The American Spectator

will| 7.26.10 @ 3:38PM

Yup.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 6:48PM

Lord must live in a wedge-issue dominated state, it is affecting his thinking.

Kimberly Davis| 7.27.10 @ 9:33AM

Here is the response I got from Lord after writing to ask him to issue a correction:
"Kimberly...

Thanks for the definition. It is the one I use.

First, there were 3 officers in the case. Three is not a mob, a mob being a "large crowd." So, no mob, No mob action. The Supreme Court ruled the three officers acted under "color of law." Which is to say, with legal authority, not without.

Thus: no mob, no mob action. Legal authority. Which means: no lynching. Precisely as you have accurately noted.

Thanks for taking the time.

Jeff Lord"

Seriously?

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 10:17AM

He's actually claiming that because they were police officers they had "legal authority" to commit murder?

Wow.

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 10:23AM

It's hard to tell whether Mr. Lord is honestly that ignorant of law, or is dealing in deliberate sophistry here. But his definition of "mob" doesn't coincide with the law (which can mean as few as 2), and "color of law" is not the same thing as legitimate legal authority to commit the act carried out under "color of law".

Whether out of ignorance or informed dishonesty, his rationalizations reek of sophistry, as does his maliciously dishonest little hit piece.

Rhian| 7.27.10 @ 4:26PM

I find it hard to believe that he really knew the correct definition all along. See this from page 2:

"It's also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching... What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack -- and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday -- a very long time -- of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal "anti-black jack" or "anti-fisticuffs" laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling."

which makes it pretty clear that his distinction between the crime that occurred and a "lynching" is one based on the presence of a noose.

So now suddenly he claims that the distinction is actually based on the Supreme Court having declared it not a lynching? That would be in the same decision which everyone (including him) seems to agree was racist and unjust and wrong?

This whole piece was disgusting enough to begin with, but to see him not even have enough integrity to admit his mistake is just repulsive.

I thought this was supposed to be a serious publication but no longer have any interest in an organization with such a filthy lack of integrity.

mike| 7.27.10 @ 9:44PM

Great post. I agree that Mr Lord appears not to have made a significant attempt to acquaint himself with a workable definition of "lynch" prior to the piece, making it appear even more malicious, given its content.

Further to this and your post, if you look across a number of dictionaries you see that the requirement of a mob is far from essential to the definition.

Nancy Irving| 7.28.10 @ 10:13PM

Wow.

I looked up "under color of law" because though I was sure this term (like "lynching" itself) didn't mean what this ignoramus thought it did, I wasn't sure of the exact definition. (Perhaps Lord might try looking things up before he spouts off on them.)

Wikipedia quotes Steven H. Gifis, Law Dictionary Fourth Edition, p. 86, as follows:

"In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, the “pretense or appearance of” right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law."

Hence, it means pretty much exactly the OPPOSITE of what Lord claims.

Sheesh.

Now he's doubled down; think he'll go for a trifecta?

Nate| 7.26.10 @ 3:54PM

Mr Tabin,

Until well meaning conservatives come to grips with this intense desire to identify "racism" among blacks and figure out what it means (and I think we all know what it means) you're going to have a difficult time purging yourselves of the toxin that produces pieces like Lord's (and others).

Their is a will to deny white supremacist racism in our history on the right today, and one of the means by which that denial is being perpetrated is exaggerating the significance of anecdotal tales of black people who say racist things -- as if the story of "voter intimidation" in Philadelphia recently somehow amounted to the same thing as the voter intimidation perpetrated by government and paramilitary domestic terrorist organizations against blacks in the south for a century. It's ludicrous and ahistorical and -- yes -- it's racist.

Justin| 7.26.10 @ 5:38PM

Oh, I get the liberal mindset now... The problem with White supremacists and voter intimidation wasn't that they saw blacks as inferior, it was how many people they used to get the job done... So we wouldn't have any wrong doing to read about now, had they only sent a few people strolling about with batons, and bats?

Give me a break. What was wrong then, is wrong now, and we should denounce ALL wrong doing as soon as we see it. Two wrongs don't make a right, and there is no "getting even", so admit your hypocrisy and flee from it.

There is no drive to deny racism in America's past, there is an intense desire not to commit the same wrongs under new disguises in our new "enlightened age".

Liberal hyperbole is a funny thing...

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 6:53PM

I'm afraid of white punk- hooligans, not black or Mexicans.

As for Mexicans, something DOES have to be done about the border, but funny thing is: no volunteers show up as border guards when a call goes out by some posse-comatosis, or somesuch, group.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 7:04PM

... that is to say, there is somewhere between 68- 71 (a margin of error of three points) percent whites making up the US population, so the percentage of young white merely anecdotal.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 7:10PM

...is not entirely correct; it is based on personal experience..
BUT if blacks are only 12 percent-- or thereabouts-- of the population, how are they the main 'perps'?

Alan in SF| 7.28.10 @ 2:47PM

If you're comparing the New Black Panther PArty to the various efforts to keep black people from voting for more than a century, it would help considerably if you could find a single white person who felt intimidated into not voting. Of course, comparing no whites intimidated to hundreds of thousands of black intimidated is just more liberal hyperbole.

Kingofthenet| 7.27.10 @ 12:29AM

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.

Will| 7.26.10 @ 4:07PM

What Nate said.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 4:12PM

Doesn't the American Spectator have a single editor or even a novice proofreader? Where is the retraction? This Breitbart-style bomb-throwing is counterproductive. And Lord's insistence that Ms. Sherrod do a complete Shepardization of possibly relevant legal cases every time she speaks is ludicrous.

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 4:12PM

Doesn't the American Spectator have a single editor or even a novice proofreader? Where is the retraction? This Breitbart-style bomb-throwing is counterproductive. And Lord's insistence that Ms. Sherrod do a complete Shepardization of possibly relevant legal cases every time she speaks is ludicrous.

kravitz| 7.26.10 @ 4:49PM

kids, you're giving us all whiplash....

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 7:16PM

It was better about exactly a dozen years ago-- then we could all laugh about Monica Lewinsky and cigars, instead of this petty:

"Obama is a medical-DeathSquad communist who will force us to eat granola!"

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:39PM

... which is pettier? Monicagate or DeathSquadgate?
an open question.

Quartermaster| 7.26.10 @ 9:07PM

Mr. Tabin, your statement, "Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people)" is a hoot. It takes a far larger number of people that 2 to make a mob. It will take far more to get the overall mentality of invincibility from the lack of accountability that comes with being submerged in a large group of people.

There is also the matter of intent. Did Screws and his men intend to kill Hall? The prosecution did not meet the burden of proof and it was remanded to the lower courts as a result.

Don't join Klein as a small vile man willing to give into emotional, knee jerk reactions. Hall was not lynched simply because it was not a mob action. Your silly definition of a mob notwithstanding.

Angus Johnston| 7.27.10 @ 12:51AM

According to the federal anti-lynching bill that Lord cited -- but obviously didn't read -- a lynch mob could be composed of as few as three people. And no, the use of rope would not have been a prerequisite to prosecution under the statute.

canuckistani| 7.27.10 @ 9:13AM

Why are we still debating this?
1940's Dixie, redneck sheriff and deputies beat handcuffed blackman to death with metal bars for an alleged stolen tire.
WTF else do you need to know? He's dead and the constitution was barely the gauze used to cover his wounds.
I applaud the black "movement" to set the record straight. They do have a right to revise history in their eyes - the establishment has done it for 234 years. It is a mere pittance repayment for the spectacular failure of American whites to address their darkest sins of the past.
As white folk, especially as men, we have NOTHING to complain about in the history of this union. NOTHING.
We are the majority by a long shot and we voted for every pol, every statute, every law that got us to today. Any other conclusion is a damn lie. Us projecting our self-hate onto a mid-level bureaucrat is indicative of a tribe ready for a huge setback. Shame.

PSMarc93| 7.27.10 @ 3:53PM

Thunderous applause. Thank you for your comment. It's jaw-droppingly astounding that anyone could possibly suggest that Sherrod was lying about this lynching or in anyway exaggerating the crime against her family. Even the impulse to defend it belies a deep racism.

Joe| 7.26.10 @ 9:18PM

So I wrote Mr. Lord to point out that lynching doesn't always mean hanging. This was his brilliant reply:

From: jlpa1@aol.com
To: XXXXXXXX
Sent: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: You don't have to hang a man to Lynch him

Ahhh...the Klan speaks. When you get over your insecurities about treating a black woman as an equal, come back.

I can only say that Mr. Lord is a complete and vile moron.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:35PM

"I can only say that Mr. Lord is a complete and vile moron."

No, he is playing us like violins, we are fools for responding to him and thus he gets even more publicity than he would have if... you get the picture.
"Don't care what you say as long as you spell the name right."

polyorchnid octopunch| 7.27.10 @ 12:15PM

Lord is clearly a bootlicker.

Bryan| 7.27.10 @ 3:02PM

Mr. Tabin— perhaps you should seek employment at a publication that wouldn't publish such ignorant nonsense.

BSR| 7.27.10 @ 3:23PM

What Bryan said, what self respecting individual would allow themselves to work for a vile rag that would publish such filth?

elspeth| 7.27.10 @ 4:08PM

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that racism is an institutionalised oppression. In this country, with its own particular brand of racist culture, based on skin colour, it is not possible to for people of colour to be racist. Prejudiced and bigoted, certainly, but until there is a _cultural institution_ of racial discrimination against white people, black (or mexican, or asian) people simply cannot be classified as 'racist.
Before anyone starts spouting off about affirmative action being reverse racism, kindly realise that that is the equivalent of saying "But my dad and grandfather were allowed to cheat, why can't I?"

Craig| 7.28.10 @ 11:29AM

As an African-American, I cannot stand by that comment. To me, racism is about the attitude or action, not the size of the population the racist belongs to.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 4:24PM

elspeth, I see where you are coming from, but as a fellow anti-racist, I must respectfully disagree.

You are correct that institutionalized racism directed at blacks cannot be compared with anecdotal evidence of black-on-white discrimination.

But I think defining the term "racism" as only institutional, so that it cannot be applied to black-on-white discrimination, is inaccurate. More importantly, I find it counterproductive. Many conservatives and even many liberals will jump on your statement uncritically and merely say you are absolving blacks of any discrimination they might commit.

It is simply easier and more compelling to separate institutionalized racism, which primarily affects black people, and individual instances of racism, which I believe can affect anyone. It is also more convincing to argue that institutional racism against minorities is more of a problem than isolated instances of anti-white racism.

Just an opinion from a fellow anti-racist.

Ben| 7.27.10 @ 4:44PM

Never have been and never will be an AS fan or support but thank you for this.

Tom| 7.28.10 @ 2:09PM

I cannot believe anybody who held a White House post could be so astonishingly ignorant to say "Well, it wan't a lynching because...there were too few people. And, uh, they didn't use a rope, yeah, that's it!
After the debacle of the Claude Neal lynching in Marianna, lynchings were no longer mobs, but more like Mob hits, done quickly and quietly under cover of darkness. Such as the 1940 lynching of a white man in Panama City, FL, taken from jail, shot, and left on the edge of town because the jury recommended life in prison for him instead of the electric chair.
Mob lynchings didn't need a rope, Mr. Lord (did you study any history at Franklin & Marshall College?). They also used mass gunfire, burning alive, beating, and in one case in Louisiana, torturing the guy to death with corkscrews. You don't want to know the details.

Ximines | 7.28.10 @ 2:41PM

Wow - this is truly sickening. The American Specator lies down with a dog, and wakes up with fleas.

Doug| 7.28.10 @ 2:58PM

Just in case it hasn't already been pointed out, a mob is "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." And Mr. Lord, you are a weapons-grade idiot.

Tom| 7.28.10 @ 3:21PM

Here's another lynching in American history that I'd momentarily forgotten about that also did not involve the Hollywood image of death by hanging: the Duck Hill lynching of 1937, with a quick summary at the Wikipedia entry. OK, Mr. Lord, how can you argue - or even say out loud - this was not a lynching?

Sadly, there have also been lynchings committed by black people in the same lawless atmosphere of small town America. Usually they involved the same crimes that got white mobs inflamed, such as rape of a child, but they also involved cases where a black con man would cheat a group of black people out of what little money they had.

Now, somebody may get mad at this, but I also regard the 1991 murder of a Rabinnical student in Brooklyn by a group of black men as a lynching. They passed the knife from hand to hand so others could get in a lick, while shouting "Kill the Jew!" Being historically oppressed doesn't make people pure, and bigotry and racism seem to be equal-opportunity sicknesses.

Steve| 7.28.10 @ 7:08PM

Mr. Lord, Mark Levin (who I heard on his show yesterday call Ms. Sherrod a racist) and others are now performing a media lynching of her.

Mark| 7.28.10 @ 11:36PM

Why are we giving this Lord clown so much time?

He is a Jackass. The Jackass has been a part of every disagreement that has occurred in the long and storied history of mankind.

Ignore the Jackass and the Jackass will just disappear.

Feed the Jackass attention and the Jackass will never leave.

Joe McCarthy. Pat Buchanan. Jesse Jackson. Sam Donaldson. Erick Erickson. Mike Barnicle. John Birchers. Tony Kornheiser. Joan Rivers. Regis Philbin. Jackasses one and all. The list is endless.

Ignore 'em.

Mark| 7.28.10 @ 11:40PM

Another thought that should be emphasized.

In my earlier post, I did not wish to demean or criticize the comments of anyone above, regardless of political viewpoint.

I believe that reasoned, fact-based, civil debate is one of the true jewels of our nation and society.

I also believe that we often waste our time and talents debate rather petty or foolish issues and/or the qualifications, or lack thereof, the individual(s) tied to these issues.

We have so many vital issues worthy of serious, intelligent, polite debate. Little Lord Foolishness, however, is not among these issues.

Do have a nice day.