Abortion advocates need to be honest about their mission's meaning

I just read some pro-abortion Facebook users assuring one another, a bit too loudly, that their opponents are the immoral ones.I suspect their consciences are bothering them.

I once supported abortion. In fact, my first organizing, in the mid-eighties, was for NARAL. But recent years' advancements in medical technology, and my own return to faithful Catholicism, rendered such advocacy unjustifiable.

So, my own experience tells me not each abortion supporter is a bad person. They're just completely wrong on this matter. And unborn babies pay the price.As contemporary knowledge of unborn babies' development and sensory capacities increases, clinging desperately to threadbare 'choice' slogans and 30 year-old lab data looks pathetically unrealistic.The quality of humanity does not turn on whether a third party wants the baby to be a baby. It is one, independently.Medical science has established that.

Abortion advocates, were they to acknowledge that objective truth, would have the task of arguing that some innocent human beings must die. And that advocates' desires are of more importance than 'unwanted' people's lives.

Apparently that is already their belief. But I have yet to hear them honestly articulate it.

America's Greatest Losers make own crowns

In Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial race, Democrat Stacy Abrams received some 55,000 fewer votes than did Republican Brian Kemp. He was duly seated as that state's elected governor.

Abrams had been trounced in front of the entire world, but nevertheless, she persisted. She refused to concede loss on election night. And she still does.

The Daily Caller reported that, on Sunday, the defeated former candidate told the New York Times Magazine she "feels comfortable" saying she actually won -- objective reality be damned -- as she suspects without evidence some shadowy 'vote suppression' machinations had been perpetrated against her.

The concepts of winning and losing no longer have set definitions, any more than do the biological ones of male and female.

Now, Conor McGregor can say he "feels comfortable" saying he won that 2017 Las Vegas bout with Floyd Mayweather.

Now, the Los Angeles Dodgers can say they "feel comfortable" saying they won the 2018 World Series, and that the Boston Red Sox did not.

And now, every kid who flunks a math test can assure his parents he "feels comfortable" saying he passed with flying colors.

But, more seriously...

Abrams' refusal to admit sound defeat is reflective of what seems the Democrat Party's new tactic: Never concede contrary realities, even when the world has already witnessed them.

'Not my president!'

'Barr is Trump's shill! 

'The Mueller Report is fixed!'

By that reckoning, Democrats have already won every future election. Competition is irrelevant. Acknowledging realities is counterproductive to partisan 'progress.'

Truman socialism meme assessed 

The above meme is presently floating around on the internet. It quotes President Truman accurately. But do his decades-old words apply as well in 2019?

Truman referred specifically to Social Security; farm price supports; bank deposit insurance; and labor union organizing. But today, vocal and visible socialist-Democrat leaders push other interests, exotic and impractical ones Truman did not cite:

War on Christianity; razing America's capitalist economic system; single-payer health care; abolition of law enforcement; taxpayer-funded transsexual surgeries; instituting innumerable clampdown regulations that strangle small businesses; free college tuition for all.

Destroying the ideal of the nuclear family by normalizing the notion that entire zoofuls of odd associations are equally valid family units; infanticide; ideological indoctrination in the place of legitimate education. 

Taking from parents rightful authority over their children, with control given to government agencies; and "climate change" hysteria that urges radical coast-to-coast transformations of American life -- everything from transportation to architecture to what foods we can put on the family table at supper time.

All of that is a far piece from anything Truman meant in 1952. In fact, there is no record of his ever having endorsed any of those things.

Away from specifics, Truman made a general point about language usage. He cautioned that some in politics misused the word "socialism" as a device with which to keep voters from considering other possible solutions to problems.

"Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps people," Truman said. 

There are historic examples of American socialists advancing legitimate interests like civil liberties and racial justice. Socialists helped found the ACLU and NAACP. (Today, unfortunately, those once-noble organizations have shriveled into partisan shills for Democrats.)

And there are cases of figures exploiting popular apprehensions about foreign ideologies.

At one point in my life, I found socialism's siren song attractive. I liked the idea of human needs being met. Of freedom from want. Material equality.

It seemed the path to common welfare.

But I realized that others' life decisions were not mine to make (so long as third persons weren't at risk), no matter how strongly I felt or superior I believed my conclusions to be.

And I learned that while equal opportunities can and should be available to all men, there can never be identical outcomes. Governmental policies intended to ensure sameness of consequence produce misery and want, confiscating resources from earners for redistribution to non-earners. Unfairness and inadequacy are the long-term results.

And, of course, the world offered the indisputable object lessons of country after socialist country crumbling into desolation.

Truman's excerpted 1952 words were felicitous to 2019 meme mongers pushing ideology. And that hewed portrayal might seem compelling, but only so long as one doesn't look closely. Without the benefit of context, and recognition of vastly different contemporary particulars, it is deceptive.

Yankees, Flyers poobahs erase "God Bless America" singer Kate Smith 
But her patriotic legacy endures, despite shameful corporate assault

Kate Smith's historic rendition of the Irving Berlin classic "God Bless America" has long been a fixture of our national culture, including at major sporting events.

But last week, the celebrated "Songbird of the South" became the newest casualty of a PC mob as perpetually voracious as it is nonsensical. The Philadelphia Flyers hockey team and the New York Yankees baseball one both 'disappeared' the legendary singer who'd done so much for America.

Each erased Smith from game broadcast and recording libraries. The Philadelphia team went a step further and tore down a statue of Smith that had stood near their home Wells Fargo Arena.

Prompting the teams' banishment of the illustrious songstress was recent revelation of two racially troublesome 1930s songs she'd recorded.

Gateway Pundit wrote "One of the songs, 'That's why darkies were born,' contains the lyric 'Someone's got to pick the cotton / someone had to plant the corn.' But as the New York Post pointed out: 'The song can also be seen as an ironic and satirical comment on racism. That's why noted African-American singer and civil-rights activist Paul Robeson also recorded the song."

Gateway Pundit added that "The other song, 'Pickaninny Heaven,' which was featured in the 1933 film Hello Everybody, starring Smith, is less questionably racist." 

Great big watermelons roll around and get in your way / in the Pickaninny Heaven. Luscious pork chop bushes growin' right outside your doorway / in the Pickaninnies' Heaven.

The New York Post concluded: "Sad to say, such songs were all-too-commonly heard."

"But they were also a product of their time and place," the paper continued. "And if the nation bans everyone who ever sang such songs and pretend they never existed, it would have to wipe out pretty much the entire history of American film and music."

No person is without flaw. Numerous highly paid professional athletes have monstrous criminal records. Assault and battery and sexual abuse are objectively worse than the late Kate Smith's having sung regrettable musical numbers in a decade prior to many current sports fans' births.

Yet, athletes who've worn handcuffs and glowered through steel bars are toasted by the same sports world that just dumped Kate Smith's statue. Her early wrongs should not overshadow her plentiful later positive contributions. 

The latter were the original reason for her recognition. And that reason was not changed by unflattering disclosures. 

That is the treatment accorded law-breaking players. But, I suppose, star players offer financial returns dead singers don't. Discarding Smith for inarguable, long-passed sins while overlooking contemporary players' more egregious ones makes cash-register sense. 

But to fair-minded observers, it stinks.

Yankees and Flyers private-office poobahs who made the decisions to heave to the curb iconic American Kate Smith may reason contemporary fans who are perpetually outraged over SJW causes far outnumber those concerned about a deceased singer from an earlier era. 

Too, decision-makers surely are mindful of squawking celebrities, online petition pressures, and finger-to-the-wind advertisers.

In years following those song's releases, Smith worked indefatigably on the war-bond effort. She raised tremendous resources for America's ultimately successful battle against Hitler's globalist fascist menace. 

"At the height of her career, during World War II, she repeatedly was named one of the three or four most popular women in America," read her June 18, 1986 New York Times obituary. "No single show-business figure even approached her as a seller of war bonds during World War II. In one 18-hour stint on the CBS radio network, Miss Smith sold $107 million worth of war bonds which were issued by the United States government to finance the war effort. Her total for a series of marathon broadcasts was over $600 million...President Roosevelt once introduced her to King George VI of England, saying 'This is Miss Smith. Miss Smith is America.'"

In 1949, the New York Times obituary recalled, Smith was repeatedly attacked by the American Communist Party's Daily Worker. The paper raged against her patriotism and attention to matters related to her Catholic faith.

(It's unlikely Smith's Catholicism was at all a factor in her recent banning. But it wouldn't give her new attackers pause, either. Catholics are increasingly despised in liberal circles. Ask Amy Coney Barrett, who was last year publicly grilled over her Catholicism by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris,)

The PC dogma that inspires today's historical revisionism maintains that individuals' isolated transgressions demand nothing less than total elimination of those people, regardless of what laudable achievements they'd put elsewhere on the record.

In time, corporate sports teams' drumming-out of Kate Smith will fade from memory. But before it does, recognize that it represents something much larger and more dire.

Calls for tearing down monuments and erasing historical accomplishments bespeak a philosophical rejection of the permanence concept. Only the current moment matters.

Political machinations and congressional actions are pursued based on Right Now, without care for how posterity might be impacted. There is no longer regard for tradition or attention to long-range effects on American institutions and processes.

No respect is paid the memories of yesterday's heroes. ($600 million for the World War II effort!)

"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea, let us swear allegiance to a land that's free," began Smith's spoken introduction to "God Bless America."

Those storm clouds are here, now, cultivated partly by the Yankees and the Flyers. America does not thrive upon meager and disloyal spirit such as theirs, but by the robust and upright passions epitomized by their better, Kate Smith.

And I suspect people will be humming "God Bless America" long after they've forgotten whatever inane jingles sports teams are presently toodling.

The sacrilegious Easter Sunday prowling of MSNBC's Michael Viqueira

Michael Viqueira, during a 4/21 MSNBC interview with Joy Reid, related his Easter Sunday stalking of Robert Mueller outside St. John's Episcopal Church, in D.C.

"Some people would characterize this as an ambush interview of a man coming out of Easter services at church," Viqueira said, of his ambush interview of a man coming out of Easter services at church.

The MSNBC reporter offered no apology for his reprehensible, hostile trespass on Holy ground, disrespectful as it plainly was of Mueller's right to unmolested religious practice. 

For those in the grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome, nothing is beyond the pale.

Following Viqueira's assaultive deviltry, actress Patricia Heaton tweeted:

"Hello @MSNBC. Today is Easter Sunday, the holiest day of the Christian calendar. Some of the faithful were murdered today while they worshipped. But you ambush Robert Mueller outside his church and chuckle about it afterward. This is loathsome. Shame on you."

Heaton's words about Christian worshippers being murdered referred to the 8 reportedly coordinated Easter Day Sri Lankan bombings. Hundreds were killed or injured.

Notably, while both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama released sympathetic statements, each declined to explicitly say "Christians." They opted instead for "Easter worshippers." Following the New Zealand mosque attack, both specified "Muslims" in initial comments.

In mainstream news and entertainment media, as in progressive politics, bigotry against Christianity is acceptable. It's even advocated as moral and just.

During a Poynter Institute interview the day after his contemptible deed, Viqueira spelled out his philosophical disregard for the concept of religious specialness: "Whether it is Easter Sunday or Wednesday outside an office building, if a newsmaker is in our sight, we ask them questions."

The unashamed MSNBC functionary was not the first to attempt blame-evasion by using a mealy-mouthed euphemism to minimize the nefariousness of his wrongdoing.

In a January 30, WTOP radio interview, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam explained his approach to killing newborns. He carefully selected weasel-words with all the unctiousness and coldness of a pathological monster:

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated, if that's what the mother and family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

An MSNBC reporter skulking about Christian church soil? A Democrat governor dispassionately articulating a methodology for baby killing?

And people wonder why Trump won -- and will doubtless win reelection.

Oh brother, not in my backyard
Cher's Janus-facedness reminds of George Clooney

The internet rocked with laughter at Cher's recent spin-about on immigrants. On Sept. 5, 2017, the plasticized and fright-wigged Tinsel Town termagant tweeted her self-righteousness for all the world to read.

"Those Who Can Must Take a DREAMER In2 Their Home and Protect Them !! I'm Ready 2 Do This and  [praying hands emoji] OTHERS IN MY BUSINESS WILL DO THE SAME !! SANCTUARY"

But following President Trump's recent proposal to direct all illegal immigrants to Sanctuary Cities like Cher's own, she abruptly switched songs:

"I Understand Helping immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISN'T TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN,"  she said, from her surgically sculpted mouth's other side, "WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+ [U.S. flag emoji] Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,AND HUNGRY? If My State Can't Take Care Of Its Own (many are VETS) How Can It Take Care Of More"

Cher's conflictive admonitions may actually indicate an emergent rationale for locating illegals in less-populous parts of the country. The coastal, smugly 'woke' in hoity-toity zip codes may conclude they already bear sufficient burden, and presume to administer other states' citizenship affairs. 

La-di-frickin'-da.

Cher's whirling reminded me immediately of George Clooney.

For years, the actor advocated unchecked immigration. He also was vocal in his denunciation of President Trump. And, though he probably wouldn't phrase it this way, Clooney ultimately learned the error of his advocacy.

"A makeshift refugee camp has sprung up in Lake Como, the popular celebrity hideaway in Italy favored by stars George Clooney, Richard Branson, and Madonna," the New York Post related, in July of 2016.

"Hundreds of migrants heading toward Northern Europe have erected tents and flimsy dwellings around the exclusive town's railway station," the Post said.

The paper later added: "Lake Como has long been a destination favored by the powerful and wealthy, many of whom are attracted by its stunning lakeside villas built in Roman times."

England's Daily Mail, that same month, dubbed Lake Como "Paradise Lost."

The Daily Mail depicted the area. It noted Clooney maintained a L.7.5 million mansion there, and that Richard Branson was "rumored to have a house there." Donatella Versace also once lived nearby.

A local hotel was said to charge L.2,000 per night, with previous guests including President Kennedy, Madonna, and Bruce Springsteen. Princess Margaret, Kirk Douglas, Barbra Streisand, and Elton John were reported to have dined at Lake Como's Isolo Comacina.

But open-borders agitation had despoiled the once-luxurious spot. And when Switzerland closed its border to migrants, the blocked mass settled in Clooney's Italian neighborhood.

The owner of a local restaurant said "I don't want them here. Italy has enough problems without trying to solve the problems of the world."

"You see them arriving at the San Giovanni station," said a housewife. "They are not poor hungry refugees, but they are big and strong."

The Clooneys relocated to their English mansion. But trouble followed.

On July 10, 2017, LifeAndStylemag.com reported "Life and Style has exclusively learned that George Clooney has recently made plans to move back to L.A. for the safety of his family, after the latest spate of terror attacks in England."

"He doesn't feel that Amal and the twins are safe, living in the English countryside," a source explained. "He's determined to move his family to L.A., where where he feels much more secure."

Life And Style cited "very serious threats" the actor had allegedly received because of his "humanitarian work." (Don't visible anti-Trump agitators in need of sympathetic PR often claim to have received 'threats' of one type or another? Eric Swalwell. Ilhan Omar. CNN. Maxine Waters. MSNBC's Katy Tur. FNC's Kat Timpf.)

"As soon as Amal found out she was pregnant, he hired former Secret Service agents to assess all his property...His mansion in Studio City (Calif.) was deemed the most secure, and it's within minutes of a police station," a Clooney "insider" told Life And Style.

(How many regular folks who'd confront the fruit of Hollywood open-borders shouts be able to retain "former Secret Service agents?" I believe the answer is zero.)

Breitbart's Daniel Nussbaum observed that "The move for the Clooneys comes as both George and Amal have been among the most vocal and active celebrity advocates for open borders and the free flow of refugees between countries. 

"In February of last year, the actor met privately with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and praised the German leader's acceptance of refugees from Syria and other countries."

A year earlier, Clooney reportedly told SkyNews "The United States needs to do more. As we know, 10,000 refugees a year is not enough, that's clear."

Of course, there is tremendous irony in the George Clooney Story. A blithering Hollywood idealist urges refugees swarm across borders; subsequently fears jeopardy ensuant from his advocacy; and packs up his family and flees to an America more secure thanks to President Trump -- the very statesman against whom Clooney had long and loudly remonstrated.

("Donald Trump is not going to be president," Clooney had notoriously snickered, during a campaign-season press conference.)

Now illegals may pop up, en masse, in pricey sanctuary domains fancifully moralistic stars like Clooney and Cher had erected.

Celebrities are used to lecturing the rest of us about supposed moral imperatives. Armed security details, opulent, walled mansions, and exclusive, undisturbed social bubbles have for years allowed them to wag fingers without having to deal with human consequences.

But those days may soon be over. 



Note: Consider that, at least for some open-borders advocates, there may be a larger philosophical belief undergirding related actions. That was given voice by President Obama, when he addressed the 2015 National Prayer Breakfast.

Obama dismissed Americans' outrage over ISIS terrorism. Using faith to justify violence is "not unique to any one religion or region," the former chief executive admonished. 

That was true. But the former academic used it as a springboard into murky waters.

He cited the Christian crusades of early centuries, as if by so doing, he was putting current-day ISIS terrorist atrocities in an acceptable light.

The apparent thinking was that no peoples or regions should advance unless all existent do likewise, and at exactly the same pace. And that it is unfair to expect the relatively brutish to respect more civilized and sophisticated societies' superior understandings of human rights, religious liberty, and intellectual freedom and expression.

Those who insist primitive mores be imported into lands of higher station, and that promotion of assimilation be considered somehow a sign of intolerance, are espousing illogic with world-rending ramifications.

Put bluntly: The Western culture faith that says wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and rape are wrong is superior to others that not only encourage those, but impute to them Divine sanctification. It's bizarre that point must today even be articulated, but here we are.

CBS Trigger Warning
"The Good Fight" encourages presidential assassination

Remember when cable news-panels insisted candidate Trump's shouted swagger might engender violence?

For all that foam and fuss, though, they never got around to criticizing Madonna's "I've thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House" prepared declaration. Nor is Chris Matthews likely to now censure "The Good Fight" star Christine Baranski.

"The One Where Diane Joins the Resistance" was the title of the latest episode of her CBS show. According to IMDB, it was written by Jonathan Tolins. Other credits IMDB lists for him include screenplays, a New York Times article, and various stage writings for Bette Midler. He is also credited as having written two 2018 "The Good Fight" episodes. 

Jonathan Tolin (Twitter)

"The Good Fight" Executive Story Editor Tegan Shohet

(The present writer hasn't viewed this new "The Good Fight" episode in its entirety. So, no critiques of its scenery, lighting, or pacing will be rendered. To address an excerpted dramatic item, review of the whole program is unnecessary.) 

At one point, a list of words is shown."Assassinate President Trump" tops the first column. "Eliminate Mar-A-Lago" heads the second. 

Apparently feeling waggishly ghoulish (or ghoulishly waggish) , the CBS show tweeted an incriminating shot:

(From Breitbart)

Numerous Twitter denunciations of CBS and the show quickly appeared. Reportedly, calls were made to the Secret Service. And many were the commentators who rightly savaged the long-fallen, former Tiffany network's effective call to traitorous arms.

CBS was said to have deleted the post without explanation. The network in no way suffered, though; its bratty attention-getting work was done.

Show creators Michelle and Robert King

(This writer recalls his toddler years in which the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy, and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., were not celebrated by show business. Even reminding of such events meant career end. See: Vaughn Meader.)

Perhaps the notoriously anti-Trump program's viewers had finally become inured to its formulaic bashing of our president. Like so many addicts, they may no longer find the old fix sufficient. (Screenplays as works?)

To indulge that heightened desire, CBS now explicitly communicates that politically motivated violence and even assassination are morally acceptable. The customer is always right, unethical producers seem to feel, even when he becomes homicidal.

It may also be that "The Good Fight's" willingness to promote political barbarism typical of less-civilized countries gives Baranski and her comrades opportunity to undrape the inhumanity they may already have harbored.

Sometimes, shows are said to have their fingers on the popular pulse. CBS and "The Good Fight" apparently prefer that theirs be on the trigger.

Candace scares mouse

                                                                  Photo credit: Star Political

Tuesday, Dem. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) stupidly sought to present a deceptive portrait of Candace Owens by playing a snippet of her words and attributing to her a terrible belief she had not expressed and does not hold.

Owens, without breaking a sweat, effectively shredded the lying Lieu with superior intellect and a passionate, righteous anger that seemed to rattle him. 

Soundly rebuked, the mousy Lieu said nothing. He wrung his hands feebly, and may have regretted speaking at all.

C-SPAN / Daily Caller video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsCbLSqz85s&fbclid=IwAR0FMDaqoWp8T2EK2EypTUSOTmu1yzNnXNgMFA3Tu61jDXZuyNg-gqH89j0

National Farrakhan Democrats  
(And why do rank-and-file liberals find his bigotry acceptable?)

This long-hidden photo of pre-White House Barack Obama with Louis Farrakhan was ignored by most news channels when first made public, in 2018, even though the photographer spoke publicly about it and no one disputed his account. (No media bias? Imagine if a photo of Trump and David Duke existed. We all know coverage and commentary would be top volume on every channel. 

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's hateful rhetoric has never dissuaded powerful Democrats from courting him. Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are only some liberals who find bigotry to be no big deal when it is issues from their camp.

Unfortunately, Farrakhan is today as prominent and influential as ever. Perhaps even more so. In 2019, his status is as influential political broker.

On the other hand, former Klan leader David Duke, another bit of reprehensible detritus, exists, these days, only because the liberal media keeps pumping air into him. (Who knows his actions when no campaign is underway?) He is useful to media partisans as a weapon against any Republican who runs for president.

Republicans do not rush to lavish attentions on Duke, as top-level Democrats eagerly do with Farrakhan. 

Reflect on the reality that the odious Duke would fade forever into richly deserved obscurity, were it not for the dogged exercises of fake journalists. 

They keep him in the public eye and give his terrible prejudices continued currency. Duke is their creation.

This recent, disgusting declaration by Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan did receive some press attention, though far less than it deserved:

"God does not love this world. God never sent Jesus to die for this world. Jesus died because he was 2,000 years too soon to bring about the end of the civilization of the Jews. He never was on a cross, there was no Calvary for that Jesus...

"I represent the Messiah. I represent the Jesus and I am that Jesus."

(A similarly laughable assertion of Messianic status was in the 1980s proclaimed by Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church cult. Interestingly, Farrakhan's pompous proclamation has not drawn nearly as much derision from Democrats. In fact, the present author has heard none from the donkey quarter.)

Only last year, BreakingIsraelNews.com reported that numerous liberal organizations had withdrawn sponsorship of the Women's March, following revelations of march leaders Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory's support for Farrakhan and hostility toward Israel. 

(Sarsour and Mallory subsequently refused to denounce Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, the latter during a January appearance on ABC's The View.)

Time reported that organizations severing public bonds with Sarsour and company included the Democratic National Committee, National Organization for Women, Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Campaign, and GLAAD.

Don't confer praise on those organizations, yet, though; they were fine with the Farrakhan-sympathetic Womens March until that unfavorable reality hit the papers.

"No one wants to be associated with the Womens March," said BreakingIsraelNews. "And no one wants to be disassociated from it. The lefty establishment knows perfectly well that their activist base hates Trump far more than it opposes anti-Semitism. Much of that activist base, including ones with Jewish last names, would turn out to protest Trump even if they had to do it side-by-side with Farrakhan, Hamas, and Hitler."

As Time reported, Womens March organizers' indulgence of Farrakhan received sharp criticism from original March founder Theresa Shook: 

"In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LGBTQA sentiment, and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs," Shook tweeted.

Democrat leaders of small character have for decades courted the loathsome Farrakhan, though they are usually (but not always) circumspect about those shameful rendezvous.

Here are several foul quotes from the man Democrats applaud once doors are closed. They cover decades:

In 1984, Farrakhan said: "The Jews don't like Farrakhan so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man."

Also 1984: "Now, that nation called Israel, never has had any peace in forty years and she will never have any peace because there can never be any peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying, and deceit, and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name."

1994: "Murder and lying comes easy to white people."

1997: "A decree of death has been passed on America. The judgement of God has been rendered, and she must be destroyed."

2000: "White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet."

"The Jews talk about 'never again,'" Farrakhan said, in 2007. "You cannot say 'never again' to God because when he puts you in the oven, you're in one, indeed."

"White people deserve to die," he told rally attendees, a few years ago.

2018: "I'm not anti-Semite. I'm anti-termite."


Anti-hate liberals remain silent on Farrakhan. Anti-Semitism is these days popular in progressive circles. Witness the rapid spread of the BDS movement. 

BreakingIsraelNews has a theory. After citing the 1984 Jesse Jackson "hymietown" slur, and noting the NOI's subsequent death threat against the reporter who'd brought it to light, the news site said:

"The Jackson-Farrakhan scandal was the template for the same debate that is still taking place a generation later in which Democrats defend their affiliations with Farrakhan as black empowerment, distinct from his bigotry, in which anti-Semitism by leftist racial nationalists is passed off as a critique of Israel..."

Some grassroots Democrat Farrakhan apologists may consider him with a sort of paternalism, thinking supposed oppressive circumstances justify animosities condemnable when uttered elsewhere. 'The soft bigotry of low expectations,' as goes the phrase.

For liberals to ignore the hatred of Farrakhan (and Rep. Ilhan Omar, and a dizzying number of current, anti-Israel congressional Democrats) is to allow his bigotry to metastasize, and effectively lend it succor.

Probably, some illogical feeling of guilt for historical phenomena in which they never participated fuels much liberal acceptance of Farrakhan's bigotry. 

Again, apologists for hate perhaps believe that 'oppressed' status means persons allegedly impacted can engage in speech and behavior not acceptable, elsewhere. They may share Michael Eric Dyson's belief that free deploy of racial slurs is "the prerogative of the oppressed," and cannot reasonably be decried. 

(Dyson, whom I refer to as Professor Popinjay, offered that rationalization for Trayvon Martin's disclosed "cracker" slur about George Zimmerman. MSNBC's Rev. Al Sharpton also defended it. He blithely termed it "the way kids talk." Reprehensible though those figures' attitudes are, I've never heard of a Democrat shutting a door in their faces. Nor do I expect to.)

Partisans excusing Farrakhan and these others don't oppose bigotry in principle, but only when it hails from certain quarters. When confronted by evidence of their own heroes' sins, they dismiss examples as aged, out of context, of no real relevance, or, perhaps, uttered by sources of little practical influence.

Some apologists crawl across campuses, wet-eared and squalling for all the sensible world to laugh at. Others, long of tooth, simply stopped thinking critically around the time John Howard Griffin went into paperback.

But though their specious justifications differ, the result is indulgence of bigotry they profess to stand foursquare against, in other circumstances.

Because of their diffidence and Janus-faced inconsistency, they are not credible on the issue and offer nothing of value to the larger, significant conversation.

No one can sincerely stand against hate while refusing to denounce Farrakhan and politicians who indulge him. Some things matter more than an election.

(By the way, I never even mentioned the blatant nonsensicalness of callow Resistance sorts sporting Hot Topic t-shirts bearing the image of virulent racist Che Guevara.)

The smothering Kleenex               

During a Sept. 29, 2017 Tucker Carlson Tonight interview, and surely despite his intention, Democrat strategist, attorney, and Huffington Post contributor Michael Starr Hopkins revealed the deceptive business partisans like him sought to engineer.

The host had played footage of dyspeptic California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters hoarsely declaring the Trump White House to be 

"controlled by the KKK."

Hopkins was, of course, unable to substantiate Waters' dastardly charge, as it was a wholly counterfeit one. He did, though, cite "alt-right" Steve Bannon, the erstwhile Breitbart editor also formerly a Trump advisor.

In an aside, Hopkins called the KKK merely a "Kleenex" under whose cover speakers like himself and Waters included all ideological adversaries.

There is a tremendous problem with that. A couple, actually.

The Ku Klux Klan is a specific, un-American org. It has to its contemptible halcyon record horrifying acts of violence predicated on an unquestionably loathsome racial supremacy philosophy. The thankfully dwindling scourge in no way accords with the bedrock American beliefs of equality and justice that the Trump Revolution so boisterously affirms.

To tactically conflate the detestable Klan with a vague 'alt-right' phantom effectively condemns without individual examination any group or person so (unfairly) linked. 

In earlier times, today's anti-Trump partisans decried McCarthy-Era political intolerance. They now seize up the grimy 'guilt by association' tactic with ill relish.

The Kleenex under which they strive to smother ideological opposition in general would automatically class as beneath respectful consideration all perspectives and speakers contrary to the current season's liberal orthodoxy.

An example presents itself: 

Following the Aug. 12, 2017 clash in Charlottesville, Virginia's Emancipation Park, President Trump decried "hate, bigotry, and violence on many sides." He observed there had been "very fine people on both sides." 

Though not politically correct, his assessment was accurate. The day's advertised event was a Unite The Right rally called to protest removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Hundreds were in attendance. 

Journalists and politicians who denounced every individual event supporter as a hater of racist bent were at best irresponsible. At worst, they were essaying a misrepresentative Kleenex maneuver.

News photos captured some armed Antifa, Resistance, Black Lives Matter, and Revolutionary Communist Party rioters charging attendees, intent on bloodletting. Some armed Klansmen, militia forces, and neo-nazis mounted like violent criminal behavior.

But extremist factions that infected the larger event were hardly representative of either its general supporters or counteragents. 

The media and political establishment connived to deceitfully link the common man of the pro-democracy Trump Revolution with the disgusting remnants of bigotry efforts.

The strategem of narrowing the Overton Window would disallow wide conversation and would also, potentially, stifle free association and effective participation in civil government.

Fortunately, the Constitution is much bigger than the claimed Kleenex.

This essay is excerpted from the author's sixth book: Ideas Afoot (Bromley Street Press.)

2020 will pit American nationalism against Democrat disloyalty         

The Fox News Channel reported Monday that: "A conference featuring eight prominent 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls kicked off in Washington, D.C., with the fiery rallying cry of a fugitive cop-killer on Monday, as the labor and political groups in attendance shouted in unison, 'We have nothing to lose but our chains.'"

According to FNC, Jamal Watkins, Vice-President of Civic Engagement at the NAACP, invited We the People conference attendees to chant with him the words of Assata Shakur, also known as JoAnne Chesimard.

"Shakur's words, in turn, were appropriated from the final sentences of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels' Communist Manifesto," the FNC said. "'The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Proletarians of All Countries, Unite!"

Speakers there reportedly included Bernie Sanders, Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, and Jay Inslee. Though all seek the American presidency, none likely objected to We the People's celebration of  homicidal anti-American Shakur. Indeed, they may have chanted along.

Top Democrats' public embrace of a wormy philosophy profoundly hostile to the wholesome, free United States in which we all grew up illustrates undeniably their distance from patriotic Americans' minds and hearts, and unfitness to advance our defining principles and guide us honorably into future years.

That Democrats applaud communist Black Liberation Army loyalist Shakur reminds of Barack Obama's ties to bomber Bill Ayers, founder of the avowedly communist Weather Underground, and Hilary Clinton's devotion to notorious radicalism propagandist Saul Alinsky.

A look at the treasonous, murderous woman Sanders, et al fete is instructive.

In the 1970s, Assata Shakur was a member of the Black Liberation Army. Wikipedia records that the BLA was "a loosely-knit offshoot of the Black Panthers which led an armed struggle against the U.S. government through tactics such as robbing banks and killing police officers and drug dealers."

She was by 1973 sought by the FBI for her involvement in various criminal activities. And that year, Shakur was convicted of the murder of New Jersey State Patrolman Werner Foerster. 

In 1979 she escaped from imprisonment. She ultimately fled to communist Cuba, which welcomed her. She still lives there, hailed by the oppressive government as a political dissident.

Assata Shakur remains on the FBI's list of most-wanted fugitive terrorists. And Democrats today salute her.

A December 29, 2014 Chicago Tribune article * quoted Aaron Ford, identified as a special agent in charge of the FBI's Newark office: "While living openly and freely in Cuba, she continues to maintain and promote her terrorist ideology. She provides anti-U.S.-government speeches, espousing the Black Liberation Army's message of revolution and terrorism."

(In 2016, President Obama lifted America's traditional restrictions on business relations with and travel to Cuba. Once he subsequently assumed the presidency, Donald Trump properly restored them.)

Can there be anything more outrageous, stomach-turning, and nonsensical than Democrat presidential hopefuls unashamedly saluting Assata Shakur, who so hates the nation they would lead?

Last year, President Trump touched on his State of the Union address, while speaking before an Ohio. blue-collar crowd that had packed a reopened factory.  He recalled congressional Democrats' cold reactions to his enumerating good news for Americans on numerous fronts.

"Somebody said 'treasonous.' I mean, yeah, I guess. Why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."

The 2020 presidential election will pit American nationalism against disloyalty.


* The Chicago Tribune essay, penned by Cuban-born In these Times columnist Achy Obejas, read much like a gushy fan letter for Castro's communist nation. It extolled the supposed virtues of Castro 'anti-U.S. racism' initiatives, and the communist dictator's outreaches to American blacks. The naive might think these splendidly humanitarian. And such dreck appeals to persons who romanticize left-wing political revolution. But those with historically informed knowledge-bases recognize the devious communist strategy of weakening adversarial countries by fomenting dissension within them.