The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Jeff Lord Defends Jeffrey Lord

Rocco| 7.27.10 @ 10:54AM

Man, I read Lord's response and can only think of #10 of The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell, "Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it. "
Colin Powell

Alan Brooks| 7.27.10 @ 1:45PM

"Your pal, Atticus Lord. "

You are no more a Pal to conservatism than Tim Leary was a Pal to Art Linkletter.

David in NY| 7.27.10 @ 3:09PM

Ever notice that when a conservative has lost an argument, s/he tries to pretend its about something else?

Justin| 7.27.10 @ 6:35PM

Ever listen to how a liberal defends abortion? It's not about a childs right to live, if it's really about when life starts... I need not continue, tho this is one example of many.

It's bold of you to try to pin this tactic on conservatives only. Perhaps the only time I've ever described a liberal as bold...

Cytotoxic| 7.27.10 @ 7:26PM

Was this intended to be ironic?

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 10:55AM

Mr. Lord, the federal anti-lynching bill which you cited in support of your claim that Hall wasn't lynched defined a lynching as follows:

"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."

So according to your own source, three people were enough to constitute a lynch mob.

Further, to do something "under color of law" and "with authority of law" are two very different things. Hall was handcuffed. There was no legal justification for his beating.

Hall was deprived of his life by three people acting in concert without authority of law as punishment for a public offense. Under the terms of the law which you yourself declared to be the relevant definition of lynching, Hall was lynched.

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 11:03AM

And just to pre-empt any extended debate about the term "color of law," the FBI defines it this way: "acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority."

If you act in your capacity as a government official, you're acting under color of law, whether your action is lawful or not. The sheriff and deputies who lynched Hall were acting under color of law, but without authority of law.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 11:49AM

Angus...

You are forgetting a key point here. This isn't me saying this. This is the Supreme Court of the United States in May, 1945. Your debating points, in truth I would agree with. But the Court did there thing without me or you. This is a Court decision, not my decision.

Chris Hopkins| 7.27.10 @ 12:19PM

No, it's not. You quoted from the case saying that they acted "under color of law." Angus has explained to you what that means, which is not what you seem to think it means, and now you're arguing as if the Court said something it didn't. Unless you're suggesting that the Court ruled that there is a legal avenue for police to beat unarmed, handcuffed suspects to death, which it did not in this case. You're grasping at straws, sir.

NotSerious| 7.27.10 @ 4:46PM

Whatever! I still fully support Jeff Lord in quest to become Debate Team Captain. He's clearly got a gift for this..

Sean L.| 7.27.10 @ 6:01PM

If by 'this' you mean losing a debate.

Coach| 7.27.10 @ 11:55PM

They boy has gumption, you have to give him that. No style, forethought, afterthought... No thought to speak of, really. But here he is, the whole internet in his face, left right and center telling him he doesn't know his face from a mudpie, and what does he do? Double Down!

GUMPTION. That boy's got it.

delta| 7.28.10 @ 12:20AM

Also, he can't spell "their" properly (see 7/27, 11:49am comment above).

Quartermaster| 7.27.10 @ 6:37PM

I have to deal with matters under "color of law" and Angus' quote of the FBI's position is not the legal definition of "color of law." Angus' position is one of ignorance, as is that of most of those piling on Mr. Lord. It's obvious the conservative movement is dead if this thread is any indication of what passes as conservatism. It's far more like moonbattery.

Ed Muntle| 7.27.10 @ 8:55PM

If you have to deal with matters under "color of law" and have clearly no idea what you're writing about, you should probably give you employer back all of your paychecks. Because you are an idiot.

RobNYNY1957| 7.28.10 @ 10:38AM

Scroll down a bit and have a look at the quotations from the case, and then explain how Angus's position is incorrect. I'm still waiting for someone to find a citation in the case where "color of law" is used in a way that does not indicate abuse of power.

Pablo| 7.28.10 @ 12:32AM

They did act "under color of law", but very likely "without lawful authority". You can do many bad things "under color of law" which only means that you're representing yourself as law enforcement when you're doing them.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 12:37PM

JL, you're wrong and Angus is right. When the Court says that the crime was committed "under color of law," they mean that it is an AGGRAVATING factor, because a cop abused his office.

Michael Chaney| 7.27.10 @ 6:08PM

Put another way, "under color of law" is an adjective. The "noun" is a crime. If a police officer pulls me over for speeding, he's not "acting under color of law"; he's performing his lawful duty. If he subsequently walks up to my car and takes my money and drives off, he's now committed a felony "armed robbery" "under color of law". In other words, he was on duty when he did it.

The poster's example is - and I'm being kind - moronic. When the three deputies killed the man, they were not acting under any "authority". They were not authorized to kill people.

Pablo| 7.28.10 @ 12:35AM

"If a police officer pulls me over for speeding, he's not "acting under color of law"; he's performing his lawful duty."

Of course he is. Acting under color of law is only a problem when you're doing things you're not supposed to be doing. The cop who pulls you over is acting under color of law and with lawful authority.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 12:46PM

Let's quote from the case:

Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 346-347.

"Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law."

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

"The generality of the section, made applicable as it is to deprivations of any constitutional right, does not obscure its meaning or impair its force within the scope of its application, which is restricted, by its terms, to deprivations which are willfully inflicted by those acting under color of any law, statute and the like."

Care to explain?

southpaw| 7.27.10 @ 1:04PM

Blacks law dictionary:

"color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of a legal right. The term usu. implies a misuse of power made possible because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the state."

Maybe explain that too while you're at it . . .

RobNYNY1957@aol.com| 7.27.10 @ 12:53PM

By the way, the term "legal authority" does not appear in the case at all. Care to explain why you put it in quotation marks?

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 1:07PM

Mr. Lord, the Court decision you refer to is silent on the question of whether Hall was lynched, so I'm not sure in what sense you think it supports your position. The relevant legal text here, as you yourself said in your original post, is the Dyer anti-lynching bill. And it says you're wrong.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:19PM

Look, I'd love to think for myself, but 75 years ago, a racist Supreme Court said different. So I'm stuck here. I can't describe something as a lynching if somebody else said it wasn't, no matter how much I agree it was!

You, sir, are a disingenuous fool.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 1:26PM

jfL:
Welcome back. Angus picked up on your good work from yesterday.

Are we experiencing radio silence from Mr. Lord?

The thing I can't figure out is "color of law" is used to show abuse of office in every single instance where I found it. Not once is it used otherwise that I can find. Either Mr. Lord found an example I didn't or he didn't even read the entire sentence when he pounced on the term.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:42PM

A drowning man will grab even the blade of a sword.

That Guy| 7.27.10 @ 11:06PM

Seems not knowing the full definition of things is Jeffrey’s forte. Instead of apologizing for his ignorance of not knowing what lynch means, he further put its ignorance on display by not knowing what “color of law” means. Look up ignorant in the dictionary and I bet a pic of Jeffery Lords will be there.

Max| 7.27.10 @ 11:16PM

Actually, you'll probably just find a definition of ignorant. Which is what Jeffery Lords is.

MoeLarryAndJesus| 7.27.10 @ 1:39PM

I think Jeffrey's just sorry he wasn't there to get a few kicks in at the skull of the egregious lawbreaker Bobby Hall.

So he's doing it here, with words.

What a man!

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 1:57PM

Angus----DOOFUS, read a dictionary, specifically the meaning of LYNCHING!!!!!

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 9:21AM

Read a dictionary, specifically the meaning of 'especially.'

The Democratic Party | 7.27.10 @ 3:38PM

Mr Lord, we'd just like to thank you for being you.

Good job!

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:13AM

Yeah, Demos--you've been doing a bang-up job the last 18 months; hell, give you another and the USA will be no more.

You incompetent corruptocrats screwed the pooch on Afghanistan, befouled the Gulf for decades and put millions of Americans out of work--in only 18 months.
Oh, thanks for draining that swamp, Nanzi; guess Charlie didn't get the message!

We'll thank you in November!!

NutellaonToast| 7.29.10 @ 3:42PM

I know, right? 18 months ago our wars were going so well and now it's all gone to hell, which is like war.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:06PM

Loser Libs can't fight wars--just look at Vietnam. Millions of innocent Vietnamese were slaughtered because of cowardly, gutless Liberals like you.

You suck on the economy and the environment, too.
Incompetent corruptocrats.

Ed Muntle| 7.27.10 @ 8:51PM

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. Law Dictionary Fourth Edition, Steven H. Gifis, p. 86

You are wrong, apologize like a man, and move on to your next lie

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 9:18AM

So you agree that it was a lynching, but because the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can't prosecute individuals for violating the Civil Rights Act because they lynched someone, that it couldn't be a lynching?

Angus Johnston | 7.28.10 @ 9:25AM

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of what the Court ruled. Lord has read their decision almost exactly backwards:

http://studentactivism.net/2010/07/27/screws-v-us/

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 11:48AM

Actually no its not the exact opposite. I was wrong that they were ruling on the Civil Rights Act, though. The majority position was that the federal government couldn't prosecute a lynching (or really any murder) that takes place entirely in one state. It is wrong of Lord to state that this was Judge Black's position, though, as Black believed that it could be prosecuted by the federal government--but that they needed to inform the jury that there needed to be willful intent.

Lord is also 100% wrong, and obviously so, that because the Supreme Court found the prosecution unconstitutional, that they also ruled it was not a lynching. I'm not sure how he reached this conclusion, other than he has no idea what he is talking about, or, like Brietbert, he is simply race-baiting.

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 11:52AM

To put it simply, the court found that lynching was not a federal offense, so the federal government could not prosecute it. Not that the Hall was not lynched, or that the crime was excusable. The law is not always on the side of the just, but we must work to make it so.

Angus Johnston | 7.28.10 @ 12:04PM

You're mistaken. Three justices took the position you describe, but they were outvoted. Seriously, read the case, or my discussion of it. You're mistaken.

daddio| 7.27.10 @ 12:47PM

Well said Angus. Mr Lord, if I may generalize, seems to not have the ability to say oops. I suppose it is a character thing that is so prevalent in the extreme right and possibly isn't due to his ignorance but more likely his upbringing.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 2:48PM

Just to show a little more context, here is the defintion of the crime of "riot" in Georgia. It sets the bar pretty low -- two people.

http://www.lawskills.com/code/.....index.html

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-30 (2009)

§ 16-11-30. Riot

(a) Any two or more persons who shall do an unlawful act of violence or any other act in a violent and tumultuous manner commit the offense of riot.

eli brennan| 7.27.10 @ 7:39PM

Devastating. Sharp, informed, concise. All rational discourse should be so clean and powerful.

youngfarte| 7.27.10 @ 3:32PM

Your definition is not accurate. My stating that is not just in opposition to your view, but it is also correct. The all caps cannot correct that for you. The link appears to be separate and apart from Ms. Sherrod, but if I should think poorly of Mr. Charles and by extension a few more black people or all black people, why don't you just come out and say so. Just so you know, a good number of lynchings involved hangings long after the person was murdered and often mutilated.

You could resolve this, of course, by providing a definition. But my guess is even if you could you and Mr. Lord are trying to say something else about Ms. Sherrod, something more than she made a misstatement and, technically, her father wasn't lynched.

It tells me you'd say anything you could about her, because her story rubs you the wrong way.

So please post another video of a black person saying something hateful, because if there's anything we know is that one black person surely represents them all. I mean that guy had an audience. Have to stop writing now. My Hate Whitey meeting started two mins ago.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:59PM

'A black person saying something hateful'.....DO YOU REALIZE DUMMIE THAT THAT VIDEO OF 'A BLACK PERSON' IS SHIRLEY SHERROD'S........H-U-S-B-A-N-D? It is not another 'black person' but instead one that who is related to her BY MARRIAGE?????????????

worn| 7.27.10 @ 6:34PM

Oldfarte: your ad homenim attacks will have more resonance if, in the course of accusing others of being an imbecile, you yourself don't misspell the term. It sort of makes you look like an, um...

Dag blast it all, the word I'm trying to recall is right there on the tip of my tongue!

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:01PM

Dear WORN, you misspelled your moniker, since you substituted a 'N' for a 'M' by mistake!!!!

LJM| 7.27.10 @ 7:46PM

Yeah, uh...listen, in the spirit of, "Your fly is open..." Oldefarte, you're making a fool of yourself. Misspelling an insult intended to make the listener seem unintelligent is like bragging about your football skills while running like mad into your own end zone. Time to take a break and reassess yourself.

LJM| 7.27.10 @ 7:47PM

Oh, and Mr. Lord, same goes for you. You're making a fool of yourself. Take a break.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:06PM

Forrest Gump's statement [STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES] obviously applies to you, by simply substituting SAYS for DOES. Or should I apply to you and your fellow bleeding heart liberals here the old NAACP advertisement which proclaimed that A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bradley Jardis | 7.28.10 @ 6:28AM

The definition that Mr. Lord uses ITSELF proves him wrong:

"Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority.""

Doesn't "esp." mean especially? Meaning not always but usually?

So "to put (someone) to death" is a lynching.... isn't it? It is just especially a lynching when it is done by hanging with a mob?

Jules Agee| 7.28.10 @ 6:38PM

You're right, but he's so far in denial of his mistake, I don't think you're going to get through to him. He's not splitting hairs anymore, he's practically splitting atoms. Nuclear denial.

Marcus| 7.27.10 @ 11:05AM

I usually don't agree with liberal bloggers, because, well they're liberal. However, how stupid are you? They're correct to point out the Hall's murder was, by definition, a lynching. Mob violence is what lynching is. I can't believe you're actually trying to defend that moronic piece you wrote a few days ago. I suspect you've come to the realization of how stupid you came off and how ridiculous you premise is/was. Mr. Lord, just stop, give up, admit you're wrong, because hardly anyone is going to agree with you. Moron.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 11:51AM

Marcus...

As to Angus. It was not I who said this. It was the Supreme Court. Five liberal Justices, one a lifetime Klan member, defined the concept of under "color of law."

This is not my fact. It's their fact.

Robert A. George | 7.27.10 @ 12:14PM

So, you called Sherrod's story "false" because she didn't use a definition of lynching from a very narrow Supreme Court ruling? Seriously? That's what you're holding onto now>?
Well, Jeff, please direct me to your voluminous writing archive where you chastise all manner of pro-lifers who call abortion murder. I mean, how dare they, right? They must be liars, right because, "hey, the Supreme Court has decided that abortion is a right, so how dare an individual citizen have a definition of a heinous act that is different from what the Supreme Court says? Someone who calls abortion the taking of an innocent life -- even though it's under the color of a medical procedure -- MUST be a liar and extremist, right?"
Pathetic.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 12:24PM

Robert...

Anyone who calls abortion anything other than what the law calls it is doing any number of things, but they are not accurately discussing the law.

But you raise a good point. People who call abortion "murder" are deliberately using inflammatory language to make a political point. You are right. If a Bush appointee at, say, HHS, stood up at a public meeting in a supposedly neutral forum and said "There were X number of murders of innocent babies this last month" - there would quickly be hell to pay. Deservedly so. That would be their highly partisan political opinion. That is not what the law says, however.

So yes, both those who say that and Ms. Sherrod are doing exactly the same thing.

And you are admitting Ms. Sherrod is deliberately using inflammatory language - in her role as a supposedly non-political appointee - to raise racial fears. Over the idea that a bunch of white bigots are fighting a "black President" - her words - on health care.

Hey, no matches and gasoline there. Just a lovely, neutral earnest public servant.

Wow.

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 12:29PM

It is now hard to believe that you are being serious. The very definition that you posted of 'lynching' does not limit it to hanging. That's the definition that YOU posted. How can you be this dumb?

madamab| 7.27.10 @ 2:26PM

Is he dumb, or is he just defending the indefensible with all the word fogging he possibly can?

I pick (b).

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 3:08PM

I actually don't think they are mutually exclusive. I'm not sure you could do (B) so enthusiastically if you weren't (A).

madamab| 7.27.10 @ 5:52PM

You could be right. After all, stupidity and extreme narcissism do sometimes go hand-in-hand.

Bradley Jardis | 7.28.10 @ 6:31AM

Precisely... as I said above:

The definition that Mr. Lord uses ITSELF proves him wrong:

"Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority.""

Doesn't "esp." mean especially? Meaning not always but usually?

So "to put (someone) to death" is a lynching.... isn't it? It is just especially a lynching when it is done by hanging with a mob?

Sincere Liberal | 7.27.10 @ 3:31PM

Mr Lord,

I would like to sincerely thank you for all you're doing here. As liberal and a Democrat, I was getting worried about our chances in the House for 2010. But the racist Tea Party movement -- of which you are now the most public defender -- has given me a great deal of hope. Your violent racism under the guise of grammatical quibbles and 70 year old linguistic details is perhaps the best propaganda tool the Democrats have right now.

Fight on, Mr. Lord!

Kudos, and keep up the good work!

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:17AM

Nah, Sincere, don't worry too much--you a-holes are absolutely screwed in November!!

How's that HOPEY CHANGEY workin' out for you dumbtards now?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Nancy Irving| 7.31.10 @ 4:47AM

"Your violent racism under the guise of grammatical quibbles..."

Don't you mean under the *color* of grammatical quibbles? :)

Bill Kossler| 7.27.10 @ 4:15PM

The court case does not say what you claim. The definition of lynching that you yourself cited contradicts you. What does it say about you and your personal character that you lie over and over again to smear a black woman, denigrating and belittling the lynching of her relative, Mr. Lord?

Marcus| 7.27.10 @ 12:16PM

Mr. Lord you really are beating a dead horse here, no you're just banging your head against a wall. The case you're citing was a racist decision by a court with as you point out, racist justices. It's a self defeating argument on your part. You've essentially refuted your own point.

It should be telling that people of all ideologies are coming out to condemn your bizarre smear. Like I said earlier, your argument is so absurd it's leading me to believe that you're intellectually deficient.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:21PM

Five racist Supreme Court justices said so, so it must be true? What kind of B.S. argument is that?

By agreeing with their opinion, you have made it yours.

Tony| 7.27.10 @ 8:04PM

God bless you, joe. You're doing God's work.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 1:32PM

I don't disagree with JL because he's conservative. In fact, I don't see much disagreement with him in this thread for that reason.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:02PM

Marcus, GROW A BRAIN! Police brutality [ie beating a handcuffed person to death] occurs numerous times each and every day. Since your extension of mob violence to lynching, do you also consider the mob violence of Watts, Harlem, LA, etc during the 1960's by subhuman minorities protesting in the streets to also be LYNCHINGS???????????????????????????

padraig| 7.27.10 @ 2:17PM

Oldefart:

Actually, no - rioters do not act under color of law. So therefore it's not lyching - it's rioting/murder/etc. Also, wow, "Subhuman minorities?" Seriously? And conservatives wonder why they have such a problem attracting minority voters. I understand Hitler had a similar problem with the Jewish vote...

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:20PM

It must be awful to be STUPID and not be able to comprehend the reasoning of another. Dumbars, I was saying that the RIOTS were not LYNCHINGS, since some of the bleeding heart liberals here [along with Shirley Sherrod's speech to her NAACP audience] are incorrectly extrapolating the MURDER of her relative [Hall] to be a LYNCHING. You morons slander everyone who disagrees with your idiocy a RACIST, GENTRIFIER, DISCRIMINATOR, DISENFRANCHISOR [or other one word label], but FACTS and TRUTH have to be told in description of this/any event. Hall was MURDERED, not LYNCHED! Oh, and the rioting mobs of the 1960's were subhumans, since they destroyed property belonging to others and harmed/injured other human beings in their selfish acts of street violence over being denied their RIGHTS and conveniently ignored their corresponding RESPONSIBILITIES toward society in general. Non-sub human beings act responsible and do not cause violence towards others!!!!

Dominion| 7.27.10 @ 4:13PM

Thank you oldefarte, for so clearly stating what most of us assumed you were thinking anyway.

Subhuman indeed.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:25PM

If you ever get intellectually curious and want to discover true 'subhumans', check out the jails/prisons in your state/area [oh wait, I'm being a RACIST, DISCRIMINATOR, GENTRIFYOR, DISENFRANCHISOR,etc, right????????

NutellaonToast| 7.29.10 @ 3:50PM

And - as this incident proves - police are never racist and so there is no chance that minorities are jailed disproportionately for any reason other than them being subhuman.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:10PM

Prove your charge, moron.

TheDivah| 7.29.10 @ 6:51PM

What about the mostly white folks that tear up chicago when the bulls win?
What about when white riot when their football team win?
Oh. right, these are riots, these are melee's.
And therefore they are subhuman.
What about the mobs of white who firebombed churches and synagogues?

Oh yeah, they can't be subhuman because at the time blacks and jews were thought to be less than human.

Oldfarte, you have a right to your opinion, but it really pains me that in 2010 there are still people who will look at the color of my skin and dismiss me as subhuman trash.
I am so sorry that you are angry because a minority took your job. Or a black kid beat yo up in the 2nd grade. But what I've learned as a black woman in america is that you have to move on and not let it take over your life. I have been wronged but white people so many times on so many levels that if I took on your world view, I'd have to stay inside. I don't blame white people for every wrong I've received. I blame the person and that person just happened to be white.
You spew this stuff with such venom!
You know if you came to my middle class home in my mixed suburban neighboorhood and just fellowshiped with us ( I don't mean fellowship in the religious sense) you would see that we are smart and capable. We are productive members of society. And even though it SHOCKED bill O'Reilly (where's my tea MF'er!) we do know how to act civilized in public. And as the great Philosopher George Clinton once opined: Free your mind and your a$$ will follow" he also said two tears in a bucket - F%^k it. Either statement will do in this case, I think :)

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 11:11AM

You're embarrassing yourself. Just admit it was a stupid thing to write, and move on. Or, you know, just keep digging like you're doing. It's hard to believe you could be this dumb.

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 2:38PM

No, you're dumb. What in the world does this have to do with Lord being dumb? How, in any way, does this change Lord's warped logic about lynching? Keep grasping at straws, moron.

evilogreenpastry| 7.27.10 @ 8:13PM

how many times are you going to post that same link? Please, stray a little further from the preapproved talking points. We need some variety

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 11:13AM

Also, do you honestly think it's clever to call Radley Balko 'Boo?'

Steve| 7.27.10 @ 11:13AM

So you're using an offensive Supreme Court decision, handed down by at least one justice that you admit was a racist, that let three other racists get away with a blatant murder to justify calling a black woman a racist 60 years later? Bravo.

you have a point| 7.27.10 @ 3:41PM

After watching videos on youtube, it is now perfectly clear that a mob murder led by a cop isn't actually a lynching. I mean, it's youtube, right? So... case closed!

evilgreenpastry| 7.27.10 @ 8:14PM

again??

macheath| 7.27.10 @ 11:16AM

It is surreal to even have to argue this point, but the US Legal website says:

"A lynching is a killing by a mob of people."

Why, oh why are you such a divisive, hateful person? You and your ilk are ruining our country beyond repair. Stop this hate mongering.

A Hermit| 7.27.10 @ 4:18PM

Are you kidding?

Lord wrote a stupid article, and continues to dig himself deeper with this stupid defense. Pouring more stupidity on the fire with another out of context video, non-sequitur video clip really clinches the argument...

If you and Mr. Lord are deliberately setting out to prove that conservatives a unthinking racist morons you're doing a fine job. Keep up the excellent work.

RR Mikey| 7.27.10 @ 11:22AM

Honestly - have you no shame? Are you even thinking about what you're writing? Macheath is correct. Are you willing to sacrifice civility and destroy what we have here in the US. Its getting to be out of control. Someone needs to say stop. STOP!!!

Gavin| 7.27.10 @ 11:27AM

Remember in Tin Cup? When Kevin Costner's character kept stubbornly hitting his ball in the water again and again and again?

This is like that. Except that was fiction and this ain't.

Mr. Lord, please, STFU

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:08PM

Gavin, call CHARLES......

Bob K.| 7.27.10 @ 11:28AM

I posted this in Klein's earlier blog and I am going to repost it here at the beginning of this blog.

David Pryce-Jones got it right yesterday in his National Review Online blog at 4:23 PM entitled "Unpacking Kafka."

"Kafka's great theme is that everyone feels guilt without ever being able quite to find out why. Nobody before him had taken the measure of our times like that, but he has been proved right as Totalianarisms, Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Positive Discrimination, The Culture of Apology and Compensation and all the rest of it tie us up in tangles of guilt about things for which we are not responsible-and in such a way that struggling to get free of guilt only makes it worse."

I believe that most of Mr. Lord's critics here in fall into that category. Except for the obvious ones who are whipping them along in their frenzy to complete the gadarene rush of our federal republic, with it's freedoms, over the cliff into oblivion. You can identify those people by their squeals. Articles like Mr. Lord's put their vested interests at risk! Like Kafka's interrogators they feel no guilt, nor do they feel any shame!

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 11:33AM

Does the fact that at least 95% of people out there disagree with Mr. Lord change the way you feel? Does being factually accurate matter at all to you? Do you really think that quote you posted is so good that you are going around to multiple blogs posting it? Does the fact that even conservatives think that Lord is way off here change the way you think?

Ignatius| 7.27.10 @ 11:34AM

You just mentioned Kafka, therefore your argument is invalid.

Bob K.| 7.27.10 @ 12:03PM

Bulgy and Ignatz,
You have lost. Regroup; find another way to attack the right. Even Senator Jim Webb is running away from this racial, ethnic,cultural and gender craziness. See his essay in the Wall Street Journal friday past. Although he would continue to give special privilege to Afro-Americans of slave heritage, probably because he needs their votes in his next run for the senate. But we are now 6 generations removed from the Civil War and even that privilege is over due to be ended.

As so Bulgy and Ignatz and everyone else like you:

"Oink on, Oink on, we feel your pain,
Oink on, Oink on, 'tis all in vain!
You hurl your Oinks into the wind
And the wind hurls them back again!"

Apologies to William Blake.

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 12:11PM

Even Lord's fellow writers at AmSpec are calling him out. You sound like a fool.

Nitpicker| 7.27.10 @ 12:19PM

And he used National Review Online as a source of support so, um, invalid times two.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:25PM

You can't argue the case, so you're spewing some BS about what kinds of people the critics are.

I trust that, had you any sort of argument about the definition of lynching which supported the side you've chose, you would have made it.

But you didn't, and your silence speaks volumes.

A. Crodan| 7.28.10 @ 11:59AM

"find another way to attack the right."

The right, as in our Lord, Mr. Bright Bart, and Mr. Bob (you forgot the last two K's) K are doing a darn good job of discrediting themselves.

Sits back. Waits for more inane defenses of the indefensible.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:20AM

Breitbart was right, idiot--Sherrod is a racist and so is her husband. get out of your moronic liberal echo-chamber for once and do a little research.

LJM| 7.27.10 @ 7:55PM

No one is attacking the right. In fact, some here are defending the right from people like Lord and you, who are so egotistical, so devoted to loyalty over honesty and intellect, that you can't admit that 2+2=4, simply because it pleases some people on the left. It's rather pathetic.

Dave| 7.27.10 @ 3:42PM

Oh, what pseudointellectual and completely erroneous crap. Read something more appropriate for someone of your species, like Family Circle, Mein Kampf, or Better House Keeping. POS.

Dave | 7.27.10 @ 3:48PM

That is not a good description of Kafka's thematic material. I have read all of Kafka in the original German, and I can assure you that you and the author of the silly article you quote are far out of your depth. You could drown with a little brain like that! You can't copy and paste your way to greatness unless you have some material that contains at least one grain of greatness, to say nothing of truth.

ex| 7.27.10 @ 11:34AM

Mr. Lords rebuttal is as weak as his initial argument. He gives three arguments based on the definition he supplies and each of his arguments are pathetically weak. The definition that he supplies of lynching says esp. by hanging. Especially implies other means and does not preclude beatings. By Mr. Lords definition Emitt Till was not lynched. Next Mr. Lords says that there was not enough people to constitute a mob, conveniently ignoring Mr. Balko citation of the Dwyer anti lynching bill that defined a mob as three or more people. His last argument is that Sheriff Straw and his two accomplices acted under color of law so therefore had legal authority. Just because they had legal authority to arrest and subdue Mr. Hall did not give them legal authority to kick and beat him with an 8 inch 2 lbs black jack for 15 minutes resulting in his death.
Mr Lord's comparing himself to Atticus Finch is as misguided as his rebuttal is weak. Atticus Finch defended a black suspect from the lynch mob. He did not minimize the mobs action nor did he attack the victim's relatives.
The whole premise or the initial article was wrongheaded. Why imply Ms Sherrod is a liar because she did not use an extremely narrow debatable definition of lynching. The point is Mr. Hall was a victim of Jim Crow racism not whether he was hung in front of the courthouse or beaten to death in front of it.

youTube is Truth | 7.27.10 @ 3:43PM

EVERYTHING on YouTube is TRUE

Bill Kossler| 7.27.10 @ 4:23PM

I love how this typical mainstream Republican "Olde Fart" keeps posting the same Youtube video as though it somehow was relevant. Hey, any black person can be substituted for any other. After all, as mainstream Republican Oldefart said, they are "subhuman minorities."

Is that the official GOP position oldefart - that "minorities" are "subhuman?" - or is it just the unofficial position of the Republican Party?

ex| 7.27.10 @ 9:53PM

The relative that Mr Lord was not attacking was not Ms. Sherrod's husband but Ms. Sherrod. Your video is irrelevant to Mr. Lord accusing Ms. Sherrod of being a liar.
Instead of trying to rebut my argument with an intelligent well-reasoned argument, you resort to name calling and posting a link to an irrelevant video. A dummie is not just a person you disagree with, it is a person who lacks intelligence. I will leave it up to the readers of these comments to decide which one of us is the dummy. Clearly one of us is not too bright.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:22AM

Considering you have trouble deciding how to spell "dummy" I'm betting on you, moron.

esther| 7.27.10 @ 5:53PM

Have you know sense of irony. Lord attacks Sharrod, calling her a liar. Yet look who is lying. Its Sharrod. Sharrod never wrote an article about Lord, mentioned him, did anything to Lord. Lord out of the blue, writes an article wrongly calling Ms Sharrod a liar.

If you're going to write an article based on the premise that someone is lying you should do a little fact checking or else you end up looking like a horse's ass.

Now that he's made a fool of himself he should mitigate it by apologizing instead of digging himself in deeper.

The definition of lynching is not a matter of opinion. Its a matter of fact. The man in question was lynched no matter what any court said. That is like saying if someone kills somebody but is found not guilty they didn't really do it.

Would you agree that before the supreme court decided otherwise that black americans were really only 2/3rds of a human?

Art| 7.27.10 @ 11:36AM

Have you lost leave of your senses? Whether you intend it or not, you are coming across as an incredibly callous, insensitive monster. I would suggest spending a few days away from the computer, and rethinking your position.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 1:04PM

Art...

I find it curious that criticizing a racist Supreme Court decision has me coming across as an incredibly callous monster. So you support the decision? I'm confused.

xian | 7.27.10 @ 2:27PM

Do you really find it curious? Because it rings false, thus playing dumb act of yours.

To be fair, after putting your foot so wrong in the first place (we're talking Mark Williams wrong), acting stupid may be your best tactic. Keep digging.

Will | 7.27.10 @ 4:37PM

"I find it curious that criticizing a racist Supreme Court decision has me coming across as an incredibly callous monster. So you support the decision? I'm confused. "

Quit playing these games. You weren't criticizing the decision. You EMBRACED it.

"I have read the Court's decision. 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. "

Either agree with the court's reasoning or don't, but don't keep hopping back and forth depending on what your latest critic is pinning you down on. You already made your bed, Lord. Now be a man, and lie in it.

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 5:58PM

There seems to be only one person here who is using the court's decision as evidence to call Balko "wrong" and Sherrod a "liar".

Jeff Fecke | 7.27.10 @ 2:50PM

We get it. You're a spammer. Go do something useful with your life.

Alli| 7.27.10 @ 11:43AM

So he wasn't hung from a tree, he was beaten to death? Is this the argument? I'd like you to go on tv and call Ms. Sherrod a liar because the guy was beaten to death not hung from a tree. You're an idiot.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 1:54PM

Alli...

No Alli, the Supreme Court said this. Not me.

Do we get the difference here?

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 1:59PM

The Supreme Court did not address the question of whether Hall was lynched. You called the claim that he was lynched "false," but there's no support for that characterization in the opinion you cite.

Ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 4:58PM

Angus, crickets seem to follow you wherever you write. Could it be that Lord, despite his many skilled (unskilled?) attempts to twist and misread the words of others, he has no defense against your simple logic?
Keep up the good work.

xian | 7.28.10 @ 3:45PM

It's almost as if the current generation of racism-rationalizing sophistry has reached such a watered-down weak-sauce limit that it's become entirely transparent to everyone except the nth-generation of sophists, who don't seem to realize that they have lost the plot entirely.

esther clark| 7.27.10 @ 5:57PM

The supreme court also said that black men were 2/3rds of an american. did you agree with that.

What the supreme court says or didn't say does not change the facts of the matter. We're not talking about opinions, we're talking about facts.

A man was beaten to death on the steps by 3 men who had him handcuffed. He was killed without a trial. That is a lynching. I don't care what 9 justices say.

Are you unable to think for yourself. Do you think OJ Simpson didn't kill Nicole and Ron because the jury said he didn't? Do you think they're still alive or something?

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 6:03PM

Then care to explain what you meant by this:

"And the three had "legal authority." So my new friend Radley "Boo" Balko over at Reason pounced…and got it wrong instantly. "

Are you not using the court's decision to label another writer "wrong"? Or were you claiming the whole time that, since you think the court was wrong, Balko was actually right in arguing couter to the court's ruling?
(leaving aside the fact that the police never had "legal authority", and the court never claimed as much).
You're a headache, Lord.

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 7:08PM

But YOU are the one calling Sherrod a liar.

Outraged| 7.28.10 @ 1:19AM

The 1945 Supreme Court is authoring callous, racist screeds on this website and signing your name to them?? I've heard some nefarious time travel schemes, but that is just cold.

Jeffery, I sure hope they catch those time traveling Supreme Court guys who have besmirched your good name!

Julie| 7.29.10 @ 2:25AM

Don't expect truth to get in the way of Liberals' OCD, Jeff.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:24AM

---hanged-- from a tree.

james wilson| 7.27.10 @ 11:47AM

The term "lynching" cannot simply be redefined by any agency of the federal government, except for its own peculiar uses. A lynching is the murder of it's victim, always by hanging, and usually witnessed by several people if not more, but one will do as far as the victim is concerned.

If the victim is burned to death by several people, that is not a lynching. A beheading is not a lynching. Daniel Pearl was not lynched.

A lynching is a lynching. Is the murder of a defenseless man by agents of the law not descriptive enough for some people? We always weaken what we exaggerate.

Wayne| 7.27.10 @ 11:57AM

James, seriously? *facepalm*

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 12:08PM

Simply put, you are factually wrong. Simply saying something doesn't make it so. You are ignorant about the history of 'lynching' in this country if you believe that it can only be done by hanging.

Nitpicker| 7.27.10 @ 12:36PM

These are the same people who thought it was a stroke of genius for Clarence Thomas to call being asked questions a "high-tech lynching."

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 2:44PM

Did someone put you up to this? Did Lord do it so he only sounded like the 2nd dumbest person around here?

Nitpicker| 7.31.10 @ 2:29AM

Were you to pay close attention, you would note that I'm agreeing with you.

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 9:56PM

C'mon, Oldefarte, admit it: you're a far left liberal agent provocateur, sent here to make republicans look like a bunch of racist, reactionary morons.

Confession is good for the soul. You should try it!

Jamie| 7.29.10 @ 3:41AM

Lookin' in the "RACIST" mirror again, Nicole?

ex| 7.27.10 @ 12:19PM

Lynching has a very strong association with extrajudicial execution tolerated by if not sanctioned by the white community, usually of black men in the American South during the 19th and 20th centuries. What on earth does Daniel Pearl's murder have to do with the issue? Lynching is not merely another form of killing without a political and societal component. Lynchings were tolerated if not sanctioned by the larger white society in the American south. Lynchings in the American south took place with the acquiescence and cooperation of the local legal authorities. It is disingenous to ignore this context and pretend lynching is just a hanging. By that definition David Carradine was lynched. It is not an exaggeration to say that Mr. Hall was lynched. In neither the legal nor the vernacular sense is lynching defined as to only be by hanging.
This insistence on semantic is bizzare

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:21PM

Carradine HUNG himself----he was not LYNCHED, moron!!!!!!!!!!

Dragon| 7.27.10 @ 2:57PM

It's hanged not hung you luddite.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:14PM

Hung---v,pt & pp OF HANG. You're a GD MORON!

Diane| 7.27.10 @ 3:26PM

And if you'd actually read the whole paragraph, you'd see that ex makes no claim to the contrary. Moron.

ex| 7.28.10 @ 12:17PM

Is calling me "dummie" and "moron" the best you can do? Does adding a lot of exclamation points substitute for foaming at the mouth when you write?
You are a very funny person. Try if you can to write a rebuttal. Lots of punctuation does not count. Use your words.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:29PM

No, not even close. Emmitt Till was lynched.

Google "James Byrd lynched" and you will get 106,000 hits.

Google "Emmitt Till lunched) and you will get 36,000 hits.

Songe D' Automne| 7.27.10 @ 3:54PM

So the burning to death of seventeen-year-old Jesse Washington in Waco, Texas in 1916 before a crowd of thousands of white specators was not a lynching??? Golly gee and to think that's what all the newspapers and everybody called it at the time and ever since. Who knew the people who burned him to death had no damned idea what a lynching *really* was?

But hey, who ya gonna believe, a "dumbars" with a You-Tube link, another "dumbars" who quotes online dictionaries and disingenuously and inaccurately quotes Supreme Court decisions, or the actual facts and hundreds of works of scholarship on this topic?

Hmmmm, let me guess, let me guess...

MMonides| 7.27.10 @ 11:50AM

Well, at least you're a consistently ignorant racist. Good on you! And thanks for making yourself the face of conservative thinking on race issues!

Robert A. George | 7.27.10 @ 12:01PM

Mr. Lord, as the saying goes: When in a hole, stop digging. Just because a police officer (or officers) act "under color of law" does not mean that every action that they do, is therefore legal. The sheriff's deputies might have had a "legal authority" to arrest Bobby Hall "under color of law." They didn't have the legal authority to BEAT HIM TO DEATH. That's what made their actions extrajudicial -- and therefore qualifies as a lynching. To mete out a LEGAL punishment that ended in a man's death would require the "legal authority" of indictment, trial and sentencing. Those Georgia deputies illegally asserted all those rights to themselves.
I'm simply stunned that the American Spectator attaches its name to this repugnant specious reasoning.

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 1:07PM

Robert...

Hello? Hello? This is not my view. It's the Court! In 1945. It's a terrible decision. Which is, of course, why I am so disturbed at the whole thing. I agree with you! Go talk to the grave of Hugo Black! Or Justices Douglas, Stone, Reed and Rutledge. It's their baby.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:31PM

YOU CITED THE COURT! You used the court's statement as evidence for your claim. You claimed that the victim was not lynched, AND THEN CITED THE SUPREME COURT'S STATEMENT TO BACK YOUR CLAIM UP.

It most certainly is your view. You adopted the baby, sorry.

Society Made Me Do it| 7.27.10 @ 3:49PM

Jeffery,

Your argument is that the MAN made you do this?

That. Is. Awesome!

Will | 7.27.10 @ 4:41PM

"This is not my view. It's the Court! In 1945. It's a terrible decision. Which is, of course, why I am so disturbed at the whole thing. I agree with you! Go talk to the grave of Hugo Black! Or Justices Douglas, Stone, Reed and Rutledge. It's their baby."

Now you're just lying. You defended your definition of lynching using the court's reasoning. Therefore, you AGREED with the court's reasoning. You weren't "disturbed" by it at all. You never called it a "terrible decision". You are just lying and playing word games, over and over again. By embracing the decision, now it's your "baby", you fool.

TheDiva| 7.27.10 @ 6:11PM

Dear Mr. Lord, I understand clearly that the court made the decision. But your article was not a condemnation on stupid court decisions. Were that the case, I could understand why you would react this way "Hey don't shoot the messenger!'

Your article was an attack on Shirley and used the Supreme Court decision to back you up. A decision that most reasonable people acknowledges was wrong.

As a black woman, I HATE the N-Word. I wish *we* didn't use it, but you don't get to call me an N-word then say "hey! I heard her brother say it to her. Go yell at him!"

You don't get to rob a bank and use the defense "DB Cooper did it! Go blame him! If he hadn't done it, I wouldn't have!"

Mr. Lord, you are not a child. You know wrong from right. You have to take responsibility for what you have said. You called Ms. Sherrod a liar and you did so based on a bad law.

And I guarantee you, if 3 black police officers dragged you out in front of the court house and beat you to death, your family would not want to dicker over whether you were lynched or murdered in the eyes of the law.

RSDavis | 7.27.10 @ 7:58PM

Wow. Do you spend all your time arguing on internet forums? Because you're style is reminiscent.

Ben| 7.27.10 @ 12:02PM

I thought the last post by Mr. Lord was stupid, but this one has it beat.

I have read the Court's decision. 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.
Buy a Black's Law Dictionary. "Color of law" doesn't mean the lynchers of Bobby Hall "had legal authority." It means that they held themselves out as having legal authority when in fact they did not. This is really pretty basic stuff.

southpaw| 7.27.10 @ 12:45PM

I own a Black's dictionary, so I'll spare you the expense:

"color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of a legal right. The term usu. implies a misuse of power made possible because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the state."

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 1:09PM

Ben...

Seriously.

This is not my Court decision. I didn't say "under color of law"...five Justices said it. Five. By name, Douglas, Black, Reed. Stone and Rutledge.

I am repeatedly stunned at the notion I have singled this out as alousy, racist law makes me responsible for it.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:33PM

YOU cited the decision as evidence for YOUR argument that the murder was not a lynching. Nobody forced you to do that. You looked up the case, and quoted the justices, using their reasoning as proof of your own point.

Don't be a worm, Mr. Lord. Either admit that you were wrong, or stand up for YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:24PM

A lynching is an illegal hanging; Hall was murdered by police!!!!!!!!

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 2:35PM

Police can't do anything illegal?

A police officer in San Francisco was just convicted for shooting someone on a subway platform.

Uh, !!!

southpaw| 7.27.10 @ 2:33PM

You cannot be serious.

You said in this very post: "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."

You also said: "So when Ms. Sherrod uses the highly inflammatory word "lynching" -- when it is quite specifically not so because of the above reasons -- what is she doing? Why is she doing it? She was factually wrong. She was legally wrong. She did it anyway."

These are your clearly expressed views: Shirley Sherrod was "factually," "legally" and "quite specifically" wrong to use the "highly inflammatory" word lynching to describe the fatal beating of a man on the courthouse steps.

Own the views or retract them.

revision| 7.27.10 @ 3:55PM

"I have singled this out as alousy, racist law "

Sooo... now you're defending Sherrod by attacking the failure to enforce anti-lynching? And by attacking Sherrod as a liar, you were arguing that lynching SHOULD be more broadly defined?

Is that really what you're saying now?

Ben| 7.27.10 @ 4:49PM

Jeff-- Yes, of course, the Court used the phrase "color of law." They also explained what they meant (which is pretty much entirely not what you imply):

" It is clear that under ‘color’ of law means under ‘pretense’ of law. Thus acts of officers in the ambit of their personal pursuits are plainly excluded. Acts of officers who undertake to perform their official duties are included whether they hew to the line of their authority or overstep it. If, as suggested, the statute was designed to embrace only action which the State in fact authorized, the words ‘under color of any law’ were hardly apt words to express the idea."

The whole point of the Court's reversal of the case and remand for a new trial was so that proper instructions regarding "color of any law" could be given to the jury. It's ironic that you're misreading the opinion in order to make some bizarre point about Justice Black who, I must point out, was really one of the authors of the incorporation doctrine which extended so many of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution to the States. See his dissent in Adamson v. California.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 5:34PM

"This is not my Court decision. I didn't say "under color of law"...five Justices said it."

The problem, as has been pointed out to you dozens of times, is that you are using the phrase "color of law" incorrectly.

a. mcewen | 7.27.10 @ 12:03PM

Just let this thing die Mr. Lord. The more you talk, the deeper the hole you are digging for yourself.

Democratic Party | 7.27.10 @ 3:56PM

Mr. Lord, do NOT listen to the naysayers!

Fight On, my good man!!!

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:27AM

You're still screwed in November, loser.

Joe V.| 7.27.10 @ 12:12PM

I'm beginning to think this "Jeffrey Lord" fellow is a secret liberal planted by JournoList and Shirley Sherrod to embarrass the conservative movement. (See also: 96% of conservatives.)

mantis| 7.27.10 @ 12:50PM

Yeah, yeah. Every stupid/racist/cheating/criminal/etc. conservative is really a secret liberal plant. Quite a massive conspiracy. Those liberals are amazingly coordinated and very good at hiding their enormous secret conspiracy to make conservatives look bad.

Of course, that would mean there are about three actual conservatives in the entire country, but whatever.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 4:26PM

I sure told that Old Spice guy a thing or two...

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:19PM

I DID NOT write the above comment concerning Old Spice, and would like the ASHHOLE thief that's using my moniker illegally to use the few brain cells in his own head to comment under his own user name [instead of mine]!!!!

Ben| 7.27.10 @ 12:13PM

If it's not obvious, the second paragraph in my 12:02 PM post was intended to be a blockquote of Mr. Lord's piece. I'm not capable of writing anything that inane.

flounder| 7.27.10 @ 12:17PM

" So when Ms. Sherrod uses the highly inflammatory word "lynching" -- when it is quite specifically not so because of the above reasons -- what is she doing? Why is she doing it? She was factually wrong. She was legally wrong. She did it anyway. "
-
Steve at no more mister nice blog went through the pages of the American Spectator and found examples of the use of the word "lynch" among the writers at AmSpec, and if you were to create a definition based on usage here, you might think the word means a Republican (old grumpy guy) gets mildly criticized. Wonder what Lord thinks about his colleagues and their usage of the word "lynch".
Source: http://is.gd/dMuvR

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 1:07PM

That Steve is a very smart fellow.

AndyG| 7.27.10 @ 12:23PM

Let it drop.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

a different phil| 7.27.10 @ 12:24PM

I used to think there was a bottom to the depths that Republicans would sink to in order to divert attention away from their racist proclivities. I see now that I was mistaken.

Bruce Berger| 7.27.10 @ 1:50PM

ADP,

Listen, I totally disagree with Lord's premise and argument. But I am also a Republican and decidedly not a racist. So don't accuse people of racism unless you know them personally and can verify your charge. It isn't good form. It's ugly.

Julie| 7.29.10 @ 2:30AM

It's all the Lib morons have, Bruce; they can't argue on the merits because their ideology stinks.

TooManyJens| 7.27.10 @ 12:31PM

I can't believe you're working this hard to show off your willful ignorance.

Why in the HELL do you think you know more about lynching, and about what that word means in the African-American community, than Shirley Sherrod does? No, really, why?

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 1:14PM

TooManyJens....

"Why in the HELL do you think you know more about lynching, and about what that word means in the African-American community, than Shirley Sherrod does? No, really, why?"

Um...TMJ? I didn't write the opinion. The Court did. They're dead now, so asking would be tough. My guess? Let me take a flyer: they didn't care what she or any other black leader in 1945 thought? Just a wild guess.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 1:28PM

Mr. Lord,

The decision you cited in your idiotic column yesterday at no point defines (or even mentions) lyching. How does this prove that Mrs. Sherrod was lying by refering to the lynching of her relative as a lynching? For what it's worth, the decision doesn't define (or mention) mob action either.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:35PM

You cited that opinion, and offered it as proof that your definition of lynching is right, and that the victim was not lynched.

It is not merely some old opinion you criticized - it is an opinion you offered as evidence for your argument.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 1:39PM

What's worse is that the case he cited as proof of his incorrect definition has nothing to do with the legal definition of lynching, which is why the court doesn't discuss the definition of lynching in the case.

TooManyJens| 7.27.10 @ 1:41PM

Don't put this off on the Supreme Court. You're the one saying that Shirley Sherrod is lying about her relative having been lynched. You're the one who apparently thinks this one Supreme Court decision is the definitive standard of what 'lynching' means. That's your choice. There's a reason you're making that choice.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 1:50PM

Again, the Supreme Court didn't say anything about lynching in the decision Mr. Lord cited. He's being disengenuous.

TooManyJens| 7.27.10 @ 2:04PM

Well, there's a surprise.

esther clark| 7.27.10 @ 6:01PM

So you think the decision was wrong but you think Ms Sharrod should accept it? Its wrong of her to call it a lynching even though you think its a heinous decision????

fourlegsgood| 7.27.10 @ 12:33PM

Mr. Lord, just wondering if you can see the stars yet in that very deep hole you are digging?

I'd like to point out that you kind of sound like an idiot.

Ted the Slacker| 7.27.10 @ 12:36PM

Shorter Jeff Lord:

The fact is, Shirley Sherrod used the term "lynching" incorrectly as per the definition laid down by a SCOTUS decision joined by a KKK member. Wake up, people!

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 1:44PM

Wrong. Read the decision. It doesn't mention lynching.

Ted the Slacker| 7.27.10 @ 2:00PM

Sorry if the parody wasn't obvious enough.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 2:09PM

Have you seen some of the other comments here? Sorry I missed that.

Ted the Slacker| 7.27.10 @ 2:19PM

Yep, no worries, there's some pretty hardcore lunacy on show.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:02PM

True, all the dirtbags from HuffPo and DU are stinkin' up the joint!

Eric Cartman| 7.27.10 @ 12:43PM

TO: Jeffery Lord
RE: The Sherrod column

Dude - quit pissing up a rope.

Mike Schilling| 7.27.10 @ 12:43PM

-- I have a retraction for…how does one say…being
-- "shameless" and "ignorant"

Presumably, first you'd have to stop being those things.

Tracy| 7.27.10 @ 12:46PM

"This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth."

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 12:57PM

I must have missed where Hugo Black WASN'T a KKK member, where Senator Russell WASN'T a disgusting bigot, and where the Democrats DIDN'T honor both.

Mr. Lord is quite right that the Democrat Party is the party of racism---and always has been.

The rush by some of you to sanctify Shirley Sherrod is indicative that you've lost the thread. She did just accuse of Andrew Breitbart of wanting to bring back slavery---which was the aim of the Democrat Party to which she remains loyal for many, many decades---because he ran a video of her speaking in public. Some conservatives, having gotten the vapors because the NAACP cried "context", now think a circular firing squad is called for.

It's pretty funny watching people who claim to hate political correctness racing to be more p.c. than thou, though.

Why not save some harsh words for the people who actually celebrate Klansmen and name public buildings after them?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 1:16PM

And for those hellbent on missing the point, one big clue as to what Lord was trying to say is at the end of the piece:

"Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Bobby Hall and then overturned his conviction.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Shirley Sherrod's father in 1965.

And Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who went out of their way to honor Hugo Black and Richard Russell with a Supreme Court nomination and the naming of a Senate Office Building.

We know who did these things. And when Shirley Sherrod finally gets a minute's peace -- so should she."

Hint: the answer is DEMOC_ATS. The same party Shirley Sherrod belongs to and serves today. The same party stuffed to the brim with the proteges of the very men who did such injustice to her family.

If you were in her shoes, would you have joined the Democrat Party, much less devoted your life to it?

Rufus T. Firefly| 7.27.10 @ 1:40PM

If that was the point, then what's all this other nonsense about what is and isn't lynching?

And if you didn't notice, the parties realigned many years ago. The unrepentant racists moved to the GOP (Thurmond, Helms et al).

Yes, Robert Byrd remained a Democrat, but he did repent for his earlier racism and made amends by doing the right thing. Just like Shirely Sherrod did.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 1:55PM

You are completely full of it.

The parties didn't realign; the states did, due primarily to shifting population demographics as people fled the Rust Belt for the Sun Belt.

Robert Byrd wasn't the only racist Democrat, either. Helms wasn't a racist and Thurmond repented a lot more than Byrd did. You might want to look up his personal history.

Byrd was still dropping N-bombs into the 21st century.

Shirley Sherrod is a racist who compounded her bigotry by slandering Breitbart.

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 2:06PM

Not sure what point you think you're making here about racist Democrats, but Jesse Helms switched to the GOP in 1970. Thurmond made the switch in 1964.

The Democrats Lord is referring to abandoned their party in droves at the time of the civil rights movement, landing en masse in the Republican party by the 1970s and providing the white Southern base for the GOP's political dominance in the late 20th century.

Helms and Thurmond exemplify that phenomenon.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 2:14PM

Name them and the years they switched.

xian | 7.27.10 @ 2:32PM

Shelby in Alabama was one of the most recent Dixiecrats to make the switch. Learn some history before mouthing off. Beck and Limbaugh don't count.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:35AM

Sorry, Libs--you're the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy and Sedition.

Some things never change.

We understand that you're deeply ashamed of the way you treated Black Americans--good thing we had good old Republican Abe Lincoln to free Black American slaves from your bondage!!

Don Joe| 7.27.10 @ 1:59PM

He also failed to mention Hugo Black's pivotal role in laying out the legal foundation, under the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, for the subsequent civil rights legislation for which Mr. Teflon wants to credit the Republican Party.

'Course, Mr. Teflon also fails to note that, when you cross-tabulate the votes between northern and southern states, more northern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights legislation than did northern Republicans and more southern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights legislation than did southern Republicans.

Such details are unimportant, however, when one's aim is to obscure the truth in service to a particular ideology.

And, to think, the whole point of this exercise is to accuse Shirley Sherrod of inflaming rather than informing.

Jules| 7.29.10 @ 10:43PM

All I know is that a REPUBLICAN president freed the slaves from DEMOCRAT slavery.

'Enuf said!

Chris| 7.30.10 @ 3:10PM

Jules, if that's "all you know," then I think we've pinpointed the problem.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 1:21PM

Thank the gods that no one ever considered naming our national capital after a slave owner.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 1:27PM

Sure, but some time had passed between 1789 and 1932, hadn't it?

Not to mention the Civil War having been fought and won, the slaves freed, and several amendments to the Constitution insisting upon civil rights for those formerly enslaved , etc.

There's no shortage of criticism of George Washington, long entombed, but where is it of the recently-deceased Robert Byrd, former Exalted Cyclops? How about Clinton's mentor and ardent segregationist Senator Fulbright? Clinton gave him the Medal of Freedom.

The Federalists are long gone but the Democrats celebrate bigots to this day.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:38PM

....as opposed to between 1932 and 2010, when no time has passed whatsoever, and the Democrats who are now (and for the past fifty years have been) the party of civil rights and racial equality are to be described as if they were the same party as in 1932.

Nice petard. How's the view from up there?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 1:46PM

As opposed to the Republican Party, founded to abolish slavery, which voted in larger majorities for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 than the Democrats did (thus ensuring their passage). The Republicans who oppose racial discrimination in all its forms---including those the progressive bigots rebrand from time to time.

"Nice petard. How's the view from up there? "

You tell me.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:56PM

The Republican Party - to which all of those old Democratic racist fled in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.

It's nice that the Republicans used to support civil rights. It's not so nice that they then abandoned that position, and welcomed Jesse Helms, Storm Thurmond, and every other segregationist with open arms once the Democratic Party became hostile to their bigotry.

Nice try, champ. You fail.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 2:02PM

The Republican Party has always supported civil rights. Thus the support for every bit of the Bill of Rights, unlike the Democrats, who wish to throw out the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments entirely and lose the religious and political speech portions and restrict the press and association rights of the 1st.

Those "old Democrat racists" didn't go anywhere. Why would they, with Bill Clinton giving an old bigot like Fulbright the Medal of Freedom and Democrats claiming Klansmen Robert Byrd to be their conscience?

The Democrats never abandoned the plantation---they just switched whip hands.

Now hang on my belt loop. I wanna walk the yard.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 2:07PM

"In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. "

http://archive.newsmax.com/arc.....4350.shtml

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 10:23PM

Did you really just cite Newsmax as a source?

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:01PM

Did you cite Media Splatters? Joke.

MarkOttawa| 7.27.10 @ 2:16PM

Yeah, but that was the Republican Party that raised the maximum marginal income tax rate to 92% under Eisenhower in the early 1950s, instituted wage and price freezes under Nixon, proposed a tax based and employer mandated version of universal healthcare and expanded welfare (also under Nixon) and started the conversion to the metric system.

Needless to say, it's not the same Republican party as it was, sadly. Neither are the Democrats.

MarkOttawa| 7.27.10 @ 2:24PM

And, if the modern Republican Party is as minority friendly as you say, it must be hard to explain why so few African Americans are Republican, why Hispanics (including younger Cubans) are leaving the party and why Asians are overwhelmingly Democratic as well.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 2:31PM

It's not hard to explain at all. Democrat policies promise to help the poor but keep them dependent and impoverished. Higher proportions of the poor are black and Hispanic, thus higher proportions of these groups vote Democrat.

The hard thing to explain is why Jewish Americans vote overwhelmingly Democrat. I have no answer for you on that score.

If you check out the African Americans who vote GOP you'll see they're overwhelmingly middle class. Republicans are the party of the middle class, Democrats today being a coalition of the filthy rich and the poor.

Why are you using the term "Hispanic"? You do realize Tricky Dick Nixon invented that in the 1972 campaign in order to offset the emerging Democrat advantage in the black vote (hitherto held by the GOP)?

It's a fantasy. Puerto Ricans and Ecuadorians have very little in common.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 10:36PM

"The hard thing to explain is why Jewish Americans vote overwhelmingly Democrat. I have no answer for you on that score."

Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter come to mind as two pretty good reasons.

"It's a fantasy. Puerto Ricans and Ecuadorians have very little in common."

As opposed to Nigerians and African-Americans? Every racial group is a fantasy. That doesn't make race any less of a significant factor in America.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 2:25PM

You might want to check out the roll calls on those things. A lot of those names carried over.

The Democrats are certainly not the same party that slashed marginal tax rates during JFK's term and set off explosive economic growth that lasted nearly a decade.

The Republicans learned from this. The Democrats didn't.

When it comes to race, the Democrats still haven't learned. As Justice Roberts noted recently, "The way to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Republicans have always and God willing will always oppose racial discrimination. Democrats have not and will not---they simply switch races allowed to discriminate when the electoral politics demands such.

Not that that much seems to change the racial makeup of the Democrat leadership in the ruling class....

mantis| 7.27.10 @ 2:40PM

Republicans have always and God willing will always oppose racial discrimination.

You're funny. Tell another one.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 3:02PM

It's not Republicans who entertain the notion of voting in racial blocs, as Democrat Lani Guinier did.

It's not Republicans who support hiring quotas on the basis of race, as Democrats did and do.

It's not Republicans who insist upon categorizing citizens by race on U.S. census forms, as Democrats did and do.

It's not Republicans who gerrymander districts on the basis of race, as Democrats did and do.

It's not Republicans who form race-based caucuses in political institutions such as Congress, as Democrats do.

peter| 7.27.10 @ 3:32PM

That's because they're all white. Dumb. Ignorant. White.

You need an education. Badly.

Here it comes: Obama reelected in 2012. Hopefully, you'll have killed yourself by then.

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 2:40PM

People, like Byrd, who repudiated their racism stayed with the Democrats.

People, like Thurmond and Helms, who didn't, joined the Republicans.

You can play dumb about this all you want; there's a reason that black people run screaming from your party.

There's only one kind of racist the Republicans can't stand - a reformed racist.

Confused Republican| 7.28.10 @ 12:12AM

So, wait. Today's Republicans actually *support* the civil rights laws of the 60s? Today's Republicans are against states rights in favor of Federal enforcement of civil rights law? Today's Republicans are in favor of the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action???

Whoa, dude. As a Republican... I guess I need to go find a black friend to something.

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 2:42AM

Republicans supported Civil Rights laws in the 60s; in fact, Republican support over-rode DEMOCRAT KKK GRAND KLEAGLE Robert Byrd's filibuster!!

Whoa, dude, you need to get your head out of your butt and actually learn something!

A Hermit| 7.27.10 @ 4:32PM

You're forgetting that the racists all ran from the Democratic party and became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act was enacted...

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 2:45AM

Nice try! Democrats are the party of SLAVERY, SEGREGATION, SODOMY AND SEDITION!!

Republicans saved Black Americans from Democrat slavery in the South and we're trying to save them again from your Inner City Liberal Plantations today.

Ira| 7.27.10 @ 1:00PM

Dude,

Don't eat the brown acid. I've told you this time and again.

A**hole.

beetroot| 7.27.10 @ 1:00PM

Best comment: "Let it drop. You're embarassing yourself." As well as embarassing your publication, your political allies, and all the people who ever tried to teach you humility and open-mindedness.

MarkOttawa| 7.27.10 @ 1:02PM

This just gets dumber and dumber. Soon he'll be arguing:

“Your honour, the prosecutor argues that my client attacked the woman with a hammer. However, a hammer has not only a round head for pounding but a clawed head for extracting nails. But as exhibit "A" shows, the implement taking from the crime seen did not have a clawed head for extracting nails. This weapon that my client is shown on multiple videos beating the client with – THIS sir, is no hammer. This is a mallet. Therefore the crime couldn't have occurred and my client is innocent.

The defence rests.”

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 1:47PM

Yea, I guess all lawyers tell the TRUTH. The Oklahoma attorney that defended Timothy McVey typically stated MY CLIENT, TIM MCVEY IS.....INNOCENT OF THEM CHARGES on numerous occasions on national TV. Jeffrey Lord, however, did TELL THE TRUTH!!!!

MarkOttawa| 7.27.10 @ 2:03PM

Congratulations on missing the point.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:22PM

Well if your writing/reasoning skills were more intelligent, maybe some of us could GET YOUR POINT, DUMBARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unicornspritzer| 7.28.10 @ 3:15PM

Who is DUMBARS?

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 2:45AM

YOU, Dumbass!!

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 1:09PM

There is an upside to Lord's argument. Since a lynching never took place, maybe Hall is still alive.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 1:43PM

Yea, maybe those 3000 9/11/01 former inhabitants of NYC are 'still alive' also, idiot!!!!!!

Diane| 7.27.10 @ 3:32PM

At least one commenter to Mr. Lord has said, in essence, "Please stop, you're just embarrassing yourself." I'd like to make the same suggestion to you.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:24PM

STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE [AND TWIST IT SIDEWAYS], okay!!!!!!!!!!!!

Democratic Party | 7.27.10 @ 4:01PM

Dear Oldefarte,

Please don't listen to the haters. Keep up the good work, sir!

GOP is spelled GOD| 7.28.10 @ 7:37AM

O.F. Pssst. Dude. Talking points. Talking points. Read teh Talking Points! PLEASE DO NOT STRAY FROM THE TALKING POINTS!!!

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:26PM

RIGHT ON, ........'''''DUDE'''''!!!!!!!

unicornspritzer| 7.28.10 @ 3:18PM

Could you please provide a citation for your '"""DUDE"""!!!!!!!' quote?

casey| 7.27.10 @ 1:09PM

While we're bandying about definitions, this one seems to fit Mr. Lord to a tee: "Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright. Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. All of this belies their tendency to make a good, likable first impression. Psychopaths have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything without concern for accuracy or truth. Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's tendency for genuine emotion to be short lived and egocentric with an overall cold demeanor."

SpiralArchitect| 7.27.10 @ 1:31PM

Wow. For a moment I thoguht you were speaking of my step daughter, but you left out the prevelant narcosistic overtones. What a relief.

Nick Flynn| 7.27.10 @ 1:10PM

Really, really pathetic.

When in a hole, stop digging.

- Nick

ex| 7.27.10 @ 10:00PM

I agree with Nick. Why don't you just admit you made a mistake Mr. Lord and stop compounding it?

casey| 7.27.10 @ 1:12PM

Factor 1
Aggressive narcissism

1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning/manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Emotionally shallow
7. Callous/lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Vineyarder| 7.27.10 @ 1:17PM

casey at 1:09 for the win.

BSR| 7.27.10 @ 1:23PM

The dictionary defines a Mob as follows;
1. a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.
2. a crowd bent on or engaged in lawless violence.
3. any group or collection of persons or things.
4. the common people; the masses; populace or multitude.

None of the definitions mention "large" or any specific number. It must be nice to be Mr. Lord, to be able to redefine words to fit whatever vapid ridicules semantic point he wants to try to spin on any given day.

And this shameless fool has the nerve to suggest that someone else read a dictionary.

Rufus T. Firefly | 7.27.10 @ 1:28PM

Mr. Lord, what you've written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 1:40PM

Hey Rufus [or DOOFUS], check out my below comments/link; DUMMIE!!!!

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 12:46PM

Oldefarte, I have stood idly by while you have abused exclamation points and capital letters, but by God I will not allow you to do what you just did to both brackets and the precious semi-colon.

Dead Horse| 7.27.10 @ 1:29PM

Stop Beating Me.

Republicans| 7.28.10 @ 12:14AM

Sorry. We're filibustering the motion to stop beating.

The Lynch Mob| 7.27.10 @ 1:31PM

You all are making us look bad.

CJohhnson| 7.27.10 @ 1:36PM

I am still 'lynched' in suspense wondering what exactly was Mrs. Sherrods' topic of discussion. Has anyone seen the agenda of the NAACP meeting?

canuckistani| 7.27.10 @ 1:42PM

Lord: 0, sanity: 1
Ever thought of the old saw: "let sleeping dogs lie"?
Think of it now and turn off your computer.
Thank goodness another contributer here is outed as tone deaf and irrelevant.
Like Breitbart, anything Lord now writes is blarney, and their exile from the mainstream has begun. Ciao.

canuckistani| 7.27.10 @ 1:43PM

oops CJ, general comment not a reply.....

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 1:36PM

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

Jeffrey Lord is absolutely correct and accurate, and his detractors are simply practicing what is known as POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 101. A lynching implies RACISM and ILLEGALITY [whereas states have previously executed death row inmantes by HANGING, which is LEGAL]. Additionally, Shirley Sherrod is nothing more than a bold faced LIAR and used her NAACP speech as a convenient occasion for ginning up of racial animosity. Oh, an as to Shirley, check out the above Youtube link showing her husband, Reverand Charles, giving an ILLEGAL political oriented speech inside his church [and consider that IRS prohibits such and should yank his/their NON PROFIT STATUS]. Thanks again, Jeffrey, for telling the...........TRUTH!!!!

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:40PM

So, three white cops in the South beating a handcuffed black suspect to death on the steps of a courthouse is neither racist nor illegal?

Whatever.

ex| 7.28.10 @ 12:25PM

Don't forget to add that the State of Georgia did not consider this murder worth prosecuting. The cops were never prosecuted for murder. The federal courts could only prosecute the three police men for violating Mr. Hall's civil rights.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:31PM

I DID NOT say that it was not ILLEGAL or RACIST, did I? I said it was MURDER, and denied that it was a LYNCHING [since lynching involves hanging by a mob with a ROPE]. I do not recall Shirley indicating that the arresting police TIED UP HALL WITH A ROPE,ETC. Think, and state facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:32PM

I know this will come as a great shock to someone such as yourself, but MURDER implies ILLEGALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

unicornspritzer| 7.28.10 @ 3:21PM

Mr. Oldefarte,
We need to ration exclamation points. I'm afraid you've used your allotment for 2010.
Thanks,
Big Guvmint

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 12:49PM

"I DID NOT say that it was not ILLEGAL or RACIST,"

Yes, you did. You said it's not a lynching because lynching implies racism and illegality. That means you think this incident was not racist or illegal.

"I said it was MURDER,"

No, you didn't. You realize what you wrote is right there for everyone to read, right? You can't just make up things you said and deny things that you actually did say.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 2:04PM

Wow, impressive. Oldefarte runs with "it was neither racist nor illegal."

Seriously, Lord, you're off the hook --- you're now only the SECOND DUMBEST person in this thread! Huzzah!

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:40PM

SLIM-BRAIN, when quoting me next time, provide the entire TEXT of my argument, MORON!!!!!

Democratic Party | 7.27.10 @ 4:05PM

Well said, sir!

Have you considered sending a mass email this missive to the "MSM"? Or perhaps a few thousand swing state voters? We really think they would benefit from your special perspective!

Keep up the fight!

Ace-o-aces| 7.27.10 @ 1:37PM

Mr. Lord,
Put down the shovel and stop digging!

kindness| 7.27.10 @ 1:44PM

Mr. Lord,

Please let me explain why you should want to and carry out an apology to the readers of The American Spectator and the blogsphere in general.
1) You are making conservatives look like idiots.

Now, in and of itself I have no problem with conservatives appearing to be idiots. Nay, I quite often think that myself. However, in the context of the lynching of Sharon Sherrod's relative and your written statements trying to support the idea it wasn't a lynching at all......well, let me guide you to point number 1 listed above. You should read it about 20 times as each of your responses lead us to this quaint saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Please....when you realize you are in a hole, stop digging.

kindness| 7.27.10 @ 3:38PM

Get a job slacker. For as much as you post I certainly don't want to be paying to support you.

Max B.| 7.27.10 @ 1:45PM

Did you do any research?

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the 'color of law', that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating. [2]

That's WIKIPEDIA. The very first Google result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)

At least you could have tried. Sheesh.

B-Rob| 7.27.10 @ 2:23PM

The answer is "no". He not only did not do research, he also did not read ther case. The Court DID NOT SAY Hall was not lynched. The majority, with the Klansman Black voting, authored a decision that turned NOT ON WHETHER IT WAS A LYNCHING, but on the jury instruction. That is why the case was set for retrial and the defendants were NOT acquited, as they would have been had the court determined, as a matter of law, that they had not violated the statute. Jeffrey Lord is entirely ignorant of the law, how the court worked, and the definition of "lynching." Other than that, he is spot on.

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 5:18PM

Apparently Lords new defense, as outlined in his remarks in the comments thread, is that he wasn't defending the court's decision at all. In fact, he found the court's decision to be rediculous.
Why, then, he went on in this column to use that SAME COURT DECISION as evidence to call Sherod a liar is beyond me...

Andrew N.P.| 7.27.10 @ 6:04PM

Because... because... SOCIALISM! BLACK PANTHERS! ACORN! ACORN!!!

LT| 7.27.10 @ 1:48PM

The fact that Lord is still using the "color of law" phrase wrong - after it being explained several times in the comments - tells me that he knows he got it wrong. He is simply incapable of admitting it. Possibly from embarrassment.

Ouch.

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 5:22PM

He DEFINITELY knows he got it wrong, but he's too much a sociopath to admit it. How else could someone use the court's decision as a mechinism to brand Sherrod a liar, while SIMULTANIOUSLY calling the court's decision "racist" is beyond me...

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 1:55PM

Wrong again, Lord, as has been pointed out.

But glad to see you show zero class, fail to apologize for being wrong, and go to the wall for your terrible analysis.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:44PM

Slim-brain, tell Charles to apologize!!!!

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 1:57PM

What political party did the cops who beat that poor man to death, Hugo Black, Senator Russell, Senator Byrd, Senator Fulbright, and Shirley Sherrod belong to?

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 2:55PM

You keep bringing this up. It couldn't be any less relevant to the problems people are having with Lord's writing.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 2:57PM

I keep bringing it up because it was THE POINT OF HIS PIECE.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 3:19PM

Try reading his piece, which ends as follows:

"Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Bobby Hall and then overturned his conviction.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Shirley Sherrod's father in 1965.

And Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who went out of their way to honor Hugo Black and Richard Russell with a Supreme Court nomination and the naming of a Senate Office Building.

We know who did these things. And when Shirley Sherrod finally gets a minute's peace -- so should she."

Hint: the point of an opinion piece often appears at the end of it.

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 3:38PM

"Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Bobby Hall and then overturned his conviction.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Shirley Sherrod's father in 1965.

And Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who went out of their way to honor Hugo Black and Richard Russell with a Supreme Court nomination and the naming of a Senate Office Building."

Luckily for anyone with a brain. No one claimed any of those things. Changing the subject doesn't make Lord any less of an idiot. Again, he said she factually and legally wrong about what she described. She was not. Lord was very, very wrong, and you sound like an idiot defending him.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 4:28PM

You sound like an idiot who can't follow a written argument.

Here's a hint:

1. Shirley Sherrod is very upset by the murders of her father and cousin and their murderers not being brought to justice.

2. The murderers of her father and cousin and the men who set their murderers free were Democrats.

3. Shirley Sherrod is a Democrat activist.

Ergo, ipso facto, one wonders how much of Sherrod's outrage at Fox News and Andrew Breitbart is real and not just pleasing her Democrat bosses.

After all, neither Fox News or Breitbart fired her.

Nor killed any relatives.

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 5:25PM

This MIGHT make sense, (and I stress might) if we lived in a time vacuum and it were still 1946.
By your logic Sherrod (and the rest of us) should feel ashamed to drive around German and Japanese cars.

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 6:15PM

And even then, it still doesn't really make sense. Teflon is an idiot, and missed the point completely.

ryan| 7.27.10 @ 5:59PM

Are you aware of the concept of the passage of time? In the 1040's, nearly everyone was racist, Democrats and Republicans alike. Hell, in the 1700's , our Founding Fathers owned slaves. What does that have to do with today? To say that black people shouldn't be Democrats because Democrats were once racist would be like saying Americans should hate the English, because they once ruled over us . It's nonsensical. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history knows that the racist Southern Democrats left the Democratic Party after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964; they were subsequently embraced by the Republicans as part of the "Southern Strategy". It's why the Democrats lost the South for "a generation". (And actually, longer than that. The Democrats may never get the South back).

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 10:42PM

Teflon, this is a fun game. Lemme try:

1. Shirley Sherrod is very upset by the murders of her father and cousin and their murderers not being brought to justice.

2. The murderers of her father and cousin and the men who set their murderers free were Americans.

3. Furthermore, the men who enslaved her people and built this country on the backs of black slave labor were also Americans.

4. Shirley Sherrod is a American activist.

See? I can play the ridiculous equivalency game too. But anyone thinking rationally can see that this is a fallacious line of argumentation; those who choose to align themselves with America today mostly do not share the racial views of most Americans before the 1960s.

A Hermit| 7.27.10 @ 4:38PM

No, but Breitbart and FOX are the ones pushing the phony reverse-racism "scary black people" narrative. Which is the actual topic here, do try and keep up, will you?

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 2:48AM

Provide proof of your stupid accusations, moron--your spittle soaked rants aren't enough.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 3:03PM

Let's assume they were all members of the Democratic party. Does that make Sherrod a liar for saying her relative was lynched?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 3:23PM

Nope, but it explains why she doesn't tell the rest of the story.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 3:24PM

The rest of what story? And again, what does that have to do with Jeff's columns, which state that she's a liar for saying her relative was lynched?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 4:13PM

Did you even read it?

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

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

The whole point of the piece is to put Shirley Sherrod's racism in historical context. That context is progressivism. It was Woodrow Wilson, progressive and Democrat, who first segregated the White House. It was the progressive and Democrats who hewed to social Darwinism and eugenics. Racism is the very fuel of the Democrat Party and has been since Old Hickory the serial murderer refounded it.

This is what Lord is talking about. You can think he went too far or completely off the reservation in claiming Sherrod was wrong in her use of "lynching" but the libs in this thread aren't upset by that.

They're upset because the dirty laundry of Democrat racism is being aired again.

The Shirley Sherrods of this world have enough capacity for cognitive dissonance to justify to themselves loyalty to the party of slavery, segregation, and the Ku Klux Klan. But most African Americans do not and are troubled by the history of this party when they are made aware of it.

Thus the frantic effort to make sure it is not brought up.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 4:34PM

Actually, the whole point was to call her a liar. Unfortunately, Mr. Lord had nothing to base that on, and has embarrassed himself further trying to defend himself.

As far as the history of Democratic party racism, I think most people in this country realize that political parties can change over time. Teddy Roosevelt was known as a trust buster-does that mean the Republican party is against big business?

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 5:27PM

Again, it's not 1946 any more. Things have changed.

ex| 7.28.10 @ 1:00PM

It is hard for me to accept Mr. Lord's conclusion that Ms. Sherrod is part of a long history of Democratic and progressive racism when he gets such simple facts wrong like the definition of "lynching" and does not seem to understand simple concepts like "under color of law". Like many conservative revisionist, he ignores the fact that many Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond rejected the Democratic Party after the successes of the civil rights movement and migrated to the Republican Party. Prior to the civil rights movement many southern racists felt comfortable in the Democratic Party. After the civil rights movement they more comfortable in the Republican Party. There are racist in both the Republican and the Democratic Parties. To try and argue that the Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party today is absurd given the history of the Dixiecrats. All one needs to do is look at the delegates to the parties' national convention to see which party to see which party is more welcoming to racial minorities.
As to Ms Sherrod's "racism" perhaps it is better explained by the white murderers of her father and her other relative not being persecuted by local authorities in a racist Georgia than Woodrow Wilson being progressive or Andrew Jackson.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 10:51PM

"This is what Lord is talking about. You can think he went too far or completely off the reservation in claiming Sherrod was wrong in her use of "lynching" but the libs in this thread aren't upset by that."

Really? I am a liberal and most of my comments about this issue have been about the accusations against Sherrod. I didn't care too much about the accusations against Progressivism as a whole. The idea that liberals are either unfamiliar with Progressivism's past or don't want them brought up is just silly; many books by liberals have addressed this issue. "Lies My Teacher Told Me," written by a progressive, spends it's first chapter focusing on Woodrow Wilson's racist actions.

The liberals here who have taken you on have not denied the racism in Progressivism's past, nor justified it. They have explained to you that the movement changed, a fact you seem unable to accept because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 10:45PM

She doesn't explain the "rest of the story"--that this happened under Democrats--because it isn't at all relevant to the story.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:58PM

Sorry, Chris--you can run but you can't hide from your democrat racist past. Hater.

John - TMF| 7.27.10 @ 1:58PM

Well Jeff, you have proven one thing. You can be the object of a racial lynch mob sans ropes, or fists. They aren't going to listen to reason, they aren't reasonable.

I have been a comment contributor here for quite a while. I have seen precious few of the name tags in this comment section, or the comment sections from the postings yesterday. My surmise is their employer speaks with a Hungarian accent but there are a few regulars who seem to have piled into the mob as well.

My father always warned me about arguing the facts. "Most folks aren't interested in the core facts, they are just interested in how they feel about what they hate the most...."

In this case, Liberals with every fiber of their bodies, hate Conservatives. They hate fact because fact almost always opposes their desires. They hate argumentation and discussion because they absolutely hate anyone who disagrees with them, about anything.

So sir, you have been "treated" to an electronic lynch mob, because you have brought up an unpleasant topic that challenges that which they value above all else... their personal opinion.

It is their opinion that Conservatives are evil hatemongers out to destroy their Utopia.

A word of advice from an old computer operations guy... When in a computer room, never stand in one place for too long, because you WILL be blamed when the server crashes.

I don't think that I would have written the article quite that way, but even loaded with PC parentheticals, you were bound to have the LibTroll Mob show up at your door with cries for digital blood and an electronic rope.

This was a discussion well worth having, but not too many folks are interested in actual discussions anymore...

Pardon me while I duck... the fireballs and electronic feces will be headed in my direction, shortly.

Regards,

The Mighty Fahvaag

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 2:06PM

Heh, lots of talk about stereotypical liberals, but nothing on the actual subject matter of the discussion.

John, you're not clever enough for this dance. Take a seat, you're not going to bluster your side out of this defeat. You lose.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:46PM

Go argue with Reverand Charles!!!!!

ex| 7.28.10 @ 1:06PM

How right you are Slim. Mr Lords and his apologist are having such a difficult time defending themselves that they have to resort to creating liberal straw men, changing the subject, denial, or juvenile invective to defend their position.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 2:20PM

"My father always warned me about arguing the facts. 'Most folks aren't interested in the core facts, they are just interested in how they feel about what they hate the most....'"

You're welcome to respond to my queries above about (1) any sentence in the opinion that uses "color of law" in any way other than to suggest abuse of office, or (2) any place in the opinion where the term "legal authority" (which Lord used on quotation marks) is used. I, for one, am most urgently interest in those facts.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 2:31PM

While you're at it, would you explain the reference to an employer speaking with a Hungarian accent? If I am being slighted, I would like the know what the slight is. For what it's worth, I have never had an employer with a Hungarian accent that I can think of.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 2:36PM

That's exactly what a pawn of George Soros would say . . .

(George, by the way, if you're reading this, I'd love it if you sent me some money)

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 4:03PM

Me too, George---but please wash the blood off of it first.

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 2:49AM

LOL!

ex| 7.28.10 @ 1:16PM

The guy with the hungarian accent that is being referred to is George Soros. He is one of the things that Mr Lord's apologists are afraid of such as socialized medicine, people with funny names, people who went to Ivy League colleges, people who eat arugula, and fluoridize water.

LIBS SUCK!| 7.29.10 @ 2:51AM

DUH! Really? I didn't know it was the old self-hating Communist Jew. You're so smart.

Not A Regular| 7.27.10 @ 9:03PM

tl;dr.

Crusty Dem| 7.27.10 @ 2:00PM

Jeff Lord Defends Jeffrey Lord

Unfortunately, it would appear that both JL's are callous, insensitive, egotistical morons whom no self-respecting publication would employ. Of course, that employment may not last long, given that other AS employees are working hard to separate themselves from this idiocy:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010.....-jeff-lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2010.....story-true

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:48PM

Crusty-brain, have you viewed Rev. Charles above???????

Crusty Dem| 7.27.10 @ 3:16PM

Look over there!

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:35PM

Duh, me thinks a liar FAILS TO TELL THE....TRUTH!!!!

mmonides| 7.27.10 @ 2:03PM

TMF,

Thank you for the clarification that The Mighty Fahvaag = apologist for whackadoodle racism. You must be so proud.

MMonides| 7.27.10 @ 2:06PM

What's really wonderful to see here is reasonable conservatives beating the intellectual crap out of Lord, and then watching him double, triple, and just plain bet the fing farm on his incredibly racist, incredibly dense, and impossibly indefensible formulation!

Popcorn!

George Hussein Soros| 7.27.10 @ 2:21PM

Sure, I helped the Nazis.

Now comment on, my Stormtroopers of Progress!

gahandmeh| 7.27.10 @ 2:21PM

you sir, are a hack. Pure and simple. By taking the most egregious position possible and defend it by quibbling over definitions of how this woman's family member was murdered. This is beyond the pale. You have a corrupt and evil soul. Buy some sunscreen because hell is gonna be hot.

Georgie Adolf Soros| 7.29.10 @ 2:53AM

Yup, I helped the Nazis slaughter my own people!

Sunscreen ain't gonna help me where I'm going!!

SYSPROG| 7.27.10 @ 2:25PM

The only way to give you credibility would have been to quit on the first mistake. To now parse the word 'mob' in your defense shows truly what a moron you are. Don't try to teach us 'history'...clearly it wasn't a subject you did well in. As I continually tell y'all 'don't let the facts get in the way of a good story'. You are reprehensible.

Joe| 7.27.10 @ 2:30PM

I tell ya what..if I was getting beaten by 3 people it would certainly look and feel like a mob to me. I think Mr. Lord would feel the same way. What a uncaring moron. Please stop writing for a long time. You are truly a horrible human being. Please go away.

Ralph Kramden| 7.27.10 @ 2:32PM

If it wasn't so repulsive, it would be comical watching you squirm to defend your earlier ugliness.

The American Spectator should dismiss you lest it be tarnished by association.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:49PM

Hey Ralph Cramden, go view Rev.Charles above!!!

Ralph Kramden| 7.27.10 @ 3:15PM

Sounds like the only defense you have is "look over there!" In any case, I wasn't aware that the American Spectator hosted "Rev. Charles", so your response makes no sense.

ktxl| 7.27.10 @ 2:32PM

My god you're an awful person.

Purple Lips| 7.27.10 @ 2:34PM

My goodness the cockroaches are in full force! Trolls be gone!

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 2:43PM

I know you hate that a lot of people showed up to point out Lord's lies, Purple. But cmon, Lord's terribleness requires a response! I know you want to be able to lie in your quiet little circle, but sometimes the forces of truth and decency like to get their voice heard.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 2:54PM

Shorter Oldefarte's video link: Lord is still very VERY wrong, but here's a lame attempt to distract the issue!

twofrogs| 7.27.10 @ 2:47PM

Congratulations - you win the prize for being the most awful person in the entire world. It must hurt to have so black a soul...

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:54AM

RACIST!!

David in NY| 7.27.10 @ 2:50PM

Not just awful -- vile.

A real mensch would have the grace to say he was wrong instead of playing semantic games until his position becomes totally incomprehensible. But you sir, are not a mensch. And you are a vile person, to boot.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:52PM

Hey David, check out Charles' video above....

David in NY| 7.27.10 @ 3:06PM

Hey, check out human decency for a change! Novel for a conservative, I know, but you might find it refreshing.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:40PM

'Human decency', wow, golly, geewiz, shazam, David from New York City, you's got's me's with that's one. Does that 'human decency' include the possibility of not COMMANDEERING AIRPLANES AND FLYING SAME INTO HIGH RISE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN NYC, KILLING 3000 INNOCENT H-U-M-A-N B-E-I-N-G-S on 9/11/01 also???????????????????????

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 2:56AM

Human decency is in short supply among evil democrats--just ask 50 million aborted babies.

I can fix all this!| 7.27.10 @ 2:52PM

Hey, I have a great Idea! Will Jeff Lord accept as accurate, the revision of Ms. Sherrod's remarks to say the following:

"Claude Screws - REVISION BEGINS HERE 'and two other men, making three in all, put to death a black man by viciously beating him with a billy club, and then dragging him around the courthouse by his feet, and throwing him in a cell to die. These three men did not have the legal authority to kill this person' END REVISION

Would that be factually true now Mr. Lord? Would you have any objection to that statement? Any of the rest of you nuts?

brad| 7.27.10 @ 2:53PM

I hope your grandkids read your article on lynching and think you're a dirty rotten scumbag.

wingnut event horizon is here| 7.27.10 @ 2:56PM

Do you even stop to think that you’re basically defending cops who beat to death a man who was handcuffed and basically defenseless?

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 2:58PM

heh, like "thinking" was involved at all in writing the original article or this pathetic defense.

Young Goodman Brown| 7.27.10 @ 2:58PM

I have to say, I think 21 links to the same irrelevant YouTube link may be a record, even on teh internets.

wingnut event horizon is here| 7.27.10 @ 3:00PM

Yes, and sadly, not one of the links was a rickroll which would have been slightly more appropriate methinks

David in NY| 7.27.10 @ 3:02PM

Let me be clear, Mr. Lord. You are a stain on the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:41PM

What in hades does someone in New York City know about Ronald Reagan???????????

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 2:57AM

I wish David were just a stain on his Dad's tidy whiteys.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 1:00PM

How dare you, Nate. I thought someone who cared about all those aborted babies would know enough to know that every sperm cell is sacred.

Ejaculation is murder!

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:56PM

If that's true you should be on death row, pervert.

If those babies could vote you whoremongers would be all over saving them.

howard| 7.27.10 @ 3:08PM

you are a very sick person.

and, as david quite rightly notes, you are a disgrace to conservative values and thought.

you're nothing but a right-wing thug, and even worse, you're proud of it.

Crusty Dem| 7.27.10 @ 3:22PM

Jeffrey, a suggestion, given your predilection for perusing dictionaries and using strict or inaccurate definitions to call people liars - the Old Testament definition of holocaust is "A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames". Since the Nazis left mass graves, clearly what the did to the Jews was not technically a holocaust, so you can use that to claim that Simon Wiesenthal is a liar!

And yes, this is repugnant, in an identical manner as your article defaming Shirley Sherrod.

bryanD| 7.27.10 @ 3:30PM

I want a Oldefarte for my next birthday.

Jeffrey Lord's Mom| 7.27.10 @ 3:31PM

I would like to apologize to everyone for repeatedly dropping little Jeffy on his head.

Oldefarter| 7.27.10 @ 3:33PM

OH YEAH!! LOUD NOISES!! I CAN EMBED VIDEO. LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! (without noting of course, that I'm likely a Lord sockpuppet)

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:45PM

I DID NOT [obviously] write/comment the above; and ask that the imbicilic MORONIC THIEF who stole simply STICKITWHERETHESUMDON'TSHINEANDTWISTITSIDEWAYS [in addition to having the guts to comment under their own moniker]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NutellaonToast| 7.29.10 @ 3:56PM

CRAP. I can't tell which is the real one. Oh well, better shoot them both, just to be sure.

Interloper| 7.29.10 @ 10:39PM

Not too tolerant, fascist liberal. But then--you fascist liberals aren't tolerant at all.

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 3:45PM

"There's more. Later."

I'm tingling with anticipation.

David in NY| 7.27.10 @ 3:55PM

Shorter J. Lord (borrowed): “Well, sure, he was beaten to death by cops, but who could be so despicable as to call such a thing lynching?”

Shirley Sherrod| 7.27.10 @ 4:14PM

Jeffrey Lord wants to bring slavery back.

Now praise me as a saint of racial unification, you conservative suckers.

Alex| 7.27.10 @ 4:16PM

It seems Mr. Lord has forgotten the first rule of what to do when one finds oneself in a hole.

In the first place, both Webster's and OED define lynching as an extra-legal killing, esp. by hanging -- but do not make hanging an essential element of a lynching, as he disingenuously suggests.

Second, in legal parlance a mob is used interchangeable with "riot" which is usually defined as an assemblage of 2 or more persons breaching the peace.

Finally, calling someone a "liar" because he or she uses the word lynching in conformance with its general and legal definition is loathesome, dishonest, and despicable.

And to further quibble after getting called on it shows an appalling lack of intellectual honesty and character.

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 4:19PM

Subhuman minorities!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:49PM

Once again, I DID NOT POST the above, and request the imbicil that did so to please have the guts, intelligence, etc to copy and paste the whole my whole GD comment [instead of several edited words]. Of course, I'm asking the impossible since this person/thief obviously is TOO STUPID AND CHICKENEXCREMENT to do so!!!!!

NotSerious| 7.27.10 @ 4:57PM

Does anyone know where I can find more racially inflammatory youtube videos, perhaps of someone related to Shirley Sherrod?

As a white man who can't find a job, I find that scapegoats make me feel MUCH better, and having watched a lot of Fox News during my seemingly endless unemployment, I think it's pretty clear that NO ONE has suffered from racism as much as white people, white men especially. I mean that black panther guy is outside that polling place EVERY DAY, I've seen it on TV.

Anyway, does anyone have any more videos of assertive black people I can rage against. Oldefart? Anyone??

Anselm| 7.27.10 @ 5:06PM

You didn't even get the semantic hairsplitting part of it right!

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.

NO. "Under color of law" means they abused their legal authority to do something illegal. Which was, lynching.

Look it up
Look it up
Look it up

Sorry to be repetitive, just wondering if it will sink in at some point!

Professor Coldheart | 7.27.10 @ 5:06PM

" 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."

Actually, it means the exact opposite. Briefly, acting "under color of law" means pretending at legal authority (e.g., wearing your Sheriff's badge while murdering someone), not actually having it (e.g., wearing your Sheriff's badge while discharging your firearm in the course of duty).

I don't know if you're trying to defend a ridiculously narrow reading of a court decision in order to further cast aspersions on a woman who's already been pretty well defamed because you think it's the "principled" thing to do, or because you think it's scoring points for the conservative side. But this sort of cavilling definitely isn't the former and I'm sure it's not the latter.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc.....-000-.html

ecmic| 7.27.10 @ 5:36PM

Actually, in the comments thread Lord calls the court decision "racist" and wrong while SIMULTANIOUSLY using the court's authority as evidence that Balco is "wrong" and Sherrod is a "liar". Yeah, I can't follow his logic either...

rewinn | 7.27.10 @ 5:07PM

Let us not forget the the definition Mr. Lord cites does not make "Mob" a mandatory element of lynching. "Mob" does not precede, but follows "esp."

A few things are obvious:

* Two people can lynch a third even according to the dictionary on Mr. Lord's desk
* The victim in question was lynched
* Mr. Lord calling someone a liar is like Jeffrey Dahmer calling someone hungry
* Give Mr. Lord and his ilk enough rope and they'll hang themselves ... but that'll be suicide, not a lynching.

ax41| 7.27.10 @ 5:09PM

The Supreme Court at the time of the decision in Screws v. U S had seven members that had been appointed by President Roosevelt , one by President Hoover , and one , the Chief Justice, originally as an Associate by President Coolidge .
Justice S.F. Roberts , the Hoover appointee dissented { as he had in the Japanese Internment case } and was on the same side as three Roosevelt appointees - Justices Murphy , Frankfurter and Jackson .
The Chief Justice - the Coolidge appointee - joined in Justice Douglas's opinion with Justices Black and Reed . Justice Rutledge concurred in the result .
Somehow we are to conclude that Ms. Sherrod should condemn the Democratic Party of today for the miscarriage of justice for her relative ?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 5:11PM

How about blaming the Democrat Party of today for her firing?

Since, you know, that was who fired her.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 5:17PM

People DO blame the admin officials, that's all over the internet. What people ALSO acknowledge is the admin's mistake WAS THE RESULT OF BEING DECEIVED BY RIGHT WING LIARS. Yes, Vilsack f'd up ---- obviously, he should have been more aware that Breitbart is a lying, manipulative dirtbag.

Teflon, how about (1) blaming the video editors and the obscenely irresponsible Breitbart and (2) acknowledging that Lord's so-called "analysis" is wrong, stupid and hilariously clueless.

rewinn | 7.27.10 @ 5:20PM

Take note: the reichwing is reduced to arguing that no-one should trust stuff from Brietbart or Fox.

I'm cool with that!

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:55PM

Another braindead libtard. Clueless as usual.

Wrong| 7.27.10 @ 5:33PM

No, because that would be wrong. She was fired based on a manufactured issue, propped up with deceiving and manufactured evidence that duped EVERYONE. There was a rush to judgment by Fox, Obama, the guy who makes my sandwiches. Everyone. I'm pretty sure that's not a capital offense, so let's start talking about where to assign actual blame, ok?

Now, I know this is the part where you put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, to avoid what us normal people call "Logic". Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.

Now, the point here is I personally find it hard to blame Obama *or* Fox News for anything more extreme than rushing to judgement. The people who are really at fault are the one's who make their living smearing their political opponents, and excusing actual racism. People like Breitbart, and now Jeff Lord.

Congrats to Jeffrey, by the way, on reaching the highest echelon of racebaiters. Kudos!

Alex| 7.27.10 @ 5:16PM

** " 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."

Actually, it means the exact opposite. Briefly, acting "under color of law" means pretending at legal authority (e.g., wearing your Sheriff's badge while murdering someone), not actually having it (e.g., wearing your Sheriff's badge while discharging your firearm in the course of duty). **

I didn't even get to that piece of sheer inanity. With the level of ignorance Mr. Lord demonstrates, he has no business writing about legal matters or civil rights laws.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 5:16PM

Democratic Party. I believe it's conventional to call a political party by the name it calls itself, no?

In any event, she didn't work for the Democratic party. She worked for the federal government, which screwed up by firing her.

Again, though, you're off topic.

Halleck| 7.27.10 @ 5:20PM

Is this supposed to be satire intended to make conservatives look like deranged racists?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 5:27PM

Meanwhile, for all the libs calling Lord a racist, let's review that definition too, shall we?

Dictionary.com:
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Where precisely has Lord met this definition?

We know where Shirley Sherrod has---aside from belonging to a group based solely on race, Sherrod also confessed to refusing to do her job to her fullest ability on account of the race of the person asking for help.

Libs refuse to apply the same standards to favored racial groups as they would to unfavored racial groups and thus get the vapors at the very notion that Sherrod, a black woman, could possibly be racist. This in itself is racist.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 5:32PM

Yes, she admits to not helping the white farmer to the fullest of her abilities because of her bigoted (understanbly so, but still bigoted) feelings about white farmers. That's the whole point. She's telling a story about how she overcame her bigotry. She spells it out pretty obviously. I have trouble believing that you don't understand that. Did you miss the part where she helps him keep his farm? Or did you miss the white farmers saying that they didn't believe she was a racist, and that they consider her to be the person who saved their farm?

And for the record, I haven't called Mr. Lord a racist. I called him a disingenuous idiot, and I stand by that.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 5:34PM

Seriously, who knew that giving right wingers access to dictionaries would result in so much hilarity?

I'm going to visit the next Tea Party rally and hand out pocket dictionaries, so we can get more fine examples of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Ted| 7.27.10 @ 5:36PM

That sounds like something a racist would say.

ted| 7.27.10 @ 5:38PM

oops, replied to wrong comment, sorry

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:28AM

You were right the first time, moron--Slim's a bigot like his old dead hero, Bobby Byrd.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 5:30PM

How about blaming Sherrod for her public speech, for her lying smear that Breitbart wants a return to slavery?

How about blaming the NAACP audience who enjoyed her anecdote about her past racism?

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 5:36PM

Teflon, STOP with the obvious lies. The audience enjoyed the anecdote BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT OVERCOMING PREJUDICE. They never "cheered" the "racism" of Sherrod. This has been thoroughly debunked.

Seriously, you're a bad person for lying. Stop it.

b-b-but| 7.27.10 @ 5:38PM

B-b-b-but, she's black! And she talks about helping OTHER BLACK PEOPLE. And they're assertive, and they clap for each other, and they're SCARY! You're the racist!!!

/sarcasm

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 2:59AM

How do you know, Slim--were you there or are you just lying again?

Thanks| 7.27.10 @ 5:36PM

Thank you Teflon93. It's about time someone stood up for white people. After all we've been through!

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:29AM

Yeah, it was a WHITE DEMONCRAT who fired Shirley's racist butt, too!

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 5:32PM

Sherrod was fired by a political boss from the Democrat Party.

But I suppose Tom Vilsack isn't to be blamed either.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 5:34PM

Tom Vilsack, the United States Secretary of Agriculture and member of the Democratic Party, has been widely criticized for firing Ms. Sherrod. What are you talking about?

Edward| 7.27.10 @ 5:34PM

The Internet has well and truly bukkaked you, Jeff. Maybe you should draft a groveling apology for your rank stupidity after you've wiped off all the digital spunk.

Ronald Reagan| 7.28.10 @ 7:54AM

Now you've done it. The wingnuts are going to have to look up the work "bukkake" in a dictionary. You are SO busted.

Bill| 7.27.10 @ 5:38PM

Wow, you keep getting it more and more wrong.

"A mob is defined as a "large crowd."'

Not in lynching laws it's not. Anti-lynching statutes commonly define a "mob" any assemblage of three or more people - and in fact, I have seen some that define it as ANY assemblage of people. So yes, three people do constitute a mob.

And "lynching" does not mean "hanging." It means to put a person to death by mob (i.e., a few people acting in concert) without due process. The death can be by gun, whip, club, fists, feet, whatever.

And you clearly also have no clue what "under color of law" means. It most assuredly does NOT mean "they had legal authority." Very generally, it means they acted AS IF they had legal authority - i.e., they purported to be acting within their legal capacity as law enforcement officers. This is quite different actually being legally authorized to commit the acts.

Three swings; three misses. You're out.

Your "buddy" Radley ate your lunch while you weren't looking. But keep at it. Maybe you'll hit some gold while you're down digging in that hole.

David McElroy | 7.27.10 @ 5:43PM

Mr. Lord, are you an idiot or is your overblown ego simply getting in the way of admitting that you made a huge error? It's one or the other. Nobody who's sane and reasonable can read the facts and defend your position. You look even more absurd with each thing you post about this. What's more, you're giving the American Spectator a black eye by extension. Quit making a fool of yourself.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 5:44PM

Ahh, so Shirley Sherrod "overcame her racism" by falsely accusing Andrew Breitbart of wanting to see the U.S. reimpose slavery.

And Robert Byrd "overcame his racism" by dropping n-bombs on CBS.

Such illuminating commentary, all stemming from an event at which a group belonging to one race cheered on a member who relayed an anecdote about sticking it to a member of another race.

But the Democrat Party has changed.....

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 5:47PM

Meanwhile, where can I go to find the official Democrat Party condemnations of:

Al Gore, Sr.
William Fulbright
Robert Byrd
Henry Wallace
Richard Russell

Since the Democrat Party has renounced its racism and bigotry and all...

Surely these men aren't being celebrated and defended by the party faithful to this day!

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 5:50PM

There's no such thing as an official Democrat Party, genius.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 5:53PM

I'm enjoying Teflon's pathetic flailing about, aren't you? ;)

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:01AM

Teflon's kicking your stupid ass, moron; you're just too stupid to see it.

Ryan| 7.27.10 @ 5:50PM

Wow, doubling down on the idiocy, eh? And amazingly, still getting burned. Now you're insisting Sherrod is a liar for not having a dictionary in front of her during her speech. And this despite the fact that *the very source you cite* defines "mob" and "color of law" as the opposite of what you've decided they should be defined. At the very least, there's some ambiguity, no? Maybe enough ambiguity to not call Sherrod a liar? Certainly enough not to enter into this utterly foolhardy bit of Clintonian hairsplitting in the first place.

JMinAZ| 7.27.10 @ 6:02PM

Amazing. I don't typically read Jeffrey Lord, but reading these two pieces (the original and the "defense" convince me that I haven't been missing much. Lord is wrong on the face of it--three people beating a handcuffed man to death, without a trial, is a lynching by any reasonable definition (including that of my handiest dictionary, American Heritage, 2nd College edition: "To execute without due process of law." Lord's weaseling looks pathetic--just man up, JL, and admit you screwed up.

Esther| 7.27.10 @ 6:15PM

Then of course there is the question, why is little Jeffrey so invested in calling Ms Sharrod a liar? Why is he so intent on discrediting her? Why is he so filled with distain for a woman who was raised in the deep south, whose father was shot in the back, cousin was beaten to death, and all the culprits escaped prosecution?

Why is he so offended by her outrage over the injustices done to her people?

I am a white woman who grew up in the segregated south. I'm glad to see those days over and done with but I know there is progress to be made. I don't kid myself.

What is this man's true agenda is the question.

mere mortal| 7.28.10 @ 12:02AM

Esther, I doubt it was personal on Mr. Lord's part. One of the goals of his original article seemed to be an attempt to equate mistakes in an attempt to rescue a philosophical ally (from the original):

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

So, one goal seemed to be to defend Mr. Breitbart's error via any error by Ms. Sherrod.

Unfortunately, having taken that tack, Mr. Lord is caught in his own trap. If Ms. Sherrod is to be condemned with Mr. Breitbart on mistakes, Mr. Lord is done in by his own. Unfortunately for him, Ms. Sherrod is innocent on her part (at least in this accusation), but Mr. Lord is caught.

And the application of live/die by the sword is not a mere error that can be admitted and left behind. That was a premise and an underpinning; and that Mr. Lord might die by that sword means that he simply cannot admit his error without forfeiting his credibility.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 6:27PM

The party of Lincoln, the party of MLK Jr:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 6:35PM

HAHAHAHA. Get your story straight, Teflon, the other half of your political movement tries to paint MLK as a radical socialist.

And I didn't realize the Republican Party supported affirmative action! Terrific!

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:02AM

The dead and dying inner cities are the Liberals' present-day plantations.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 1:06PM

Please, Nate, go up to a black person living in the inner city and tell them they are living on a plantation. Tell them this is the official platform of the Republican Party. I am positive it will make them want to vote Republican.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:53PM

It's called the TRUTH, ahole.

Tell me how voting demoncrat is working out for the Black community, moron.

Democrats enslaved blacks on Southern plantations 200 hundred tears ago and today braindead Democrats push loser social programs that trap many good black Americans on dead and dying Inner City plantations.

Trillions of dollars and 60 years later, "The War on Poverty" Liberal Social programs have destroyed the Black family. You're dirt.

Dan| 7.27.10 @ 6:31PM

The common usage of the term "lynch" always meant "hanging by a big stupid mob" to me. I had only heard the word on history documentaries and it was always accompanied by black and white photos of large crowds around a victim hanging from a tree. It's completely understandable that late 20th century people would associate the two words into a single powerful meaning. Spoken language is not generally learned via dictionary definitions and legal citations, but as words are used in everyday life. Lynching is hardly an everyday phenomenon, so the lynching / hanging correlation has a certain evil power that tends to stay closely connected in the mind. The words 'Lynchburg" and "David Lynch" always had a creepy edge due to the horrible mental image of the hanging photos they triggered. I never knew the term was wider than the commonly understood meaning. If Mr. Lord erred in his analysis of the situation, it was an honest mistake. And if he was mistaken, can't we disagree with his writing in a civil manner, using reason and not calling names?

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 6:37PM

Dan, if it was an honest mistake, Lord would have honestly corrected it. But he didn't. He continues to play semantic games (and he continues to lose) in order to paint SS as a "liar" for saying that Bobby Hall was "lynched." He was. End of story.

RobNYNY1957@| 7.28.10 @ 10:21AM

Dan: Slim Tyranny's comment is exactly right. Lord continues to call Sherrod a liar for knowing what you know about the history of lynching in America.

For the "using reason" part, see the various comments above that quote dictionaries, the case, and Lord's own writing, in context and with links.

Alex| 7.28.10 @ 11:03AM

Lord didn't just use an improperly narrow definition, he accused Sherrod of lying because she used the term "lynch" within both its generally accepted and precise legal definition.

If Lord had the class, character or intelligence to admit his error, I'd be inclined to give him a pass.

Since he lacks all three, he deserves to be denounced as a dishonest, imbecilic hack without a shred of integrity or class.

Johnno| 7.29.10 @ 3:04AM

Sherrod's a liar and so is her husband. Get a clue, losers.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 6:31PM

No substantive response from a lib yet as to the sad, racist history of the Democrat Party.

Which was the point of Lord's piece.

Wonder why not?

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 6:36PM

Maybe because we don't know what the Democrat Party is?

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 6:38PM

Teflon, STOP LYING. The point of the story was to call SS a "liar" for using the word "lynched."

THAT WAS THE POINT, AND THAT POINT HAS BEEN SOUNDLY REFUTED.

Seriously, you should really stop lying, it makes you a bad person.

southpaw| 7.27.10 @ 6:58PM

Okay.

The history of the Democratic (note the spelling, asshole) Party is indeed racist and sad. Democrats were the party of the secessionist South in the nineteenth century and remained the party of the Jim Crow South from 1876 through the 1960s. But then, from the late 1940s through the 1960s, some things happened:
-Harry Truman (D) integrated the US Military
- John F. Kennedy (D) gave this speech
- Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act

As a consequence of these things, the traditional Democratic coalition suffered severe fractures. In many elections, Southern Democrats ran their own presidential candidates, who tended to do well in the South but abysmally in the North. Republicans, meanwhile, sensed an opportunity (most strongly with Goldwater's sweep of the solid south) and began to run on explicit appeals to racial resentments.

In other words, the Democratic Party went through the hard work of purging its racist past, and in so doing (as LBJ predicted) it lost its base in the South for over a generation. The Republican Party simply adopted that base.

The point of Lord's piece, contrary to your assertion, was to tar Shirley Sherrod as a liar for using the word 'lynch' to describe the fatal beating of a black man by three white police officers in the town square.

actioncat| 7.28.10 @ 4:54PM

Excellent post!

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:05AM

Yes, excellent post! The Democrat party has a long, sad history of violent subjugation of Black Americans. Thank God ONE idiot liberal gets it!!

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 6:40PM

The point of the piece, you illiterate little nosepicking troll, comes at the END. I've posted it twice.

Learn to scroll. Then learn to read.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 6:51PM

The point of the piece is found in the title, in the beginning of the article and throughout the body of the article. Some throwaway nonsense (thoroughly debunked a thousand times) at the END is not the POINT.

HAHAHA You want to skip past all the "SS is lying and here's the definitional reasons why" crap and pretend something else entirely.

STOP LYING. Seriously, you're a bad person.

And how about this, ADMIT LORD IS WRONG.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 5:44PM

"The point of the piece, you illiterate little nosepicking troll, comes at the END. I've posted it twice."

Ever take a journalism class? The point is supposed to be found in the title and the first paragraph, not five pages in.

Regardless of what the point was intended to be, the title is "Sherrod Story--False," and this title is an absolute lie. Stop trying to distract from that.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 6:41PM

Here's a handy timeline for Democrat racism since the founding of the Republican Party in 1854 to combat it.

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.p.....mp;pid=401

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 6:56PM

"Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
-Former Republican Party (perhaps a sleeper agent of the mysterious Democrat Party) Chairman Ken Mehlman

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:07AM

Democrat Party: SLAVERY, SEGREGATION, SODOMY AND SEDITION!!

Sparky Satori| 7.27.10 @ 6:44PM

JL:

If one bucket of stupid got you into this mess, what makes you think that TWO buckets of stupid will get you out?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 6:50PM

To sum up, liberals having no response to the Democrats' unbroken history of racism and bigotry, the perpetrators of which the party continues to celebrate today, take issue instead with the semantic issue of what Shirley Sherrod and Jeffrey Lord believe "lynching" to mean, however construed.

They consider Lord quoting Democrats to be Lord being a racist, while the Democrats quoted were not.

They consider Fox News, which didn't run a thing on the story until after Sherrod was already fired by Democrat Tom Vilsack, to be to blame for her firing,.

They consider Andrew Breitbart, who obtained the video he posted in the same form he posted it from someone in attendance at the NAACP event, and who repeatedly said it wasn't about Shirley Sherrod but about the NAACP cheering racist comments, to be to blame for Sherrod's firing as well.

Shirley Sherrod, of course, bears no blame. This is not due to liberals' patronizing racism nor the Democrat hivemind's insistence upon lockstep loyalty to the talking points of the day, but rather an exercise in high principle that liberal Democrat bureaucrats may say things in public which would get conservative Republicans run out of town on a rail.

A principled bunch, they.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 6:58PM

Teflon, of course, pretends that the following never happened: the political party realignment following the civil rights movement; the National Review's ardent defense of white supremacy and institutionalized racism; the Southern Strategy; Reagan's attacks on MLK as a marxist; Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and the million other blatant racists of the modern Republican Party (and putting up Byrd against all those fails, sorry).

Hell, EVERYONE KNOWS TEFLON IS LYING. Even he does. The conservative movement and the modern Republican Party have fought against affirmative action (which MLK favored, that f'ing marxist!), fair housing laws, desegregation, etc. etc. etc. It's simple truth.

BUT LOOK! Teflon has gotten me off point.

So, back on point.... Lord is a moron for arguing there was no lynching.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 5:47PM

Teflon, literally every single sentence you have just written is a lie.

Chris | 7.28.10 @ 11:08PM

Let me be more specific:

"To sum up, liberals having no response to the Democrats' unbroken history of racism and bigotry,"

A lie. Liberals have actually written numerous books about the subject.

"the perpetrators of which the party continues to celebrate today,"

Mostly because they apologized and changes their minds completely on racial issues. See: Robert Byrd.

" take issue instead with the semantic issue of what Shirley Sherrod and Jeffrey Lord believe "lynching" to mean, however construed."

Because that's what the fucking article we're replying to is about. It's in the title.

"They consider Lord quoting Democrats to be Lord being a racist, while the Democrats quoted were not."

No one has ever said or even implied that these particular Democrats were not racist.

"They consider Fox News, which didn't run a thing on the story until after Sherrod was already fired by Democrat Tom Vilsack,"

A lie. FOX News ran the story before her firing.

"They consider Andrew Breitbart, who obtained the video he posted in the same form he posted it from someone in attendance at the NAACP event, and who repeatedly said it wasn't about Shirley Sherrod but about the NAACP cheering racist comments,"

He only repeatedly said that after her published the first article and the video.

And the NAACP never cheered racist comments. Breitbart also lied when he said they were "clapping" and "applauding--" something that he only heard in his imagination, because it wasn't in the video.

"to be to blame for Sherrod's firing as well."

Well, yeah. Anyone who makes a false accusation is to blame for the logical results of that accusation.

"Shirley Sherrod, of course, bears no blame."

What in the hell is she supposed to be blamed for? Having racist thoughts at one point, but overcoming them completely? Existing while black?

"This is not due to liberals' patronizing racism nor the Democrat hivemind's insistence upon lockstep loyalty to the talking points of the day, but rather an exercise in high principle that liberal Democrat bureaucrats may say things in public which would get conservative Republicans run out of town on a rail."

Sorry, I forgot that we're supposed to empathize more with hypothetical white Republicans than real black Democrats.

"A principled bunch, they."

You have no evidence that a similar story of overcoming racism from a white Republican would lead to condemnation from the left, so your critique of liberal principles on this issue is meaningless and completely without substance.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:14AM

Prove Fox AIRED a story on Sherrod's racism BEFORE she was fired by Democrat Vilsack and excoriated by the NAACP!! PROVE IT NOW!!

You CAN'T prove it because it DIDN'T happen.

YOU LIE, LOSER LIB!!

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 1:10PM

Media Matters has picture proof:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004

Of course, you won't believe it, even though the proof is right there, because it comes from Media Matters.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:46PM

It wasn't "AIRED" libtard, it was a small blurb on the Fox website, and you know it. Fox didn't air the Sherrod racist story until TWO HOURS AFTER Obama fired her. Read it and weep, loser.

Yeah, sure, Soros' Photo-shop whores Media Matters is ALWAYS correct and NEVER lies. If you believe that I can sell you some swampland real cheap--hell, Oilbama has already destroyed the Gulf for decades. Land there should be real cheap, loser.

You're lying just like the garbage at Media Matters--liberals like you have to lie because your ideology stinks.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 4:44PM

Neither Teflon nor I said anything about an "aired" story. He said they did not "run" the story, and I said that they did. And the fact is...they did. Good attempt at moving the goalposts, though.

Provide evidence that Media Matters is lying about this. Hell, provide evidence that they've ever lied. Media Matters constantly gives photographic evidence and links to full transcripts of the people they criticize. They have a left-wing bias, definitely, but they are always accurate.

You have provided no evidence for anything you've said. Every comment by you on this site is pure ad hominem attack.

In your rage against liberals, you've completely avoided the main point of this whole debate, which is that Jeff Lords lied about the definitions of "lynching," "mob," and "color of law" in order to claim Shirley Sherrod lied, when in fact she never did.

You've contributed nothing to this debate.

SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 5:06PM

You gave the impression that Fox aired the story before Sherrod was fired--like Howard "SCREAM" Dean did when he lied on the Chris Wallace show. A website blurb means nothing and you know it.

Wallace blew the crazy little lying MoFo out of the water like I just did with you, loser liar libtard.

Bottom line: Fascist Liberals NAACLP, Vilsadsack and Oilbama accused, abused and fired old Shirley--not us!

Read it and weep, libtard--you and your liberal lies have been outed.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 6:54PM

"You gave the impression that Fox aired the story before Sherrod was fired"

I gave no such impression. I said that FOX "ran" the story, and they did.

To me that article looks a lot longer than what I would define as a "blurb," but whatever. I am not going to play these petty semantic games with you. I said what I said and it was accurate. You cannot just change the meaning of words to fit your narrative. You can't call me a liar for telling the truth just because you think it "implies" something that it in no way does. Well, you can, but 99% of people won't take you seriously, as witnessed by the overwhelming backlash against Jeff Lord's articles.

I do hold the Obama administration and the NAACP responsible for Sherrod's firing, but to say your side did not "accuse" Sherrod of anything is a bald-faced lie. Breitbart accused her of racism, and Rush and Hannity and Gingrich all repeated that accusation. Most have realized they were mistaken, but others like Rush and Jeff Lords have decided to continue to smear her, calling her a racist and a liar despite all evidence to the contrary. Your side did not fire her, but they did start the nasty accusation, and when you falsely accuse someone you are responsible for the consequences of that action.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 7:10PM

Huh, look at this. FOX News Senior VP Michael Clemente admits that it was a mistake to run the story on the FOX News website before Sherrod was fired:

http://www.politico.com/news/s.....40374.html

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 8:24PM

That's right, bonehead!! Clemente's email warning Fox analysts to make sure and check twice before they put Breitbart's piece on is why the Sherrod story didn't AIR until two hours after Obama fired her. You got nothin' little turd.

Told you Fox was fair. You just proved my point, fool. haha

Chris| 7.30.10 @ 3:00PM

"Clemente's email warning Fox analysts to make sure and check twice before they put Breitbart's piece on is why the Sherrod story didn't AIR until two hours after Obama fired her."

I'll give you that it didn't air. Good for them. It did, however, run on the website, like I said. Bad for them. But Clemente has admitted that was a mistake and it shouldn't have happened. Good for them again. FOX News has more intellectual honesty than you and Jeff Lord. Not that that's especially hard.

"Told you Fox was fair."

When? Are you just making shit up again about what was said in this debate? You realize anyone can look at this exchange and see that you're lying, right?

"You just proved my point, fool. haha"

Your point was that I lied when I said FOX News ran the story. The larger issue of whether or not FOX is a fair network has not been brought up by either myself or you. This was about you accusing me of lying, when in fact I made a factual statement. Just like Jeff Lord's original article.

You two argue by constantly moving the goalposts, making up things that were never said, changing the point midway into the argument, and refusing to admit when you are wrong. This may feel good for an instant, but the problem is that no one is stupid enough to buy it. And I'm not talking about your ideological opponents; you've clearly given up on trying to convince liberals of anything, and are attempting to preach to the choir. But your real problem is that even your fellow conservatives can see how stupid and counter-productive your lying, cheating tactics are, as can be seen in the overwhelming response of "Are you high?" to Lord's article from both the left and the right. Most conservatives do not want to be associated with such stupidity. You are scaring them away.

So keep preaching to your choir, if you want; it'll just keep getting smaller and smaller if you don't step up your game and start making rational arguments. This includes having the decency to admit when you are wrong.

Wally| 7.30.10 @ 4:55PM

Since when did amoral libs like you care about right or wrong?
You lost your collective consciences long, long ago.

Breitbart made his point and Obama looks even weaker than before. I didn't think that was possible.

Chris| 7.30.10 @ 6:11PM

"Since when did amoral libs like you care about right or wrong?
You lost your collective consciences long, long ago."

We were having a debate about specific words that were said by you and I. Changing the subject to make generalizations about all liberals once you have lost the debate is a chickenshit tactic. Your party is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility. But you and other commenters here are grouping all liberals together and holding us responsible for things we've never personally done, as if that somehow exonerates your own lies and stupid statements. I won't take a page from you and make generalizations about all Republicans because of your actions. But I will inform you that you aren't doing your movement any favors with your spurious, dishonest, intellectually childish arguments.

Wally| 7.30.10 @ 8:35PM

Psssst, Chris! Sorry to break it to you but this thread is dead, over, kaput!

No one know or cares what you're saying here; you can leave now. You dumbtards have screwed the pooch politically and will pay a HEAVY price for your arrogance and duplicity in November's elections.

Better worry about your own "movement"--it's in serious shape right now, and the American people are seriously pissed off at you.

We will REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!

Chris| 8.1.10 @ 6:24PM

Wally, you're still here too. You can't just declare the thread "over" just because you are on the losing side of the debate. Well, you can, but it's just another example of a chickenshit tactic from someone who has no real argument to contribute.

But hey, since you seem pitifully desperate to have the last word despite having nothing to actually say, this will be my last post. It's been...well, really embarrassing for you. Bye.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 6:53PM

When it comes to Democrats' view of racial bigotry, this gentleman provided the theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 6:58PM

Sigh... are you really equating "acting under color of law" as having "legal authority"? Acting under color of law is a legal term of art. For example, the whole basis of 42 U.S.C. 1983 is providing liability when people violate constitutional rights while acting under color of law. Acting under color or law does not by itself mean that a person has legal authority (i.e., it simply means they claim to have legal authority - which is not the same thing). Are you really suggesting that every time a sheriff lynched someone it wasn't technically a lynching simply because they were wearing a badge?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:00PM

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

-- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate", in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.

66 Years Ago| 7.28.10 @ 8:03AM

"... in a letter written in 1944 ..."

I think the Japs and Krauts were behind this.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:01PM

"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities."

-- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate", in a letter written in 1946, after he quit the KKK.

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 7:06PM

Let me see if I understand you. Robert Byrd was a racist, therefore it's okay to call a woman a liar for stating that her relative (who was lynched) was lynched. Do I follow correctly?

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 7:31PM

No, DRed, you're missing Teflon's point entirely.

It's purposefully NOT supposed to follow from one point to the next. Teflon is merely flailing about because (1) Lord's writing is indefensible and (2) some people (like Teflon) are incapable of admitting fault (even when the fault was someone else's!).

So Teflon is just throwing shit on the wall, hoping something sticks, so people don't focus on the truth of the matter: Lord is a moron, wrote a terrible piece, and should be disregarded as something worth reading on issues of race and modern politics.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:06PM

Teflon has provided links supporting what he says.

The liberals here have not.

BUT IF THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS IS NECESSARY FOR LIBERALS TO IDENTIFY FACT: DEMOCRATS WERE FOUNDED ON RACISM AND EMBRACE IT TO THIS VERY DAY.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 7:26PM

HHAHAHAHAHA

Let's see, letters from Robert Byrd from 1946....

or

the National Review from 1957: "''whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically?'' Citing the ''cultural superiority of white over Negro'' and ''civilized standards'' National Review editors answered, ''Yes—the white community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.''"

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:10PM

Shirley Sherrod was fired by a Democrat so it's okay for her to lie about Breitbart supporting a return to slavery, do I get you right, DRed?

And it's never okay for anyone to ask how somebody could devote their life to the political party of the men who murdered two members of her family then let the killers go free?

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 7:16PM

I imagine she understands that political parties change over time. Most people understand that.

Do I think Breitbart supports a return to slavery? No, I don't. I do think he slandered an innocent woman in an attempt to score some cheap political points, and got her fired, so I understand why she went overboard.

I don't understand why you keep going on about racists who used to be in the 'democrat' party. (as an aside, if you'd like people to take your ideas seriously, you should chill out with the childish pettiness) I don't think anyone here is disputing that there used to be a lot of racists in the Democratic Party, especially in the South.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:23PM

Where was Sherrod speaking again?

The National Association for the Advancement of the American People?

Wow, the Democrats sure have abandoned their engrained racism.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a15_1199333754

The parties didn't change---the Democrats simply transposed their racist views from one favored group to another. They are about to do this again with the hispanic (though really primarily the Mexican) vote. Their belief in racial superiority hasn't changed much at all.

Remember Al Sharpton's quote?

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in "Democrats Do the Dumbest Things

Al sounds for all the world like a turn-of-the century Wilsonian bigot.

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 11:14PM

Teflon, if you're seriously going to stoop to the "the NAACP is racist because of it's name" argument, you might as well give up debating for the rest of your life.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:26PM

And in case you weren't aware that the Father of Progressivism was a horrible bigot:

http://www.academia.org/progressive-segregation/

DRed| 7.27.10 @ 7:35PM

Oddly, the 'Father of Progressivism' was elected President over the Progressive Party Candidate, the formerly Republican Theodore Roosevelt. What does that prove about modern progressivism? Nothing. What does it have to do with Mr. Lord's lies about Mrs. Sherrod? Nothing. But it's kinda funny.

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 3:19AM

Democrat RACIST Woodrow Wilson was the "Father of Progressivism" dumbtard. You should feel proud that one of yours was the inspiration for Hitler's Final Solution.

Democrat Party: SLAVERY, SEGREGATION, SODOMY AND SEDITION.

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 7:35PM

The National Review, standard bearer of the modern conservative movement: [The] magazine supported apartheid South Africa’s white minority rule (4/23/60): ''The whites are entitled, we believe, to preeminence in South Africa.'' When Nelson Mandela and other ANC leaders were sentenced to life in prison in South Africa, National Review editors mocked critics of the verdicts (6/30/64): ''The South African courts have sentenced a batch of admitted terrorists to life in the penitentiary, and you would think the court had just finished barbecuing St. Joan, to hear the howls from the liberal press.''

National Review tapped Rushton to write a review of a new edition of The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould’s critique of eugenics—resulting in a predictable pan (9/15/97). And when Gould died in 2002, the magazine called on Steve Sailer (5/22/02) to do some grave-spitting. Steve Sailer is, OF COURSE, a blatant, unrepentant racist, comfortably at home within the Republican Party and conservative movement.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:37PM

Now let's hit the lefties in the gut. A quote from their hero Che Guevara:

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portugese.... the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead."

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 7:40PM

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA TEFLON, YOU'RE TOO FUNNY!!!

You think Che fuckin' Guevara quotes score you points in this discussion?!??!?!?! HAHAHAHA

I literally LOL'd when I saw you post that. Huzzah, sir! You're officially dumber than Lord himself!

Repentant Liberal| 7.27.10 @ 10:53PM

Oh my goodness! Did Che say something racist?? Well then I... I must be racist too! It's a pity, because I was only interested in the violent overthrow of capitalist oligarchy. But if Che says I should be a racist, welp, guess that's how it's got to be!

I'm off to a Tea Party rally to convince them that revolutionary socialism goes perfectly with their agenda of racial fear mongering!

Chris| 7.28.10 @ 11:10PM

"their hero Che Guevara"

You haven't actually spoken to a whole lot of liberals, have you?

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:39PM

Harry Truman:

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America." - President Harry Truman

LJM| 7.27.10 @ 7:59PM

You know, a lot of people here, like me, aren't leftists, and agree that those people were racists, but also that Lord is acting like a fool and a coward, and so are you.

Librarian| 7.28.10 @ 8:13AM

Truman may have said that. As an anal retentive librarian the only sources for the Truman quote I can find are on rightwingtard sites (none of which give an original source).

Ok, Ronald Reagan said "Damn, I hates them n*ggers." That was easy.

Your post has no relevance, in any case.

Reagan Lover| 7.28.10 @ 8:19AM

Wow. I think I'm going to tell everyone I know on the Internets that Ronald Reagan said "Damn, I hates them n*ggers" and I saw it on the American Spectator blog.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:40PM

And it was written by a RACIST Fascist Liberal!

Slim Tyranny| 7.27.10 @ 7:39PM

Hell, let's look at the American Spectator's own contributor, Robert Stacey McCain! The conservative Washington Times "employ[s] assistant managing editor Robert Stacy McCain; McCain, a member of the white-supremacist League of the South, is noted for posting Internet comments like, “The media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion” (New York Press, 12/11/02)"

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:40PM

LBJ, who was more skeptical about the term "lynching" than Lord:

I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill – Lyndon B. Johnson (D – President)

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:40PM

Good ol' Joe Biden:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy. – Joseph Biden (Sen / V.P – D)

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:42PM

Fritz Hollings:

"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." -- Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

history| 7.27.10 @ 11:29PM

I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." - Abraham Lincoln (R) defender of the Federal Union against states rights

Dan| 7.27.10 @ 7:44PM

"The subway car was mobbed. There were three people on board!"

"The coffee shop is usually mobbed with as many as 3 customers at lunch time."

Mr. Lord has a point.

Why so much anger and outrage over an opinion piece on the web? Given the vocal dissent, I doubt it will blossom into a landmark book celebrated around the world. Most of the ping backs appear to come from poker sites.

I interpreted Mr. Lord's piece as questioning the word usage in Mrs. Sherrod's claim, not personally attacking her or diminishing the ugliness of the well documented and inexcusable crime.

I don't see what is gained in a polarizing debate over the precise distinction between lynching and beating someone to death. Both are evil! Trying to be on the right side of the question and be the victorious winner is bizarre.

I have learned from the dissenters and tend to agree with them, but do not share their malice toward Mr. Lord.

You've got to let go of the hate and make room for the love! Better angels of our nature, etc.

RobNYNY1957| 7.28.10 @ 10:32AM

This debate is not about technical defintions. It's about calling someone is a "liar" or "inflammatory" for calling the death by torture of a black man at the hands of white cops a "lynching." Lord is the one who made the vile accusations, and who had to invent new defintions for old words, to quote words from the case out of context, and to quote words from the case that were not there. And then he doubled down.

Elizabeth Ferrar| 7.27.10 @ 7:47PM

Somebody get that shovel away from him.

Teflon93| 7.27.10 @ 7:59PM

The Democrat Party never "purged its racist past"---it simply ignored it.

Most of the so-called Dixiecrats retired in the Democrat Party. These bigots are still celebrated by that party to this day.

Look at the electoral results. The Democrats didn't spend time in the political wilderness between 1965, when they voted against the Voting Rights Act which only passed thanks to a strong Republican majority in favor of it---and 1994, when the Republicans at last took over House and Senate. They ran the House nonstop and the Senate most of the time, struggling only to win the White House. They also performed the Long March through the countries cultural institutions at this time.

Hard work? The only hard work that they put in was voter fraud and corruption.

It is a complete myth that the Democrats purged their racists. They died revered and their names still grace buildings all around the capitol and their home states.

What they did was mythologize the civil rights movement into a great Democrat triumph relying on the stupidity of Americans to not realize precisely whom manned the hoses and unleashed the hounds.

How'd the Democrats get the vote of so many blacks after 1965? They bought them with the relentless expansion of Great Society programs. They kept them through racial gerrymandering and nonstop racebaiting and through the rise of their propaganda wing in the media. Now they are one underserved piece in the Democrat coalition, one about to be cast aside for the supposedly greener fields in the hispanic demographic.

A purge wasn't necessary. A massive inflation of the welfare state was all it took to do the trick.

Tea Party | 7.27.10 @ 11:36PM

You know, the lame “Bull Connor was a Democrat!” defense. It never works, but they just keep trotting it out like some lucky charm in the vain hope that this time it will work.

Teflon93| 7.28.10 @ 1:37PM

Since the truth "never works", why do libs get panty-twisted every time it's brought up?

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 3:45AM

The TRUTH always works; democrats just don't know that because they NEVER tell the truth!

Doofus| 7.27.10 @ 8:00PM

You are a horrible horrible human being.

wolfefan| 7.27.10 @ 8:58PM

Hi Mr Lord (if you're still reading this far) -

Thanks for taking the time to reply to a few of the posters here. I'm a little confused by your defense above of your original article.

First, you quote a dictionary definition that explicitly does not limit "lynching" to "hanging". While hanging is the most common method, the dictionary specifically says that it isn't exclusive. Further, as I am sure you know, sometimes legal definitions aren't the same as standard English usage definitions.

Second, you say that the SC found that the officers acted "under color of law", which means that they had legal authority. What's the line from Princess Bride - "I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Under color of law" most commonly means the opposite of "with legal authority" and is used only when the action being discussed was inappropriate or illegal.

Can you cite either a definition of lynching that says it must be by hanging (preferably from the applicable law) or a definition of "color of law" that means "with legal authority"? In your responses thus far I haven't seen you do so (sorry if I missed them) and so I wanted to ask clearly so that my concerns weren't lost in the welter. I know you're probably not reading this far into it all, but no harm in asking.

Best wishes...

NSR| 7.27.10 @ 9:42PM

Jeff,

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're possibly the worst example of the Republican Party talking today...the more you keep talking, the worse you make it.

Please, please, please resign your position and stop this....you've dug yourself a hole you're never coming out of.

Hugo White| 7.27.10 @ 10:54PM

"to put to death ... without legal authority."

Says our Lord: "[T]hey had legal authority."

To put him to death? Um, no.

Tea Party | 7.27.10 @ 11:02PM

"This was a great opportunity for the Tea Party movement to show some backbone by laughing in the face of the imbeciles at the NAACP. But did they? Of course not. Predictably, they responded in the same tired, pusillanimous manner with which they always respond to these never ending accusations. Instead of replying with a loud BWAHAHAHA! or a “Yeah? What’s your point?” or “So what?” or “Of course we’re racists -we’re white people.

"That’s what “racist” means or “Can any of you race hustlers even spell “racist”?”, they predictably went into their usual bend over and grab their ankles mode. They protested that oh no, we’re not racists at all, we don’t tolerate racists at our rallies which are really huge rainbow coalitions, and it’s the NAACP and the liberals who are the real racists, etc., etc. You know, the lame “Bull Connor was a Democrat!” defense. It never works, but they just keep trotting it out like some lucky charm in the vain hope that this time it will work.

"Racist means white person. Period. Until the Tea Partiers get that through their heads, nothing’s going to change, and they’re never going to be an effective political force. "

DPirate| 7.27.10 @ 11:09PM

Please tell me they don't pay this guy for this shite. Besides the bit where he contradicts himself in asserting a direct correlation to old southern lynchings, the article, if you can call it that, is rather infantile down to it's inception.

SIV| 7.27.10 @ 11:27PM

They'll let anybody comment here.

Anyone| 7.27.10 @ 11:37PM

Yeah, but have you seen the people who post articles here? Whoa.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:31AM

I wish the dumbtards would crawl back under their DU/HuffPo rocks.

SIV| 7.28.10 @ 12:23AM

Well I figured that's why they have an open comment system. Somebody has to provide quality content.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:32AM

Yeah, if you mean lib morons who have sh!t for brains!

Rush Limbaugh| 7.28.10 @ 5:47AM

It's "Shutupa you face". Can't you two even get your racial stereotypes right?

D. Singh| 7.28.10 @ 3:41AM

Sir

Mr Lord clearly states the heart of this matter:

‘This is all of a piece. Intimately connected by philosophy, party, time, heritage and party culture.’

But one has to ask oneself why do the Progressives (where is the destination?) twist the meaning (plain to the ordinary man) of words?

Clearly, without question, Sherrod invited her audience to believe a man was lynched when the judicial record plainly states that is not the case. But for Sherrod to claim the man was lynched (and therefore either to lie or mislead) serves a political and moral purpose: to induce sympathy for the Progressive cause (albeit through unethical means).

Increasingly, as the intellectual poverty of Progressive thought is exposed; facts are discarded, meaning of words twisted beyond recognition, counterfactuals ignored, myths glorified (the lynching that was not), common-sense replaced by the method of Marxian dialectical materialism (passed off as scientific): Progressivism descends into a paranoid hysteria.

The Progressive (or the liberal) ‘[D]oes not seem to know what an argument is. He never uses arguments himself. He never troubles himself to answer the arguments of an opponent… It has never occurred to him… that when an objection is raised, it ought to be met with something more convincing than “scoundrel” or “blockhead”.’

(The quotation is from Lord Macauly’s Essay on Southey’s Colloquies.)

Edward| 7.28.10 @ 4:59AM

Somebody arrived late for the gangbang...

Purple Lips| 7.28.10 @ 8:54AM

Nothing is worse than the faux rage of Trolls.

ex| 7.28.10 @ 9:56AM

It is amazing how some people are so blinded by ideology that they refuse to grasp the definition of a word like lynching. Even if it was possible to cite a source that says to be lynched one must be hung from a rope there are even more sources that define it more broadly so at the very least the point is debatable. Therefore to accuse Ms Sherrod of lying barely rises to the level of being a specious argument. To quibble about the difference between being hung or beaten to death by a group of police officers in front of a courthouse is both morally and intellectually bankrupt. Why is this point so important to Mr Lord's defender? Is there hatred of all things progressive and liberal so great that they are willing to debase themselves morally and intellectually and quibble about the difference between being lynched or merely being beaten to death? The point is not how Mr. Hall was murdered but that he was murdered by three police officers and the state of Georgia refused to prosecute. The whole point of quibbling about the word lynching is an attempt to obfuscate this fact and refute the conclusion Ms Sherrod due from it. If Mr Lord and his defenders had a legitimate argument they would not have to argue about whether or not Mr Hall had been lynched. Obviously they do not because the best they can do is to argue about the definition of lynching and they can not even do that successfully only tenaciously. If your read the notes from the Supreme Court concerning this case then you would clearly see at least one justice viewed this as a lynching. But that is not the real point is it.
Continue arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and maybe people will not see the emperor has no clothes.

Sparky Satori| 7.28.10 @ 8:59AM

The quotation in D. Singh's comment might carry some weight if Macauly had been writing about Progressives or Liberals.

He wasn't.

Fail.

dilbert| 7.28.10 @ 9:27AM

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.

Aaron Baker| 7.28.10 @ 10:11AM

The three had legal authority to kill someone?

And three people aren't enough to carry out a lynching? Representative Dyer didn't think so, as his proposed anti-lynching bill of 1922 made clear:

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.

It is actually commendable to admit when you're wrong, and not to compound your error with further feeble justifications. Not only are you completely wrong, and have been shown to be wrong, about the meaning of lynching, but (worse in my view) you've accused Ms. Sherrod of "lying" because of what is really a quibble between you and her on the meaning of a particular word. You have no grounds whatsoever to charge her with deception. As this continues, you're the only one who looks like a racist.

ice9| 7.28.10 @ 10:17AM

Dilbert--here's the problem. You don't get to create your own definitions. When you create a definition, you are (just a shot in the dark here) going to serve your own preconceived motives. I know that your definition is just one more clever way to insult people you disagree with, but it's also part of a process of attempting to eliminate those people from the decisionmaking process for the nation, a nation they (we) are equally entitled to make decisions for.

If, for instance, the definition were something a bit more concrete, such as the distinction between lynching and beating to death with an iron bar, attempting to redefine becomes a more pernicious and ugly process, part of a process of changing the markings on the field of play, of shifting the essential qualities of dialogue, etc. Mr. Lord did that, then doubled down and defended well beyond the scope of any clever riposte about liberals and taxes.

Aside from persuading teabagging racist scumbags and halfwits to vote for you, which they were probably going to do anyway on account of your conveniently advertised CCC/KKK sympathies, this process (I'm trolling openly now, you betcha) will not help you in the long run. See, we have definitions and facts and so on, and sooner or later all of your repremising and fact-shifting and definition-inventing is going to be evaluated, and then your wrongness will be plain.

Then you'll have to shoot us, as you have been threatening to do.

But you will have lost the element of surprise. And we've realized that people with such a deranged, inside-out faculty for logic will also be deranged and inside-out when it comes to ordnance, opportunity, and courage. We won't have to shoot back. It will be clear that you are no real threat to anything but your own bigotries. It will be obvious that you are selfish and ignorant. You are not 'paying for' something of ours; you are freeloading on the stable democracy established by people who knew how to argue and discuss and compromise.

ice9

dilbert| 7.28.10 @ 10:26AM

ice9
Obama is President of United States. that is a fact. While you where crying VICTIM, he was working to bettter himself. Now Obama is President and you are going toe to toe with me. Do you think maybe you took the wrong fork?

A Hermit| 7.28.10 @ 11:08AM

You think that correctly referring to the beating to death of a man by a gang of racist thugs as a "lynching" is "Crying VICTIM?"

Guess we know where you're coming from...

dilbert| 7.28.10 @ 11:36AM

to A Hermt/ice9

ice9 is playing victim bonehead

A Hermit| 7.28.10 @ 4:38PM

sorry

A Hermit| 7.28.10 @ 5:42PM

Nice try Dilbert...ice9 was not "crying victim" he/she was correctly pointing out that what Lord is doing here is attempting to smear Sherrod by playing down the enormity of crimes like the one she describes (correctly) as "lynching." That's not "crying victim" that's an accurate assessment of the facts.

And posting a phony apology under my name is an appalling act of cowardice. Did you do that yourself?

Justin Patterson | 7.28.10 @ 10:34AM

"esp." refers to especially. The definition, "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority," uses esp in defining the mob and legal authority both. Technically if one person hanged a man under legal authority, it could still be considered a lynching - just a rarer type and less characteristic of a typical lynching.

I am not taking sides, I view both sides at fault in this debate. I'm just laying a warning out to Lord if he wishes to use a dictionary in debate.

Dictionary definitions are incredibly flexible. It was a lynching, just one that was atypical. The stability of atypical events in the greater schema are up to debate as well, but that's something I'm not willing to get into in the context of a forum posting.

David| 7.28.10 @ 10:43AM

Even if one agrees with Mr. Lord's definition, he's being ridiculous. People misuse words all the time, without intent to deceive. Even if Ms. Sherrod had used the word "lynching" incorrectly, it was close enough that it wasn't deceptive and Mr. Lord's screed was obnoxious.

The fact that the murder in question actually met the correct definition of "lynching" just makes his attitude worse.

Now, I'm sure there are other things about Ms. Sherrod or her husband worthy of criticism, but metaphorically throwing unrelated stones at her or her husband or posting links to a video of something he once said, helps Mr. Lord's idiotic argument not one iota. There might be, in Mr. Lord's view, a lot to criticize Ms. Sherrod about - but this isn't it, and he's lost all credibility such that even if, hypothetically, he had something worthwhile to criticize her about, it would understandably be ignored by almost everyone.

Gus| 7.28.10 @ 10:48AM

Lord, you should seriously shut up. You're just digging yourself in deeper.

David| 7.28.10 @ 10:51AM

An aside regarding Justice Hugo Black, discussed in the original post by Mr. Lord. Yes, he was at one time a member of the KKK for political reasons (which at that time and place while objectionable, was understandable). He was also - whatever other criticisms one may have of his judgments or politics or worldview - not considered a racist by those with reason to know. Such as Justice Thurgood Marshall - again, whatever one's opinion of this justice's judgments or politics, considering his civil rights history, for him to have been friends with and stated unequivocally that Justice Hugo Black was not racist, carries significant weight.

Steve| 7.28.10 @ 10:56AM

Mr. Lord,

What would the correct way for Ms. Sherrod to describe what happened? Since you think lynching is incorrect, would it be better if she called it an "accident."

With every comment you make regarding this matter you sound more ignorant. Keep your hands away from the keyboard for awhile...

dilbert| 7.28.10 @ 11:01AM

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 to 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

Do it for yourself. Obama did

aulde lang sine| 7.28.10 @ 11:22AM

This whole thing was a much better read before they mass deleted the fake Andrew Breitbart comments. Now it's just repeated cries of disbelief at Jeff Lord's hideous self-abuse, punctuated with outbursts of poorly-spelled racial animus. Boooring.

AnonymousCoward| 7.28.10 @ 12:35PM

Jeffrey Lord debating tip #1138 - You can't lose if you keep on talking.

Aaron Baker| 7.28.10 @ 12:42PM

As an attorney, I'd like to add a clarification here, which seems to account for much of Lord's confusion. The killers in this case were acting under color of law, inasmuch as, apparently, they were officers on duty, and in uniform, beating to death a man they had taken prisoner. But the dictionary definition that Lord is so fond of doesn't use the legal term of art, "under color of law." Instead it says: "without legal authority," which is not a legal term of art and does NOT mean the same thing.

It's pretty clear, if not to Lord, that the definition means this: the legal authority that is lacking in the case of lynching is the legal authority to kill. Otherwise, a bunch of cops, on duty and in uniform, could kill anyone they chose to (not in self-defense or on any other legal basis), and we wouldn't be able to call this "lynching," which is plainly absurd.

Got that, Mr. Lord? Citing a dictionary entry and grossly misinterpreting it isn't helping you.

Teflon93| 7.28.10 @ 1:42PM

Perhaps getting Lord's piece and reading it would help YOU.

Why is Shirley Sherrod a loyal, lifelong member of the political party to which the murderers of her uncle and father and their accomplices after the fact belonged?

That was the point of Lord's piece. Which, had you read it, you might know.

A corollary: Why are all the libs here with their foaming-at-the-mouth rage over the interpretation of the word "lynching" loyal stormtroopers of the party which invented the practice?

DRed| 7.28.10 @ 3:27PM

Seriously? You're still pretending that political parties never change?

Aaron Baker| 7.28.10 @ 5:37PM

"Why is Shirley Sherrod a loyal, lifelong member of the political party to which the murderers of her uncle and father and their accomplices after the fact belonged? "

Because, as I think others have already pointed out, Lyndon Johnson broke decisively with Southern white supremacists--whereas the Republicans from at leat Nixon on actively courted said peckerwood racists. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, on the one hand, and the Republicans' Southern Strategy (i.e. courting racists), on the other, shifted the polarities quite decisively.

And somehow I think lecturing blacks on the meaning of "lynching" when you haven't the faintest Goddamned idea what you're talking about isn't going to shift things back any time soon.

LIBS LIE| 7.29.10 @ 3:36AM

Don't think so, Aaron. Senate Republicans over-rode your democrat KKK Grand Kleagle Bobby Byrd's filibuster to pass Civil Rights legislation.
You demonrats are the racists and always have been. Nice lie, nice try--again.

Aaron Baker| 7.29.10 @ 12:19PM

Two points:

You omit to mention that the Senate of the 1960s (unlike the present one) had a large number of moderate Republicans in it (some of them even doves regarding the Vietnam War). Are you going to claim with a straight face that the presence of such people means Nixon and other Republicans DIDN'T pursue the Southern Strategy?

Another omission: completely failing to mention Robert Byrd's ideological and moral change from white supremacist to anti-racist later in life. Ignoring this makes you the liar (by omission)--or a moron, or both.

And since I refuse to waste more than a small amount of time on morons, I am out of here.

LIBS LIE!| 7.29.10 @ 3:38PM

Byrd filibustered Civil Rights legislation when he was nearly 50 years old--kinda shoots your stupid "flaming KKK democrat racist finds redemption 'later in life"' to hell, libtard. Grand Kleagle Bobby Byrd used the N word repeatedly on air just a year or two ago!

Screw you and the lying democrat jackass you rode in on, moron. Good riddance, it smells better already!

JPWF13| 7.28.10 @ 1:54PM

"Why is Shirley Sherrod a loyal, lifelong member of the political party to which the murderers of her uncle and father and their accomplices after the fact belonged?"

because she undoubtedly believes that if said murders and accomplices were alive today they'd be republicans or tea partiers (or both)

"That was the point of Lord's piece. " No, his point seems to be that Ms. Sherrod is a liar because she said someone was lynched when they were merely beaten to death.

Robert| 7.28.10 @ 2:50PM

Whoever runs as GOP candidate in 2012, I want Jeffrey Lord writing his/her speeches. Or at least making many MANY campaign appearances. He's got a real gift.

And yes, I'm a Democrat.

LIBS LIE| 7.29.10 @ 3:47AM

Duh!

AnonymousCoward| 7.28.10 @ 3:26PM

@JPWF13

Actually, his point was that Ms. Sherrod is a liar because she said Hall was lynched by a mob whereas in reality he was beaten to death by a group.

wolfefan| 7.28.10 @ 3:49PM

Hi Mr. Lord - I have now read the majority opinion and the concurrence in the Screws case. I'm not a lawyer (your bio doesn't say - are you?), and my eyes glazed over so I may have missed something, but I don't see anyplace in the majority or the concurrence where the Court says that Hall wasn't lynched. Could you direct me to those words, or an expression of them?

What I read was not a vindication of Screws, but an order for a new trial because of an error in jury instructions about intent and willfullness.

In fact, the majority opinion explicitly says:
"In the present case, as we have said, the defendants were officers of the law who had made an arrest and who, by their own admissions, made the assault in order to protect themselves and to keep the prisoner from escaping, i.e., to make the arrest effective. That was a duty they had under Georgia law. United States v. Classic is, therefore, indistinguishable from this case so far as "under color of" state law is concerned. In each, officers of the State were performing official duties; in each, the power which they were authorized to exercise was misused." That's what "color of law" means - misusing your authority as an officer in performance of your duty, as opposed to doing these things as private citizens.

The majority further says:
"Here, the state officers were authorized to make an arrest and to take such steps as were necessary to make the arrest effective. They acted without authority only in the sense that they used excessive force in making the arrest effective." IOW, the majority is expicit that the officers did not have the authority to do what they did, in direct contradiction of your argument.

The concurrence says:
"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."

As I say, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you are, although your misunderstanding of "color of law" leads me to think not. Respectfully and sincerely, can you explain to me how an order for a new trial because of faulty jury instructions is the same thing as saying that Hall wasn't lynched?

xian | 7.28.10 @ 4:00PM

shorter Teflon93: "You guys used to be the racists!"

DRed| 7.28.10 @ 4:18PM

I believe you're misstating his argument. It's actually as follows. Members of the 'democrat' party used to be racist, therefore the 'democrat' party is still racist. Minority members of the 'democrat' party are too stupid to understand that, or have been bought off.

Also, Che Guevara was a racist. Did I just blow your mind?

Andrew Breitbert| 7.28.10 @ 4:54PM

U SEE WAT I DID THAR? LOLOLOL! I TROLL U ALL!!! :3

notimpressed| 7.28.10 @ 5:24PM

real funny troll face, bet halls family would love to see you joking like a jerk on a blog talking about thier murdred son

DRed| 7.28.10 @ 5:47PM

Murdered? Why are you using such an inflamatory term? I didn't see the supreme court define his killing as a murder. He was merely beaten to death by 3 police officers because he allegedly stole a tire. You should stop with your shameless racist propaganda.

DRed| 7.28.10 @ 6:29PM

Sorry, I kind lost it there

Rufus T. Firefly| 7.28.10 @ 6:00PM

Why Lynching Matters -

http://studentactivism.net/201.....g-matters/

But I'm sure Lord will find a way to argue that it doesn't. Just because.

Rufus T. Firefly| 7.28.10 @ 6:33PM

I know I'm being inflamitory, but I just like to make lfe miserable for people.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:32PM

Well, your spelling is miserable, that's for sure.

esther| 7.28.10 @ 7:30PM

The democrats have explained again and again the history of the Dixicrats and how the racist elements left the party to join the republicans. Jesse Helm is the prime example.

What the Republicans haven't explained is their "southern strategy" of using coded language to appeal to racists in the south to win the region. When Reagan made his first speech post nomination about state's in Philadelphia Mississippi the message was sent loud and clear. But they've learned to give themselves enough deniability so they can pretend they meant nothing by it.

Yes, we've explained the dixicrats and how the democratic party has changed since Johnson signed the civil rights act. You haven't explained how the Republicans took over the mantle of racism.

esther| 7.28.10 @ 7:31PM

that should be reagan made his speech about state's rights.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:26AM

Great post, Nick!! Keep telling the truth--the loser Libs can't handle it!!

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 6:45PM

Nate,

Thanks!
You, too, keep up the good fight.

"Never stop, never stop fighting till the fight is done."
Eliot Ness, The Untouchables

Nick| 7.28.10 @ 7:40PM

Are lefty kooks still showing up to post their asinine comments?

Everyone knows the democrat party has always been a racist party.

Andrew Jackson was a notorious racist.
The democrat party started the Civil War because they didn't want slavery to end.
Woodrow Wilson was a flaming racist who segregated the federal government.
The Polio Prince, FDR, would not desegregate the military. He was spineless. Maybe that's why his legs wouldn't work.
Truman was a bigot.
Kennedy played FDR's game when it came to civil rights. In the south he was a good old boy who was okay with the status quo. In the north he promised to fight for equality.
Bubba the pervert, who only cares about being liked, I'm sure was a raving racist growing up in '50s Arkansas.

Once the stinking libs took over the democrat party, they tacked left, and fomented minority racism. They are so dependent on it, racism can never end in this country.

DRed| 7.28.10 @ 10:52PM

Speaking of asinine, what's the Democrat party?

Woodrow Wilson was a racist. But he did not segregate the military, which had been segregated since the war of 1812. Try reading some real history sometime, rather than just parroting idiotic partisan talking points. You'll find it's more complicated than you understand You know who did integrate the US military, for example? That bigot Harry Truman.

Andrew Jackson became president in 1829. hahaha. Good one.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 12:58AM

The "democrat party" is the party that is full of jackasses. That's why the jackass is their mascot.

I didn't write that Wilson segregated the military, Einstein. I stated the fact that he segregated the federal govenment. Didn't your commie college make you take remedial English during your freshman year?

"[R]eal history" is not to be found on wiki. Try reading books.

Truman only desegregated the military to pacify the Eleanor-wing of the democrat party. Did you know that "Flo," from the Progressive commercials, is really the love child of Eleanor and Shrillary the Hut?

Jackson was the first democrat president, brainiac. He helped to found the democrat party, to its everlasting shame.

I notice you didn't quibble with my other facts about the democrat party, did you? The democrat party is the party of racists.

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 3:23AM

Racist Progressive Woodrow Wilson DID segregate the US military and was the inspiration for Hitler's Final Solution.

Democrats are the party of: SLAVERY, SEGREGATION, SODOMY AND SEDITION.

They were, are and always will be GARBAGE.

Michm| 7.29.10 @ 9:50AM

Sodomy? Why don't you just wear a sign that says: "I'm a stupid hillbilly." You could save many keystrokes and still convey all of your beliefs.

farEAST| 7.29.10 @ 11:20AM

so Michm,

your ok slamin hillbillies. is that all hillbillies or just the ones that don't agree wth you?
yes, Im calling you an ignorant bigot

farEAST| 7.29.10 @ 11:42AM

PS
On June 7, 1953, President Harry S. Truman was presented with an "Ozark Hillbilly Medallion" and a certificate proclaiming the honoree a "hillbilly of the Ozarks."

sorry, its only wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 3:28PM

Hahaha! Out of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy and Sedition--the libtard only objects to be called a sodomite.

You just proved my point, moron.

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 4:28PM

For the record, I like sodomites

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 4:58PM

Nah, Wally isn't into sodomy, but the Fascist Liberal buggers like me on this thread sure are.

You can smell us a mile away.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 5:06PM

Wow, I was impersonated? I'm...kinda flattered.

Although I would be more if said impersonator had something a little more witty to make me say than a joke about my sexuality.

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 5:20PM

Not your sexuality, your foul odor.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 6:58PM

You (I'm assuming it was you) called me a bugger who liked sodomy. How is that not about my sexuality? Do you not understand even your own jokes?

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 8:20PM

Your sexuality is second to your noxious presence.

Get over your gayness--we have.

Chris| 7.30.10 @ 2:23PM

I am stunned by your intellectual prowess, Wally.

Wally| 7.30.10 @ 4:52PM

Thank you. You can go now; see you in November!!

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 11:15AM

Sorry, I did misread your Wilson claim. My bad. As you can read below that's a common claim parroted by republican 'historians'. The point is, nobody denies that there were racists in the Democratic party. The point is that political parties change, as you well know. FDR didn't integrate the military. That's true. Neither did Harding, Coolidge or Hoover, so what's your point? America used to have institutionalized racism? Wow. I never knew that.

Jackson helped found the Democratic Party. In the 1820. When was that? Has America changed at all in the interim? Does the Democratic Party sill hate the Bank of the United States and Native Americans living east of the Mississippi?

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 3:29PM

You democrats hate yourselves--that's why you miserable sumbitches are never happy and are such a royal pain in the ass.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 6:19PM

Okay, now that we have established that you have been wrong about everything, let's see if we can get you to comprehend a political argument.

All I did was reiterate Mr. Lord's point, like others on this thread.

After a century and half of overt racism, the democrat party shifted direction and decided to foment minority racism. If they could get minorities to hate rich white people, while keeping the reins of power, they could accomplish their marxist goals.

For the 40 years ('55-'95) that the democrat party controlled the House of Representatives, blacks were only given token committee chairmanships. Not until 2007 would the democrats trust blacks with committees that had actual power. Today, one of them, Rangel, was charged with 13 ethics violations.

The crook, Carol Moseley Braun, was the FIRST black democrat elected to the senate. In 1992! Counting President Dither, democrats have elected TWO blacks to the senate. Roland Buris, the only black in the senate currently, was appointed by the slimy Rod Blagojevich.

Of the over 11,000 total members of Congress since 1789, just over a hundred have been black.

Democrats will let blacks into master's house, but they aren't going to let them run the plantation. What a shameful history. And present.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 6:46PM

The above is directed at DRed.

rewinn | 7.29.10 @ 11:33AM

Mr. Lord: you set out your intent at the very beginning of your first article:

"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..."

Your intent is to "challenge" her "veracity and credibility".

Did you need to look in the dictionary for a definition of "veracity" --- or will you simply concede you were calling her a liar in a fancy way?

Teflon93| 7.29.10 @ 11:47AM

DRed really is pathetic.

The Democrat Party hasn't changed its racist ways, as Robert Byrd serving as "the conscience of the Senate" until death---whereupon he received accolades from Democrats---attests. As Bill Clinton giving his bigot segregationist mentor J. William Fulbright America's highest civilian honor---the Presidential Medal of Freedom---attests.

DRed continually spews historical whoppers, such as his inference that Harry Truman wasn't a bigot.

Unfortunately for him and the other lib liars and illiterates, Harry Truman said as much in his own words:

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America." Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess

Racism and bigotry is in the Democrats' bone marrow. The only change over time with them involves which hand holds the whip and is dependent utterly on which constituency is likelier to vote Democrats in at every time.

Even now, we're seeing the Democrats move toward La Raza's brand of racism. They think that's their future electorate.

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 12:09PM

I said that Truman integrated the military, which he did. (or is that another historical whopper?) Why hadn't all the noble Republican presidents who had come before Truman integrated the military? I know he wrote his wife a nasty, racist letter in 1911, but I still fail to see what that has to do with the Democratic party in 2010.

And about Robert Byrd-let me follow you. He was a racist who hated black people all his life. Therefore, he stayed a member of the Democratic party, the party which hates white people.

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 12:34PM

And what's La Raza's brand of racism? Is it spicier than traditional american racism?

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 3:31PM

We wouldn't know, moron; why don't you tell us? Racist.

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 4:00PM

Shouldn't you be asking Teflon? I don't even know what La Raza is. Maybe he's the head of the Democrat party.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:13PM

You're too busy screaming about killing White Crackers and their babies, right, libtard?

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 4:15PM

huh?

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 4:48PM

Yes, Nate. Every single liberal is a member of the Black Panthers. When we register as Democrat we get a buy one get one free deal. Their platform is the same as our platform, and they absolutely speak for every single person in the country left of Sarah Palin.

Are you really THIS dumb?

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:51PM

The racists are on your side, moron--always have been.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 4:53PM

Ya know, I always thought conservatives had a point about unfair accusations of racism. What happened to that? When did you decide "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," and start accusing the other side of being the "real racists?"

It was annoying when the Democrats did it to you, but this is even worse because it comes with an extra helping of hypocrisy. After constantly saying that the charges of racism were spurious and had no basis, and saying that "racist" is the worst thing you can ever call someone, saying that there needed to be evidence of racism before you jump to that conclusion--now the right seems to be willing to call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, with even less merit to their claims.

Utter hypocrisy.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:55PM

Hypocrisy is something you Fascist Liberals know a lot about. Racists, heal thyself.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 5:03PM

Yet another substanceless post, Nate. Engage with the actual argument or shut up. You're wasting everyone's time with such nonsense.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 5:18PM

Crawl back under the slimy DU rock you call home, moron. You're not welcome here.

Go get a job, loser. Can't? Of course, there are no jobs because of Oilbama's disastrous mishandling of our economy.

Incompetent corruptocrats--just ask the democrat thief, Charlie Wrangled millions.
Let's clean up that swamp, Nanzi!!

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 5:47PM

Nate, you're false assumptions and personal attacks reflect more poorly on you than they do on me. Much like Jeff Lord's malicious, lying hit piece.

For the record, I don't even know what DU is and I actually just got a job at Wal-Mart.

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 8:19PM

Oh, be quiet you little astroturf fool. Smart ass libs like you hate Wal-Mart. You probably work at your local bong shop or perhaps you grow and sell "medicinal" weed.

Chris| 7.30.10 @ 2:20PM

Nate, your mentality is so shallow and simple, and that is why you will lose; you can't see anything outside of your little narrow worldview.

You think all liberals are the same. I've smoked pot twice in my lifetime, the last time being about a year ago. I have no plans to do it again. One of my conservative friends smokes pot a lot more often, though. I don't even know where to find such a thing as a "bong shop," and I have no particular animosity toward my place of employment. Trust me, if I were going to lie about where I worked, I'd do a hell of a lot better than Wal-Mart!

I don't know why you are calling me "astroturf;" I never claimed to be part of a grassroots movement, so I've no clue what that insult is supposed to refer to.

Your insults are so stupid and so generalized that arguing with you would be like arguing with a two-year old, so I'm not going to put myself on your level by responding to your ad hominem attacks again. If you want to have a big boy debate, where we use things like reason and basic respect for the opponent, let me know, and maybe I'll reconsider.

Wally| 7.30.10 @ 4:50PM

Chris, why are you here? Obviously, you don't have a life.

Shirley Sherrod doesn't know you from spit and most certainly couldn't care less about you--it's time for you to move on. You're pitiful and I feel embarrassed for you.

See you in November.

Chris| 7.30.10 @ 4:54PM

Wally, you're embarrassed for me, and not Jeff Lord?

You're telling me to move on, and not him?

I'm not the one whose career is now a laughing stock.

Wally| 7.30.10 @ 4:57PM

Sad little troll, you need to get a life.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 5:26PM

Chris,

It's not hypocrisy, it's fighting fire with fire.

This is a war. And for too long, conservatives unilaterally disarmed. Well, the days of bringing knives to a gun fight are over.

You don't like having liberal, democrat, Alinskyite tactics used against you? Tough!
We're only just getting started, Chris.

Jeremiah| 7.29.10 @ 5:42PM

The Fascist Liberals don't like it when they get torched with the flamethrower of TRUTH, do they, Nick?
TOO FREAKIN' BAD!!

You're right--WE'RE ONLY JUST GETTING STARTED!!

You're awesome Nick.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 6:27PM

Thanks Jeremiah!

As Christ said in the Gospel of Saint John, "And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free."

Keep fighting the good fight!
God Bless.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 5:50PM

Nick, if articles like Jeff's, and incidents like this whole Sherrod fiasco, are how your side is going to go about this "war," then please, be my guest. You will lose all credibility, and then you will lose all political clout in the U.S.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 6:35PM

Chris,

It hasn't damaged the credibility of liberal democrats, has it?

If you think voters are going to remember who Shirley Sherrod was in November, you're dreaming.

Besides, look at what we have done to President Dither's poll numbers. Look how we've used the East Anglia/ClimateGate scandal to show people that man-made global warming is a hoax. And the polls are showing that people's attitudes about abortion are also changing.

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 6:44PM

"If you think voters are going to remember who Shirley Sherrod was in November, you're dreaming."

So then the morality of this incident means nothing to you? It's all about power, is that it?

"Besides, look at what we have done to President Dither's poll numbers."

I think you're taking credit for Obama's missteps as President. The majority don't fall for the Hannity talking points, but they do see that Obama has not been living up to his campaign promises. A significant portion in those polls you reference disapprove of Obama's actions from a leftward point of view.

" Look how we've used the East Anglia/ClimateGate scandal to show people that man-made global warming is a hoax."

Ha! You've done no such thing. The "scandal" was yet another invention, and the peers of these scientists have agreed that they were innocent of the charges levied against them by the right. The general public still recognizes that man-made global warming is happening.

Face it, you are the ones outside the mainstream.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 6:55PM

Chris,

"The general public still recognizes that man-made global warming is happening."

Haven't you admonished others for merely asserting things or just making things up?
Physician, heal thy self.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126.....-drop.aspx

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 7:04PM

From that link:

"A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years."

The polls show that people are less confident about the degree to which global warming will harm us, and that more think the effects have been exaggerated. But they still show that the majority of Americans believe it is a real thing.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 7:33PM

Chris,

My point was that the poll numbers are trending the skeptics way, not in the hoaxers direction.

And, since when did 53% become the "general public?" That 53% was 65% just TWO years ago.

I would say the country is fairly split, 50%-46%, about whether man is causing GW, according to Gallup. 48% think it is exaggerated. 67% don't think it will be a serious problem in their lifetime.

Also, the "peers" that exonerated the East Anglia frauds were hoaxers themselves. Sort of like Stalin's show trials in reverse.

You guys are losing the argument. You can thank algore for that.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 7:08PM

Chris,

Yes, I wish Mr. Breitbart had viewed the whole tape before using it. But, considering the decades of liberals doing exactly the same thing, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

And, yes, O'Bama has lost some of his base. Just as President Bush did in '06, when he pushed amnesty and Harriet Miers. But, President Dither has lost much more support among independents, which is what counts.

Just remember, it was O'Bama's regime that fired an innocent black woman because they were afraid of Glenn Beck!

Chris| 7.29.10 @ 7:22PM

"Just remember, it was O'Bama's regime that fired an innocent black woman because they were afraid of Glenn Beck!"

True. This incident doesn't reflect well on anybody. But if I look at it from your utilitarian viewpoint of tactical warfare, the right wing is the one that came out looking worse here. After two years of shouting and clamoring for the WH to take it's concerns seriously, the WH finally did act on a tip from the RW media--and it was a huge, colossal mistake. This puts the RW media firmly into "Boy who cried wolf" territory, making it seem like the biggest mistake was listening the RW media in the first place.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 7:48PM

Chris,

That is nice spin, but hardly factual.

The O'Bama regime didn't "[...] act on a tip from the RW media [...]." They panicked. They were trying to get rid of a grenade before it exploded. The grenade turned out to be a dud, but Mrs. Sherrod still got hit with it.

Besides, Mr. Breitbart was going after the NAACP's slander campaign against the Tea Party.
I think he has won.
Do you think the NAACP is going to push their libelous resolution this fall?

The main point, and the funniest, is that O'Bama, and his henchmen, are afraid of GLENN BECK!
How does it feel to own that, Chris?

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 8:28PM

It's SAINT SHIRLEY now to these morons. Give me a break!

Wally| 7.29.10 @ 9:27PM

Sorry, Chris--no one in the RW media said Sherrod should be fired. That was all Obama's doing.

Chris| 7.30.10 @ 2:10PM

Wally, she was accused of using a federal position to discriminate against a man based on race.

There is no way someone making that accusation does not think their target should be fired.

The hair-splitting of your side on this issue officially jumped the shark with Jeff Lord's article, but you've still got the damn skis on.

Nate, to believe Breitbart has "won" on this issue is to live in a bubble completely removed from reality. Conservatives and liberals alike have admitted that this is completely damaging to his credibility. Only a few ideologues are still defending Breitbart on this.

The NAACP was proven right on this issue. Breitbart was going with the "scary black people" narrative again. Then there was Mark Williams' response.

Nobody came out smelling like rose in this affair, not even "Saint" Shirley, who went over the top when she accused Breitbart of wanting to bring slavery back.

It's bad for everyone, but at the end of the day, Breitbart lost. I would have more respect for him if he were man enough to admit it, but like Lords, he decides to keep digging a bigger whole for himself.

Wally| 7.30.10 @ 4:47PM

Obama lost, pure and simple; the Breitbart fracas made him look even weaker than he did before.

If Obama is so afraid of Glenn Beck that he will jump the gun and fire a fellow liberal before he has cause, what chance does he have dealing with Iran? Weak.

Breitbart made his point.

Chris| 8.1.10 @ 6:17PM

Trust me, Obama caving to the Glenn Becks and the Andrew Breitbarts of the world pisses me off. He's been trying to compromise with the right wing during his entire term so far, and I'm just waiting for him to realize that the GOP is going to attack him no matter what and just do the things the people who voted for him elected him to do.

But one thing he did in this situation that makes him better than you, Jeff Lords, and Andrew Breitbart: once his error was pointed out, he apologized to Sherrod and offered her job back. He admitted he was wrong, which makes him a better man than any of you will ever be.

Nick| 8.2.10 @ 2:12PM

Of course O'Bama's regime apologized, Mrs. Sherrod is black!
They didn't have a choice.

time to move on| 7.29.10 @ 4:38PM

This thread is dead, time to move on. the losers won

SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 4:54PM

The real losers are Sherrod, NAACLP, Vilsadsack, Obama and all you Fascists on the Left.

Good riddance.

time to move on| 7.29.10 @ 4:57PM

beware of lame ducks

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 5:14PM

It's past time you moved on, moron.

We're not worried about your piece o dirt lameducks--we are the vast MAJORITY of PATRIOTIC AMERICANS and we will destroy your worthless hack party in November and repeal all of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL crap you sneaked through congress.

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS--here we come!!

November 2, 2010
SAVE THE DATE--WE HAVE

time to move on | 7.29.10 @ 5:49PM

think were on the same side bonehead

Jeremiah| 7.29.10 @ 8:16PM

Who would know?
Nothing more tedious than cryptic posters.

Spit it out--it saves time for other readers.

Nick| 7.29.10 @ 8:01PM

Hey, DRed, here is my response to you, from above:

Okay, now that we have established that you have been wrong about everything, let's see if we can get you to comprehend a political argument.

All I did was reiterate Mr. Lord's point, like others on this thread.

After a century and half of overt racism, the democrat party shifted direction and decided to foment minority racism. If they could get minorities to hate rich white people, while keeping the reins of power, they could accomplish their marxist goals.

For the 40 years ('55-'95) that the democrat party controlled the House of Representatives, blacks were only given token committee chairmanships. Not until 2007 would the democrats trust blacks with committees that had actual power. Today, one of them, Rangel, was charged with 13 ethics violations.

The crook, Carol Moseley Braun, was the FIRST black democrat elected to the senate. In 1992! Counting President Dither, democrats have elected TWO blacks to the senate. Roland Buris, the only black in the senate currently, was appointed by the slimy Rod Blagojevich.

Of the over 11,000 total members of Congress since 1789, just over a hundred have been black.

Democrats will let blacks into master's house, but they aren't going to let them run the plantation. What a shameful history. And present.

Patriot| 7.29.10 @ 8:14PM

Those present day "Liberal Plantations" aka our dead and dying inner cities are a pitiful and disgusting blight on American Fascist Liberal Democrats and their failed Liberal Social Engineering policies.

Our once great American cities have been reduced to burned out crack houses and crime ridden, abandoned tenements. And you Fascist Liberal fools wear your discredited and immoral, thuggish ideology with such pride. Ugh!

Shameful, indeed--and so unnecessary.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER, AMERICA--
YOUR COUNTRY'S FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.

Jonathan| 8.2.10 @ 11:23AM

Mr. Lord, no three policemen have the right to beat an unconscious man to death. EVER. Are you so dense that you don't realize beating an unconscious person to death is outside of the police's legal authority?

Jonathan| 8.2.10 @ 11:24AM

You also miss the word "especially" in the definition. I hope you understand that "especially" does not mean "exclusively". You do understand that, right?

Jonathan| 8.2.10 @ 11:38AM

Operating under the "color of law" does not mean you have legal authority.

Seriously, that's even dumber than the first thing you said, if that's even possible.

Ruthie | 11.14.10 @ 12:39PM

Got a story for you to write about. Can your Blog handle it? Your fan, Ruthie

The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

Jeff Lord Defends Jeffrey Lord

View all comments (660) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Rocco| 7.27.10 @ 10:54AM

Alan Brooks| 7.27.10 @ 1:45PM

David in NY| 7.27.10 @ 3:09PM

Justin| 7.27.10 @ 6:35PM

Cytotoxic| 7.27.10 @ 7:26PM

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 10:55AM

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 11:03AM

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 11:49AM

Chris Hopkins| 7.27.10 @ 12:19PM

NotSerious| 7.27.10 @ 4:46PM

Sean L.| 7.27.10 @ 6:01PM

Coach| 7.27.10 @ 11:55PM

delta| 7.28.10 @ 12:20AM

Quartermaster| 7.27.10 @ 6:37PM

Ed Muntle| 7.27.10 @ 8:55PM

RobNYNY1957| 7.28.10 @ 10:38AM

Pablo| 7.28.10 @ 12:32AM

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 12:37PM

Michael Chaney| 7.27.10 @ 6:08PM

Pablo| 7.28.10 @ 12:35AM

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 12:46PM

southpaw| 7.27.10 @ 1:04PM

RobNYNY1957@aol.com| 7.27.10 @ 12:53PM

Angus Johnston | 7.27.10 @ 1:07PM

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:19PM

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 1:26PM

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:42PM

That Guy| 7.27.10 @ 11:06PM

Max| 7.27.10 @ 11:16PM

MoeLarryAndJesus| 7.27.10 @ 1:39PM

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 1:57PM

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 9:21AM

The Democratic Party | 7.27.10 @ 3:38PM

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:13AM

NutellaonToast| 7.29.10 @ 3:42PM

Nate| 7.29.10 @ 4:06PM

Ed Muntle| 7.27.10 @ 8:51PM

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 9:18AM

Angus Johnston | 7.28.10 @ 9:25AM

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 11:48AM

DavidCEisen| 7.28.10 @ 11:52AM

Angus Johnston | 7.28.10 @ 12:04PM

daddio| 7.27.10 @ 12:47PM

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 2:48PM

eli brennan| 7.27.10 @ 7:39PM

youngfarte| 7.27.10 @ 3:32PM

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 1:59PM

worn| 7.27.10 @ 6:34PM

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:01PM

LJM| 7.27.10 @ 7:46PM

LJM| 7.27.10 @ 7:47PM

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:06PM

Bradley Jardis | 7.28.10 @ 6:28AM

Jules Agee| 7.28.10 @ 6:38PM

Marcus| 7.27.10 @ 11:05AM

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 11:51AM

Robert A. George | 7.27.10 @ 12:14PM

Jeffrey Lord| 7.27.10 @ 12:24PM

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 12:29PM

madamab| 7.27.10 @ 2:26PM

TheBulge| 7.27.10 @ 3:08PM

madamab| 7.27.10 @ 5:52PM

Bradley Jardis | 7.28.10 @ 6:31AM

Sincere Liberal | 7.27.10 @ 3:31PM

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 7.29.10 @ 2:17AM

Nancy Irving| 7.31.10 @ 4:47AM

Bill Kossler| 7.27.10 @ 4:15PM

Marcus| 7.27.10 @ 12:16PM

joe from Lowell| 7.27.10 @ 1:21PM

Tony| 7.27.10 @ 8:04PM

RobNYNY1957| 7.27.10 @ 1:32PM

Oldefarte| 7.27.10 @ 2:02PM

padraig| 7.27.10 @ 2:17PM

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:20PM

Dominion| 7.27.10 @ 4:13PM

Oldefarte| 7.28.10 @ 2:25PM