U.S. Soccer Agrees to Pay Men and Women Equally. Americans Agree Not To Watch Either One.

(How John Kerry won Afghanistan)


	In groundbreaking news, Soccer players, a game usually played by toddlers and angry America-hating leftists with purple

U.S. Soccer Agrees to Pay Men and Women Equally. Americans Agree Not To Watch Either One.

The pro-crime party <a href="https://pitchfork.com/news/new-york-state-senate-passes-bill-limiting-use-of-song-lyrics-in-court/">keeps on pro-criming</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		New York’s State Senate approved a bill Tuesday (May 17) that would limit prosecutors’ use of song lyrics and other forms of “creative expression” as evidence in criminal cases.&nbsp;Senate Bill S7527&nbsp;would not ban prosecutors from presenting lyrics or other material to a jury, but would require them to show that the work is “literal, rather than figurative or fictional.”

	
		The bill, which was sponsored by Senators Jamaal Bailey and Brad Hoylman, received&nbsp;public support&nbsp;from Jay-Z, Meek Mill, Killer Mike, Fat Joe, and Robin Thicke, among others. Before the bill can become a law, it must pass the New York State Assembly; a&nbsp;companion bill&nbsp;sponsored by Assembly member Catalina Cruz is pending before a committee and awaiting a vote.

	
		The bill, while in the works for months, comes as Atlanta rappers Young Thug and Gunna&nbsp;face RICO charges&nbsp;in Georgia in a case where their lyrics and music videos make up the bulk of the state’s evidence of criminal conspiracy. In the 2013 case&nbsp;Dawson v. Delaware, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to use protected speech as evidence, provided that speech is irrelevant to the case.

	
		The court&nbsp;declined&nbsp;to hear the case of Jamal Knox, a Pittsburgh rapper known as Mayhem Mal who was&nbsp;convicted&nbsp;on charges of terroristic threats and witness intimidation over lyrics in a 2012 song called “Fuck the Police.”&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	It is awkward when an entire genre based on violence whose members routinely engaged in violence toward each other and innocent people start pretending that they're engaging in fictional threats, not real ones.


	I usually err on the side of free speech, but a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/rap_song_that_threatened_police_officers_is_not_protected_speech_pennsylvan">recap&nbsp;the Mayhem Mal </a>case in a way that virtually no media outlet, which focuses on celeb rapper support, shows why it happened.

<blockquote>
	
		The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected a free speech claim by a rapper who threatened to kill two Pittsburgh police officers he identified by name in a video titled “F— the Police.”

	
		Using the name Mayhem Mal, Knox and another rapper threatened the officers who were scheduled to testify against them after arresting the pair on drug charges. The other rapper’s case was not before the court.

	
		One of the officers said the video was one of the reasons he left the force and relocated.

	
		Both officers are named, and Knox states in the song that the lyrics are for them. In one part of the rap song, Knox said, “I’ma jam this rusty knife all in his guts and chop his feet,” and, “Well your shift over at 3 and I’m gonna f— up where you sleep.” The song also suggests the rappers know the identity of a confidential informant and a have a plan to murder an informant with a Glock handgun.
</blockquote>


	This is what New York Senate Dems seem to driven to protect.


	Would such a law, clearly preferencing criminals of a certain culture, survive a Supreme Court test?

<blockquote>
	
		If the court found First Amendment protection for the video, Saylor said, “we would in effect be interpreting the Constitution to provide blanket protection for threats, however severe, so long as they are expressed within that musical style.”
</blockquote>


	It's a good question.


	If a criminal writes a death threat in words cut out from a newspaper, isn't that also an art project?


	The New York Senate Dem "F___ the Police" bill, "Establishes an assumption of the inadmissibility of evidence of a defendant's creative or artistic expression against such defendant in a criminal proceeding; requires the proffering party to affirmatively prove that the evidence is admissible by clear and convincing evidence."


	How are prosecutors going to prove that a criminal's communications aren't part of a creative project in an era where anything, from mutilated horses to a golden toilet to Banksy and rap can be considered art?


	There's no metric for art, which means anything is art.


	Drug dealers can freely send text messages brokering drug deals as long as they do it in rap form.


	I'm sure that this won't make New York an even worse hellhole.

NY Senate Dems Pass "F___ the Police" Bill Protecting Violent Rap Threats

The pro-crime party keeps on pro-criming.


	
		New York’s State Senate approved a bill Tuesday (May 17) that would limit prosecutors’ use of song lyrics

NY Senate Dems Pass "F___ the Police" Bill Protecting Violent Rap Threats

Former Mayor Bill de Blasio shouldn't have had a political career. Radicalism is not a problem in NYC, but even most radicals hate his guts. Bill de Blasio's combination of arrogance, incompetence, laziness and corruption contrived to make him widely hated across the spectrum.


	So of course he ran for president.


	After that fizzled, thought was given to running for governor and <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/bill-de-blasio-eyeing-run-at-newly-drawn-ny-seat-nadler-has-left-behind/">now the House</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Ex-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio told a state lawmaker he plans to run for New York’s&nbsp;newly drawn 10th Congressional district&nbsp;— the seat entrenched Rep. Jerrold Nadler is vacating to fight it out with former longtime ally Rep. Carolyn Maloney in the rejigged 12th.

	
		De Blasio&nbsp;considered a run&nbsp;for the NY-11 district – before the&nbsp;state’s redistricting maps&nbsp;were thrown out the first time – but then&nbsp;dropped his bid in February before it started.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	As the Post notes,&nbsp;Bill de&nbsp;Blasio&nbsp;blew a presidential and gubernatorial campaign. If he abandons a House run, what's left? City Council? Assemblyman? Dogcatcher?


	De Blasio's own Twitter feed is a mishmash of attacks and virtue signaling at the state and the federal level, barking about state gun laws and federal social media regulation as if his own online persona can't figure out which office he wants to run for and is just keeping all of his possible options open.


	It seems as if it might be kinder to take him off the street and give him some kind of job where a complete incompetent would be allowed to mismanage billion-dollar budgets and just misplace $800 million.


	Maybe Burger King or Starbucks?

Won't Someone Hire Bill de Blasio To Do Something?

Former Mayor Bill de Blasio shouldn't have had a political career. Radicalism is not a problem in NYC, but even most radicals hate his guts. Bill de Blasio's

Won't Someone Hire Bill de Blasio To Do Something?

Give Chesa Boudin some credit, the Soros DA is responsible for the deaths of a lot more Americans than his Weather Underground&nbsp;parents. This is why the counterculture lefties decided to <a href="https://sfstandard.com/criminal-justice/da-chesa-boudin-fentanyl-court-data-drug-dealing-immigration/">destroy the system from within</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Despite a surging fentanyl crisis that&nbsp;killed nearly 500&nbsp;people last year in San Francisco, the office of District Attorney Chesa Boudin did not secure a single conviction for dealing the deadly opioid for cases filed during 2021, according to a review of court data.
</blockquote>


	No drug dealer is illegal apparently.

<blockquote>
	
		Another big factor is the DA’s attention to offenders’ immigration status, which by law they are required to consider. Prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys point out that drug dealing convictions are grounds for deportation, and a substantial number of drug dealers in the city are Honduran nationals who could face deadly consequences if deported. The accessory charge still gives them and their families a path toward eventual citizenship.
</blockquote>


	So Americans have to die so that Honduran drug dealers can become citizens.

<blockquote>
	
		The DA’s approach is not winning many fans in the most-affected neighborhoods. “I know the horrors of being undocumented and selling drugs, but we can’t let our people continue to die,” said Rene Colorado, executive director of the Tenderloin Merchants Association.&nbsp;

	
		“My best friend died of a heroin overdose here in San Francisco, because I couldn’t help him. There have to be limits,” he said. “If you’re undocumented and selling fentanyl, guess what, you have to face the consequences. You have to do your time here in the States and you’re probably going to be deported.”&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	Not on Chesa Boudin's watch. Or on any Soros DAs watch.

<blockquote>
	
		In one example of using the “accessory after the fact” conviction for fentanyl dealing, a defendant was arrested and charged five different times from July 2020 through December 2021 for dealing fentanyl, heroin, meth and crack cocaine. According to court documents, evidence included a backpack with cash and “numerous” colorful plastic baggies of drugs. All five cases were consolidated for a January 2022 sentencing where he received two “accessory after the fact” felonies and served several months in jail.

	
		Another example in San Francisco involved a man with four separate drug dealing arrests last year between June and December. He was charged with selling fentanyl, crack, more than an ounce of meth and over 14 grams of heroin. His ultimate conviction was for two misdemeanors for&nbsp; “accessory after the fact,” and his sentence was two days in county jail, which he had already served.
</blockquote>


	Remember when lefties complained about California's "draconian" drug laws. Then go look at the bodies on the street. That's what the alternative looks like.

Americans Die of Fentanyl Overdoses as Soros DA Protects Foreign Drug Dealers From Deportation

Give Chesa Boudin some credit, the Soros DA is responsible for the deaths of a lot more Americans than his Weather Underground&nbsp;parents. This is why the

Americans Die of Fentanyl Overdoses as Soros DA Protects Foreign Drug Dealers From Deportation

It's official. Women don't exist and neither does "<a href="https://www.mediaite.com/weird/democratic-pro-choice-caucus-releases-language-guide-saying-choice-is-harmful-language/">choice</a>".

<blockquote>
	
		The House Pro-Choice Caucus has released a language guide with suggestions about what to say and not to say on the issue of abortion, including an admonition on the harmfulness of the word “choice.”

	
		In addition to “choice,” words deemed “harmful language” include “reduce abortion,” “safe, legal and rare,” “unwanted pregnancy,” “conscience clause/protections” and “back-alley abortions/coat hangers.”

	
		“Helpful language,” on the other hand, includes words like “decision,” “safe, legal and accessible,” “unexpected pregnancy,” “refusal of care/denial of care laws” and “criminalizing healthcare.”
</blockquote>


	This reeks of a focus group being convened on how to best market abortion to millennials.&nbsp;


	Why is the&nbsp;House Pro-Choice Caucus dumping "choice"?


	Choice, a key element in pro-abortion branding, is 'freedom' language. It's likely been concluded that freedom language is out of sync with an illiberal Left. And thus "choice" has been replaced with the illiberal "decision" which was probably determined to be far more empowering.


	The implication is that abortion is not a choice, that there aren't two sides or options, but an absolute decision. Abortion, the message goes, is not optional.


	But nothing under the Left is. Just ask China's One Child Policy.

The End of "Choice"

It's official. Women don't exist and neither does "choice".


	
		The House Pro-Choice Caucus has released a language guide with suggestions about what to

The End of "Choice"

[To purchase "Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America" by David Horowitz, <a href="https://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/dark-agenda">click here</a>.]


	Several years ago, the Christian evangelical Larry Taunton wrote a book, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, that stirred up a minor firestorm among a group of true believers.


	It was not the evangelical right, so long-defamed as intolerant by its liberal/left critics, that exploded in disgust because one of their own had supped with and befriended Hitchens, a notorious and profane atheist (however brilliant and provocative).


	No, it was Hitchens’ fellow non-believers who were deeply offended that Taunton had dared to suggest that Hitchens might have actually taken seriously, albeit privately, the faith that Taunton and millions of Christians embrace.


	Larry Krauss, David Frum and many others felt the need to attack Taunton for allegedly making false claims about Hitchens rethinking his atheistic assumptions or for daring to criticize him, as if Hitchens, who relished crossing polemical swords, would have wanted their defense. In fact, Taunton mainly reported that he found Hitchens surprisingly open minded and curious (and, yes, wounded in some deep ways) as they spent time together before and after debates on faith. Hitchens had been pleasantly surprised to find that the so-called “intolerant” religious right communities were engaged and truly hospitable.


	This episode, which David Horowitz briefly mentions in his recent book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, underscores a larger thematic point. Those who have made traditional religious culture a hated enemy are doing so not because they hope to advance tolerance and understanding in a pluralistic society, as they so often publicly claim.


	On the contrary, Horowitz suggests, they are determined to advance a Utopian vision (scientifically founded, in their minds) that Horowitz traces back to 4th century Pelagianism but that found its fuel in the modern era first as part of the Marxist movement and then in this nation most disruptively during the 1960s. The Marxist agenda, in a post-Soviet world, now parades behind the banner of social justice, Horowitz argues. Christianity, founded on a polar opposite belief system (endorsed by St. Augustine) that human beings are born fallen and imperfect, has thus become a primary target as its critics seek to unmake traditional America.


	That this radical agenda has found supporters among mainstream media, intellectuals and public officials, including on the Supreme Court, only speaks to the power of the utopian temptation that human beings can create heaven on earth by remaking the world in their own ideological image. Inevitably this has become a war against Christianity as a foundational, shaping force in America.


	As Horowitz writes:


	“In America, the war against Christians is not merely a war against an embattled religion. It is a war against an imperiled nation – a war against this nation and its founding principles: the equality of individuals and individual freedom. For these principles are indisputably Christian in origin. They are under siege because they are insurmountable obstacles to radicals’ totalitarian ambition to create a new world in their image.”


	Horowitz is hardly alone in reaching such conclusions, though today he is arguably the most vigilant intellectual engaged in sustained opposition against this assault. A young William F. Buckley Jr., in his book God and Man at Yale, declared in the early 1950s: “…the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”


	A half dozen of the world’s great intellectuals took on the leftist vision in the now famous book, The God that Failed. Later, John Diggins, the noted historian, suggested that the left, having lost the political battles of the late 1960s and early 1970s, took to the classroom to indoctrinate students and advance their agenda there. Horowitz saw this happening decades ago when he and Peter Collier launched Heterodoxy magazine in an effort to document the politically correct excesses rampant on college campuses.


	More recently, Roger Kimball, in The Long March, noted that those on the left advance their causes in the name of freedom – but as defined by the left: “’Free’ in other words, from the very things that underwrite freedom, that give it content, that prevent it from collapsing into that merely rhetorical freedom that always turns out to be another name for servitude.”


	Servitude to what, one might ask?


	Horowitz is full frontal in outlining the agenda of the various groups or individual that have played a role in radically transforming the legal and cultural landscape of this nation over the past half century or so. He walks the reader through a series of legal/political controversies that began most feverishly with the landmark school prayer case, Engel vs. Vitale, which was orchestrated by the American Civil Liberties Union.


	Later cases/situations further enflamed public controversy, including privacy cases such as Griswald vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade, the Bork Supreme Court nomination, which was driven largely by the broad cultural issues Horowitz identifies, and a radical gay movement that contributed to the deaths of thousands of gay men by advocating a sexually irresponsible lifestyle.


	These issues led up to the final and seemingly irreversible subjugation of any moderate voice in the Democratic Party as the Obama administration took office, Horowitz contends, with Obama himself demonstrating a studied indifference, if not outright hostility, toward traditional Christianity and the foundational values of the nation.


	Defenders of these ideas have not remained quiet: e.g. the silent majority, the Moral Majority, the Tea Party and, of course, the election of Donald Trump. Horowitz concedes that on occasion the reaction from the right could be as tone deaf and extreme as that found on the left, but he argues convincingly that the today’s polarized politics exists largely because of the left’s strident push to impose its values on the country at large. That the Supreme Court has so often advanced these ideological agendas, circumventing democratic process in doing so, has elevated the stakes, which is why Supreme Court nominations – once almost pro-forma approvals – are now as hotly contested as our presidential races.


	The issues aside, a larger purpose is at work. Those who have helped bring about these radical shifts have insisted that traditional culture and norms must be torn out root and branch from our public discourse. Replaced by what? By post-modern theories and ideologies, and by radical social justice and political agendas (identity politics, new sexual and social norms, anti-free speech movements, and attempts to rewrite the Constitution).


	Jill Lepore, in a recent book, This America, underscored this perspective. Those pushing “a people’s history” do so with just cause, she argues. The stories of those victimized by the American experiment – slaves, Native Americans, immigrant workers, women, working class labor, etc. – have a right to be heard on the pages of history. This is, of course, quite right.


	What is not right, as Horowitz argues in this book and several others, is their attempt to distort history by creating an ideological caricature in which certain groups are always heroic victims and other groups – mainly, those who founded the country and have sustained its prosperity and culture – are always evil and self-serving. History is far more complicated (and richer as a result) than either the cartoon version of our past written by certain traditionalists or the cynical versions offered by today’s leftist controlled academia.


	Those endlessly demanding more rights relentlessly narrow the corridors of freedom for the majority of citizens. After all, the right to be an atheist in today’s world means denying a school child the right to utter even a private prayer around other classmates; the right to choose an abortion means denying human beings of the right to live or other citizens of the right to question that decision; the right to express our authentic selves, however heartfelt, can also mean denying others their right to feel safe or to be comfortable in a public restroom; the right to immigrate illegally (a new right recently discovered by Trump haters), puts at risk the rights of legal immigrants and law-abiding citizens who bear the cost and burden of those demands; voting without validation or proper checks puts at risk the votes of millions of Americans who go to the polls willing to submit to controls on corruption or voter malfeasance.


	Perhaps even more to the point, the crusade against Christianity has been part of an ongoing political effort aimed at disempowering and discrediting a significant part of our population, many of whom are now routinely charged with racism, elitism, bigotry, and intolerance simply for embracing ideas that have shaped this nation throughout its history. Yet those very ideas – rule of law, balance of power, constitutional frameworks, meritocracy, non-race based or religious-based privileges – are what has enabled America over the past 75 years to make great progress precisely in those areas that once mobilized progressives, including the desire for working class prosperity, civil rights for minorities and women, equal justice, voting rights, etc.


	Yet, the wreckage and disaster caused by the left and those who have advanced their causes is virtually ignored as the assault on America continues. The failures of socialism, including mass genocides and finally the collapse of the Soviet bloc, has apparently not led many on the American left to abandon their ideas; it only forced them to camouflage their agenda in the forests of social justice and post-modern jargon (see, for example, The Killing of History by Keith Windschuttle).


	Socialism is now proudly touted by the mainstream Democratic Party, and the goal remains the same – to overturn the existing order, including rule of law, and to renegotiate the civil contract at the expense of those long-cherished values, however imperfectly exercised, that have advanced human freedom.


	Horowitz argues it is no accident that religion, and particularly Christianity, is seen by the revolutionary left as a target, even as the religious Christian community itself has advanced social justice and other leftist causes – see Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr.. But Christianity, rooted in the value of the individual, is particularly offensive to the left. (Horowitz rightly notes the utter hypocrisy of their attitudes toward practitioners of faiths like Islam, which has hardly been friendly through history to the Western experiment of pluralism and religious rights.)


	The goal of the radical left is power, not justice, pluralism or freedom. David Horowitz as much as any intellectual of the past half century has ably documented the various ways this war against freedom-inspired values has unfolded. Those values, some of us believe, are founded on the Judeo-Christian worldview and the notion that each human being is made in the image of God. G. K. Chesterton once observed:


	“If it were true that by leaving the temple we walked out into a world of truths, the question would be answered, but it is not true. By leaving the temple, we walk into a world of idols…”


	The world of idols Chesterton had in mind included the all-powerful state and a marketplace un-tempered by those principles articulated by the founder of Christianity 2000 years ago. Those who seek to center our world on science, or the human capacity for rational thought, or absolute justice or equality or earthly power, usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless and hopeless and deeply oppressive; that is their right, one supposes, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them?


	Horowitz, for one, refuses to do so and urges those who support a thoughtful constitutional order to be on guard – and ready to wage the battle of ideas necessary to turn back those who seek to permanently alter our way of life.


	This review originally appeared at <a href="http://www.intellectualconservative.com/a-review-dark-agenda-by-david-horowitz/">The Intellectual Conservative</a>.

A World of Idols: a Review of 'Dark Agenda' by David Horowitz

[To purchase "Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America" by David Horowitz, click here.]


	Several years ago, the Christian evangelical Larry

Frontpage Mag

rogers emerson

A World of Idols: a Review of 'Dark Agenda' by David Horowitz

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

U.S. Soccer Agrees to Pay Men and Women Equally. Americans Agree Not To Watch Either One.

NY Senate Dems Pass "F___ the Police" Bill Protecting Violent Rap Threats

Won't Someone Hire Bill de Blasio To Do Something?

Americans Die of Fentanyl Overdoses as Soros DA Protects Foreign Drug Dealers From Deportation

The End of "Choice"

Events