Played Out: the Liberal Racists’ “Uncle Tom” Card

Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He’s a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He’s also a coward, a bigot, a liar and a textbook example of plantation progressivism.

On Tuesday, Winkler took to Twitter to rant about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down an onerous section of the Voting Rights Act. The 5-4 ruling overturned an unconstitutional requirement that states win federal preclearance approval of any changes to their election laws and procedures. Winkler fumed: “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.”

This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.

After being called out by conservative social media users for his cheap attack on Clarence Thomas, Winkler then revealed his true color: yellow. He deleted the tweet (captured for posterity at my Twitter curation site, and pleaded ignorance.

“I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he sniveled. “I didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues,” he protested.

Holding a black man to a different intellectual standard based on his skin color. Accusing a non-white conservative of collectivist race traitorism. Employing one of the most infamous, overused epithets against minority conservatives in the Democratic lexicon. “Apologizing,” but disclaiming responsibility. Sorry … that he got caught.

Just another day at the left-wing racist office.

Rabid liberal elitists expect and demand that we swallow their left-wing political orthodoxy whole and never question. When we don’t yield, their racist and sexist diatribes against us are unmatched. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, name, authenticity and integrity have been routinely ridiculed or questioned for more than two decades because I happen to be an unapologetic brown female free-market conservative. My Twitter account biography jokingly includes the moniker “Oriental Auntie-Tom” — just one of thousands of slurs hurled at me by libs allergic to diversity of thought — for a reason. It’s a way to hold up an unflinching mirror at the holier-than-thou NoH8 haters and laugh.

We conservatives “of color” are way past anger about the Uncle Tom/Aunt Tomasina attacks. We’re reviled by the left for our “betrayal” of our supposed tribes — accused of being Uncle Toms, Aunt Tomasinas, House Niggas, puppets of the White Man, Oreos, Sambos, lawn jockeys, coconuts, bananas, sellouts and whores. This is how the left’s racial and ethnic tribalists have always rolled. But their insults are not bullets. They are badges of honor. The Uncle Tom card has been played out.

Of course Winkler didn’t think it was offensive. Smarty-pants liberal racists never think they’re being racist. In their own sanctimonious minds, progressives of pallor can never be guilty of bigotry toward minority conservatives. Ignorance is strength. Slurs are compliments. Intolerance is tolerance.

And when all else fails, left-wing prejudice is always just a well-intended joke. (PBS commentator Julianne Malveaux’s death wish for Justice Thomas set the standard: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”)

Back in her day, before the advent of democratizing social media, Malveaux and her elitist PBS friends could get away with such vile bile. But liberal crabs in the bucket, viciously trying to drag dissenters “of color” down, can no longer engage in hit-and-run with impunity. Conservatives on Twitter have changed the dynamic in an underappreciated, revolutionary way. The pushback against liberal political bigotry is bigger, stronger and swifter than it’s ever been.

You can delete, but you cannot hide.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is


America At The Midnight Hour On Immigration

With the Supreme Court’s June 17 decision prohibiting the state of Arizona from verifying the citizenship of voters, the reality behind the government charade of preserving the integrity of the nation (one of its primary constitutional mandates) is coming unraveled. On the surface, it does appear that the high court has grounds to claim that it is merely abiding by the hierarchy of governing authority as stipulated in the Constitution. However, that assertion must completely ignore the actual conduct of the federal government, which has been to abdicate such responsibilities and thereby flagrantly facilitate vote fraud by non-citizens on an unprecedented scale.

Had the federal government been duly enforcing laws which already exist, the good people of Arizona would never have instituted Proposition 200, the 2004 ballot initiative by which their state sought to confirm the identity and citizenship of those registering to vote in their elections. Sadly for Arizonans, and for all Americans who wish to keep their country, a decision was made many years ago at the highest levels of the U.S. government to turn a blind eye to illegal border crossings, the establishment of false identities by which to freely operate within the United States, and even their seditious involvement in the governing process. At every juncture, the American people have been betrayed by the political class, amid promises that the glaring problems of illegal immigration will somehow be completely remedied by the next legislative sellout.

The latest United States Senate attempt at amnesty for illegal aliens S.744, is more of the same. From start to finish, it is saturated in fraud and treachery, the only purpose of which is to convince enough Americans to accept its passage to make it the law of the land, after which complaints and concerns about its “unexpected” repercussions will be deemed inconsequential and thereafter ignored. It does not matter that the bill seems to be gaining support from “Republicans,” some of whom claim to be conservatives. The glaring inconsistencies with which it is being promoted are too stark to have gone unnoticed. Rather, they reveal the consuming arrogance of the “Ruling Class,” and its contempt for the American people who live and work on Main Street.

For starters, consider the number of 11 million being bandied as the total illegal immigrant population. Senators on both sides of the aisle, and particularly within the “Gang of 8” invoke that figure with absolute authority, and in truth, too much authority. It is incessantly presented to the American people as if the Census bureau diligently went to every corner of the nation and tabulated the total population of border breaching foreigners with unassailable precision. Yet every American who has ever visited a shopping center cannot doubt that many more than one in thirty of the people they encounter are hardly lifelong Yankees.

Of course the very mention of such things is deemed “politically incorrect” and “offensive,” which is merely another liberal tactic to suppress the truth. Yet in the same manner that the implementation costs of Obamacare were eventually admitted by “surprised” high level government accountants to be several times the paltry trillion dollars originally promised, once amnesty happens, the bogus “11 million” will suddenly swell to several times that number.

Of course the immediate excuse will be that no one could possibly have known for sure how many illegals were living in the legendary “shadows” about which we have lately heard so much. Yet from its onset, this discussion has clearly been riddled with malicious deceit, which is standard practice for advancing the liberal statist agenda. On the one hand, Barack Obama regularly makes reference to these elusive “shadows” in a shameless ploy to invoke sympathy for those fearful huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Meanwhile, Republican amnesty poster boy Marco Rubio just as matter of factly asserts that the current situation already amounts to amnesty, and that only its legal codification can assuage the rampant lawlessness that created it in the first place. And if such “logic” sounds deliberately convoluted and evasive, it should.

No less an insult to the intelligence of the American people is the entire discussion of securing the nation’s southern border. Those who seek to legitimize, and more significantly, empower, the current influx of illegals have no more intention of ever securing the border with this iteration of amnesty than they did during the disastrous and fraudulent “Simpson-Mazzoli” amnesty bill of 1986. Touted back then as the all-time fix to the problem of approximately 3 million illegals in the country, a secured border was promised as an essential component of that measure, and likewise never happened.

Amnesty advocates are already telegraphing their underhanded intentions of abandoning border security the moment S.744 becomes law. Senator Charles Schumer (D.-NY) has decried the ostensible time needed to secure the border, rendering it infeasible for inclusion in the law. But this is just a smokescreen. In May of 1961 President John F. Kennedy committed the nation to a monumental undertaking. His goal was not to build a fence or start enforcing laws that were already on the books, but to land an American on the moon. Eight years and two months later, that dream was realized. To allege that, forty four years later, the mere construction of a barrier between the United States and Mexico is too great of a logistical and technical challenge for the United States of America is another outright lie.

Contrary to the vile and coordinated attacks from the liberal political establishment and its foot soldiers on both parties against Americans who oppose amnesty, opposition to S.744 is not rooted in irrational bias against people who, according to Obama’s condescending sanctimony “aren’t like them.” Rather, Americans properly foresee the ramifications of a fully legally empowered invasion of foreigners with no ties to their nation’s past, and no interest in its future, and what such an upheaval will mean to those currently living here.

Border enforcement is not part of the plan, nor is the reestablishment of a great nation in which all of its inhabitants can flourish and fulfill their dreams. And assimilation is nothing but a pipe dream. If amnesty passes the Congress and is signed by Barack Obama, does anyone doubt whose flag those illegals will be flying the next day in celebration? A fractured and struggling nation with a permanent underclass is beneficial to a government that thrives on the perpetually troubled and “needy” condition of its subjects. From the disastrous economic downturn of the past four years (and counting) to the vast expansion of the welfare state, to the imposition of socialized medicine, every policy of the Obama White House has been directed toward this end. The results have been undeniable, and if amnesty passes, things will only get worse. It is indefensible for any cognizant politician to claim otherwise.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Unasked and Unanswered Questions

Grutter v. Bollinger was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s racial admissions policy. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Constitution “does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” But what are the educational benefits of a diverse student body?

Intellectuals argue that diversity is necessary for academic excellence, but what’s the evidence? For example, Japan is a nation bereft of diversity in any activity. Close to 99 percent of its population is of one race. Whose students do you think have higher academic achievement — theirs or ours? According to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, the academic performance of U.S. high-school students in reading, math and science pales in comparison with their diversity-starved counterparts in Japan.

Should companies be treated equally? According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed (9/7/2009) by Manhattan Institute’s energy expert Robert Bryce, Exxon Mobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with its pollutants. The company paid $600,000 in fines and fees. A recent Associated Press story (5/14/2013) reported that “more than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.” The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted windmill farms, sometimes called bird Cuisinarts, for killing eagles and other protected bird species. In fact, AP reports that the Obama administration has shielded the industry from liability and has helped keep the scope of the deaths secret. It’s interesting that The Associated Press chose to report the story only after the news about its reporters being secretly investigated. That caused the Obama administration to fall a bit out of favor with them. But what the heck, the 14th Amendment’s requirement of “equal protection” before the law for everybody can be cast aside in the name of diversity, so why can’t it be cast aside in the name of saving the planet? There are politically favored industries just as there are politically favored groups.

What’s the difference between a progressive, a liberal and a racist? In some cases, not much. President Woodrow Wilson was a leading progressive who believed in notions of racial superiority and inferiority. He was so enthralled with D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” movie, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, that he invited various dignitaries to the White House to view it with him. During one private screening, President Wilson exclaimed: “It’s like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” When President Wilson introduced racial segregation to the civil service, the NAACP and the National Independent Political League protested. Wilson vigorously defended it, arguing that segregation was in the interest of Negroes.

Dr. Thomas Sowell, in “Intellectuals and Race,” documents other progressives who were advocates of theories of racial inferiority. They included former presidents of Stanford University and MIT, among others. Eventually, the views of progressives fell out of favor. They changed their name to liberals, but in the latter part of the 20th century, the name liberals fell into disrepute. Now they are back to calling themselves progressives.

I’m not arguing that today’s progressives are racists like their predecessors, but they share a contempt for liberty, just as President Wilson did. According to Hillsdale College history professor Paul A. Rahe — author of “Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift” — in his National Review Online (4/11/13) article “Progressive Racism,” Wilson wanted to persuade his compatriots to get “beyond the Declaration of Independence.” President Wilson said the document “did not mention the questions” of his day, adding, “It is of no consequence to us.” My question is: Why haven’t today’s progressives disavowed their racist predecessors?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at


The Dangers Of Political Equivocation

Among the most insidious of ruses perpetrated on the American people is the notion that while ideas on the political left and right are starkly different, all are equally valid from one perspective or another. All too often, “Establishment” Republicans in Washington who have accepted such thinking are primarily focused on “reaching across the aisle” and promoting “bipartisanship” rather than digging in their heels and contending for the conservative ideals for which their party ostensibly stands. And in the process, liberalism is advanced and the nation suffers. Of course this scenario plays well into the hands of the liberal Democrats, whose agenda has predominated with abhorrent consistency, regardless of which party is in power. It was no random coincidence that John McCain’s onerous campaign finance “reform” legislation and the onset of socialized prescription drugs known as “Medicare Part D” were implemented on the watch of George W. Bush, a Republican president, with both houses of Congress held by Republican majorities. These days, it is taboo among career politicians on both sides of the aisle to even suggest that some politicians and their agendas are worthwhile, while the motives and intentions of others are not. And in typical fashion, even in the midst of several burgeoning scandals, few on the right are willing to properly characterize the methods and goals of the Obama Administration. Far from being a subtle deviation from the nation’s prior course, they represent a concerted effort to eradicate the Great America of the past two and a half centuries, and reinvent it as a statist monstrosity where the “pursuit of happiness” is supplanted by mere subsistence on terms dictated by the government. But rather than sounding a clarion call that an all-out assault on the nation is underway, the attempt is made to mollify the American people with assurances that although Barack Obama leans in the direction of bigger government, his ultimate concern is the wellbeing of the nation. In a June 7 fundraising speech in Palo Alto California, he echoed this platitude, mustering as much sincerity as possible and assuring the audience that he and his cohorts “Don’t want to tax all businesses out of business.” Over time however, the pattern has become too purposeful to be a matter of chance, and its noxious effects on the national character too consistent and unmistakable to be the result of sheer bad luck. This government is at odds with the America we knew and loved, and is daily setting the stage for its destruction. Forsaking its once glorious founding principles, the nation’s current direction is being forcibly changed by means that all too often exceed constitutional boundaries. And this degenerating course will get worse for as long as the American people allow it to do so. The outrage of a $17 trillion dollar national debt, a federal leviathan cloaked in fraud that relentlessly grows itself at the expense of the freedoms and prosperity of the people, and the continually encroaching specter of its Orwellian tactics which seek to suppress all opposition, clearly portends a monumental change in the fundamental character of America. And only by erasing any recollection of what the nation once was can such a bleak transformation be implemented. It is essential to the left that the American people be systematically divorced from their roots and heritage. Otherwise, the yearning for the former ways and limitless opportunities that were once accessible to an industrious people might overpower the empty promises of socialist utopia. It is crucial at this time for those on the right to understand where the real battle lines are drawn. Although the Democrat Party and liberalism are joined at the hip, it does not follow that the conservative movement enjoys a corresponding relationship with the Republicans. Admittedly, it is a favorite tactic of liberals to make such a presumption, and then project the insipid posturing of GOP “moderates” onto conservatism in general. Nevertheless, the mere presence of an “R” by the name of an office holder does not a conservative make. In the ongoing debate over amnesty for possibly twenty million illegal aliens, the wholesale collaboration of Senator Marco Rubio (R.-FL) has been touted by liberals on Capitol Hill, and in the media, as “proof” that conservatives are in agreement with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D.-NY). Rubio has descended to the point of accepting Democrat opposition to securing the border until after amnesty is implemented, which means that border security has been completely discarded. Once thought to be a rising star in the GOP, Rubio so completely betrayed the conservative base that, many on the right would find it impossible to ever again support him. At best, he might follow in the shoes of John McCain or Bob Dole, and rise quickly as the Republican Party’s “presumptive” nominee for the presidency, only to be trounced in the general election. This situation is another sad example of a potential leader on the right who has been enticed into believing that he could establish common ground with a political movement that has, as its end goal, the cultural obliteration of the nation. Marco Rubio is certainly not the first conservative-leaning Republican Senator to accept the notion that his Democrat opponents are sincerely motivated towards the best interests of the country. However, his lapse into this mire has been among the most grimly spectacular. Just as Marco Rubio’s allegiances are increasingly jaded, so are the actual motives and convictions of others claiming to be on the “right,” but who regularly recoil and retreat from direct confrontation with the liberal political apparatus. Americans are fully cognizant of the menacing presence of the Internal Revenue Service, and of the looming threat of government agencies meddling with their most private information. And in light of the recent scandals, they will not accept empty assurances from either side of the aisle that nothing bad actually occurred. Nor will reasonable people on Main Street interpret assertions of Barack Obama’s “innocence” in the present cavalcade of scandal as anything but an unwillingness of fellow career politicians to hold him accountable. This is the man who regularly sat in the pews under the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright for twenty two years, and yet claims never to have heard any of the venomous anti-Americanism which Wright incessantly spews. Whether his professed disassociation from all of the outrages coming to light in D.C. is excused by his accomplices on the left as mere naive ineptitude, or as detachment from his responsibilities, as asserted by some on the right, his past governing practices demonstrate a clear and purposeful intention to overcome annoying obstacles, including the Constitution, by any means necessary. In certain ways, he has done the conservative movement an enormous favor by delineating between left and right with such stark clarity that the people can no longer be lulled into believing that “me too” Republicans have their interests at heart. From this time forward, the only Republicans whose voices will resonate in the Heartland are those willing to brave the firestorm of the D.C. establishment while courageously maintaining their conservative values. Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

America Will Pay a Price for President Obama’s Inaction in Syria

Barack Obama’s appointments of Susan Rice as national security adviser and Samantha Power as ambassador to the United Nations have naturally triggered speculation about changes in foreign policy.

Rice and Power have been proponents of humanitarian military intervention, a course that Obama followed, gingerly, in Libya — “leading from behind,” as one of his aides put it.

But of course that didn’t work out so well. The murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi last September showed that terrorists have a free hand in Libya — even if the president and Rice, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, managed to mislead Americans during campaign season by suggesting the attack resulted from a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video.

After Libya, Obama seemed without appetite to intervene in the much more strategically important Syria. It borders both Israel and Iraq. Under Bashir Assad, it has been an ally of Iran and of the terrorist group Hezbollah, which has held sway in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Getting a Syrian regime that would end ties with Iran would be very much in America’s interest. Getting a regime dominated by Islamist terrorists and inclined, unlike Assad’s, to launch military attacks on Israel would be very harmful.

Obama expected that Syrian President Bashir Assad would be ousted quickly, as the leaders of Libya and Egypt were. That expectation was widely shared, but history shows that things don’t always work out as leaders expect.

In frustration, Obama called for Assad’s ouster. But he has declined to declare a no-fly zone over Syria, as Bill Clinton did over Serbia and Iraq, and has declined to provide aid to democratically inclined Syrian rebels.

To be fair, it’s hard to identify such people. There are risks to any intervention, as Americans learned in Iraq. The president was faced, as presidents often are, with no easy or clear choices.

Today, two years after the rising against Assad, and after some 80,000 Syrian deaths, the options look even more unpalatable. The dominant rebels seem increasingly hostile to our interests, and the Assad regime may be on the verge of military victory.

But in retrospect Obama seems to have followed the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s advice. He has spoken loudly and wielded a very tiny stick.

For this he seems likely to pay no great political price back home. Polls show he gets negative ratings on many domestic issues — especially health care — and is being hurt by the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the Justice Department’s subpoena of press phone records. But on foreign policy, his ratings are still positive.

Few Republicans have shown the stomach to call for a more muscular policy in Syria. They seem to recognize that most Americans, and most Republican voters, have no stomach for much in the way of military interventions after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republican voters and politicians did support George W. Bush’s efforts there. But when Bill Clinton was president, many Republican politicians and voters opposed his actions in Serbia and Kosovo. Bush himself promised a more “humble” foreign policy in the 2000 campaign.

And House Republicans did not, as Obama expected, give in to his demands for higher taxes and were willing to let the sequester defense cuts go into effect, instead. Their constituents do not seem to mind.

The nation seems to be going through one of those periods where Americans are sick and tired of military involvement and prefer to let conflicts fester in far-off lands of which they know very little.

Revulsion at the horrors of World War I led to a period of isolationism starting under the Republicans in the 1920s and reaching a high point in the first years of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency.

The Democratic Party, which had been the more hawkish party from 1917 to 1967, became the more dovish party after its opposition to the Vietnam War, even though the conflict was escalated by Democratic presidents and de-escalated by Republican Richard Nixon.

Eventually American leaders and the American people come to realize that non-intervention has a price. Franklin Roosevelt led America to victory over Nazi Germany and Japan. Ronald Reagan led America to an almost bloodless victory in the Cold War.

Obama seems likely to continue his policy of inaction in Syria, for which America will probably pay a price — if not immediately, then some time in the future.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



Wake Up! Our Freedom Is in Jeopardy

This is a critical time in American history. I think we all know that something big is happening in America. The steady stream of news out of Washington the past couple weeks is just a fresh reminder of this. We are learning more about how far our Department of Justice went in digging through the phone records of members of the press. We are also learning about how our own government targeted conservative groups by delaying or denying their tax-exempt status. And we are all waiting for the other shoe to drop on Obamacare — the rate increases, the religious liberty violations and the bloated government bureaucracy that it will surely bring. This is troubling stuff, but it’s just more evidence of President Obama’s real agenda.

A little more than five years ago, when Barack Obama was running for president, he said something to a private audience about my state of Pennsylvania that foreshadowed this agenda. He told this group in San Francisco that the people of western Pennsylvania “cling to guns or religion.” This quote was a slap of derision to faithful Christians and believers in the Second Amendment. At the time, we all saw it for what it was, but I don’t think we saw it for what he really meant. I think it goes deeper than that. Obama, in this last campaign, said he wanted to “transform America.”

What is really happening now as we hear more about gun control, tax increases, Obamacare and same-sex marriage is a debate about who we are as Americans. America is not like most other countries in the world. Most others countries in the world are based on some sort of ethnicity — France, Italy, Afghanistan, Russia. Not us. For Americans, it is a shared set of values. We are Americans because of what we hold together as a belief structure. So when Barack Obama says he wants to “transform America,” he wants to transform that basic set of core beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence — the words that bring us together which we all know and often hear repeated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That’s America.

So when Barack Obama says he wants to transform America, what does he mean? There was another revolution that went on, right about the same time as the American Revolution and the signing of the Declaration of Independence — the French Revolution. The French Revolution was eerily similar to the American Revolution, but there was a significant difference. The French Revolution was also to overthrow a king, yes. The revolutionaries’ guiding words were equality, liberty and fraternity or brotherhood — not paternity, fatherhood. That is, in France, the belief was not that rights come from a Creator. Instead, the other revolution was a secular, godless, anti-clerical revolution. Churches were burned; clergy were killed. It was a rejection of God.

Barack Obama’s vision for America is the same vision that has been running wild for two centuries in Europe. All of Western Europe is now a descendent of the French Revolution. Churches there are empty. It is a secular culture and a dying culture. Europeans don’t have rights, other than the rights the government decides to give and occasionally take away. American liberals like to look to Europe and say, “Look at the gun-control laws there.” Well, how about looking at the free speech laws there, or the other freedoms? They don’t have the freedoms we do, because they don’t have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution we have. So when Barack Obama says he wants to transform America, and he looks down his nose at people who “cling” to their guns and their Bible, he understands that the critical transition America has to make is to reject the Declaration, to reject that living, breathing document of the Constitution.

We are at a critical time in America because the transformation that Barack Obama has talked about is actually happening. Those on the left live this battle every minute of the day. They do it in their schools, in their homes, in their church, at work. They are constantly pushing their agenda, and they are marginalizing anybody and everybody who disagrees with them. And now it turns out many in the federal government are doing it, as well. Positions that have been the bulwark of American civilization are now the “fringe.” You must, in every aspect of your life, understand the battle that is before us — because they do. You ask what you can do? Be as passionate as they are about what you love about this country.

Rick Santorum is a co-founder of Patriot Voices and the author of “American Patriots: Answering the Call to Freedom.” To find out more about Rick Santorum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at


One Man’s Hitler Fascination

Here’s a story you probably haven’t heard, unless you read Drudge or Breitbart. The Independent in the U.K. has published a story (from which I pull freely), as have a couple of Jewish outlets. That’s all I can find. You tell me if it qualifies as “news” that the “news ” media should be covering.

It involves a young man who would someday become one of the best-known and most powerful men in the world. A new book is out. It explores recently uncovered diaries kept by this young man. The journal entries document his fascination with Adolf Hitler and Nazism.

This young man traveled to Germany three times between 1937 and 1945. Clearly he admired the Germans — and that includes the racial imperatives of Nazism. The Independent reveals this entry logged after he visited the Rhine in 1937:

“Very beautiful, because there are many castles along the route. The towns are all charming which shows that the Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to their Latin counterparts. The Germans are really too good — that’s why people conspire against them — they do it to protect themselves.”

By today’s standards, that sentiment is clearly racist. It glorifies Aryans as “superior” to brown people. (If you doubt me, contact your local La Raza office, read them that passage, and solicit a comment or two.)

This young man wrote as well: “I have come to the conclusion that fascism is right for Germany and Italy. What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?” His travelling companion, Lem Billings, would later state that the young man was “completely consumed by his interest for the Hitler movement.”

The young man would return to Germany after the war, in 1945, and after visiting Hitler’s famous “Eagle’s Nest” mountain-top retreat, would write that, “Anyone who has visited these places can imagine how in a few years, Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures that ever lived. There is something mysterious about the way he lived and died and which will outlive him and continue to flourish. He was made of the stuff of legends.”

This man was 20 in 1937. It is undeniable that any pro-Nazi sentiments that might have existed in his youth — his father was a public apologist for Hitler — evaporated with time. Still, this man was one of the most prominent men of the 20th century. How could this not be of interest to the media?

You can hear the explanations. They are what the press had to say to justify not reporting the late Senator Robert Byrd’s membership in the KKK.

It’s not news. He was young and naive. This is in some respects true. There is no “hard” news here, but how often do we find news reports about a prominent person’s past? George W. Bush for one would find this curious. How many stories — hundreds? — were filed about his wild partying days at roughly the same age?

It’s not news. These clearly were not his views during his public years. Again, a defensible position. Yet when former Senator Trent Lott said in 2002 that when, as a young man at approximately the same time (1948) he’d supported the segregation agenda of Strom Thurmond, a position he’d come clearly to repudiate, there followed an avalanche of negative press and he was forced to resign in disgrace.

It’s speculative. Admiration does not necessarily an endorsement make. I’ll buy that one, too. Clearly when this young man evinced his admiration for the “superiority” of the Nordic races, he had no idea that Hitler would make this a justification to slaughter six million Jews. We could state just as emphatically that to declare Hitler would be “one of the most significant figures that ever lived” is, in fact, accurate. He was “the stuff of legends” — and so was Nero.

But what if this man’s name was Ronald Reagan? None of this would apply. Youthful ignorance would be no excuse. A man of his historic importance? Admiring the “superiority” of Nazism? You betchum we’re going to cover it!

Taken further, they would argue, Who are we to declare these views had no impact on his thinking? After all, in some circles, his name is synonymous with radical right, even fascistic, leanings.

Most importantly, the news media would tell us, It is precisely because it is speculative that it should be reported. At best, it’s a simple curiosity, at worst, a bombshell of Nagasaki proportions. Don’t the American people deserve to be told, and shouldn’t they be allowed to judge for themselves?

If this young man’s name was Ronald Reagan, it is undeniable that this new book would be a top-shelf media story everywhere. But his name wasn’t Reagan.

It was John F. Kennedy.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at