Sarah Palin Stalker’s Nazi Comparison is Repugnant to Jews

Up until now, one could merely have accused Sarah Palin’s stalker-biographer, Joe McGinniss, of unethical behavior, even journalistic malpractice.

After all, McGinniss’ decision to move into a house just fifteen feet away from the family he is subjecting to hostile research struck even the hard-hearted as unusually crass and callous. It also famously prompted the construction of a fourteen-foot high screening fence by “first dude” Todd Palin, and elicited sympathy for the Palins from a number of usually less-than-sympathetic sources.

But now McGinniss has outdone his already-gross behavior by telling The Today Show’s Matt Lauer that the Palin’s anguished response to his intrusion should be compared to “Nazi troopers” in 1930s Germany.

In making this comparison, no matter how ludicrous, McGinniss further transgresses the boundaries of decency into an area of intense Jewish concern – the history and meaning of the Nazi Holocaust. His remarks, for starters, show gross insensitivity to Jewish feelings.

When McGinniss invokes “Nazi troopers,” for Jews he conjures up the brown-shirted thugs who rioted in the streets of Berlin in June 1935 and garroted an elderly Jewish man to a tavern table, as recounted by American journalist Varian Fry, in an eyewitness account run the following day on the front page of The New York Times. When McGinniss invokes “Nazi troopers,”we remember the expulsion of Jews wholesale from German universities, the violent boycotts of Jewish businesses, and the public burnings of “decadent” books (often by Jewish authors) in front of SS-organized mobs.

When McGinniss invokes “Nazi troopers,” Jews think of the German National-Socialist Party’s special shock forces who led enraged mobs in burning down a thousand synagogues – and many more Jewish sites and businesses – over Kristallnacht, in November, 1939. And of course Jews think of the “Nazi troopers” who rounded up defenseless Jewish civilians in the middle of the night and loaded us onto boxcars “headed for the East.”

This is why Jews are still “sensitive” to facile comparisons with “Nazi troopers,” even by a low-life journalist of McGinniss’ stripe. Because McGinniss’ foolish analogy cheapens the meaning and memory of the Holocaust. Jewish defense organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, would do well to rebuke McGinniss, unless they think he is beneath their purview.

But really, because McGinniss’ comparison of Germany in those dark times to the America of today is so outrageous and appalling, he should be repudiated by all thinking people of good will.

And because McGinniss’ comparison demeans a political leader and a popular movement whose character are overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic and tolerant of all races and religions, all Americans should reject him, and hang on him a letter of shame.

Gov. Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, and the awakening voters of America, will not long remember this unprincipled opportunist who calls himself a journalist. But the American people, McGinniss’ publisher, and most of all the Jewish community, should be disgusted that he has so cheapened the public discourse.

Going to Extremes about Alaska was superb.

As a Louisianan you're entitled to your opinion and that's all it is. I haven't read the book but an Alaskan FReeper, former journalist and writer for an Alaskan newspaper disagrees with you. He said:

"However, I can tell you this much about the author, Joe McGinnis: his previous book on Alaska, “Going to Extremes,” was one of the worst I’ve ever read communicating what it really means to live here."

If you want to support leftist creeps with an unhealthy obsession with Sarah Palin, be my guest. I guess you and the Alaska moonbat bloggers, the Trig truthers who also love Joe McGinniss (and he loves 'em back), have something in common.

Bully for you.

Joe McGinniss makes his move on Sarah Palin (Creepy stalker biographer) ---- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2521841/posts?page=1

....Let's take a look at how McGinniss put together his book Fatal Vision, the story about Jeffrey MacDonald, and see how well regarded and highly respectful he is.

Joe McGinniss was hired by MacDonald's defense team to write a book that would exonerate him.

McGinniss, to research his book, became MacDonald's shadow during the trial. He had full access to every aspect of his defense. He even moved in with him for a while.

He became MacDonald's most loyal supporter. He wrote letters to him in which he professed his belief that he was innocent. Joe McGinniss gained MacDonald's confidence to the point that MacDonald opened his soul to him. He told McGinniss everything: about his relationship with his wife, his father in law, his kids. Everything. Through it all, McGinniss continued to tell MacDonald that he was on his side and that he would make sure the world knew of MacDonald's innocence. MacDonald was eventually convicted, but McGinniss remained loyal and told him to be patient until until the book came out because it would prove his innocence and the nation would rally to side.

When the book was finally published, MacDonald realized he had been brutally deceived. McGinniss portrayed MacDonald as a psychopathic, enraged, drug crazed murderer. It turned out the entire time McGinniss fawned over MacDonald and told him how much he believed in his innocence, McGinniss was writing the exact opposite.

MacDonald was so disgusted at McGinniss' deception that he filed a federal lawsuit against him. During the course of the trial McGinniss admitted under oath during questioning by MacDonald's lawyer that he didn't even believe the theory he promoted in the book:

Fourteen years ago, Joe McGinniss's best-selling book, Fatal Vision, depicted MacDonald as guilty. McGinniss theorized that MacDonald had abused diet pills, had suffered a violent amphetamine psychosis, and in a fit of rage, had murdered his family because one of the children wet the bed. The book and the pursuant movie convinced millions that this actually occurred. Yet, in a sworn deposition on October 30, 1986, McGinniss, incredibly, admitted he did not personally believe his own theory. He explained, under oath, that he had introduced the diet pill theory as a dramatic device in his "new journalism" where the story is more important than the facts. When asked why he said that he'd learned MacDonald had ingested an overdose of diet pills (which he had not learned at all), he said he hadn't wanted to give his readers the same old "rehash of the trial."

McGinniss finally revealed his true feelings about his central theory, the theory that had made him rich, and had convinced millions of people that MacDonald was guilty. Under oath, during hard questions by MacDonald's attorney, he admitted, "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."

The trial ended in a 5-1 hung jury in MacDonald's favor. According to MacDonald's account, "the hold out juror had refused to deliberate after fellow jurors rebuffed her attempts to spend time listening to her views on animal rights."

McGinniss paid MacDonald $325,000 to avoid a retrial he knew he would surely lose.

Janet Malcolm wrote about MacDonald's law suit and Joe McGinniss' shocking duplicity in her book The Journalist and the Murderer......

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.