The Macaca Media

Michelle Malkin ably demonstrates the complete baselessness of the recent charges of racism against Texas Governor Rick Perry in this article. Like Malkin, I have not been overly impressed with Perry so far, but The Washington Post's "reporting" about him is inexcusable. Not that I'm surprised. This is what The Washington Post does to everyone they don't like. I am still angry about the dishonest reporting they did about late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart and the Summer of Mercy event in Germantown, MD. In 2009, they ran about 20 front page "news stories" about some thesis that the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, Robert McDonnell, had written more than 10 years earlier that supposedly provided evidence that he was "sexist." In 2006, they ran about 20 front page "news stories" about a word that Republican Virginia Senator George Allen used against a heckler on the campaign trail. Most people had never heard of this word, but apparently the experts at The Post determined that it was a little-known racial slur and therefore provided proof positive that Allen was an evil racist! They didn't even bother to put their dozens of discrediting articles in the editorial section. When it comes to The Washington Post, the front page IS the editorial section. The whole point of their paper is to cheerlead for candidates they like and to smear candidates they don't like. If you are a conservative and you choose to fund this enterprise with your subscribing dollars, you share some of the blame, in my opinion.

And don't even get me started on the charge of "racism." With few exceptions, when a candidate is accused of "racism" by the media, it simply means that the media wishes to discredit them to ensure they do not get elected. Any conservative politician, reporter, or pundit worth his salt has been labeled a racist more than once. If they are smart, they will wear it as a badge of honor. It proves that they are a threat to the Left and need to be silenced.

The Washington Post Slanders Pro-Life Activists

Well, the Summer of Mercy has reached the ears of The Washington Post. They have weighed in with two recent "news stories" about Carhart and the Germantown protests -- two laughably biased reports filled with deceptions and inaccuracies. The most recent contribution of the paper to the Germantown late-term abortion debate is this July 31st gem entitled "Abortion Is Topic of Dueling Protests in MD." This ostensibly innocent news report is a textbook example about how the press distorts the facts and manipulates public opinion under the pretense of objective reporting.

The astute reader will notice that the report identifies the number of pro-choice demonstrators as "around 180" but makes no mention of the number of pro-life demonstrators, presumably an attempt to marginalize the pro-life opposition to Carhart. In fact, attendance at the first pro-life rally outside of the clinic on Monday morning was significantly higher than 180 -- I attended it and am confident there were at least 300 people there. The opening rally of the Summer of Mercy at Covenant Life Church had probably twice that number. Also, participants in the "Summer of Choice" are positively described as "pro-choice" and "supporters" of local physician Leroy Carhart. By contrast, participants in the "Summer of Mercy" are never positively referred to as "pro-life" or "supporters of life," only as "abortion foes" or "antiabortion demonstrators."

It only gets worse from there. The article does everything possible to discredit Keisha, the Philadelphia woman scheduled to have a late-term abortion at Carhart's clinic but who chose to keep her baby instead after talking with some pro-life activists outside of the clinic. The author quotes Carhart as saying that Keisha was a "plant" by "antiabortion forces" and leaves the accusation hanging without further comment. Is it too difficult for a paper with the resources of The Washington Post to do a little simple investigation to verify Keisha's story and determine whether or not Carhart is lying? Apparently so. But in the meantime the author subtly pushes this angle, noting sinisterly that the woman "identified herself only by her first name," as though her wish to preserve some level of privacy for herself and her family disproves her claims. (Any other time, The Post would be trumpeting the importance of preserving a woman's right to privacy to the ends of the earth!)

No mention is made of the fact that Keisha was all smiles in the video interview as she held her newborn baby and that she expressed thanks to the pro-life women outside of the clinic for the help they offered her, mentioning two specific women by name who had befriended her. She and her boyfriend referred to the pro-life activists as "beautiful people" with "good hearts" who made them "feel comfortable." No mention is made of the fact that pro-life activists referred her to organizations in Philadelphia who provided her with free pre-natal care and resources, continued to stay in touch with her up to the present day, and raised more than $1,100 to help with her financial needs at their opening night rally (which I attended). Of course, those details would not be helpful in furthering The Post's desired narrative, so the article merely makes the curt comment that "abortion foes" "talked her out of" having her abortion. As though a group of fast-talking activists manipulated her into a rash decision.

The article repeats a blatantly false claim originally found in a fawning profile the newspaper did of Carhart a week earlier: the claim that "all of the late-term abortions Carhart has done in Germantown have involved fetuses with abnormalities." Keisha specifically stated in her video that Carhart said nothing to her about any "fetal abnormalities" prior to her scheduled abortion -- her reason for the abortion had nothing to do with any actual or perceived health problems with the baby. This example alone disproves Carhart's ridiculous claim -- and not only does the article fail to mention this very important point that Keisha's baby was perfectly healthy and normal, but it twists Keisha's words in order to mislead its readers into thinking the opposite. Completely out of context, it quotes Keisha as saying "I just thank God that I had a healthy daughter," as though this occurrence was a source of unexpected relief for her!

Further belying Carhart's claim is the pro-life activist who helped Keisha choose life, Dr. Grace Morrison. She has been standing outside the clinic every week since Carhart came to Germantown in December, and said that out of the 27 women going into Carhart's clinic for abortions that she has spoken to over the past six months, only 1 of those 27 had an unborn baby with "abnormalities." In two articles in a row, The Post chose to take Carhart's claim at face value without doing even the most basic investigation into it or bothering to present any of the opposing evidence.

After discussing Keisha, the article seizes another opportune moment to caricature the pro-life activists, using a quote from Carhart to claim that they were "subjecting" the patients to "harassment." If these activists are so threatening, then why would Keisha even have stopped to talk with them in the first place, much less have been swayed by their advice? In fact, Dr. Morrison said that since Carhart's arrival in Germantown, 13 women have chosen not to go forward with scheduled abortions, at least temporarily, after conversations with pro-lifers outside of the clinic! If these activists were the hateful, angry people The Post claims, then why would any of these women have given them the time of day?

But the most disgraceful and inexcusable slander in the article comes near the end, when the author writes, "Because he [Carhart] wants to expand services, he has become a top focus of antiabortion groups. His friend and mentor, Kansas doctor George Tiller, was fatally shot by an abortion opponent in 2009." In two simple sentences, the author presents a close link between the activists peacefully protesting outside Carhart's clinic and a crazed madman who killed another abortionist two years ago in a state thousands of miles away. Tiller's murder was an evil act committed by a rogue killer that was strongly condemned by every pro-life group in the country, including the ones involved in the Summer of Mercy. That murder flew in the face of everything the pro-life movement stands for. We believe life is precious and should be protected. I have attended numerous pro-life rallies in the Germantown area over the past few months, and I have not witnessed a single expression of hatred or violence against Carhart or pro-choice activists. Over and over again, I have heard pro-life leaders pray for Carhart and plead that God would give him a change of heart. I have not heard any vicious personal attacks or expressions of hatred against him. Over and over again, I have heard it emphasized that our protests must be peaceful and demonstrate love and compassion. Both 40 Days for Life and the Summer of Mercy banned the use of signs with graphic images and encouraged us not to respond when heckled by pro-choice activists. At a rally a few months ago, we were interrupted by loud, disruptive chants by pro-choice activists claiming we "don't care if women die." We responded by spontaneously singing "Amazing Grace." Our pro-life protests are legally and constitutionally protected and have been conducted under the watchful eye of the Montgomery County Police Department. There is no link whatsoever between any of the groups currently involved these protests and the murder of George Tiller in Kansas, and there is absolutely no reason for the author to make this false association in his news story except raw prejudice against the pro-life position.

The story about Carhart that I linked to above is just as flagrant an example of propaganda. The author, Lena Sun, writes so glowingly of Carhart one might suppose she has an actual crush on him. He is described as a "grandfather and retired Air Force surgeon general" who "speaks softly" in an "understated manner." His "voice is weary" after a long, hard day of serving patients, but he remains "committed" to his important work. Unlike most abortionists who refuse to perform late-term abortions, Carhart is a brave man who doesn't care about "social stigma." (Insert the obligatory reference to the killing of George Tiller in Kansas and the association of the entire pro-life movement with his murder.) Many other doctors look up to him and "have asked to train with him." Despite persecution from those evil pro-life activists, Carhart's "tenacity" led him to work as an abortionist full time despite living in constant fear for his safety and his life. Still, their viciousness has created a stigma which makes him and other abortionists often feel "isolated," fearful of being "targeted by protestors." Often "you feel like you're alone in the world," quoth the good doctor, whose other interests include "adoption counseling" and pap smears for gay and transgendered people. (Insert obligatory reference to how he ONLY does late-term abortions "if the medical situation warrants.") Indeed, from this article it would be hard to understand how such an All-American Grandfather and All Around Good Guy could be considered remotely controversial, much less how he manages to attract hundreds of protestors outside his clinic week after week.

In fact there are some reasons why Carhart is controversial, although you'll never find out about them from reading The Washington Post. This pdf document from the http://kickoutcarhart.com/ website summarizes much of this information. Let's start with the fact that Carhart is under investigation by the Maryland Board of Physicians for making some very specific false claims on his application to practice in the state. He claimed he was an emergency room physician, but he hasn't had hospital rights in nearly 25 years! He also claimed he was a university professor even though this information too was more than a decade out-of-date, and omitted more than a decade of pertinent information related to his controversial practice of late-term abortions in Nebraska and Kansas. He is under criminal investigation back in his home state of Nebraska, based on sworn testimony by former employees of illegal activities occurring in his clinic. This testimony includes claims of "unlicensed employees... conducting medical tasks, illegal post-viability abortions, drug violations, financial malfeasance," the use of unsterilized and unclean medical instruments, and the failure of Carhart to follow even the most basic rules of personal hygience such as washing his hands between patients. After his Nebraska clinic partially burned, apparently due to unsafe storage practices, he tried to continue to perform abortions using a generator and extension cord until government authorities shut him down! Worst of all, in January 2005, a 19-year old girl with Down syndrome named Christin Gilbert died as a result of a botched 3rd-trimester abortion. Gilbert's death resulted from an infection that could have been avoided if she had received proper care. More information on this can be found here.

Let's cut to the chase. What does Carhart actually do that is so controversial? Well, he performs a nice humane procedure known as "Dilation and Evacuation" that involves sticking a needle into a woman's belly to inject poison into the "fetus." The woman goes back home for two days to wait for the "fetus" to die. Then she returns to the clinic, where the abortionist uses forceps to remove the arms and legs of the "fetus." Then the tiny skull of the "fetus" is collapsed so it can be easily removed. Finally the remaining remnants are suctioned out of the uterus. If the "fetus" is older, sometimes it will be delivered whole into a toilet rather than being dismembered. Carhart routinely does this procedure in the third trimester, and legally he can do it in Maryland up until the ninth month of pregnancy, long past the point of viability. Sometimes the "fetus" is still alive at the time the abortionist begins the pleasant process of dismemberment, and there is abundant evidence it can feel pain. Much more information about this, including photos, diagrams, and descriptions, can be found here. Fellow late-term abortionist Martin Haskell testified in court: "Typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure." He goes on to say that often the "fetus's" limbs are removed while the "fetus" is still alive. Carhart himself testified back in 2004 that frequently in the process of performing these late-term abortions the "fetus" was delivered whole and alive, but added that he thought "removing the brain contents eventually would [kill the baby]." Well, thank goodness for that.

As you can see, there are a lot of relevant facts about Dr. Carhart's history and abortion practices that paint a slightly different picture than The Washington Post profile of a kindly, soft-spoken grandfather who just wants to help women. It is disheartening for those of us fighting so hard against Carhart's brutal late-term abortion practice to read such biased reporting from the most influential media outlet in the area. With news organizations like The Washington Post shaping public opinion, it is hard to believe that anyone is willing to identify as pro-life.

I suppose all those pro-choice activists carrying signs saying "Dr. Carhart is my hero" and "We love Dr. Carhart" are perfectly within their legal rights. But what kind of a sick, twisted individual would choose a man like this to be his or her hero? The pro-choice community hides behind euphemisms and vague language like "women's rights," "choice," and "reproductive services." The thing they want to avoid at all costs is any description of what is actually happening in abortion. The truth is our greatest weapon, and their greatest enemy. And so we fight on, until the whole world knows the real truth about "late-term abortions," until justice is really administered in this country for ALL.

Race-Baiters

I have been outraged in recent weeks about the demonization of the Tea Party movement by the mainstream media, but I have been working 60+ hour weeks and have not had time to post about it until now. For those readers who don't follow politics, the Democrats and their allies in the press have been working overtime ever since the passage of the health care bill to paint the Tea Party movement as a group of angry, violent white people who want to take our country back to the era of slavery and segregation. Two of the most disgraceful examples of this "j0urnalism" were March Washington Post editorials by Colbert King and Eugene Robinson. A co-worker sent me an even more pathetic article by one Robert Paul Reyes which I link to here solely to let our readers know the ridiculous claims being made about the Tea Parties and to provide entertainment value.

Let me start by saying that racism is a deeply ugly thing and shows the sad capacity of the human heart for prejudice, hatred, and evil. The overwhelming majority of Americans find racial prejudice disgusting because they recognize that it breeds a distrust between neighbors and fellow-citizens that damages the very fabric of our society. There are few things that will destroy your reputation or your career more quickly than an accusation of racism. And it is precisely for these reasons -- the ugliness of real racism and the seriousness of accusations of racism -- that all of us should be careful not to throw the word around carelessly. When racial accusations are used to score political points, innocent people's reputations are damaged and real racism is dangerously minimized. If everything is racist, then ultimately nothing is. For example, when Harry Reid compared Republican opposition to the partisan health care bill to the racially-motivated opposition of Southern Democrats to the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, his comparision merely served to cheapen the monumental achievements of the civil rights movement.

Of course, Harry Reid's speech looks like nothing compared to Colbert King's flagrant race-baiting on the pages of the Washington Post (see 1st paragraph for link). King recounts the angry crowds in Alabama and Arkansas protesting racial integration of the schools in the 1950's, and then the vitriol of a David Duke rally in the early 1990's. He then explicitly claims that those demonstrations were the forerunners of the Tea Party movement: "Today's Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies." With a few strokes of a pen, King brands the entire Tea Party movement as a racist organization on par with segregationists and Klan members. (Remember, these claims are not from a Louis Farrakhan rally. They're from the Washington Post, supposedly a somewhat mainstream newspaper.)

OK, let's take a step back here. Why were Tea Party activists -- tens of thousands of them -- on Capitol Hill to protest last month? You could be forgiven for assuming from King's article that they were there to protest black voting rights or desegregation of schools, but in fact they were there to protest...a controversial health care bill. A health care bill that would dramatically increase government control over our health care system, that would cost well over a trillion dollars over 10 years, that was too long and complex to have even been read carefully by Congress members, that was being rammed through in an excessively partisan and corrupt manner, that was opposed by a clear majority of voters. The rally was the conclusion of nearly a year of nearly unprecedented political involvement by ordinary citizens across the country who expressed their passionate opposition to the Democrats' health care bill through town hall meetings, large and well-attended rallies, an outpouring of letters and phone calls to Congress, and consistent poll results. Congress had decided to ignore all of these political expressions of the will of the people and move ahead with a strictly party-line vote. Is it any surprise that the demonstrators on Capitol Hill were angry? Their anger was not against African-Americans and had nothing to do with race. It was against a Congress hell-bent on controlling health care at great cost to taxpayers.

Of course, Tea Party rallies have been occurring regularly all across the country for a year now, and are about much more than just health care. Talk to any Tea Party organizer, or ask any elected official sympathetic to the Tea Party movement, or listen to a sampling of the speeches given at Tea Party rallies, and you will find that this movement has nothing to do with race or racial prejudice. This movement is a grassroots response to a government that is becoming increasing unresponsive to the concerns of ordinary citizens. The Tea Parties are concerned about government spending that is out-of-control and filled with wasteful earmarks. They are concerned about a deficit that has tripled in President Obama's first year alone and that is increasing our debt to unsustainable levels that threaten the well-being of our children & grandchildren. They are concerned about recent government takeovers of the auto industry, the banking industry, the private mortgage industry, the health care industry, and the student loan industry, as well as future proposals that threaten the independence of energy companies, financial services companies, and radio stations. They are concerned about the increasing burdens of regulation and taxation being placed on businesses which are slowing our economic growth and keeping unemployment high. They are concerned about high taxes -- and proposals under consideration to raise taxes even further -- which are putting the squeeze on the middle and upper middle classes. They constantly talk about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, who established a strictly limited federal government in order to maximize freedom for the states and the individual citizens, and they feel that our current government is running roughshod over the Constitution in order to maximize their own power and in so doing is threatening our individual freedoms. You tell me: are those racist concerns?

So, if King, Robinson, and others are going to brand a movement as "racist" when its stated goal is explicitly non-racial and non-racist -- then they had better have solid evidence to make this claim. They had better provide proof. So let's examine their "proof":

1. The protestors are predominantly white. This does not prove anything about the racial motivations of the protestors. White voters tend to be more conservative politically than other voters, so it's not a surprise that a conservative-leaning movement would be largely white. But the fact is, there are black and Hispanic people that identify with the Tea Party movement as well. A Gallup Poll found that 79% of Tea Party members are white, 6% are black, and 15% are part of other racial categories. If the Tea Party were about white supremacy, would thousands of its members be black? Prominent black conservatives like Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, and Michael Steele have defended the Tea Party movement. I also saw an interview with an African-American Tea Party activist named Kevin Jackson who has attended over 80 Tea Party events, and he insists that the movement is definitely not racist, that he has never seen violence at any Tea Party event, and that he and other black conservatives have always been warmly welcomed.

2. The protestors are angry. In King's words, "They, like [George] Wallace's followers, smolder with anger. They fear they are being driven from their rightful place in America." Well, yes, the protestors are angry. Generally, if you're not upset about something, you're not going to go to the trouble to attend a rally. The anti-war protestors so ubiquitous during the Bush Administration were also angry. Were they racist too? King assumes the reasons for this anger are racially motivated, but provides no evidence for this other than mentioning a few angry signs.

3. The protestors carry angry signs. After dramatically comparing Tea Partiers to segregationists, King cites one sign as evidence: "If Brown [Scott Brown (R-Mass.)] can't stop it, a Browning [high power weapon] can." One would think at such a well-attended white supremacist rally, King could find something a little more explicitly racial than that. Another article by someone named Robert Paul Reyes (link to article in 1st paragraph) also insists that the Tea Partiers are racists and provides the following two sign messages as evidence: "Send wetbacks back to Mexico!" and "Fight Crime, Deport Illegals." The second sign is certainly not racist, unless you happen to believe that people who think U.S. immigration laws should be enforced are racist. The first sign possibly displays some prejudice against Mexicans, but the primary anger seems to be over illegal immigration coming over the border from Mexico. The article cited in the 1st paragraph by Eugene Robinson mentions the phrases "socialism," "new revolution," and "take America back" as other inflammatory and hateful rhetoric used by Tea Partiers. Again, is this the best Robinson can do? The Democrats' attempts to give the government control over entire private industries (as mentioned above) certainly at the very least takes us in the direction of socialism, not to mention the self-described socalists in high-level positions in the Obama Administration. "New revolution" and "take America back" are normal terms used by protestors and were commonly used by the Democrats against Bush in 2004 and 2006. In fact, "take America back" was a slogan of Howard Dean's. Not one of these terms are in any way racial or violent. Other opponents of the Tea Parties have pointed out signs that portray Obama as the Joker or as Hitler. This rhetoric is not racial, as these very same claims were made about President Bush repeatedly. I can't even count the number of times I have heard Bush and other conservatives compared to Hitler, the Nazis, and the Gestapo, and a cartoon of Bush as the Joker actually appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine during his presidency. With all those supposedly racist people waving signs, nobody has seemed to find a single sign that is explicitly racist.

4. The protestors shout racist epithets. At the big Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill the day of the health care vote, numerous racist claims were made about the behavior of the crowd. During the rally, Nancy Pelosi and a number of other House Democrats, including several black Democrats, deliberately chose to walk right through the middle of the crowd, even though there was no need for them to do so. It appears obvious that they were trying to stir up the crowd to say or do something inappropriate so they could use it for political purposes. As they did so, one black congressman claimed he was spit on, another black congressman claimed he was called the "n" word, and another black congressman claimed he heard the crowd repeatedly chanting the "n" word. Even though many, many people were videotaping the rally and the congressmen as they walked through, including Jesse Jackson, Jr., the videotapes revealed not a single racist word or action throughout the entire rally. The videotapes clearly showed that the black congressman was not deliberately spit on as he claimed. He walked up to a protestor and the protestor was screaming at him and accidentally sprayed saliva in his direction as she was screaming. The videotapes also failed to capture even a single incident of the "n" word or of any other racial threats. If the crowd was really chanting the "n" word repeatedly as the Democrats claimed, wouldn't somebody's videotape have picked it up? Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com has offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who could provide video evidence of racism at the rally, but no one has been able to provide that evidence. The bottom line is that there is no evidence that anything racially inappropriate was said or done at any point in the rally, despite the best attempts of the Democrats to provoke the crowd.

5. The protestors promote and even engage in violence. Robinson makes a big deal of this in his editorial. He points to a comment by Sarah Palin on Twitter: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: Don’t Retreat, Instead—RELOAD!" The idea that Sarah Palin was encouraging physical violence against anyone with this comment is laughable. She was merely encouraging conservatives to continue to fight Obama's liberal agenda. Robinson cites a story about someone leaving a coffin in the yard of a member of Congress, which later was proved to be false. And yes, there were a few random threats against members of Congress and a few random acts of violence against political offices -- which is not all that uncommon. But there is no proof that any of these acts were connected to the Tea Party movement. And there were also threats against Republican congressmen -- in fact a Philadelphia man was actually arrested for threatening to kill Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor. There were some more orchestrated acts of violence that occurred at the Republican Convention in 2008 which actually sent Republican convention delegates to the hospital, but the press barely covered that. Worst of all, Robinson blames Republican and Tea Party leaders for not trying to stop the violence, even though the Republican leadership and the Tea Party leadership both spoke out strongly against it. Robinson cites some unknown blogger in Alabama who has been advocating violence against the Democrats, despite the fact that this nut has virtually no following and has no connection to the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement. The fact is that the Tea Party rallies have been remarkably civil and peaceful. Unlike liberal protests such as the one at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh last year or the one against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999, there have been no documented acts of violence committed by people attending the Tea Party rallies. Democrats talk about "attitudes and speech that may encourage violence" because they can't point to any actual violence that has been committed.

6. The protestors are racist because some liberal black authors have a sixth sense that they are. I'm not even kidding. That's what Reyes said in the article linked to above. He admits they claim to merely be conservative but insists he can "sniff out" their latent racism. He assumes with no evidence that the Tea Partiers don't like health care reform because a disproportionate number of minorities lack health insurance and Tea Partiers want to keep "minorities in their place." He goes on to say that the blacks who have joined the Tea Party movement "are traitors to their race and the two ideals of democracy and liberty, and they deserve to be called 'Uncle Toms'." Apparently Mr. Reyes has appointed himself the arbiter of who is "really" black and who isn't. If you don't share his liberal political views, then you have betrayed your skin color and don't deserve to be called black. I can't believe that African-Americans don't find this kind of language deeply insulting.

The bottom line is that any kind of political speech can be painted as inflammatory. Protests, by their very nature, attract people with strongly held, passionate views. Yet, the heart of our Constitution is our 1st Amendment right to free speech. It is not wrong or dangerous for ordinary citizens to protest, wave signs, or attend town hall meetings in order to express their opinion. It is not wrong for citizens to criticize their government. In fact, it is a healthy part of our democracy. For years, liberals told us that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." For years, we saw protestors waving anti-war signs and screaming about Bush being a threat to democracy. And we accepted that as part of what makes this country great.

But now, it seems, liberals can no longer tolerate dissent because it is against them and their agenda. With help from their friends in the media, they are doing everything they can to discredit the Tea Party movement because they know it poses a threat to their political future. And sadly, they are willing to even stoop to playing the race card in order to achieve that goal. It is sad because false racial accusations are harmful to our country. They exacerbate racial tensions and increase distrust between whites and blacks. Tea Partiers are angry because they are being falsely accused, and African-Americans are angry because they are being told that a large portion of this country is motivated by racism. These race-baiters on the editorial page of the Washington Post, as well as other newspapers around the country, are committing lies and slander that could poison race relations in this country for years to come.