• 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

Democrats on a Venezuela Program for Our America? Fascists are Fascists Regardless of Geography!

VENEZUELA “VOTES.” IS THERE A LESSON HERE FOR DEMOCRATS?

by John Hinderaker at  PowerLine:

An election is going on in Venezuela. In a country where there are no more pets and children join gangs to fight over dumpster refuse, while their parents battle for dead rats to eat for dinner, you would expect the incumbent party to lose a free election. But Nicolas Maduro will no doubt be re-elected, in part because the polls are being boycotted by most of his opponents. So Venezuela’s socialist catastrophe will most likely continue, for now. The Associated Press reports:

Sunday’s election has drawn broad criticism since some of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s most-popular rivals were barred from running, and several more were forced into exile.

There were a lot of other irregularities, too, but barring your rivals from running is a tried-and-true path to a second term.

Here in the U.S, the Democratic Party tried a subtler approach. It hired Fusion GPS to fabricate smears against Donald Trump, and then leaked those smears to news outlets that it controls (i.e., nearly all of them) and used the smears to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. The Democrats also conveyed the Fusion GPS fantasies to high-ranking office-holders like Harry Reid, who used them to attack candidate Trump. But reporters were squeamish about running with the Fusion GPS story, which few actually believed, and, to the Democrats’ dismay, Trump won the election.

So the Democrats went into overdrive. Shortly before President-Elect Trump’s inauguration, Obama’s CIA and FBI leaders “briefed” Trump on the Fusion GPS dossier, which Trump naturally knew was an absurd pack of lies. No matter: that “intelligence briefing,” leaked to the press, opened the floodgates, and Democratic Party news outlets promptly went public with the contents of the false dossier, in an effort to disable President-Elect Trump’s nascent administration.

At the moment, the Democrats’ relatively subtle approach doesn’t appear to be working very well. Next time, perhaps, they won’t take any chances, and will go full Maduro.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/venezuela-votes-is-there-a-lesson-here-for-democrats.php

Comey and Obama’s Crooked FBI Comes to the Surface AT LAST!

In Politicized Justice, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures

FBI director Comey and the Obama Justice Department applied a double standard in their handling of the Clinton-email and Trump–Russia investigations.We wuz robbed. That’s the theme Democrats and their media allies are working hard to cement into conventional wisdom. And robbed in a very specific way: The 2016 presidential election, we’re to believe, was stolen from Hillary Clinton by disparate treatment. As Democrats tell it, the FBI scandalized their candidate while protecting Donald Trump.

You might think peddling that story with a straight face would be a major challenge. But they figure it may work because it was test-driven by the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, in his now infamous press conference on July 5, 2016 — back when the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus on which we rely to read the security tea leaves was simply certain that Mrs. Clinton would win.

If you or I had set up an unauthorized private communications system for official business for the patent purpose of defeating federal record-keeping and disclosure laws; if we had retained and transmitted thousands of classified emails on this non-secure system; if we had destroyed tens of thousands of government records; if we had carried out that destruction while those records were under subpoena; if we had lied to the FBI in our interview — well, we’d be writing this column from the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth. Yet, in a feat of dizzying ratiocination, Director Comey explained that to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would be to hold her to a nitpicking, selective standard of justice not imposed on other Americans.

So it was that the New York Times, in this week’s 4,100-word exposé on the origins of the FBI’s Trump–Russia probe, recycled the theme: Government investigators were savagely public about Clinton’s trifling missteps while keeping mum about the Manchurian candidate’s treasonous conspiracy with Putin.

As we contended in rebuttal on Thursday, the Times’ facts are selective and its narrative theme of disparate treatment is hogwash: Clinton’s bid was saved, not destroyed, by Obama’s law-enforcement agencies, which tanked a criminal case on which she should have been indicted. And the hush-hush approach taken to the counterintelligence case against Donald Trump was not intended to protect the Republican candidate; it was intended to protect the Obama administration from the specter of a Watergate-level scandal had its spying on the opposition party’s presidential campaign been revealed.

But let’s put that aside. Let’s consider the disparate-treatment claim on its own terms.

The DNC Server
It has now been confirmed that the Trump campaign was subjected to spying tactics under counterintelligence law — FISA surveillance, national-security letters, and covert intelligence operatives who work with the CIA and allied intelligence services. It made no difference, apparently, that there was an ongoing election campaign, which the FBI is supposed to avoid affecting; nor did it matter that the spy targets were American citizens, as to whom there is supposed to be evidence of purposeful, clandestine, criminal activity on behalf of a foreign power before counterintelligence powers are invoked.

But what was the rationale for using these spying authorities?

The fons et origo of the counterintelligence investigation was the suspicion — which our intelligence agencies assure us is a fact — that the Democratic National Committee’s server was hacked by covert Russian operatives. Without this cyber-espionage attack, there would be no investigation. But how do we know it really happened? The Obama Justice Department never took custody of the server — no subpoena, no search warrant. The server was thus never subjected to analysis by the FBI’s renowned forensics lab, and its evidentiary integrity was never preserved for courtroom presentation to a jury.

How come? Well, you see, there was an ongoing election campaign, so the Obama Justice Department figured it would be a terrible imposition to pry into the Democrats’ communications. So, yes, the entire “Russia hacked the election” narrative the nation has endured for nearly two years hinges on the say-so of CrowdStrike, a private DNC contractor with significant financial ties to the Clinton campaign.

In Investigations 101, using foreign-intelligence authorities to spy on Americans is extraordinary, while taking custody of essential physical evidence is basic. By the way, the government’s failure to ensure the evidentiary integrity of the DNC server by taking possession of it and performing its own rigorous testing on it makes it practically impossible to prosecute anyone for “colluding” in Russia’s cyber-espionage. It’s tough to prove that anyone conspired in something unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the something actually happened the way you say it happened. To do that in a courtroom, you need evidence — a confident probability analysis by your intelligence agencies won’t do.

The Espionage Act v. the Logan Act
Here is then-director Comey’s explanation of why Mrs. Clinton should not be indicted for patent felony violations of the Espionage Act’s provisions on mishandling classified information:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

This statutory analysis is gibberish. Notwithstanding that Mrs. Clinton’s actions were intentional and willful, the Espionage Act does not require proof of that mental state. Despite considerable evidence that she obstructed investigations, it’s not necessary to prove that either. Nor to establish disloyalty or any intent to harm the United States. To avoid indicting Mrs. Clinton, the FBI and Justice Department ignored the statute that has been on the books for a century and substituted an impossible-to-prove statute of their imagination.

Now, let’s consider a statute that’s been on the books for over two centuries, the Logan Act.

The Logan Act is patently unconstitutional, but no court has had the opportunity to invalidate it because, to borrow a phrase, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Despite the absence of any evidence that the Trump campaign conspired in Russia’s espionage, the Obama Justice Department — led by then–acting attorney general Sally Yates — relied on the Logan Act to conduct a criminal investigation of General Michael Flynn, a 30-year decorated combat veteran. A key Trump campaign adviser who played a central role in the Trump transition and was designated as the incoming national-security adviser, it was Flynn’s job to communicate with such foreign counterparts as Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a Washington fixture whose dance card has never been short on Democrats. Flynn was also an intense Obama critic, and the outgoing administration understood that he was preparing to reverse Obama policies.

The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigated Flynn — including an ambush interview — on the theory that his discussions with Kislyak and other diplomats violated the Logan Act. Currently codified as Section 953 of the federal penal code, this statute purports to criminalize “any correspondence or intercourse” with agents of a foreign sovereign conducted “without authority of the United States” — an impossibly vague term that probably means permission from the executive branch. The Logan Act is patently unconstitutional, but no court has had the opportunity to invalidate it because, to borrow a phrase, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. As our Dan McLaughlin has explained, the Act dates to 1799, a dark time for free-speech rights during the John Adams administration. Never in its 219-year history has it resulted in a single conviction; indeed, there have been only two indictments, the last one in 1852.

Incidentally, in the ambush interview, Flynn, without counsel and apparently unaware that he was being questioned as a suspect, was grilled about what was said in a conversation with Kislyak. There was no intelligence need to do this because the FBI had a recording of the conversation. The agents who questioned Flynn, including counterespionage specialist Peter Strzok, determined that Flynn did not lie to them.

He was later prosecuted by the special counsel for lying to the FBI.

Truth or Consequences
Speaking of lying to the FBI, Mrs. Clinton — during the brief interview the FBI conducted after Director Comey’s speech exonerating her was already written — told agents she did not know what the designation “(C)” in classified documents meant. She claimed to have assumed it might have had something to do with putting paragraphs in alphabetical order, notwithstanding the absence of any (A), (B), or (D) paragraphs.

Patently, this was a false statement: Mrs. Clinton, who was in the Senate for eight years, was indoctrinated in classified-information practice on becoming secretary of state, a position in which classified documents abound. She signed an acknowledgment that she understood her obligations and had read the relevant executive orders on classification — the main one had been issued by her husband. (C), which stands for confidential, the lowest level of classification, is a ubiquitous marking in classified documents, well known to officials with security clearances. But Mrs. Clinton had falsely told the public she had never sent or received any documents “marked classified,” so she needed to pretend that she didn’t know what the classified markings meant.

She wasn’t prosecuted, of course. She got to run for president. Her underlings weren’t prosecuted either — Clinton confidants Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin both told the FBI they were unaware that Clinton was using a private server while they worked for four years as her top State Department staffers; as the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross points out, Mills explicitly asked Abedin about the server in a 2010 email.

Paul Combetta, the Platte River Networks technician who serviced Clinton’s homebrew server and applied the “BleachBit” program to destroy tens of thousands of her emails, lied to the FBI in his initial interviews; far from being prosecuted in order to squeeze him for cooperation, he was given immunity. With no fear that there was any interest in prosecuting him, Combetta proceeded to tell a risible story about why he destroyed the emails, transparently protecting Clinton and her subordinates.

That’s not quite the way things go in the Trump–Russia investigation. General Flynn and three other subjects — George Papadopoulos, Richard Gates, Alex van der Zwaan — have been prosecuted for making false statements in FBI interviews. None of the false statements alleged had anything to do with Russia’s cyber-espionage attack on the 2016 election, the ostensible subject matter of Mueller’s investigation. (Unlike the Clinton probe, where the defense lawyers worked closely with the Justice Department, the defense lawyers in the Trump probe are not allowed to know the scope of Mueller’s investigative authority.)

Immunity v. Scorched Earth
The Obama Justice Department’s failure to compel production of the DNC’s server by subpoena or warrant was not an aberration — at least when it came to Democrats. It was standard practice in the Clinton-emails investigation to resist use of the grand jury; to negotiate with custodians over the production of essential evidence that could easily have been compelled by grand jury subpoena (such as the laptops used by Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to vet Mrs. Clinton’s 60,000 emails). If there seemed any possibility that physical evidence could contain incriminating information, the custodian was granted immunity from prosecution.

The indulgence of attorney–client claims to impede investigators was especially egregious in the Clinton-emails case because it was a flagrant violation of professional rules and federal law.

In stark contrast, the Virginia home of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, was raided by the FBI in the predawn hours. Special Counsel Mueller’s prosecutors convinced a judge to authorize a no-knock entry — essentially, a break-in — prior to 6 a.m. Agents entered with guns drawn while Manafort and his wife were in bed asleep. The couple was ordered out of bed and detained, while agents searched their home and seized voluminous documents. At the time, Manafort was voluntarily cooperating with congressional investigators, had provided testimony and documents to one committee the day before, and was scheduled to do the same with a different committee later on the day of the raid. Manafort was also represented by prominent Washington defense counsel, who would willingly have accepted service of a subpoena and produced the materials sought by the special counsel.

The special counsel decided even-handed justice would be better served by a frightening raid in which agents got to grab whatever they chose to grab.

Attorney–Client Privilege or Privileged Client’s Attorneys?
One is tempted to say that Mrs. Clinton, a Yale-educated lawyer, frustrated the probe of her email scandal by inserting lawyers at every critical phase — her work at the State Department; her retention, review, and destruction of emails; her flouting of a congressional subpoena demanding emails; her FBI interview. But to say that the probe was “frustrated” would imply that Obama Justice Department officials were serious about investigating and prosecuting Clinton, which they manifestly were not. Justice Department lawyers worked closely with Clinton’s counsel to restrict what questions the FBI would be permitted to ask and what physical evidenceagents would be permitted to examine. This was the attorney–client privilege on steroids, invoked at every turn to close off basic lines of inquiry.

This would not be tolerated in any normal case. A person’s status as a lawyer is not immunity from investigation or prosecution. The attorney–client privilege covers only private communications in the nature of legal advice; and if the lawyer and client are involved in a criminal or otherwise fraudulent scheme, their conversations are not privileged.

But the indulgence of attorney–client claims to impede investigators was especially egregious in the Clinton-emails case because it was a flagrant violation of professional rules and federal law. Attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson worked for Clinton at the State Department and were deeply involved in determining which emails Clinton surrendered to the State Department and which she destroyed. Canons of professional ethics forbid a lawyer from taking on representation of a client if the lawyer is an actor in the facts under investigation. They bar a lawyer who is a former government official from representing clients in matters in which the lawyer was involved while working for the government. Moreover, it is a federal crime (under Section 207 of the penal code) for a former government official to attempt to influence the government on behalf of another person in a matter in which the former official was heavily involved while working for the government.

Despite all of that, the Justice Department and FBI not only failed to object to Mills’s and Samuelson’s representation of Clinton; they permitted these lawyers to sit in as counsel representing Clinton in her FBI interview — during which she was questioned about activities undertaken with Mills and Samuelson.

Is this how things work in the Trump–Russia investigation? Not exactly. Mueller has gone to court to force one lawyer to testify against her clients Manafort and Gates. Another Manafort and Gates lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, has been convicted for making false statements about a conversation with Gates. In the related case of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s lawyer and self-proclaimed “fixer,” FBI agents raided his residences and office, executing search warrants procured by federal prosecutors in New York.

What Does It ‘Matter’?
As the 2016 race heated up, the Clinton campaign zealously fought the notion that Hillary was the subject of a criminal investigation — which is not an easy thing to do when you’re the subject of a criminal investigation. It was just a “security referral,” the campaign insisted to the New York Times(which dutifully “corrected” its originally correct reporting on the case).

It is against Justice Department policy to confirm the existence of an investigation, especially counterintelligence investigations, which are classified.

In what I’m sure was a total coincidence, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who stood a very good chance of keeping her coveted job in a Hillary Clinton administration, gave FBI Director Comey an order: In his public statements and testimony, he was instructed to refer to the Clinton emails probe as a “matter,” not an investigation — otherwise, what might people think the Federal Bureau of Investigation was up to? This may have been an improper, politically motivated attempt to influence an FBI criminal probe, but on this occasion, there were no leaks to the New York Times about it; Comey complied, calculating that Lynch’s politicization of the, er, “matter” was not “a hill worth dying on.”

The director’s sympathetic savvy was again on display in the writing of his speech exonerating Mrs. Clinton. There was, of course, the delicate matter of President Obama’s knowing exchanges of sensitive email via Clinton’s server. The initial draft’s reference to “the President” was soon watered down to “a senior government official.” In the end, it was dropped altogether — purging any reference to Obama’s involvement. And of course, the director’s description of Clinton’s conduct as “grossly negligent” was amended to “extremely careless” because gross negligence is the mental state required for conviction in the Espionage Act — after all, this was this was supposed to be an exoneration statement, not an indictment.

The director took a markedly different tack in the Trump–Russia investigation. Here is the key section of his House testimony on March 20, 2017:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

It is against Justice Department policy to confirm the existence of an investigation, especially counterintelligence investigations, which are classified. Director Comey would have had to lobby hard to get authorization for this statement . . . although perhaps not too hard since Attorney General Jeff Sessions had by then recused himself from the Trump–Russia probe, leaving no other confirmed Trump appointees at the time — the Trump-Russia investigation was being overseen by Obama holdovers.

It is never proper to announce that American citizens are persons of interest in a counterintelligence probe. Since the purpose of such a probe is to gather intelligence, not to prosecute, it would be deeply misleading and prejudicial to speak of such persons as the focus of an FBI investigation. And it was sheer gratuitousness to cap off this testimony with Comey’s observation that there would be “an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.” That is not a regular part of a counterintelligence investigation (it is simply a fact that when investigators stumble upon evidence of a crime, they need not ignore it — something that is always true and therefore never has to be said).

At the time he made this statement, Director Comey had repeatedly assured President Trump that he was not a criminal suspect. As would have been known by any sensible person, and particularly one as sophisticated as Comey, this astonishing congressional testimony by an FBI director can only have signaled to the media and the public that the president of the United States was under investigation for serious crimes.

But other than that, I suppose you could say the Justice Department and the FBI handled the Clinton and Trump cases exactly the same way. Equal justice under the law, right?

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/clinton-email-trump-russia-probes-justice-department-double-standards/

Ditsy Pelosi Attacks President Trump for Calling MS13 Murders “ANIMALS”!

The brain has never worked well at Nancy Pelosi’s  body and mouth.   Born ditsy certainly CAN become a lifetime handicap……a common disorder of the human female animal driven from birth by feelings rather than seeking Truth.

American President Trump recently accurately called  the violent cult murders (to Pelosi “the spark of divinity” group  “MS13” of south of the Rio Grande  fame now sneaking into and settling and murdering in America,  “animals” driven by  their devotion to murder for fun   as a successful way of life.

Pelosi On Trump’s “Animals” Comment: Doesn’t He See The Spark Of Divinity In All People?

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

“The RNC posted  this clip with the caption “Nancy Pelosi Defends Violent MS-13 Gang Members In Response To Trump.” That’s half-true. Pelosi is very dishonestly pretending here that Trump referred yesterday to all illegals as “animals,” a lie which even his friends at CNN refuse to help spread. But the logic of her argument does support the RNC’s conclusion. We’re all God’s children, intones the pro-choicer. Well, then, so are the members of MS-13, rapes and decapitations notwithstanding.

Does Pelosi think … the president owes them an apology?

But wait. Her egregious abortion hypocrisy aside, she’s correctly stating the Christian view, is she not? All people are God’s children.

Tim Carney@TPCarney

This is a horrible thing to say for a few reasons:
1) It’s not merely a casual use of the word “animals” to describe humans, made in the image of God. Explicitly saying they are not human is worse. Murderers, even the worst, are humans….

https://twitter.com/TPCarney/status/996861286578302977 

Even the worst sinners can repent and be forgiven. Just a few weeks ago, in fact, the NYT ran a piece describing how some members of MS-13 have mended their ways through faith:

Ernesto Deras cannot explain why he got up from his seat, approached the front of a church in the Panorama City neighborhood of Los Angeles, and started crying uncontrollably…

“I had been shot. I had had broken bones. I was in jail,” he told me this year, some two decades after he embraced God. But none of that had made him cry. “I felt like a man who didn’t have tears, but that day, something, something powerful happened.”

Other former gang members tell similar stories. The church — in particular the evangelical Pentecostal church — drew them into its fold and wrenched them, prayer service by prayer service, from the tenacious grip of the gangs. The gangs, in turn, respected this exit. Becoming an active member of a religious community remains virtually the only way someone can leave the notorious gang Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13, alive.

The rank and file of MS-13 still remain somewhat human enough to let a member go forth in the name of God.

Fortunately for us atheists, there’s no inner conflict in thinking they’re animals anyway. Unfortunately for us, probably 90+ percent of atheists are leftists and are therefore crying over the insult to MS-13 anyway. Exit question one: Given that religious faith is being slowly drained out of the Democratic Party, who does Pelosi think she’s kidding here appealing to the “spark of divinity”? Does she think her base sees a spark of divinity in Donald Trump? Exit question two: Don’t *actual* animals contain a spark of the divine too? If Democrats want to run on a “your dog’s not going to heaven” platform, let’s have that fight.”

 

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/17/pelosi-trumps-animals-comment-doesnt-see-spark-divinity-people/

Leftist Fascism Dominating the American “University”

Jacques: UM feels a lot like the USSR

by Ingrid Jacques  at Detroit News:

“The thought police are alive and well at the University of Michigan.

Take a close look at some of the university’s speech policies and you may feel like you’ve been transported back to East Germany or the USSR, where these regimes quashed dissent and were constantly listening for any contrary point of view.

UM’s campus conduct guide includes a “bias response team” that encourages students to report instances of speech they find offensive or troublesome. And guess what? They are relaying plenty of so-called abuses — anything that rubs against a campus culture that bows to political correctness.

Conservative students beware.

This framework serves to chill opposing views and has earned the university a federal lawsuit, filed earlier this month by a group called Speech First.

UM is an egregious example of how public institutions are limiting the free expression and debate of ideas — something that seems in opposition to the whole point of a college campus. And it is also creating a climate of suspicion on campus by encouraging students to spy on one another. They never know who they can trust.

According to the complaint: “The University’s disciplinary code prohibits ‘harassment’ and ‘bullying,’ and further increases the potential penalties if such actions were motivated by ‘bias.’ All of those concepts, as the University interprets and applies them, can capture staggering amounts of protected speech and expression.”

That’s the heart of the problem in this case.

Nicole Neily, president and founder of Speech First, is hopeful this case will modify UM’s speech policies and draw attention to the war on free expression and civil rights on campuses around the country. Neily is passionate about these issues, and they are personal to her. Her Japanese-American grandparents met at an internment camp during World War II, so she understands government overstepping its bounds.

Neily started Speech First earlier this year as a nonprofit membership association focused on fighting restrictions on free speech on university campuses. Anyone concerned with the future of the First Amendment can join, including students and parents.

“Students should be able to express themselves without fear of retribution,” Neily says.

The university’s system of encouraging anonymous tattletales (with real consequences for accused students) is “not workable,” she argues.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that at least 231 colleges in the U.S. have similar bias response teams, but says UM’s is one of the more established.

Speech First reports that more than 150 incidents of alleged bias have been investigated by the university in the last year alone. The instances of bias can come in any form, whether “offensive” posters, social media posts or comments in class.

UM defines bias as being both intentional and unintentional and that “the most important indication of bias is your own feelings.”

Schools officials following up on these reports can discipline the offending students in different ways, including mandating “restorative justice,” “individualized education,” or “unconscious bias training.”

Sounds like brainwashing to me.

No wonder some students feel like their speech rights are being infringed upon. Why risk talking about contentious topics like immigration or politics when a fellow student overhearing the conversation could so easily report being offended?

The lawsuit caught the attention of Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. In a recent piece, he wrote UM’s bias response team smacks of East Germany and George Orwell’s “1984.”

“I’ve been concerned for quite some time about these speech restrictions on campuses and the future of the First Amendment,” von Spakovsky told me. “It’s so Draconian that if you say something that might offend someone else, you could get disciplined or thrown out.”

The university’s regents meet today for the first time since the lawsuit, and they plan to discuss their response. The regents should seriously consider revising this framework. If they don’t, lawmakers should demand it.

“The window of acceptable discourse is closing,” Neily says. “We are sending a message to schools.”

ijacques@detroitnews.com”

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/ingrid-jacques/2018/05/16/university-michigan-channels-ussr/34996785/

Jason Whitlock on GETTING KICKED OUT OF THE BLACK RACE

Jason Whitlock on Kanye: If You Say Trump Has A Good Idea, You Get Kicked Out Of The Black Race

Sports journalist Jason Whitlock explains why Kanye’s tweet about President Trump was one of the best tweets of all time in a Tuesday appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Whitlock lamented that the African-American vote has been taken for granted by the Democratic party and that blacks have made a mistake by swallowing liberalism wholly. Whitlock noted the historical importance of the church in black history and said liberalism and the Democratic is now the church for blacks and it is “not working out for us.”

He also spoke about the backlash musician Kanye West has received for his decision to come out and say he supports some policies of President Donald Trump. Whitlock said of course Kanye doesn’t agree with Trump and the Republican party on a lot of issues but he is someone willing to acknowledge a good idea.

Whitlock said that type of thinking puts you at risk of being “kicked out of the black race.” He said if we cast someone out of the human race just because we disagree with them then we would have no one left.

“I don’t really like politics much at all, but if you just say I think Trump has a good idea here, you get kicked out of the black race,” the sportswriter told Tucker Carlson. “Kanye is saying I don’t agree with everything Trump believes in. Kanye, I’m sure, disagrees with Trump and the Republican party and conservatives on a lot of issues but he’s not willing to cast someone out of the human race just because he disagrees with him. If I cast everybody out that I disagreed with I would have no one.”

He also blacks have to examine why they are the only group that has gone all in with one party and why they are “chained” to an ideology that hasn’t worked out for the race for the last 60 years.

“I think we’ve made a mistake,” Whitlock said.

He also knocked writer Ta-Nehisi Coates who believes he is the “overseer of black thought.”

Whitlock made an interesting comparison of the Democratic party being marketed to black Americans as the solution to all the race’s problems like cigarettes were decades ago.

“It’s been marketed to us the same as cigarettes — fashionable, sophisticated, it’s supposed to be liberating but I think it needs a Surgeon General’s warning, hazardous to your family and all the values you were taught as a child,” he said of liberalism.

JASON WHITLOCK: I think what Kanye is trying to do open black America’s mind to the fact that perhaps we have chosen a bad strategy by swallowing all of the Democratic party and liberalism whole. I say in my column in The Wall Street Journal that in the immediate aftermath of the civil rights movement in the 1960s Democrats marketed to us liberalism as the solution to all of our problems and liberalism now is like the cigarette. It’s been marketed to us the same as cigarettes — fashionable, sophisticated, it’s supposed to be liberating but I think it needs a Surgeon General’s warning, hazardous to your family and all the values you were taught as a child.

I think us as African-Americans, we have to examine why are we the only ethnic group that has gone in wholly with one political party? No one has to compete for our votes. We are chained to an ideology that just isn’t working over the last 50, 60 years. Liberalism, the swallowing of it whole. Our families have been destroyed. Our children lost and confused. Our black men incarcerated and emasculated and we’ve moved away from the traditional values that have always defined us. I think we’ve made a mistake.

TUCKER CARLSON: The thing about politics is if you give your vote away for free you don’t get anything in return. And so maybe the hysterical reactions to the Kanye West tweet is the reaction of a party that knows that once people figure that out it’s got a major problem on its hands, so you need to tamp down any independent thought immediately or else it can get out of control.

WHITLOCK: And it’s being tamped down as viciously as anything I’ve ever seen. When they call in the great writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates, basically I call him the overseer of black thought. Basically he is there to keep everyone in line with the groupthink that the only solution is liberalism for black America’s problems.

If that were the case our problems would be being solved much faster because 90, 95% of us are afraid to even admit that we have conservative values and we have been sold — we’ve moved away from our church. We’ve been the most religious people in America for years, hundreds of years and we’re moving more secular. We’re moving away from the church. Our religion now is liberalism and the Democratic party is our church and it’s just not working for us.

CARLSON: So if Kanye West, who is not just one of those popular black Americans, but one of those popular Americans just across the board, if he doesn’t stand a chance of just raising this question because it’s a totally valid question, then who does?

WHITLOCK: Well, actually he does stand a chance because when someone like Kanye speaks out, he creates space for others to speak out because anybody that has said — Tucker, I am a non-voter.

I don’t really like politics much at all, but if you just say I think Trump has a good idea here, you get kicked out of the black race. Kanye is saying I don’t agree with everything Trump believes in. Kanye, I’m sure, disagrees with Trump and the Republican party and conservatives on a lot of issues but he’s not willing to cast someone out of the human race just because he disagrees with him. If I cast everybody out that I disagreed with I would have no one.

PLEASE VIEW THE INTERVIEW BELOW:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/08/jason_whitlock_on_kanye_if_you_say_trump_has_a_good_idea_you_get_kicked_out_of_the_black_race.html

Leftist, Black Fascist Movements Censoring Overtime “Soviet” and “Nazi” Style

 

THE LATEST BATTLE IN THE STATUE WARS: STEPHEN FOSTER

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

A famous statue of Stephen Foster, often referred to as the father of American music, has stood in Pittsburgh for more than 100 years. (Foster was a native of Pennsylvania.) It was sculpted by Italian emigre Giuseppe Moretti:

Today Moretti’s statue of Foster was carted away by Pittsburgh authorities:

A 118-year-old statue of the “Oh! Susanna” songwriter was removed from a Pittsburgh park Thursday after criticism that the work is demeaning because it includes a slave sitting at his feet, plucking a banjo.

In October, the Pittsburgh Art Commission voted to take the Stephen Foster sculpture out of Schenley Plaza and find it a new home. For now, it will remain in a storage lot, out of the public view.

On Thursday, workers used straps and construction equipment to lift the 10-foot-bronze statue off its base. It was strapped to a flatbed truck and taken away.

This statue controversy is different from the ones surrounding Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and (weirdly) William McKinley. I take it there is no objection to Foster. Rather:

The shoeless banjo player is based on “Uncle Ned,” a fictional slave and subject of a song by the same name. Critics have long decried the statue as racist.

“It’s the single most offensive display of public art in Pittsburgh, hands down,” Paradise Gray, a hip-hop activist, musician and writer, told the Post-Gazette in August. “It permanently depicts the black man at the white man’s feet.”

It is true that the fictional Uncle Ned occupies a subordinate position in the statue. This seems natural, since the statue is a tribute to Stephen Foster. But to me, it seems blindingly obvious that the statue portrays a kinship between Foster and the blacks who helped to inspire, and who performed, his music. Now, the fictional slave will be erased from public view altogether. Is that an improvement?

Perhaps some would prefer not to be reminded that slavery once existed. I believe Thomas Sowell noted years ago that slavery existed from time immemorial on every continent except Antarctica. The extraordinary historical fact is not the existence of slavery, but rather its abolition. But that is a larger subject for another day.

The Associated Press says that “[a] statue honoring an African-American woman will be put up in its place. Residents can submit nominations.” In today’s environment any African-American woman will do, apparently. Not a man like the fictitious Ned.

Stephen Foster was undoubtedly one of America’s greatest composers of popular music. It is remarkable that a number of his songs are still widely known, and sung, today. And yet he died at 37, young and broke. His career parallels that of Edgar Allen Poe, who was a near-contemporary. Poe also died young and broke, despite having invented both the horror story and the detective story, genres that have conferred great riches on countless lesser artists. The same is true of Foster.

Wikipedia says that Foster was the first songwriter to refer to an African-American woman as a lady, in “Nelly Was a Lady.” It occurs to me that contemporary songwriters–rappers like Paradise Gray–typically don’t refer to African-American women as ladies.

I think they took down the wrong statue.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/04/the-latest-battle-in-the-statue-wars-stephen-foster.php

Fascists at Google and Youtube Attack, Censor Conservatives!?

Google Preaches ‘Net Neutrality,’ Then Censors Conservative Videos?

..Investors Business Editorial:

“Free Speech: For years, Google has called for “the free flow of information” on the internet. How does that square with its YouTube subsidiary’s apparent bias against conservative content? Answer: It doesn’t.

YouTube promises that it is “a community where everyone’s voice can be heard.” But that promise doesn’t seem to apply if the voice espouses conservative viewpoints.

The latest evidence of this comes from Dennis Prager, a conservative talk-show host whose syndicated column appears regularly in IBD and who also runs Prager University. PragerU produces hundreds of educational videos from academics and other experts on various topics, ranging from the history of the Korean War to Israel’s founding. There’s no profanity, no nudity, no calls to violence. But the videos do give conservatives a voice.

On Monday, PragerU filed suit against Google (GOOGL) for singling out dozens of PragerU videos for censorship only because they are conservative. YouTube did this, the suit claims, by labeling the videos as “inappropriate” for younger or sensitive viewers — making them unavailable to anyone in a “restricted” viewing setting — or by “demonetizing” them, which means PragerU doesn’t get ad revenue, even if the videos are widely viewed.

PragerU says it tried to work with YouTube for a year to get its videos off the site’s “restricted” list, and ended up receiving conflicting, vague and unhelpful answers from the company.

The complaint argues that singling out conservative voices for such treatment “is speech discrimination plain and simple” and says by doing so Google violated PragerU’s First Amendment rights, engaged in “unlawful discrimination under California law,” and violated its own terms of use.

Prager himself put it more simply: “Google, and their wholly owned company YouTube, apparently believe they can pick and choose who has free speech in this country.”

We can’t comment on how solid the legal ground is under the lawsuit, but it’s painfully obvious that Prager has a point about YouTube’s arbitrary and capricious handling of its videos.

One of them deemed inappropriate, for example, is a discussion with esteemed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Another is about e-cigarettes, and another is titled: “Ten Commandments: 6, Do Not Murder.”

How exactly is a video admonishing against murder “inappropriate” for sensitive viewers?

One of the “demonetized” videos was a PragerU Live talk with Bret Stephens, who is now a New York Times columnist.

PragerU also has compiled a long list of its videos that YouTube has restricted, along with similar videos that aren’t.

The best one: YouTube labeled a PragerU video titled “Why America must lead” as inappropriate, but not a video by Sen. John McCain titled … “Why America must lead.”

It even found instances where the exact same video was restricted when it appeared under the PragerU label, but not when it was posted by someone other than PragerU.

Prager is hardly the first conservative to complain about YouTube censorship, and such complaints aren’t limited to YouTube. Twitter has been accused of applying double standards to conservative speech, as has Facebook.

Yet all of these companies piously proclaim that they are dedicated to “net neutrality.” As Google put it on its own website, the internet must be a “level playing field” where people can “reach users on an equal footing.”

Of course, by “net neutrality” Google and others are talking about banning ISPs from charging different prices for different kinds of content as a way to manage the load on their networks.

But at the very least, Google should apply the same principle to itself that it demands from ISPs. Google can’t claim to be for a “level playing field” if it’s financially punishing those who don’t conform to its liberal orthodoxy.”

Note from ghr:   A number of Prager University Five Minute Lessons via the Google controlled internet  have been made to disappear at Google world complex.   When confronted, the Google’s in charge defended by declaring such conservative views were too extreme to be carried on to American citizenry.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/google-should-practice-what-it-preaches-on-net-neutrality/

Please search on!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+and+Youtube+censorship+practices&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS593US593&oq=Google+and+Youtube+censorship+practices&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.30568j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

YouTube Censorship: Conservatives Banned, but Not Jihadists …

Jun 7, 2017 – Eleven years later, the selective censors at GoogleYouTube still can’t competently distinguish terrorist hate speech from political free speech. Islamic hate preachers such as Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose bloodthirsty rants against non-Muslims reportedly inspired the London Bridge ringleader, have flourished.