Jeffrey Lord and his supporters claim that he is a writer for American Spectator.
They're lying. Probably for political advantage — out of bare, naked hatred for every thing that makes America great.
How did I discover this outrage? Several ways. First, note in the link above that American Spectator lists Lord as a "contributor," not as a writer. Also, the page about him says he is an "author," not a writer. Moreover, I couldn't find him on this wikipedia page called "Lists of writers." Furthermore, Merriam-Webster defines "writer" as "one who writes stock options," and I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Lord writes stock options.
Therefore, even though in one manner of speaking he "writes," and even though he uses his own name (which I am recently given to understand is the sine qua non of credibility and literary excellence), he's not a writer, and nobody ought to read him.
There. I've constructed an irrefutable logical edifice.
How did I learn to do so?
Why, from Jeffrey Lord himself.
See, Lord wrote — though not as a writer — that controversial former federal employee Shirley Sherrod is a liar. Why is she a liar? Well, in the course of discussing race in America, Sherrod claimed that a relative of hers, Bobby Hall, was lynched in the South. But Lord knows, that's not right. Ask the Supreme Court itself. Here's how they describe what happened to Bobby Hall:
This case involves a shocking and revolting episode in law enforcement. Petitioner Screws was sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. He enlisted the assistance of petitioner Jones, a policeman, and petitioner Kelley, a special deputy, in arresting Robert Hall, a citizen of the United States and of Georgia. The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him.
Aha! sayeth the Lord. There's nothing in there about lynching. It doesn't even mention a rope. He was beaten to death, you big dummy. Black folks and their exaggerations! QED.
Now, people like Radley Balko — not to mention Lord's own colleagues at the Spectator, might lack the unique mental agility of a Lord. They're insisting on looking at statutes, and actual definitions, to show that "lynching" is a term used to describe mob murders of all sorts, not just ones accomplished with a rope.
But Balko and his ilk forget that in the year of our Lord, there is one supreme authority on the meaning of words, including "lynch."
I refer, of course, to HUMPTY. MOTHERFUCKING. DUMPTY.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that's all.'
Make no mistake that our Lord is a master. So "lynched" means what he wants it to mean.
That's why he embarked on a furious, indignant defense of his definition of "lynched", snapping at his detractors. In the course of that defense, he informed us that (1) even if there was no rope, it couldn't be a lynching, because only three people did it, and that's not a "mob", and (2) the Supreme Court said that the murder was "under the color of law," meaning that they had legal authority to do it, so it couldn't be a lynching.
Now petty detractors might argue that anti-lynching bills of the time defined "mob" as three or more people. But Lord thinks that's not what it means, and that's the only relevant point.
Petty detractors might point out that "under color of law" means, and has always meant, under pretense of official right, not under actual official right. Hence, when the Supreme Court took up the case of the 1964 murder of civil rights activists Michael Henry Schwerner, James Earl Chaney and Andrew Goodman by Mississippi law enforcement, and agreed that they had acted "under color of law," the Court was not suggesting that the murders were lawful. Of course, that definition of "color of law" is an obscure issue, known only to lawyers and marginally literate people capable of reading the newspaper without reducing it to an illegible pulp with their OMG-A-NEGRO-IS-PRESIDENT spittle. Moreover, if Jeff Lord is a master of the language, what stops him from being a master of what the law is as well?
Other detractors might assert that all of this misses the point — that only a lunatic would quibble over the use of the term "lynched" to describe a brutal racist murder in the first place, and that such quibbling demonstrates a gravely disordered approach to the subject. Lord knows, that ain't right. History, and the people in it, are only there to advance our current political agenda. Even a non-writer like Jeffrey Lord can tell you that.