Beliefnet
At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

On its first anniversary, it is worth revisiting what we may now refer to simply as “Charlottesville.”

Thanks to the assistance of Republican politicians and their apologists in Big Conservative media, the left didn’t hesitate to transform this event into an ideologically and politically-useful weapon.

Of course, Charlottesville could serve the left’s agenda only if the official interpretation of circumstances defies reality—as it does.

On August 12, 2017, hundreds of people gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia for what they called a “Unite the Right” rally.

They would be met by an even greater number of leftists of various sorts, self-described “anti-fascists” and “anti-racists.”

Violence ensued.

Immediately, elites in Washington D.C. and their fellow travelers in Big Media (of both the “mainstream” and “conservative” varieties) laid the blame solely at the feet of “white supremacists.”  Every politician, Democrat and Republican alike, and every commentator, Fox News contributors and talk radio hosts no less than their leftist counterparts on the other networks, spared no opportunity to show the world that they were even more repulsed by this exhibition of “white supremacy” than the next person.

Make no mistakes about it, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the fever-pitched waxing of indignation, was political theater at its absolute best—or worst.  It is inexcusable that anyone who purports to be in the know, let alone those, like politicians and media figures, who are expected to be knowledgeable of current events, should not have been able to discern from  the jump the gist of what occurred in Charlottesville on that fateful day.

President Trump elicited much criticism for claiming at the time that there were good people amongst both the demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators, and that both sides contributed to the violence.  The President did misspeak, but not in the ways in which his critics charge:

First, it is manifestly absurd to characterize as “good” those—like the militant leftists who converged upon Charlottesville—who routinely violate the Constitutional rights to speech, assembly, property, and bodily integrity of, not only those of their fellow citizens with whom they disagree, but as well those of their fellow citizens who they deem insufficiently supportive of their “anti-fascist” agenda.

Second, not a single hair on the head of a single person would have been harmed, much less would anyone have been killed, had it not been for the “anti-fascists” and “anti-racists,” the “counter-demonstrators” who initiated the violence.

The facts:

(1)The organizers of the Unite the Right rally acted lawfully, availing themselves of their Constitutional right as Americans to peaceful assembly.  The organizers applied for their permit months in advance of their demonstration.  It was granted and then withdrawn.  The organizers appealed and, thanks in no small part to the American Civil Liberties Union—hardly a right-wing operation—a judge determined that the city of Charlottesville had no legal grounds on which to deny them a permit.

In other words, the organizers of the Unite the Right rally acted in good faith, with fidelity to the law, every step of the way.

(2)The counter-demonstrators, in stark contrast, conducted themselves lawlessly: They had no permit and never even applied for one. Quite the contrary: The “anti-fascists” armed themselves with weaponry—clubs; bricks; bottles and balloons filled with cement, urine, and feces; bear mace; baseball bats; bows and arrows; and a makeshift flamethrower—and, quite literally, hit the streets. They formed mobs and took to intersections, blocking traffic and attacking motorists.

For this reason, because of their lawlessness, their flagrant criminality, it is a misnomer to describe the “anti-fascists” as counter-demonstrators.  They composed a mob.

(3)It’s true that a few of the demonstrators were seen sporting KKK and neo-Nazi paraphernalia.  It is equally true that the vast majority of the rally-goers who gathered in Charlottesville were doing no such thing, and that several of these endeavored to remove those showcasing KKK and Nazi symbols.

The lion’s share of rally attendees descended upon Charlottesville on that fateful day not to affirm “white supremacy,” “white nationalism,” or any racial fiction that the media would ascribe to them, but, rather, to demonstrate against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, an act that symbolizes to many patriotic Americans the radical left’s ongoing attempt to fundamentally transform Southern culture specifically and that of the United States of America generally into something in the image of their own ideology.

And, to repeat, there weren’t so much as dirty looks exchanged, to say nothing of overt violence, until lawless leftwing mobs, so-called “Antifa” and Black Lives Matter, in particular, arrived and instigated every bit of it.

(4)The foregoing facts were available at the time.  Big Media—both the “mainstream” or “liberal” media as well as such “conservative” media as Fox News, talk radio, National Review, The New York Post, etc.—just weren’t interested.

Those who were interested had to go underground, to the internet, to Youtube, to gather eyewitness testimony from those who were actually in Charlottesville.  The most reliable testimony comes from the members of several “Patriots’” organizations, self-described “civic nationalists” (as opposed to racial nationalists) who came to Virginia to keep peace and safeguard the Constitutional rights of their fellow American citizens (See here and here).

Most of these men (and some women) are military and police veterans who remain committed to upholding the oath to the American Constitution that they pledged upon embarking upon their careers in law enforcement.  These are the same people who those in Big Conservatism (the Big Con) tirelessly “thank” for their service.  Yet when these retired soldiers and officers of the law were physically besieged by leftist criminals and corrupt Charlottesville police alike, Big Conservatives were all too eager to side with militant and radical leftists and blame the protestors and these Constitutionalists for the unprovoked violence that they suffered.

(5)This brings us to the next point: As some of us knew then, and as the Heaphy Report has subsequently confirmed, violence would have been averted not only had leftist street thugs shown the same respect for the law as that shown by the Unite the Right demonstrators.  It would have been averted had the governments of Virginia and Charlottesville—the governor and mayor, the state and local police—and the University of Virginia conducted themselves more responsibly.

The governor declared a state of emergency, in effect canceling the demonstrators’ permit at the last minute, while the Charlottesville mayor ordered the police commissioner to in turn order his officers to stand down.

But even this way of putting the matter is understatement. The police didn’t just do nothing as innocent citizens were assaulted. They encouraged the violence by forcing the Unite the Right rally attendees to vacate the premises by way of walking through the wall of volatile leftists that were waiting for them.

From these facts, we can deduce another: Contrary to the conventional (Politically Correct) wisdom, far from being aggressors, the only party in this story that is innocent of provoking violence is that of the rally demonstrators.

Fairness, however, forces us to go one step further: It is the rally attendees, and them alone, who showed respect for America, for its traditions, laws, and the Constitution, for preserving the history of their country, civility, free speech, and peaceful assembly.  No other actor in this melodrama can claim credit for doing the same.  Every other actor, in fact, revealed themselves as decidedly anti-American.

A final point: While the overt left has long ago put us on notice as to its desire to destroy (“fundamentally transform”) America as it has existed, the response of Big Conservatism to Charlottesville proved, if proof was still needed, that Big Cons are but an alt-left.  Big Cons incessantly whine over the left’s suppression of free speech whenever it is one of their own—like, say, Ben Shapiro—who is prevented from speaking at a college campus.  Yet their eagerness to buy hook, line, and sinker the interpretation of Charlottesville favored by Antifa and Black Lives Matter confirms that they care as much about protecting the free speech rights of those to their right as they care about “supporting the troops” and “blue lives” when law enforcement veterans are lumped in by the left with “racists,” “fascists,” “white supremacists,” and, simply, “the alt-right.”

Never again can anyone within the Big Con be regarded with seriousness when they espouse platitudes concerning the Constitution, free speech, tolerance, civility, or, for that matter, respect for veterans and law enforcement. Though few people have yet to grasp this, the truth is that Charlottesville comes as close as anything to serving as the criterion, the test, for determining one’s commitment to the Constitution, law and order, free speech, civility, tolerance, and all of the rest.

The Big Con failed this test miserably.

 

 

 

 

 

What is commonly referred to as “the conservative movement”—an alliance between Republican politicians and media polemicists—is what I call Big Conservatism, or the Big Con.

The movers and shakers of the Big Con, though styling themselves as an alternative to the left are, in actuality, an alternative-left, the alt-left.

That Big Conservatism is an alternative-left is gotten readily enough by their respective stances on a range of issues.

Ben Shapiro, widely hailed as a rock star of the Big Con, is a classic case in point.

Shapiro is talented. There can be no question about this. After all, it’s quite the feat for one so young to have mastered the talent that many in the Big Con have labored decades to nail down: Shapiro, despite the fact that he is a left-leaning neoconservative, has convinced legions of Americans, particularly younger, college-aged Americans, that he is not only a conservative, a man of the right, but a cutting-edge, risqué conservative.

Inasmuch as the men and women of the Big Con are distinguished on account of their ability to excite their base—voters, readers, listeners, and viewers—while simultaneously currying favor with the official left, Shapiro is its posterchild.

A Slate cover story from earlier this year is revealing.  Slate, mind you, is a well-known left-wing publication. Yet the “progressives” who run it see in Ben Shapiro a potential ally in their “resistance” to Donald Trump and his army of Deplorables.

Seth Stevenson, the author of “The Many Faces of Ben Shapiro” (anything but an inapt description of the piece’s namesake), interprets his subject through what he himself characterizes as a “psychoanalytic narrative.”  Shapiro, Stevenson explains, was bullied terribly as a child.  This experience, he suggests, could account for why Shapiro despises Trump.  “In my opinion,” Shapiro remarks, Steve Bannon, the former editor of Breitbart, for which Shapiro once wrote, “is a bully” who “sold out” the “mission” of the outlet’s founder, Andrew Breitbart, “in order to back another bully, Donald Trump.”

Breitbart, Shapiro continues, was transformed into “Trump’s personal Pravda.”

Stevenson writes that because Shapiro defended Kim Fields, a reporter who claims to have been assaulted by a member of Trump’s entourage during the campaign—a claim for which Florida prosecutors concluded they had no grounds for prosecution—he was then besieged with “anti-Semitic” tweets by “alt-right bullies” who, according to the Anti-Defamation League, made him the most attacked “journalist” that year.

Because Shapiro is “among a dwindling cadre of Trump-averse conservatives at a time when the mainstream GOP and its media apparatus are following (and sometimes leading) our cretinous president straight into the muck,” Shapiro, Stephenson writes, is among those “influential right-wing figures” upon whom he can see himself “relying” to help the country “hold the line” should Trump choose to “roll his tanks (metaphorical or otherwise) over the ramparts of American democracy [.]”

Shapiro was all too happy to grant Slate the opportunity to use him so as to contrast his reasonable, principled conservatism with the vulgar, unprincipled, “racist” and unthinking pseudo-conservatism shared by Trump, many of Shapiro’s media colleagues who support President Trump, and, of course, the tens of millions of Americans, mostly traditional Republican voters, who constitute Shapiro’s audience and who came out in droves to vote for the President.

Shapiro was all too happy, in fact, to highlight the chasm separating the two.

Ben Shapiro is among those “conservatives” who has earned the approval of the left.  He is part of the controlled-opposition, a “rightist” who has been deputized by the left.

Let’s review some of Shapiro’s record:

For starters, let’s recall that for all of his caterwauling over Trump’s “bullying” tactics, Shapiro has always been a loyal Republican whose support for George W. Bush was particularly adamant.  This is revealing, for Bush, along with Congressional Republicans and Democrats, used false pretenses to embark the United States upon a path to war that continues to the present day.

Shapiro, along with his colleagues in the Big Con, vigorously argued on behalf of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Collectively, these invasions have come at the cost of trillions of dollars, the loss of over one millions lives, hundreds of thousands of orphaned children, and hundreds of thousands of human beings who have been permanently maimed and traumatized.  Far from ushering in a new Democratic Age throughout the Middle East, the Big Con’s wars radically destabilized the latter, unleashing fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations like ISIS while decimating ancient Christian communities and the communities of other religious minorities that received some measure of protection from the secular rule of men like Saddam Hussein.

The Big Con generally and Shapiro’s voice in particular were instrumental in making these wars happen.

And yet Trump, to hear NeverTrumpers like Shapiro tell it, is supposed to be the bully.

Shapiro and his ilk wax indignant over what they regard as Trump’s crass tweets and oral remarks—even though they used their resources to support politicians who wielded their power in ways that have caused incalculable bloodshed, pain, treasure, and death for legions of human beings.

The Iraq War is today recognized as arguably the biggest foreign policy disaster in our country’s history.  The Afghan war, of which few people any longer even speak, is our country’s longest-running war. Neither an end, nor victory, is in sight.

Shapiro has never apologized for his role in advancing these disasters.

To his credit, though, and unlike some of his fellow travelers, Shapiro at least did admit at the time that the wars to export Democracy to the Middle East were necessary features of a larger scheme for American empire—something in which he believes.

In 2005, Shapiro wrote an article in which he castigated “impatient isolationists,” i.e. the majority of Americans who had already, by this juncture, turned against the war in Iraq.  Since, following the fall of the old Soviet Union, America is the world’s only remaining superpower, the only remaining “empire,” it has a “duty” to preserve itself as an empire.

This, in turn, means that America has a duty to engage in pre-emptive wars, for pre-emption “is the chief weapon of a global empire.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.  It doesn’t matter that Iraq posed no direct or imminent threat to the United States. In “toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq,” America “prevent[ed]” Hussein’s “future ascendance and end[ed] his material support for future threats globally.”

By this same principle, the principle that pre-emption is indispensable to advancing America’s “global empire,” America should be considering invasions of “Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, and others.”

This Big Con celebrity argues that while advancing empire promises to secure America’s “future security,” it is also a worthy end inasmuch as it consists in “forwarding freedom” throughout the world.

In another place, Shapiro asserts that “America must be defended and her liberties spread abroad when possible.” The only alternative is what Shapiro calls “kowtowing” to “international multiculturalism”—which he equates with “a relativistic sea.” This last alternative is no alternative, for “international multiculturalism” leads inescapably to “tyranny.”

In 2003, Shapiro called for the removal of the five million Palestinians and Israeli Arabs from “Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper.” “It’s an ugly solution,” Shapiro wrote, “but it is the only solution.”

In response to the charge that such a policy is Nazi-esque, Shapiro has a response ready at hand: “There are no gas chambers here. It’s not genocide; it’s transfer. It’s not Hitler; it’s Churchill.”

Because Winston Churchill approved of the forcible removal of upward of nine million Germans from the Polish territory that the Allies created by slicing off a portion of Germany, there is nothing objectionable about the Israelis forcing millions of Palestinians from the only homes that they’ve ever known.

Churchill, Shapiro notes, shared his own view that when “two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.”

As for those who are reluctant to accept his proposal, Shapiro cuts to the quick: “It’s time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn’t a solution.”

In March of 2016, Shapiro wrote: “I will never vote for Donald Trump.  Ever.”

He proudly declared: “I stand with #NeverTrump.”

To hear Shapiro tell it, Trump is the anti-Shapiro: “I will never vote for Donald Trump because I stand with certain principles,” such as “small government and free markets and religious freedom and personal responsibility.  Donald Trump stands against all of these things.”

Shapiro stands with “the Constitution of the United States,” the Constitution’s “embedded protection of my God-given rights through governmental checks and balances,” and “conservatism.”

Trump stands against such things.

Trump, rather, stands for, among other odious things, the “targeting of political enemies,” “an anti-morality foreign policy,” “government domination of religion,” “nastiness toward women,” “tacit appeals to racism,” and “unbounded personal power.”

The patent silliness and hysteria of Shapiro’s remarks should now leave even the most casual of observers incredulous.  He also forecasted that “Trump will get blown out in a general election.”

And in the event that this prediction materialized, it is not NeverTrumpers like himself who would have deserved the blame but the Deplorables, those who secured for Trump his party’s presidential nomination. It is not on “our consciences,” the consciences of NeverTrumpers, that the guilt of a Clinton victory would deserve to fall.  “It’s on the consciences of the people who went along with this nomination.”

Today, nearly two years after Trump defied, and as he continues to defy, the Never Trumpers—the alt-leftists and the official left—Shapiro no longer self-regards as Never Trump.  Now he calls himself a “Sometime Trumper.”

Perhaps it is precisely because this is such a meaningless moniker that it is perfectly suited to cover the bases of one who has been as spectacularly wrong as Shapiro has been throughout his career and extending into the era of Donald Trump.  No one, including those who have supported his candidacy from the beginning, backs Trump in all instances, just as few people unequivocally support anyone.  “Sometimes Trump” is meant to simultaneously fulfill two purposes:  (1) conceal Shapiro’s belated recognition that he had been just as wildly irrational and melodramatic over the prospects of a Trump presidency as his fellow NeverTrumpers and those on the official left continue to be; and (2) prevent Shapiro from having to confess that he had been wildly irrational and melodramatic.

To see that “Sometime Trumper” is as rhetorically deceptive as it is logically and substantively useless, consider it in light of an analogy.  Imagine a man who spends his time issuing one unequivocal condemnation after the other of capital punishment, i.e. a man as zealously anti-capital punishment as Shapiro was anti-Donald Trump. This same man, though, over time and upon the development of events, begins to soften his original stance.  He now realizes that perhaps there are indeed some classes of criminal offenders that are deserving of the death penalty.

Yet rather than simply admit that he is now a proponent of capital punishment, he says instead that his position has not changed substantially, that the only difference between where he stands now and where he stood in the past is that he now supports the death penalty only in some instances.  In most cases, the man continues, he still opposes it.

It should be painfully obvious to all with eyes to see that this thinking is painfully confused: Not even the most adamant proponent of the death penalty supports it in all cases (whatever this is even supposed to mean).  Anyone who supports the death penalty for any crime is a supporter of the death penalty.

Shapiro’s stance on Trump is no different.

But we shouldn’t expect for this Big Con/alt-left celebrity to ever acknowledge this.

 

 

 

 

 

Charles Krauthammer, famed Fox News “all-star,” has died at the age of 68.

Understandably enough, his colleagues have been effusive in their eulogizing of the man who has long been regarded as a sage of the conservative movement.  Even while he lived, and long before he would be diagnosed with the disease that would end his life, no one in the Big Conservative media, even when they disagreed with him (over, say, Donald Trump), would argue with Krauthammer without first qualifying their remarks with assurances that they meant no disrespect to the good doctor.

Krauthammer, doubtless, exemplified some true character excellences.  He was intelligent, certainly, and, unlike many, Krauthammer had a calmness of mind that enabled him to be among the most articulate proponents of the ideas that he shared with his fellow partisans.  Nor is there anyone who can fail to be moved by the determination, indeed, the courage, that a man must possess to become as professionally and personally accomplished as Krauthammer became despite the severe physical obstacles with which life burdened him.

Yet these commendable attributes of his aside, as a well-known commentator, even a commentator who enjoyed the distinction of being a “public intellectual,” Krauthammer had a track record—a record extending back decades—that was less than stellar.

In truth, it was abysmal.

Had Krauthammer’s not been among the more prominent faces of today’s “conservative movement,” then we could safely ignore the hagiographical-type commentary that is now being cranked out on him.  Since things are otherwise, however, the truth must be told.

For starters, Krauthammer self-identified as a Great Society Democrat until as recently as the 1980s.  He wrote for the left-leaning The New Republic and, even after he became a Reaganite, Krauthammer became a weekly columnist, and resident “conservative,” for the left-wing Washington Post.  He retained this position until the illness that would claim his life forced him into retirement in August of 2017.

Yet Krauthammer was no conservative.  Hendrik Hertzberg, with whom Krauthammer worked at The New Republic in the 1980s, once wrote in The New Yorker that when he first met Krauthammer in 1978, the latter was “70 percent Mondale liberal, 30 percent ‘Scoop Jackson’ Democrat”—meaning that he took “a hard line on Israel and relations with the Soviet Union.” Throughout the Reagan years, Krauthammer remained socially and culturally liberal-left while becoming “a full-bore foreign-policy neoconservative.”

In 2009, Hertzberg characterized Krauthammer as “90-10 Republican.”  Hertzberg, himself a man of the left, intended to suggest that his one-time colleague underwent a political-ideological transformation of sorts over the decades.  Perhaps it is precisely because of the constraints of his own ideological blinders that Hertzberg failed to see that his terms of choice for Krauthammer were but different grammatical variations for what essentially amounts to one and the same viewpoint: Krauthammer, remarkably, preserved the ideological identity that he had cemented for himself by the mid-1980s.

In other words, while Krauthammer would adopt the characteristically Republican rhetoric of “limited government,” he exerted his significant influence advocating for one policy after the other—domestic as well as foreign—that exponentially expanded and consolidated the powers and scope of the national government.

In 2002, Krauthammer was appointed by George W. Bush to the President’s Council on Bioethics.  This is a particularly revealing episode in Krauthammer’s career, for it isn’t just that he lent his support to an American president’s historically unprecedented decision to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research; he exhibited either stunning naivety or dishonesty in his argument for this position:

“It is a good idea to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research,” Krauthammer wrote in 2005.  Unlike some, Krauthammer does not think “a zygote or blastocyst,” i.e. the embryo, has “the rights of personhood.”  This research is, however, “a bad idea” unless it is framed within legislation that prohibits the using of “embryos created specifically to be used in research and destroyed.”

Bush’s insistence that stem-cells would be extracted only from those embryos that had been destroyed at the time that he delivered his speech on this matter in 2001 now seemed “arbitrary,” Krauthammer said.  So, it is good that the research will be expanded on embryos that would “be destroyed anyway” (emphasis original).   But this research should not be potentially limitless.

“The real threat to our humanity” is not the destruction of “existing human embryos” of which, “God knows, more than a million” are destroyed annually via abortions and “thousands” of which are left “to die in fertility clinics [.]”  The real threat “is the creation of new human life willfully for the sole purpose of making it a means to someone else’s end—dissecting it for its parts the way we would dissect something with no more moral standing than a mollusk or paramecium.”

Notice, Krauthammer simultaneously denies the personhood, the moral standing, the subject-ness of the unborn embryo while lamenting that the practice to which he’s contributed and for which he’s fought is encouraging the objectification of the unborn by treating it as “a mollusk or paramecium.”  At one and the same moment, Krauthammer acts equally surprised that, once engaged in the practice of funding embryonic stem-cell research (or any other practice), the impulse of the federal government would be anything other than to further entrench itself.

In 2005, Krauthammer called for substantially higher taxes on gasoline so as to encourage “conservation,” as he put it.  “Thank God for $3.50 gasoline,” he wrote. “No blessing has ever come more disguised,” for at this point, “$3.00 seems far less outrageous than, say, a year ago.” This being so, Krauthammer urged the government to take advantage of this “unique but fleeting opportunity to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices.” Krauthammer’s solution was simple:

“Put a floor at $3.  Every penny that the price goes under $3 should be recaptured in a federal gas tax so that Americans pay $3 at the pump no matter how low the world price goes.”

The man who favored “limited government” also favored price-controls on gasoline.

In his best-selling 2013 memoir, Things That Matter, Krauthammer articulated once more the foreign policy vision that he first advanced more than a quarter-of-a-century earlier, what he calls “Democratic realism” or “Democratic globalism,” a “value-driven foreign policy” that posits as “the engine of history” what Krauthammer calls “the will to freedom”—which he identifies with “the spread of democracy” around the planet. From this standpoint, America “will support democracy everywhere,” Krauthammer assured audiences, but it “will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity,” i.e. “places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom” (italics original).

In 1986, Krauthammer’s essay, “The Poverty of Realism,” was published in The New Republic.  The author was blunt, stating that “the end of American foreign policy is not just the security of the United States, but what John F. Kennedy called ‘the success of liberty.’”  Krauthammer didn’t hesitate to explain what he meant by the latter expression. It means, first of all, that the American government must go about the business of “defending the community of democratic nations,” for they are “the repository of the liberal idea.”  Yet it must as well encourage “new liberal policies at the frontier, most especially in the Third World.”

The razing of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet Union further enflamed Krauthammer’s hopes for planetary Democratic hegemony.  In 1989, the title of his Washington Post article read simply, yet triumphantly: “Democracy Has Won.”  Krauthammer was jubilant, perhaps a bit uncharacteristically so:

“It has occurred to me…that it may not be premature to say that political philosophy is over.  Finished. Solved. The perennial question that has preoccupied every political philosopher since Plato—what is the best form of governance?—has been answered.”

And the answer, of course, is Democracy.  “After a few millennia of trying every form of political system, we close this millennium with the sure knowledge that in liberal, pluralist, capitalist democracy we have found what we have been looking for.”

Yet as far as Krauthammer was concerned, it isn’t just we who have discovered the answer to this perennial question.  “This decade has seen the rest of the world register its agreement that to be modern—to be advanced and humane—is to embrace such Western political values as pluralism, democracy and free markets.”

“Political theory,” Krauthammer continued, or “at least the part concerned with defining the good polity, is finished.  The Western idea of governance has prevailed.”

Krauthammer’s position in 1989, particularly when considered retrospectively three decades later, can only strike all but the truest of his fellow believers as at once hubristic and naïve. Yet there is no evidence that Krauthammer ever abandoned it.  He supported most of the military interventions that the United States government launched over the last 30-plus years.  And he was especially supportive of what has accurately been described as perhaps the biggest strategic blunder in the history of American foreign policy: the Iraq War.

In 2002, Krauthammer wrote that “hawks,” like himself, favor war in Iraq “on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists.”  He continued: “The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is intolerable—and must be preempted.”

While acknowledging that the “reformation” and “reconstruction of an alien culture” constitutes a “daunting task,” as well as being “risky” and “arrogant,” Krauthammer insisted that there isn’t “a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11.” Yet this monster “is not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arabic-Islamic world—oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism.”

Only the democratization of the Arab world can defeat Islamic terrorism.  This was Krauthammer’s position.

As for all of the damage that the war visited upon Iraq, Krauthammer remained optimistic: “Once its political and industrial infrastructures are reestablished, Iraq’s potential for rebound, indeed for explosive growth,” would be “unlimited.”

It’s self-evident to all who are remotely aware of the situation today that the reality that’s since unfolded in Iraq is the antithesis of Krauthammer’s forecasts.

Just a few years later, in 2006, Krauthammer sounded surprised to discover that “the modern and democratizing influences” that George W. Bush unleashed on the Arab world via the invasion of Iraq were being met with resistance from “Islamic radicalism.” Although during his speech to the Foreign Policy Research Institute Krauthammer conceded that “the entire enterprise of changing the culture of the Arab world” of which he and his fellow neoconservatives were always the most impassioned supporters was “radical,” “arrogant,” and “risky,” he continued to maintain that “it was also the only idea of any coherence and consistency that anyone has advanced on how to change the underlying conditions that had led to 9/11 and ultimately to prevent the kind of conditions that would lead to a second 9/11.”

Some commentators of an older right persuasion knew in 2002 that invading Iraq for purposes of “regime change” and “Democracy” would end in the disaster that everyone in 2018 recognizes for what it is. Yet these commentators were either ignored, derided, and/or suppressed by Krauthammer and his Big Conservative media fellow travelers.  Krauthammer was indeed correct that the war would be “risky.”

What he never mentioned is that it would be thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and possibly as many as one million) who paid the costs of this enterprise with their lives.  Of these, at least 175,000 were non-combatant civilians.

Krauthammer never mentioned the 800,000 or so children who were made orphans as the cost for a crusade for the democratization of the Islamic world that still has not ushered in the Promised Land that he envisioned.

Of those who would be forced to shoulder the burdens for his cause Krauthammer did not mention the ancient Iraq Christian communities and communities of other religious minorities who, without the protections afforded them by the secular Hussein, found themselves in the crosshairs of the Islamic jihadists who exploited the vacuum left by the dictator’s forced removal from office.

It hasn’t been until recently, courtesy of the direction of President Donald J. Trump—who, it so happens, Krauthammer opposed—that the Islamic State has suffered defeat in Iraq (although the country itself is far from the utopia of which Krauthammer and his ilk dreamt).

As for Trump, before he actually threw his hat into the political ring, Krauthammer referred to him as “the GOP’s Al Sharpton,” a “provocateur, and clown, unserious.” This was in 2012, when Trump was only toying with the notion of running and when, remarkably, Krauthammer predicted that Haley Barbour would be the most likely GOP candidate to win the primary and general contests that year!

After the first Fox-televised GOP primary debate in 2015, Krauthammer told Megyn Kelly that what audiences witnessed in the billionaire’s stage performance was nothing less than “the collapse of Donald Trump,” whose competitors “left him out in the cold.”

Obviously, Krauthammer couldn’t have been more mistaken.

When Barack Obama first ran for the presidency, although the Illinois senator had authored two books, the first of which had the subtitle, A Story of Race and Inheritance, and although Obama’s associations with radical leftists were by then well-known, Krauthammer, who was among a handful of Beltway Republicans to have dined with Obama, said, shockingly, that it took him five weeks after Obama’s inauguration to realize who Obama was.  Rush Limbaugh was incredulous, claiming on his radio show to have been “shocked” to hear that Krauthammer couldn’t figure out Obama’s ideological and political identity.  Krauthammer defended himself, insisting that Rush had misconstrued his words. “I said that when Obama was elected, it was not clear whether he was a centrist Democrat who would occasionally throw a bone to the left, or if he was a man of the left who would occasionally throw a bone to the center.”

Still, this defense is no defense, for there was enough available on Obama’s background to clarify for all but the willfully blind exactly the man that Obama had always been (and remains).

On April 22, 2003, Krauthammer defended the decision to invade Iraq even though, at this juncture, no weapons of mass destruction had been found.  “Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks.  Come back to me in five months,” Krauthammer said. “If we haven’t found any” by then, he concluded, “we will have a credibility problem.”

With all due respect to the dead, what I’ve been at pains to show here is that much of Krauthammer’s career as a commentator has indeed given rise to a credibility problem.

Unfortunately, Fake News is alive and all too well.

This was witnessed in spades this past week as the Fake News/Kill Trump media lied through its fangs about the President on immigration.

The Fake Newsies, at least 90% of whom are Democrat Party operatives, waxed hysteria over the “separation” of Hispanic children from their “immigrant” parents, i.e. those who entered America illegally through the southern border.

Of course, the blame for all of this was laid at the feet of the President, who was excoriated by his political enemies in Washington D.C. and their apologists and fellow partisans in the Fake News industry for his “zero tolerance” policy.

By now, any remotely honest observer of the political scene should know that the truth is profoundly otherwise than what fake journalists and commentators would have us think.

First, the “separation of families” for which Trump is being blamed is a feature of a policy that was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law back in 2008 by George W. Bush.  This policy was continued throughout Barack Obama’s two terms.

In fact, the emotionally-charged photos of detention facilities circulated by the Fake News media that were designed to convict Trump of heartlessness were taken while Obama was President.

This is one crucial respect in which coverage of this issue reveals itself for the Fake News that it is.  Yet it is certainly not the only respect.

Second, that for a decade—the decade that their fellow partisans held control of the levers of power in D.C.—fake journalists didn’t utter a peep about this policy for which they are now blasting Trump proves that they are cooking a controversy for partisan political purposes.

This isn’t journalism. It is advocacy. It is political.

It is fake.

Third, the vast majority of those crying over the “separation of families” have spent decades undermining the sanctity of the family at every conceivable turn.  The idea of “traditional family values” is one upon which this crew has set its sights with a vengeance.  They have not only mocked and ridiculed all things religious (and, particularly, Christian), they have aggressively sought to fundamentally transform the entire cultural and legal landscape.

Those who have just now discovered the sanctity of the family—and make no mistakes, when they shed their tears (however fake, like their news, these tears undoubtedly are), they imply their recognition of this spiritual and moral reality—have campaigned inexhaustibly for such family-crippling things as: no-fault divorce; de-stigmatizing both co-habitation outside of marriage and illegitimacy; sexual promiscuity; free contraceptives; the empowerment of the State (Child Protective Services) to remove children from their parents, i.e. to “separate families”; the empowerment of children to divorce their parents; the elevation of homosexuality as something to be celebrated as a viable alternative to heterosexuality; and so-called “same-sex marriage.”

Most importantly, these same people who are now crying over children being separated from their parents have been championing the “right” of mothers to kill the children in their wombs, children who, at that stage in their development, literally have no one to sustain them but their mothers.

Fourth, as President Trump said three years ago when he announced his bid for the presidency, some of those crossing our southern border are bad people.  Border agents, among the bravest and most patriotic of Americans (and many of whom happen to be Hispanic), have readily attested to the truth of Trump’s statement.

People who resolve to undermine a nation’s sovereignty by breaking its most fundamental of laws are willing to do virtually anything else to fulfill their desires.  It is understandable that they should want to leave their home countries and come to America so as to provide a better lives for themselves and their families. But unless it is morally permissible for one’s personal happiness to be purchased at any and all costs—unless the ends always justify the means—this doesn’t change the fact that such people disrespect America and her citizens when they invade our country.

The point, here, is that these people have also sent their children—some as young as four years-old—across multiple countries, in some cases, and extremely dangerous terrain just so that they can eventually get here. Parents have given their young daughters contraceptives in the expectation that these girls would be raped by human predators.

American-born children can and have been separated from their American-born parents for offenses that pale in comparison to such egregious abuses.

And it isn’t just parents who have weaponized children in this way.  Many of the “parents” and other adult “relatives” aren’t related to these kids at all.  The US government is trying to protect these children by making sure that they aren’t released into the custody of negligent, abusive, criminal adults.

Finally, during a conversation with Democrats and some Republicans over immigration policy some time ago, Trump was said to have referred to some Third World countries from which his opponents wanted to encourage more immigration as “shitholes.” For this, the Fake Newsies (but few others) took him to task.

At the same time, most of these left-wing Democrats in the Fake News media and elsewhere are tirelessly complaining about the “white privilege,” “institutional racism,” and “white supremacy” of America, or, as those on the left have not so affectionately referred to it, “AmeriKKKa.”

This latest episode in the Fake News media’s Kill Trump series would have caused more thoughtful, or more honest, people to suffer a massive dose of cognitive dissonance: On the one hand, there has been occurring for many years a mass exodus of millions of non-white people from their home countries from all over the world.  On the other hand, these same people are risking their own lives, yes, but the lives of their children to flee to…a “white supremacist” country.

The “fascists” of AmeriKKKa are intent upon building a wall, true, but to prevent people from, not leaving, but entering, specifically, entering illegally.

A historically white country which remains majority-white and which the American-born left continually derides as “racist” is, in reality, the salvation of the world’s non-white peoples. This, at any rate, can only be the view held by those who are willing to do anything and everything to get to America.

But don’t expect for the Fake News media to say so.