FreeRepublic recently discovered that a journalist reporting on the Obamas, in the past, encouraged people to post racist comments on websites and blame them on Republicans and attempted to steer discussion of their site's comments on Malia Obama to nefarious doings by this interloper. There's just one problem: his post was made ages ago, and every post recoverable from the Malia thread itself can be linked to an actual regular on FreeRepublic.
Malia spent time with her family, visiting foreign nations. FreeRepublic wants you to think that somehow her doing so involved a racial or political element of such horrors you can't even imagine. But, when FreeRepublic's message board is examined, there is no proof of their members imputing that to her, because they post racist comments and then delete them as soon as anyone shows any interest in establishing a third-party record of them. Why, it's as if it's not racist or ugly if the evidence is ephemeral enough to excite your extremist base without lingering long enough to get archived by Google. Unfortunately for them, all it takes is an unrefreshed pageload and hitting print screen.
Like this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
Despite the best attempts of members of FreeRepublic to again whitewash their conduct, the fact is that the users making the worst comments are, and have been for some time, frequent posters on the forums. Apparently, these "liberal plants" — as they are quick to label any members whose posts are examined by any media — have had accounts dating back to 2000, and have fit in undetected.
Presumably they assimilate so fully in the hopes that, one day, they can hope to pass unimpeachably as FreeRepublic members and only betray their true liberal identities when pressed on their credentials. The evidence of their liberal sleeper-cell status can be found in their sounding almost exactly like FreeRepublic members: their perfidy lies in being identical to their fellow posters in every essential way. Which obviously poses a problem: what "outs" someone accused of racism, misogyny or general hate speech if they blended in flawlessly before? Which hatred were they not full up on, in their weekly pamphlets? Did they not get that memo about hood bleaching?
What you're left with is a polity that mocked a young girl for what they consider their noble aspirations. The people who did that are frequently racist, sexist and homophobic — which given the frequency and intensity of their expressions, one assumes are their core values. Their defense for the same is, to their enthusiasts, that they mean what they say. No defense is necessary; the validity of this kind of thought is found in its existence; it's value is self-evident by its existence. Their defense in the face of any third-party examination, however, is to delete the content they otherwise proudly create and endorse and then ascribe it all to "sleeper liberal" agents in their midst, in the sort of fatuous paranoid fantasy that would earn another month in the county bin.
Lastly, anyone doubting the sincerity or FreeRepublic posters' complicity in the above is more than welcome to click this endlessly expandable illustration of shame:
More interesting: why is it that FreeRepublic always has a surplus of members that they can't wait to expunge the moment they are accused of racism, sexism or homophobia, but you can never hear of their purges of members who exhibit the same at any other time of the year? Why has FreeRepublic never promoted a multicultural representative who loves minorities? Why, despite many public officials they previously celebrated being caught engaging in consensual sodomy, is there not a FreeRepublic Ambassador to Homosexuals?
These are just idle thoughts. What Malia Obama wore wasn't. Whatever her reasons for wearing it — a style choice, something evoked in rock symbolism she likes, or just the sort of image you sport as a teenager because you're maturing and finding your socio-political voice — it was a sincere message, one embraced by billions across the globe. There was no malice intended in its wearing: in fact, wearing it literally indicated the exact opposite.
What you're left with is a polity that mocked a young girl for what they consider their noble aspirations. The people who did that are frequently racist, sexist and homophobic — which given the frequency and intensity of their expressions, one assumes are their core values. Their defense for the same is, to their enthusiasts, that they mean what they say. No defense is necessary; the validity of this kind of thought is found in its existence; it's value is self-evident by its existence. Their defense in the face of any third-party examination, however, is to delete the content they otherwise proudly create and endorse and then ascribe it all to "sleeper liberal" agents in their midst, in the sort of fatuous paranoid fantasy that would earn another month in the county bin. What's more likely? That an empathetic liberal suppressed his or her emotions for months or years and flawlessly parroted the hate speech of his surroundings in the hopes of a tiny political payoff that he or she didn't know would make a difference to anyone? Or that a community that has over a decade of quotes of racism, sexism and generalized hatred would be racist sexist and generally hateful?
Lastly, anyone doubting the sincerity or FreeRepublic posters' complicity in the above is more than welcome to click this endlessly expandable illustration of shame:
In case there's a question about the "lieberial" focus on FreeRepublic and the accuracy of reporting that these comments were made by members, here are the posting tags of the accounts relevant to this post. Every person below this line is excrement:
