While there may be no love lost between the late Senator John McCain, and the President Trump, that does not mean that McCain’s family want his words used by Trump’s Democratic presidential opponents.

The daughter of the late Arizona senator has asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s to “leave my father’s legacy and memory out of presidential politics.” That request came in a tweet in response to Klobuchar’s claim that the late Sen. John McCain “kept reciting to me names of dictators” during President Trump’s inaugural address.

Meghan McCain took to Twitter to criticize Klobuchar, D-Minn., a 2020 presidential candidate, for invoking her father’s name during a campaign event.

“On behalf of the entire McCain family, [Amy Klobuchar], please be respectful to all of us and leave my father’s legacy and memory out of presidential politics,” McCain, a co-host on “The View,” wrote.

At an event in Iowa over the long Memorial Day Weekend, Klobuchar claimed Sen. McCain, “kept reciting to me names of dictators during that speech because he knew more than any of us what we were facing as a nation.”

“He understood it. He knew because he knew [Trump] more than any of us did,” Klobuchar said in her speech, as has been reported.

Klobuchar called Trump’s inauguration “dark” and claimed “The arc that we are on, this arc of justice, started the day after that dark inauguration,” Klobuchar said. “The day when I sat on that stage between Bernie and John McCain, and John McCain kept reciting to me names of dictators during that speech, because he knew more than any of us what we were facing as a nation. He understood it. He knew because he knew this man more than any of us did.”

Trump and McCain Had a Contentious History

Trump and the Arizona senator had a tense relationship, with then-candidate Trump claiming at a 2015 event that the Vietnam War veteran “was a not a war hero because he was captured.”

After Trump held a joint news conference in 2018 with Russian President Vladimir Putin, McCain responded in a statement claiming “the damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate.”

Tim Hogan, a spokesman for Amy for America responded to the controversy, saying in a statement that Klobuchar had a “long-term friendship” with McCain and has defended him against Trump’s criticisms.

“She has deep respect for his family. While she was simply sharing a memory, she continues to believe that the best stories about Senator McCain are not about the views he had about President Trump: they are about McCain’s own valor and heroism,” Hogan said.

Senate Republicans have vowed to crush the impeachment effort if the Democrat-controlled House passes articles of impeachment of President Trump.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to ensure that the measure, which has caused some friction even among Democrats, would be over before it could gain traction.

Democrats in the Senate will remain largely powerless to change that. Although McConnell cannot simply ignore them — he will have to act on the impeachment articles – but, it also requires 67 votes, or a two-thirds majority, to convict the president.

“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham told The Hill on the viability of the impeachment process. “If it’s based on the Mueller report, or anything like that, it would be quickly disposed of.”

Other Republicans echoed Graham’s comment. Texas Sen. John Cornyn told the outlet that the impeachment articles passed by the House would lead to “nothing.”

“It would be defeated. That’s why all they want to do is talk about it,” he added, suggesting Democrats are more interested in talking about impeaching Trump than actually trying to do that. “They know what the outcome would be.”

Senate Republicans also say an impeachment trial of Trump would get just the bare minimum time on the floor.

“Why on earth would we give a platform to something that I judge as a purely political exercise?” Sen. Thom Tillis told The Hill.

“We have to perform our constitutional duty, but if people think that we’re going to try and create a theater that could give you the perception that this is a matter that rises to the level of Watergate, that’s nonsense.”

Dems in House Move Closer to Impeachment

And yet, despite it amounting to a monumental waste of time and energy, it seems some members of the Democrat controlled House, are moving in that direction.

Controversial Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib said Sunday that the House is “moving towards” supporting the measure to impeach Trump.

Her comments come despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to quell talks of impeaching the president and her repeatedly warning the Democrats against proceeding with such move.

A senior Democrat told Fox News that Pelosi won’t be “able to hold off on impeachment much longer” as the impeachment talk in her party is gaining traction and is being embraced by the voter base.

The groupies inside the Beltway are obsessed with President Trump’s finances.  An unusually large number of Democrat-controlled House committees are launching investigations into every aspect – and every asset – of Trump’s multifaceted and complex financial empire.

There investigations are based on rumors, gossip and unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing.  Congressional Democrats are panning for political gold.  So far, they have only found Fool’s Gold – which they are passing off to the public as the real thing.

They want Trump’s tax returns because … because … hmmmm.  Oh yeah, because they hope to find some major skullduggery among all those accounting numbers.  If their wildest dream comes true, they will find a billion dollar personal check to Trump from Vladimir Putin.  Fat chance.

They also hope to prove that Trump is not as rich as he claims.  The New York Times recently published a front-page story based on information garnered from Trump’s confidential tax information from the mid-1990s showing that the Trump Organization had run into financial difficulties when the real estate market took one of its occasional dips.  What they did not find was any wrongdoing.  No tax evasion.  Just a business going through some difficult times.

They are also looking into the closed down Trump Foundation for some alleged … repeat, alleged … irregularities associated with the purchase of a large painting of Trump.  This little transaction was overwhelmed by millions upon millions of Trump’s dollars that helped fuel the charitable work.  They also accused him of using other people’s money – more accurately described as charitable donations to the Foundation. Of course, that is what most foundations do – solicit donations.

Based on mendacious accusations from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Trump was still exploring a legitimate business deal in Russia even as he campaigned for President.  Reality check!  There is nothing illegal or wrong about doing business as a candidate.  Very few give up their careers and sources of income BEFORE they are elected – even if the odds of being elected are far greater than were Trump’s.  After all, we were told innumerable times that he had “no path to the presidency.”

They say Trump lied when he said he had no business deals in Russia.  Technically, that was true.  There were talks, but no deal was consummated then or since.  Even if you think Trump was a little less than forthright, so what?  For whatever reasons, the Trump Organization never went ahead with the project.

House Democrats want to investigate Trump University.  Why?  Former New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman settled that case for $25 million in 2016, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration – shortly before Schneiderman, himself, fell from grace (and office) in  a sex scandal.  There was no admission of wrongdoing by the Trump organization, and $25 million was a relatively small amount to get the case off the books rather than have it drag on for several years at costs that would exceed the settlement price tag.  While Schneiderman claimed fraud, that charge was never adjudicated.  The only objective of a congressional inquiry is to regurgitate some bad publicity for Trump.

For Democrats, the holy grail of their dubious investigations is obtaining Trump’s tax returns.   That is nothing more than a fishing expedition.  They already tried fishing for two years with the accusation of criminal collusion with Russia.  In that fishing expedition they came up with an empty hook – no fish and even lost their bait.

They brought Cohen before Congress again – shortly before he donned prison orange.  While it produced a lot of accusations from a very bitter prevaricator, there was no meat on those bones.  In fact, the prosecutors in New York cut Cohen off as a source of credible information and Special Counsel Robert Mueller reflected none of Cohen’s sensationalistic statements in his final Report.  There apparently was no there, there.

Democrats seem to be operating on the theory if they launch enough investigations, the entire effort will appear more credible – defying the arithmetic reality that zero times any number is still … zero.

More importantly, the public is finding all these Democrat fishing expeditions to be uninteresting – much less credible.   There was fear among some Democrats that putting the focus on investigation instead of legislation would backfire – and apparently it is.  Polling suggests that the issue of Trump’s tax returns and his business finances are very  … very  … low on the list of issues that concern the American public.  Despite the hopes of the Democrats, it does not appear that all the financial stuff is going to drive voting decisions.   And isn’t that what all those investigations are supposed to be about?

So, there ‘tis

If you thought President Trump had given up on the border wall, think again.

As promised, the Administration unveiled a plan that pulls $2.5 billion from the Defense and Justice Departments and $600 million from the Treasury Department to pay for border wall construction. 

“How you will see this materialize in the next 6 months is that about 63 additional new miles of wall will come online,” said Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. “So about half a mile a day will be produced.”

The plan will be challenged in court later this week by opponents who insist Trump’s financing methods are unconstitutional and illegal.

But Trump has no other choice considering lawmakers’ ongoing refusal to provide funding for the border wall. Last year, the stalemate initiated a 35-day partial government shutdown.

The government was re-opened with a spending package that included $1.4 billion to build a mere 55 miles of barrier fence (concrete walls were not permitted). Trump had asked for $5.6 billion.

In February, Trump declared a national emergency at the border that allowed the Pentagon to move billions of dollars towards the wall. Last week, Shanahan claimed the Pentagon had collected enough money to build 256 miles of border wall. 

In the meantime, little progress has been made on existing projects at the border. 

A $789 million contract with SLSCO Ltd. in El Paso, Texas has been stalled by a challenge in the US Court of Federal Claims. The hearing will take place this week.

A construction project awarded to Yuma, Arizona last month was immediately challenged by the Government Accountability Office and scrapped. 

As the Trump Administration continues to move money around in preparation of awarding new construction contracts, Democratic lawmakers have proposed a bill that would decrease the amount of money the military can transfer between accounts from $9.5 billion to $1.5 billion.

In a separate challenge, a federal judge in California will soon hear a request by the Sierra Club to prevent Trump from using $7 billion in taxpayer dollars for the wall.

Attorney General William Barr is defending his actions related to the release of the Mueller report, saying that he felt that the rules were being changed to hurt President Trump. Barr said that his handling of the report and its aftermath is rooted in a desire to defend the power of the executive branch rather than personal support for President Trump.

“I felt the rules were being changed to hurt Trump, and I thought it was damaging for the presidency over the long haul,” Barr told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published Monday. He made the statement in El Salvador, where he traveled last week to boost support for Trump’s policies toward the violent street gang MS-13.

“At every grave juncture the presidency has done what it is supposed to do, which is to provide leadership and direction,” Barr added. “If you destroy the presidency and make it an errand boy for Congress, we’re going to be a much weaker and more divided nation.”

Despite Barr’s Claims, Dems Accuse Him of Stonewalling

Despite Barr’s claims in defense of his actions, Democrats have accused Barr and Trump of trying to stonewall and obstruct Congress’ oversight duties; a charge that was repeated Monday after Trump directed former White House Counsel Don McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. That committee voted earlier this month to hold Barr in contempt after he defied a subpoena for an unredacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian activities during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer last week, Barr described that vote as “part of the usual political circus that’s being played out. It doesn’t surprise me.”

Barr has taken the criticism of him in stride, going so far as to approach House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at a Capitol Hill event last week and ask her if she had brought her handcuffs.

Barr Launch’s Investigation

Barr has also launched an investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe, telling Fox News that he ordered the investigation because many of the answers he had gotten were “inadequate.”

“People have to find out what the government was doing during that period,” he told “America’s Newsroom” host Bill Hemmer. “If we’re worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason we should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale. I’m not saying that happened but its something we have to look at.”

In the wake of the recent announcement that Attorney General William Barr has appointed U.S. attorney John Durham, to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if intelligence collection efforts targeting the Trump campaign were “lawful and appropriate,” President Trump has called on Democrats to follow suit and investigate “Crooked Hilary,” if they want to salvage their diminishing reputations.

While he continues to stonewall their subpoenas and other demands for documents, Trump has urged top-ranking Democrats to shift their focus to “Crooked Hillary” and the genesis of the “phony” Russia investigation.

The president even suggested House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff could boost their “credibility” by doing so.

“Why are the Democrats not looking into all of the crimes committed by Crooked Hillary and the phony Russia Investigation? They would get back their credibility. Jerry Nadler, Schiff, would have a whole new future open to them. Perhaps they could even run for President!” Trump tweeted on the morning of May 20.

Investigators Are Already Being Investigated

The president’s tweets come as John Durham has already launched his investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. Durham is tasked with looking into “all intelligence collection activities” related to the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election and any misconduct during the early stages of the FBI’s original Russia probe.

Durham is expected to focus on the period before Nov. 7, 2016—including the use of FBI informants as well as alleged improper issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants.

Sources familiar with the new probe say Barr has also directed Durham to specifically review the time period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, telling Fox News last week that “some very strange developments” took place during that time. Barr was referring to the early January 2017 briefing intelligence officials gave then-president-elect Trump at Trump Tower and “the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.”

During that meeting, Trump was briefed by intelligence and law enforcement officials on Russian election meddling—and was also informed by former FBI Director James Comey about the now-infamous anti-Trump dossier which included salacious allegations against him. Details later leaked to the press.

“That’s one of the things…we need to look at,” Barr said last week in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer.

A source also told Fox News that Barr is working “collaboratively” on Durham’s investigation with FBI Director Chris Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Durham is also working with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is currently reviewing allegations of FISA abuses and the role of FBI informants during the early stages of the Russia investigation.

Earlier this month, Nadler’s committee voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress, after the attorney general failed to turn over the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence and materials. Simultaneously, the president asserted executive privilege over the files in a bid to protect them from release.

It is unclear if and when the full House will vote on the contempt measure.

Meanwhile, Schiff said that congressional Democrats could move ahead with impeachment proceedings against Trump.

“If we conclude that there is no other way to do our jobs, then we may get there,” Schiff said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” broadcast of May 19.

Unless my memory is failing me, Iran was and is a rogue state that finances attacks on American interests from cyber warfare to terrorism.  Their treachery goes beyond America.  Iran is a theocracy with a form of Islamic fundamentalism that is a constant threat to Israel and even the non-Muslim nations of Asia.  Their alliance to Russia is a double threat to Europe.

Iran is engaged in an intramural Arab war in the Middle East – with Saudi Arabia as the primary counterpoint.  With the help of Russia, Iran now exerts effective hegemony over Syria, Iraq and Lebanon and growing influence among Palestinians, as well as in some other Arab and North African nations.

With that being noted, it is obvious that every patriotic American should see the danger that Iran opposes to the security of the United States.  We should be united in our support for President Trump’s sanctions against the Iranian regime, his officially declaring the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and his refusal to allow the ill-advised Iranian nuclear deal to shield the radical clerics from avoiding the consequences of their terrorist activities – as the Obama administration did.

For the better part of this country’s history, it was said that political partisanship ends at the shore – meaning that we always show a united front to our friends AND enemies overseas.  Unfortunately, it appears that the zeal to oppose all things Trump has led the left into aligning with our enemies.

In a recent program, MSNBC’s “security analyst,” Ned Price was asked to opine on the growing tension between Iran and the United States.  He had been a constant critic of Trump foreign policy at every turn.  Like so many others at MSNBC, Price’s role is not objective analysis, but to serve as a mouthpiece for the networks preconceived anti-Trump narrative.

In the case of Iran, he lived up to more than his prescribed purpose.  The case-in-point was the sending our military into the waters off the shore of Iran at the order of President Trump – based on the intelligence and recommendations of the State Department and our other intelligence services.

Based on information received from both internal and external sources, Iran was planning an attack on American assets in the region.  It was not to be a direct action by the Iranian military.  That would be too bold and result in a disproportionate response.  Rather it was to be an outlier event using forces sponsored by Iran – potentially terrorist or supposedly quasi-independent militia.

According to the reports, weapons for an attack were being surreptitiously transported aboard civilian vessels.  The movement of the American fleet was not to engage in war as much as to get the Iranians to back down.  It seems to have worked, since the Iranian leaders claimed they had no intention of attacking any American asset.

What should have been an “atta boy” response to Trump is not how the left likes to do things.

Price declared that we were in a most dangerous moment.  Because of the Iranians?  Nope!  Because Trump has been provoking the Iranians.  In fact, Price said that the United States had committed 17 acts of provocation leading up to the current situation.  While he did not list all of them, he said they included terminating the nuclear deal, imposing severe sanctions, declaring the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be a terrorist organization, stopping Iran from selling its oil on the world market.

Ignored was the ravages and carnage of state-sponsored terrorism.  Forgotten are Americans currently being held as hostages in Iran.  Apparently unheard by Price and others is the constant chant of “death to America” that characterizes Iranian sponsored rallies.

Price went on to say that we – meaning the entire world – should be wary of the claims of the Trump administration.  In other words, we should not believe the rationale for sending in the Navy.  Instead, we should believe the Iranians.  Price accused the American administration of concocting false intelligence to create the predicate for the movement of the fleet.

Price declared that such international gamesmanship could lead to war, if not by intent then by miscalculation.  What if one of those supposedly quasi-independent paramilitary groups does, indeed, attack an American asset?  It could lead to a bigger conflict.

What was striking about Price’s assessment of the situation is that it sounded like what the Iranian propaganda mill would, and was, saying.  In sympathizing with the radical Iranian regime, Price was proving to be one of those “witting or unwitting assets.”

If you are inclined to think that his was one man’s opinion – think again.  The obsessively anti-Trump media propped up a string of politicians and pundits with the same anti-American message.

Price was followed on MSNBC by Maryland’s Democrat Senator Chris Van Hollen.  His message was exactly the same.  He called Trump’s “series of provocative actions” dangerous.  What if, he hypothecated, the Shia military in Iraq responds to Trump’s alleged provocations?  It could lead to war, he suggested.

Van Hollen likened the influence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House foreign policy advisor John Bolton to Vice President Dick Chaney and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld in the lead-up to the Iraq war during the administration of President George W. Bush.

The harmony between the Price punditry and the Van Hollen statements was that Iran has been victimized by the American administration.  Both expressed sympathy for what they considered an understandable and justified reaction.

It is almost impossible – no it IS impossible – to find a time in American history where so many of one political viewpoint have expressed a view in opposition to United States foreign policy and such verbal support for a dangerous rogue nation.  Yes, there were people in the United States who opposed opposing Hitler, but it did not come from supposedly responsible and ethical members of the media – and most certainly not from members of the House or Senate.

While there has long been a “hate America” undercurrent by the radical left, the election of Trump appears to have brought it to the mainstage of the Democratic Party.  We do not jail people for dissent or the most objectionable opinions – and that is a good thing – but must not let the anti-American sentiment become meanstreamed.  The #NeverTrump Resistance Movement pleads that we do not normalize the President, I would suggest that we are in far greater danger if we normalize the rhetoric of Price and Van Hollen.

If we were officially at war with Iran, such aiding and abetting of an enemy would be considered treason.  Not being officially at war creates an important distinction, but it does not make the endorsement of Iran by these reprobates any less offensive.

So, there ‘tis.

The divide between moderate Democrats and the party’s radical Left has widened over the latter’s desire to abolish ICE – and may either SPLIT the party in two or force moderate Democrats to submit to the demands of their party’s hijackers. The assault against ICE began months ago from radical left-wing activists and journalists pushing the open borders narrative, labeling the agency as cruel and heartless for “ripping children away from their mothers.”

The propaganda gained momentum as the mainstream media continued their assault on the agency – with images of children being held in detention areas while their parents were being processed for entering the United States illegally. When many of those pictures were proven to be taken during the Obama presidency or were staged by protesters, the strong rhetoric and calls for abolition did not change.

More than 150 “Democratic” elected officials across the country signed an open letter calling for the elimination of ICE.

“As one of our newest federal agencies, ICE spends more time destroying communities than it does keeping communities safe while violating basic civil and human rights. The experiment that is ICE has failed, and must be ended as soon as possible,” the letter states.

For the record, this is the same agency that ventured into dangerous neighborhoods in New York City recently and arrested 114 fugitives during an 11-day operation focused on sex trafficking.

The arrests netted ICE 82 illegal aliens with criminal records, including many with prior convictions for sex crimes, drug offenses, and fraud. Others had pending criminal charges, including assault, larceny, sexual exploitation of a minor – and one a manslaughter conviction.

Thomas Decker, field office director for Enforcement and Removal Operations in New York, said at the time, “Our nation has a proud history of immigration, but we are also a nation governed by laws specifically designed to protect its citizens and residents. ERO deportation officers are committed to enforcing the immigration laws set forth by our legislators.”

Concluding, “Of those arrested during this operation, nine were released from New York custody with an active detainer, which poses an increased risk to the officers and the community.”

When President Trump was asked recently by Fox’s Business’ reporter Maria Bartiromo about the Democrats’ proposed abolition of ICE, the president’s response said it all:

“I hope they keep thinking about it, because they’re going to get beaten so bad, you know these are the guys that take out MS-13, because they’re much tougher then MS-13, by a factor of 10. You get rid of ICE you’d be afraid to walk out of your house, I love that issue if they’re actually going to do that, they’re seriously talking about.”

The President pauses a moment and continues, “Between Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and getting rid of ICE, and having open borders, if that’s going to be their platform, I think they’ll never win another election, so I’m actually quite happy about it.”

Apparently responding to President Trump’s vow to “investigate the investigators” and get to the roots of the “witch hunt,” beleaguered Attorney General William Barr, has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if intelligence collection efforts targeting the Trump campaign were “lawful and appropriate,” a person familiar with the situation told Fox News.

John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, will conduct the inquiry, the unnamed source said. The move comes as the Trump administration has pushed for answers on why federal authorities conducted the surveillance — as well as whether Democrats were the ones who improperly colluded with foreign actors.

Two corroborating sources told Fox News that Barr was “serious” and had assigned DOJ personnel to the probe. Durham is known as a “hard-charging, bulldog” prosecutor, Fox News is told.

Abuse of the FISA System?

Sources familiar with the matter say the focus of the new probe includes the pre-transition period — prior to Nov. 7, 2016 — including the use and initiation of informants, as well as potential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses.

If you recall, it was revealed earlier this month that an informant working for U.S. intelligence posed as a Cambridge University research assistant in September 2016 to try extracting any possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia from George Papadopoulos, then a low-level Trump foreign policy adviser.

Papadopoulos told Fox News the informant tried to “seduce” him as part of the “bizarre” episode.

Durham’s appointment comes about a month after Barr told members of Congress he believed “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016. He later said he didn’t mean anything pejorative and was gathering a team to look into the origins of the special counsel’s investigation. The Connecticut attorney’s new review would exist alongside the ongoing probe by DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz, who is continuing to review potential surveillance abuses by the FBI — an investigation that began last March and that Fox News is told is nearing completion.

Durham previously has investigated law enforcement corruption, the destruction of CIA videotapes and the Boston FBI office’s relationship with mobsters. He is set to continue to serve as the chief federal prosecutor in Connecticut.

One would hope that when a Christian clergyman invites a Muslim minister to share the sanctuary, it would be a good thing.  You know, a show of harmony and brotherly love.  That is how men of the cloth are supposed to be.

But not when the men a Chicago’s radical show-boating Catholic priest, Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Church, and the guest of (dubious) honor is the Nation of Islam’s bombastic, racist and antisemitic Louis Farrakhan.

The reason for the invitation is ironic.  It seems that Facebook banned Farrakhan for his hateful sermons and speeches.  Using that rationale, one might expect Pfleger to next invite the head of one of the white supremacist groups to preach to his predominantly black congregation.  It would give hatred an equal opportunity.

Pfleger has long been a crown of thorns on the heads of the prelates of the Chicago archdiocese for decades – and the current incumbent, Cardinal Blase Cupich, has not been spared.  In response to the appearance by Farrakhan, his eminence issued a statement of rebuke.  In it, he said:

Without consulting me, Fr. Michael Pfleger invited Minister Louis Farrakhan to speak at St. Sabina Church in response to Facebook’s decision to ban him from its platforms. Minister Farrakhan could have taken the opportunity to deliver a unifying message of God’s love for all his children. Instead, he repeatedly smeared the Jewish people, using a combination of thinly veiled discriminatory rhetoric and outright slander. He suggested that “Talmudic thought” sanctioned pedophilia and misogyny. He referred to Jewish people as “satanic,” asserting that he was sent by God to separate the “good Jews” from the “satanic Jews.”

Cupich went on to say:

Such statements shock the conscience. People of faith are called to live as signs of God’s love for the whole human family, not to demonize any of its members. This is all the more true of religious leaders, who have a sacred duty never to leverage the legitimacy of their ministry to heap blame upon a group of persons, and never to deploy inflammatory rhetoric, long proven to incite violence. Antisemitic rhetoric — discriminatory invective of any kind — has no place in American public life, let alone in a Catholic church. I apologize to my Jewish brothers and sisters, whose friendship I treasure, from whom I learn so much, and whose covenant with God remains eternal.

Pfleger, himself, has often been accused of preaching a racist gospel – raising the tropes of white privilege.  Though a blue-eyed, blond-haired German, Pfleger preaches in the voice and style of the stereotypical black Baptist preacher.  It is a put-on that he believes helps him relate to his flock.  Does “pander” come to mind?  It has always struck me as patronizing – sort of a vocal version of blackface.

if you are curious about Pfleger’s style and his politics you can take in his defense of then-candidate Barack Obama.  It has been these kinds of political endorsements from the pulpit that have raised questions of the Church’s tax-exempt status.

The one thing Pfleger and Farrakhan have in common is using a supposedly religious platform to advance narrow partisan political views.  They are not the first to use religious ministry to promote their political views.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a very successful and lucrative career doing just that.  And it does not only come from the left.  Televangelist Pat Robertson has plowed those fields from the right. But none of them have risen to the level of Pfleger and Farrakhan in provoking animus in the name of godly love.

Like others of the breed, Pfleger and Farrakhan have passionate followers who have kept them in their respective pulpits.  There were times when it appeared that the Archbishop of Chicago would reassign Pfleger – especially since he has been at St. Sabina’s much longer than the rules generally permit.  He has been previously rebuked, but never replaced – and even in the aftermath of this egregious performance, it is unlikely that Cupich will have the testicular fortitude to do so.

So, there ‘tis.