A 'Soldier Stands' for 'Aiding the Youngest': WashPost Honors Inflexible Ultraliberal 'Children's Defense' Activist
Monday’s Style section of the Washington Post is stuck on its Glorify Liberals setting. At the top it reads, “Forty years after founding the Children’s Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman is unbending on aiding the youngest." The large headline below is “A soldier stands her ground.”
Edelman and CDF are holding a biggest Kennedy Center fundraising event honoring Hillary Clinton, although that information is buried in the middle. Post reporter-glorifier Krissah Thompson is at it again, painting Edelman as the righteous advocate who scolds conservatives who apparently want to starve poor children:
Marian Wright Edelman taps the conference table sharply and repeatedly when asked about the debate in Congress over cutting food stamps.She begins to use words like “shameful,” and wonders who raised “these people.” “These people up here,” she says, looking toward Capitol Hill from her nearby office, “and you’ll have to excuse me — I’m going to try not to use bad words — are cutting the lifelines of child growth and cutting off food for hungry people and extremely poor people. I just don’t know where they come from.”
The Post can’t call her “ultraliberal,” or even “liberal.” The CDF merely “advocates for federal and state resources for children.” The only time the word “liberal” comes in is when Thompson described how Marian’s “horizons” were expanded by “liberal historian Howard Zinn, who was among her professors at Spelman.” Zinn is a radical leftist, not a “liberal.”
Thompson never considered how food-stamp spending has exploded under Obama, so any "cuts" wouldn't make a dent in the increase. Government must always expand, funding free groceries for people who don't really fit the word "impoverished."
Edelman is acknowledged as unbending, and was absolutely opposed to Bill Clinton’s acquiescence to welfare reform before his re-election in 1996. Thompson briefly quoted Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, saying Edelman is “a very good-hearted person,” but was “unduly pessimistic” about welfare reform. But then Edelman was allowed to strike a pose for Socialist Compassion:
Over the years, Edelman has gained a reputation for being inflexible — and she is the first to admit it is well deserved.
“I’m inflexible about children being killed by guns, of course,” she says. “I am totally intolerant and inflexible about children going hungry in the richest nation on earth . . . about children being homeless, about children being in schools that don’t teach them how to learn. If that is inflexible, yeah, I’m inflexible.”
Thompson never strives to question whether Edelman opposes abortion – a fate for many unborn children of the poor – or supports school choice (her group raises money from labor unions). So much for “children’s defense.”
Thompson and the Post let Edelman openly attack the conservatives as the worst kind of sinners for denying the spirit of the Bible she reads in her quiet time:
“For those who read Matthew 25 — and I read Matthew 25 for many, many years and somehow missed this — it is about nations being called into account. [It reads] ‘What did you feed me when I was hungry?’ All great nations face the test of morality and pleasing God. What about the orphan and the widow?
“We could care for them,” she says, rushing off to another meeting, “and still have more than enough for those who have more than everyone else.”
The same reference to God-rejecting conservatives came on The Huffington Post: “A nation that does not stand for and invest in its children—all of them—does not stand for anything and will not stand strong in a globalizing world and when we are called to account by our Creator.”
Liberals never wonder if conservatives could donate to the poor through private charity. They're evil until and unless they consent to government-coerced welfare programs.