Which came first: Did Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator go to the Andrew Brietbart school of journalism to be an unabashed hack propagandists for conservatives or did Andrew Brietbart go to the American Spectator school of journalism for the lazy racist. Jeffery is positive Shirley Sherrod lied about her lynching story and Bobby Hall. SO, WHAT DOES FIT THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR’S DEFINITION OF “LYNCHING”?
You probably know that Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator is being justifiably attacked for a vile article in which he claimed that Shirley Sherrod lied when she said, in her now-famous NAACP speech, that a relative named Bobby Hall was “lynched” by a white Georgia sheriff named Claude Screws. Lord said this was a lie because, well, Hall wasn’t hanged, he was merely beaten to death outside a courthouse by the sheriff and his men while he was wearing handcuffs.
That, to Lord and the Spectator, is not “lynching.”
Jeffery doesn’t know anything about the law, black history or history just like NYT conservative columnists Ross Douthat does obviously not know any working class white folks. No More Mister Nice Blog did some research and did find the American Receptacle does know how to shovel out big stinking piles hyperbole,
Just last month Senate Democrats prided themselves on signing an anti-lynching resolution. John Kerry even said it was a crying shame the statement didn’t have 100 co-sponsors. Liberal coverage of the resolution was universally supportive. So what happened? First opportunity these pure at heart forces had they set off to lynch Karl Rove, all because he supposedly had directed his gaze at one of their women, a hot Vanity Fair-certified blonde bombshell [Valerie Plame].
–Wlady Pleszczynski, “Operation Overrove,” American Spectator, July 18, 2005
The media is staging a coup against Mr. Bush. They cannot impeach him because he hasn’t done anything illegal. But they can endlessly tell us what a loser he is and how out of touch he is (and I mean ENDLESSLY) and how he’s just a vestigial organ on the body politic right now.
… no one elected the media to anything. If we let them lynch the man we elected as President we are throwing out the Constitution with the war in Iraq. In the studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work.
–Ben Stein, “The Lynching of the President,” American Spectator, January 25, 2007
Apples? Pomegranates? They’re the same thing in the eyes of wing-nuts, but a cold-blooded beating death, defined by law as a lynching, suddenly they’re splitting atoms to define the difference as a lie. American Spectator’s Jeremy Lord is a Lying Sack at which is a longer post with more details,
So let Lord wallow in his own emptiness; the fact is that he is wrong in his attempt to draw a distinction in law.
Here is how the South Carolina Criminal Code defines the crime in a representative example of state anti-lynching provisions:
The Elements of the Crime:
1. That a person’s death resulted from the violence inflicted upon him by a mob and
2. That the accused was a member of that mob
(A mob is defined as “an assemblage of two or more persons, without color of law, gathered together for the premeditated purpose of committing violence upon another.”
Strangely, I see no mention of hanging, of trees, of strange fruit in here (nor in Title 18, sec. 241 of the US code, which addresses lynching from a civil rights law angle), just as they somehow fail to specify tire irons or chains, or fire or whatever. Extrajudicial killings by a mob are lynchings. That’s it.
Lynchings were not always the cause of death, but were the end of a ritualized murder of a black man,
Anthony Crawford, a black landowner, was beaten by a mob, tied to a truck and dragged through town. His attackers then hung him from a tree in the Abbeville, S.C., fairgrounds and shot him about 200 times.
Crawford’s alleged crime? Fighting with a white storeowner he believed was trying to cheat him.
Crawford’s lynching took place on Oct. 21, 1916.
Apparently none of Saint Ronnie’s infallibility rubbed off on Jeffery, Former Reagan aide attacks Shirley Sherrod
Every now and then, it can be an educational experience to take a trip inside the mind of a conservative “intellectual.” Take, for example, former Reagan political director Jeffrey Lord who has written an anti-Shirley Sherrod screed in The American Spectator.
Lord initially applauded Sherrod’s firing, but he now apologizes for doing so. Nonetheless, he still condemns Sherrod. Why? Because, he says, Sherrod was incorrect when she said that a relative of hers had been lynched. In his words:
Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: “Claude Screws lynched a black man.”
This is not true. It did not happen.
The strange thing is that Lord acknowledges that Hall was beaten to death by Sheriff Screws, who dragged Hall’s prone body through the country courthouse as he died. The murder was apparently a result of a conflict that began when Screws confiscated a firearm from Hall. Screws didn’t think blacks should be allowed to own guns. After Hall sued Screws to regain possession of his weapon, Screws went berserk and beat Hall to death.
Words or worms, conservatives are so easily confused sometimes and yet so anal about exactitude at others you can hear the squeak from miles away. Bush claimed neither he nor anyone in his administration said Iraq was an “imminent threat”,
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03 (one of Conservative bed wetting’s finest moments)
All those words or worms or lynchings or murders or imminent threats or urgent threats mean one thing one day and something else the next, and its right-wingers that are always going on about making English the official language. Sounds like a good idea for everyone but right-wingers, who will be at a considerable disadvantage.