“Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
— Hebrews 4:16.
Today I drive the long, sad slog back to Northern Virginia from Chatmoss. Kitchen renovations completed. Some golf played. Relaxed, and reinvigorated. Back to work.
“. . . Why do so many criminals believe they can enter the U.S. illegally and get away with murder?
Is it because they feel contempt for any nation that opens its borders, requires no background checks, destroys its own immigration laws, and weaponizes its criminal justice system to make the criminal the victim and the state his victimizer?
Why do so many burn the U.S. flag while waving the flag of Mexico, a country they have no intention of returning to?
Is it because they sense they might be praised for “celebrating diversity,” as the popular culture would term such abject cultural schizophrenia?
Why would the Tsarnaev brothers repay the country that took them in by killing innocent Americans?
Would it be because, in their formative years in American schools, their teachers and texts emphasized what was wrong with a supposedly exploitative U.S.?
Why, in the middle of a near-existential war with Iran to stop its efforts to obtain nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles pointed at the U.S. and its allies, would naturalized citizens feel so free to slaughter Americans for the cause of Islam?
Would it be because they sense from left-wing universities and popular culture that it is a virtual open season on Jews?
Or that any time an Islamic terrorist commits an act, a Democratic operative will warn America of “Islamophobia” – as if, say, mowing down soldiers at Fort Hood is the lesser crime?
Why would a rich, privileged Eileen Gu feel no discomfort competing for a murderous regime whose agenda is to displace her country from its global preeminence in favor of a communist dictatorship?
Is it because in our relativist modern America, Gu’s “truth” is just as meaningful as any other? And who, after all, is qualified to judge anything or anyone?
Who created our current Frankensteinian monstrosities?
We did.
We are the Dr. Frankensteins who asked nothing of immigrants, in a complete break from our nation’s past.
And we got our wish for a new, quite different class of immigrants, who treated the U.S. the very way they were taught to do by the Left: as an evil entity that deserved what it got.
And we sure have gotten it.”
–Victor Davis Hanson.
Below are 2 articles examining the brouhaha surrounding the life and legacy of Cesar Chavez. It makes one wonder how it is that so many of the Left’s icons are so evil (assuming the truth of the allegations against Mr. Chavez). It cannot all be a series of coincidences. Frankly, I do not believe in coincidences.
Cesar Chavez, Rapist, Pedophile, Progressive Icon
The progressive media’s carefully cultivated myth has been debunked, and the rot exposed is obscene.
BY: Daniel Flynn, The American Spectator (March 19, 2026).
Cesar Chavez took the “g” out of grape.
The New York Times reports allegations from his closest aide, Dorothy Huerta, that the late United Farm Workers head pressured her into sex in 1960 and then raped her in a Delano, California, grape field in 1966.
These two encounters resulted in pregnancies and then adoptions. In addition to the eight kids his wife bore him, Chavez, genealogy tests showed, fathered four kids with three additional women.
“Unfortunately, he used some of his great leadership to abuse women and children,” she explained to the Times. “It’s really awful.”
Children?
Two 66-year-old women, daughters of union activists, told the newspaper that Chavez molested them during the 1970s.
Debra Rojas told the Times that Chavez first messed around with her when she was 12. The union boss told her that they would someday move to Mexico together and that The Flamingos’ “I Only Have Eyes for You” was their song. At 15, he put her up in a motel room where they had sex.
“I had love for him,” Rojas divulged to the newspaper. “He did his grooming very well. He should get an Academy Award for all he did.”
His molestation of Ann Murguia began after she turned 13. The sexual encounters, which never involved intercourse, occurred dozens of times.
“He used the privacy of his California office to frequently molest Murguia, she said,” the Times reports. “He had known her since she was 8 years old. She became so traumatized that she attempted to end her life multiple times by the age of 15.”
The same American Left that removed statues of Theodore Roosevelt, Christopher Columbus, and Robert E. Lee has spent the last six decades elevating Chavez to sainthood status.
Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin celebrate official holidays in his honor.
When investigative reporters and historians admire your politics, they generally protect your crimes and misbehavior.
Bill Clinton awarded Chavez a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom. Barack Obama named a Navy vessel after Chavez, declared the bulk of his United Farm Workers headquarters a national monument, and pushed to turn his birthday into a federal holiday.
Joe Biden displayed a bust of Chavez in the Oval Office.
Like Margaret Sanger, Harvey Milk, Jim Jones, Harvey Weinstein, and others once held in high esteem by fellow progressives, Chavez operated with a cloak of invincibility for himself and a cloak of invisibility for his deeds. When investigative reporters and historians admire your politics, they generally protect your crimes and misbehavior. Thus, through ideological affinity, do naturally curious people become unnaturally indifferent.
This, of course, emboldens other sociopathic types who hold anointed views to imagine that they, too, can engage in crimes and misbehavior without consequence. A get-out-of-jail-free card exists for those who mouth the right words but do the wrong things. Power corrupts, Lord Acton reminded. So did Tolkien. So did the Founding Fathers. Yet so many wish to concentrate power in fewer hands. In extreme cases, they would yield it all to a charismatic leader.
Chavez demonstratively fasted for weeks at a time but compulsively touched underage girls. What would a psychiatrist say about all that?
Clearly, this public persona helped obscure secret behavior from the view of not just his progressive admirers but many others, too. Many people regarded him as noble. His followers worshipped a false god. That exalted status likely helps explain why so many stayed quiet for so long.
Even though Chavez’s Catholicism and cautious stance on race-obsessed rhetoric did not mesh with the emerging left’s extreme ideology, fanatics nevertheless turned him into a sort of Mexican Martin Luther King. They insisted that we imagine an organizer of grape workers who never really improved their material condition as a figure worthy of a national holiday, just like Jesus Christ, Christopher Columbus, and George Washington.
No statues for Ulysses Grant, but a day off for Cesar Chavez, they insisted. Why, then, should we ever let them act as the arbiters of who American society honors?
Understandably, this hero-takes-a-fall moment, however many decades too late, comes as a devastating blow to progressives who turned this man into a secular saint.
Liberals heeded Chavez’s call to boycott California grapes. Couldn’t he at least have paid them back by boycotting California rapes?
__________________________________________________________________
After Cesar Chavez, the left lionizes Dolores Huerta
Despite being close for decades, Dolores was a lot more left-wing than Cesar ever was. Maybe that’s why she’s being feted.
BY: Monica Showalter, The American Thinker (March 20, 2026).
It’s got to be weird to be Dolores Huerta right now.
The truth came out about the Jim Jones-like cult style of her partner and co-founder of the United Farmworkers Union, Cesar Chavez, who, according to the New York Times, was a molestor of young girls, and up until then had been hailed as a kind of civil rights god.
With Chavez now being swiftly cancelled — in record time, no less (where is Tom Wolfe when we need him?) — now all the public holidays, street names, parks, libraries, schools, scholarships, naval ships, and biographies, have got to be changed, too. And they have to be changed to something, so sure enough, they’re redounding to Dolores Huerta. In San Francisco, it will be the Dolores Huerta parade, not the Cesar Chavez parade. And the Mission District mural bearing Chavez’s visage will now be painted over with Huerta’s image. In Los Angeles, Cesar Chavez Avenue will now be Dolores Huerta Avenue.
It’s kind of queasy-making to be to be named the new civic hero of the left, but only by default, given that none of these places and holidays and honors had been named for her or would have been named for her except for Chavez getting cancelled and a quick substitute being necessary. It’s a booby prize.
What’s more, it’s bound to draw more scrutiny to Huerta’s now-told story to the Times about bearing two of Chavez’s kids, as a result of two rapes back in 1960 and 1966.
According to the original Times report:
His most prominent female ally in the movement, Dolores Huerta, said in an interview that he sexually assaulted her, a disclosure she has never before made publicly.
… and …
The Times spoke at length with Ms. Huerta, the renowned Latina activist who helped run the farmworkers’ union with Mr. Chavez and coined the social-justice rallying cry, “Sí, se puede,” loosely translated as “Yes, we can.”
She said she has held on to a dark secret for nearly 60 years.
One night during the winter of 1966 in Delano, Calif., she said, Mr. Chavez drove her out to a secluded grape field, parked and raped her inside the vehicle. Ms. Huerta, who was 36 at the time, said she chose not to report the assault to the police because of their hostility toward the movement, and she feared that no one within the union would believe her. She also described an earlier encounter in August 1960, when she said she felt pressured to have sex with him in a hotel room during a work trip in San Juan Capistrano in Southern California.
Ms. Huerta later began a long-term domestic partnership with Mr. Chavez’s brother Richard, with whom she had four children. He died in 2011.
Ms. Huerta turns 96 on April 10. Her memories of the details of the assault that night in Delano are at times hazy. But she speaks of the attack in a startlingly matter-of-fact manner.
After the Times story came out, she issued a statement explaining that she didn’t want to hurt “the movement.”
As a young mother in the 1960s, I experienced two separate sexual encounters with Cesar. The first time I was manipulated and pressured into having sex with him, and I didn’t feel I could say no because he was someone that I admired, my boss and the leader of the movement I had already devoted years of my life to. The second time I was forced, against my will, and in an environment where I felt trapped.
I had experienced abuse and sexual violence before, and I convinced myself these were incidents that I had to endure alone and in secret. Both sexual encounters with Cesar led to pregnancies. I chose to keep my pregnancies secret and, after the children were born, I arranged for them to be raised by other families that could give them stable lives.
Over the years, I have been fortunate to develop a deep relationship with these children, who are now close to my other children, their siblings. But even then, no one knew the full truth about how they were conceived until just a few weeks ago.
So if it all happened as she says it happened, not hurting the movement ended up hurting young girls, who didn’t have much to do with their parents’ movement. One became a drug addict and tried to warn others, only to be stomped down as a traitor online, while the other said Chavez hung over her entire life like a shadow.
More to the point, is what she’s describing what really happened? Or is she just trying to distance herself from him as a victim in order to preserve her own parades and holidays?
Because up until last year, Huerta had been a pretty fierce defender of Chavez, the man she claims as her rapist who got her pregnant and forced her to ship the kids to be “raised by other families that could give them stable lives.” She had five kids by husband number two in a marriage that ended in 1963; two more with Cesar in 1960 and 1966; and then by the early 1970s, moved in with Cesar’s brother Richard in a live-in arrangement that never ended up as a marriage, yielding four more kids.
Does it all sound really believable? Grok says the odds of a two random rapes producing a kid on just two occasions is 0.25%.
Was it really a consensual relationship, one premised on her own ambitions to sleep her way to the top on Cesar’s coattails?
Is she trying to tell us she was not really not attracted to him, given that by the 1960s, the Times reported that he had the aura of a movie star. It’s very likely young women were throwing themselves at him as he walked about drawing the flashbulbs and cameras. He had such a god complex he experimented with weird cult activity of the time, notably Synanon. And like any self-respecting cult leader, he had his own hideaway compound, out in rural Kern County, a two hours’ drive north of Los Angeles, which came in handy for getting young girls in with him alone. Jim Jones had one of those, Marshall Applewhite had one of those. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh had one of those. Both Jones and Chavez had a heavy left-wing political emphasis that often shielded them from scrutiny and criticism.
If she were raped by him, why did she stick with him for so many years? Why did she move in with him, as Wikipedia notes, and why did she effectively marry his brother? She must have been around him all the time, not by his choice, but by her own.
Her story may be true on certain levels, but it was the 1960s, she had 1960s values, and anything went on the ‘sexual revolution’ front, particularly then. ‘Why don’t we do it in the road,’ as the Beatles sang. It’s just as likely that she was as liberated as any of them, given her anti-establishment cred and choice of associates. Was she really just holding a secret for 60 years, or did she catch wind of the Times story, origin unknown, and decide to try to cover for her own legacy, separating herself from the role of ‘enabler’ with this story?
Given how close she stayed to him, did she really know nothing about Chavez’s other trysts with kids?
It’s unknown, but precisely because it’s unknown is why the establishment shouldn’t act so quickly to rename every street in her honor. Not that the left really cares, of course, about the bad sexual behavior of its heroes — something so common among so many of them it’s worth writing a book on — Harvey Milk, Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others have appalling pasts, but none ever got the full cancellation Chavez did.
Dolores and Cesar were different in one regard, though: Cesar was against illegal immigration, which is a classic old-line union stance which all the unions used to have, given that illegal foreign labor depresses wages.
Dolores was a left-wing ’60s movement type, growing more stridently leftwing as the years went by. She was named honorary co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. She campaigned for Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, George McGovern, and Kamala Harris. Now she’s into anti-ICE activism and social justice warrioring, particularly after she left the farm workers’ movement to start her own foundation, whose mission reads:
The Dolores Huerta Foundation passionately advocates for social justice, focusing on empowering marginalized communities through grassroots organizing, civic engagement, and education initiatives. By championing the rights of underrepresented populations, we strive to create a more equitable and inclusive society for all.
Based on a look at their website, they seem to be big on milking the anti-ICE protest movement, which has seen a lot of billionaire cash shelled out, meaning, she may be part of the NGO industrial establishment.
Maybe that’s why the Times seeks to protect her, while throwing old Cesar, who died in 1993 and can’t defend himself, under the bus.
Being leftwing has its special privileges and Dolores understood this, perhaps even accelerated her leftwingery for it as if coerced there, too. Leftyism offers protections. Cesar, though, wasn’t leftwing enough and is too dead to change his views.
GFK
