• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Hillary Goes Bananas With Her Insanity about Her Enemies in WHAT HAPPENED

Hillary’s Version

by Conrad Black  at  National Review

“The American political community has not taken adequate notice of Hillary Clinton’s book What Happened (the title is not posed as a question). It was generally panned when it came out a couple of months ago for blaming everyone but herself for her defeat. I have never been a Clinton-basher, and I was astonished by the venom, untruthfulness, and zealotry of her account. Mrs. Clinton writes persuasively of seeking “grace” after her defeat, and concluded most of her speeches throughout the 2016 campaign calling for “love and kindness,” yet she is unrelievedly ungracious. She describes her opponent as a clear and present danger to the country, . . . an unqualified bully [whose] towering self-regard blotted out all hope of learning or growing, . . . a charlatan . . . [who is] sexist, misogynist, [who] appealed to the ugliest impulses of our national character, . . . [is] on the wrong side of justice, history, and basic human decency, . . . [is] hostile to civil rights and voting rights across the board, is for nuclear proliferation, against NATO, and for torturing prisoners, . . . lacks character, values, and experience, [and] will be the most reckless president in American history, and put at risk our country’s national security and well-being. She claims that Trump implied she would be assassinated by “the Second Amendment people,” when he was referring to their talent at lobbying the Congress; and implies that he called the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012, where 27 people were killed, including many children, “a hoax” (an outrageous falsehood). She calls Trump “an America-bashing misogynist,” like Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange (of WikiLeaks), really thinks he might have been conspiring with Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks, and even attaches some credence to the “golden shower” rumor that Trump organized a group of prostitutes to do unsanitary things on a bed in a Moscow hotel where the Obamas once slept. In sum, she declares Donald Trump to be “the least experienced, least knowledgeable, least competent president our country has ever had, . . . who doesn’t think in terms of morality or human rights, he only thinks in terms of power and dominance.” Her opponents are always “the extreme right,” though Trump is in fact a centrist on most issues except law enforcement, well to the left of the Ted Cruz Republicans. “He dreams of Moscow on the Potomac.” She writes that Trump has “an affection for tyrants, hostility toward allies, and alleged financial ties to shady Russian actors.” He has “degraded national life” and “is a tumor on the American soul,” and comes to the very edge of an accusation of outright treason. There’s not much “grace, love, and kindness” here.

Previous narrowly defeated presidential candidates have been almost uniformly civilized. It never seems to have occurred to Hillary Clinton that Trump won because the previous 20 years of government had been utterly and bipartisanly incompetent, in the White House and the Congress. Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama produced the housing bubble and the Great Recession, endless and fruitless war in the Mideast and an immense humanitarian tragedy, mountainous budgetary, current-account, and trade deficits, and, under Obama, serious increases in poverty and violence, a shrinking work force, and a foreign policy of telling America’s allies and enemies to change roles and places. (Clinton proudly claims that the surrender to Iran’s nuclear military ambitions avoided an arms race in the Middle East, and fears what a mess Trump might make of North Korea, oblivious to her own and her husband’s bungling of the issue.) She somewhat grasps that tens of millions of voters don’t enjoy being called “deplorables” (though she thinks they are anyway), but doesn’t grasp that Trump was running as much against the Bushes and Obama as against the Clintons. She seems not to realize that he and his supporters concluded that the entire political class, including its national-media launderers, Wall Street paymasters, greasy lobbyists, and Hollywood cheerleaders, all had to go when the swamp is drained. Mrs. Clinton attributes her defeat to the malice of James Comey (the former FBI director), popular misogyny, the Russians, Republican chicanery, the Electoral College, and the near impossibility of a party’s winning three straight terms. She saluted Comey when he vastly exceeded his authority as a senior police official by announcing that she would not be prosecuted, but he subsequently (very clumsily) reopened and then closed the investigation of the email controversy. Mrs. Clinton describes this sequence as being “shivved by Jim Comey three times.” It was an eruption of Comey’s egotism and poor judgment, but he exonerated her twice, while admitting that she had lied to federal investigators — Martha Stewart went to prison for less — and he merely said some new emails were being examined on the third occasion. Not much of a shivving. Then comes the misogyny of the American electorate, which did not prevent them from giving her more votes than Trump (albeit not as usefully distributed). Five previous presidents were elected with fewer votes than their chief opponent, because the United States is a federation where all the adhering states entered with the same level of jurisdictional sovereignty, regardless of population. If it were a straight matter of popular plurality, Trump would have campaigned in California, New York, and Illinois, where Clinton racked up big majorities; and if it were like the French system, where a second ballot is required between the two leading candidates where there is no majority on the first vote, Trump would have won anyway, as he would have picked up most of the Libertarian vote (4 million), while Clinton would have got most of the Greens (1 million). Party control of administrations has lately tended to change after two terms, but the Republicans had three straight terms in the 1920s, followed by five straight Democratic terms, and the Republicans had three terms in a row under Reagan and Bush. It can be done, with a popular retiring president and a strong successor, but neither was the case in 2016. There was no argument to reelect the Democrats after the general policy fiasco of the Obama tenure, and the whole Democratic campaign was to pillory Trump as a gangster, a traitor, and a buffoon. Hillary also thinks she was a victim of the disenfranchisement of non-white and youthful voters, though there is no evidence that this happened, and neither Trump nor the Republican party would have had any ability to do it.

More alarming than Mrs. Clinton’s ungraciousness is her dishonesty. She all but accuses Trump of treasonable collusion with Russia, and Russian interference in the election looms even larger than misogyny and Comey’s skullduggery in her demonology of causes of the national tragedy of her defeat. But all the “evidence” she cites of Trump–Kremlin collusion is taken from the now-infamous Christopher Steele dossier. Since the publication of this book, it has come to light that the Clinton campaign paid $10 million for Steele’s unverifiable pastiche of defamatory gossip and fabrications against Trump. The entire case against Trump has, after 16 months of FBI investigation, turned up no evidence. The Clinton campaign denied, until the facts came to light, that it had any knowledge of the origins of the Steele dossier, and now says that it doesn’t matter who paid for it; and she now refers to it as “campaign information.” The bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed that this dossier is the sole basis for the continuation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Mrs. Clinton professes to believe that she faced a hostile press throughout the campaign, an unimaginable liberty with the facts to anyone who saw the relentless sandbag-job the press conducted against Trump. She writes that, on October 31, 2016, the New York Times, which she thinks was hostile to her, ran “one of the worst stories of the entire election, claiming the FBI saw no link between the Trump campaign and Russia.” It is nearly 13 months later and the Mueller leak machine has confirmed the same finding. The outright dishonesty of her citing a smear campaign she had commissioned and paid for as evidence of her opponent’s perfidy is a historic pathfinder in electoral dirty tricks, vastly surpassing anything from hardballers like FDR, LBJ, or Richard Nixon (whom she falsely accuses of “crimes,” though no serious evidence of any has been produced against him, though members of his entourage certainly were guilty of crimes). “Even if no direct ties ever come to light, we need to know how the right-wing war on truth opened the door to Russian attack,” she writes. Yet everyone agrees that though the Russians meddled in the election, they had no impact on the result. The Russians took only $6,500 worth of Facebook advertisements, without endorsing a candidate, in an election in which Trump and Clinton spent $1.85 billion, most of it being spent by Clinton. She has an unblemished record, she implies, and the fact that the majority of Americans don’t trust her is due to the “viciousness of the Republican smear merchants.” She says that the timely release of the Billy Bush tape of Trump’s verbal indiscretions eleven years before (about the ease for a celebrity of groping women), though it was clearly fired as an intended game-ender, came as a surprise to her, and that she was heroic in “winning” the second presidential debate two days later, given the pressure she was under. In fact, Trump, with his campaign apparently in shambles and principal figures deserting or taking their distance, was under more pressure than anyone in the history of those debates going back to Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, and he won the debate. Trump’s production, earlier in the day, of a trio of women who alleged sexual assault against her husband was, in Mrs. Clinton’s view, a tawdry and outrageous resurrection of those she memorably described in the past as “the bimbos.” Trump’s coarse locker-room reflections are apparently disqualifying, but Bill Clinton’s scandalous and possibly criminal sexual assaults on various women when he was governor and president do not alter the Norman Rockwell marriage of Bill and Hillary. The author is a relentless partisan: Republicans are under-educated pessimists, “the deplorables,” as she called them last year.

Reagan “sapped the spirit of the country,” though he restored the country’s confidence. (He also led the greatest economic boom in modern U.S. history and won the Cold War, but she doesn’t mention that.) Dwight Eisenhower isn’t mentioned at all, apart from having been Adlai Stevenson’s opponent, and Richard Nixon was a criminal, never mind that Nixon ended school segregation and conscription, extracted the country from the Democrats’ war in Vietnam while preserving a non-Communist government in Saigon, opened relations with China and the Mideast peace process, signed the greatest arms-control agreement in history with the USSR, founded the Environmental Protection Agency, reduced the crime rate, and stopped the endless rioting in American cities.

Since the publication of this book, former party chairman Donna Brazile has written that Mrs. Clinton rigged a number of primaries in her struggle with Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, and may have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. Mrs. Clinton dismisses Whitewater (which led, circuitously, to the impeachment of her husband), Travelgate, the Benghazi tragedy (where the American ambassador to Libya was murdered by terrorists and she and Obama pretended that it was mob anger provoked by an anti-Islamic video produced by a private American citizen), and the email controversy that “amounted to precisely nothing” (I think not). She does not mention her speech of apology to the world’s Muslims, a toe-curling embarrassment to the entire Western world, nor her inability to utter or write the words “Islamic terrorism or extremism,” nor the very disconcerting pay-to-play activities of the Clinton Foundation, including the payment or pledge of $145 million and a $500,000 speech fee for Bill Clinton at a time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s agreement was required to approve a sale of uranium assets in the U.S. to Russian interests. Democratic senators whom she praises in comradeship have turned on the Clintons: Elizabeth Warren accuses her of cheating Bernie Sanders, and Kirsten Gillibrand says that Bill Clinton, because of his peccadilloes, should have resigned. They may be unjust, but this is what the Clintons’ allies now think of them. Her righteousness is moth-eaten and threadbare. Mrs. Clinton believes she is a good and sincere Christian, though she makes it clear that joining a church and being a communicant in it should be with the purpose of turning that church into an agency for leftward political action, what she calls “progressive reform.” By this, we are left in no doubt, she means rounding up all those who are beneath the average in prosperity or acceptability in mainstream-majority society, or if not, at least highly dissatisfied with the lot of those who are, and mobilizing them as a democratic majority to impose transfers of wealth and status from those who have earned or inherited it to the less fortunate or successful. This is a constant process of evaluating where the electoral majorities are, pitching to them as victims in the name of a benign state, and representing to those who pay for these transfers that it is their Christian and social duty and that they should rejoice in their opportunity to better the quality and stability of American life and society. More alarming than Mrs. Clinton’s ungraciousness is her dishonesty.

In Mrs. Clinton’s America, spiritual inspiration exists to pursue redistributive materialism, all “progress” apart from a little doughty self-help is the result of state intervention, the state has a practically unlimited right and duty to correct meritocratic as well as inherited or exploitive socioeconomic imbalances, and the U.S. Democratic party must be a secular church militant where those who oppose abortions (about half the American public) are, along with many other large groups, unwelcome. All politics is a constant process of “reform,” in which, miraculously, the majority gain at the expense of the more accomplished (as well as more fortunate) minority. This isn’t really Christianity or democracy; it easily slips into rank acquisition of votes with the money of part of the electorate in a cynical and corrupt manner, and Mrs. Clinton convicts herself of such attitudes with this astonishing display of rage, affected humility, idealism, and myth-making. It is a sobering and a disturbing read…..”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453933/hillary-clinton-what-happened-false-history-bad-policies

Advertisements

Fascists in Edina, Mn. Working Overtime

THE SHAME OF AMERICA’S PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

I wrote hereherehere (a video of a speech by me), here and here about the sad decline of the Edina, Minnesota public schools into hard-core leftism. Edina’s school district was once among the nation’s most respected, but its administrators have been content to see the district slide down to second or third tier status, because their sole priority is “racial equity,” which is code for a long list of left-wing hobby horses.

What happens when a public school district falls into the hands of race-obsessed leftists? For one thing, students think it’s cool to disrespect America’s veterans. Last Friday, Veterans’ Day, Edina High School held a ceremony to honor Edina’s vets. The high school kids assembled, and most of them behaved properly. But many did not. Some giggled and talked loudly, among themselves or on their cell phones, through the ceremony. Worse, a group of students made a deliberate show of disrespecting veterans–even during the playing of “Taps”–by lounging prominently on the floor in front of the crowd rather than standing. This was an anti-American political statement, as some of them later confirmed on Facebook and other social media.

Here is the video:

I grew up in South Dakota in the 1950s and 1960s, when such conduct would have been unthinkable. Today, it is not only thinkable, it is considered commendable in liberal school districts like Edina’s.

Over the weekend, the protesting students and their supporters made their political position clear, in social media posts like this one. Evidently spelling and punctuation have been de-emphasized in the Edina schools, as the focus has shifted to leftist politics:

And this one, which has now been taken down. For those who don’t follow such things, “THOT” means “that ho over there.”

YCC refers to the Young Conservatives Club at Edina High School. The YCC has long been abused by fellow students and by Edina teachers and administrators. This account came from one member of the organization, describing what happened on election day last November:

I walked into morning rehearsal for choir at 7:15 am and I proudly wore my shirt. As I took my seat I could see and feel eyes on me and people whispering. I kept my head up and was proud. Then I got to the cafeteria where I liked to meet my friends before school starts and in between classes. People were glaring at me, whispering, challenging me on my views, people called me racist to my face and over social media, and I experienced public humiliation.

During lunch the YCC had gathered for a group picture with our Trump shirts on. And by 6th hour, when all I wanted was to go home and lie in bed after a day of bullying, a staff member pulled me out of class. … The staff member pulled me out of class not to ask me about how my day was going or if I was emotionally okay, but his question for me was “I heard there were students in the YCC picture yelling ‘deportation!’ as the picture was taken. Is that true?” I assured him that, no that wasn’t true. But he kept asking as if he didn’t believe me.

Edina High School posts signs that say, “All are welcome here!” But what they really mean is, all are welcome except conservatives.

Apparently some members of the YCC posted on social media over the weekend, criticizing the students who went out of their way to show contempt for veterans. That prompted a video response from a group of fascists at the high school. The video has now been deleted, but it featured a single student on screen, wearing the familiar Guy Fawkes mask. He issued a series of threats against members of the Young Conservatives Club. Here is a screen shot of the now-deleted video, along with a transcript:

To get the full effect, you almost have to listen to the audio:

Audio Player

So Edina’s school administrators were confronted with a crisis: a number of students had behaved reprehensibly, showing disrespect for veterans and for America at a school assembly intended to honor veterans on Veterans Day. Beyond that, disgusting social media posts had attacked America and insulted non-leftist students. And a video threatened, specifically, members of the Young Conservatives Club.

Faced with this situation, what did Superintendent of Schools John Schultz do? He sent out a mealy-mouthed email that mostly defended the students who attacked America and disrespected veterans, because they were “peaceful.” Click to enlarge:

Superintendent Schultz says that the now-deleted fascist video “is certainly inflammatory and creepy.” But he finds no serious fault with it because “our investigation…in concert with [the Edina Police Department] has uncovered no credible or legal threat….” I have no idea what Superintendent Schultz means by “no credible or legal threat,” but the video was certainly threatening by any normal definition (e.g., “We will not stop until every tentacle of your evil monstrosity is sliced off at the nerve.”)

So now, as the dust settles, are the Edina schools cracking down on the fascist students who issued threats behind a mask, or the students who disavowed allegiance to America and referred to fellow students as “females on their periods,” “some bitches” and “that ho over there”?

Just kidding. Superintendent Schultz says that he appreciates the anti-American demonstrators because they protested “peacefully,” if contemptuously. Tonight, there are multiple reports that Edina High School is cracking down on conservative students because they dared to criticize the anti-American, anti-veteran display that took place on Friday. Suspensions have been reported, although these have not yet been confirmed. On the other hand, we have seen no reports of any actions being taken against the anti-American demonstrators or the fascists who posted the threatening video.

This is a developing situation, and we will report again when the facts are clearer. But what has already happened in the once-respected Edina school district shows how deeply the rot of leftism extends into American public education.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/the-shame-of-americas-public-high-schools.php

Prager U. How the State Can Save America

Click above or here to watch this video

Washington is gigantic, corrupt, and unaccountable. Can this giant be cut down to size? Yes, but not by Congress. Only by we the people. It’s called a Convention of States, and it’s right there, in Article V of the Constitution. Jim DeMint, former senator from South Carolina, explains.

Warning from ghr:  I would not trust today’s American politicians, nor today’s voting Americans to retain our democratically oriented Federal Constitution.   The nation currently  lacks wisdom and knowledge.  Eighty per cent of the American black and feminist population know little or no American or world  history before ObamaRule.   Immigrants have arrived from crime ridden and/or fascist criminal nations without any Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, and John Adams to our today’s  nearly illiterate  collegiate America.

Washington Post’s Frederica Wilson’s Ditsy, Loony-Lefty World

I wonder if the Obama fascist left’s Washington Post editorial staff pays Florida’s Frederica Wilson  to be ditsy and loony in order to advance their Stalinist agendas.   I know they love scatterbrained Maxine Waters “the ancient”  from California.   She is nastier and  has a bigger mouth and spews less humor  against Truth when featured on CNN.

And then there is  Representative Hank Johnson  from Florida who in legislative conference (televised) was either drunk or entered second childhood early by worrying for sake of the republic  about the island of Guam sinking if too many  American troops were to set up shop on that small island.

This is a black racist bunch of the Democrat Party paid to keep America’s urban colored dependent upon government  handouts to maintain the Party’s control of their votes.  The Party can’t win national elections without their urban slaves’ and servants’ votes.

JudeoChristian values have become the enemy of the American Left.   Lying, distorting, contriving are all  essential for Schumer’s leftist Democrats and their CNNs to secure  final control of our government.   That Party is  already quite Leninist in its religious and political  actions  established  to do so without competition.    Fake news is its political book of worship.

Federica Wilson is an old timer selling her ditsyness, that is fake news filled with lies, assault, charm and a smile.

JOHN KELLY OWES THE CONGRESSWOMAN AN APOLOGY

(by the Washington Post’s fascistic editorial staff, the congresswoman being the reliably ditsy, Fredericka Wilson from Florida:)

“WHITE HOUSE Chief of Staff John F. Kelly owes Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.) an apology. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn after watching a video of the representative’s remarks at the dedication of an FBI building in Miramar, Fla., in 2015.

Mr. Kelly took to the lectern in the White House briefing room Thursday to defend President Trump’s handling of a condolence call to a widow of one of the soldiers killed in Niger and to attack Ms. Wilson as selfish and politically motivated for her criticism. To bolster that characterization, he offered up his remembrance of the dedication of the FBI building in memory of two FBI agents who had been killed in the line of duty. He claimed Ms. Wilson used the occasion to take unseemly credit for securing federal funding for the building. “We were stunned,” he said, “stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned.”….)  Please continue reading below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-kelly-owes-the-congresswoman-an-apology/2017/10/20/c81205e2-b5c1-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.51f527b3f4d2

Krauthammer Warns America of Obama’s OFA Creep to Communism

Bruce and Arlene Taber sent the following outstanding article in the New York Post by Charles Krauthammer:

”There’s a reason why in New York Harbor we have the Statue of Liberty,
Not the Statue of Equality.”An article from the New York Post:I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called “Organizing for Action” (OFA).

OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?

If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!

Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration’s top dogs over to Organizing for Action.

OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.

OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for “progressive” change. Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.

OFA members were propped up by the ex-president’s message from the shadows: “Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond.”

OFA’s website says it obtained its “digital” assets from the ex-president’s re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.

Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.”

Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide. The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his wife will oversee the operation from their home/ office in Washington DC.

Think about how this works.. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. All of this happens from the ex-president’s signal that he is heartened by the protests..

If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.

If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.

So, do your part. You have read it, so at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a “PERFECT TARGET” for our enemy!

Charles Krauthammer

 The Taber duo sent the following rejoinder:

“The Enemy Among Us” Commentary By Charles Krauthammer- Incorrect Attribution!

Summary of eRumor:

Charles Krauthammer has penned a column under the headline, “The Enemy Among Us,” about President Obama’s use of a group called Organizing for  Action (OFA) to advance his political agenda after leaving the White House.

The Truth:

We couldn’t track down the author of the “The Enemy Among Us” commentary, but it was not written by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer or published by the New York Post.

The column first surfaced in discussion forums and on social media in February 2017. At the time, it was attributed to the New York Post, but no author was listed. A quick read of those early versions reveals that the column wasn’t published in the New York Post — but it cited and was largely based on a commentary written by Post columnist Paul Sperry under the headline, “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency.”

Sperry argues in the column that Organizing for Action (OFA), a 501c4 nonprofit group derived from Obama’s reelection campaign that works to organize and mobilize support for the former president’s agenda, has  undermined President Trump by planning protests and coordinating opposition to Trump’s presidential agenda.

“The Enemy Among Us” has a similar premise, but it goes a step forward by arguing that Obama is using OFA to not only undermine Trump’s presidency — but to undermine America. Some version even reference a coming civil war:I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called “Organizing for Action” (OFA).

OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?

If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!

“The Enemy Among Us” column was first attributed to Charles Krauthammer by Before Its News, a website that publishes user-generated (and conspiracy-minded) commentaries with no editing or fact-checking, on October 12, 2017. However, the commentary can’t be found at places where Krauthammer’s work regularly appears, including  Fox News, the National Review and the Washington Post.

And we’ve seen columns inaccurately attributed to Charles Krauthammer before. Because he’s a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and a household name in conservative circles, Krauthammer’s name has been falsely used to help raise the visibility of essays and commentaries like this one in the past. The idea is that people give more weight to a column by Krauthammer, a well-known conservative thinker, than to a column by somebody they’ve never heard of. That appears to be the case here. Krauthammer didn’t write “The Enemy Among Us.”

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

Collected on: 10/18/2017

Will America’s “Democrat-Marxist” Tiger Sharks Tear the Nation Apart with Their Leftist Lies at School?

The Left’s Sirens Are Already Hinting Our Culture Wars Will End In Another Civil War

..
“The radicalization of the Democratic Party is transforming everything that happens in America into another battle in our unending culture war.

By John Daniel Davidson at realclearpolitics: John Daniel Davidson

Is there anything left in American public life that isn’t an occasion for political rancor and division? NFL games are now nothing more than crude pieces of political theater. On Sunday even Vice President Mike Pence got in on the act, showing up to a Colts-49ers game then leaving after a few players knelt during the national anthem. Next day was Columbus Day, which the cities of Los Angeles and Austin decided this year to replace with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day,” because Christopher Columbus is apparently the new Robert E. Lee. And it’s only Tuesday.

It should be obvious by now that our culture wars will henceforth be constant and unending; the next battle could be triggered by almost anything. Whether it’s the reactions (or non-reactions) of Hollywood celebrities to the unsurprising news of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misdeeds or the outraged calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment the instant news broke of the Las Vegas massacre, very little can happen in America now without it being an occasion for an appeal to one’s own political tribe. No matter how tawdry or horrifying the news, there is vanishingly little room for solidarity because there is no appetite for it. Not even late-night comedy shows with their shrinking audiences can resist the urge to devolve into partisan political rants.

For all his eagerness to wage the culture wars in his improvised, bombastic style, this didn’t begin with Donald Trump. It didn’t begin with Barack Obama, either, but a recent studyby Pew Research Center found that divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values reached record levels during the Obama administration. You don’t need a Pew survey to tell you that, of course, but the data helps illuminate an otherwise vague feeling that American society is coming apart at the seams, and has been for years.

Right and Left Are Moving Farther Apart, And Fast

The Pew study measures responses to issues Pew has been asking about since 1994, things like welfare, race, and immigration. On almost every count, the gaps between Republicans and Democrats held more or less steady up until around 2010, when they began to widen. Today, “Republicans and Democrats are now further apart ideologically than at any point in more than two decades,” with the median Republican more conservative than 97 percent of Democrats and the median Democrat more liberal than 95 percent of Republicans. Here’s what that looks like in a chart:

Pick your issue. On immigration, 84 percent of Democrats say immigrants strengthen the country, while only 42 percent of Republicans say the same. Ten years ago, those percentages were nearly identical. On environmental regulation, 77 percent of Democrats say more regulation is worth the cost, compared to just 36 percent of Republicans. A decade ago, that spread was 67 and 58 percent, respectively. On whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence, 65 percent of Republicans say it does while 69 percent of Democrats say it doesn’t. When Pew first asked that question in 2002, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the partisan gap was just 11 points.

Here’s the other notable thing about Pew’s findings. Among the ten questions about political values that Pew has asked since 1994, the partisan gap is much larger than divisions based on demographic differences like age, race, and education. For example, the average partisan gap has increased from 15 to 36 points, whereas 20 years ago the average partisan differences on these issues were “only somewhat wider than differences by religious attendance or educational attainment and about as wide as the differences between blacks and whites (14 points, on average). Today, the party divide is much wider than any of these demographic differences.”

The Pew survey is a rich trove of fascinating survey data, but it mostly confirms what we can all see for ourselves: Americans are sorting themselves into political tribes that have less and less in common. Partisanship has even crept into the online dating scene. Last month the dating website OkCupid announced a partnership with Planned Parenthood that allows users to attach a badge to their profile, the obvious purpose of which is to avoid accidentally going on a date with someone who doesn’t share one’s views on abortion.

Identity Politics Is Poisoning American Civic Life

That brings us to something else that might get lost in the Pew numbers: the median Democratic voter has radicalized much faster than the median Republican voter, and most of this radicalization happened while a Democratic president was in office. That counterintuitive trend points to a larger problem with how the Left in particular understands the American project and our prospects for living together in peace and prosperity. Although it’s true that Republicans have moved further to the right as Democrats have moved further to the left, it’s the leftward slide that should worry us.

For all their shortcomings, conservatives at least have a limiting principle for politics. Most of them believe, for example, in the principles enshrined in the Constitution and maintain that no matter how bad things are, the Bill of Rights is a necessary bulwark, sometimes the only bulwark, against tyranny and violence. In contrast, here’s Timothy Egan of The New York Times arguing unabashedly for the repeal of the Second and Fifth Amendments.

The rapid radicalization of Democrats along these lines follows a ruthless logic about the entire premise of the American constitutional order. If you believe, as progressives increasingly do, that America was founded under false pretenses and built on racial oppression, then why bother conserving it? And why bother trying to compromise with those on the other side, especially if they reject progressives’ unifying theory that America is forever cursed by its original sin of slavery, which nothing can expiate?

Before you scoff, understand that this view of race and America is increasingly mainstream on the American Left. To read someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose recent article in The Atlantic is a manifesto of racial identity politics that argues Trump’s presidency is based on white supremacy, is to realize that progressive elites no longer believe they can share a republic with conservatives, or really anyone with whom they disagree.

Coates has attained near god-like status among progressives with his oracular writings on race and politics, which take for granted the immutability of race and racial animus. So it’s deeply disturbing when he writes, as he does in a new collection of essays, that “should white supremacy fall, the means by which that happens might be unthinkable to those of us bound by present realities and politics.”

What does Coates mean by that? It isn’t hard to guess, and lately Coates isn’t trying too hard to disguise it. In a recent interview with Ezra Klein of Vox, Coates expanded on this idea. Writes Klein:

When he tries to describe the events that would erase America’s wealth gap, that would see the end of white supremacy, his thoughts flicker to the French Revolution, to the executions and the terror. ‘It’s very easy for me to see myself being contemporary with processes that might make for an equal world, more equality, and maybe the complete abolition of race as a construct, and being horrified by the process, maybe even attacking the process. I think these things don’t tend to happen peacefully.’

This is the circuitous, stumbling language of man who knows precisely what he wants to say but isn’t sure if he should come right out and say it. Coates isn’t alone in feinting toward violence as a means—perhaps the only means, if Coates is to be taken at his word—of achieving social justice. On college campuses, progressive activists increasingly don’t even bother mincing words, they just forcibly silence anyone who disagrees with them, as a Black Lives Matter group did recently during an event featuring the American Civil Liberties Union at the College of William and Mary. (Ironically, the talk was supposed to be about students and the First Amendment.)

For a sincere progressive, almost everything that happened in the past is a crime against the present, and the only greatness America can attain is by repudiating its past and shaming—or silencing, if possible—all those who believe preserving our constitutional order is the best way for all of us to get along.

Seen in that light, the radicalization of Democrats is something qualitatively different, and much more dangerous, than the radicalization of Republicans. It means, among other things, that the culture war is now going to encompass everything, and that it will never end….”

Where is the White Disgust for Democrats Nourishing the Nation’s Black Murderousness, Ignorance of Knowledge and Reality?

Since the 1965 politics of Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, murderers in America relative to population have been OVERWHELMINGLY BLACK, MALE, UNDER AGE 55, and ABSENT OF FATHERLY UPBRINGING!

Because of  the 1965 politics of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, American Blacks who vote  in local and national elections do what they are told and paid to do,  VOTE DEMOCRAT, THE LEFTIER THE LESS POORER, AND SO, HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO HERD LIVING AS A POPULATION FOR A HALF CENTURY.

Because of the presidency of the devious Leftist, Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Democrats,  our America is entering a Civil Disorder Era led by its university-trained leftist fascist propagandists selling anti white American  rebellion at college and university.

How many college black football playing “students”  pay tuition?   Anyone care to guess?

The doors open for an education outside professional football  “study”  for black college athletes  are almost nonexistent.   They didn’t come from educational systems which valued teaching knowledge!    In the social sciences as a whole, learning knowledge for any student has about disappeared from the American public grade and high school from coast to coast.   FEMINISTS’  FEELINGS ARE TAUGHT INSTEAD!

Today’s black racism to stir up hate and division  in our country is fueled and fostered by the current American Democrat Party leftists and their multi-billionaire corporations, who need blacks, feminists and their  feminazis, illegal and legal immigrants, as many nonWhites as possible to secure their Socialist dictatorship a majority forever in national and local elections.

Mark Waldeland sent the following article regarding an early reaction to the professional football world’s black racist knee  war of hate to destroy civilized, democratic America.

https://stream.org/growing-backlash-against-nfl-over-athletes-kneeling-during-anthem-is-working/