The greatest unreported achievement of President Trump is that he’s knocked income inequality — the most divisive, yet silliest, issue in recent years — off the radar screen.

Spurred on by the thuggish Occupy mob, the predecessor of today’s even more thuggish Antifa gang, income inequality became the main obsession of Democrats and other elements of the Left in recent years. Throughout the 2016 campaign, the double “i” words were on all leftish lips. But then Trump became White House-bound, and “income inequality” vanished from the public forum even quicker than “The era of Big Government is over.”

You can’t blame the Dems for ginning up a brouhaha over income inequality. It’s the perfect weapon to wield when class warfare’s your game and dividing the country’s your aim.

The most important thing to know about income inequality is that it was never about helping the unfortunate poor. Most people mired in poverty are far too busy trying to simply survive to join protest movements. The spearhead of this egalitarian drive was forged from people of privilege whose social level was stages above the mere middle class.

But, to be fair, the allies egging on the hordes against the 1 percent did have their grievances. Their rage was stoked by frustration — they’d never have that plush Manhattan apartment, Ivy League cred for their spawn or vacations in the south of France on an annual household income of only $250,000.

It just plain wasn’t fair that corporate CEOs, hedge fund managers and investment bankers could afford such trifles, while folks earning a quarter-million bucks a year who considered themselves middle-class stalwarts were shut out of the good life.

Similar outrage was evident each step down the line, as people who were financially well off howled over the status of those who had just bit more (and obviously didn’t serve it).

Complaining about income inequality was a game anyone could play except maybe Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett. It united the Democrats like no other issue.

The protesters who claimed to represent the 99 percent of American society constantly accused the 1 percent of greed. In actuality, the activists were guilty of envy, which is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins because it can corrode the soul itself.

The foolishness of getting angry over someone else’s wealth came home to me as I was mowing my lawn in the summer of 1996. I was minding my own business when my neighbor motioned me over to the fence. After I turned off my mower, he launched into a 15-minute diatribe about Michael Jordan’s new contract.

It was, indeed, a monster of a deal that boosted His Airness’ salary from $3.85 million to an unprecedented $30 million — giving him more money than the combined salaries of entire NBA teams. I listened politely and nodded occasionally but wondered why he was so mad. After all, not a penny of Jordan’s pay was coming out of our pockets. Then it hit me: He was a Democrat.

When I got back my mowing, I couldn’t help but chuckle. My neighbor and his wife were both teachers whose combined pay was three times my annual salary — yet he was the one blowing his stack over a stranger’s good fortune.

Yes, income inequality, as an issue, has left the building, primarily because Democrats and the media are too busy raising a clamor over Trump, Russia and Melania’s stiletto heels. But while it’s gone, don’t expect a farewell tour.

It all boils down to envy, and that’s always in style for some people.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – In a move that should be a surprise to no one at this point, the Orpheum Theater in Memphis has pulled the 1939 film, Gone with the Wind, from its annual summer screening after 34 years, citing complaints from offended citizens.

In a statement to the New York Times:

Brett Batterson, president of the Orpheum Theater Group, said … “The Orpheum carefully reviewed all of them. As an organization whose stated mission is to ‘entertain, educate and enlighten the communities it serves,’ the Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of its local population.”

The slippery slope is now in our rear view mirror, folks.  We’re done here.

We can’t screen certain films because they are “insensitive to a large segment” of the local population?  Just imagine where this will now lead.  Let your mind wander and just imagine the films that could be offensive to any large group of people.  The list could be staggering.

I expect we won’t be seeing To Kill a Mockingbird on television or in libraries anymore, or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, or even Harry Potter, because certainly people might be offended.

Let me guess – these are probably the same people walking around in their Che Guevara t-shirts.

The merits of the film are long established and don’t need my small voice to vouch for it; it won ten Oscars including one for Hattie McDaniel who was the first black woman to win an Oscar.

Margaret Mitchell once said that the theme of her novel is survival.  “What quality is it that makes some people able to survive catastrophes and others, apparently just as brave and strong, go under?”

I’m not sure the history of our nation will survive censorship.

The point is less the film itself but that our selective outrage has moved from statues to film.  We truly are in Ray Bradbury’s world.  When will the book burnings begin?

As for The Orpheum I would have applauded them had they had the nerve to stand up to intimidation and rejected censorship.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

While the Fat Leonard scandal continues to rock the US Navy, and collisions put two US Navy destroyers out of the fight, the CNO asked his leaders to stand down their organizations for a day in what he called an operational pause. His basic message was that we’re taking casualties in “routine” operations that we’re supposed to be good at, and that’s a problem. For my organization, we stood down on Thursday, and my leadership team had some enlightening discussions with our Sailors.

If I had to speculate on what’s happening, I think the high tempo placed on too few platforms, coupled with old-school leadership mentality, is starting to break our toughness.

Continue reading “Building Tough Sailors”

Get your hammers and chisels out! Ready the bulldozers! Tear down the statues and remove the names of presidents who are considered “racists”!

Writing in The Huffington Post last year, Ibram Kendi, a professor at American University, provided the names of the most racist U.S. presidents. Kendi won the 2016 National Book Award for his analysis of racism in which he saw Angela Davis and the Black Panthers as the good guys.

I just want to make certain everyone knows just how crazy it could become. Here’s the list from No. 11 through No. 1:

No. 11. George W. Bush

Kendi’s rationale: No Child Left Behind Act and Katrina

No. 10. Calvin Coolidge

Kendi’s rationale: The Immigration Act of 1924 rationalized discrimination against Asians and restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe, severely restricted African immigrants and banned the immigrations of Arabs and Asians. “America must be kept American,” President Coolidge said during his first annual message to Congress in 1923.

No. 9. Dwight Eisenhower

Kendi’s rationale: President Eisenhower did not endorse Brown v. Board of Education and dragged his feet to enforce it. He “did not wage war against segregation. And he remains as much to blame as anyone for its persistence, for the lives lost fighting against it.”

No. 8. James Polk

Kendi’s rationale: President Polk waged the Mexican American War (1846-1848). “War propagandists framed the U.S. as bringing freedom and civilization to the backward Mexicans. From the war spoils, the U.S. seized from Mexico nearly all of what is now the American Southwest—a gargantuan land seizure that mirrored the ongoing violent seizures of Native American land and the ongoing violent seizures of Black labor.”

No. 7. Woodrow Wilson

Kendi’s rationale:  “Professor Wilson and then President Wilson unapologetically backed what he called the ‘great Ku Klux Klan,’ and championed the Klan’s violent disenfranchisement of southern African Americans in the late 19th century. President Wilson began the brutal two-decade U.S. occupation of Haiti in 1915, preventing Haitians from self-governing. And possibly most egregiously, at the Versailles Convention settling World War I in 1919, President Wilson effectively killed Japan’s proposal for a treaty recognizing racial equality, thus sustaining the life of European colonialism.”

No. 6. Franklin Roosevelt

Kendi’s rationale: “President Roosevelt’s executive order in 1942 that ended up rounding up and forcing more than 100,000 Japanese Americans into prisons during World War II is arguably the most racist executive order in American history.”

No. 5. Thomas Jefferson

Kendi’s rationale: He owned slaves. [Note: Kendi doesn’t mention his affair with a slave.]

No. 4. James Monroe

Kendi’s rationale: The Monroe Doctrine, which was aimed at protecting U.S. interests in Latin and South America, was used “as a rationalizing cord for U.S. intervention into sovereign Latin American states, including the toppling of governments unfriendly to U.S. interests. This Monroe Doctrine was as racist and devastating to Latin American communities abroad as the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was to indigenous communities at home.”

No. 3. Ronald Reagan

Kendi’s rationale: “President Reagan attracted voters through racially coded appeals that allowed them to avoid admitting they were attracted by the racist appeals.

“President Reagan took President Nixon’s racist drug war to a new level, and the mass incarceration of Black and Brown bodies accelerated…. Reagan stands on this list as the representative of all these mass incarcerating presidents in the late 20th century.”

No. 2. Andrew Jackson

Kendi’s rationale: President “Jackson stepped into the U.S. presidency as a wealthy Tennessee enslaver and military general who had founded and spearheaded the Democratic Party. Jacksonian Democrats, as historians call them, amassed a winning coalition of southern enslavers, White working people, and recent European immigrants who regularly rioted against abolitionists, indigenous and Black communities, and civil rights activists before and after the Civil War.”

No. 1. Andrew Johnson

Kendi’s rationale: “President Johnson offered amnesty, property rights, and voting rights to all but the highest Confederate officials (most of whom he pardoned a year later). He later ordered the return of land to pardoned Confederates, null and voided those wartime orders that granted Blacks forty acres and a mule, and removed many of the Black troops from the South.

“Feeling empowered by President Johnson, Confederates instituted a series of discriminatory Black codes at the constitutional conventions that reformulated southern states in the summer and fall of 1865. The immediate postwar South became the spitting image of the prewar South in everything but name—as the law replaced the master. These racist policies caused a postwar war since an untold number of Black people lost their lives resisting them.”

Here in Philadelphia, the city is debating whether to remove the statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo, who was the city’s top cop in the 1960s and went on to become mayor. Somehow lost in the debate is how poorly the city has done under African-American leadership, including the bombing of fellow African-Americans in 1985.

But there’s more. The Associated Press reports that there are other non-Confederate monuments that might be toppled. https://apnews.com/c8875d316f5f4c4bab4d48812cb7d253/In-dispute-over-statues,-where-do-you-draw-the-line

Christopher Columbus is a favorite target. But so is Peter Faneuil, whose name graces the colonial meeting place in Boston nicknamed the “Cradle of Liberty,” because he had ties to the slave trade.

Simply put, it’s clear that we need to get rid of the statues of all dead white guys who oppressed the lives of so many Americans! We could build memorials dedicated to Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and many others to replace the symbols of injustice.

It might be funny except more and more people actually think some of these are good ideas.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – The tragedy unfolding in Houston and surrounding areas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey is difficult to watch.  Forecasters are predicting flooding of “Biblical proportions” that will be ongoing throughout the week.  The devastation is hard to imagine.

The city of Houston accepted many refugees from Hurricane Katrina who are now reliving the nightmare.

As of Sunday afternoon, parts of Houston had taken on over 27” of rain; social media was filled with photos of flooded interstates, impassible roads, and desperate animals caught in the flood.

As the storm approached the coast as a Category 3 on Friday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott urged anyone who could evacuate to do so immediately. Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner on Friday tweeted “please think twice before trying to leave Houston en masse,” sending mixed signals to local residents.  For that, Turner is coming under fire by some.  The mayor defends his decision, saying that evacuation would have created a traffic nightmare.

By early Sunday, over 2,000 rescues had been executed as people went to their attics then to the roofs of their homes to wait for help.

Just as they did in the August 2016 Louisiana flooding, the Cajun Navy jumped into action and by Sunday afternoon The Texas Navy had been organized as citizen assistance became a critical component in the rescue efforts.  These citizen rescue groups coordinate with local officials and work with them rather than outside of them to maximize efficiency and to not hamper official rescues.  What the Cajun Navy is doing, still, in response to the Louisiana 2016 flooding has been amazing and now Texas is hopefully going to benefit from their experience and aid.

The Cajun Navy mobilized and headed to the Houston area Sunday afternoon.  If you want to listen in to the Cajun Navy as they work go here for instructions to download Glympse and Zello which works like a walkie-talkie.  You may need a password for the Zello Cajun Navy channel; if asked, the password is “help”.  You can go to the Cajun Navy page for more details.  I spent a while Sunday afternoon listening in as calls went out for fuel, gasoline, water, and baby formula in Dickinson, Texas. The coordination of the group is impressive to listen to, but chitchat is not encouraged.  You are asked not to speak unless you are actively rescuing, have a boat, or are mapping.

The Cajun Relief foundation set up a CrowdFunding site after the Baton Rouge floods last year that is still helping desperate flood victims when the federal government only fiddled and lagged in their response.  A similar site should soon be developed for Texas victims as soon as needs are assessed.

Within moments after the creation of the Texas Navy Facebook page, people began reporting locations of stranded people and animals.  A call went out for flat-bottom boats and soon volunteers from all over Louisiana and other areas began mobilizing to Texas.

Another Facebook group, Hurricane Harvey Animal Rescue, was formed for animal rescue and shelter needs.

A haunting image appeared on social media Sunday of women in a Dickinson, Texas nursing home, sitting helplessly as water rose around them. Many doubted the validity of the photo because it was so horrible, but the truth of the photo was confirmed and the women were airlifted to safety.

Late Sunday afternoon the city of Dallas made plans to open the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Convention Center to house another 5,000 evacuees in addition to the other shelters currently open in the city.

The flooding will be a problem even after the storm moves on, of course.  Rivers, creeks, and runoff will keep water levels high for some time throughout the affected areas.

There are ways that you can help from wherever you are.  Obvious organizations are the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.  But don’t forget the animal rescue groups that are transporting and housing animals, keeping them safe until they can be reclaimed by owners.  One of those is Austin Pets Alive and they could really use your donations.  NOLA has a growing list of hospitals, shelters, and charities that need help.

WFAA-TV streamed live on Sunday as school buses were mobilized to evacuate people from areas in south Texas from Galveston to Houston.

Early Sunday afternoon Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, a Level 1 trauma center, was being evacuated and was taking on water in the basement.  Houston Hobby Airport was closed until perhaps Wednesday as runways flooded.  George Bush International Airport also closed.  Thousands of travelers were stranded as all flights were cancelled.

KHOU news in Houston began flooding Sunday morning and had to evacuate the station; WFAA TV in Dallas began broadcasting KHOU’s ongoing coverage.

Meanwhile, New Orleans was bracing for up to 8” of rain from Harvey and Mitch Landrieu is still trying to get pumps up and running in the city after the last flood debacle a couple of weeks ago.  Mayor Landrieu held a press conference Sunday afternoon to assure residents that the city is ready for any flooding and reminded residents not to drive through flooded roads.

President Trump has announced that he will travel to Houston and other nearby cities on Tuesday.

Without question this has been and will continue to be a terrible disaster for some time to come. Rains will continue throughout the week and will begin moving toward north Louisiana by the end of the week.

Please continue to keep Texas and Louisiana in your prayers and donate where you can.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By John Ruberry

Of America’s largest cities only Chicago has a declining population. So far this year–as it was for all 2016–more people were murdered in Chicago than in New York City and Los Angeles.

Combined.

On the surface it seems that Chicago has the best government that money can buy. The Watchdogs of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that one-third of municipal workers of America’s third-largest city banked over $100,000 last year. Meanwhile, just 11 percent of Cook County workers–Chicago is the county seat–earn more than $100K. The numbers are similar for state of Illinois employees.

Thirty-six Chicago payrollers collected more than Mayor Rahm Emanuel last year.

Overtime run amok partially explains the problem. Generous campaign contributions from public-sector unions to politicians explains much more of it.

The median income for Chicagoans according to the US Census Bureau in 2015–the most recent year that is available–$63,153.

In Chicago it’s great to be part of the ruling class. But Chicago’s roads are crumbling, barely one out of four of its students in its government schools read at grade level, its bond rating is the lowest among major cities, and businesses lack confidence in Chicago and Illinois as a whole. If you are part of Chicago’s ruling class you might view high taxes as a downpayment on your next paycheck or your retirement, but Chicagoans endure the nation’s highest sales tax rate and they were slugged with the highest property tax increase in the city’s history to fund public-worker pensions.

Blogger on Chicago’s Northwest Side

Yet Chicago’s public pensions are the worst-funded among America’s biggest cities--at a rate of just 25 percent of its obligations. But the cruel joke may be on these well-compensated public-servants. Despite the strong pension protection clause in the Illinois constitution, a pension “haircut” seems unavoidable for retirees. Michigan has similar wording it its constitution, yet Detroit municipal retirees saw their pension checks cut after the Motor City declared bankruptcy.

Chicago’s decline and fall continues. But hey, at least some people for now are making a good buck off of the rotting corpse. Let the good times roll.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

More junk mail…this time, a letter from our Bishop asking for money in the annual Bishop’s Appeal.

During this last appeal, my high level of annoyance surprised me. I certainly don’t mind donating money to the church, and I’m old enough to understand that the Catholic Church needs money to keep the lights on and run overseas missions. But every year when the Bishop does his annual appeal, it just bugs me.

This week I finally realized why. It’s Cub Scout popcorn time, and my son and I were walking around so he could sell popcorn to the neighbors. We’re in a large neighborhood, so we don’t know everyone. At one home, the lady asked my son where he lived, and when he said that he lives up the street, she brightened up. “I love supporting my neighbors,” I heard her say.

And then a thought struck me: I couldn’t pick my Bishop out from a lineup of people (apparently it’s this guy). With the exception of the video we have to watch in church and Confirmation, I never see the Bishop. To me, he’s just some guy working at the cathedral. When my priest asks for money, I know him, but the Bishop, not so much.

I’m guessing the Diocese is struggling to gather money, because I get plenty of follow-up letters asking for more. I don’t think this is going to be effective long term, certainly not with the younger generation. The Diocese needs to understand that future generations are growing up donating to people. Websites like GoFundMe derive success from telling a good story that compels people to open their hearts and wallets. In stark contrast, the Bishop’s annual appeal lacks a good story, disrupts a Mass, comes once a year and from a person you don’t really know. Not a formula for success.


This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Catholic Church, or any other organization.

Check out my blog and be sure to donate to Da Tech Guy, because he has a way better story than I do!

I heard anecdotes about a man with a pro-life sign being assailed during the recent Boston demonstration/counterdemonstration, and then found that an Esquire writer tweeted a short video of the incident.    (Language alert.)

The guy was carrying a poster with photos of preborn human beings on the upper half of the poster, visible in the video. (I should add that these were not bloody-baby pictures. If there were any photos of aborted remains on the lower part of the poster, I didn’t see them due to the camera angle.) He was pursued – or as the Esquire writer put it, “made to part ways with his sign” – by masked assailants, who tore the photos off the poster one by one. Among the screaming voices was a woman’s, saying something that sounded like “I chose to have my baby but I’m glad I had a choice!”

At least that particular woman had the integrity to speak her mind without hiding behind a mask and without vandalizing anything.

In Pete’s coverage of the recent Boston demonstration/counterdemonstration,   he noted that the unifying factor among the disparate “counter” groups was anti-Trump sentiment to a greater or lesser degree. I don’t dispute that. I think that sentiment was accompanied by more than a dash of abortion advocacy, of a kind that was around long before Trump and will sadly be around long after he moves on.

I have no idea who the man with the poster supported for President; perhaps like me he’s at risk of being hashtagged #NeverTrump. Those masked hooligans who vandalized his sign didn’t care. The evidently harbored antipathy to the right to life and to anyone promoting it. Trump didn’t even need to be a factor for them.

That was one incident, involving relatively few people, in a place where tens of thousands of people had congregated for various purposes. Maybe the masked vandals who tore up photos of the preborn humans weren’t representative of the larger crowd. Then again, maybe they were.

Mayor and President alike tweeted approval of the day’s peaceful demonstrators speaking out against hate. It was a day for broad strokes, not fine details, so maybe incidents like the one I’ve described escaped the politicians’ notice.

But is it something other than hate when masked people carrying sticks menace a man holding a poster? Is it peaceful to rip up a sign someone’s holding, as long as no one sustains physical injury?  I’m pretty sure that if I, as a pro-lifer, were to tear up a sign held by someone, I’d be charged with simple assault under the laws of my state. (Rightly so, I might add.) Maybe the Boston police had to pick their battles, so to speak, and sign-ripping wasn’t a law enforcement priority the day of a mass rally. Understandable, from a tactical point of view. But I believe the Boston sign vandals got a pass that wouldn’t have been afforded to anyone tearing up a pro-abortion sign.

Readers, please take a moment to read Da Tech Guy’s pinned post, and then hit Da Tip Jar in support of independent journalism. Thank you!

Ellen Kolb is a writer and pro-life activist living in New Hampshire. Read more of her work at EllenKolb.com/blog.

If you’re looking for people to blame for the events in Charlottesville, you can add liberals to the list, particularly those in the ACLU and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ability to march in Charlottesville comes directly as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1977, with the ACLU arguing for neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors lived.

In the case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), the ACLU got the liberal bloc of the court to determine that the use of the swastika was a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protection. The court also ruled that the neo-Nazis, under the right of assembly in the First Amendment, could march through the predominantly Jewish city near Chicago.

As a reporter for Newsweek, I covered the Skokie story and found myself puzzled about the events back then. Today, as I teach media law, I still am rather puzzled why the neo-Nazis in Chicago and Charlottesville were allowed to protest. Here is some background on those events: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-neo-nazi-skokie-march-flashback-perspec-0312-20170310-story.html

On its website, the ACLU lauds its stance as “taking a stand for free speech.” Moreover, the organization notes: “The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others, the case has come to represent the ACLU’s unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group’s right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause.”

The ACLU says now that it will not defend people’s freedom of speech and right to assemble if they carry guns. I guess the Second Amendment doesn’t count anymore.

Nevertheless, here’s some of what is protected under the First Amendment:

–People can burn a flag.
–Burn a cross.
–Say “f***” in public but not on the radio.
–Curse a police officer.
–Use hate speech.
–Show sexual intercourse on HBO and the Internet but not on ABC.
–Call Marines homosexuals during a funeral as long as you are on a public sidewalk.

Many members of the liberal bloc on the U.S. Supreme Court supported these protections, while some, if not all, of the conservative bloc did not.

The argument usually follows the notion of the marketplace of ideas—a theory put forward by John Stuart Mills that all ideas should be allowed to be expressed because only those with the most validity will triumph. Furthermore, an arbiter of what constitutes improper speech might exclude disagreeable opinions.

Somehow, I think the founders may have had other ideas about what should constitute freedom of speech and right to “peaceably” assemble. The founders generally agreed that freedom of religion was the most important characteristic of the First Amendment, but there was a split when it came to other parts.

As the Heritage Foundation notes in its extensive background on the U.S. Constitution:

[John] Marshall and other Federalists argued that the freedom of the press must necessarily be limited, because “government cannot be…secured, if by falsehood and malicious slander, it is to be deprived of the confidence and affection of the people.” Not so, reasoned [James] Madison and other Republicans: even speech that creates “a contempt, a disrepute, or hatred [of the government] among the people” should be tolerated because the only way of determining whether such contempt is justified is “by a free examination [of the government’s actions], and a free communication among the people thereon.” It was as if half the country read the constitutional guarantee one way, and the other half, the other way.

The founding generation undoubtedly believed deeply in the freedom of speech and of the press, but then, as now, these general terms were understood quite differently by different people. Many people did not think about their precise meanings until a concrete controversy arose; and when a controversy did arise, the analysis was often influenced by people’s political interests as much as by their honest constitutional understanding.

When people argue that President Trump should be blamed for the actions of neo-Nazis, just tell them to read about Skokie and thank the liberals for providing the ability for wingnuts to speak and to assemble.

Remember the series of wistful articles the New York Times ran in 2008 to mark the 75th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich?

Me neither — because, of course, it never happened. But that’s not as crazy as it sounds considering the Times is running a series of stories under the banner of “Red Century” to mark the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution.

In case you’ve forgotten, the advent of Soviet rule in Russia ushered in an age of Communist terror whose death tally makes Nazism’s toll almost inconsequential in comparison. But that hasn’t stopped the Times from publishing reverential pieces written by the progeny of Reds who were active at home and abroad.

I have limited toleration for sanctimonious crap, so I rarely click on a link to a Times story. Still, I’ve skimmed a couple of the Red Banner features just to see how much Commie propaganda the paper will allow.

Then I stumbled on one story that I had to read all the way through: ‘s “My Grandfather, the Secret Policeman,” which was published July 31. www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/communism-policeman-jews-nazis.html  , a journalist whose work has appeared in The Atlantic, L.A. Review of Books and online, recounts the adventures of his Polish grandfather, Jakub, during and after World War II.

Himself the son of a Communist, Jakub established a name for himself as an anti-Nazi partisan during the war before joining the Polish secret police in 1945. Jakub was clearly a brave and clever man, and recounts his tale dispassionately. But while he doesn’t come out and praise Jakub’s cause, neither does he condemn it.

At the story’s end, seems to grapple with the realization that he hasn’t come to terms with his grandfather’s role in the grand scheme of history — nor given a full account of it.

“What does it mean to fight on the right side of the war, but the wrong side of history?” he writes.

“Depending on whom you ask today, my grandfather’s story is that of a partisan, a traitor, a hero or a spy. The revolution asked a terrible amount of those who served it. Those who resisted paid a similarly awful price. It left in its wake countless lives, like my grandfather’s, that cannot be compassed by a single line.”

Such a statement doesn’t make up for the many facts omitted from his story, starting with the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact signed on Aug. 23, 1939, which directly led to Hitler’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1. A secret protocol of the treaty called for the partition of Poland, with Germany getting the western portion and the Soviets the east. The Soviets invaded on Sept. 17 to grab their half of the spoils.

Also left out is what happened to Poland in the roughly 21 months of Soviet rule. Hundreds of thousands of Poles were deported to Kazakhstan, Siberia and other points east during the occupation. Even worse, more than 22,000 military officers, politicians, professors, priests and other civic leaders were executed in what is collectively known as the Katyn Forest massacres.

writes that the Nazis in 1939 captured his grandfather, then a Polish soldier, but he escaped and made his way to Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Curiously, he doesn’t explain why Jakub didn’t halt his flight in Soviet-occupied Poland instead of going hundreds of miles to the east. Maybe didn’t want to bring up all that awkward partition business and Nazi-Soviet hanky panky.

So says it depends on your perspective whether Jakub, a Soviet pawn, was “a partisan, a traitor, a hero or a spy.” Let me tell you about a couple of Poles whom I consider nothing but heroes.

My Dziadzia (grandfather) was barely out of boyhood when he came to America shortly after the turn of the 20th century. After World War I broke out, he attended a rally in Toronto featuring General Józef Haller, who called on Polish emigres to return to Europe and free their homeland. Stirred by emotion, Dziadzia signed up to join the Polish Legions on the spot.

From 1916 to 1918, Dziadzia fought against the Germans in France. The Polish Legions’ efforts alone may not have restored Poland as an independent country, but they played a part. Having done his job, Dziadzia returned to the United States and raised a family. He sent four sons, including my dad, to fight against Germany and Japan in World War II.

Meanwhile, the family he had left behind in eastern Poland didn’t fare as well as my and

I wish I could offer as many details about my grandfather as provides about his, but died when I was 4. All I recall are his smiles and kindness. While he passed on some stories to my dad, he didn’t like talking much about his cousins because it was too painful.

You could take the stories of my family and multiply them by thousands to get an idea of what happened in Poland during World War II. It’s too bad the New York Times will never run that story.

Update (DTG) Instalance, well done Mick, Welcome Instapundit readers, check out my 1st person coverage of events on the Boston common with video here.  See the data that proves the left’s “The south turned republican because of the civil rights act” meme false here and if you like what you’ve seen from Mick and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure my next paycheck ($370 to go) by hitting DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level