Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post Prints Racist, Pro-Assassination Cartoon – Again

OK, so the New York Post is a puerile, dishonest, sensationalist rag. But how on earth could anyone have approved this cartoon for publication?

New York Post Racism

You might think that a cartoon depicting President Obama as the bug-eyed prey fleeing fearfully from a stallion-mounted Romney, who is armed to the teeth, would have given a major metropolitan newspaper editor pause. You would be wrong, particularly if the newspaper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an ultra-conservative propagandist who will do anything to manipulate an election.

The racist overtones of that cartoon should have been noticeable to anyone who even glanced at it. It practically shouts recollections of slave owners chasing runaway slaves. And even setting aside that repulsive message, the cartoon presents a wholly unsavory theme of violence directed the President.

What could have possessed the editors of the New York Post to publish this offensive garbage? And why hasn’t it stirred more of reaction from the public? If this were an isolated incident it would be bad enough, but three years ago a similarly themed cartoon made it into the pages of the Post:

New York Post Stimulus

And by the way, it was the same cartoonist, Sean Delonas, who did both of these racist, pro-assassination, pictorial diatribes. It is just inconceivable that this sort of thing is considered appropriate and that a paper like the Post can get away with it. There ought to be consequences and, hopefully, the people of New York will impose them.


9 thoughts on “Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post Prints Racist, Pro-Assassination Cartoon – Again

  1. Not sure how you can be such a ginormous hypocrite in so many areas and consider yourself anything remotely credible. This may be vile and/or even hate speech, but it’s protected speech none the less. You continue to prove to me that liberalism and progressivism in it’s current form is more dangerous to our freedom than any islamic or any other terrorist out there. If it was up to you, based on reading your stuff for some time, only speech that pushes you point of view and/or is politically correct would be all we have to read. Yes, yes, yes, you say all day long how you have some kind of reverence for the first amendment – I would call you a liar with no such reverence. With PA so statistically close, I’m going to re-evaluate my non-support for Mitt Romney – can’t say I’ll change my mind, but if it’s between the likes of you, this anti-freedom candidate Barak Obama or Mitt Romney, I need to be sure I’m doing the right thing by voting 3rd party.

    • Did you mention anything related to the post, or reality, steve?

    • gee steve, why get so worked up? He didn’t say that the paper didn’t have the right. He just said that you would think any reasonable person would find this offensive and realize that it isn’t appropriate. You want to publish hateful racist garbage? Be my guest. But don’t expect us all to love you for it. Oh and Constitutional Law 101: Hate speech is NOT protected. Try again…..

    • Uhhhh, hate speach isn’t protected. Smart guy.


    • You are mentally deficient. There are programs for people like you.

  3. Its little wonder the rest of the world thinks Americans are looney with a lot of little wheels missing..Jean Risley if all whites are like you its a wonder tham PRESIDENT O BAMA still cares about them.

Comments are closed.