Calm down, Joan. I know you must be feeling rather blue today. But please don't take it out on me. I came directly to your blog, where you usually post your appearances and didn't realize the video was posted elsewhere on the site. Sorry if that somehow sent you through the roof. Now take two aspirins and call me in the morning.

But really, Joan, what did you expect? When you slander a man by trying to link him to a murder simply because he's conscientiously spoken out against the victim -- and you do it without one iota of evidence -- well, I'd have to say you got exactly what you deserved -- complete annihilation and humiliation.

My God, Joan, reports by the Kansas City Star indicate that Scott Roeder had been a crackpot for many, many years. In fact, he was involved in the "Freeman" militia movement long before the first episode of The O'Reilly Factor ever even aired. Not to mention the fact that you didn't even know if Roeder ever watched the show in the first place! And yet you slandered O'Reilly anyway. Don’t you see how wrong that was? Well, if you didn’t have any shame when you did it, I sure hope you do now.

I honestly hope you learn from this, Joan. I hope you learn to be more honest and responsible. And less a propagandist. As Obama says -- words matter. And random acts of slander are not acceptable.

Anyhoo, since you didn't post the video here like you usually do (not that I wonder why), anyone curious can view this car wreck at the link below. And break out the popcorn. It's 11 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHVMO4vYl2U

PS: At least you had the guts to face the man, Joan -- I'll give you that.

You make some good points, but with important one error. The NAZI Party in Germany grew out of leftist politics. According to Wiki, it was originally called The German Workers' Party and later became known as The National Socialist German Workers' Party or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German. It is commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the Ger. pronunciation of Nationalsozialist). It is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of that Department of Homeland Security report of a couple weeks back about the rise in this kind of hatred on the far right? I should say not the usual right, not people who are conservatives, but this far right element.

ROGERS: Yes, you have to be very careful.

MATTHEWS: I am.

ROGERS: This is an ideological set that has really nothing to do with mainstream politics. These folks have very extreme views, and in many cases, they collect and organize around those views. They‘re either KKK members, white supremacists. We even see it on the left side, as well, from some radical movements and environmental movements that have risen to the level of violence. So it‘s not -- both of those groups are not part of mainstream politics. And we should be really careful not to try to put them in there because they are so radical and so detached from the rest of functioning society. And this is a great example of it.

* * *

It's refreshing to get some honesty every now and then, rather than your transparent attempts at politicizing this terrible tragedy. BTW, in riling up the left over this, you've succeeded in doing exactly what you've accused right wing pundits of doing. So sad.

...minus your level of detail, of course. But it was glaringly obvious to me that Virginians would view MCAuliffe as a carpetbagger, pure and simple. Maybe he thought -- Hey, it worked for Hillary in New York. Which also punctuates just how over the Clinton influence is on the party.

You think Deeds can beat McDonnell? I hear McDonnell is pretty popular down there. I have a sister in Frederickberg.

"I agree with you that the murder of the military recruiters should've received more press, but why do you think it was buried because the victims were military recruiters?"

I think there is something to be gleaned from the fact that you also admit you don't have alternative explanation to offer. Begging the question: What else could it possibly be? Please don't tell me there isn't a media bias; I know you're smarter than that. Although I'll admit that the media situation has improved over the last decade. At least folks center of right have unfiltered voices to listen to now. And better than that, if they're smart, they can listen to both sides of an argument from different outlets and actually form their own opinion. But back to your question.

It just seems to me that the only time the left wants anything to do with the military is when it serves their agenda. Like fighting the government for the right to film caskets of flag draped caskets arriving home from Iraq. And then there's John Murtha accusing innocent young marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" at Haditha. (They were acquitted by the way.) Or you can take Harry Reid saying, "This war is lost." Or MoveOn's depiction of the military man who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq as "General Betrayus." I could go on and on and you know it.

Unfortunately, when it comes to two young military recruiters being shot down in cold blood in Little Rock, Arkansas -- well, the MSM once again showed its true colors. Yes, I'll admit that's unprovable on my part. But it's conjecture based on patterns of behavior over many years, not trends. Some of which I've already mentioned. But there are many, many more. Anyhoo, that's one man's opinion. Stay well, my friend.