Dear Nigel Horne

My good friend Eric Dondero of Libertarian Republican brought to my attention your recent article:

For the past 10 years, [Lynn] Vincent has been working for the Christian-based World magazine, from which she took time off to work on Palin's book. She is a creationist and strongly anti-abortion, the subject of many of her World columns.
She is also staunchly anti-gay, backing the controversial vote to re-criminalise gay marriage in California, and - this is where Palin and her publishers might have drawn the line, but didn't - she is closely associated with a well-known white supremacist.

Et cetera, et cetera, the repetition of the Ransom Note Method, based upon . . . well, what, really? What is your authority for this assertion that I am either "well-known" or a "white supremacist," let alone a "well-known white supremacist"? Do you believe everything you read on the Internet, Mr. Horne?

So far as I am aware, sir, you never contacted me in an attempt to verify the content of your article. Nor am I aware that you have spoken to any of my family, friends, neighbors or colleagues.

While I am not litigious by nature -- my views being rather Jacksonian in that regard -- perhaps Governor Palin, Mrs. Vincent and their publishers have different views. It is my understanding that British libel law is far more inclined toward the plaintiffs than is true here in the United States, especially for "public figures" as covered under the U.S. Sullivan precedent.

Should Mrs. Vincent retain the services of a British attorney, I suspect that your publisher would be advised to settle the suit at any sum asked, as it would be quite impossible to prove that Mrs. Vincent is "closely associated with a well-known white supremacist," which I most assuredly am not, no matter what any particular idiot has published to that effect or how often it has been repeated.

Think of the cost to your publisher, Felix Dennis, of flying Charles Johnson, Michelangelo Signorile, Rachel Maddow, et al., to London for a libel trial, sir. Ask yourself how such witnesses might stand up under cross-examination, or what witnesses might be called to attest to the plaintiffs' good character and goodwill vis-a-vis harmonious, free and peaceful race relations.

Here in the United States, we have enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution an ancient principle of English common law, whereby the fact that I have not chosen publicly to address any specific defamatory accusation against me cannot be taken as evidence that the undenied accusation is true.

Were it otherwise, every citizen would be compelled constantly to disprove any malicious thing said or written about them, lest it be considered to be fact that, for example, Nigel Horne is a notorious syphilitic poofter.

What accusation of secret vice might the executive editor of The First Post be compelled to deny or repudiate? Nigel Horne is a pedophile, who buggers boy prostitutes while on holiday in Phuket? Nigel Horne is a pornography freak, whose hard-drive is crammed full of the most vile photos and videos imaginable? Nigel Horne is a heroin addict, who supports his habit by embezzling from his employers?

You see there is no end to the mischief that might ensue if journalists were to adopt a habit of recklessly repeating accusations that the accused would then be required to disprove.

Having worked since 1986 as a professional journalist, my acquaintance with the principles of the craft -- including the avoidance of malicious libel -- is such that I am frankly horrified at the heinous malpractice by which you disgrace your employer and yourself.

Allow me to suggest that it is high time you sought treatment for that syphilis infection, Mr. Horne.

Sincerely,
Robert Stacy McCain

A 9-year-old transsexual?

From the Department of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot:

A boy of nine has returned to school as a girl in what is believed to be Britain's youngest gender swap.
Children at the school in southern England were told the child had left and been replaced by a female pupil.
The child came dressed in girls' uniform with long hair tied in a pink ribbon.
The case comes after it was revealed yesterday that a 12-year-old boy had started his first term at secondary school in southern England as a girl.
Some parents at the school have criticised staff for not informing them before telling children about the gender change at a special assembly. . . .

Via Blogmocracy. Exactly how soon this child will begin hormone therapy, castration, etc., is unknown, but the mind boggles at the idea. Next on Oprah: "Shemales in Elementary School"!

Remember earlier this year, it was reported that a German boy, Tim Petras, who had begun hormone treatment at age 12 and, at age 16, underwent sex-change surgery to become the world's youngest post-operative transsexual, Kim Petras. We had been warned by Judith Reisman about this trend toward pre-teen transsexuals (???) in January, at which time I responded:

Mister Huxley! Paging Mister Huxley! Mister Aldous Huxley, please pick up the courtesy phone . . .

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. However, The Apocalypse Will Be Blogged.

'Dear God in Heaven'

So says Pundette after learning that, under the British socialized medicine system, a repeat-offender child molester is being prescribed Viagra at taxpayer expense.

Really. Can you anyone think of anything else to say? Not even "death panels" constitute a more concise argument against ObamaCare.

Unexpected repudiation

"The polls said it would be bad for Labour. But no one expected it to be this bad. On Thursday, Britons voted in local county elections and elections for the European Parliament. The result was a devastating repudiation of Gordon Brown’s tottering government, and of the cause of European integration."
-- Theodore Bromund, Heritage Foundation

Prince Harry the Hater?

So they would have us believe:

Taking the prize in the indignation derby was British Muslim activist Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation. "I am deeply shocked and saddened at Prince Harry's racism which upsets and offends many British Asians," Shafiq said in a statement. "The use of this sort of racism has no justification and I am saddened by those that are advocating using this term is not racist. … It's time for real remorse."
Among Harry's few defenders was Ingrid Seward of the royal-watching magazine Majesty, who told the BBC that the prince and his academy friends "were having fun and … calling each other nicknames." She pointed out that Harry's reddish-blond hair had earned him the nickname "Ginge or Ginger." (In the video, the prince-lieutenant pretends to give orders to his army comrades and then asks if there are any questions, to which one of them responds: "Are your pubes ginger, too?") Alas for Harry, "gingers" don't have quite the kind of ethnic clout in Britain as Pakistanis these days, and the revelation of his nickname prompted no demands that anyone apologize. . . .

That's from my latest column at Pajamas Media, and you should read the whole thing. Maybe Harry's been swept up in that "racist backlash" we've been warned about.