McCain has two posts that are worth your time.

‘Very, Very Bad, Doug!’ More Journalism Ethics Lessons From Bill Schmalfeldt

Strange Craziness From @x3n0ph0n, Another Member of ‘Team Kimberlin’

The latter post especially has some interesting connections between Rauhauser, Kimberlin, and the idiots at the Kimberlin-supporting site Breitbart Unmasked.

I don’t write about these Kimberlin-loving clowns much any more, mostly because they bore me and I have better things to do with my time than respond to lies from insignificant trolls. But every so often I think it’s important to reiterate the obvious: folks like Stacy McCain are being lied about. Some of the lies are mixed with truth to give them verisimilitude. Some are 100% made up. They do this to McCain. They have done it to me. They have done it to others. And when people don’t stand up and say: this is a pack of lies, but instead remain quiet, you can’t blame a person for wondering if the opposition’s tactic of repeating lies over and over and over and over and over and over and over might not cause some of it to stick in people’s minds.

So let me say clearly, Stacy: the lawsuit against you is nonsense. Neal Rauhauser, Brett Kimberlin, and their pals are deeply dishonest. We do not believe the things they say about you, even one little bit.

You have my support, entirely. And I know I speak for many in saying that.

The joint statement is at McCain’s blog and Hoge’s blog, and reads as follows:

Convicted felon Brett Kimberlin has filed a Maryland lawsuit naming bloggers Aaron Walker, W. J. J. Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain, National Bloggers Club President Ali A. Akbar and the anonymous blogger “Kimberlin Unmasked” as defendants.

The defendants believe that the suit is without merit and is part of Kimberlin’s continued effort to use lawfare to silence journalists and bloggers who have written about Kimberlin’s criminal past. The defendants will not be made available for comment until they have finished initial consultations their respective legal counsel.

Until a complaint is made public, only limited comment can be made. A search of court records reveals the complaint is for “DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, HARASSMENT, STALKING, CONSPIRACY, INVASION OF PRIVACY AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.” It sounds like “accuse the accusers” on steroids, doesn’t it?

It will be fascinating to see how Kimberlin tries to assert that his reputation has been damaged — given that he has been convicted of setting off multiple bombs, one of which blew off a man’s leg, causing him to commit suicide. Doesn’t that tend to harm one’s reputation quite a bit more than stuff said by bloggers on the Internet?

Anyway, I just made some donations. Consider doing the same.

UPDATE: Interesting. Hoge suggests that Kimberlin is upset at having been called a “pedophile.” Ken from Popehat offers this analysis in Hoge’s comments, which I will quote in full:

To put it in boring legal terms — which are now in play –

The statement “X is a pedophile” is not defamatory if it is true; only false statements are defamatory.

In addition, it cannot be defamatory if it is a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact. Whether or not a statement is opinion or fact depends on the context, and on whether the statement implies undisclosed facts. For instance, “I’ve reviewed Y’s tax returns and it is my opinion that he is an embezzler” implies undisclosed facts, and therefore can be defamatory even though it is couched as opinion. On the other hand “based on these two articles in the paper, Z is a thief” is classic opinion.

This can apply just as easily to a statement “X is a pedophile.” Consider Torain v. Liu, 279 Fed.Appx. 46 (2nd Cir. 2008). There the Second Circuit affirmed a summary judgment against a plaintiff who complained that the defendant called him a pedophile. The Second Circuit found that the circumstances showed that the statement was one of opinion based on disclosed facts:

“Having reviewed the statements in the overall context that they were made, see Brian, 87 N.Y.2d at 51, 637 N.Y.S.2d 347, 660 N.E.2d 1126, we conclude that a reasonable listener could not have believed that the statements were intended to convey objective facts. While Torain is correct that the term “pedophile” may be used in a way that has a precise meaning and that is capable of being proven true or false, see id., no reasonable listener could *47 have perceived Liu’s statements, in the context that they were made, to convey that Torain had committed acts of pedophilia. Rather, Liu was clearly expressing his disdain for Torain’s comments on the radio that he wanted to sexually abuse the four-year-old child of a rival disc jockey, using the term “pedophile” as an entirely warranted expression of opinion in view of the statements concerning the plaintiff’s intended conduct, statements which Liu does not dispute he made over the airwaves. Cf. Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 285, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974) (explaining that the use of the term “blackmail” to describe the plaintiff’s negotiating position was non-actionable because “even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [the plaintiff’s] position extremely unreasonable”). Torain himself admits that his “war of words,” as he describes his remarks, received “extensive media coverage and commentary.” Compl. at ¶ 7. It is within this surrounding circumstance that we must examine Liu’s statements and how a reasonable listener would have perceived them.1 Thus, for example, when Liu described Torain as a “criminal” and as someone who “must be put behind bars,” a reasonable listener would have easily perceived that Liu was expressing his opinion that Torain should be imprisoned for his harassing on-the-air remarks, not for committing actual acts of pedophilia.2 In short, when examined in the context in which they were made, we conclude that none of Liu’s statements would “reasonably appear to state or imply assertions of objective fact.” Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 243, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906, 567 N.E.2d 1270 (1991).”

And that is merely the first case I found on Westlaw in about three minutes. I suspect there are more about the use of the word “pedophile” (or words to similar effect), and there are tons of cases about epithets like “crook” and “criminal” and “thief” and so on.

The context of your posts makes it clear that you are stating an opinion based on disclosed facts — namely, Kimberlin’s reported statements and the undisputed age of his wife at the time he married her. It will be very, very difficult for him to establish that your statements were ones of fact for purposes of defamation analysis.

I’m not 100% clear whether the age of Kimberlin’s wife at the time he married her is undisputed. I know that I saw documents making different claims about that point in various places. I doubt this lawsuit gets to discovery, but if it does, that’s obviously a point that will be fleshed out. If Kimberlin is truly suing for defamation for being called a pedophile, obviously any discovery would have to delve deep into any evidence regarding whether the accusation is true.

Barbra Streisand might have some advice for Kimberlin on this point. Maybe she could write him a note and attach it to one of those checks she sends him. (Does she still do that, I wonder?)

Anyway. This thing is not screaming “good judgment” or “legally meritorious” to me so far, which I have to admit does not particularly surprise me.

UPDATE x2: Instapundit with a typically incisive, one-line quote linking McCain: “BRETT KIMBERLIN’S PLAN TO AVOID UNWANTED INTERNET ATTENTION doesn’t seem very well thought-out.”

Heh, as they say. Indeed.

An absolutely beautiful blog post about an especially nasty lefty partisan: Crooks & Liars liar Karoli Kuns, one of the prime apologists for Neal Rauhauser, Brett Kimberlin, and their creepy pals. Excerpt:

Whereas in 2012, you were certain that Anthony Weiner was an innocent victim of a “setup” by “Breitbots” — and thus, Weiner’s defender Neal Rauhauser was deserving of praise — now that Andrew Breitbart has been vindicated and Anthony Weiner has been disgraced, you say the Weiner story is “not of national concern.”

Because you peddle vile lies, that’s why.

There was never any “setup” of Anthony Weiner by anyone. All honest and intelligent people recognized this in 2011, but Neal Rauhauser manufactured a series of lies intended to deceive the ignorant and Rauhauser was, as you say, the one person who “wouldn’t let it go.” He was the acknowledged leader of “Weiner Truthers” and he kept lying about Andrew Breitbart even after Breitbart was dead.

Want to know everything you need to know about Karoli Kuns? Here you go:

Well, I sat down to write a post about Robert Stacy McCain’s triumph in forcing a retraction out of the guy who put the misleading caption on McCain’s video of Michele Bachmann. (She said to a rained-upon crowd: “Who likes wet people?” The propagandist put a caption underneath that read: “Who likes white people?” and proceeded to butcher the video to remove the context that made it even clearer what she was saying.) After McCain’s lawyer sent the guy a letter, the guy conceded not only that he had gotten it wrong, but deliberately so:

I want to apologize for misusing Stacey Robert McCain’s original video . . . I was angry so I decided to take Mrs. Bachmann’s line out of context to make her seem more overtly racist in light of her recent signing of that Iowa marriage pledge that said black children were better off under slavery than in Obama’s America.

Reads like an admission of actual malice to me. Ms. Bachmann? Ball’s in your court.

But when I went to McCain’s site to get the link, I saw that the story is not over. Perez Hilton and CBS News have been spreading the smear all over the place. The best part is that Hilton took Stacy’s video (as doctored by the cretin) and slapped his own watermark on it! This from a guy, Perez Hilton (true name Mario Lavandeira), who has himself misused copyright law to try to threaten people into silence regarding subjects he finds embarrassing.

Stacy is talking about suing these people. If he sues Hilton, he will finally get me to contribute to that tip jar he’s always talking about.

R.S. McCain has responded to my post from last night, in which I stated that he was the one who wrote this:

As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

If anyone was wondering whether he really wrote this passage, McCain’s post ought to put that question to rest. While he doesn’t specifically acknowledge the quote or specifically explain what he meant, nowhere do I see the phrase: “I didn’t say that.” I assume that, if those weren’t his words, he would have said so clearly.

Here’s the closest he comes to an explanation:

Whom have I wronged, that I should seek their forgiveness? Granting that people have been offended, this was when they were led to believe (by the framing of the narrative) that I was expressing some personal doctrine of my own, rather than discussing the attitudes of others.

OK. He was talking about the “natural revulsion” of others at seeing interracial images. And he was telling us that when others feel this “natural revulsion,” it is “NOT RACISM.”

That this discussion has been fairly criticized, I cannot deny, but I wasn’t writing for publication, I was trying to prevent Wheeler’s attempt to hijack the League as a vehicle for his own purposes. That this preventive engagement was successful ought to be counted to my credit, rather than being cherry-picked in an effort to discredit me.

I assume that McCain is not accusing me of cherry-picking, since I put the entire quote of his in my post, with a link to the entire debate to see how that quote fit in context.

McCain says other things that, while not about the quote in particular, relate to his intentions in participating in that debate. I don’t want to be accused of mischaracterizing it so I won’t summarize it. It’s best to draw your attention to it and let you read the whole thing.

Also, Dafydd ab Hugh has written me by e-mail a defense of McCain, and I invited him to blog it or post it in a comment. He has offered to make it a guest post here, and I accept that offer. [UPDATE: Here it is.]

That’s all I plan to say about this for now. I’m not interested in getting in a blog war. I am happy to see the quote addressed, to the extent it has been — and to let you make up your minds as readers as to whether you think it has been addressed to your satisfaction.

UPDATE: Also, McCain has this post, which can also be considered responsive. Again, rather than summarize it, I ask you to simply read it all.

UPDATE x2: Here is my best stab at a representative quote from the second post:

Here, however, I can briefly say that I understand man to be a tribal creature by nature, prone to appeals of group interest.

While we today may identify ourselves by such labels as Republican or Democrat, Catholic or Protestant, Redskins fans or Cowboy fans, the underlying impulse is tribalism, and it is rooted in a basic sense of affinity that Edmund Burke addressed in his famous discourse about “little platoons.”

But read it all.

UPDATE x3: A commenter asks why I consider it a limited success that McCain now appears to have admitted that he wrote this passage. It’s because he previously denied saying it, in an interview with Alan Colmes.

UPDATE x4: McCain is now in the comments, and he’s apparently saying I’m misquoting him somehow:

You seem to be making the same mistake other people have made, supposing that what you think I said is the same thing as what I said.

This is coupled with some claims of victimhood and such, but I’m more interested in whether he is denying the quote or not. I have put the question to him directly in a comment: did he write the passage quoted at the outset of this post? I have never seen him directly in his own words answer that anywhere — but as I noted in my comment, he hasn’t been very clear about it. He denied it to Alan Colmes. He admitted it to Founding Bloggers. He failed to deny it in his latest post (when you’d think he would deny it if it weren’t his quote). Now he is accusing me of misquoting him.

Did he say it or not? Stay tuned to see if he answers the question directly here. I hope so.

I’m bumping this post to the top so that people will see this update.

UPDATE x4: Upon reflection, maybe he’s saying I’m misquoting him when I say he denied the statement in his interview with Colmes. But as my comment (and transcript) make clear, I’m not misquoting him there either.

Whatever it is he’s saying, he can clarify. I await his answer on whether he wrote the above passage.

This page sets forth some other evidence (mostly pro, but some con) regarding whether the apparently racist quote in the main post is really McCain’s.

It’s also worth noting that McCain elliptically admits the quote in this post, in which he says:

However, there are people with direct knowledge of my involvement with the Southern heritage movement who can attest — and demonstrate by documentary evidence — that I was never a “racist” or a “white supremacist” or any such thing. Stogie at Saberpoint makes this clear:

Stacy and I were involved in online discussions (aka “the great listserv debates”) with a large group of interested people and, of course, the issue of race and race relations came up and was hotly debated. . . . There were some bigots in the group who wanted to add a racial component to our movement but Stacy (and I and others) strenuously opposed it. Stacy was an outspoken leader of the non-racist faction; he denounced racism as dishonorable and wrong. We fought the bigots together and took a lot of heat for our stand.

And this involves a significant error in the 2002 article by gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile, universally cited by those who have attacked me, which Stogie cites sources to correct:

Signorile claimed McCain had posted [a certain statement] to a site called Reclaiming the South. In fact, that site is maintained by [White Supremacist] Dennis Wheeler, who posted emails by McCain, George Kalas, Gary Waltrip and others, from a debate on a private email list. McCain, Kalas, Waltrip, et al., strongly criticized Wheeler’s efforts to get the League of the South (then known as the Southern League) to adopt Wheeler’s own white separatist views. McCain wrote of such racial views: “[W]e should not stomach the promulgation of odious and hateful doctrines. We must reject all such doctrines. The truth is not in them.”

Remember this was what I wrote on a private e-mail discussion group in the mid-1990s, before I ever thought about working for The Washington Times. All of those involved in the discussion were Southern history buffs, and none of them were liberals, so that I had no cause to write anything other than my own honest beliefs.

By the time Signorile smeared me, in fact, I had forgotten all about Dennis Wheeler and that e-mail list-serv debate, and it was only because of Signorile’s error that I learned that Wheeler had reposted excerpts of that discussion.

So Signorile’s “smear” was not making up the quote at the top of this post, but 1) saying that McCain had posted it to the site Reclaiming the South, when he had merely posted it in private e-mails that someone else had posted to an Internet site, and 2) failing, in McCain’s view, to include other quotes of McCain’s that showed he is not a racist.

Before I found these confirmations of the quote’s authenticity, I had previously been confused by what seemed like denials — such as in this post, where McCain says: “[C]ontrary to Michelangelo Signorile’s assertion, I never contributed to the white separatist site ‘Reclaiming the South.'” That seemed pretty definitive — until I came to understand that McCain wasn’t denying the content of the quote, but only that he posted the comments on the “Reclaiming the South” site. Instead, McCain had sent the comments to members of a private listserv, and one of the members (Dennis Wheeler) had reposted them all on the Internet. So when McCain denies that he posted certain comments to “Reclaiming the South,” understand that he is not denying having made them.

Then I listened to this exchange between McCain and Alan Colmes, in which Colmes asked him whether he said it. McCain seemingly denies it — but the way he denies it is exceedingly odd. Click and listen to the audio. (Yes, it’s Little Green Footballs — and if you refuse to listen to Robert Stacy McCain’s own words because they are reproduced on LGF, then I’m not interested in talking to you about this. Me, I seek the truth wherever I find it — and while I’m capable of critically analyzing Charles’s spin, I will not ignore facts just because they happen to appear on his site.) I find it disturbing how evasive McCain appears to be when confronted with seemingly very simple questions as to whether this example or that example shows racism. There is a lot of temporizing going on, in my view — but listen for yourself, and make your own judgments.

Others (including me) have asked McCain to address the quote on his blog. Constantine K left a comment here asking for McCain to address the quote:

Either this quote is made up or Mr. McCain was misquoted or Mr. McCain did indeed say it. And if he did, then I wonder why. Lots of us conservatives out there who do not feel the same revulsion.

There was no response. Then, on this post, McCain said:

Meanwhile, it has been noted that I elided the part of Ben Smith’s post where he described me as being opposed to interracial marriage. To explain: Both my time and the reader’s attention are limited quantities. A full-length explanation of the minute details of the accusations against me is ineffective and wasteful. The larger point is false — I’m not a “white supremacist” or an “avowed segregationist,” etc. — and a discussion of the details only lends credibility to the accuser. “Stay out of the tall grass.”

Well, he brought up the issue in his post, and the quote cited in my main post seems credible to me. So I left a comment asking him to address that quote.

He didn’t approve my comment.

It appears to me that McCain doesn’t want to discuss that quote — because he wrote it, and because it’s really indefensible.

Charles Johnson attacks R.S. McCain for posting World Cup related Twitter messages calling Mexicans “beaners,” Brits “faggots,” and Germans “kraut swine.”

McCain tells readers here that Johnson

did not recognize the premise of the joke, i.e., to employ derogatory terms for various nationalities — French “frogs,” Irish “micks,” Italian “dagos,” etc. – whereas Johnson had in mind racial slurs, which terms I had of course avoided. At one point, I asked readers to suggest an epithet for Algerians, a situation where generic anti-Arab terms would not do.

Charles Johnson is simply too dull-witted to get the joke.

Johnson also complains that McCain’s SiteMeter name is s32porchmanque:

Well, isn’t that lovely. “Porch Monkey.” A disgusting Southern slur for black people. McCain obviously thought he was being clever.

In the post linked above, McCain’s sidekick Smitty (who apparently set up the SiteMeter) links his previous explanation of the term:

Commenter ‘Random’ inquires concerning the whole Porch Manqué schtick.

First, I’ll point you to Wikipedia, which discusses the term. . . .

By putting “porch” in front of “manqué”, we get a distinct handle. When first invited to be Vice Deputy Assistant Under-Secretary to the Spitoon Wrangler on this blog, I wanted to have a term to explain the relationship between Stacy and me. If I completely tubed a post, that was because I was an embarrassment; a failure.

The term “porch” allows all sorts of (hopefully comic) allusions to toiling away in abject squalor.

There is also the bit that the term veers quite close to a racial slur. Having served several years in the military, I’m about as un-racially biased as anyone. To the extent that every time I use it, I can play the Alinsky Rule #5 card and mock the ignorance of racism, it’s a good thing.

So there you have it.

P.S. I’ve been too busy to look up what Johnson and/or McCain have to say about the Rev. Wright’s latest:

During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week in Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.

“White folk done took this country,” Wright said. “You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.”

. . . .

“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect,” Obama said.

Yet during this course — which was described as asking, “What is the response and public witness of persons of faith to ongoing developments in both countries?” — Wright made many statements about what he believes are the true aims of whites and Jews.

“You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk,” he said. “And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.”

. . . .

He cited the writings of Bill Jones — author of the book “Is God a White Racist?” — as proof that white people cannot be trusted. “Bill said, ‘They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They’ll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin’, cause you not a brother to them.’ ”

Wright referred to Italians as “Mamma Luigi” and “pizzeria.”

No word on who Rev. Wright rooted for during the World Cup. I have been unable to confirm rumors that, during the Ghana/USA game, he could be heard screaming: “God damn America!”

One post, two topics. Choose one or mix and match, as you like.

R.S. McCain pops up his head to tell me: “FUCK YOU, SIR.” What’s he upset about? That I mentioned a posting of his — which he wrote on a Civil War listserv — in which he proposed, in a thread about bumper stickers for the discussion group, this bumper sticker:

Have you whipped your slaves today?

I’m guessing that, when he made the comment, he didn’t realize I already had a post drafted up that defends him against the charge that this comment is racist.

The key is context. The context here suggests a joke.

Charles Johnson portrayed this statement without any context, saying only this:

Here’s Robert Stacy McCain in a humorous mood, dreaming up some hilarious Bumper Stickers . . .

RStacy2229
May 21 1996, 12:00 am

I’d rather be wenching in the quarters

or

Have you whipped your slaves today?

On its face, this might seem UNABASHEDLY RACIST!!!!1!! (as Charles Johnson suggested.) But I think the truth is a little more subtle. I arrived at this conclusion by reading through this alt.war.civil.usa listserv:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

My view of the “bumper sticker” is informed by my reading through these threads, and my conclusion is that Johnson’s cartoonish characterizations aren’t on the mark. In context, McCain’s proposed bumper sticker appears to be a joke, mocking Northerners’ views of Southern slaveholders, told by someone who appears to argue that those slaveholders weren’t such bad folk after all.

(more…)

An L.A. Times headline reads:

Outside Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas, 2 gunmen are killed and guard is shot

But R.S. McCain notes that the headline did not always read this way. Indeed, dozens, maybe even hundreds of people throughout Southern California who still subscribe to this rag were treated to this headline when they picked up the paper from their driveway yesterday:

LA TIMES Dec. 7, 1941: Anti-Japanese Ships Sunk in Hawaii @davidjacksmith @AmPowerBlog @PamelaGeller @jihadwatchRS pic.twitter.com/kFvABdX0nW

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) May 4, 2015

The focus, for the L.A. Times, is the “anti-Islam” (actually anti-Islamic fanatic) nature of the gathering, and not the tremendous danger to free speech that such a shooting entails. And that’s the wrong focus. (It’s wrong even though it’s the position taken by NYT reporters and MSNBC and Vox and the L.A. Times. Weird, huh?)

There seems to be a debate between, on one hand, 1) the anti-Geller/Spencer/Wilders types, and on the other hand, 2) a group consisting of both a) pro-Geller/Spencer/Wilders types and b) people who worry about the effects on speech of fanatics claiming a heckler’s veto by virtue of killing anyone whose speech they don’t like.

You can put me firmly in the latter camp, and although I am more of a “2b” type of guy, it doesn’t really matter today whether I’m an “a” or a “b.” What matters is that I am a 2.

I’ve been trying for a while to think of a good analogy, and I just can’t. Here’s the best I can do: if a group went around saying that they were going to kidnap and torture and kill anyone who picked their nose in public, and then they actually kidnapped and tortured and killed a 6-year-old nose-picker, my first reaction would not be to distance myself from the nose-pickers. (Not even if the nose-picker were 46 years old instead of six.) In fact, I might start picking my nose in public with one hand while flipping them off with the other. To take such an action would not reflect a philosophical renunciation of Kleenex as the best way to dispose of mucus crust, but rather a desire to stand alongside those threatened or hurt for ridiculous reasons.

Kind of like this:

Above: the prophet Mohammed depicted in art

Which is not to compare Geller/Spencer/Wilders to nose-pickers, obviously, but just to say that even if you concede for the sake of argument that their speech is off-putting, it doesn’t matter. My point is that even if you find Pam Geller or Robert Spencer or Geert Wilders distasteful, and/or you would never engage in the kind of rhetoric that they espouse, that is really irrelevant to the question of our need to denounce those who would kill them for their speech.

I don’t think it means you have to praise Geller & Co. or agree with them, by the way. Although I think it’s not improper to admire the courage they are showing, regardless of how you feel about their beliefs or their speech.

UPDATE: As often happens, Eugene Volokh says what I was thinking, but says it better, in a post about speech as defiance. He also embeds the winning entry in Geller’s event, which captures the spirit beautifully. I would embed it here, but I is a-skeered.

Just kidding. Here you go.

Michele Bachmann addresses a rain-soaked crowd and asks: “Who likes wet people?”

Then, as R.S. McCain explains:

Some vicious monster ripped off my video and edited it, so that when Bachmann begins by jokingly asking the crowd, “Who likes wet people?” — because everybody was soaked to the bone, including me — instead there is a caption, “Who likes white people?”

Ken Layne of Wonkette then spread that smear all around the Internet.

You need watch only the first few seconds to see a smear in action:

Ken Layne knows his post is wrong, and refuses to do a proper correction.

Apparently snark trumps truth at his site.