It’s increasingly hard to find newspaper columnists who don’t produce a deep fit of narcolepsy. Most major dailies commission a bunch of apparatchiks who toe the party line, whether it be Republican or Democrat. They insist the “other side” is out of step with what the country needs while theirs is ready to create paradise on earth. The difference between the two factions is slim to nil, but it makes good fodder for the gullible reader.

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post seems to have broken the mold, almost inadvertently. Over the past few months, he has written a series of articles that have gotten the professional whiners of the progressive community all flustered in their metro glasses and skinny ties. Many of these columns don’t express any profound wisdom. They are more of a layman’s view on culture - representing the evil, black-hearted views of the America of old. Cohen himself is an admirer of liberal policies, which makes his anachronistic views all the more offending to his own kind.

The first of these horribly ignorant opinions surfaced in the 80s, near the height of the crack epidemic. Cohen had the gall to defend jewelry store owners in New York City who refused to allow black patrons in their establishments due to a heightened fear of crime. Whether you agree it’s just to make criminals out of individuals based solely on skin color, businessmen always have the right to allow whom they wish on their property. But as Sen. Rand Paul learned, you can never make that argument to leftists. Property rights must always come second to crushing intolerance. The predictable backlash aimed at Cohen forced the executive editor of the Post to issue an apology.

Fast forward two-and-a-half decades, the four-time Pulitzer Prize nominee once again stirred the boiling pot of racial agitation. In commenting on the Trayvon Martin debacle over the summer, Cohen attempted to reconcile two opposing viewpoints: suspicion based on superficial features and refraining from judging a book by its cover. While the slaying of Martin was tragic, he commented:

“I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize…”

This set off another firestorm from high-browed, open-minded folks who just can’t stand dissent. Cohen was pinned as a neanderthalic racist who regards all young black males in hoodies as murderous thieves. Of course, I would challenge any of his detractors to walk unaccompanied down a dark alley at night with young men in hooded sweatshirts waiting at the end. The first to volunteer can wear a cape of self-righteousness.

The latest atrocity has leftists donning their angry faces once-again. In attempted to weigh in on the social views of the Tea Party, Cohen makes a rather startling remark about the new First Family of New York City. The now-infamous copy is as follows:

"People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York—a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?)"

Immediately, this was taken as Cohen speaking for himself rather than the conservative sect he set out to scrutinize. The familiar screams of “racist” and “bigot” followed shortly after. Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic called it “abysmal” and usual fare for a writer who consistently wallows in “horse-shit.” The Huffington Post called on the Post to hand Cohen the pink slip. Slate correspondent Matthew Yglesias - who was once beaten in downtown D.C. by two black men, and neglected to reveal the skin color as it went against his own liberal grain - declared the article risky for new owner Jeff Bezos. The Post’s opinion page editor, Fred Hiatt, asserted the column was fine, but that he “erred in not editing that one sentence more carefully to make sure it could not be misinterpreted.”

The enamored response was typical. Cohen’s opinion, whether he meant it personally or not, is not standard fare for a major paper. His views represent, inter alia, the fairly conventional view of the suburban middle class. The de Blasio remark was accurate, and not just based on interracial relationships. After all, most would agree with the sentiment of black essayist James Baldwin who once wrote in regards to a figurative white woman: “your sister and I have every right to marry if we wish to, and no one has the right to stop us.”

What’s truly off-putting about Bill de Blasio and his wife Chirlane McCray is the latter’s former radical lesbianism. Old-fashioned sensibility sees love as love - not some tool to make a political statement. In a 1979 article for Essence magazine, McCray loudly admitted to an attraction to her own sex. Over a decade later, de Blasio wooed her like no man - literally no man - had ever done before. In a recent interview with the same magazine, McCray claims her transition back to heterosexuality was due to “putting aside the assumptions I had about the form and package my love would come in.”

Perhaps I have been rendered ignorant by my bourgeois values, but what exactly do assumptions have to do with sexual attraction? The average guy doesn’t contemplate the meaning of life when courting a lady. He has his eye on the prize, whether it be chivalrous or something more sinful. The gay movement has done a terrific job insisting the urge for the same-sex is natural and inherent. Yet here is a fine example of someone who flip-flopped between sexual identities like John Kerry running for President.

The relationship between de Blasio and McCray appears as one of two things: either it’s a politically convenient or just plain capricious. What causes the gag reflex is the seemingly flimsy manner by which this political couple seems to treat what is supposed to be a sacred union. The masses don’t exactly have a holy predilection to fidelity, but it doesn’t take a doctorate in neuropsychology to detect something is amiss in a born-again straight woman who happens to fall for a guy in the political sphere.

It’s the same kind of crapshoot the public was fed when Wild Bill cheated on Hillary in front of the world. Instead of gathering her dignity and leaving the serial adulterer, the former everything-except-President stood by her husband. Anyone with half a brain knew it was a celebrity marriage anyway - it just couldn’t be mentioned in polite company.

This is part of what Cohen is getting at when he writes of the nauseating feeling the little people get in the face of sham marriages. The art of politics is loathsome enough. Having to witness a bunch of socialists bathing in their own decadence, scoffing at norms meant for the lowly class, is stomaching-turning.

In response to all the shrieking criticism, Cohen denied any fault and vowed to keep writing “until Gawker sends over a hit man.” It was a facetious claim, but not totally farfetched. Lefty, pro-gay marriage activists recently berated a lesbian state representative in Hawaii on her reluctance to support a same-sex marriage bill. The Rep. was concerned over protections for religious liberty - a matter not seen as worthy of consideration by nuptial equalizers. So she was viciously slammed by her own kind for having the audacity to speak out.

It’s all peace and tolerance until someone has their feelings hurt. And then out comes the knives. Lucky for Richard Cohen, he still has his job. The next time he has the temerity to challenge the post-modern mentality of progressives, he may not be so lucky.

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!