BHO fired Sharrod. Lick it up sonny boy"--you are a racist of the first order . Again do not pass off to any other sites. Eith the proof in right there on TV suchas CNN,MSNBC et6c etc or it is not. And it was NOT. So you all are FOS which as far as i am co ncerned can eat with raw or cooked. Enjoy it. The vast majority of American voter are onto y0ou and see the MSM for what you are. Liars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andrew Blatbart| 7.26.10 @ 11:02PM

Spell check my friend, spell check!

Worriedcitizen| 7.26.10 @ 4:28PM

The lot of you are just insane. Sit back and have a f-ing Coke, then breathe. Self-awareness seems to be nearing extinction.

Curran Engel| 7.26.10 @ 4:34PM

This is the most ignorant revisionist baloney I have ever read.

longtime reader| 7.26.10 @ 4:54PM

I think this article may win some magazine awards! Most Factually Incorrect Premise. Most Perverse Argument to Make even if it WAS Correct, Which it Definitely Isn't. Least Functioning Moral Compass. Least Edited Article. Most Egg on Face (Opinion). Gravest Self-inflicted Wound. Sorriest Excuse for a Man. Least. Just Least.

commie atheist| 7.26.10 @ 4:47PM

At the midpoint between 5 pages that tries to prove two interesting propositions - that a handcuffed black man who was beaten to death by a mob was not actually lynched, and therefore Shirley Sherrod is a liar; and that because southern Democrats used to consist mostly of white supremacists, Shirley Sherrod should blame liberals for the plight of her people - and dozens of comments from people who are willing to believe the most incredible things about black people, including the premise that they themselves are responsible for all of the crimes perpetrated against them by whites, is this comment by Ret. Marine:

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

Game, set, match.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:03PM

Couldn't have said it better ... the whole article is a stretch to blame the woman, the government, the liberals, whatever ...

Andrew Breitbart| 7.26.10 @ 4:56PM

You've got to work harder than that if you're going to out-slander me. Altering the definition of a word on some stupid blog post doesn't even approach editing video and getting it released on every single cable news channel. When you can get someone fired, give me call..

Andrew Blatbart| 7.26.10 @ 11:00PM

Sorry, must have been the veal. Sleep now.

Purpleguy| 7.26.10 @ 5:01PM

Typical ploy - your side got caught, so blame anyone you can for anything to misdirect and distract from the real problem --->
Journalists who's job it is to fully vet the truth of their stories before they run with it. Journalists all over the place fell for the same trap. Just like they did for the Acorn setup. Until the REAL truth came out, sending one impostor to jail.
Breitbart's credibility has already been in question before, and now we add another nail to the coffin of his credibility.
So now we through the Supreme Court into the mix ... the kid was killed in '45, what has this to do with how Sherrod was treated? And then we use the chance to bring in the Klan ... bring in the emotion, the racism, the outrage. Good Grief, did you miss one hot button in American life?

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 5:29PM

Can you describe in 10 words or less any contribution you have made to mankind other than your morning BM or douche?

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 7:09PM

Please explain how her husband's words have ANYTHING to do with whether or not Sherrod's relative was lynched.

Steve| 7.26.10 @ 5:05PM

Teabaggers can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't start the allegations of racism by calling Obama a racist black man who wants to enslave white America and then pooh-pooh the NAACP for calling them racists in return. The Teabaggers played the race card to begin with. Only problem was that the poor dumb bastards didn't realize they were holding a losing hand. They didn't realize "hey, maybe compared to hundred of years of segregation, rape, enslavement, and child murder, we whites don't really have anything to bitch about. Maybe a black president policing financial institutions a little isn't the same thing as Emett Till being brutally murdered." They don't think that way.

canuckistani| 7.26.10 @ 5:33PM

Where's the whole tape?
Breitbart forgot to imbed it?

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 5:49PM

It's awesome you think the civil rights movement happened "hundreds of years ago."

ideefixe| 7.26.10 @ 6:04PM

Seriously dude, you keep pointing to the same video - at least two dozen times now - but never address what people are taking Lord to task for.

Lord suggested Sherrod was lying when she said Hall was lynched. But if you look up the word "lynched", it doesn't mean hanging exclusively. It means "kill without legal sanction".

So tell me Rainmaker: Was Lord right to suggest Sherrod was lying when she said Hall was lynched? This is a yes or no question. No links to iowntheworld.com, just yes or no.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:24PM

Ms. Sherrod used loaded language intentionally. The fact that she claims to be a new person is specious based upon the fact she makes no mention of her husband's views on this matter. My point is that her hands are far from clean. Mr. Lord is on point - I grew up in one of the most racist places in the country and when you said lynching it meant someone was swinging from a tree and that someone was going to be black. This is not to say the man in question was not horribly victimized by a group of fanatics - I have no truck with these people and my sympathies for them only extend to their executions - then and now.

I take particular note of the vitriol of the liberal posters in this matter and point out a few things...

History shows us that liberal-progressives are the key supporters of discrimination. This was certainly the case with slavery in our country and is the modern record on these matters. It seems this is okay as long as the victims of it are not liberal-progressives and this is particularly troubling to me as the use of it in the modern context appears to be a means of distraction for the purposes of avoiding accountability for the failure of the liberal-progressive movement to ever achieve success with their policies (as these policies were originally promoted).

My own supposition on this matter is that the modern liberal-progressive movement has run out of minorities. In previous decades and eras the minorities were Italians, Irish and Asians, but these groups moved forward and became economically diversified and non-monolithic in their voting support for the liberal-progressive movement. Black America represents that last (legal) bastion of monolithic voters and they are becoming increasingly aware that the promises of prosperity they have swallowed for 45 years have been quite hallow and are no longer worthy of sustaining. The racism issue allows the liberal-progressive to sidestep accountability and also duck charges of their own culpability in continuing discrimination - a program that clearly benefits the political movement as it can be dressed up as a means of continuing voter support. Yet the advent of the Internet conspires to end this approach to enforcing voter discipline and I am becoming very suspect that the vitriol we have seen here (and to which I must say I have enjoyed watching you people go nuts over though I apologize for feeding your worst fears - you have to admit you are entertaining to watch flounder about and try to justify that for which there is no room for even polite consideration).

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:56PM

Hundreds of years? WTF? My Dad was an FBI agent and WWII vet who was assigned to MS after the civil rights workers were murdered.

Breitbart is a making stuff up...look at the illumination of his ACORN 'exclusive.' What a pile of poo. Look at how he's edited those tapes...you might think a 'ho' was looking for advice!

earth to planet steve| 7.26.10 @ 5:19PM

Obama never said he wants to enslave white America. get a grip

Slim Tyranny| 7.26.10 @ 5:45PM

FTW, Steve, FTW.

Houghton| 7.26.10 @ 5:29PM

Okay, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I actually stopped reading your piece about halfway through after you yourself made the point that there's little functional difference between the sadistic beating death of a black man in the South vs. a lynching. After that, I kind of had to wonder why you're making a federal case out of this misstatement. It's bizarre that you're devoting this much space to quibbling over whether the knuckledraggers that killed her relative did so with their fists or with a rope. Very strange and off-putting. I haven't been to the Spectator site in awhile, I've grown quite cynical about politics in general, and my curiosity today is rewarded with this weird spectacle of an article.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:48PM

seems to me you actively seek out disappointment. plenty of other articles that are quite on point.

ice9| 7.26.10 @ 5:32PM

Lynching is extrajudicial execution. Hanging is the preferred method, but by far not the only one. This is a fact well known by any educated person. Your own account of the events, and your own citation from the court file--the Supreme Court of the United States--establishes that this was the extrajudicial execution by the sheriff of Sherrod's relative, and act of racially motivated violence.

Your argument is deranged in every particular. It is far too loony to qualify as parody. Its publication demeans the American Spectator, something I had not thought possible. The blank-minded amens emanating from the comment thread are evidence that our nation is in a disastrous state.

Simply astonishing.

ice9

Malted Cyclops | 7.26.10 @ 5:32PM

I am very disappointed in Mr. Lord. This article did not improve my poker game as much as I hoped it would. Also he has no soul, also.

Houghton| 7.26.10 @ 5:34PM

Well, I went ahead and read the whole thing. I am the farthest species from a progressive you will find, happily living in the reddest of red states, and I find this article a complete waste of time. Very... what's the word? Kafkaesque.

Mark| 7.26.10 @ 5:35PM

Baloney. I have lived in the south for almost 60 years and I know everything I need to know about racism. A lynching is a lynching whether you beat them to death, hang them, or shoot them. The term has always been interchangeable to mean death visited upon a black person by a white mob and I'm sure that this is what she had in mind. Conservatives just want so badly to find something, anything, to take the focus off of their mishandling of everything in the last decade that they are willing to believe anything, say anything or do anything to make the "other side" look bad. Give it up.

Groucho| 7.26.10 @ 5:35PM

The problem with this article is that it doesn't go far enough.

See, blacks have been keeping the white man down for too long, and now it's time for the white man to rise up and take what's his, and the libs don't like it.

That's because the libs are fascists. Which means they espouse a fascist ideology in their own lib way.

They're also communists, everyone knows that, which means they're statists. And since they're statists, they're liberals -- or, rather, Nazis.

If you ever study history you'll learn that the founder of the modern racist Nazi movement was Woodrow Wilson, and he was the first to build concentration camps like the ones FEMA has started constructing to kill Republicans.

Then, in the 1960s, they started changing the text books so they didn't say that Indians used to sneak into villages and steal children so they could eat.

Hillary Clinton eats babies. Bill Clinton eats babies too.

Illegal aliens have given AZ the highest crime rate in America. Once, I found the coolest toad living under the stairs of my porch. I sort of got down on my knees and said, Hello Mr. Toad.

And you know what?

That horny little pimply fucker started speaking to me. And he said:

"It's time to take back this country back. You have to learn about your history -- for real this time. Not like you learned in history class from 'historians' or 'experts' or 'people who write books.' No, you have to learn about the Spirit of 1776 from Glenn Beck and on Sarah Palin's facebook page."

What an awesome toad! What a cool little reptile!

And that toad was also worried about the blacks enslaving America and getting even for all those years of racism, which is why Oprah is so popular and Michael Jordan played basketball so well.

August 19, 1977| 7.26.10 @ 5:51PM

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.

The Grand Dragon| 7.26.10 @ 8:36PM

PREACH IT, BROTHER!

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:47PM

Step away from the mushrooms Sir!

Cigar Bill| 7.27.10 @ 4:58AM

Bill Clinton eats babies too.

No, dude. Y'all knows what I likes to eat. I like 'em young, but not that young. Heh, heh, heh.

Tim Wise| 7.26.10 @ 5:39PM

Wow, what amazing ignorance. Jeffrey, do you not realize that lynching never was a term only intended to include death by hanging, as you suggest? Do you not realize (no of course you don't) that lynching has long been understood by those of us in the South who know quite a bit more about it than most, to refer to any extra-judicial killing, without trial, of a suspected criminal, or any extra-judicial killing by law enforcement (or with its complicity) with the intent to foment terror, especially for racial reasons?

Your ignorance of history is flabbergasting, or would be if it wasn't so typical. And the idea that you would deign to lecture a black woman from the South about lynching is stunning and the epitome of the white entitlement/superiority complex that has long pervaded this nation. My guess is she knows a bit more about it than you, as do pretty much all black people walking around today. Some folks have to know their history, while others can learn as little as possible about it and still pose as political commentators (or get jobs in the Reagan White House)

Harold| 7.26.10 @ 5:58PM

Whoops. Guess you were wrong. Again. Typical GOP fuckstain.

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:30PM

Thank goodness we have your erudite wit to guide us through these troubled waters. Next time try debating the point instead of hurling slurs - you know the kind of thing everyone is so excited about.

Sparky Satori| 7.26.10 @ 6:01PM

You are correct that Fox News and Andrew Breitbart weren't responsible for killing either Bobby Hall or Ms. Sherrod's father. But since she didn't hold either party responsible for that, it's really just a fatuous observation vainly dressed up as something meaningful.

It is historical fact that the Democrats were once the more racist party, by far. However, that's no longer true, and the race-baiting that has taken place since Obama's election demonstrates that the Dems don't hold any monopoly on bigotry.

Equally spurious is: "There is no proof -- none -- that Breitbart deliberately edited this tape to fashion the image of Ms. Sherrod as a government racist. " Breitbart is in the business of manufacturing whatever trash will taint the Dems to the benefit of the Republicans. That he didn't personally edit the James O'Keefe ACORN tapes doesn't absolve him of the responsibility to ensure that his tapes are accurate, or of the enduring result, which SHOULD sully his name. This is not Breitbart's FIRST strike, so let's not give him too much room to blame others.

Moreover, were he a person of any personal integrity, he would and should have apologized wholeheartedly for his multiple errors of judgement and lapses of professional ethical responsibility in each case. That he has instead redoubled his odious accusations - while denying he had any animus toward Sherrod - only compounds his sin and lays bare his lack of soul.

That you would cheerlead on his behalf, while on specious grounds erroneously decrying Sherrod's story as untrue (um, both of her relatives ARE DEAD at the hands of white men, no?) only places you in the same category, your erudition in the service of evil nothwithstanding.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 10:19PM

yeaaaaaaa...no doubt you immediately opposed Mr Sharpton when he and the righteous judged and convicted those lacrosse players in NC. because, after all, you have broken the shackles and your thinking isn't clouded by racial bigotry.

you folks don't get it. you are racists also. THAT'S HOW YOU SEE THE WORLD. you aren't an exemplar of virtue - you're every much as big a part of the problem as the overwrought right winger.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 10:22PM

were you demanding the same from Harry Reid? Of Bill Clinton in South Carolina?

of course not. the virtous possess magic insight into intentions and motives.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:44PM

Demanding what from Harry Reid? Pointing out that his tea party opponent is...nuts? Oh sorry, meant non=mainstream. You seem to imply that Bill C is a racist? You need to back that up my friend. Address facts please.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:43PM

for clarity's sake: I'm not your friend.

do your own research.....Clinton played the race card in SC when the tide turned on his ethically challenged spousal unit.

Reid is a perfect example of my point. He used derogatory, racially tinged language...but drew a pass from the Left because "his intentions" were in the right place.

you know...I attended the best liberal schools in suburban Md. spoke all the right shibboliths - as Mr Codevilla would put it. I have grown weary of the whole sham. Mr Lord was off the edge. So is the Liberal Left. The Left is bereft of any ideas - speaking of the party of no. when the proverbial XXXX hits the fan they always trot out the same tired bromides about race and wealth - cavilling millions of people not just the loose cannons like Mr Lord. Liberals are just as dangerous. They group think just as much as any sign toting TeaBagger.

It's unfortunate that we're going to have to bankrupt the nation to establish the rhetorical emptiness and leadership incompetence of the Left. but that appears to be where we are headed. let's get it done then and get to the denouement. I'm anxious to see if I and my family survive the debacle. I am eager to see what justice befalls the responsible.

Real Right| 7.27.10 @ 12:56AM

Like the way Clinton beat that guy to death with his bare hands! That was NOT lynching!

Dhalgren| 7.26.10 @ 6:14PM

Thanks to Sadly No:

"The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, which served as a model for state anti-lynching laws, defines lynching as “depriving any person of his life without authority of law.” No ropes mentioned anywhere at all."

This article (from a shitty right wing site to begin with) is an epic fail.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:38PM

All hail, "Sadly, No." Get on Facebook as I've already corrupted the younger generati0n.

The Decider| 7.26.10 @ 6:24PM

Democrats are liberals.

Liberals are progressives.

Progressives are socialists.

Socialists are communists.

Communists are fascists.

Fascists are racists.

Therefore, Democrats are racists.

Any questions?

Jeffery| 7.26.10 @ 6:32PM

Just one. Have you asked the ward attending to increase your dose?

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 7:13PM

Of course, the fact that fascists and communists used to get in running gun battles in the street, and that Hitler sent communists, socialists, and progressives straight to the death camps ahead of gypsies, should in no way discourage this notion.

The Decider| 7.26.10 @ 7:56PM

Traitor!

Anti-American communist!

Defeatist!

Terrist!

Liberal Fascist!

Next thing you'll say is that the USSR was our ally!

The Grand Dragon| 7.26.10 @ 8:34PM

Finally! Somebody willing to speak the truth on the Spectator! Can we hope to see columns from Tom Metzger or David Duke?

13th Generation American| 7.26.10 @ 8:37PM

You are such a moron

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:35PM

Nonsense. Don't disseminate this nonsense! Stop it now silly people!

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:29PM

maybe..then again we know incontrovertibly that left leaning progressives have always championed the more dictorial sorts...you know "I have seen the future and it works" types.

Chavez for dinner Oliver? Sean? Michael? Danny? Barak?

Conservative Papa| 7.27.10 @ 12:54AM

Enough of this democrat bullcrap! Time for Christians to Reign in Blood!

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:33PM

No it shouldn't. The fact is we don't see liberal-progressives supporting democracy and free market economics. They support the exclusive right to rule, the use of government control and/or ownership of markets and business and the redistribution (stealing) of wealth. You won't find any capitalists supporting that - it's all yours...

Richard| 7.26.10 @ 6:26PM

Lord's column ably encapsulates the morally toxic and spiritually rancid nature of conservatism. Twist, distort, and lie then pout when they are called out for it. I hope, should it ever come to it, that Jeffrey Lord is beaten to death instead of being lynched. Serve him right.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:23PM

find & replace conservatism with liberalism and you have an assertion of equal truth.

what a world!

your last sentence pretty much robs you of any moral authority. does the bullet hole in your foot ache much?

2nd amendment| 7.27.10 @ 12:52AM

That's RIGHT! Second Amendment Solutions!

Jeffery| 7.26.10 @ 6:29PM

Mr. Lord and The American Spectator: Simply put, your article is factually incorrect and made much worse by the sensational and utterly false headline. The American Spectator should immediately withdraw the article, issue a correction and apologize to their readers. Although most people don't take The American Spectator seriously, there may be some impressionable youths who do, and they may actually be misled by the article.

steve| 7.26.10 @ 6:33PM

So Ms. Sherrod lied because the man was killed while in custody/handcuffs? I guess that she really should feel good about it since he wasn't hung from a tree? The court rulings said he was murdered.

Hasn't she been through enough yet?

Since you admit you screwed up by asking for her firing, maybe you should just leave her alone.

Shark| 7.26.10 @ 6:37PM

Jeff. Thanks for proving once again even a so called smart republican is "Stuptarded."

Stuptarded: Palinism. Combining Stupid and retarded as a word.

Gotta celebrate it.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:20PM

you no doubt also celebrate the number 9.5 every day!

down with libz| 7.27.10 @ 12:51AM

Yeeah u stupit libtahhrdz!

Holy Crap| 7.26.10 @ 6:40PM

Are y'all nuts? I mean, seriously, nuts?

Mau-Mau Man| 7.26.10 @ 6:43PM

Putting aside for a moment Mr. Lord's asinine distinction-without-a-difference about whether or not Ms. Sherrod's relative's demise was or was not a lynching, surely we can all agree that, in providing a forum for his petty racism, The American Spectator has given Mr. Lord enough rope to hang both himself and the reputation, such as it is, of the magazine?

Gus diZerega| 7.26.10 @ 6:49PM

Lord has done for truth in the Sherrod case what Kristol did for truth in the Iraq case. How you guys live with yourselves is a mystery to me. Strong stomachs or no conscience, I guess. Maybe both.

Nicole| 7.26.10 @ 6:57PM

So let me get this straight: because the extrajudicial killing wasn't a hanging, it's a "lie" to call it a lynching?

You rightards really are clutching at straws here in your mad dash to vilify the victim of Breitbart's lying propaganda, , aren't you?

vtwin| 7.26.10 @ 7:16PM

Right on!

rainmaker1145| 7.27.10 @ 4:36PM

Well, if Mr. Breitbart is the liar you say, Ms. Sherrod would have grounds for a lawsuit.

Except we all know the truth. There will be no lawsuit. There will only be more repercussions for the liberal-progressive movement as it was (once again) shown to be completely hypocritical and I think that was the point he was making.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.26.10 @ 7:30PM

This article is truly astounding -- and the balance of comments even more so in some ways for this place.

The author is clearly an idiot with a penchant for twisting stories so out of context that the real issue really gets totally lost.

The author has clearly been locked in the Echo Chamber of the American Spectator with so many Kool-Aid drinkers that he has come down with an incurable case of Glen Beck Syndrome.

The lack of serious reflection and overabundance of gleeful throwing stones at the other side is unremarkable.

Quite remarkable is that so many before me in the comments here have actually called the author out on this one and pointed out his error in conflating lynching with (illegal) hanging and so many other factual errors and his otherwise "remarkable" efforts (not in a positve sense) to turn this whole fiasco into something to blame the Democrats for, going back 50+ years and Hugo Black. Good Grief.

For my two-bits of contribution, the thing that is not mentioned in the article (although it may be intended, but if so, is very poorly drawn out, and if it were, one would cewrtainly draw some very different conclusions -- see below), or -- I think -- recognized in the posts above (although I confess to skimming a bit, as this stream is about the longest I have ever seen, but I am not a regular viewer).

Down through the '60's, the Democrats were the racists. The Republicans were actually far more "liberally" minded on the equal rights matter.

To wit:

-- Lincoln freed the slaves
-- Eisenhower integrated the troops
-- the Democrats were far and away the dominant party in the old South after the Civil War (due to their steadfast opposition to civil rights) until the '60's
-- the Civil Rights legisaltion passed in the '60's only got through -- despite very large Democratic majorities -- because of Republicans
-- the most vociferous opposition to this came from (largely Southern) Democrats.

For this, the Democrats should be ashamed, and Republicans should be proud. (Southern) Democrats were racists. That was their unprincipled issue on which to win elections.

The issue, however, is not where were the parties 40, 50, or 150 years ago, but where they are today.

The Democrats shed their racist skins (mostly). Republicans put them on, to win elections. The positions today are reversed, with one party learning from its disgraceful history, and the other cynically pulling on that discarded skin for equally disgraceful purposes.

If America wants to learn from its past, and move forward to continued and future glory, going backwards into the future is not the way to go.

Cheers!

Ralph Kramden| 7.26.10 @ 7:56PM

President Truman integrated the armed forces (Executive order 9981, 1948).

noneofyourbusiness| 7.26.10 @ 8:30PM

My apologies for my imprecision.

As a legal matter, you are right. As a practical matter it didn't begin (however, incompletely) until a few years later when you had a Commander in Chief (Republican Eisenhower) with the gravitas necessary to get the co-operation of the military brass.

While we are at it, though, let's add to the above list that it was under Eisenhower, a Republican, that the schools were (at least legally) forced to begin integration -- although that really didn't really make any practical headway until Johnson and Nixon (another Republican).

Cheers!

Ralph Kramden| 7.26.10 @ 8:36PM

Without Truman's order, it wouldn't have happened.
Without Brown v Board of Ed, school integration wouldn't have happened either.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.26.10 @ 8:49PM

You obviously missed the main point of the original post (i.e., to repeat, that it is odd how the position of the two parties has reversed itself, and that the position is disgraceful, regardless of which party uses it for their own cynical benefit).

If you want to debate tangential technical points, or misconstrue history like the author of this crap piece, I think I am done.

Cheers!

Ralph Kramden| 7.26.10 @ 8:58PM

You are sort of correct - I wasn't disputing your main point (though I didn't "miss" it). I was just correcting a point of fact.

amny| 7.26.10 @ 7:35PM

soooooooo Huffington post all the way for you,huh? lmao

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:30PM

So, segregation all the way for you and yours? I worked with a Republican from Lexington KY who still cannot understand why black people take issue with the Party of Lincoln! Ha!

Daphne | 7.26.10 @ 7:36PM

Mr. Lord,

It's obvious to me that you are not a Southerner sir, nor do you seem to understand the definition of the word lynching.

May I suggest that you consult a dictionary before employing another hot button word that seems, ironically, to defy your skills of basic literary comprehension?

Liar. You seem to swing that one with relative ease. A damn shame the meaning is lost on you.

I suggest you give that word rigorous examination before deploying it again in common usage.

Shirley Sherrod may be many things, but liar doesn't seem to be an accurate description.

As a white, Southern, conservative woman I feel entirely comfortable in labeling you as a shameful, moronic and, I'm quite sure after reading this piece of dishonest and unintelligent muckraking, a blatant racist disgrace to the cause of conservatism, Mr. Lord.

You should be ashamed of yourself if you wrote this bile simply for hits, you're beyond hope if you wrote from heartfelt conviction.

Either way, I hope you're shunned and ridiculed by intelligent conservatives.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:17PM

one hopes..for similar appeals to truth and integrity...you feel the same about all participants to the infamous Journolist blog

Anti-Liberal Intellectual| 7.26.10 @ 7:38PM

I must say I have always been on the fence about Jeffrey Lord. No longer. The guy is a nutjob. Some of the recent criticisms of Sherrod (and her husband), the NAACP, and Liberals in general as shameless race-baiters are true, but Lord's article is vile, idiotic trash.

I love the American Spectator in print and the recent piece by Angelo Codevilla is one of the best political essays I've read in the last decade. But the website has really gone to the nutjobs (both the authors and the readers.)

I think I'll get back to National Review Online now.

professor darkheart| 7.26.10 @ 7:46PM

as other commenters have mentioned, "lynching" refers to any extrajudicial mob killing, not only to those involving hanging. i'm just wondering if jeffrey lord is considering retracting this piece, whose core premise is completely without merit and whose only remaining point seems to be that sherrod's recounting of racially motivated killings in the old south didn't include any mention of completely unrelated beliefs that she may have shared with some officers of the law who (like just about all of them at the time) failed to condemn such injustices. a mistake and a logical fallacy, no matter how insipid they both are, don't add up to an argument.

Nick| 7.26.10 @ 7:46PM

Man, it must have been "Let a Mental Patient Go On the Internet Day," today.

I haven't seen so many lefty kooks in one place since......this past weekend, at the Nutroots Kook-Nation convention.

Ralph Kramden| 7.26.10 @ 7:54PM

Hey, Jeffrey Lord - this is among the ugliest things I've ever read. Has the Spectator asked for your resignation yet? It should.

I love White folk| 7.26.10 @ 7:57PM

Excellent article Mr. Lord. I can't remember any race baiting column or discussion quite this stimulative for the local racists here on AS in a long time. Sure, there are lots subtle race baiting columns here but this one really comes out and openly vilifies a person based on her attempts to bridge a racial gap. We don't need no stinking bridging here at AS! Just Jeffrey Lord style open race baiting please.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:10PM

you're right! why...for a moment there I thought I was perusing a WaPo blog!

STEVE| 7.26.10 @ 8:03PM

Nick,

Since you must think the "lefty kooks" commenting on here are wrong, you must agree with Mr. Lord.

Too bad...

Former Republican voter for 32 years. Never again until the party of no straightens up and gets over it's "pity me, I'm a white man syndrome."

noneofyourbusiness| 7.26.10 @ 8:14PM

Dear Nick,

This place has almost no "lefty kooks", based on what I have read on here. They just ignore this place (a few diehards notwithstanding -- but they may as well rail against the earth turning). The population in here, FYI, consists almost entirely of honourable people with perfectly reasonable and principled conservative beliefs (or even moreso, libertarian, beliefs -- the two are actually quite apposite in terms of the history of political/philosophical thought, but the two have tended to be somewhat conflated in modern American parlance, with the latter just a bit more "conservative" -- really more classically liberal to be technically accurate, than the former), a number with rather more practically based "Tea-Party" like concerns, and a few others on the way, way, way, way out there right (or some in an indescribable space that exists only in their won mind and not anywhere on the known spectrum) who should probably be arrested ot otherwise institutionalized.

I have no problem with classical libertarianism as a philosophy. What has irritated me about so many of the articles in here (and so many of the comments that reflect a KoolAid Drinking, Echo Chamber, GBS -- Glenn Beck Syndrome -- mentality) is their pure intellectual laziness, completely failing to connect the initial premise/argument with the "evidence"/discussion that follows.

This article is case in point. Title : "Sherrod Told False Story". The case for the so-called "false story" rsts entirely on the premise that "lynching" means an illegal hanging. While that is certainly the most troubling -- and "popular" -- image of the illegal killing of black people by white people in hoods (some bravery there, eh?), it is certainly not the sole meaning of lynching, as so many above have taken pains to point out.

The rest of the article is, as I (and many others)pointed out above, a bunch of dissembling, ill-informed, and irrelevant nonsense.

Fire this fool! And his editors who let this get in here! Must be considered a very slow news day.

Cheers!

Nick| 7.26.10 @ 8:39PM

NOYB,

I've been posting comments here for almost 2 years. I know the character of the people who post here.

I also know the regular lefty kooks who post here. Hence, my comment about the mental patients being let loose.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.26.10 @ 8:52PM

Then you leave me quite puzzled sir, as to who you are identifying as the kooks in here, as there are almost no left wingers, as you acknowledge.

The people recognizing this crap piece for what it is are the typical characters in here, and I am happy to say that they can recognize real crap when they smell it, and call out the real kooks who defend this tripe.

Cheers!

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:08PM

no they aren't. but many are the same people who ignored the racist actions by Mr Sharpton and others in North Carolina. it's the same "game" as one of you so felicitously put it.

pot...kettle.....black.

Righteous Conservative| 7.27.10 @ 12:47AM

Al Sharpton beat Andrew Brietbart's father to death?

Nick| 7.27.10 @ 12:45AM

NOYB,

There are too many lefty kooks to be named. But, since they are all, for the most part, using the same talking-points, it is reasonable to assume that they're lefties.

From what I read from the regular conservative posters on this thread, I would say it was a mixed bag of opinions. Which is to be expected, since conservatives actually do think for themselves.

As opposed to bleeding heart liberals, who can only regurgitate the lefty propaganda that they were brainwashed with in college. This is why they are called "Useful Idiots."

What a bunch of incompetent fools President Dither's regime has in it. They fired Mrs. Sherrod because they were afraid of Glenn Beck!
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

ohearn| 7.26.10 @ 8:24PM

perhaps it would behoove someone to look up the meaning of the word "lynch" before he writes an article accusing the person who used that word of lying.

lynch: (v.) to put to death, esp. by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.

it doesn't mean "to hang" exclusively. the word has come to be used to describe any type of killing done by a mob, without legal authority.

pathetic.

Robert| 7.26.10 @ 8:33PM

The term comes from the proper name 'Lynch', referring generally to extrajudicial punishment.

Oddly enough, the way most current 'lynch laws' are written, you can be arrested for lynching if you forcibly remove a prisoner from jail for any reason - even if your intent is to set him/her free. Granted, that is hardly ever the case.

And Mr. Lord? You have proved that stupidity's LD50 is even higher than previously assumed.

Guest| 7.26.10 @ 8:36PM

Dear Author: hey, you should totally ask your folks if they can show you how to get to Wikipedia.org, it's this big website where they list a lot of meanings of all kinds of big words, like "lynching" and "fact checking" and "journalistic responsibility" and "smearing". Cool!

Brian B| 7.26.10 @ 8:37PM

Interestingly Project Hal (hope the tags work; no preview) doesn't list Bobby Hall as a lynching victim and there does seem to be some question whether his murder amounts to a lynching usig the NAACP definition HAL uses:
1) There must be evidence that someone was killed;

2) The killing must have occurred illegally;

3) Three or more persons must have taken part in the killing; and

4) The killers must have claimed to be serving justice or tradition.

If Screws was settling some personal grudge then I'm not sure #4 applies. It's not clear that they claimed to be serving justice, rather it sounds like they cooked up a story to beat the rap. Perhaps they were claiming that from the get go and it does qualify as a lynching. It may.
What's clear is Mr. Lord was incorrect in his definition of lynching, which is unfortunate as the latter part of the article dealing with the despicable Justice Black and Senator Long was a point well taken and well worth reading but is now drowned out. Too bad.

bluecollarbytes| 7.26.10 @ 8:46PM

It is Democrats who firmly believe black Americans are incapable/incompetent of standing on their own feet- free of the govt handouts that poison the soul, killing any sense of self-reliance and motivation. I question the motives of any 'community leader' who focuses on "what's owed for perceived wrongs" over encouraging folks to rise up and strive to succeed- and I don't mean a govt-guaranteed paycheck.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:15PM

You are not paying attention. No one is talking about folks not working for a living...you're talking about how the black lady shouldn't point out that a family member was lynched because that would be racist on her part? Project much?

Matt Brown| 7.26.10 @ 8:49PM

So a mob killing isn't a lynching? Is that what you're saying? What idiocy.

Jeffery| 7.26.10 @ 9:00PM

Although conservative positions and policies almost always harm minorities, I was willing to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt. No more. It is increasingly difficult to separate the motives from the outcomes as the fear and hatred of the "other" is revealed: blacks, gays, Jews, immigrants, Muslims.

The NAACP brouhaha flushed the movement racists into full view. Predictably, it turns out these new radical conservatives cannot accurately identify racism, hence they think Ms. Sherrod's speech was racist but the actions of Breitbart, Williams and Lord are not.

Cartoon| 7.26.10 @ 10:06PM

I've noticed that lots of conservatives like to proclaim that they don't see the color of a person's skin and that it is somehow racist to support programs and policies that are targeted at assisting minority communities, seemingly because it implies that minorities are unable to help themselves. Therefore we should remove all race based programs to be truly equal.
The problem with this is that it completely ignores the fact that minority communities are at a strong disadvantage from white communities, and the policies they support tend to hurt the poor and working class, and hurt poor blacks more than poor whites. The average poor white family still has more resources available to them than does a poor black family. There has to be programs that specifically target these inequalities in order to undo the damage that was caused by institutionalized racism over the years. People who support removing these policies don't take into account this imbalance. If it were a race, black communities are 7 steps behind the starting line from poor white communities. While I strongly favor initiatives that help all poor people, in order to form a truly just and equal society we must first remove these injustices that the white power structure has inflicted upon blacks.
It is remarkably ignorant to claim that supporting things like affirmative action is somehow racist, and shows that the person claiming such a thing is very uneducated. I still to this day don't understand why anyone who doesn't make over $250K a year supports the GOP or Teabag movement. You're actively arguing against your own interests, and the tragic thing is that it's not motivated by logic or concern for your fellow man, it seems to come from fear and hatred of the other. I don't know about many here, but I'm a devote Catholic, and I take the words "That which you do unto the least of these my brothers, you do unto me" very seriously.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:01PM

riiight...that must explain why there are more Whites below the poverty line than Blacks.

1) there are laws working to level the playing the field

2) there are HUGE reallocations of wealth attempting to "redress" the inequities.

you ignore the cost. at some point.....folks like me see the impact on their own family opportunities and understand that no amount of government enforced "equity" will redress that loss. there is a line. cross it and you are my enemy and I will band with other people to undermine and defeat your self righteous, shallow goodness. it's not a binary outcome set. and you don't get to set the acceptable threshold for "socially equitable" tradeoffs for my family. we're all paying into this colosally inept system. so your empty homilies about social obligation don't strike a sympathetic chord. yours is a zero sum logic.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 11:42AM

This is just classic right wing vomit: "that must explain why there are more Whites below the poverty line than Blacks". How about we look at THE PERCENTAGES, which gives a fair more accurate picture of race and wealth (and lack thereof) in America.

The US Census declared that in 2008 13.2% of the general population lived in poverty:
8.6% of all non-Hispanic White
11.8% of all Asian-American
23.2% of all Hispanic (of any nationality)
24.7% of all African-American.

carnot, stop being dishonest.

Horatio Kent| 7.26.10 @ 9:04PM

Ignoramus. Find a dictionary before you write something. Lynching doesn't have to mean hanging: it means "execute illegally". You rightwing fascists really need help.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 11:02PM

just like the Left wing fascists!!!

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 11:36AM

"left wing fascist" is an oxymoron. Please get a basic political science education and THEN comment.

rj Walker| 7.26.10 @ 9:14PM

In the story, Jeffrey Lord quotes from the court reporter's syllabus as if it were the decision itself.

And apparently he thinks a remand for a new trial is a finding on the facts.

He was wrong on both points - and this isn't politics, this is week 2 in law school.

Is it too much to expect someone writing about legal matters knows the basics? Or at least knows enough to know he doesn't know?

Kyorosuke| 7.26.10 @ 9:30PM

Jeffrey Lord, you are a racist piece of shit.

That is all.

Tim*| 7.26.10 @ 10:13PM

Then that makes Reverend Wright's RaceBoy Obama , a 20 year poop .

abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:22PM

To what do you object? Do you really believe Obama agrees with R. Wright? Or do you just think it was a popular church and he attended for that reason?

somnolence| 7.26.10 @ 9:46PM

Enough people take the American Spectator seriously so it is in the position of being more influential than that dinosaur, Newsweek. I also continue to be amazed at the number of people who maintain in order to be against abortion you also have to be against the death penalty and wars of violence. Sir, criminal and war perpetrators and combatants, and allies and civilians within alike have all been given the chance at life. Don't be absurd in your arguments. Shirley Sharrod was also most surely a public figure before this video was broadcast. And as far as the definition of a lynching, ever since Monicagate, we've had the definition of what is, what isn't; your definition or mine notwithstanding. Lynching and vigilante justice are not always necessarily the same thing.

Yahtahey| 7.26.10 @ 9:50PM

A lynching does not have to involve a noose. The sheriff. a night policeman, and a deputized citizen (read: goon) went to a bar and got drunk before going out to arrest Hall at his home. The sheriff later alleged in a forged warrant written after the arrest that the crime eas theft of a tire. Actually, it was over a pistol he had earlier seized from Hall and for which Hall had taken him to court. The sheriff was out to "get" Hall for being uppity. They beat him after he was unconscious, dragged him around the courthouse square behind the sheriff's car and threw the body in the jail. To cover their backsides they called an ambulance which too Hall to the nearest hospital in Albany. You can beelieve this was a lynching.
.
.
The murder of Hall is listed as a lynching in historical reference works on lyncging, for example, "100 Years of Lynching," by R. Ginzburg; "Lynching in the New South" by W. F. Brundage (online, see: http://ccharity.com/lynching/ )
.
As explained in contemporary documents, the term "lynching" was not applied to the Hall urder in 1943 for reasons of political incorrectness rather than for any supposed failure to meet the legal test. The Justice Dept. sensed a good chance of a conviction even by an all white jury from the region, and they suppressed use of the then inflammatory term for fear of creating a newspaper circus and jeopardizing a conviction. (p. 160 in "African Americans Confront Lynching," by Christopher Waldrep. Avail. online @ google books )
.
All these details are found in the Supreme Court record and in the record of the original case, US v. Screws. The justices of the SCOTUS believed Screws and the others were lying, that they were guilty of either manslaughter or murder. They were unable to uphold the guilty verdict as to deprivation of civil rights, but they ordered a new trial believing Screws et al. would be convicted. They underestimated the power of racism over the courts of the South in that day.
.
Shirley Sherrod was telling the truth.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 9:53PM

The fact that The American Spectator allows this piece to stand without any editorial retraction or correction can only be taken as a general endorsement of the views of Jeffrey Lord. Yes, some other Spectator contributors have protested, but the fact that the piece remains unaltered or qualified speaks for itself.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 10:41PM

where were you in the run-up to the last election when liberals were making the most atrocious claims on blogs such as Mr Dion's for the WaPo? I remember one cad fulinating about how he dreamed/wished for the death of the then sitting Prez. Did any of the posters (other than me)council self control? did the WaPo monitors publish a retraction or warning? NO. of course not.

I laugh every time some Liberal enters a conservative blog and voices self righteous indignation of the tit for their tat. Liberals are so fatuous. Championing racial equality while living in zoned/wealthy neighborhoods guaranteed to separate them from the oppressed classes. sending their kids to exclusive private schools while denying inner city minorities the same opportunity owing to Union political debts. yup...when Liberals practice racism...they do so with panache...and a straight face. ya gotta luv the chutzpah.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:09PM

You fired without thinking! Who amongst us had a family member lynched? And you denied that? What an idiot! Apologize or be banned to the sideline. Jerk.

The Decider| 7.26.10 @ 10:09PM

If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here. See, the Democrats are socialists. That means, they think socialistically. They see the world like a socialist sees the world. What I'm saying, is that they're communistists.

Your communist is your real racist. They've been doing it for years. Talk about lynching. All those lynchings down south were carried out by communists and were endorsed by Jimmy Carter.

Abigail| 7.26.10 @ 10:18PM

Give up the liquor dear. None of that makes any sense under any circumstances. Step away from your bottle.

EH| 7.26.10 @ 10:20PM

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Susan Barringer Wells| 7.26.10 @ 10:21PM

I wrote a book about two multiple lynchings in NC. They were lynchings in every sense of the word, however, the term lynching is used by others, one of them professor Tim Tyson ("Blood Done Sign My Name"), and by some in their description of what happened to Emmett Till, to mean basically "hate crime" or murder involving discrimination.

If you understand the history of the South, the Jim Crow era especially, you'll know that if Hall had been white, he most likely would NOT have been beaten to death by those officers. Also the ruling did state there was "evidence" that the sheriff held a grudge against Hall. And that is discrimination.

It also seems very clear to me that the behavior exhibited by the officers, in relation to the alleged crime, ie tire theft, was indicative of lynching behavior.

Why else would they have picked him up at night for such a petty crime? It's obvious to me that Hall knew he was headed for a traditional lynching, which is why he ran in the first place.

Lord, Jeffrey, get a clue, and get some education on The Jim Crow South. Try Leon Litwack's "Trouble in Mind," for starters.

Sherrod knew exactly what was going on. She called a spade a spade.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 10:28PM

all...don't fall for the bait. notice how the Liberal presence in these threads magnifies by orders of magnitude as soon as race enters the equation?

just point at the scoreboard...and pass "9.5% and holding steady! good job fellas! how's the Black unemployment rate doing under your leadership/regime?"

the race game is ugly on all sides. the players apparently man up from all sides of the spectrum.

Wisco| 7.26.10 @ 10:41PM

Wow, you guys just never let anything go, do you? Breitbart made a fool of all of you admit it. You got played for chumps. Worse, you got played for chumps because you wanted it to be true so badly that no one could bother themselves to verify anything. It was just too good to check.

And now you come up with some niggling little irrelevancy? "Quick look over there!" isn't going to work this time. Take a little personal responsibility and own up to your own failings.

You blew it. Game over.

carnot| 7.26.10 @ 10:49PM

so the Prez and his AgSec are chumps as well?

Tommy T| 7.27.10 @ 6:15AM

Nah, just you.

brad| 7.26.10 @ 11:08PM

Mr. Lord you are dumb racist POS

Nick the Knife| 7.26.10 @ 11:09PM

I can't believe I read the whole thread. This article was obviously wrongheaded. Just another example of all the tail chasing going on everywhere. Discourse is dead I am afraid. I am a proud conservative/libertarian, but I can't see the point of this argument at all. The racist accusation is meaningless in our culture now due to blatant misuse. Who cares literally about Ms. Sherrod's mindset or Mr. Breitbart's? Mr. Lord has a history of writing this type of story-"straining at gnats" seems an apt phrase. The whole thing is distracting us from the real choices awaiting us in November. Follow your conscience after true reflection, but please, do not let this type of discussion guide that reflection.

Live Free or Die!
Nick the Knife

Troll Watch| 7.26.10 @ 11:28PM

The trolls came out today with a real sense of purpose. Small children might mistake them for real human beings. Their phony views are obvious to adults however. They follow the classic liberal script spelled out in the Journolist. Shirley is a tired old politician with a long sorted history and any attention she gets will just be more evidence of Democrat corruption. These gals carry the water for the Charlie Rangels of the world. Good luck with that.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 11:02AM

HAHAHAHA "long sorted history" FTW!

Kingofthenet| 7.27.10 @ 12:27AM

Brilliant Post! This desire to find similar antisocial behavior in ones Political Opponents is troubling. I would prefer to see EVERYONE trying to stamp out such behavior, rather than excuse it as something EVERYONE does. To be honest I as a White person overlook mild Black Racism, as an unfortunate by product of the SEVERE Racism that Blacks have endured for a long time, so when a Black Clerk at the DMV allows a Black Customer to cut the line ahead of me, I consider it my personal 'Reparation' for sins of my Father.

Edward Cherlin| 7.27.10 @ 1:14AM

I get it. So Clarence Thomas was lying when he complained that he was the victim of a high-tech lynching? Or was it Anita Hill who got the metaphorical lynching?

Seth| 7.27.10 @ 1:33AM

This was the most convoluted argument I could have imagined to justify Andrew Breitbart's lack of journalistic integrity. I am sure that the distinction between being lynched and beaten to death is of great comfort to the victim.

claire solt PhD| 7.27.10 @ 1:53AM

Why does a current dispute cause contributors to lapse into discussions of the past? Must be those cowards Holder spoke of. No one is a prisoner of the distant past and no one can change it either. Too many Americans have opinions on subjects they know nothing about and those opinions are worth squat!

Yosemeti Sam| 7.27.10 @ 2:05AM

Hope I'm not to late to jump into this made-for-msnbc-kerfuffle.

" ... 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 ...."

LYNCH is a powerfully - evocative word. BTW - the strange fond farewell by Democrat titans for a Byrd who new that word straight up.

LYNCH is now a multi-purpose word PC'd away from its' TRADITIONALLY understood
colloquial meaning of hanging an individual - from a tree, LAWLESSLY!

BTW, does one recall the ugly senate confirmation hearings for one now SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas? When in exasperation, perhaps, but none the less most effectively, Thomas used those evocative words - "high-tech lynching" - to frame his assailant Democrats (including Biden) from framing him as unfit for the SCOTUS.

Some quick research:

Google keywords: ethymology lynch.

Find wiki link.

Find following text excerpt:

" ...Although in the 20th century, some members
of the US Congress tried to pass anti-lynching
legislation, the Solid South voting block of
Democrats defeated or filibustered every bill
...Today lynching is a felony in all states of the
United States, defined by some codes of law
as "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon
the body of another person which results in the
death of the person," with a 'mob' being defined
as "the assemblage of two or more persons,
without color or authority of law, for the
premeditated purpose and with the premeditated
intent of committing an act of violence upon the
person of another."

" ... with a 'mob' being defined as
the assemblage of two or more persons...."

Consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....her_Newsom

" ... Channon Gail Christian, 21, and
Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23,
were a couple from Knoxville, Tennessee.
They were both raped, tortured and
murdered by three males and one female
after being kidnapped early on the
morning of January 7, 2007 ...."

And MUTILATED!

We may then, Mr. Lord, in the CONTEXT of your critics critiques, now freely expand the PC'd semantical meaning of the word LYNCH and now freely utter that the young white couple
were LYNCHED by the perps who were of black color.

Forthwith, whereever, whenever, anyone of any race is pummled, knifed, shot, dragged or otherwise snuffed - we may consider that the victim(s) have been LYNCHED!

I see your point - Mr. Lord!

You have struck a rich vein - the proverbial NERVE of PC'd Leftoids.

Judgement day for the Leftoids in all their COLORS - is but a short time away.

They'll do their Sisyphean sthick flooding conservative forums - astroturfing.

Beguiling even some of your peers.

Right on Mr. Lord - CONTEXTUALLY!

Have to now put my cap pistoleros in cold water!

ex| 7.27.10 @ 10:35AM

The deaths or Newsom and Christian you describe were murders not lynchings. You can't redefine the meaning of a word because you disagree with it's implications. Lynching is a type of murder, it is not a synonym for it. When three white policeman in the 1940's, under color of law, arrest and beat a black person to death in an extra judicial killing that can be fairly described as a lynching. Just because the word lynching is so connotative of Jim Crow and southern racism during the 19th and 20th century you can not parse the word or redefine the word out of existence because you want to deny the past and score political points in the present.
It is sad to see conservatives tying themselves up in knots to defend the indefensible. Pathetic

Nigel P| 7.27.10 @ 3:22AM

Republicans, is there anything they're not scared of?

Jim| 7.27.10 @ 4:27AM

lynched: To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.

Bob Dobolina| 7.27.10 @ 4:56AM

Mr. Lord, would you PLEASE purchase a dictionary? It will save you many uninformed, wasted words in the future.

Andrew| 7.27.10 @ 9:56AM

In what world is being beaten to death not a lynching? I think her story is abou the fact that he was lynched and the court ruled that he was only denied his civil rights, to use that very case as proof that he wasn't lynched is dishonest at the very least and doesn't prove the point. You could use the facts refealed in the case to make your case, but they prove you wrong because what they describe is a lynching. So I guess I understand the dishonesty. It's because you're just wrong, and incredibly biased. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good (however false) narrative.

M| 7.27.10 @ 10:15AM

The Republican party is so scared of African Americans gaining any kind of power in this country they try to attack our leaders any way they can. Im black. I walked through a tea party rally in Tallahassee on my way home. Yes. They really are racist. I only wish i could have had my cell phone camera out recording them. NAACP would have had REAL proof of the racism. Not a Edited tape, of this cute little white girl saying "mommy, u said there were not going to be monkeys out here". F the tea party. F the republican Party. Micheal Steel is a Sell out of EPIC proportion. Just remember Tea Party members. The last thing you want to do i unify us as a Race. We would be a serious problem for you. and add on the fact that the Mexicans HATE you and they are not going nowhere. Yes. you are loosing your country. I love it. and you can't Intimidate us like pre-1970. We got guns too. Tea party=new KKK for people who know its socially unacceptable to be that racist publicly.

Walt| 7.27.10 @ 10:18AM

You people do know that 'lynching' is killing by mob action (2 or more) !! Hanging is only one type of lynching !!

Joli| 7.27.10 @ 10:28AM

Wow, somebody needs to open up a dictionary. Lynch (v.) is defined as: "To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry." Hanging is only one of many ways to lynch a person.

Splendid One| 7.27.10 @ 10:49AM

OMH, the ignorance. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchin, lynching is extrajudicial punishment, NOT just hanging. Someone's been watching too many Ronald Reagan Westerns :)

Jeffery| 7.27.10 @ 10:57AM

Here's an interesting article from AS in 2000. William Demski is a "creation scientist" (laugh)formerly employed by Baylor University, heading the Polanyi Center for creation studies. In 2000, Dembski was removed as the center's director, although he remained an associate research professor until May 2005. He was not asked to teach any courses in that time and instead worked from home, writing books and speaking around the country. "In a sense, Baylor did me a favor," he said. "I had a five-year sabbatical."

Here's how the American Spectator referred to Dembski's five year paid vacation:

The Lynching of Bill Dembski:
Scientists say the jury is out--so let the hanging begin.
By: Fred Heeren
The American Spectator
November 15, 2000

According to the American Spectator, a five year paid vacation justifies being called a "lynching" but several white policemen beating a handcuffed black man to death is not.

macheath| 7.27.10 @ 11:08AM

You are beyond disgust. A black man is beaten to death by a white mob, and you say his daughter's story is "false." Hate mongers. You are ruining this country beyond repair.

readherwords| 7.27.10 @ 11:50AM

Sharrod says regarding Halls murder

"I'm told that case is studied by every law student. And usually when we have people coming into Southwest Georgia, and wanting to take some tours of -- of things where some events happened during the Civil Rights Movement, I usually take them to the courthouse in Newton to show where Bobby Hall's body was displayed."

The first time I heard the term "displayed" I too pictured a hanging. Right there at the courthouse.

But I soon learned this was not the case

A public hanging suggests acceptence by the whole community.

A police beating on the other hand only suggests Bad cops. Theres a big difference.

What is the difference, beaten for 30 minutes and dieing later in hospital, or a public hanging. None to the victim and his family.

But to someone trying to make a political point, lots

I believe Sharrod cranked up her speech to make it more political. Using Halls murder for political gain is wrong.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 12:35PM

There's really something wrong with you, read. I mean, why you put so much effort into twisting her words is beyond me.

Because you're still just plain wrong. Hall was beaten for a long time ON THE PUBLIC STEPS OF A COURTHOUSE. At the supposed seat of justice, Hall was beaten in public, and there was no community intervention.

This wasn't a "police beating" by "bad cops." This was a LYNCHING, a MURDER, by cops who were not brought to justice.

Why are you attacking this story! Sharrod tells this story in the context of an HISTORICAL TOUR FOR STUDENTS. This isn't about "political points," this is about TEACHING HISTORY.

Seriously, there are things wrong with you.

readthewords| 7.27.10 @ 12:39PM

Ok slim, make it political then. Use Halls death for your agenda, as in teaching history

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 1:06PM

Like I said, there's something wrong with you.

readtheword| 7.27.10 @ 2:21PM

thats it, just an an insult?

Seth| 7.27.10 @ 11:18AM

Thank you so much for clearing this up. It would have been so terrible for the world to think this man had been lynched when he had merely been beaten by a mob while handcuffed, beaten and then dragged into a jail cell and left to die. How dare she use this as an example of injustice.

reality check| 7.27.10 @ 12:14PM

Don't you get it?

The is not about Sherrod. It's not even about murdered Bobby Hall.

Its about politicising every damn thing under the friggin blue sky.

Don't you red necks, and I mean every damn one of you, get it?

You are Americans. You have a responsibility to the world.

Get you act together. Grow up

Stop drinking your own piss, stop trying to get your neighbour to drink your piss, cause if you don't, before you know it, thats all you will
have.

Missy| 7.27.10 @ 12:51PM

In Lord's world a misuse of the semantics of a legal definition equals telling a story that is "completely and totally untrue"....wow. Dude, you deserve every single flame you get, every single colleague who distances him/herself from you and every single article that Radley Balko, et al, will write about you, you disingenuous evil hack.

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 1:31PM

Tips to Increase your Web Traffic links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Green -vs- Green: Eu Climate Exchange website hacked | Watts Up … Idea Cellular Launches New Extra Value Tariff Offers For Mumbai Penny Auction Site MadBid Secures £4m From Atomico The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False Irradiating stem cell niche doubles survival in brain cancer … Quick Tip: Improve Site Performance in 3 Easy Steps | Nettuts+ WordPress Jobs » Blog Archive » Re-Building Site…

Southern by Birth| 7.27.10 @ 1:37PM

OMG she LIED.... he was BEATEN to death, not LYNCHED!!!! How can we believe anyone who would make up such an outrageous LIE!!!

Oh... wait.. "to lynch" someone means to kill them via extra legal means - without recourse to the judicial process.

Jeff Lord needs to learn the English Language... along with some human decency.

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 1:41PM

Tips For Successful Article Marketing links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Google May Not Have Bought Yelp, But They Sure Are Trying To Own … Penny Auction Site MadBid Secures £4m From Atomico NYT Crows At Publishing WikiLeaks Info | Sweetness & Light The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False The Most Powerful and Feature Rich Web-Based Code Editors (IDEs … How To Rank Your Articles Higher in Search Engines Google's Introducing New Market Purchase Options; Pay For…

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 1:42PM

The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False - http links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…home Bez kategorii The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False Filed Under: Bez kategorii by webmati lip.26, 2010 http. http ://legal-dictionary.thefre…..m/Lynching. Adres URL: The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False Tags: 1946--, a-visible-stand, against-lynching, alleged-crimes-, first-politician, for-real, lynching-violent, president, president-harry, punishment-or-execution, real-or-alleged,…

Cassandra| 7.27.10 @ 2:45PM

It's an awesome yet pitiful sight to see so many conservatives outting themselves as racists these days, ironically showing their true colors as they angrily protest that they are NOT racists. Sorry, folks, but many of you are. You may not proudly wear the label, but the sentiments you express are rooted in pure old white supremacy.

Keith| 7.27.10 @ 2:47PM

There is jumping to conclusions, leaping to conclusions and then there is jumping out of an airplane to conclusions.

Jeff Lord is guilty of the latter. It reads almost like an Onion article.

keith| 7.27.10 @ 2:55PM

Who gives a rat's behind HOW her family member was killed? What is so amazing to me still is that despite people trying to make her a racists or a liar, her speech is full of reminders that we are all more alike than different WHEN we choose to look for the similarities instead of the contrasts and differences.

In the meantime, for those of you all throwing around "lynching" like it is some legal definition instead of the disgusting murderous act that it is, enjoy the photos.

Hope you already ate.

http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/pics_01.html

torfic| 7.27.10 @ 3:34PM

it is sad that we are at this point in our nation's history. decency is dead. truth does not exist. reason has left the building...the baby boomers are literally dragging the entire country down because of their selfish, shallow world view and inability to admit that they don't know everything. angry white, middle aged people and ignorant religious fools from around the world who still believe in whatever childish monotheistic mythology will destroy us all. the simple fact that one can't state that this article is racist. ignorant. actually....fascist. all these conservatives love to talk how rich vs poor is socialism. well....poor vs rich is fascism. i will take socialism over fascism any day. denmark, sweden, france of modern days seem a lot better than spain, germany, and italy of the 30's (and also america post 1980. since the worst american in our history...ronald reagan...led us into this fascist mess we inhabit today.)

we are living in ronald reagan's america

new dutch fashish| 7.27.10 @ 4:04PM

"New School" Fascists

- Yell at you for not flushing the toilet when you're finished.
- Expect two forms of ID, at least one of which bearing a picture.
- Fire you from work for browsing porno all day.
- Put you on hold, then have the nerve to say that your call is important.
- Shush you at the movies.
- Hassle you when you take your time ordering at McDonald's.
- Give you a parking ticket.
- Don't even listen to your side of the story.
- Are even slightly to your right politically, (Note that those to your political left are always Communists).
- They are members of the Republican Party.
- Adopted a uniform of any damned thing they want except Iron Maiden T-shirts
- Tell you to stop running in the corridors

howard reynolds| 7.27.10 @ 3:54PM

you think lynching is restricted to death by rope? and this inaccurate thought is the basis for you calling ms. sherrod a liar?

how fucking stupid are you?

one can be lynched by a variety of methods. rope is but one of them. like it fucking matters the particular manner of death.

i cannot believe the depth of ignorance of some folks.

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 3:57PM

Jeffrey Lord defends his indefensible article « Neither Here Nor There links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Messed Up Shit, The Stupid, It Burns Tags: American Spectator, Bobby Hall, Jeffrey Lord, Lynching, Race Baiting, Racism, Shirley Sherrod Yesterday, Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator made the truly revolting claim that Shirley Sherrod was lying when she said Bobby Hall, a relative of hers, was lynched on the steps of a courthouse, because he wasn’t hanged. After virtually the entire blogosphere,…

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 4:12PM

Pathologies of the New Right: Only for Shirley Sherrod is a Murder Different from a L links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…common sense. There is no pithy way to put it. These are very sick, sick people. I would be embarrassed for them if they had any shame. The unbelievably vexing “Sherrod Story False,” can be found here. Editor and founder of the blog We Are Respectable Negroes which has been featured by the NY Times, the Utne Reader, and The Atlantic Monthly. Writing under a pseudonym, Chauncey DeVega's essays on race,…

rewinn| 7.27.10 @ 4:42PM

Mr. Lord, not content with the above article, dug deeper today as follows:

"...Three people are not a "mob." A mob is defined as a "large crowd." So there was no "mob action" because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted "under color of law." Which means they had legal authority."

http://spectator.org/blog/2010.....ffrey-lord

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Mr. Lord: play all the word games you want. It was a lynching no matter what dictionary you use.

And since you are so improvident as to post your stuff on the internet, you will be known for all time as a racist fool. Heck of a job!

Rhian| 7.27.10 @ 4:43PM

Even at baseline, this is a pretty disgusting splitting of hairs you are making to give yourself an inflammatory headline and an excuse to blame all racism on progressives.

But, as several people have commented or emailed to you, you have your definition of "lynching" wrong. The second page of this article draws a clear line between this crime and "lynching," one based on ropes and nooses. You ask, "What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack -- and by dangling rope?" The answer: when it comes to whether or not someone was lynched, absolutely nothing.

You should retract your accusations. Not because it's unjust to Shirley Sherrod (although it is), but because you presumably have some sense of self-respect and journalistic integrity, and it's the right thing to do.

esther clark| 7.27.10 @ 5:38PM

The shamelessness of this man, writing an article calling Sharrod a liar when his article is based on a lie, that her cousin was not lynched. He doesn't even know the definition of the word. Does this magazine not have editors. What an embarrassment to our political discourse.

As the old adage goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Is he not going to answer to the fact that the man was lynched. Is he not going to write a retraction, an apology?

Seamus| 7.27.10 @ 5:42PM

Funny you should talk of "frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. " Did you, by any chance, review the text of any of those proposed laws? I suspect not, because if you had (see, e.g., this one: http://naacp.com/about/history...../index.htm), you'd have seen a couple of things. One, three men could indeed, for the purpose of the proposed statute, constitute a "mob or riotous assembly." Second, that just as the bill doesn't say anything about "a savage murder by fist and blackjack," it similarly says nothing about murder "by dangling rope." What it does say is prisoners being "put to death." Finally, the anti-lynching law I have cited would clearly have applied to the murder of Bobby Hall, indicating that that murder indeed *did* fall within the meaning of the term "lynching" as it was understood back when the anti-lynching laws you refer to were under consideration.

Mid road| 7.27.10 @ 6:32PM

What's the argument over semantics or the Supreme Court decision and the Court's make-up of the time? Mr. Lord, in replies I saw earlier today(have they been removed? He kept saying - and this is a paraphrase as I was hoping to quote directly - that it was not HIM who said it wasn't a lynching, but the COURT. If memory serves, he also wrote that he called the decision disgusting, or something. )
Anyway, the question should be: why write the piece to begin with? Because Ms. Sherrod survived the mouth-breathing far-Right attacks? Let's call her a liar (on a technicality)? That'll bring her down a notch? Seems to be the case here, and nothing else. Other far Right-wing pundits (I hate to call them conservatives, because they are two very different animals) have attacked her as a communist (for her 'poor vs. rich revelation), a socialist, anything else but a woman who was done horribly, horribly wrong first by the death of her father, then by the Breaitbart video release, and now this far-Right crap.
There's an old lawyer's saying (meant in jest): When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.
This crap is not in jest. Mr. Lord knows it, or certainly should, given his c.v.

HEEDME| 7.27.10 @ 6:34PM

You teabaggers just won't stop demonizing will you? You must always demonize the "other" and destroy. You have no ideas or policies but NO NO NO NO.

Meatballs| 7.27.10 @ 7:19PM

I wonder if Mr Lord was wearing his swastika when he wrote this inflamatory piece of hate-inspired garbage... He must be fresh from reading the Turner Diaries for the 37th time.

What a hack. What a racist. The man recieved a fatal beating facilitated by the police. What's the difference if he was hung, or shot or stabbed to death? A brutal murder happened. The presence of a corrupt judicary doesn't change that fact.

This is a cruel use of wordplay and semantics. How many black Americans suffered and died as a result of racism throughout Slavery and Jim Crowe? Countless numbers. We need to put that into its proper context. Jeffery Lord is devoid of character. His take is monstrous to say anything of it transcending "insensitivity".

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 7:33PM

Hosting links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Archive » the unionized mindset Who Doesn't Love a Good Florida State Arrest? | The Big Lead With This Ring, I Thee Dread « The Better Beta: Truth Be Bold Lovely Love park paintings The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False How Web Designers Can Adopt a Global Mindset This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 at 6:19 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry…

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 7:35PM

Sherrod Story False - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Liber links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…verified businesses Search for:  near:    Today, 05:35 PM Pressing-On Senior Member   Join Date: Sep 2008 882 posts, read 277,652 times Reputation: 177 Sherrod Story False Sherrod Story False Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: " Claude Screws lynched a black man.…

SALTINE| 7.27.10 @ 7:50PM

Words matter a lot, and Lord is entirely correct to accuse Sherrod of lying. "Lynching" did and does connote community murder and compliance by the authorities. Much like "pogrom". Beatings by rogue cops are, in fact different. I have been attacked and had deadly weapons pulled on me by black men twice in my life, both times because of my race ( I was with a woman of color). Would you say that, because those were examples of racially-motivated violence, and in neither case did the authorities do a thing, it would be proper to describe them as "attempted lynchings"? Of course you wouldn't.

What the Sherrod case should teach all of us is how much blacks have it made in this country. They can do and say virtually anything, and if they are held to account, other blacks and white liberals will defend them. Sherrod lied about her past. She is living the dream that provides psychological support to nearly all black Americans, that if they make it 'I beat the system and had to work harder than honkies' (ha!), or if they fail, 'The system won't let a proud person of color succeed." Until blacks recognize the fact that they have it made here, and thank this country for that, they will continue to struggle.

Just think of the atrocities we have all had to sit through in the time since Obongo got elected. "Skip" Gates picks a fight with a white cop who was doing his job, and he gets a private audience with His Black Presidentness. Sherrod mystifies her past, and the media and Black leaders leap to her defense. I guess this is just the new 'normal' in what I like to call "Obama's America".

Once upon a time, as a white schoolkid,I was taught that discrimination on the basis of race is bad. Now, as an adult, I have learned that it is only wrong if it helps people of European descent. Discrimination for blacks (welcome to Harvard, Barack!) or any other group (you're Mexican? suspend immigration laws!) is fine. But, nothing lasts forever. November looms.

ex| 7.27.10 @ 9:27PM

Word do matter. To accuse Ms. Sherrod of lying is patently false. Her use of the word lynching is neither a lie nor a misuse of the word.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007270028
The link is to media matters. Some will dismiss it because the they are a liberal site but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Your comments are full of racial animosity and resentment. To call President Obama "Obongo" is blatantly racist. If you had merely called him a idiot or a fool that would not be racist but to mock him with an african sounding name is pure racism.
I guess it is progress that racists no longer admit to being racist but now accuse their critics of their critics of being the racists.

dilbert| 7.28.10 @ 8:59AM

Face it, times have changed. Nowadays, if your black and have your sh*t together, you can become President of the United States of America. That's if you want too and are good enough.
If you are not where you want to be in life and want to blame someone, just look in the mirror.

My definiton of left and right. The left is made up of people who feel the world owes them, the right, is made up of people who don't want to pay for it.

whasayu| 7.27.10 @ 8:11PM

So, I guess when you were writing this you didn't have time to even check such a marginal resource as Wiktionary? To quote:

Verb
to lynch (third-person singular simple present lynches, present participle lynching, simple past and past participle lynched)
To execute without a proper legal trial, especially by hanging.
To commit an act of violence by a mob upon the body of another person.

Seriously, here's the link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lynch

Technically, although it appears that you prefer to think of lynching in terms of illegally hanging people (which might suggest more about you than you might like to admit), lynching includes any illegal mob act of violence resulting in serious bodily harm or death.

Concerned that Wiktionary isn't legitimate? How about Merriam-Webster? Here:

Main Entry: lynch
Pronunciation: \ˈlinch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
Date: 1836
: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction
— lynch·er noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lynch

So here it's also a catch-all for any mob action resulting in death. Hanging is used as one, perhaps the most culturally referenced, example.

I won't accuse you of being a racist. I think intentional obtuseness and ignorance, both of which can result (and have resulted here) in racism, are just as likely. That means you may be a racist, but it also leaves room for you to apologize again for just being ignorant an incapable of completing a Google search.

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 8:33PM

MLM Leads and How to Write an Article for Marketing. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…to make your article easy to read, and use emotional phrasing to get people to think, and to help them get more out of what you have to say. See you at the top!   Related Blogs: The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False Virgin Mobile Beyond The Talk Plan Picture Messaging? – blackberry … How to host picture for Myspace? Piel Leather Goods Flap-Over S Check Out This First Picture Of COWBOYS…

SALTINE| 7.27.10 @ 8:40PM

You know, whasayu, you misspelled a couple of words. But I won't accuse you of ignorance, or anything. I will, though, despite your citing of an authoritative online (!) reference (do you consult books, at all?), disagree with you. The way in which Sherrod used the term "lynching" was deliberately misleading, and out of line with the way in which her audience and most Americans understand the word.

It's interesting that you call me a racist. Oh, wait, you said my actions were objectively racist, even though you are willing to concede that despite that, I may not be in intent a racist. So, your answer to my words is, they are racist. Is that because I stated publicly that I believe a black person told a lie? Because I said something that is untrue? Or because I think Obama is motivated by his racial background to treat whites differently from those Americans who are not white? And, because 0n top of all that, I am white? I imagine so. But, I can't be sure. So, I won't say that you are motivated by race in anything either.

Let me give you a definition of "racist" as you, and most Americans, now use the term:

Racist (ra' sist), n. 1. Any American of European extraction who will not shut up when told to in a discussion of racial issues.

I won't call you any names, though. And I won't argue that your rhetorical posture is Stalinist, or anything like that, though it is something that some would believe to be worth mentioning. I will only note that the very first response to my posting on this matter was to make a misleading objection and to accuse me of racism. But that, of course, doesn't happen very often in America today. Today, we are about dialogue. And "hope" and "change". Thanks for your well-thought-out response.

ex| 7.27.10 @ 9:08PM

A racist is someone who judges people not by their actions but by their race. I have no idea if you are a racist or not but to say that President Obama has treated white people differently because of his racial background is a racist statement. I have yet to hear any remotely credible evidence of President Obama acting in a racist manner. I have seen much more racism coming from people who oppose him such as Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Not everyone who disagrees with the President is racist. The question is how much of the opposition to President Obama is base on racist. Some of it is so nonsensical such as the Birther nonsense that racism is the most charitable explanation. If the Birthers are not racist then they are either cynics, mentally defective, or just plain stupid.

BigStrat| 7.27.10 @ 9:05PM

Sherrod did not lie. Lynching does not always mean hanging. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Lynch" : "To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry."

Lord is being unbelievably petty. Whether hanged or beaten, this was a lynching. An example of attempted gotcha politics at its worst.

ajadedoptimist| 7.27.10 @ 9:35PM

Are you THAT stupid? No, you are not. You are THAT malicious. Even my college comp students could tell you the definition of lynching is broader than just hanging. As BigStrat points out, it is the practice of killing people by extrajudicial mob action. Rope NOt required to be called a lynching. YOU are purposely trying to discredit this woman with lies.

steven| 7.27.10 @ 10:48PM

kudos to Jeffrey Lord for exposing the truth about Bobby Hall's death. i feel so much better knowing he died after being beaten to death instead of being hung from a tree. the distinction is so meaningful, i think Ms. Sherrod owes all of us an apology. failing that, i suggest we beat her to death with a night stick. who's with me?

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 11:08PM

Screws v. United States: The Supreme Court on Lynching, 1945 « Student Activism links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Home Contact Speaking Media Subscribe to feed Screws v. United States: The Supreme Court on Lynching, 1945 July 27, 2010 in Students So yesterday morning Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator put up a long post claiming that Shirley Sherrod had lied when she said that a relative of hers was lynched in Georgia in 1945. Specifically, Lord claimed that the term “lynching” refers exclusively to murder by…

Pingback| 7.27.10 @ 11:46PM

Vintage Kobel | History of Tattooing links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…answers – Canada – Macleans.ca Devon Kershaw Answers the Eternal Question: Who Would Win the … Now legal in the U.S.: Jailbreaking your iPhone, ripping a DVD for … The American Spectator : Sherrod Story False How to Backup in Linux Using Mondoarchive Command | The Command Line Genie Backup Manager Home v7 Free License Code Download » My … Weekend Links: Backup, Backup, and Backup | Realm…

Pingback| 7.28.10 @ 3:10AM

Deals & Investments » Blog Archive » AmSpec’s Jeffrey Lord: ‘Sherrod Story False’ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Stats Are Worst For Any June Since Such Records Have Been Kept » AmSpec’s Jeffrey Lord: ‘Sherrod Story False’ The American Specator’s Jeffrey Lord, thanks to outstanding research, has done  a definitive analysis ( print version ) of the nature of and circumstances surrounding the death of Bobby Hall. In her now-infamous NAACP speech, Shirley Sherrod asserted that Hall was “lynched” in the 1940s.…

Long Ben Avery| 7.28.10 @ 7:48AM

You sir, are a fuckwit!!!!!!!!!!!

Long Ben Avery| 7.28.10 @ 8:25AM

You are equating past racism, by Southern Democrats, with present racism by Faux News, Tea Baggers and other assorted Right Wing Nuts. I'll say it again, you sir, are a fuckwit!!!!!!!!!!
Death by beating, by a group of people IS one of the definitions of lynching. So I say yet again, you sir, are a fuckwit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dilbert| 7.28.10 @ 9:01AM

Face it, times have changed. Nowadays, if your black and have your sh*t together, you can become President of the United States of America. That's if you want too and are good enough.
If you are not where you want to be in life and want to blame someone, just look in the mirror.

My definiton of left and right. The left is made up of people who feel the world owes them, the right, is made up of people who don't want to pay for it.

Leave a Comment

ADVERTISEMENT
America's Ruling Class – and The Perils of Revolution
America's Ruling Class – and The Perils of Revolution
By Angelo M. Codevilla

Our special Summer Issue cover story, highlighted recently in a big, big way by Rush Limbaugh.
It's the story everyone is talking about.

AmSpecBlog

The Day Ahead: Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Max Brindle

* * * *

Tea Party Express Endorses O'Donnell in Delaware

Robert Stacy McCain

* * * *

CBO Warns of Increased Risk of U.S. Fiscal Crisis

Philip Klein

* * * *

R.I.P., Jack Tatum

Paul Chesser

* * * *

So Much for Remorse and Humility

Paul Chesser

* * * *

Defining Lynching Down

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

Jim Webb vs. Diversity

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

Goodbye, and Good Riddance

Chris Horner

* * * *

New Articles

The Timeless Principles of American Prosperity

Peter Ferrara

* * * *

The Democrats' Redistricting Nightmare

David N. Bass

* * * *

Employment School

RiShawn Biddle

* * * *

Buffett, the Times, and the Weeping Abortionist

Ken Blackwell

* * * *

Obama’s Double-Down Gamble

James Srodes

* * * *

Corn vs. Coronary Bypass Surgery

Daniel Oliver

* * * *

A Paean to the Printed Page

Lisa Fabrizio

* * * *

Aunt Pittypat's Democrats

Jed Babbin

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT

Home| About| Advertise| Donate| Privacy Policy| Contact
Copyright 2008, The American Spectator