Prager U: What is the Alt-Right?

Presented by Michael Knowles for Prager University:

 

What is the alt-right? What is its worldview? How big is it?

Michael Knowles, bestselling author and host of The Michael Knowles Show, took a deep dive into alt-right culture. Here’s what he learned.  Please click below:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/what-alt-right

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leftist NPR “Loses” Michael Oreskes: Accused of Weinstein Disorder!

NPR News Chief Quits Over Sexual Harassment Allegations

by ALLAHPUNDIT at HotAir:

“I can’t keep track anymore of how many big cheeses in Hollywood and the media have been toppled since the first Harvey Weinstein bombshell burst. In the movie industry, there’s James Toback, Brett Ratner, Kevin Spacey, and Big Harv himself; in journalism there’s Leon Wieseltier, Mark Halperin, Bill O’Reilly and his newly revealed $32 million settlement, and now Michael Oreskes of NPR. We’re going to need to start a separate vertical on the site dedicated exclusively to big-name sex creeps just to keep up.

SEE ALSO: Upside down: McCain now at 64% favorability among Dems, 63% unfavorability among GOP

Oreskes is by far the least well known of the men I just mentioned but he’s a person with considerable power in his field. Not only was he senior VP in charge of news at NPR, before that he worked for the New York Times and was senior managing editor for the Associated Press. He’s had a lot of influence in his long career. And no doubt many, many women reported to him in the course of it. So far there are three allegations of harassment against him. So far.

On the spectrum of offenses ranging from flirting with a subordinate to the Full Weinstein, Oreskes appears to be somewhere between flirtation and Mark Halperin territory. Not as bad as Halperin — there’s no allegation of him wanking it in the middle of a conversation with a woman colleague, for instance — but improper.

In separate complaints, [two] women said Oreskes — at the time, the Washington bureau chief of the New York Times — abruptly kissed them while they were speaking with him about working at the newspaper. Both of them told similar stories: After meeting Oreskes and discussing their job prospects, they said he unexpectedly kissed them on the lips and stuck his tongue in their mouths…

One of the women said her encounter with him permanently damaged her confidence. She was in her late 20s at the time, recently arrived in Washington from a small Western town. “When I first went to see him, it was after screwing up my nerve to try to be bold and maneuver myself into a better job, and after what happened with him, I never really tried that again,” she said…

She says that when she mentioned to him that she was traveling to New York for a job interview at the New York Daily News, he told her to book the flight he planned to take the same day. They shared a cab into the city from the airport. At the end of the trip, he leaned against her, kissed her and slipped his tongue into her mouth, she said.

The second woman tells a similar story, and Times employees remember Oreskes “pestering” a young woman employee at the NYT with phone calls and messages that made her “nervous.” All of this happened years ago, but a woman who works at NPR claims that a career counseling session with Oreskes two years ago turned into a weird conversation about relationships and his first “sex girlfriend.”(There was no inappropriate contact between them, she says.) What encouraged the first two women to speak up, they say, was the thought of Oreskes steering NPR’s coverage of Weinstein. “It’s sickening,” one told WaPo. “I want to say: ‘You owe me . . . a public apology. You should recuse yourself.”

Today he resigned:  ……There’s more below if your still interested:

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/01/npr-news-chief-quits-sexual-harassment-allegations/

Trump Still Clean on Russia, But Crooked Hillary Not So Much!

Gregg Jarrett: Still no evidence of Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ – but Hillary is a different matter

by Gregg Jarrett at Fox News:

Over the weekend, the mainstream media was absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment by special counsel, Robert Mueller.

This was proof positive, they insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature.

Manafort & Gates

The celebration came to a crashing end when the indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates, were unsealed Monday morning.  It turns out the charges are, basically, a tax fraud case.  The two men stand accused of hiding their income from their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then lying about it.  That’s it.

The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or Russia or “collusion.”  The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the tree.  Gee whiz.

The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his business dealings.  The FBI raided his home over the summer.  It was later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as 2014.  And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged.

It could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

The media became even more dispirited when they read through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman of the Trump campaign.  In other words, there is no connection to either Trump or his campaign.

Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van Jones were crying.  Again.  Just like the tears they shed on camera election night when Hillary lost.

Papadopoulos

But wait.  Shortly after the indictments were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign.  Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?

Wrong.  George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI.  He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters.  It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.  They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump, Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton.  What law did he break?  None.  The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money.  Which brings us to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.”  The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.  It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121).  This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained.  In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all.  Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.  Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343).  It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.

Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel.  Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team, notwithstanding a dearth of evidence.

Robert Mueller

The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel.

Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal.  The criminal charges change all that.  The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes.  Only crimes.  He has limited jurisdiction.  Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”   It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law.  It is a legal impossibility.  He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would be disbanded by judicial order.  The Department of Justice would have to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special counsel or drop the case entirely.

The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning.  Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner.

It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed Mueller.  We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a vital national security asset.  A cover-up?  It has the stench of one.

How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?   Both men should resign.

And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/30/gregg-jarrett-still-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-but-hillary-is-different-matter.html

Pinched Red Professors at Yale HATE President Trump, OUR Full Blooded American Problem Solver!

GELERNTER’S TRUMP

by Scott Johnson   at  PowerLine:

“The Islamist terror attack that killed eight in Manhattan yesterday fills me with impotent rage, but it also got me thinking about President Trump and his national security team. With them, there will be no hiding or downplaying the underlying reality of the attack. We will not be solemnly instructed to gainsay the truth that stares us in the face.

Bill Bennett’s most recent installment of his podcast show includes a discussion with Yale’s Professor David Gelernter in part addressing the subject of Trump. There is no one I respect and admire more than Professor Gelernter. He is a deeply learned and decent man. I wanted to hear what he had to say.

Bill’s conversation with Professor Gelernter begins with the subject of Trump. Bill asked him, what do they think of Trump at Yale? “They hate his guts,” Professor Gelernter responded.

Listening to the podcast earlier this week, I found Professor Gelernter expressing my thoughts in a form I haven’t quite been able to articulate. Some readers may find Professor Gelernter’s comments of interest. He elaborated (the transcription is mine and omits Bill’s comments, which also mirror my own thoughts):

People on the left find Trump not merely objectionable on principle but they hate him as a person. They find him grating and annoying and he drives them crazy. I understand that. He often drives me crazy. Obama had the same properties….He was such a pain. I think there is nothing worse than a combination of patronizing arrogance and insincerity. Whenever he opened his mouth, your stomach turned over. It was painful to hear him talk. Now I understand that people — my friends on the left — have the same reaction to Trump, but the remarkable thing is what this says about the way the country swings and why did we elect Trump? The left and academia [are] too busy hating him to ask why their countrymen were

The American people know perfectly well what is due to the office of the presidency. I think Trump is undignified in a lot of ways. I think Trump falls short in a lot of ways and I think that is absolutely as clear to a farmer in Alabama or a cowboy in Wyoming as it is to the Washington Post.

People were driven to elect Trump not because they deemed him a perfect candidate to be president but because they were angry, they were incensed, they couldn’t stand where the country was going and the analysis that should follow upon that isn’t there. I mean, it goes on in conservative circles but it ought to be the number one topic in the study of American government, in the study of American history all over the world, and it’s not, of course. Needless to say.

I remain absolutely a supporter and a sympathizer of Trump. And you know, no president checks every box. I think his virtues far outweigh his faults. I do wish he would take the office and the history of the office more seriously than he does…

Just the fact of getting elected was an extraordinary accomplishment. I mean, you could say it was the most culturally democratic moment in the history of the world. Never before has a great power spurned everything the elite — the intellectual and the social elite — knows, left and right, about who should be running the country. Never before has a great power said to hell with that. The dignity of the country is important and has a lot to do with the power of the country, but this is an emergency and we’re going to make use of the best candidate who’s out there. And the implications are enormous. The left believes that, since it refuses to report on the right, the right doesn’t really exist, that it’s just a bunch of uncollected morons with no serious thought.

We all know this. We’ve reached a point where the left’s blindness is aiding the collapse of the intellectual structure built up since the rise of Marxism….The left is too arrogant, too complacent, too self-satisfied to notice it or do anything about it — I hope.

The podcast is posted online in all the usual formats. I have embedded the Stitcher version below. It is also posted here. Bill’s conversation with Professor Gelernter begins at about 41:00…..”

(Note:  It is our American President’s duty by law  to serve not the dictates of the pinched, Obama fascistic university left, but the American people!  Isn’t he wonderful!