Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Prove YOU'RE Not a Racist

Even if Paul, as he claims, didn't write or utter one of the offensive words, or hold the sentiments, that are attributed to him, his odd mish mash of ultra conservatism and libertarian spoutings marks him as suspect.

Typical of HuffPo leftists, that is, statist collectivists: guilty until proven innocent. This is the kind of thought that always devolves into show trials when their ideological kindred, the communists, establish a monopoly of power.

Hey Earl, how come you're always so preoccupied with race--aside from the fact that you earn a handsome living stoking the fires? Do you ever write an article where it's not your central theme? Doing a bit of projecting here?

Well you and your racist fellow travelers haven't quite taken over yet, and conservative/libertarian throwback that I am, I still believe the accused should be presumed innocent. So being an equal opportunity exposer of loudmouths, liars and just plain idiots, regardless of race, color or creed, I'll give you the same challenge that all the other loudmouths, liars and just plain idiots have so far failed to man up to:

List all the quotes by him--along with a credible source--where Dr. Paul has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement--and by that I mean a statement advocating that whites are superior and other races are inferior.

Find a statement by him where he advocates either an enhancement or reduction of liberty for individuals belonging to any group of people based on their ethnicity.

If you're going to publicly speculate about another human being's character and ethics, Earl, let's see what you've got to justify the damage that will do to his reputation among people relying on you as a source of truth.

Take the challenge, Earl. Put up or shut up. To do otherwise is immoral and cowardly, the work of a mere assassin, not a challenger.

And that goes for the rest of you irresponsible accusers, too. What do I have to do around here, start posting another daily graphic?

The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

Anti-gun male Bernd Debusmann has been wronged, and it's all my fault.

It seems in Friday's post, I accused him of writing "a fluff piece comparing tyrant Hugo Chavez to a rock star."

Bernd shot me an email with this link under the subject heading "Fluff Pieces for Chavez?" Unable to hold his water and wait for a response, he also posted it in a comment.

Read, Bernd, read.

I didn't say "fluff pieceS," I said "fluff piece." It was a perfectly accurate statement for an article where your words called this thug "the political equivalent of a rock star." If you wrote another article critical of him, bully for you. But I still note you make an effort to include words of praise even there for this collectivist strongman--a courtesy you have not extended to American gun owners in your hit piece on us (you truly couldn't find any positive examples of gun use to balance out any of that "massacre" meme?). Apparently even your enablers at Reuters found the piece to be enough of an embarrassment to want to put some distance between their reputations and yours.

Your outrage is amusing, Bernd. You present "facts," conveniently neglecting to mention who paid for them. You present sources, conveniently neglecting to mention they are bought and paid for by the same anti-gun benefactors. And you present this all as reliable information.

But the one thing you glom on is I didn't research everything you've ever written about Hugo Chavez? Sensitive, aren't we? Well, sorry, Bernd. When I catch a "man" lying to me, I have a tendency to lose interest in anything else he might have to say.

Tell you what, though, I'm a pretty fair guy--just ask anybody. You'll find plenty of examples on this site of people disagreeing with me, and that's fine. If you still have a beef, feel free to post a comment. I'm sure more than a couple regulars around here wouldn't mind hearing your side of things, and maybe even having a word with you themselves.

UPDATE: Armed and Safe gives us a summary of gun blogs deeply concerned with ensuring Bernd's reputation isn't unfairly sullied, making sure it only reflects what he's done to it himself.

Packaging Lies at the Dayton Daily News: An Open Letter to Cox Newspapers

To: Jay R. Smith, President

Dear Mr. Smith,

In a stunning admission, the editors at The Dayton Daily News have admitted an agenda to exploit and misrepresent gun-related issues.

Recommending that "horrifically violent events" be exploited as "opportunities to be used," the paper essentially advocates dancing in blood as a way to shape public opinion.

"Proposed reforms can't be called 'gun control'," the editorial continues, "even though that plainly is what they are. Better to spin them as 'law enforcement.'"

They are telling their readers--your readers--they will not just present straight facts. They will dupe them, if they have to, in order to promote what they see as a greater good.

This is not only a gross violation of accepted journalistic ethical standards, it is a betrayal of your subscribers, an insult really. Why not just tell them you consider them too stupid to just present facts to? Why not just explain you don't want them to form their own conclusions?

Once trust has been demonstrated unmerited like this, what are the safeguards to assure readers it's not just on the opinion pages, but in news accounts as well, where they can't be certain they're not being manipulated? When an editor publicly endorses being a propagandist, why is there a reason to believe anything he prints is unbiased and reliable? And when the journalists in the organization see this tone set by their leadership, what pressure compromises the integrity of their work in order to please their bosses?

I call on the leadership of Cox Newspapers to fire the editor of the Dayton Daily News and issue an immediate apology to their readers. It's really the only way such an egregious lapse of standards should be dealt with, and the only way to begin restoring public trust and a reputation that has perhaps been irreparably damaged by personal zeal to promote a pet crusade.

If you don't apply severe sanctions and repudiate this outrage, the signal you'll send to the rest of your newspapers is it's OK--regardless of the issue, they can exploit and spin with your blessing as long as it fits a greater agenda. They can go ahead and abuse the trust of your customer base and you'll watch their backs. That will be the reputation you'll ensure for your entire empire.

I'd ask myself, especially in today's competitive, evolving, and most importantly, shrinking newspaper market--if you can really afford to give up another point or two of market share because political activists on your payroll recklessly and needlessly blew off yet more public trust. That doesn't serve you, it doesn't serve your owners, it doesn't serve your advertisers and it certainly doesn't serve your readers.

I urge you to fix this--no spin, no manipulation--just make it right and do it now.

Sincerely,

David Codrea

[Via Blogonomicon]

Own a Broken Gun: Become a "Prohibited Person"

A drill instructor in the National Guard has been convicted in a Wisconsin federal court of illegally transferring a machine gun after a rifle he loaned to a student malfunctioned, setting off three shots before jamming.

WorldNetDaily reports on a story we touched on here.

Just more of the same from the administration of the "Vote Freedom First" president...

[Via Ryan Horsley]

CeaseFire PA Director's Watch: 01/13/08

This is a harder finding game than "Where's Waldo?"

This Day in History: January 13

These men are continually harping on the great sin of our bearing arms, but the king of Britain may lay waste the world in blood and famine, and they, poor fallen souls, have nothing to say.