Because I'm SUPREME!

My friend Chris Muir celebrates my 50th birthday with an altogether natural joke about my growing reputation as the blogospheric Brabantio. You can click the image to see the rest.

It's a free country, and people are entitled to believe what they want. And they are even entitled to write what they want -- even if what they write is wrong. Of course, as they say, you shouldn't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, although I don't know if the Supreme Court has yet ruled on whether you have the right to shout "miscegenation" in a crowded Alabama.

OK, there I go again -- joking about something that should only be addressed seriously, such as Rachel Maddow's dream of becoming Mrs. Jason Mattera. (Remember, Rachel: Once you've had Puerto Rican, you never go back. Just ask Suzanna Logan.)

If you're under 40, you might not believe it, but people used to be able to joke about stuff like this. Before political correctness, Mel Brooks made Blazing Saddles -- "It's twue! It's twue!" -- and there were no thought police taking down notes of who laughed at the jokes. When I was in college, we laughed at Animal House -- "Mind if we dance with your dates?" -- without realizing we were violating anyone's civil rights.

Given the choice between Mel Brooks and David Brooks, who do you trust? And would you rather watch Animal House or Michael Moore's latest flop? (Hint: Which one has a topless pillow-fight scene?)

At least since third grade, my class-clown tendency to treat everything as a set-up for a punchline has been getting me into trouble. Because I am altogether naturally so facetious and sarcastic, when I actually try to get serious, people become confused. "Uh . . . heh heh . . . you're joking, right?"

Well, as I always say, the key to success is sincerity -- once you learn to fake that, the rest is easy. The altogether natural response to accusations of prejudice is to say, "Hey, wait a minute -- some of my best friends are macacas!"

Had I been advising Sen. George Allen in 2006, that might have been his official response to the smears against him, and maybe he'd still be Senator, instead of James Webb, a notorious neo-Confederate. (NTTAWWT.)

Did anyone ever credibly suggest that George Allen was prejudiced against Indian-Americans? Does George Allen recoil in horror at being introduced to Dinesh D'Souza or Ramesh Ponnuru? Did George Allen ever support any policy that might be considered discriminatory against the many South Asian immigrants and their offspring who are now proud citizens of the Old Dominion?

The implied accusation of MacacaGate -- i.e., that Senator Allen's joking reference to Democratic activist S.R. Sidarth was evidence of prejudice -- was fundamentally false, so exactly what was accomplished by the senator's subsequently disastrous Apology Tour? (Fact: In 2007, I interviewed a leader of the Virginia division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who explained that he and many of his comrades enthusiastically supported Webb's campaign.)

God gives us enemies for a reason, and He chastises those He loves. Israel was enslaved by the Egyptians, conquered by the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans -- did this signify God's blessing of Israel's conquerers? God's chosen people were dispersed to the four corners of the earth after the destruction of the Temple. They were despised, oppressed and persecuted.

Had Genesis 12:3 been repealed? God forbid! For somewhere in all this misery and suffering, the Lord of Hosts had a purpose and a meaning. Yet we see through a glass, darkly, and like Job's doubting wife, many will counsel us to "curse God and die." However, we know that the very name Israel can be translated "he who overcomes."

When an inveterate joker begins to speak seriously, people become frightened: "Are you OK, McCain? Have you been getting your rest? Taking your meds?"

Don't worry, folks. I'm just fine and dandy today. As Nurse Madeleine Ochoa might say, "Affect: Bright. Mood: Expansive." It's my 50th birthday, I was denounced on "Meet the Press" Sunday and I was libeled yesterday by a syphilitic poofter. All because the Left has it in for Sarah Palin and her new bestselling memoir Going Rogue.

As my faithful accomplice Smitty has reminded us today, the occasion of his gaining co-blogger status was an event at the Heritage Foundation. Gee, I wonder what Ginny Thomas must think about all this? Do you suppose Mrs. Thomas has any reason to trust the things that liberals say about conservatives? Or do you think that perhaps Mrs. Thomas would be more inclined to trust the judgment of such of our mutual friends as Kate Obenshain, Ron Robinson and Ward Connerly?

People know me, and the people who know me will tell you one thing about me: That dude's crazy. So if worse comes to worse, I can always plead insanity.

It's my birthday -- you're welcome to hit the tip jar, you ungrateful b*stards -- and there's no need to belabor the obvious any further. However, if you'll read through Smitty's post from this morning, you'll notice the photo of my inscription on the title page of Donkey Cons. As always, below my signature, I included the citation to a Bible verse:

Seest though a man diligent in his work? He shall stand before kings, and his place shall not be among ordinary men.
-- Proverbs 22:29

Claim the promise, as they say. Step out on faith. If you doubt the promise, go to Christ Church in Philadelphia and see the grave of "Benjamin Franklin, Printer."

Shama-lama-ding-dong, baby!

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