-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
There they go again.
The American left, caught in the act of brandishing their electronic rope for yet another conservative black man, is busy dodging their long and horrendous history of racism.
Mother Jones tries to turn attention from the left’s abysmal record on lynchings — high tech or with a rope — by re-visiting my criticism of ex-Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod. My point back then, of course, was that Ms. Sherrod cited a Supreme Court case in which she claimed the Court said her relative was lynched. I read the case. The words “lynch” or “lynching” appeared exactly nowhere in the case. Ms. Sherrod, surprise, finally emerged as just another standard left-winger who, sadly, employs race and state to push a progressive agenda. That was my criticism and it stands.
But the Sherrod incident highlights exactly why leftist publications are so wildly excitable on the subject of lynching, as Media Matters is here as it foams about (the list is long) Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Monica Crowley, Peter Johnson Jr., Greg Gutfeld, Brent Bozell, Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit and yours truly. All of us having in our individual fashion called them out on their wretched history. (Note to Media Matters: You missed Mark Levin. Get on the stick over there.)
The American left has a brutal and vivid centuries-long history on race, as we have previously detailed at length here and here. This is a political faith that has historically exhibited a mind-bending addiction to judging their fellow Americans by skin color. The point the left didn’t want to go anywhere near in the Sherrod case is that Sherrod’s relative was beaten to death — brutally — by the local sheriff, and in 1940s Georgia sheriffs were part of the Democratic political machinery. And the Supreme Court case was judged by a lifetime Klan member — Justice Hugo Black. So whether it was the sheriff on the bottom rung of justice or the Supreme Court at the top rung, the long hand of the progressive/racism tie was operating. That tie literally beat a black man to death — and then sat favorably in judgment of his killers. Progressives are well on record as having supported slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan (which actually ran the 1924 Democratic Convention known to history as the “Klan Bake”) and every race-based approach to life right on down to today’s belief in racial quotas and refusing to prosecute the Black Panther voting rights case in Philadelphia for racial reasons. (See J. Christian Adams book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.)
To cite one of a gazillion examples, here is the Republican view of lynching as expressed all the way back in 1924 in its platform of that year:
We urge the Congress to enact at the earliest possible date a federal anti-lynching law so that the full influence of the federal government may be wielded to exterminate this hideous crime.
And the Democrats? How did they stand on the lynching issue?
We condemn the efforts of the Republican Party to nationalize the functions and duties of the states.
Get that? This was the left’s response to the GOP on lynching. In other words: buzz off. We’re busy lynching black men, particularly if we catch them associating with white women. Take your anti-lynching law platform and stuff it.
And, but of course, this anti-anti-lynching plank was seamlessly tied together with every progressive nostrum of the day, right down to assailing the GOP for taking campaign funds from “predatory interests.” The same blather promoted by today’s progressives in the Citizens United case.
In short?
This is what the left does. Today with Herman Cain, yesterday with Clarence Thomas, long yesterdays ago with a 1924 platform that essentially issued a coded endorsement of their right to lynch the uppity black men of their day. And with Shirley Sherrod’s relative Bobby Hall — who, by the way, was a black man from Georgia just like Herman Cain.
Nothing has changed this tie between progressives and racism. The latter is used to drive the policies of the former.
It was true in 1924. It was true in the 1940s’ Bobby Hall case. It is true today.
And all you have to do to see the modern version of this at work is keep your eye on the double-standard being used with the black Herman Cain and that used to ferociously defend the white liberal Bill Clinton, the latter accused by three women successively of rape (Juanita Broaddrick), groping (Kathleen Willey), and dropping his pants with a request to “kiss it” (Paula Jones).
What’s unfolding here is a dramatic stripping bare of the progressive double standard on race and sex. Why? Precisely because conservatives are fed up with letting these people get away with the double game. The spotlight is now on.
Make my day: read Mother Jones and Media Matters.
Where the 21st century version of the sentiments of 1924 progressive/racism ties are carefully updated and skillfully presented for all to see.
Herman Cain may be President of the United States. He may never be President of the United States.
But he damn well isn’t going to be lynched for trying to be President of the United States.
View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/02/mother-jones-media-matters-dod
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Consternated Conferences
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 12:07PM
We've been over this so many times before-the words lynch or lynching didn't appear in that case because the legal definition of lynching wasn't at issue. Your criticism is as irrelevant now as it was then.
Brubaker| 11.2.11 @ 2:06PM
I'm guessing that the legal definition of "is" wasn't at issue either, but the word certainly was used in the decision.
If the case actually discussed lynching, the word necessarily would have been used.
Jeffrey Lord| 11.2.11 @ 12:18PM
The fact of the matter is your side supported lynching. Physically then, the high tech version now. Why? Because progressivism needs racism to survive. That's the beginning and the end of the Cain story - and a thousand others. And we're tired of letting you get away with it.
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 12:27PM
Whine to your Reagan white house comrades at Politico if you think the reporting on Cain is racist. I'm not sure what that has to do with liberals. Cain as the GOP nominee for president would be a fantastic result for us.
By the way Jeff, I noticed you used Emmett Till's lynching in your column yesterday. But by your own definition, he wasn't lynched, was he? He was just beaten to death and shot.
Simon Templar| 11.2.11 @ 1:43PM
I think that if we could bring Emmett back from the dead, he really would give a rats ass about your idiotic distinction.
We know who brought the story out at Politico and it was not a comrade at the Reagan whitehouse but a lefty like yourself.
No, you want Romney to run that is why your MSM has left him untouched. Cain scares the hell out of you. If you wanted him so badly to get nomination you would not be writing what you write about him so rabidly the rest of the week here.
Your nature is to lie so naturally and consistently about everything you often miss the gigantic contradictions and hypocricies that you demonstrate everyday.
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 1:57PM
You know who runs Politico, Simon? It's sure not leftists.
Brubaker| 11.2.11 @ 2:12PM
It matters not. The perfectly valid point is that leftists such as yourself are transparently supportive of Romney and viscerally opposed to Cain.
Do you suppose that anyone believes that bias is because the left sees Romney as the more difficult opponent?
Simon Templar| 11.2.11 @ 2:26PM
Misdirection.It matters not who runs Politico. No one is arguing that there are not elements of the Republican establishment that are just as threatened by the man. The fact is that the left is scared of Cain and the writer who broke this trash story was a lefty.The lefty MSM is running with it and doling out as much slander they can muster up.
You and your troll pals here spent all week making racist remarks and trash talk of Cain on this site and then deny it is happening and there is no concerted and organized effort to high tech lynch the man. Ridiculous and lame.
The game and gig is up. Your history of racism, playing class and race games for power, and your consistent lying, smearing, and hypocricy is being exposed. The public is running from the MSM. Everyday people are waking up. Your newspapers, magazines, televison networks are sruggling to stay open and lose more consumers everyday.
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 2:53PM
You know, Simon, I didn't think you'd play the race card so swiftly. What, did someone call Mr. Cain a magic negro?
And the writer who broke that trashy (but, factually accurate) story? He's actually 4 people. They're not all lefties either, Simon.
CalMark| 11.2.11 @ 2:58PM
"And the writer who broke that trashy (but, factually accurate) story? He's actually 4 people. They're not all lefties either, Simon."
Good night: so many lies, they can't all be addressed.
You are not only incoherent, you are delusional!
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 3:02PM
By JONATHAN MARTIN & MAGGIE HABERMAN & ANNA PALMER & KENNETH P. VOGEL
1, 2, 3, 4
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z1cZmjYive
CalMark| 11.2.11 @ 3:13PM
Blah, blah, blah.
Politico is a leftist hangout. The "facts" are innuendo and implication. It's bogus. You're dishonest, incoherent, and unhinged.
P.S. Why do you hang out here, if you hate us so much? Or is this your job, as one of Obama's bought-and-paid for "fake people by committee" to throw as much mud as possible on conservative websites?
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 3:37PM
Hate? I enjoy talking to most of you. It's good to see how other people think.
CalMark| 11.2.11 @ 3:41PM
Yes, hate. Good night, you're even in denial about your own emotions!
You condemn us, call us names, denigrate our arguments.
Yes, you hate us. And you truly ARE delusional.
Ms."R" to YOU!| 11.13.11 @ 11:45AM
If you weren't so obstinately judgmental your comments would be laughable. I suggest YOU spend time HONESTLY looking in your mirror and telling the truth for a while. In other words, clean up your own damned mess, THEN worry over o.p.'s! We don' t 'hate" you, we have contempt for your self-induced naivete and obtuseness! WE also are quite bored with you lot always blaming everything but your own mistakes!
Occam's Tool| 11.2.11 @ 3:04PM
Let's see: one of the cases was resolved for $35,000, which I could yank out of my checking account and not miss, and the other....who knows?
This, folks, is Danegeld and a reason why "Loser Pays" should be the law of the land, not just in Texas. 'Tis crap.
Goldman| 11.2.11 @ 12:45PM
Why insist that the 'left' is out to get Herman Cain? Isn't it just as plausible that Karl Rove is behind the resurrecting of the sexual harassment charges against Cain? see: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....65504.html
The 'left' has plenty of time to discredit Cain should he decide to develop a proper election apparatus in all 50 states and make a serious effort at running for President. Until then the 'left' is comfortable to let Cain continue to make an ass out of himself (and thus secure his future job as a FoxNoise commentator) and let the Republican candidates cannibalize one another before the primaries.
Yours Trolly,
Goldman
Brubaker| 11.2.11 @ 2:16PM
Your comment misses the dynamic of an election. If the left perceives Cain as the greater threat (and they do), the time to stop him is before he has the opportunity really get the ball rolling.
Jeffrey Lord| 11.2.11 @ 12:48PM
I referred to a PBS special. The title:
"The Murder of Emmett Till"....
NOT "The Lynching of Emmett Till"....
"The Murder of Emmett Till" - their word selection for a title....not mine.
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 12:58PM
Part and parcel of all this has been the fine art of portraying black men as sexual predators. And dealing with these black men so accused in a terrifyingly horrific fashion: they would be lynched.
One could fill cyberspace with these stories, but perhaps one of the more famous is the story of Emmett Till.
'These stories' obviously refers to the lynchings you were discussing in the previous paragraph. Wait-let me guess-it's going to depend on what my definition of these is.
Occam's Tool| 11.2.11 @ 3:05PM
DRed: I don't think the victims' gave a rat's ass whether they were hanged or beaten to death, and neither would Billie Holliday.
Jackie Robinson,by the way, was a REPUBLICAN, not a Democrat.
CalMark| 11.2.11 @ 3:15PM
And the racists who yelled epithets at him in Major League ballparks were almost entirely Southern Democrats. And DAMN proud of both their affiliation and their bigotry. 'Cause white men are superior to black men, they said.
They hated Robinson not least because, between the foul lines, he proved that ain't necessarily so.
DRed| 11.2.11 @ 4:28PM
That's my point, Occam. Jeff Lord is the one who thinks a person is only lynched if the person is hanged. Or he did when Shirley Sherod said that her relative had been lynched. I'm pointing out that he's inconsistent.
CalMark| 11.2.11 @ 5:38PM
Blah, blah, blah. Splitting hairs. But "telling it like it is." Because you're so much smarter than the rest of us.
YTC| 11.2.11 @ 2:03PM
"We condemn the efforts of the Republican Party to nationalize the functions and duties of the states"
Google only turns up this phrase as a line from the 1924 Democratic Party platform. It's in the context of a defense of states rights, apparently one of many positions on which the parties have switched sides in intervening years.
Do you have a cite for this being the official Democratic Party stand on the lynching issue?
And for that matter, what do you think should have made it a Federal issue at the time? Murder is not a federal crime in most instances, but that's not because of people condoning murder. Many people are opposed to making murder a federal crime via "hate crime" laws, but that doesn't mean they condone those crimes. Many people feel that one of the problems with Roe v Wade was that the federal government had no business deciding what should be a state-by-state issue. A couple of articles here on TAS argued that very point just last week, but you wouldn't accuse those authors of those articles of condoning abortion.
Simon Templar| 11.2.11 @ 2:14PM
Since we are googling today,
"The Ku Klux Klan, a relic of post-Civil War Reconstruction, was resurrected after the 1915 release of D.W. Griffith's very popular motion picture The Birth of a Nation. After World War I, the popularity of the Klan surged, and it became a political power in many regions of the United States, particularly in the South. It was also popular in the border states, the Mountain States, and the West. Its local political strength gave it a major role in the 1924 Democratic Party National Convention (DNC). -Wickipedia"
Yeah, they were sitting around having deep philosophical debates about state rights, the constitution, and hate crime laws.
Brubaker| 11.2.11 @ 2:23PM
Democrats have spun their version of history for so long that many of them actually believe it. In their telling, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, et al, were mere aberrations, not really the voice of the Democratic party to which they all belonged.
Simon Templar| 11.2.11 @ 2:05PM
Keep telling the truth, Mr. Lord.
Excellent articles.
tonypal| 11.2.11 @ 2:24PM
Notice that all the leftists replying to Mr. Lord's article are dealing with very fine points. What they don't even attempt is to refute the basic charge, that progressivism and the democrat party has always been and remains to this day the home of racism.
Simon Templar| 11.2.11 @ 2:30PM
Excellent observation, tonypal! Sharp mind! Good eye!
tonypal| 11.2.11 @ 3:10PM
Thanks Simon. We all know that one of the left's most powerful weapons is deflection and obfuscation. Perfect example is their favorite weasel word, fairness. You will never get a straight answer to the question of what constitutes a "fair share" when it comes to upper income people and taxes. Perhaps that's because enough is never enough, or maybe it's just because they know that answering a question honestly exposes their pathological ideology to the light of day.
CalMark| 11.2.11 @ 3:04PM
What's even more disgusting than the "Klan Bake" of 1924? That when so-called "decent" Democrats lost their fight against the Klan's poisonous influence, they just shut up and went along with the Klan and lynching. Political power uber alles.
Dirty little secret: the Klan won the fight because the Democrats had absolutely no hope of winning national elections without Klan votes. Democrats went "mainstream" on FDR's demagogic Marxist populism.
Supreme irony: the same party that desperately courted the Klan, without whom they couldn't win, a century later courts descendants of the Klan's victims, without whom they cannot win. And the rhetoric hasn't changed much.
Diabolical. Time and past time for it to end.