Well, it happened. At least a small part of hell apparently froze over, because a member of the media actually admitted that he shouldn't have dismissed Juanita Broaddrick's accusation against Bill Clinton.

Columnist Richard Cohen, who has worked at The Washington Post since 1968, wrote an opinion piece titled "I thought Juanita Broaddrick wasn't credible. I was wrong."

Juanita Broaddrick is the woman who alleges that Bill Clinton raped her when he was running for Arkansas governor in 1978.

RELATED: The #MeToo movement proves to be too strong for the Clinton apologists

But since the #MeToo movement exploded over a year ago, there has been a tidal shift in the culture, culminating in the tug-of-war over allegations during the Kavanaugh hearings. And one of the biggest takeaways from those hearings, according to those on the Left, is that you always believe the victim. During the hearings, Anita Hill was once again in the spotlight, brought up over and over, and her accusations against Clarence Thomas universally believed in the media. Yet, somehow, some of Bill Clinton's accusers still haven't been extended the same sympathy as Dr. Blasey Ford and Anita Hill.

That's why it is so unusual to hear a Bill Clinton supporter admit he may have been wrong about Broaddrick. It's twenty years too late and obviously influenced by the #MeToo movement, but Cohen admits to dismissing Broaddrick's claims during Clinton's presidency as "just another wild accusation made by twisted Clinton haters."

NBC's Lisa Myers recently told Slate:

I tested her [Broaddrick's] story every way I could, again and again and again. And no detail ever changed – it never got better, it never got worse. It was always the same.

Cohen wonders why Monica Lewinsky is now totally characterized as a victim, while Broaddrick is ignored. He says it might have something to do with Broaddrick being a Trump supporter. Nah, that couldn't have anything to do with it.

Cohen writes:

I remember refusing to deal with Broaddrick's allegations because I simply chose to believe Clinton was not a rapist... My position has proved naïve.

Whether dealing with the Clinton or the Kavanaugh cases, all political camps should tread carefully in their certainty about the truth. And to do that requires a huge dose of something even more elusive than the truth… humility.

A political message… or a weapon? The seven thousand strong migrant caravan now appears to be both. We know that this migrant invasion force was organized in Honduras by a leftist political party looking to embarrass the current right-wing government. I've been pointing this out for two weeks. In that sense, this entire charade has indeed been one giant political stunt. But the question on my mind was who was providing the funding? Moving seven thousand people is incredibly expensive. The checks that a, now deposed, left-leaning political party in Honduras could write just wouldn't cut it.

RELATED: This is not a caravan, it's an INVASION

I asked Governor Abbott yesterday in an interview if he knew who was funding all this. He hinted that the Trump Administration was fully aware. Did Vice President Mike Pence let the cat out of the bag yesterday from the Oval Office? He said:

At the President's direction, I spoke to President Hernandez of Honduras. He told me that the caravan that is now making its way through Mexico, headed for the southern border, was organized by leftist organizations and financed by Venezuela.

WOW! This puts the caravan in an entirely different context. This caravan - this invasion force - is more than just a Honduran political message, this is a weaponized attack.

I pointed out on multiple occasions the caravan organizers' ties to both the Castros and Maduro in Venezuela. This new information from Mike Pence makes perfect sense. If you're Venezuelan President Maduro, and you want to attack the United States, but barely have enough money to buy toilet paper… how do you do it?

Nonconventional means would be your only option. Reaching out to your allies in South America to organize and fund thousands of people to flood the U.S. border is a pretty inventive way to strike back. Not only is it a form of economic warfare, but it also destabilizes the U.S. political structure. And that's not to mention how many criminal elements are tagging along… how many Venezuelan or Cuban spies are using this as cover to enter the country… how many terrorists might be riding along with the intention of attacking U.S. targets.

Are we being attacked in waves?

Reports this morning are saying that two more caravans are currently forming. One in El Salvador and one in Guatemala. To use a military term, are we being attacked in waves? Was the first caravan of seven thousand just the first wave? How many more will we see? If this allegation is correct, there's no other way to describe it. The United States is under attack.

Here's the latest bill in the works from Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Cory Booker. Have the federal government give $1,000 to every child born in America. That money would be placed in an investment account for that child, and the government would deposit up to an additional $2,000 a year in each child's account so that by the time they turn 18 they will have a nest egg to help them get ahead in life.

But there would be strict government rules around this egg. It could only be used for something like buying a house or "human and financial capital investments that change life trajectories."

RELATED: Iowa visit means Spartacus 2020 is a done deal

Okay, typical progressive idea. Uncle Sam will be there for you – cradle to grave. Easy to poke holes in. Completely impractical in a financial sense. But here's what needs to change about the political debate in America. It needs to get back to an actual debate. Rather than just torpedoing an idea because it comes from your opposing side, we must get back to discussing why we disagree with something.

So, why is this Booker bill problematic? Besides the insane price tag and the massive layers of added government bureaucracy it would entail, a bill like this sends a very poor message. Ultimately, it shows no faith in Americans and their God-given abilities.

Progressives like Booker want to move beyond equal opportunity – their goal is equal outcome. And they think government is the means to achieve that. What they don't seem to understand, or don't want to understand, is that equal outcome is impossible in a free society. It doesn't mean that we don't strive to create opportunities, but you simply cannot legislate outcomes. There are just too many variables at play, including, most notably, that humans are fundamentally flawed.

Progressives like Booker want to move beyond equal opportunity – their goal is equal outcome.

The evidence from decades of government "assistance" programs is clear – they simply do not work as a catalyst to pull people out of poverty. For the Booker bill, this means that even if you try to rig the system, by creating a level playing field of opportunity for everyone from birth, it still won't guarantee the same successful outcome for every person.

We don't need to demonize Cory Booker for floating this idea, as flawed as it is. But we should discuss it and be able to explain how it represents a vision for a completely different America – a declaration of dependence.