The Hollywood Left Hijacks Lincoln…Again

Reprising their anti-Israel screed in Munich (2005), Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner are at it again in their widely acclaimed new best picture nominee, Lincoln. The film itself is refreshingly free of wild leftist sucker punches, except for a bizarre rewriting of history that left two Connecticut Congressmen on the wrong side of the 13th Amendment banning slavery. But that doesn’t mean that its creators won’t spin the story of Barack Obama as a replay of Lincoln’s life.

The latest move in that direction came this week when Kushner, an Israel-hating radical leftist, told Charlie Rose that Barack Obama’s big win in 2012 signified the end of the “Reagan era ideology.” He stated:

And you know I consider myself a person of the left. And — and I have left impatience with the pace of change and I am aware that people suffer terribly while they`re waiting for change to happen. The most vulnerable people suffer the most terribly. And I’m a gay man and I`ve been waiting a long time for, you know, full enfranchisement and I`m still not there. But watching this President and reading about that President, I really began to think long and hard about the processes of electoral democracy and the pace of change in an electoral democracy and what’s possible, you know.

This is typical stuff from the triumphalist left, which believes that each electoral victory is an irreversible step in the progressive march to the communitarian sea.

But it’s Kushner’s hijacking of history to push his agenda that’s truly offensive. Kushner has stated that Barack Obama’s cynical embrace of gay marriage – an announcement perfectly timed to win him plaudits and campaign cash from gays and lesbians in Hollywood, even though Obama continues to stand against the federalization of gay marriage – was “Lincolnian.” Kushner continued:

I mean he started out in ’08 saying I don’t believe that marriage should be — I believe marriage is between a man and woman but I’m evolving. And that was clearly code to anybody with a brain saying, you know, of course I believe in same-sex marriage. The constitutional law scholar, he understands the difference.

Well, no. Obama never said that traditional marriage was unconstitutional. He still has not. In fact, he opposes making marriage a constitutional issue at all. Yet Kushner continues this rampage through historical rewriting: “I think it was handled with absolute strategic and moral perfection. It arrived at exactly the right moment. As my husband said to him tonight, it was a life-changing moment when the president of the U.S. said that.”

That’s not the only comparison Kushner has made between Lincoln and Obama:

Watching the Obama presidency through the lens of Lincoln has been a transformative thing for me. I think Barack Obama is a great president. I won’t say that he’s as great as Lincoln. I don’t know if there’ll ever be a president as great as Abraham Lincoln. But I think Obama inherited a mess as formidable as the mess that FDR inherited when he came into Washington during the Great Depression. Progressive people have not been patient enough, and thoughtful enough, in our criticisms of him. I feel it’s been a blessing to be thinking about Lincoln the whole time. Lincoln reminds you that great good can come from compromise, and always from politics.

Obama is not a compromiser; he’s never passed a budget, and Obamacare was a partisan farce. Nor is he in Lincoln’s league in terms of the challenges he has faced. After all, is there any challenge to screwing up a recovery so badly that it marks the worst economic recovery in American history, then being feted by a lapdog media? And where’s the Lincolnian leadership in campaigning around the country without a shred of political maneuvering back home to care for the needs of Americans?

Hollywood has done its part to interpret Barack Obama as a great president, the same way they rewrote FDR into a dynamo of economic genius. If George W. Bush were still president, Lincoln would never have been made; no one in Hollywood would have tolerated the comparison, even inadvertent, between Bush and Obama. But Obama’s record is substantially worse than Bush’s in virtually every area, and Bush was no great shakes. The difference? Obama’s a far-left radical. And the Lincoln project is designed to achieve the same goal Barack Obama tried to achieve with his second inaugural address: hijacking American history and rewriting it to fit leftist narratives.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Tiberius

    Well seems Tony Kushner and Steven Spielberg can join Oliver Stone in the historical revisionism department.

    • just askin'

      which one of 'em is lucky pierre I wonder?

    • Nicholas

      This is why, as a scientist, I have disdain for lawyers and un-objective journalists.

      This entire website is what I'd expect from someone whose idea of the advocacy of truth is to have two teams get on opposite sides and pull, a conceptual tug-of-war over the emotionally-driven, statistically illogical psyche of a jury or of a body of voters.

      It disgusts me and is why our nation suffers scientific incompetence in the face of industrialization.

      • patron

        Our nation hardly suffers scientific incompetence. The only other society which compares are multiple nations of Western Europe.

        Scientific experiments and measurements does not apply to politics, whose major problems today are fraud and lack of standards.

        • Nicholas

          Our nation is near the bottom of the list in performance in science on standardized testing.

          Statistically measurements most assuredly do apply to politics; I think a political "scientist" and the social sciences would disagree with you, sir.

          Moreover, where statistics fall short of describing something politically, that is no permission slip to cast-off all reason, which is the fundamental utility in science.

          • Nicholas

            That is, I should say, of industrialized nations. Also, to be "second [only] to multiple nations" means you aren't second. If you're second to, say 16 nations, that puts you at 17th out of 25 of the most industrialized nations in standardized testing on science, a study I'm looking for on the web now.

        • Nicholas

          Here you go, and it's worse than I expected: we scored 17th in the natural sciences and 25th (very bottom) for mathematics, the foundation of science.

          Honestly, sir, get your facts straight.

      • LugNut

        Are you the Unabomber's acolyte?

        • Nicholas

          No? I'm an american acolyte who is realistic about the philosophical criteria by which you evaluate an argument and the statistical criteria by which you evaluate the performance of one's country.

          I want America to succeed just as much as you do, man.

          • tagalog

            Why are you an acolyte and not a leader, or at least one who stands on his own?

      • tagalog

        What sort of scientist are you?

        Why do you have disdain for lawyers and the "un-objective" journalists?

        Lawyers do different things from what scientists do, using different intellectual tools.

        "Un-objective" journalists are long-cherished parts of our news reporting system. Just have a little look into the adventures of John Peter Zenger. It is the soi-disant "objective" reporter who is new. And whose "objectivity" should be distrusted on the visceral level.

        • Nicholas

          I'm a physicist and mathematician with degrees in both.

          Only bad lawyers make appeals to emotion ie. that "other" intellectual faculty you're referring to, which is my source of disdain; the good ones advocating truth and proper analysis use reason, which is one in the same with science. Article's throughout this website all attest to which of the two types of advocacy you have here.

          I would certainly agree that journalists are valued: the objective ones. The un-objective ones, as I said before, add clart and throw sand in the eyes of viewers, forcing them to muddle through their filth and pick and choose which testimony is fact and which is inserted opinion. But yes, objective journalists are certainly valuable.

          • Nicholas

            And don't insert some paltry argument about the fact that nothing aside from mathematics (journalism included) is completely objective. We aren't talking definitive mathematical proofs being necessary when we say that reason ought be employed. Acting like that is what I'm saying is hair-splittingly revealing of an inability to argue with the major (& important) points I've made.

          • Nicholas

            And despite the fact that anyone smart enough to get as far as calling one's self an "attorney" must be able to see the divergence in reason-based and emotional-appeal-based argumentation, you see articles throughout this website titled ridiculous things like,

            "Useless Leftist Idiot to Give Useless Medal to Slightly Less Useless Leftist Idiot"

            It's like, really? I understand they are different articles, different authors, but for Christ's sake the sentiment is universal here.

          • tagalog

            Nearly every hypothesis in science is based upon guesses, presuppositions and biases themselves. Most of them are wrong. The value of science is to provide a method by which their validity can be tested.

          • tagalog

            You obviously have no understanding of the role of the attorney. By the way, the tem "attorney" means "to attorn to," or to take a side. "Attorney" is not just a fancy title that lawyers take for themselves; it describes what a lawyer does. The term "lawyer," like the term "sawyer," is a craft-oriented term that means "one who works with the law," just as "sawyer" means "one who works with the saw."

            The attorney is only one part of the search for truth. The truth is determined by the "finder of fact," which can be eitther the judge or the jury, and NEVER (I say again NEVER, repeat, NEVER) the attorneys for either side. The crux of legal disputes is nearly always what really has happened; that's the truth part of the legal dispute. The job of an attorney is not to appeal to emotion particularly (although that might be part of his job); the job of an attorney is to make an effective argument for his client. The best legal arguments, the ones that are remembered for their compelling power, usually eschew emotional appeals and rely on cogent appeals to reason.

            On the other hand, in considering the value of a sentiment-oriented argument, you might consider the sentimental makeup of the argument against segregation in the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education. One of the most telling arguments against that decision is that it is not based on real science or reason. But that is not the mainstream view among lawyers, as most lawyers understand that the most telling argument against segregation is the emotion of revulsion that reasonable people feel when they consider the consequences of segregation, once they are openly disclosed.

            The truth is not the central issue in any legal dispute anyway. The issue in all legal disputes is whether or not one side or the other in a dispute is legally permitted to do what they have done or propose to do. The truth is only partly valuable in making such a determination. You are judging lawyers by scientific and biased standards that have nothing to do with what lawyers actually do.

            Non-objective reporters are the mainstream in journalism and always have been. If you don't like them, don't read them; that's what people have always done in the past. No reason not to continue that practice – it encourages a good sense of discrimination.

          • tagalog


    • Jacobite

      Perhaps there is another 'dot' to be 'connected' among Kushner, Spielberg, and Stone?

  • AdinaK

    Hollyweird is joined at the hip with the Dem machine, inside and outside Washington. That "science" has been settled.
    In this regard, the fact that they have also become cultish devotees of "The One", explains the Lincoln hijack too. After all, why not aim for the heavens –

    Presenting, the "cult of personality"….

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

  • AnOrdinaryMan

    In the last paragraph: "No one in Hollywood would have tolerated the comparison…between Bush and Obama." Shouldn't that read, "…between Bush and Lincoln?"

  • Lee Poteet

    The problem with this whole article is that Lincoln was and remains "the Great American Lie" in that he was neither a 'great' nor a 'good' president, but one who worked to destroy the Constitution and the Union as it had been envisioned by the framers. He was the core cause of the death of over 600,000 Americans to retain, not the Union, but the tax revenues from the Southern states which at that time supplied 85 to 90 percent of all Federal revenue. Southerners knew that their money was being hijacked to enrich the railroad barons and the Wall Street bankers while the North and the West contributed little or nothing to the cost of the country. Lincoln's war may have freed the slaves – it was not Lincoln – but the end result was to make us all the slaves of the Federal government which has gradually worked to deprive us of more and more of our liberties.

    • @Brian_R_Allen

      Well said, Sir!

    • LibertarianToo

      No, the result of the civil war was to end the outrage of slavery in our Republic, and to remind the South that all power does not reside in the private opinions of your local sheriff, and that you do not get a veto or a vote on the rights of other citizens.

      The southern economy was based on slave labor. Their money was never "their" money -so it is pointless to come up with revisionist myths about its misuse.

      It is also ridiculous to blame the total number of war dead on the President of the United States of America. That was the necessary cost of defending our nation against the States that took up arms against it.

      • patron

        There was a more subtle way of abolition than bringing Bleeding Kansas back east and hanging every politician who did not agree.

        Lincoln under estimated the people who would be killed and drove many states which did not rely on slavery into the Confederacy, who simply did not want a war to be fought in their state.

        If he wasn't assassinated, he would rank rather low.

        • tagalog

          Everybody underestimated the number of people who would be killed. Everybody expected the Civil War to be over by Christmas 1861.

        • HoR_Emperor

          More nonsense from another historical illiterate.

    • tagalog

      The core cause of the death of 600,000 Americans was the Civil War, which started without regard to who was the President.

    • Nicholas

      I smell a man lacking in statistics. A rotten poteet-o salad, if you will. ;)

    • HoR_Emperor

      I'm afraid you're a historical illiterate. You're spouting neo-Confederate revisionist nonsense with no relation to the facts of the time.

    • Ziggy Zoggy


      maybe Ron Paul could write the next Lincoln movie. I'm sure you would like that one better.

  • tagalog

    Kushner's still waiting for full enfranchisement? You mean he still doesn't have the right to vote? Or is he talking about something else? If something else, what is it? Does he somehow fail to have the same Constitutional rights that the rest of us have? Which ones is he deprived of? The right to marry? But he has exactly the same right to marry as the rest of us do. Didn't Eric Holder or the Supreme Court or somebody just recently say an across-the-board principle is Constitutional?

    If he's like other gay people, he's miffed because people don't generally endorse the gay lifestyle. But if he's not practicing that lifestyle, he's not harmed at all. And in any event people not liking him and his ilk doesn't quite rise to the level of disenfranchisement. It's just being unpopular; many people with various views over time have had to bear up under that burden without anyone thinking they have a claim under the Constitution.

    If this sort of twisted view of what American life and culture should be permeates his artistic work, then truly Mr. Kushner can be claimed to be distorting history when he writes about Lincoln, assuming he writes that view into his works that are grounded in historical reality.

  • Loyal Achates

    The Civil War was about more than slavery; it was about whether democracy as a system was worth protecting, or whether 'states' rights' trumped anyone's right to be equal under the law.

    And, hate to break it to you, but the South was on the wrong side of that fight.

    • Gee

      Not bad – but incorrect. There were several issues that lead to the Civil War. States rights had already been resolved under President Jackson and South Carolina.

      Slavery are an issue, but for most not enough to fight over on either side.

      Economic issues were also an issue. The South had financial control of Northern industry – but did not have the actual industry.

      Most important cause was Sectionalism. Prior to the war the US was referred to as These United States, afterward The United States. People considered their states to be more important than the country as a whole.

      General Robert E. Lee joined the Confederacy because he felt a greater loyalty to his home state of Virginia than to the United States as a whole (this was, at the time, a quite common sentiment). Lee actually turned down offers of a command in the Confederate armed forces before the secession of Virginia began to look inevitable.

      • tagalog

        Yes, slavery indeed "are"" an issue. It was enough to get the blacks to fight, to the point where 175,000 black dead contributed to that 600,000 (for both sides) toll of dead.

        • Ziggy Zoggy

          175,000 Blacks died fighting in the Civil War? Gosh, it's too bad the Tuskegee Airmen weren't there to save them.

          Oh, wait. That story was fake too.

        • Gee

          Typo was an issue – but if you bother to read the diaries of the soldiers on both sides – not very many were willing to fight over it. A vast majority of the Union soldiers never saw a negro prior to the war and expressed that they would not fight to free them.

          I am not expressing an opinion – simply stating what they said was their opinions

          • tagalog

            Well, as of 1863, there were at least 300,000 more to fight for Father Abraham without having to be conscripted.

      • HoR_Emperor

        The "economic issues" were all off-shoots of the central issue of slavery. Likewise the sectionalist issue and the state's-rights issue.

        Slavery was at the center of _everything_ in the Civil War, and everyone at the time knew it. The attempt to claim otherwise was a post-war invention of Southern apologists.

    • aspacia

      No, the Civil War revolved more than the slave issue or equality. Think Prohibition and the problems that caused and how it destroyed many lives. If gambling were federally outlawed it would destroy Nevada's economy. No, the CW was not about equality it was about economy. Actually, slavery would have probably died out if not for the Cotton Gin because caring for an expensive piece of livestock has to have economic payback. Yes, Loyal, most in the South viewed slaves as livestock.

  • tanstaafl

    I thought Lincoln freed the slaves and the Obamahdi is working to re-instate slavery.

    • aspacia

      Only the slaves in the Confederacy, not in the bordering slave owning states like Missouri.

  • clarespark

    The Democratic Party views itself as centrist, not leftist. They twisted history to turn Lincoln into a moderate, which I pointed out here:…. "LINCOLN the movie as propaganda. Hollywood is populist but "moderate."

    • tagalog

      The saddest thing about that is that the Democrat Party is about half-centrist the way we are today in this nation.

  • patron

    The left repeatedly defend Obama with the economic mess he inherited.

    We are in year 5 of Obama and the Democratic Washington majority with his first 2 years of full control.

    Obama was in the US Senate since 2004, where his party blocked housing reform 17 different times assuring the public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were success stories. Years before that he advocated for subprime housing through the community reinvestment act and sued banks to lower lending standards on behalf of ACORN.

    Lincoln was compassionate to the South and faced daily death threats and was eventually murdered. Obama sets out to destroy Conservatism to cement political advantage, spends millions of taxpayer dollars on luxurious vacation resorts, and will eventually retire to a luxurious Chicago home with a net worth of over $100 million.

    • beez

      He's going to retire to Hawaii, not Chicago. He's already bought his plantation there by gifts from his worshippers.

  • Stephen_Brady

    Did I sense a great impatience with democracy, on Kushner's part? Is he waiting for Comrade Zero to suspend habaeus corpus;, throw self-professed conservatives into the camps … without counsel or charges … indefinitely, for "re-education"? Is this how the Constitutional Republic ends in America … with an "inevitable evolution" to Communism? Is Kushner that impatient?

    Then, I suggest he emmigrate where he can "marry" any guy he wants, and leave America alone …

    • tagalog

      Ah, you've noticed the phenomenon that some people noticed in the 1930s, the last time leftism threatened our republic so seriously: "communism is democracy in a hurry." I forget who said it, but surely the quote can be found on the internet.

    • Jeff Bargholz


      you didn't imagine it. The scene where Lincoln justified the illegal increase of Presidential power in the name of morality was a subversive endorsement of Obama's immoral power grabs. It was gutter level psy-ops propaganda that also attempted to elevate Obama to Lincoln's stature. Snort!

      There were also a few other scenes that detracted from the overall quality of the film, in my opinion.

      The opening scene where the White Union soldiers were stuttering ignoramuses while the sanctimonious Black soldier was eloquent and educated was contrived at best. The lecture he berated Lincoln with was a lame allegory for the same crap we hear every day from leftists and Black racists about Whitey being an oppressor and Blacks being legitimately aggrieved and enraged.

      Republican Thaddeus Stevens was portrayed as a fanatical abolitionist because he had a "Black" mistress, rather than because of his personal Christian conviction.

      The scene where a Democrat Rep claimed that he would vote against the 13th Amendment because he was "prejudiced" and he only hated Blacks because his brother had died in the Civil War was ridiculous. It was a sleazy attempt to make the anti-Black bigotry and pro-slavery policies of the Democrats seem less virulent than they were, and by extension to pardon the current party for the manifold evil of its history. It also used the term "prejudiced" in the same idiotic and incorrect way that current leftists do. No 19th century man would have used it as a synonym for "bigoted."

      Worst of all for me was the portrayal of Lincoln as a frail old man. The biographies I trust describe him as having been physically robust and imposing.

      Frankly, I was surprised that I enjoyed the rest of the movie as much as I did. With Spielberg and Kushner as the creators I hadn't expected much. The folksy tales Lincoln used to communicate with were excellent and Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln was likewise excellent. Even the direction was good, and I consider Spielberg to be one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood.

      Yeah, the movie was subversive, but it was also very good.

  • EssEm

    I endured the film because I was promised dinner afterwards. (Typically, anything that Rebs Spielberg and Kushner are involved with I do not bother with. I already know what the catechism lesson will be.) I did note, however, that while the Whites –both good guys and bad guys– were fleshed out as complex and vivid characters, the Blacks are all cartoons, one-dimensional pious holy cards on a very narrow range from righteous anger to noble endurance, all designed to make White (men, above all) look bad. As I said, the catechism lesson was as expected.

    • Jeff Bargholz


      I agree. Blacks are typically portrayed in Hollywood the way leftists believe they are, rather than the way they really are-real people with differing opinions and experiences.

      This movie was no different.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    The REAL Lincoln:
    In the Foreword to DiLorenzo's book, Walter E. Williams,
    ….a syndicated columnist and professor of economics at George Mason University,
    …..backs DiLorenzo's case by claiming that "Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery," and adds that he "defended slave owners’ right to own their property" by supporting the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

    See- The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War is a biography of Abraham Lincoln written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2002.

    The biography differs from orthodox history books.

    He argues that Lincoln's views on race exhibited forms of bigotry that are commonly overlooked today (See Abraham Lincoln on slavery).

    DiLorenzo also argues that Lincoln instigated the American Civil War not over slavery but rather to centralize power and to enforce the strongly protectionist Morrill Tariff;

    ~ similarly, he criticizes Lincoln for his strong support of Henry Clay's American System.

    • HoR_Emperor

      That book's a joke. Utter nonsense un-moored in any kind of evidence or historical fact, written by a Libertarian crackpot.

  • Zombee

    The reality of Lincoln is not what is taught in the propaganda mills called public schools or in Spielberg's fairy tail propaganda films . The reality of Lincoln is dark and sprinkled with historical fraud. The pollution of our true history is at it’s highest levels in everything that surrounds Lincoln and his reign. Lincoln is America's martyred tyrant.

    Before Lincoln’s iron-fisted rule, there was nothing wrong or unconstitutional with states that wanted to secede from America. Lincoln ended that and made secession a form of high-treason and pretty much an act of war. Lincoln’s tyranny knew no bounds.
    One of the most horrific examples of Lincoln the tyrant is when he suspended habeas corpus in Maryland and areas of the Midwest in 1861. Lincoln also jailed thousands of Americans who he felt were going to vote for Democratic candidates His blood-lust also affected the Sioux Indians in what is considered the largest mass hanging in American history.
    Lincoln is often regarded as a hero to blacks and a man who fought for civil liberties and upheld the Constitution and the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln was a racist, a tyrant and only out for his own interests and agenda.

    • Jeff Bargholz


      your alias is apt. You really are a Libertine zombie.

    • Gee

      Sorry but history shows that you are wrong. South Carolina attempted that trick in 1832 in the Nullification Crisis. President Jackson sent US troops to South Carolina and announced he would hang every single South Carolina government official for treason in 1833.

      The issue was already settled long before President Lincoln. You do not know American history in the least.

  • Dave Templeton

    It is pretty sick to compare Lincoln and Obama. Obama has replaced Carter as being the worst president in the history of the country and undoubtedly the worst cabinet imaginable. I often wonder when Obama will nominate treasonous Hanoi Jane to a cabinet post!

  • bryce armstrong

    I love listening to you complain about the Dems "twisting" history for their political gain. Arnt you the ones who turned Martin Luther King into a right-wing conservative gallantly fighting Marxism? Hasnt it ever occurred to you that Liberals LOVE Abe Lincoln because he was the first fascist in American (if not world) history?

    • aspacia

      MLK Jr. was a Republican.

  • @historyscoper

    Like Obama, Lincoln was a mystery man, and since he was assassinated maybe we'll never know who really controlled his puppet strings. Still, scoping the entire US Civil War from start to finish gives the perspective to understand minor details. Do it free with the Historyscoper's US Civil War Historyscope:

  • Jake Tobias

    I have not seen this movie yet. But the claim Lincoln was the first big government president, has been around for decades. Not to mention that the civil war was not really about slavery. Not new by a long shot. In fact, I've been hearing these claims most of my life, long before I ever heard the word libertarianism. Or deconstructionism.

    I think Lincoln really was the first big government president. I also think the south was undeniably on the wrong side. Whether a war was necessary to end it or not, is debatable. My favorite movie about the civil war is "Glory." A movie Morgan Freeman perhaps should see again. Or even Hollywood. And my understanding is, the main reason for the unreal casualties was the development of riffling in firearms. And a command which was slow to adapt, or develop new tactics.

    I don't think Lincoln was a war criminal, or Bush. Bush needed no other reason to get Saddam, than the fact he was Saddam. Hoorah! The same with Bin Laden. As far as Obama goes, he is delusional. He is clearly, undeniably, hellbent on making us all debt-slaves to a government that will not stop itself from growing, or becoming increasingly dictatorial. I think the idea of Lincoln being a secret vampire hunter, has been flipped on its head with Obama as the vampire.

    Too bad Wesley Snipes character Blade, is not real. Or that he is serving time for tax evasion.

    • @Brian_R_Allen

      …. the "civil war" was not really about slavery ….

      Fair enough.

      But it was every bit as much "about slavery" as it was a "civil war."

      The traitor, Lincoln's, so-called "civil war" was an attack by the then remaining united States of America against the Constitutionally seceded, sovereign and independent, Confederate States of America.

      Lincoln may not have been the first fascist but he was, by any other name, a fascist!

      • Jake Tobias

        I should have mentioned more directly, I think the war was mostly about slavery. And that secession is constitutional. The deconstructionists have been with us a long time. And from what I've learned in recent years, education sounds like a nightmare now.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "And you know I consider myself a person of the left. And — and I have left impatience with the pace of change and I am aware that people suffer terribly while they`re waiting for change to happen. The most vulnerable people suffer the most terribly."

    Oh no. Victim alert. It is 2013 by the way for those that haven't been paying attention.

    "And I’m a gay man and I`ve been waiting a long time for, you know, full enfranchisement and I`m still not there."

    What the heck could you possibly want NOW?!