Progressives Declare Mob Rule (1)


“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Representative Maxine Waters, June 2018.

When Congresswoman Maxine Waters spoke to a crowd of Trump Administration “resisters” in June 2018 her words amounted to a declaration of mob rule.  She called for Progressive activists to identify administration officials out in the public square and then to form mobs that would drive them out.  Although Rep. Waters didn’t explicitly call for violence there could be no reasonable assumption that an angry, hate filled mob would never reach that end.

This call to assault has been heeded on numerous occasions.  The Washington Post in a July 2018 article identified Trump administration officials Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Vice President Pence, Sean Spicer, Scott Pruitt, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen as victims of verbal assault and personal threats.  A waitress at a high-end Chicago bar spit in the face of Eric Trump.


Kathy Griffin, ISIS like, holds up the mock decapitated head of President Trump.

The list of politicians and celebrities who have deployed violent language or imagery against President Trump is long, including ex-Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Corey Booker, Robert De Niro, Kathy Griffin, Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, George Lopez, Moby, Rosie O’Donnell, Mickey Rourke, and Larry Wilmore.  In New York City a Shakespeare in the Park production of “Julius Caesar” depicted a Trump look-alike being brutally murdered to the applause of many in the audience. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump in prison.

But these public assaults are not limited to members of the Trump administration.  Senator Ted Cruz and his wife were driven out of a restaurant by a mob.  Senate Majority Leader Mich McConnell has had angry protestors outside of his home on numerous occasions (including one where a mob member said that McConnell “should have broken his little raggedy, wrinkled-(expletive) neck” and another holding a voodoo doll yelled “Just stab the m—– f—– in the heart.”).  A journalist suggested that Sen. Susan Collins deserved the death threats she has received.


Antifa rioters beat up a person who got in their way.

Nor are private citizens immune from this riot mentality.  Outspoken conservatives Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens were driven out of a Philadelphia restaurant by an aggressive mob.  Tucker Carlson of the Fox News Channel has had aggressive demonstrations outside his home while he was out, terrifying his wife and children.  Antifa mobs have rampaged through the streets of multiple cities destroying property and beating up anyone who gets in their way.

The scope and depth of this Progressive mob mentality far exceeds even these appalling examples, as will be discussed in the next post.

A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (4)


Two radicals elected to the presidency, two completely different reactions by their opponents

The Radical Difference Between Our Two Most Recent Presidents

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the citizens of the United States elected of Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate, to the office of President.  Many of the almost sixty-million who voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate, consider Mr. Obama to be the most radical Progressive politician ever elected to the presidency.

For example, it was indisputable that Mr. and Mrs. Obama had been for decades members of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ whose senior pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.  Pastor Wright was a public supporter of Louis Farrakhan who is a virulent anti-Semite and hater of the United States.  After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the Rev. Wright gave a fiery sermon in which he gleefully yelled that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost!”  In another sermon the Rev. Wright said “God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.” Mr. Obama considered Pastor Wright to be his spiritual advisor and the good pastor officiated at Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s wedding.  Before Senator Obama disassociated himself from the Rev. Wright he said “I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community.”


Bill Ayers stomps on the United States’ flag in 2001.

Many also knew that Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois state Senate was launched at the house of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn.  The 1995 event was a fundraiser and kickoff for the campaign.  These two individuals are utterly unrepentant about their previous lives as leaders of a domestic Marxist terrorist organization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that being the Weather Underground.  When provided the opportunity to apologize for the murder and mayhem of his terrorist group in 2001 he responded by saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

In 2007 Senator Obama was designated to be the “most liberal Senator” by the National Journal.  In 2008 Louis Farrakhan endorsed Senator Obama, leading Senator Hillary Clinton to criticize the


This photo was hidden from the public until 2018.

implied ideological commonality. During the 2008 campaign Senator Obama chose to denigrate tens of millions of American citizens when he made his “bitter clinger” comments.  Five days before election day candidate Obama said in a public speech that his purpose was to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

My purpose is not to relitigate the 2008 presidential election.  Rather I’m pointing out that those who opposed an Obama presidency had very good reason to fear the consequences of his victory.  And yet there was no coordination among the George W. Bush Justice Department, Intelligence Agencies and State Department to investigate the Obama campaign as possibly infested by traitors.  There was no fraudulent “dossier,” funded and created by the McCain campaign using foreign (primarily Russian) sources to undermine Senator Obama’s candidacy or to destroy his presidency after his win.  And after Mr. Obama won the election there was no outpouring of demands for “resistance” by outgoing Bush high ranking officials.

There were no Republican calls to impeach Mr. Obama from the moment he he was declared the election winner.  There were no attempts to convince Electors to vote for Mr. McCain even though a majority in their state had voted for Mr. Obama.  There were no claims that Mr. Obama’s victory was illegitimate due to foreign (primarily Russian) interference and even vote count changing in the election.  Celebrities didn’t speak about blowing up the White House, ask how long it’s been since an actor assassinated a president or pose with a mock decapitated Obama head.  Elected Republican officials didn’t call for Obama administration officials to be hounded out of the public square.

No, the people in opposition to Mr. Obama accepted that the nation had legitimately elected the most radically Progressive man in its history to the Presidency.  They weren’t happy about this development, but had no intention of being a disloyal (to the nation’s will and its Constitution) opposition.

And yet, when in 2016 the nation chose to elect Mr. Trump to the presidency all hell broke loose.  All the things that hadn’t happened to Mr. Obama did happen (and then some) to Mr. Trump.  

As a result the nation hasn’t been this divided since the 1960s Vietnam War era.  A credible case can be made that our contemporary division is worse since in the 1960s it was a foreign policy issue over which we were divided as opposed to now when the very legitimacy of our democratic institutions are under attack.

What this nation has been experiencing since election day 2016 is nothing less than a wild Progressive riot in our streets, our government agencies, our mass media, our educational institutions, our states, and our federal legislatures and courts.    The riot’s purpose is to overturn the 2016 election results, thus disenfranchising the over sixty-million citizens who elected Mr. Trump to the presidency.

This situation represents a radical break in our nation’s culture and institutions.  This blog seeks to explain how we arrived here and where we could be going.  By so doing perhaps the illusions that allowed such a situation to develop can be dispelled, thus enabling a more effective opposition.

iBooks Publish Announcement: A Denomination’s Debacle

I have published my fourth eBook on iBooks.  If you have an iOS device then you can use this link to access.  If you do not use an iOS device, a PDF version can be found on my blog using this link.

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 5.59.24 AM

A Denomination’s Debacle

This book is an indictment of the leadership elite who have driven the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or PCUSA, into an utter debacle.

The most visible aspect of this debacle is the unprecedented loss of membership and churches that occurred between 2011 and 2017. Over that time span the PCUSA experienced a net loss of 601,000 members and 1146 churches, which is almost 30% of its membership and almost 12% of its churches. But these numbers don’t capture the human cost in broken trust, lost faith and shattered relationships that has occurred behind the scenes.

What remains is a denomination dominated by a post-Christian elite who use their power to advance a social gospel that is virtually indistinguishable from the secular Progressive political project. To some readers this charge against the PCUSA leadership will seem to be not just extraordinary, but also unbelievable. This book contains the extraordinary evidence that justifies the charge.

Preface Excerpt

The reader may well ask why I feel compelled to tell this story. I do so for three reasons.

First, the elite denominational leadership has obtained this end under the cloak of purposeful deception. This deception is not found in their policy and theological positions. No, they have aggressively advanced their cause with general honesty. The deception is that they claim to have been doing so as a legitimate expression of orthodox Reformed Christianity. By so doing they have preyed with premeditation and malice upon the trust of the denomination’s parishioners. We will never recover from this spell unless the truth is exposed.

Second, there are still many faithful members and churches in the PCUSA. However, unless they fully understand the forces arrayed against them they will likely eventually succumb. Only if they understand that their presence in the denomination is as a light shining in the darkness can they be protected from the apostasy and heresy that surrounds them. That understanding is what sustained the Apostles and early Christians as they proclaimed the Gospel as isolated individuals and churches in the pagan Roman Empire. The challenge we face is far less extreme. Yet, if we prioritize the comfort and peace of our lives over our responsibilities as followers of Christ even the small courage required will elude us.

Finally, the forces that have corrupted the PCUSA act upon our general culture and thus are not unique to this denomination. Therefore, we can expect that other churches and denominations are struggling under the same theological onslaught as has laid the PCUSA low. Thus this book attempts to explain these forces and how a corrupt leadership can by deception and seduction smuggle false theology into an otherwise orthodox Christian fellowship.

Table of Contents


Page 1 of 3



Page 2 of 3



Page 3 of 3


The Intersectional Progressives Devour Progressive “White Women” (2)


The “typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy” (!?)  (left) and the unrepentant anti-Semite (right).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

I have previously commented on Nancy Pelosi’s vile statements.  However, there is a limit for her when bigotry towards a key Democratic coalition group becomes too visible. Due to the outrageous and sustained anti-Semitic statements of Rep. Ilhan Omar, Nancy Pelosi, in damage control mode, drafted a worthless statement opposing anti-Semitism.

The Democrats’ draft measure condemning anti-Semitism, which the House will vote on this Wednesday, is a useless and transparent attempt to distract from a serious problem of their own creation. The melodramatic decree mentions Alfred Dreyfuss, Leo Frank, Henry Ford, and “anti-Muslim bigotry”—because, hey, even when Jews are being smeared it’s about Islamophobia—but not once does it condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar or the strain of Jew-hatred she is helping normalize on the left. In fact, the resolution, teeming with useless platitudes, is one that even Omar could probably support.


Woman’s March leader Linda Sarsour

But even this toothless wonder sent the equally anti-semitic Woman’s March leader Linda Sarsour into a Facebook fit of rage.

“Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men. God forbid the men are upset – no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos,” she wrote.


Saira Rao was a Democratic candidate for Colorado’s 1st Congressional District

This is truly amazing.  Nancy Pelosi, the two-decade Congressional standard bearer for everything Progressive is being called out by a supposedly fellow Progressive as “a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men”!?  Note that this Intersectional Progressive accuses a “white feminist” of “upholding the patriarchy”!

But that’s not all folks, according to the recent Colorado Democrat congressional candidate Saira Rao, Nancy Pelosi is a “white supremacist“!!??  That whiff of a revolution beginning to devour its own is getting stronger.

In the end Nancy Pelosi caved to the potent anti-semitic wing of her party.

Democrats cannot simply denounce the anti-Semitism expressed by Omar without ritual obeisance to the identity politics that drives their party, and Omar’s anti-Semitism has elicited an outpouring of support. … Now Democratic leadership in the House will not stop until they craft a resolution that Omar herself can support.

Tennis Legend Martina Navratilova

The coup de grâce of this trilogy is what happened to woman’s tennis legend Martina Navratilova.  Here is a gay white woman who, by skill, grit and determination dominated the woman’s tennis world for many years and was a vocal supporter of gay rights and woman’s sports for decades, being driven to deliver an abject apology for saying that it’s unfair for biological men to compete as women.


Martina Navratilova apologizes

Tennis legend Martina Navratilova apologized after she was criticized for recently saying in an oped that it would be “cheating” to allow transgender women to compete in women’s sporting events.

Navratilova wrote a column on her website weeks after the LGBTQ organization Athlete Ally announced it was severing ties with her following the comments. The nonprofit said they were also removing Navratilova as their organization’s ambassador and from their advisory board.

So, even after a life of amazing accomplishment and Progressive policy support this gay white woman was threatened with social annihilation for stating an opinion at odds with today’s Progressive talking points.  I truly feel bad that this woman, who has demonstrated such courage throughout her life, was beaten into submission by the vile Intersectional Progressive mob.  Obviously being gay and a woman is no defense against the totalitarians now in charge of Progressivism.


The Intersectional Progressives are clearly turning on Progressive “white women,” but why?  As I have previously discussed the unavoidable fact is that it is the Intersectional Progressives who are virulently racist, sexist and anti-Semitic.  And because of these beliefs they look at human beings not as individuals who happen to be of a given gender and race, but rather as creatures whose attributes are controlled by their race, gender, etc.  Therefore, since a plurality of “white women” support Republicans every “white woman” becomes suspect.  And, any deviation from today’s Intersectional Progressive positions is interpreted as proof positive that they are traitors to the movement.

I very much doubt that Progressive “white women” realized that this was to be their eventual situation.  They heard all the happy talk about inclusiveness and understanding perhaps not realizing that behind the curtain were ugly, evil ideas.

I’m not expecting Progressive “white women” to en masse become Conservatives.  However, I am seriously asking them if an ideology that creates such vile hatred is deserving of their allegiance.  I’m encouraged that so many groups have pulled out of the Women’s March over these issuers.  My hope is that enough Progressive women (and men) can find the courage to stand up against this terrible tide of bigotry.  Perhaps then a more humane Progressivism can emerge.

The Intersectional Progressives Devour Progressive “White Women” (1)


Left to Right: Senator Dianne Feinstein, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and tennis legend Martina Navratilova.  All Progressive white women who are now insufficiently “woke.”.

A Revolution (as Usual) Devours its Own

Over the past couple of weeks it has become clear that the Intersectional Progressives who now dominate the Left are on the warpath against Progressive white women who are insufficiently “woke.”  If you read my recent posts on Progressive anti-Semitism this development should come as no surprise.  For as these posts make clear, in the Intersectional Progressive world being a woman who is white makes you insufficiently victimized to warrant moral worth.  Now, with the case of Martina Navratilova it’s also clear that even the combination of womanhood and gayness is insufficient.

If you happen to be historically literate then this development within the increasingly totalitarian Progressive political movement also isn’t a surprise.  I recommend that readers review the histories of the French Revolution and Communist Revolution in Russia for sufficient historical context.  In both of these cases the revolution eventually destroyed many of its originators because they came to be seen as insufficiently revolutionary, or in the current parlance “woke.”

In the following sections I will briefly summarize each of these three cases.

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Although I haven’t commented on Senator Feinstein in this blog, please understand that I consider her actions and behavior a a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be beneath contempt.  It’s also undeniably true that Senator Feinstein, as a Progressive Democrat, has trafficked in and benefited from the agitprop of children held up as unimpeachable carriers of morality throughout her career.  So, it must have been quite a shock to her when the supporters of the Green New Deal (GND) turned this tactic back on her.  Here’s how the encounter was reported by TMZ.


Senator Feinstein confronted by “the children”

This is absolutely shocking … Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to shut down some schoolchildren who were imploring her to do something about climate change and STAT … essentially telling them to shut up because she knows better.

The kids showed up at the Senator’s San Francisco office Friday, pushing the Green New Deal and telling her the clock is ticking on Planet Earth and if nothing is done in a dozen years it will be too late. Feinstein tells the students it ain’t gonna happen.

The California senior Senator gets on her high horse, telling them she’s been in the Senate for 30 years so, please … like they can tell her what to do.

Things get heated and the Senator doubles down … saying she was just re-elected by a huge margin so how the hell are they trying to tell her about climate change?

How dare a grownup lecture children who are cynically being used by radical Progressives about their ignorance!  Senator Feinstein’s main issue was the GND’s cost and practicality, not that it is totalitarian to its core.  And yet the Progressive movement targeted this life-long champion of Progressive policies for this hit job.  Do you smell the whiff of a revolution’s direction change in the air?

I will discuss the cases of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and tennis legend Martina Navratilova, along with general commentary, in the next post.

A Reckoning for Progressive Anti-Semitism? (5)

Six Blank venn business diagram illustration

Intersectionality: A blueprint for hierarchical victimhood.

Why the Women’s March Leadership Thought They Could Get Away with It

The Women’s March movement was built upon a highly idealistic foundation.  That idealism is perhaps best conveyed by this quote:

“In our first leadership meetings, we envisioned building the Women’s March as a flat structure with no one single leader, and inclusive of all voices,” Wruble recalled. “I was hoping through that, through working together, we could forge real relationships across different races, religions, and cultures. We could be the adults in the room after men—the patriarchy—had, quite frankly, completely screwed this country up.”

It was also highly ideological, with Intersectionalism as a core belief (emphasis added):

In an email to Tablet the Women’s March wrote:

Women’s March models intersectional leadership through our organizing work, which includes 200 women who worked on the conveners table, 500 partners, 24 women involved in developing the Unity Principles—including some of the folks who are expressing concern now.


Intersectionalism: The Unified Theory of oppression.

I think that the idealism ended up cutting both ways.  On the one hand the membership’s determination to be utterly inclusive and non-judgmental created the opportunity for people with bigoted beliefs to rise to top leadership.  On the other hand, when these leaders began to publicly associate with and positively affirm the bigotry of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam that same idealism created a powerful backlash.  This quote from the Tablet article sums up the situation.  Note that Breem says that Farrakhan is “against everything” they believe in, which certainly includes but is not limited to his anti-Semitism.

“Many of us were upset,” Beem told Tablet. “She is the face of a women’s march, and our mission and values are equality and inclusion. To openly praise someone like this went against everything we were supposed to stand by.” Beem described a sense of awkwardness as Mallory went on to defend Farrakhan to over 40 women on the call. And she wasn’t alone, Beem said; Perez and Bland jumped in to defend him as well.

But the question remains as to just why Tamika Mallory believed that she could identify so completely with Louis Farrakhan and why two other leaders so openly supported her.

Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 7.16.07 AM

Only when “white women” learn to shut each other up can they earn a voice at the Intersectional table!

I think that the answer is to be found in the hierarchy of victimhood that resides at the center of Intersectional theory. Tamika Mallory is a black woman, thus occupying the top two victimhood categories in Intersectionalism.  This sense of identity had provided her with a protective cloak in the Progressive movement.  That is, by virtue of her identity with the victim groups of blacks and women, to criticize her was indistinguishable from criticizing the black race and the female gender.  And, when “white women” criticized her they were exhibiting “white supremacy,” not a valid concern (see her Tweet at the right). We can easily see this attitude by reviewing the leadership’s responses to criticism from within the Women’s March organization.

“The response that gives them the most sympathy is ‘This is white women trying to come out against women of color,’” said Morganfield. “The context is always, ‘the white media are trying to bring down women of color.’ And in this case, they’ll probably say it’s white Jewish women, which of course discounts the fact that there are black Jews. There’s somewhere close to 300,000 black Jews! What about them? It’s just divisiveness.’”

Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 7.13.47 AM

Note that Mallory addresses the “white woman” as someone who bears responsibility for all “white women.”  You aren’t allowed to be an individual who happens to be white and a woman.  No, you are defined by your color and gender.  Most people would recognize that as racism and sexism.

How dare those white women criticize me, someone whose superior victimhood status renders me beyond their criticism!  This same ideological position is likely why Bob Bland and Carmen Perez defended Tamika Mallory.

Most regular Democratic politicians have a utilitarian, practical attitude towards the various sub-groups in their political coalition.  They understand that to completely and publicly identify with any one group could cause blowback from other groups.  They therefore maintain enough ambiguity regarding their relationships to ward off conflict.

The Women’s March leadership is not comprised of practical politicians.  Rather they are extreme ideologues who have come to believe that by virtue of their superior victimhood status they should be immune to any and all criticism, particularly from white people, including white women, and most definitely white Jewish women.  They didn’t count on the fact that many members and leaders in the Women’s March didn’t share this ideology to the extent necessary to thwart all criticism.

In the end, while anti-Semitism is far more than enough evil to tear a movement apart, I believe that this issue served as a rallying-point for a far broader set of concerns.  When we see the vile, hate-drenched racism towards “white women” in general and the appalling moral entitlement displayed by the Women’s March national leadership, it’s pretty certain that this resulted in great resentment.

Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 7.49.42 AM

It’s not that she’s ashamed of her anti-Semitism, she just doesn’t want to display it so clearly in public.

That burning resentment turned to open rebellion when the leadership openly identified with a man and organization that is not just anti-Semitic but also misogynistic.
Unfortunately, the Women’s March experience may well be unique.  In fact, it may temporarily protect the Progressive Movement from its anti-Semitism by driving this belief further underground.  There it will be able to fester and grow unseen until it erupts in a more virulent form.

A Reckoning for Progressive Anti-Semitism? (4)


The unchanged, and unapologetic, Women’s March leadership

The Woman’s March Situation may be Unique (2)

Following is part two of the above topic.

The Woman’s March Leadership Openly Embraced an Anti-Semitic Group

The event that appears to have lit the match for the Women’s March debacle is described in The Tablet article.

On March 11, 2018, the Women’s March had their biweekly phone call with national organizers. The public controversy had started to explode over Mallory’s attendance at the Saviours’ Day event, during which, in the course of a three-hour speech, Farrakhan blamed Jews for “degenerate behavior in Hollywood, turning men into women and women into men.” Angie Beem, president of the Washington state chapter, remembered that phone call.

“Many of us were upset,” Beem told Tablet. “She is the face of a women’s march, and our mission and values are equality and inclusion. To openly praise someone like this went against everything we were supposed to stand by.” Beem described a sense of awkwardness as Mallory went on to defend Farrakhan to over 40 women on the call. And she wasn’t alone, Beem said; Perez and Bland jumped in to defend him as well. “They said to us: ‘You know, he has done some great things for people of color.’ They didn’t denounce anything he said, they only did that recently. Some state people supported them and some who were very brave stood up to them. One woman said something like, ‘Just because somebody does one good thing doesn’t mean they are excused for everything else.’ They said, ‘We hear you.’ But then they refused to do anything about it.”

However, the Women’s March leadership’s closed ranks support for Mallory failed to end the controversy.  Here’s a succinct summary of the then developing split.

In the days since her attendance was first noted, Mallory has sought to defend herself from accusations of anti-Semitism and pushed back on calls for her resignation.

Criticism has also spread to the broader Women’s March organization, prompting the group to issue a statement on Tuesday. “Minister Farrakhan’s statements about Jewish, queer, and trans people are not aligned with the Women’s March Unity principles,” the group said. “The world Women’s March seeks to build is one free from anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, and all forms of social violence.” BuzzFeed reports that Women’s March leaders will meet with Jewish groups on Thursday to discuss the matter further.

Mallory steadfastly refused to disassociate herself from both Farrakhan and his views.  It all came into sharp focus when Meghan McCain confronted Mallory on The View.

The rabid antisemitism of The Women’s March’s leadership has been undeniable, but until recently hasn’t exactly been completely mainstream. The View co-host Meghan McCain may have changed all of that on Monday, however.

Appearing with the women of The View, Tamika Mallory found herself facing off against McCain over hate preacher and Church of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s repeated antisemitic statements such as calling Jewish people “termites.” Farrakhan released a video of himself saying this on Twitter.

McCain decided to confront Mallory about support she, and other members of the Women’s March have given to Farrakhan in the past and asked flatly if they condemn his statements.

Mallory repeatedly said that she disagrees with some of Farrakhan’s statements, but despite McCain’s pressing for clarification, would not say she specifically condemned the statements from Farrakhan. What she did do, however, is say that she’d rather not be judged through the lens of a man.

Since then the Woman’s March has lost both local chapters and Progressive organizational support.  But the same leadership clique has held on even as the movement collapsed.

After claims of anti-Semitism against the leaders of Women’s March Inc. rocked the movement—including a blockbuster report in Tablet magazine—hundreds of activist groups that previously partnered with the march have headed for the exits ahead of this year’s events. It may be the biggest silent protest the normally noisy left has staged in decades.

Unfortunately, the applause probably should be limited to two cheers. These groups stopped partnering with the march. Politics being what it is, none of them is ordinarily in the business of publicly criticizing their allies, even when criticism is eminently deserved. A cynical observer still might charitably note that actions speak louder than words. In these polarized times, the discovery of common ground should not be dismissed.

On the other hand, sometimes making a statement may be said to require… making a statement. When the Social Justice League decides not to light their virtue signals, it is difficult not to notice.

So, although Progressive groups have walked away from the Woman’s March, they have tried to avoid being noticed while doing so.  This suggests that they don’t want to be too visibly opposing anti-Semitism in general while, in this specific case, doing so.

This situation strongly suggests that the Woman’s March case is indeed unique.

In the next post I will discuss why the Woman’s March leadership believed that they could openly support anti-Semitism and other forms of extreme bigotry without fear of the consequences.

A Reckoning for Progressive Anti-Semitism? (3)

womens-march-on-washington-dont-forget-white-women-votedThe Woman’s March Situation may be Unique (1)

While the issue of growing anti-Semitism in the Democrat Party could blow up into an open scandal as it has in the Woman’s March, this result is far from certain.  For example, since the major media is dominated by Progressives who view the Democrat party as their vehicle to power, it can be counted upon to obscure this issue.  Additionally, most Democrat politicians have the good sense not to highlight their friendly associations with open anti-Semites.

But for the case of the Woman’s March both of these barriers to open scandal were breached.  The reasons for this result may well be unique.

The Woman’s March Sought to Combine Radical Progressivism and a Mass Movement

The seeds of the scandal may have been planted when the Woman’s March embraced two contradictory paths, those being:

  1. A cutting-edge ideological Progressive movement
  2. A broad-based woman’s movement.

Woman’s March leadership: (left to right) Bob Bland, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory.

By virtue of item 1 a radical group was able to seize control of the national organization.  However, by virtue of item 2 many of the movement’s members were not familiar with, or necessarily supportive of, the radical positions of the national leadership.  In fact, the proximate issue that brought together this movement was opposition to the election of Donald Trump, not support of some esoteric academic theory.  These leaders’ ideology is best characterized as Intersectionality.  One helpful definition can be found here.

 the complex and cumulative way that the effects of different forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, and yes, intersect—especially in the experiences of marginalized people or groups.

Note that this concept attempts to tie together multiple forms of presumed discrimination into a general theory under which the marginalized groups can unite.  However, it also appears to support a hierarchy of victimhood in which those who’s identity includes the most forms of discrimination have greater moral standing.


A mild image of Woman’s March fashion.  I can’t name the hats without use of obscenity.

I wonder about the experience of many white suburban women who, disgusted by Donald Trump’s crude, cruel treatment of women, came out to march against his presidency.  They found themselves surrounded by women dressed as female genitalia, both symbolically and literally.  Then they experience the uncontrolled rage of people who’s existence is entirely defined by their sense of victimhood.  And on the stage they see speakers fantasizing about blowing up the White House and screaming bizarre, obscenity-laced statements.

My guess is that many were embarrassed and appalled.  But, they might well have continued in the movement since it appeared to be the most effective vehicle buy which to oppose President Trump.

However, one need not guess about how the Woman’s March leadership felt about the opinions of these same women — utter contempt.  When the charge of anti-Semitism was first raised their immediate defense was that these “white women,” and particularly “white Jewish women,” had no moral standing to criticize these most victimized of marginalized people (i.e., those who could check multiple victimhood boxes).  In fact, ALL white Jewish women were themselves victimizers!

Then, when The New York Times spoke to Mallory about the meeting, she uttered a statement that might well be taken as an indictment of Jews themselves for white supremacist attacks on them, saying, “Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it.”

Returning to The Tablet article that set this scandal in motion we find in the leadership’s visceral hatred and distrust of “white women” along with clear implication that they pose a problem that must be “solved.”

Carmen and I were very clear at that [first] meeting that we would not take on roles as workers or staff, but that we had to be in a leadership position in order for us to engage in the march,” Mallory told Tablet, in an interview last week, adding that they had been particularly sensitive to the fact that they had been invited to the meeting by white women, and wanted to be sure they weren’t about to enter into an unfair arrangement.  …

They should have been basking in the afterglow of their massive success, but—according to Harmon—the air was thick with conflict. “We sat in that room for hours,” Harmon told Tablet recently. “Tamika told us that the problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South.  …

Over the year that followed, the Women’s March continued to grow, publishing its book, raising money, and putting on new events. In October 2017, the group held a Women’s Convention. Attendance was reported to be high for the whole event, and was packed for the summit’s most popular panel, “Confronting White Womanhood.”

This is the ideological environment in which many white women, to their great surprise, found themselves.  They were not accustomed to thinking of themselves as victimizers, and likely bristled at the accusation.  Thus, ideological gasoline had been sprayed all over the movement.  All that was required was a match to trigger the conflagration.


A Reckoning for Progressive Anti-Semitism? (2)

screen-shot-2018-03-10-at-5.51.38-pm-e1520722377714The Progressive Quagmire

The anti-Semitism living at the heart of the national Woman’s March organization was simply too extreme and visible for other Progressive groups to ignore.  The reporting after The Tablet’s expose revealed not just the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism, but also its appalling racism and overall ding-battery.

Continuing the swirl, amid allegations of anti-Semitism that have convinced a veritable panoply of groups to cut ties with the left-wing rally, March leader Tamika Mallory doubled down on her embrace of the Nation of Islam.

The Nation — as I pointed out previously — believes this:

A sinister being, known as the Big Head Scientist, took the world’s prisoners and employed them in a scheme to create pure evil: white people.

The large-noggin’d, nefarious nuisance restricted mating among the world’s worst, such that breeding produced lighter and lighter skin. And, since purity was inherent to the darkness of skin, the lighter the shade, the crappier the creatures. On the way to total absence of goodness — otherwise known as total absence of blackness, otherwise known as Caucasian — all the world’s races were created, the lighter indicating the more treacherous.

That’s you, if you’re not black. That’s everyone, if they’re not black.

That’s the foundation of the Nation of Islam.

And then there are quotes such as…

“I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.”

And thus major Progressive organizations pulled out of visible support for the Women’s March.  But they have done so as quietly and unobtrusively as possible.

Like a preacher tiptoeing out of a brothel, the Democrat Party quietly dropped its sponsorship of the Women’s March. Like most of the other lefty establishment groups slowly backing away from its pro-Farrakhan leadership, the DNC offered a non-denial and no condemnation of the group’s anti-Semitism.

Instead of condemning the March’s anti-Semitism, the Southern Poverty Law Center explained that it wasn’t going to sponsor it because “other projects were a priority.” Even though HRC and GLAAD’s names had vanished from the Women’s March partner page, the spokespeople for both gay rights groups claimed that they were waiting for clarification from their respective organizations.

That’s typical.

The reason for this situation isn’t difficult to understand.  The Democrat Party’s coalition consists of many groups with conflicting core ideologies: feminist, black, gay, Latino, transgender, Muslim, and so forth.  In order to hold this coalition together it must accommodate each group’s core beliefs while obfuscating their differences.

The sad fact is that anti-Semitism has been practiced by powerful Progressive political leaders in the black community for decades.  For example, here is a summary of these leaders and their anti-Semitic statements:

James Baldwin (“Negroes are anti-Semitic because they’re anti-white”), Louis Farrakhan (“When they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know what they do, call me an anti-Semite. Stop it. I am anti-termite. The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a great name. Hitler was a very great man”), Jesse Jackson (“Hymietown”), Al Sharpton (“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”), and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (“The Jews ain’t gonna let him [Obama] talk to me”).

Note that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both ran as Democratic candidates for president. Sharpton officially visited the Obama White House more than 100 times, and Wright was the Obamas’ longtime personal pastor who officiated at the couple’s wedding and the baptism of their daughters and inspired the title of Obama’s second book.

But anti-Semitism is by no means limited to the black community’s Progressive leadership.  For within the newly elected crop of Progressive Democrat politicians a new anti-Semitic cadre has emerged.  Returning to the above linked article.

In that vein, Michigan’s new congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, assumed she’d face little pushback from her party when she tweeted out the old slur that Jewish supporters of Israel have dual loyalties: Opponents of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement, which targets Israel, “forgot what country they represent,” she said. …

Similarly, Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) — like Tlaib, a new female Muslim representative in the House — used to be candid in her views of Israel as an “apartheid regime”: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

For Rashida Tlaib the evidence of her anti-Semitism is far broader and deeper than that exposed by the above quote.  A recent article exposed her ties of money and friendship to   anti-Semites:

  • One of Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s key fundraisers, Maher Abdel-qader, has repeatedly promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
  • The Michigan Democrat is a member of a Facebook group where Abdel-qader and other members have shared anti-Semitic content.
  • One video Abdel-qader shared with the group accused Jews of secretly controlling the media and exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Tlaib has already come under scrutiny for having ties to other anti-Israel figures and for questioning the loyalty of pro-Israel lawmakers.

The Democrat Party’s dilemma is clear.  Their governing plurality includes interest groups for whom anti-Semitism is an historic, deep seated belief.  Its also includes groups who remain opposed to anti-Semitism.  Thus, they must maintain an uneasy balancing act of associating and working with anti-Semites in their coalition while avoiding the taint of anti-Semitism.  They will do everything in their considerable power to maintain this unstable position.

A Reckoning for Progressive Anti-Semitism? (1)


Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting.  The picture was not released by photographer until 2018 because it would have “made a difference” to Obama’s political future.

Opening Thoughts

There is a troubling dynamic by which the Progressives have embraced groups with unreconcilable conflicting beliefs as part of their coalition.  For example, I have pointed out the appalling disconnect between political Islam’s policies towards homosexuals (and women) and those supposedly espoused by Progressives.  The above photograph of the future Progressive messiah and President of the United States associating happily with Louis Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting perfectly captures this bizarre political situation.

This papering over of such fundamental differences couldn’t last forever.  To my surprise the flash point that finally illuminated this disconnect has occurred over the issue of anti-Semitism within the Woman’s March.  Although this issue had been festering behind the scenes, it was co-leader Tamika Mallory’s attendance at a Nation of Islam’s Saviours’ Day event and her public (literally) embrace of its leader, Louis Farrakhan, that set the debacle in motion.


Women’s March co-president Tamika Mallory poses proudly and gushes over the virulently anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan.  Pathetically, she claims that he “speaks out against hate, injustice and antisemitism and claims that he is a “role model” for the Woman’s March Board!

It was a lengthy, carefully researched article in the Tablet Magazine that blew the lid off this festering scandal.  This article exposed the rise of a virulently anti-Semitic leadership group to the very top of the Woman’s March organization.

According to several sources, it was there—in the first hours of the first meeting for what would become the Women’s March—that something happened that was so shameful to many of those who witnessed it, they chose to bury it like a family secret. Almost two years would pass before anyone present would speak about it.

It was there that, as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistance movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam—“the bible of the new anti-Semitism,” according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: “Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.”

To this day, Mallory and Bland deny any such statements were ever uttered, either at the first meeting or at Mallory’s apartment.

screen shot 2019-01-19 at 5.09.05 am

Woman’s March leadership: (left to right) Bob Bland, Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez and Tamika Mallory.

However, since the Tablet article numerous events have occurred that support the charge of anti-Semitism by the Woman’s March leadership.  For example:

Returning to the Tablet article, we find a concise summary of the issues and relationships that would eventually blow apart the Woman’s March (emphasis added).

The development of the origins of the Women’s March and its transformation into a vehicle that promoted a small coterie of women—three of whom bizarrely professed their admiration for the openly anti-Semitic, homophobic, and misogynistic Nation of Islam preacher Louis Farrakhan—was a deliberate act, one that had nothing to do with the general spirit out of which the March was born.

Over the year that followed, the Women’s March continued to grow, publishing its book, raising money, and putting on new events. In October 2017, the group held a Women’s Convention. Attendance was reported to be high for the whole event, and was packed for the summit’s most popular panel, “Confronting White Womanhood.”

On March 11, 2018, the Women’s March had their biweekly phone call with national organizers. The public controversy had started to explode over Mallory’s attendance at the Saviours’ Day event, during which, in the course of a three-hour speech, Farrakhan blamed Jews for “degenerate behavior in Hollywood, turning men into women and women into men.” Angie Beem, president of the Washington state chapter, remembered that phone call.

“Many of us were upset,” Beem told Tablet. “She is the face of a women’s march, and our mission and values are equality and inclusion. To openly praise someone like this went against everything we were supposed to stand by.” Beem described a sense of awkwardness as Mallory went on to defend Farrakhan to over 40 women on the call. And she wasn’t alone, Beem said; Perez and Bland jumped in to defend him as well. “They said to us: ‘You know, he has done some great things for people of color.’ They didn’t denounce anything he said, they only did that recently. Some state people supported them and some who were very brave stood up to them. One woman said something like, ‘Just because somebody does one good thing doesn’t mean they are excused for everything else.’ They said, ‘We hear you.’ But then they refused to do anything about it.”

Yes, anti-Semitism has been the proximate cause of this crisis.  However, in the above quote note that it is not limited to that vile evil.  No, it is  Louis Farrakhan’s “anti-Semitic, homophobic, and misogynistic” beliefs that are identified as unacceptable.

Thus, these ideological disconnects are finally being exposed in the Progressive coalition.  The question is will this crisis be limited to the Women’s March or will it spread to the overall Progressive movement?  That is the question to which I will turn.