The WaPo's little Red America problem
The Washington Post has a problem.
Hiring Bush factorum and home schooled veal Ben Domenech may have either been a cruel, vengeful joke by Dana Milbank, or a clear lack of due dilligence. But either way, the hiring of the 24 year right wing blogzombie has already caused a surprisingly bitter reaction among Post readers.
In one comment as "Augustine" his psuedonym on racist Redstate, he said
Now, only the hardest racists of the right would claim that the Kings were communists
Martin Luther King was a Communist!
Of course this is all bullshit.
Some people claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Communist, even though he did everything possible to promote the Communist's agenda. That's like saying that Hitler was not a murderer because he didn't actually do the killing. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Communist! Martin Luther King was affiliated with 60 Communist Fronts. He openly incited violence under the banner of "nonviolence." King led a bizarre sex life which included acts of shocking perversion. On Jan. 31, 1977 Coretta Scott King obtained a federal court order sealing for 50 years 845 pages of FBI records about her husband, "because its release would destroy his reputation!" Still a cowardly, spineless Congress voted to make King's birthday a national holiday. This is should be an outrage to all Christians. The King Holiday act must be repealed!
The life story of Martin Luther King is shocking and disgraceful from beginning to end. He was born with the name Michael King on Jan. 15, 1929. In 1935 his preacher father, "Daddy" King, decided to name himself after the great Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He announced to his congregation that henceforth he was to be called Martin Luther King and his son Martin Luther King, Jr. "Daddy" King never bothered to have this act legalized in court. Thus, his son's real name is Michael King! The holiday should actually be called "Michael" King Day!
It was not some "right-winger" who had King's office and hotel rooms bugged. This order was signed by then U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy on Oct. 10, 1963. Evidence proved that King was under the direct orders of Soviet spies and financed by the Communist Party. The Kennedy tapings continued for 5 years and also developed shocking revelations regarding King's sexual practices.
Negro Bayard Rustin is a former organizer for the Young Communist League. He spent 60 days in a California jail on a 1953 conviction for performing lewd homosexual acts in public. He also served 28 months in prison for draft evasion. Today Rustin is paid by Jewish organizations for use of his name as a "signer" of ads urging "Black-Jewish Unity." He was King's secretary and advisor from 1956 to 1960. During this period Rustin attended the National Convention of the Communist Party in 1957 as an "honored observer." King called him a "a brilliant, efficient, and dedicated organizer." It was Rustin who introduced King to a Soviet spy named Stanley D. Levison. He was a New York Lawyer and vice-president of the N.Y. Council of the American Jewish Congress. Levison's job was to launder the $1million subsidy Soviet Russia gave to finance the U.S. Communist Party. Levison proved important financial, organizational and public relations services for King. After King's death his wife, Corretta Scott King described Levison's role as, "always working in the background, his contribution has been indispensable." Levison wrote an obituary for King and described America as a "nation tenaciously racist... sick with violence...and corrosive with alienation. The civil rights liberation struggle is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience."
There was a tendency in the civil rights movement, as American leaders did in Vietnam and in southern Africa, to confuse a genuine, simple quest for freedom to external communist influence. In fact, the civil rights movement was completely indigenous. Negroes drew their inspiration from the years of racial violence and indignities to which they were subjected, their profound religious convictions and the acceptance of non-violence as a tactic. While the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders were subjected to various forms of surveillance by the U.S. government, it was not until M.L's speech at Riverside Church in 1964 opposing the Vietnam war and raising the commonality of liberation struggles in Southern Africa and other parts of the world that the full weight of the FBI Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) against him was instituted. Despite his assassination in March 1968, this is a story that will not die. In December 1999, after years of abortive attempts to gain a new trial for James Earl Ray, King's alleged assassin, the King family obtained a verdict in a jury trial in Tennessee that Ray was part of a broader conspiracy and did not act alone. The United States government agreed in that same month to finally create a monument to Rev. King on the Mall in Washington.Howie Kurtz, who wrote this on Tuesday might want to reconsider his rather smug words today. Because the post about Red America went into hundreds of complaints.
The Post does not have a left blogger. Dan Froomkin is a journalist. Racist Redstate Ben is a political operative. See the difference.
The Post has a new conservative blog, called Red America . "This is a blog for the majority of Americans," writes former Bush aide Ben Domenech.
This has created an "uproar," says Editor & Publisher , although said uproar turns out to be a bunch of people complaining on Tom Edsall's online chat.
John Amato at Crooks and Liars says: "The Washington Post continues to become more and more a mouthpiece for the GOP by hiring a rightwing blogger."
I don't get it. One conservative blogger? It's not like The Post doesn't have a left-leaning blogger, or liberal columnists. Is the New York Times a GOP mouthpiece because it employs David Brooks and John Tierney? If people don't like what Domenech has to say, don't click on him. It's not like you can say "cancel my subscription!" since the Web site is free.
And Howie should realize that people are talking about cancelling their print subscriptions because the Post hired him.
Here's what you should get, Howie:
Domenech has been consistently pro-war while refusing to serve. He even sold a a cup on his website with the slogan of Marine snipers "you can run, but you die tired". While legal, it is of the lowest form of taste to sell such a thing when never having served as a Marine, much less a Marine sniper. How about asking writer Anthony Swofford, author of Jarhead, and a former Marine scout sniper, how he feels about the appropriation of the title and Marine insignia to sell to a bunch of people who have never enlisted, much less qualified under the Marines exacting standards.
His comments on the King funeral were obscene, and I bet deeply offensive to the large black readership of the Washington Post. I wonder how many would be tempted to also cancel their subscriptions when they find out the Washington Post, and no one cares if you think the paper and website are seperate, has hired a racist who thinks Coretta Scott King was a communist and said so on the day of her funeral.
Regardless of Mr. Domenech's politics, this kind of open and vile racism is hardly going to go unnoticed.
Hundreds of readers asd well as several bloggers, have researched Domenech's posts and his father's recent roll as Jack Abrahoff's liason to the Interior Department. You know, the controlling agency over indian lands and thus their casinos?
Or his role as an editor at Regnery Press, which has often attacked people with the thinnest of proof.
More is coming about this clown.
We all live public lives, posting on line, any single post can be taken out of context. But most of us aren't racists who defile people on the day of their funeral.
If the Washington Post wants to hire an open racist, they should have to explain why to their readership.
Update: Augustine posted up this quote from "First Things"
From last month's First Things:
People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt's argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It's too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: "Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.' But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live." Today's black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.What does Red State founder Mike Krempasky say after reading this?
Not "are you fucking insane", not "this is disgusting", but make sure you format this correctly.
Howie, your new columnist posted this up on racist Red State without any commentary, which means he thought it was praiseworthy at least. He certainly didn't condemn it.
I wonder if Wal Mart or the GOP wants to be associated with this, Mike?
Or the Washington Post. I bet their large base of black professional subscribers would love to know the feelings of their blogger on race. Genocide anyone?
No wonder he didn't enlist. They don't keep open racists in the military.
posted by Steve @ 12:07:00 AM