Subscribe for 33¢ / day

“Time’s up,” the slogan of the Hollywood anti-harassment movement, has a very different meaning for Louis Farrakhan.

At his annual Saviours’ Day conference in Chicago last weekend, the Nation of Islam leader boasted, “And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”

Farrakhan is as immodest as he is anti-Semitic. He may seem like yesterday’s Jew-hater, since he could never gather the kind of crowds he did for the so-called Million Man March in Washington, D.C., 20 years ago. Yet he still has a following. Thousands showed up to hear him spew his usual garbage during his Saviours’ Day speech, including one of the organizers of the Women’s March.

The CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, calls Farrakhan “quite possibly, the most popular anti-Semite in America today.” Certainly, the haters of the alt-right don’t measure up. The white nationalist Richard Spencer would surely love to get Farrakhan’s crowds and have such a relatively robust institutional presence and publishing operation, let alone manage to maintain influence with more mainstream figures.

Tamika Mallory, the Women’s March organizer, wasn’t abashed about her attendance at the rally. She posted a video on Instagram of herself at the event, and showed no sign of distress at Farrakhan’s greatest hits (“the powerful Jews are my enemy”; Jews are “the mother and father of apartheid;” “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door;” the Jews control Mexico, and a swath of Europe; and any number of other vicious lies).

Called out on her presence at the speech, Mallory tweeted a response worthy of a fellow traveler with the Nation of Islam: “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!” What enemies could she be speaking of?

Mallory further pushed back by stating, “I am a strong black woman.” Actually, her putrid equivocation over Farrakhan speaks to the opposite of strength.

She added that the black community is “complex.” So is any community, but that doesn’t justify tolerating rank hatred.

And it wouldn’t be an argument with a left-wing activist if she didn’t cite the buzzword of the hour, explaining that she has “done intersectional work for 20+ years.”

Ah, yes, intersectionality. Farrakhan has his own notions of that. In 2006, he declared that “it’s the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality.” He’s updated this theme slightly to account for transgenderism — “the Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men.”

Mallory isn’t the only Women’s March organizer with a soft spot for the lunatic minister. Carmen Perez is another admirer. “There are no perfect leaders,” she explains, although there is a lot of daylight between normal human imperfection and Farrakhan’s paranoid rantings. Yet another organizer, Linda Sarsour, took part in a Nation of Islam event in 2015.

Are these activists too minor to bother about? Well, if tea party organizers 10 years ago had been friendly toward David Duke, we would — understandably — have heard no end of it.

Just as mainstream conservatives must ostracize the alt-right, the center-left should guard against progressives making excuses for Farrakhan. With the exception of Jake Tapper of CNN, though, the media has ignored the latest eruption of the Farrakhan story.

As a reminder of how much this hygiene is necessary, Rep. Danny K. Davis of Illinois popped up to justify his relationship with Farrakhan. He told the website The Daily Caller, “The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth.” Could anyone say this about David Duke and remain in office?

Farrakhan’s time should be up, but it never quite is.

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

0
0
0
0
1

(36) comments

ou812

Cassandra

Comment deleted.
kingman10

come on tribune, why do you allow comments like ou812 posts. someone should monitor these posts closer!

new2Lax

The right owns the NRA as the Democrats own Louis Farrakhan, there is no getting around it. There is a somewhat of a difference in which is reported on by the media, you never here a peep from them on Louis Farrakhan but my god the information on the NRA is stunning. I wonder why that is.

kingman10

Because Farrakhan is beyond left, beyond any semblance of sanity, and his following is a lot smaller than you give him credit for. The left does not own him. The NRA is a lobbyist group, not a single individual like Farrakhan. And the NRA gives many millions to buy politicians to pass gun laws that encourage the proliferation of guns and make it so easy to kill one another. You are comparing apples to oranges here. But knowing your limited abilities that is not surprising.

A Veteran

kingman---So are you going to call for congressman Ellison to give up his post as number two in the democrat party high hierarchy after all he strongly supports Farrakhan.

oldhomey

Hmm. The newspapers I read have all had several stories and columns about Farrakhan's recent anti-Semitic outburst. How did you learn about it, new2? The newspapers I read have all fully reported the NRA's predictable reaction to the recent Florida h.s. shooting and even Trump's on-again, off-again support to the NRA's position. The most interesting reading, however, has been a couple of rare pieces I have seen recently on the history of the NRA and how the extreme right took it over in 1977, boosting the interests of gun manufacturers and retailers by falsely turning the 2d Amendment into a gun-rights document rather than what the framers of the Constitution intended, a guide to the regulation of state militias, which would evolve into our National Guard system. You ought to track those articles down, new2. Very enlightening.

geo

Did you ever read that part in Heller v. District of Columbia where it says Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. ?
The 2nd Amendment is a guns right statement. The 2nd Amendment is not a guide to the regulation of state militias, which would evolve into our National Guard system.
You ought to track down that Heller v. District of Columbia case , oldhomey. Very enlightening.

oldhomey

I am sending the following to enlighten geo, but I stress that I did not compose this, and I am editing it as best I can to shorten it without altering the content"

A brief history of the Second Amendment

During the Constitution’s drafting and ratification, there was some concern that the federal government would have far too much power to dismantle state-run militias, because the Constitution gave the federal government power over “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” This worried states, which relied on militias for law enforcement and defense. (In particular . . . Southern states were concerned that the federal government could use this power to go after slavery, since militias were often used as slave patrols at the time.)

After the Constitution was ratified, the founders took to writing a Bill of Rights to assuage the concerns raised by anti-federalists. Aware of criticisms about the federal government’s powers over state militias, they included the Second Amendment in this context.

“With this background, now listen to the Second Amendment fresh and anew. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The historical record reflects this. In The Second Amendment, author Michael Waldman goes back to the creation of the Bill of Rights for answers. He found that the Second Amendment was among the least debated provisions by Congress. In the House, he wrote, “Twelve congressmen joined the debate. None mentioned a private right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or for any purpose other than joining the militia.”

In fact, guns were well regulated at the time . . . What the NRA doesn’t like to admit is that guns were regulated in early America. People deemed untrustworthy — such as British loyalists unwilling to swear an oath to the new nation — were disarmed. The sale of guns to Native Americans was outlawed. Boston made it illegal to store a loaded firearm in any home or warehouse. Some states conducted door-to-door registration surveys so the militia could “impress” those weapons if necessary. Men had to attend musters where their guns would be inspected by the government.

As for what constitutes a militia, the founders were purposely vague, leaving it to Congress to define. In the past, these were organizations of all or most able-bodied men that states and the federal government armed for security and law enforcement. In modern terms, the militia is, essentially, the National Guard.

geo

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause.

The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

The framers of the Constitution did not intend that the 2nd Amendment be a guide to regulate state militias, You ought to track down District of Columbia v. Heller, oldhomey. Very enlightening.

oldhomey

Geo, I take it that you are culling from NRA websites for your argument. I am no constitutional scholar or grammarian, but others have looked at your argument and show that it comes up short. Her is one:

The amendment reads as follows: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The main argument about the amendment has always been a semantic one: What is meant? What is the intention? I use the present tense, because grammatical deconstruction is done in the here and now. We are not trying to divine intentions from our personal beliefs of what the Founders “stood for” or what they “believed.” The Founders are dead, but their words remain alive in the present, and their words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions.

Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

Gun rights advocates such as the NRA have rather successfully pushed the notion that the first clause of the Second amendment is merely prefatory, a sort of rhetorical throat-clearing before the substantive clause about “rights.” Too, certain linguists have said that, as an “absolute” clause (one that is grammatically separate from the main clause), the first clause has no bearing and thus conveys no limitations on the “right” of the second clause. However, no less a constitutional authority than Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall disagrees, declaring that “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”

Thus, to call the first clause of the Second Amendment superfluous is to insult both Marshall and the framers. The “absolute” clause construction of the Second amendment was quite common at the time, and appears in many state constitutions and framing documents. The primary purpose in these constructions is to give the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is true or valid. As a prime example of the ablative absolute, the first clause of the Second Amendment may stand grammatically free, but serves semantically to modify or clarify the meaning of the rest of the sentence. The Framers were clearly familiar with the ablative absolute and used it not as rhetorical fluff or flourish, but as a way of clarifying intent, in this case clarifying that the right to bear arms is granted in the context and within the scope of establishing a militia. Nothing more, nothing less.

So today, when the paranoid fringe faction of the NRA howls that gun control is an assault on our Second amendment rights, we might ask, which rights are those? Unless they mean the right to “bear arms” (itself a military phrase) in the service of a well-regulated militia, they’re just blowing smoke. The NRA is free to lobby all they want for the freedom for citizens to own whatever gun they choose — it’s their right. But to say that gun control somehow attenuates individual gun rights “guaranteed” by the Second Amendment, well, that’s just wrong

new2Lax

I'm impressed, you seem to know exactly what the framers of the Constitution meant. You should present your case to the Supreme Court and or the members of the House and Senate, they seem to have been struggling with this issue for years. Write a little note or something, I'm sure there must be some confusion because if memory serves me correctly, the left had control of all three branches of government sometime between 1977 and now. I'm curious to know why the 2nd amendment went through the SC and the result is nothing like what you say the framer's meant. I guess you would have to say the experts who presented their cases before the court were just wrong, according to you. Any other amendments that you think are wrong or just this one.

kingman10

news flash new2. the Sc is not infallible. they have made mistakes many times. In the 19th century they ruled slavery was constitutional. that blacks had no rights and were only 2/3 rds of a person. You agree with that? As far as the second amendment goes, the Sc could easily be wrong about that too. And someday it may be interpreted a totally different way, as it should be.

geo

I culled my argument from the Supreme Court: I quoted them. Since you didn't here is what they held:
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Comment deleted.
Cassandra2

812, are you still 12 years old?

oldhomey

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Mr. Lowry. I think all people should disavow and censure racism of all kinds, including Farrakhan's and that of the fascists and white supremacists. Hatred is hatred, and it should be condemned and resisted.

kingman10

I also agree with Lowry, racism should not be tolerated by anyone. However I think Lowry is giving this Farrakhan a lot more credit than he deserves. He is not a spokesman for the left or the majority of African Americans. He is just a footnote of another weird hate filled conspiracy wacko that few listen to. I doubt his following is as big as Lowry makes it out to be.

Rick Czeczok

Agree.

Rick Czeczok

Oh look, another one hiding behind fake walls (names). Does anyone notice that all of the attach squad on here are all liberals. OK queen (or king) let me explain this for the 10th time for you. Cassy's name suggests a girl when in fact it is a guy. That simply says that she lies right form the get go. Also being naive has nothing to do with using your real name, only if you are afraid because you 5 who really do believe you own this opinion page, have insulted and put people down so much t,hat you would expect repercussions. You already told us on here that someone came after you. Wonder why? Try being nice and you don't have to worry, but I know that you 5 are just not capable of that. Just another bunch of obstructionist with no plans. Seems to fit a pattern.

oldhomey

I rarely attach anything to my posts, Rick. Those who do usually are the likes of Buggs and Snow Cougar, who try to send us to lunatic fringe and lunatic conspiracy web sites. Neither of them is, by estimation, a liberal.

kingman10

someone went off the rails. being naive has everything to do with using your real name. Never said I own anything on this page. I follow the rules, don't ask for personal information, and could care less about your real name. Opinions is all that matter to me, not gender. You want to bully your way around this site trying to enforce your rules isn't going to work. Talk about putting people down and insulting, that you have wrote the book on.

Cassandra2

Czkzkrk, I find it interesting and telling that you never demand the same proof of gender from the Cougar or any of the other wingnuts who are constantly posting attachments and links here. We could demand the same of you. I have no faith that you are male. I think you're just a genderless AI bot, operated from a Russian server farm in order to sow discontent among Americans.

Rick Czeczok

You're not in a unusual position, but simply a common sense position. Well stated and I agree with you 100%. Anyone who stands up and says the things he said, can not be taken with a grain of salt.

Cassandra2

The right has a pron star, pedophilia and adultery problem.

new2Lax

You must not remember Bill Clinton, the sitting President impeached for his encounters. Hillary called all Bill's encounters star's and trailer trash, all at once.
The pedophile your probably thinking about was Carlos Danger or legally known as Antony Weiner. You also missed Louis Farrakhan, the left's famous anti-semite, referring to Jewish folks as "dogs" and has the greatest admiration for Adolf Hitler. Now that's a party with a problem.

new2Lax

The crowds this guy gets are larger than what Hillary Clinton could muster up and they are in the same party. Calling the Jewish race "dogs" is going a bit over board and says a lot about the man but he still draws a large crowd.

Cassandra2

"A bit overboard"? Gee, not racist at all.

hrpufnstuf

Meanwhile, white supremists are good people, Haitians live in huts, and Mexicans are criminals.

Only1Green

A yes but statement?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.