It sounded implausible. ln my judgment, something that would likely happen only as a leftist attempt to bring a new 'racist' accusation into play against the Republicans.
And in fact, according to this article, there is no substantiation, so far, of the reporter's allegation, based on what Secret Service spokesmen said.
...He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.
Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”
“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”
Hackett said he did not hear the remark.
Slavoski said Singleton was interviewed Wednesday and stood by his story but couldn’t give a description of the man because he didn’t see him he only heard him.''
And then there was the statement by Congressman John Murtha that his district was known to be a 'racist' area.
Meaning, probably, that the people who live and vote there are mostly conservative, heartland Americans who don't buy into the elitist multicultural propaganda, and who are thus guilty of choosing their own interests and those of their neighbors and kin. Thought crime!
And if these people will still vote for Murtha after his statement, shame on them. However I have a feeling he is one of those 'Congressmen for life' who seem to be voted in like clockwork, again and again, by their (usually liberal) constituencies. He's been in Congress for thirty-odd years. It's strange how areas like Western Pennsylvania, while seeming in so many ways like traditional heartland America, still vote for lefties like Murtha. Does anyone have an explanation for that? Is it an ethnic thing, where Murtha's constituents are mostly of the same ethnicity or religion as Murtha?
If they vote for him out of ethnic loyalty, then they should take note of the fact that Murtha does not appear to reciprocate that loyalty, choosing to toe the party multicultural line and side with 'diversity' rather than with his 'racist' constituents.
I hope that at least one good thing might come out of this dismal election: that some Americans will wake up and realize that ''their'' representatives don't represent them, and don't care about their interests and well-being, but are in fact just errand-boys for elite interests which are in opposition to everything traditionally American.
And one more instance of race-baiting in this campaign comes from the Washington Post. The writer starts out repeating the unsubstantiated rumor about the threat from someone at the Republican rally:
No Racism in the Booth
The ugly turn to racism in the presidential campaign presents a bold opportunity for American religious leaders--a way to promote core religious beliefs and make themselves relevant at the same time. It's time for a unified spiritual message: no racism in the booth.
This is more of an emergency that we may realize. Just last week, ugly crowd responses were reported at some McCain-Palin events. The Washington Post reported that one person at a rally shouted, "Kill him" about Obama while an African American member of a TV crew had to be escorted from the building after being taunted with racial slurs.
But the stakes are higher still. If the so-called "Bradley effect" were to take place in this election and the Obama-Biden ticket were to lose because of racism, the country would be devastated. The uproar following the 2000 Supreme Court decision that awarded the election to George W. Bush would look mild by comparison. Our values? Mocked. Our leadership on issues of reconciliation and tolerance? A joke. Our capacity to come together as a nation? Deferred, like other dreams for another generation.
The legacy of this campaign would be national shame.
A highly placed adviser to the Obama campaign caught me off guard this week when he told me how far he thought it had gone: "If anything happens to Barack, the other campaign will have to bear some responsibility."
I don't know who this Shriver person is; a commenter implies he is somehow related to the Kennedy-Shriver clans. It's clear, however, that he is making political points dressed up in quasi-Christian guise.
This kind of article exasperates me. I would like to ask each and every liberal Christian who subscribes to this idea of universalistic, PC Christianity: what would you say about our ancestors, our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, who did not (or do not, if they are still alive) share your PC piety? Do they stand condemned as evil 'racists' simply because they follow the age-old attitude of loyalty to their own in preference to others? Do they stand condemned and sentenced to eternal punishment because they simply recognized racial differences that post-modern Westerners, in some kind of fit of self-delusion, choose to deny?
There is a pharisaical self-righteousness in this Politically Correct Christianity. It carries with it the attitude that we in our time are the epitome of Christianity, having understood the Gospel much more accurately than all the benighted generations of Christians who ever lived before us. It also shares with Pharisaism the penchant for ostentatious displays of 'righteousness', and the desire to show off one's piety in public. ''Look at me! I'm so non-racist. I'm more non-racist than anyone I know." Or more properly, in keeping with the story of the Pharisee in the Gospels praying loudly in public: "I thank you, Lord, that I am not a sinner, a racist like that evil man over there."
What's more, it's because of people like this writer that many of us who are agonizing over what is being done to our country and our people decide that Christianity is our enemy. Not a day goes by on the Internet that I don't read diatribes or sly sneers against Christianity, blaming Christians and the faith of our fathers for all that is wrong with the West today.
While I firmly believe that many of the people who are going around slamming Christianity at every available opportunity have always been anti-Christians, or at least nonbelievers, I wonder if some who are on the fence regarding Christianity might be turned against it, and against their Christian neighbors, because they believe the smears against us. They read commentaries like the linked piece, and conclude that Christians are self-righteous goody-two-shoes who will vilify their own people in the name of charity to strangers. They conclude that Christians are 'without natural affections' towards their own, or that Christians are somehow obliged to betray their own in the name of some kind of 'one world' utopianism. It certainly looks that way from the outside.
Of course Christians know that there have always been, and certainly there are now, those who have 'erred', and who have deviated from Biblical principles as understood until now, on matters of race and nation. The critics of Christianity refuse to believe that the present liberal ideas are not reflective of historic Christianity; they instead reflect current politically correct universalism.
Some of these PC pharisees are deceiving people into believing that one has to choose between Christianity and national/ethnic/kin loyalties. This is just not so. But of course the anti-Christian faction will continue to spread this falsehood because they dislike Christianity and want to see it eradicated in favor of some kind of atheism or some sort of revived paganism or syncretism.
In any case, now we have ostensibly neutral 'religious' voices putting out the idea that the only possible reason for not supporting a certain candidate must be 'racism', and that it is to be banned: 'No racism in the booth!" Thus some more gullible Christians will feel too guilty to vote for McCain or any other candidate because doing so is prima facie proof of 'racism'.
There were a few comments on the thread following the Shriver piece that took issue with the idea that a vote against Obama is an expression of 'racism.' Good for those commenters; I am glad some still have the capacity to discern for themselves. However, so many of the comments toed the PC party line, which makes one feel discouraged about the state of Christianity today.
Nevertheless, there is no escaping the accusations of 'racism' during this campaign, and there is a definite tendency to handle Obama with kid gloves and to play softball with him in a way that would not happen among two White candidates. McCain has been decidedly restrained in his tactics and rhetoric, and he has always had a reputation for being irascible and outspoken. Nothing makes White people more reticent than the constant presence of the 'race' issue in the background. And since honesty is not allowed in respectable society, obfuscation, euphemism, and self-censorship are distorting this campaign and the national discussion. And political correctness is also keeping the subject of immigration, legal and illegal, from being discussed.
Nothing good can come from such a situation, where truth, honesty, and objectivity are anathema.