Well, not exactly.  The title is meant to illustrate the politically correct absurdities that have permeated our culture, the assault on history and eternal truths, the endless intimidation, and the endless apologies that result.  All men are rapists, all women are victims, the Founders were slave-owners, and Winston Churchill was a genocidal maniac.

Tear down the statues that remind us that the Confederacy did exist; that we fought a civil war that ended slavery; and, yes, that we apologized at Gettysburg.  Remember that all men are rapists, all women are victims, all people are hopelessly dependent on government, and Alyssa Milano is a great intellect.

Now we have retired astronaut Scott Kelly demonstrating that he should have dialed up the oxygen in his spacesuit, apologizing to the world for quoting Winston Churchill as others grotesquely rewrite history to condemn the man who helped save the world from a new dark age under the rule of Nazi Germany.

Retired Astronaut Scott Kelly apologized Sunday after quoting social justice thought criminal Winston Churchill – even though he was attacking Republicans celebrating the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Kelly wrote: "One of the greatest leaders of modern times, Sir Winston Churchill said, 'in victory, magnanimity.' I guess those days are over."

It is hard to be magnanimous when you are falsely charged with gang rape.  Astronaut Kelly glosses over the same type of character assassination he heaps on Winston Churchill, a defender of Western civilization whom Kavanaugh critics hate.  Were it not for Churchill, his critics would be speaking German, something Scott Kelly should realize as he checks in to the nearest re-education camp:

"Did not mean to offend by quoting Churchill.  My apologies," he wrote.  "I will go and educate myself further on his atrocities, racist views which I do not support.  My point was we need to come together as one nation.  We are all Americans.  That should transcend partisan politics."

It should not transcend devotion to the truth, unless Scott Kelly agrees that history is a lie agreed upon.  Winston Churchill is attacked because he was a staunch defender of Western civilization against barbarism.  Brett Kavanaugh was attacked because he is a defender of the Constitution and the presumption of innocence against anarchy and mob rule.  Just which side is Scott Kelly on?

Churchill's critics, like Kavanaugh's, can't get their history right.  For example, accusing Churchill of deliberately orchestrating a racially motivated famine in India in 1943:

Some, like Dr. Shashi Tharoor, have alleged that "Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does."  He bases this assertion on the prime minister's 1943 decision to divert food aid from famine-stricken Bengal to British Expeditionary Force soldiers deployed in Greece, contributing to a plague of starvation that claimed 4.3 million people.  That atrocity, it is implied, is an outgrowth of Churchill's antipathy toward the cause of a free India.  But even if a pro-dominion advocate like Earl of Halifax Edward Wood had succeeded Neville Chamberlin in 1940, he would still have had to triage food aid to maximize the chances of victory in a war for national survival.  To contend that the terrible choices forced upon leaders in wartime are equivalent to a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocidal extermination precipitating that war isn't enlightenment.  It's grotesque monomania.

Scott Kelly seems to forget that war for national survival.  War forces terrible choices.  It was a war brought on by appeasers like Neville Chamberlain, who waved pieces of parchment and proclaimed "peace in our time" as they condemned tens of millions to death.  Had Churchill been prime minister in 1936 when Hitler's horse-drawn army marched back into the demilitarized Rhineland or when Hitler demanded the Sudetenland in 1938, World War II would not have occurred.

Yes, World War II ended with Poland, which was the cause of it all, behind the Iron Curtain.  But that was as much the fault of Democrats like Roosevelt and Truman.  An alliance with Stalin was the price to be paid for defeating Hitler.  History consists of, what's that phrase, fifty shades of gray.  As Ben Shapiro notes in National Review:

Good-faith conversations about American history recognize the multifaceted moral nature of human existence: the fact that George Washington was a slaveholder does not render his status as father of the country moot; the fact that Abraham Lincoln spent most of his career advocating for colonization of black Americans in Africa rather than their full integration into American life does not obliterate Lincoln's role as the Great Emancipator.  Human beings are products of their time – and they are capable of holding viewpoints that resonate down through the ages and the prejudices of their own age.  Undoubtedly, a century from now, few will look kindly at even the most broadminded Americans' views on a variety of issues.

But the process of civilizational development requires us to separate the wheat from the chaff – and to celebrate the wheat.

Truman himself carries a lot of liberal baggage, having dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another terrible choice forced by war that ended World War II and spared a million casualties in the proposed invasion of the Japanese home islands.  The inhabitants were Asians, which makes Truman an old white racist guilty of an atrocity.

We eventually won the Cold War and liberated Eastern Europe, an event the left celebrates annually.  But before that, there was Winston Churchill, who warned us about the timid souls in politics and war who feed the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.