I mean speech is speech, isn't it?

Godwin's Law notwithstanding, that "blood/sacrifice/heritage" screed genuinely could have been written in Germany circa 1937.

Should I even point out that the issue is that the WaPo prints stuff like this and is still considered a 'liberal' paper? Or should I not waste my breath on drive-by trolls who leave sarcastic one-line comments on every article?

Who is the Cherokee candidate for president? I think that candidate could trace a longer bloodline in America that that newcomer McCain guy.

Someone's actually deleting troll comments? Hallelujah. Please delete my comment above, now that it no longer makes sense (and this one too while you're at it).

While it is arguable that these people have a right to say what they like, there is no obligation nor expectation for the Washington Post to grant them respectability by putting them on the Op-Ed page. Indeed, a good case can be made that the Washington Post, major media outlet that it is, has a fair bit of responsibility not to dignify fringe views by airing them in a mainstream forum. Opportunities like these are stepping stones for pundits, as well as the implication that these views are appropriate in the mainstream.

Glenn is hardly arguing that Ms. Parker's opining should be banned; he rightly points out the hateful and racist thought undergirding her "argument." He rightly is appalled that a major news organ published such trash as if it were respectable, as if the ideas expressed were not despicable. Glenn does this to highlight the sorry state of our present political and media spheres, that such pandering to the ignorant among us passes for "political discourse."

No, Ms. Parker should not be banned; but a respectable newspaper should not publish it. It should remain for the fringe press of the white power hate groups in America to publish such garbage, or for her to publish herself on a personal blog.

buffoons can be easily labeled as the New Aryans. What's next, Nürnberg Laws that will determine who is a true American and who should be branded as sub-human?

Of course I also find it odd that Jewish World Review is giving Parker the time of day. While about as conservative as Jewish websites ever get (I mean, they host Mallard Fillmore) you'd think they'd have a few lines they'd rather not cross.

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists....

[George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

That Op/Ed was disgraceful. I find it hard to believe a major newspaper, heck any newspaper in the country, can justify printing something like that.

So why did you defend Matt Hale?

-- Electro Robot

When John defended the British troops accused of killing civilians during the Boston massacre trial. Because that's what Americans do.

Kathleen Parker's article appeared in the Jewish World Review!!! Was she -- and they -- blind to the supreme irony of any argument that conflates "blood equity" and "citizenship" and "patriotism" appearing in a Jewish publication??? Who has more to lose if this kind of thinking goes mainstream than the Jews?

Oy fucking vey.

Considering how rapidly has fallen the quality of "journalism" and I do use that term very loosely, in the average mainstream, national newspaper at this point, I suggest that the nation would be far better off if we simply skipped the distribution process and shipped these rags right from the press room to the recycling shredder. Think of the energy that would be saved, both from not transporting this garbage around the newspapers' distribution areas, and in the homes where the ground-up bits of newsprint blown into the walls would reduce energy costs!

And the editors of this trash wonder why the public is racing to the internet and public broadcasting for their news and information?!

Glenn,

Would you consider submitting a column to the Post on this subject, referencing today's very sad display, and chalked full of other such instances? Sometimes editorial boards can be duped into letting someone make a fool out of them on their own pages if it can be seen as convincing them of their own high-minded fairness (the New York Times comes to mind, and not in a good way, from when they allowed a piece by a right winger deriding their 'liberal bias').

So why did you defend Matt Hale?

I mean speech is speech, isn't it?

Is it really possible that you're incapable of grasping the distinction between (a) the Government punishing a White Supremacist for the expression of his views and (b) the Washington Post inviting him to express his White Supremacy on its Op-Ed pages?

Seriously, how can any sentient person not immediately understand that difference?

Achilleselbow's comments implied they were deleted.

And yes, truly disgusting and heartbreaking columns by Parker.

And intolerance by women sells even more. If Ann Coulter were a man, she'd have ended up like John Hagee long ago -- an embarrassment, someone to be thrown over the side before reaching the national stage, only influential in her own little circle of cranks. But Kathleen Parker has the perfect defense if and when Obama decides to complain...can't take it? From little old me, a WOMAN? Why don't you go cry under the covers, pretty boy?

She, and others like her, are a disgrace to strong women like myself who believe in the founding principles of America -- which have nothing to do with blood and everything to do with equality and justice. Even those who treat conservatism as a religion and change as a dirty word must admit that we are a country founded on human rights and that we must constantly strive to uphold the vision of a country that treats all its citizens with dignity and respect and even -- dare I say it -- love.

Hillary, whom Parker uses as a red herring while comparing her cojones to the weak "prettiness" of Obama/Edwards, would no doubt be horrified to read the column that suggests that one's blood determines whether one can really "understand America". But what Parker means is that race can be a factor in directing the votes of what I believe to be an ever-dwindling number of Americans, whose narrow-mindedness may not be entirely their own fault but the result of living in a state that is 95% white and experiencing other ethnicities only through the narrow and biased window of the mainstream media. Just don't try to tell me that is what America should be. That is what is right now -- and we are all hoping that a successful, measured, brilliant President Obama can put us back on the road toward our ideals and our dreams.