His name is John Derbyshire a columnist for the National Review& he wrote an article titled “Be Very Afraid.” in regard to Chelsea Clinton. It's ironic but with the Limbaugh/Fluke incident we have heard how conservatives are the "real victims" and all the horrible names Liberals have called them. Bristol Palin demanded an apology from President Obama. Guess they "forgot" 8 years of calling Hillary Clinton everything from a murderer (Vince Foster), to a lesbian (because she wore pant suits) and names I won't type here. As for Chelsea, she said recently she stands with Sandra Fluke & knows what it's like to be insulted by Limbaugh & the rest of his ilk. But how ironic that conservatives think they are the injured party. Now it's Obama "threatening Chelsea." Want to see who really did?
John Derbyshire took the cake, he advocated the extermination of Chelsea:
"When words should terrify"
http://www.journaltribune.com/articles/2012/03/17/columnist/doc4f60a60f61c13932231789.txt
"On February15, 2001, Derbyshire wrote an article that may have no equal in U.S. history, at least not in mainstream journalism. What’s striking about his article is how it mirrors the words of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, using the language of eugenics and social Darwinism. Derbyshire doesn’t advocate for the extermination of a group; instead he discusses the alleged merits of exterminating one person: Chelsea Clinton. After a deranged rant against her parents, he states, “I hate Chelsea Clinton.” Admitting it’s not “easy to justify” his loathing, he nonetheless finds his justification in her genes: “Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint…”and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored
"Channel-ing Hitler, Derbyshire malevolently perverts history, saying “All the great despotisms of the past … recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin’s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an ‘enemy of the people.’ The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, ‘clan liability.’ In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished ‘to the ninth degree’: that is, everyone in the offender’s own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed.” (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)
"Limbaugh and Derbyshire defended themselves in similar fashion. Limbaugh said he uses “humor” to make his point; Derbyshire defended his writing as “satire” and blamed “liberals” for “missing the joke.” Like Limbaugh, Derbyshire said he was trying to make a point. Really? There’s a legitimate point in calling Chelsea Clinton “tainted” and “vile” and disingenuously extolling how her genetic line would be exterminated in other societies?"
"These are good points to remember when people claim the “other side does it, too.” No, they don’t; certainly not with any equivalency. I’ve reviewed thousands of pages of material and never read anything comparable to Derbyshire’s rant in any mainstream source on the political left. As to Limbaugh, the closest comparison may be David Letterman’s joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter, which was absolutely deplorable. However, the joke was less than 20 words, the girl’s name was not mentioned, and the entire quip lasted seconds. Further, Letterman offered a 7-minute, on-air apology. In contrast, Limbaugh attacked Ms. Fluke 53 times over three days and, after offering a preposterously hollow apology, pushed back and began attacking Ms. Fluke’s motives. And need I explain how Letterman’s bad joke is not the moral equivalent of Derbyshire’s 1,850-plus word article about exterminating a human being?"
http://www.journaltribune.com/articles/2012/03/17/columnist/doc4f60a60f61c13932231789.txt
Derbyshire also believes women should not have the right to vote, something he and Coulter both agree on. He also feels there's a case to be made for repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act "because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.” National Review’s John Derbyshire: Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/30/62209/derbyshire-female-suffrage/?mobile=nc
.
= new reply since forum marked as read
