( – promoted by Michael Bersin)

Those of us in the Kansas City area are able to get the Kansas City Star.  One of the national columnists it carries is Michelle Malkin.  Today, I sent a version of the following to the reader’s representative of the Star.

The KC Star does its readers a huge service by printing Michelle Malkin’s weekly column of hate.  I’m sure it serves an important part of the KC readership.

For that reason, I wonder why today’s version was edited for some of its more interesting language.

An online version of the column in today’s Star is available here.

Here is the third paragraph in the unabridged version.

Both papers uncovered dishwashers, cooks and other suspect Hillary campaign contributors in New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx and Brooklyn who were limited-income, limited-English-proficient and smellier than stinky tofu. One Asian donor admitted to the Los Angeles Times “to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.” Another, Hsiao Wen Yang, told the New York Post she was reimbursed for her $1,000 donation — setting off clear alarm bells over yet another possible straw donor scheme on the heels of Norman Hsu-gate.

We readers of the Star did not read the relative clause in the first sentence:

who were limited-income, limited-English-proficient and smellier than stinky tofu

Here is the second to last paragraph in the unabridged column.

If it’s “ethnic profiling” to be extra-careful of Chinatown donors who can’t speak English, live in dilapidated buildings, have never voted, can’t tell Hillary Clinton from Hunan Chicken or simply can’t be found, then “ethnic profiling” should be the standard procedure of every responsible campaign.

Again, we readers of the Star did not get to read

can’t tell Hillary Clinton from Hunan Chicken

Why weren’t the readers of the Star allowed to read these wonderful turns of phrase?  This is exactly the kind of language that makes Malkin’s column such a wonderful example of hate. 

Is it possible that the Star is embarrassed by these phrases and decided it would not be good for its readers to read lines that reveal the real nature of Ms. Malkin’s ability to think critically?

If these lines are over the top, why does the Star keep printing Ms. Malkin’s weekly hate?

I will share with you the response I get to my many question.