• 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

Harvard Study: Media Overwhelmingly ANTI Trump!

John Kass

John KassContact ReporterChicago Tribune

Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone of the coverage of President Donald Trump is over-the-top hostile, I get the same darn reaction.

The eye-roll.

That big Anderson Cooper CNN eye-roll, often accompanied by a few theatrical sighs.

And when I leave the newsroom, it gets even worse on social media.

But now Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has come out with a study of media coverage of the Trump White House in its first 100 days.

It is astonishing because it comes from Harvard, not exactly the bedrock of American conservatism.

The study found that in Trump’s first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.

CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

So what does fair and balanced really mean, anyway?

“It confirms what most people understand,” said Tom Bevan, publisher and co-founder of RealClearPolitics, one of the go-to websites for media and political junkies.

Bevan spoke as a guest on “The Chicago Way” podcast that I co-host with WGN-AM radio producer Jeff Carlin.

“The response will be that Trump is deserving of this kind of coverage because he’s conducted himself inappropriately, and these are self-inflicted wounds, and the press is doing nothing but covering him and his actions. But that’s a little bit disingenuous,” Bevan said.

“I think Trump has been treated unfairly by the press in his first 100 days. Everything he does is seen as a five-alarm fire.”

Trump bears some of the blame for this. He mocked the media, called journalists “the enemy of the people,” and went to Washington with much vulgar bragging, essentially promising he’d kick the political establishment right in the private parts. And telling the Russians that former FBI director James Comey is a “nut job” doesn’t help.

And now the establishment kicks back.

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump’s 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

“That’s a significant shift, a significant difference,” says Bevan. “I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others.”

I have my own memory of the media’s tone after Obama took office. It wasn’t merely positive, it was adoring, gushy, in the way a small child looks up to a beloved parent, or a dog to the master who gives it biscuits.

It was as if the media were hugging a magical unicorn. Obama wasn’t only given the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the Nobel Peace Prize though he hadn’t done anything to earn it. And critics were trashed as nothing but racists.

Obama controversies, from his administration’s gun running scandal in the “Fast and Furious” debacle to using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against conservative groups, were covered, somewhat. But generally, the tone was muted, respectful, nothing like it was for Trump or the Clintons.

Later, in Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, leaks of Democratic National Committee email — whether hacked by the Russians or not — demonstrated collusion between journalists and Democrats. But that cozy relationship has never properly been addressed, and that avoidance undermines the credibility of journalism as the media challenges Trump.

“Because of the way the press covered Obama, they lost so much credibility,” Bevan said. “And because they did not take these things seriously, the IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious, you could go down the list of where they turned the other cheek. … And now where they’re giving Trump the third degree on everything, that makes the contrast all that much greater.

“So you have a certain segment of the public, the people who voted for Trump, who literally do not trust what the media says.”

And the divide between rigidly defined political tribes, one courted by the media, the other dismissed by it, grows even wider.

“It’s not good for journalism, and it’s not good for the country,” said Bevan.

Agreed. But I don’t see it changing any time soon. Do you?

Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone of the coverage of President Donald Trump is over-the-top hostile, I get the same darn reaction.

The eye-roll.

That big Anderson Cooper CNN eye-roll, often accompanied by a few theatrical sighs.

And when I leave the newsroom, it gets even worse on social media.

But now Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has come out with a study of media coverage of the Trump White House in its first 100 days.

It is astonishing because it comes from Harvard, not exactly the bedrock of American conservatism.

The study found that in Trump’s first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.

CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

So what does fair and balanced really mean, anyway?

“It confirms what most people understand,” said Tom Bevan, publisher and co-founder of RealClearPolitics, one of the go-to websites for media and political junkies.

Bevan spoke as a guest on “The Chicago Way” podcast that I co-host with WGN-AM radio producer Jeff Carlin.

“The response will be that Trump is deserving of this kind of coverage because he’s conducted himself inappropriately, and these are self-inflicted wounds, and the press is doing nothing but covering him and his actions. But that’s a little bit disingenuous,” Bevan said.

“I think Trump has been treated unfairly by the press in his first 100 days. Everything he does is seen as a five-alarm fire.”

Trump bears some of the blame for this. He mocked the media, called journalists “the enemy of the people,” and went to Washington with much vulgar bragging, essentially promising he’d kick the political establishment right in the private parts. And telling the Russians that former FBI director James Comey is a “nut job” doesn’t help.

And now the establishment kicks back.

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump’s 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

“That’s a significant shift, a significant difference,” says Bevan. “I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others.”

I have my own memory of the media’s tone after Obama took office. It wasn’t merely positive, it was adoring, gushy, in the way a small child looks up to a beloved parent, or a dog to the master who gives it biscuits.

It was as if the media were hugging a magical unicorn. Obama wasn’t only given the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the Nobel Peace Prize though he hadn’t done anything to earn it. And critics were trashed as nothing but racists.

Obama controversies, from his administration’s gun running scandal in the “Fast and Furious” debacle to using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against conservative groups, were covered, somewhat. But generally, the tone was muted, respectful, nothing like it was for Trump or the Clintons.

Later, in Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, leaks of Democratic National Committee email — whether hacked by the Russians or not — demonstrated collusion between journalists and Democrats. But that cozy relationship has never properly been addressed, and that avoidance undermines the credibility of journalism as the media challenges Trump.

“Because of the way the press covered Obama, they lost so much credibility,” Bevan said. “And because they did not take these things seriously, the IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious, you could go down the list of where they turned the other cheek. … And now where they’re giving Trump the third degree on everything, that makes the contrast all that much greater.

“So you have a certain segment of the public, the people who voted for Trump, who literally do not trust what the media says.”

And the divide between rigidly defined political tribes, one courted by the media, the other dismissed by it, grows even wider.

“It’s not good for journalism, and it’s not good for the country,” said Bevan.

Agreed. But I don’t see it changing any time soon. Do you?

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

Schumer’s Con-artist Democrats Have Nothing to Offer by Lies and Leftism

Victor Davis Hanson: Whole Trump-Russia-Collusion Story Is A “Big Lie”

“Citing a term coined by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, Hoover Institution scholar Victor Davis Hanson explains that the allegations that President Trump worked with the Russians in any way are a “big lie” created by the Democrats with no evidence.

TUCKER CARLSON: Professor, you’re saying that this whole thing is basically nonsense, is that what you’re saying?………”   Please continue below:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/20/victor_davis_hanson_whole_trump-russia-collusion_story_is_a_big_lie.html

The Left’s War on Free Speech

by Kimberley Strassel  at  IMPRIMIS       (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

“The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 26, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

I like to introduce the topic of free speech with an anecdote about my children. I have three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five. They are your average, normal kids—which means they live to annoy the heck out of each other.

Last fall, sitting around the dinner table, the twelve-year-old was doing a particularly good job at this with his youngest sister. She finally grew so frustrated that she said, “Oliver, you need to stop talking—forever.” This inspired a volley of protests about free speech rights, and ended with them yelling “shut up” at each other. Desperate to stop the fighting and restore order, I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.

The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.” She added that we could all start by listening more to what she says.

Then it was the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”

It was at this moment that I had one of those sudden insights as a parent. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies.

With that introduction, my main point today is that we’ve experienced over the past eight years a profound shift in our political culture, a shift that has resulted in a significant portion of our body politic holding a five-year-old’s view of free speech. What makes this shift notable is that unlike most changes in politics, you can trace it back to one day: January 21, 2010, the day the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling and restored free speech rights to millions of Americans.

For nearly 100 years up to that point, both sides of the political aisle had used campaign finance laws—I call them speech laws—to muzzle their political opponents. The Right used them to push unions out of elections. The Left used them to push corporations out of elections. These speech laws kept building and building until we got the mack daddy of them all—McCain-Feingold. It was at this point the Supreme Court said, “Enough.” A five-judge majority ruled that Congress had gone way too far in violating the Constitution’s free speech protections.

The Citizens United ruling was viewed as a blow for freedom by most on the Right, which had in recent years gotten some free speech religion, but as an unmitigated disaster by the Left. Over the decades, the Left had found it harder and harder to win policy arguments, and had come to rely more and more on these laws to muzzle political opponents. And here was the Supreme Court knocking back those laws, reopening the floodgates for non-profits and corporations to speak freely again in the public arena.

In the Left’s view, the ruling couldn’t have come at a worse time. Remember the political environment in 2010. Democrats were experiencing an enormous backlash against the policies and agenda of the Obama administration. There were revolts over auto bailouts, stimulus spending, and Obamacare. The Tea Party movement was in full swing and vowing to use the midterm elections to effect dramatic change. Democrats feared an electoral tidal wave would sweep them out of Congress.

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents,  it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation. It would send a message: conservatives choosing to exercise their constitutional rights will pay a political and personal price……..

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/lefts-war-free-speech/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=april17&hootPostID=1cc5fb9c0443fe5c1329715435c94eac

The Left’s Fascist Control of the American Television Screen

When Did America Haters Barack Obama and Bill Ayers First Meet?

So When Exactly Did Bill Ayers and Barack Obama Meet?

by Jack Cashill   at American Thinker:

“In his massive new biography about Barack Obama’s pre-presidential years, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow makes hash out of the lie that preserved Obama’s candidacy in 2008.  That said, he pulls back from the implications of his own revelations to protect what remains of Obama’s literary reputation.

In the way of background, during an April 2008 presidential primary debate on ABC, George Stephanopoulos said about Bill Ayers and pals, “They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings.  He’s never apologized for that.”  He then asked Obama, “Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” said Obama dismissively of Ayers.  “He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from [sic] on a regular basis.”

The question fueled what the L.A. Times called a “storm of criticism.”  The rage was directed not at Obama for his dissembling, but at Stephanopoulos for his effrontery.  How dare he ask Obama about an “obscure sixties radical”? asked Michael Grunwald of Time.  The media chose not to follow up.  If they had, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination.

Garrow has come along nine years too late to do Clinton any good.  But after ten years researching this book and interviewing a thousand people, he reveals just how strong was the relationship between Ayers and Obama and how deep was the lie that protected it.  Unfortunately, there is an element of that lie Garrow himself insists on protecting.

Garrow sticks to the story that state senator Alice Palmer asked Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn to host a fundraiser for state Senate candidate Obama in the fall of 1995 – as if they needed to be asked.

Then Garrow begins adding information.  “After that gathering, Barack and Michelle began to see a great deal more of not only Bill and Bernardine but also their three closest friends, Rashid and Mona Khalidi and Carole Travis.”  Rashid Khalidi was a Palestinian native of radical bent then living in Chicago.

According to Garrow, Obama did the following during the next eight years.  He organized a panel on juvenile justice based on a new book by Ayers.  He served on the Woods Fund board with Ayers.  He joined Ayers for a panel discussion, “Intellectuals, Who Need Them.”  Up until the time of his 2004 Senate run, he and Michelle attended “the almost nightly dinners” held with Ayers, Dohrn, and the Khalidis.

Ayers obviously meant a whole lot more to Obama than “a guy who lives in the neighborhood” might be expected to.  But how much more?  Khalidi did not shy from giving credit where it was due.   He began the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to his own literary muse: “First, chronologically and in other ways comes Bill Ayers.”  Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship.  Obama obviously did.

Garrow obliges him.  Although he concedes that Ayers and Obama both dated the same woman, Genevieve Cook, in New York City in 1984, he does not try to connect the dots.  Nor does Garrow try to connect dots when Ayers follows Obama to Chicago and both work on educational reform with the same people during the years 1987-1988.

No, Garrow specifically traces the first meeting of Ayers and Obama to a time in 1995 immediately after pre-publication galleys for Obama’s book Dreams from My Father arrived in Chicago – in other words, too late for Ayers to have helped at all with the book’s writing.  This is way too convenient.

For all his research, Garrow refuses to ask what Bill Ayers saw in Obama.  The answer may well be found in a 1994 essay that Ayers co-authored, whose title befits a former merchant seaman: “Navigating a restless sea: The continuing struggle to achieve a decent education for African American youngsters in Chicago.”

In “Navigating,” Ayers and his nominal co-author, former New Communist Movement leader Michael Klonsky, offer a detailed analysis of the Chicago school system and a discussion of potential reforms.

Garrow cites “Navigating” twice but chooses not to see the obvious – namely, that Obama offers a nearly identical analysis in Dreams.  This analysis was completed in the same year, 1994, as “Navigating.”  The particular value Obama brought to the relationship can be found not in the many points on which Ayers and the Obama of Dreams agree, but rather on the one point on which they at least seem to differ.

First, the areas of agreement.  Dreams tells us that Chicago’s schools “remained in a state of perpetual crisis.”  In “Navigating,” the situation is described as a “perpetual state of conflict, paralysis, and stagnation.”

Dreams describes a “bloated bureaucracy” as one source of the problem and “a teachers’ union that went out on strike at least once every two years” as another.  “Navigating” affirms that the “bureaucracy has grown steadily in the past decade” and confirms Dreams‘ math, citing a “ninth walkout in 18 years.”

“Self-interest” is at the heart of the bureaucratic mess described in Dreams.  “Navigating” clarifies that “survivalist bureaucracies” struggle for power “to protect their narrow, self-interested positions against any common, public purpose.”

In Dreams, educators “defend the status quo” and blame problems on “impossible” children and their “bad parents.”  In “Navigating,” an educator serves as “apologist for the status quo” and “place[s] the blame for school failure on children and families.”

Another challenge cited in Dreams is “an indifferent state legislature.”  Ayers cites an “unwillingness on [the legislature’s] part to adequately fund Chicago schools.”

In Dreams, “school reform” is the only solution Obama envisions.  In “Navigating,” Ayers has no greater passion than “reforming Chicago’s schools.”  In fact, in that same year this article was written, 1994, the ambitious Ayers co-authored the proposal that would win for Chicago a $49.2-million Annenberg Challenge grant.  Obama would later be made its chair.

In Dreams, the thoughts on educational reform are channeled through the soulful voice of two older black Americans.  The first, Moran, a composite, tells Obama, “The public school system is not about educating black children.  Never has been.  Inner-city schools are about social control.  Period.”

“Social control” is an Ayers obsession.  “The message to Black people was that at any moment and for any reason whatsoever your life or the lives of your loved ones could be randomly snuffed out,” he writes in his memoir, Fugitive Days.  “The intention was social control through random intimidation and unpredictable violence.”

In Dreams, Moran elaborates on the fate of the black student: “From day one, what’s he learning about? Someone else’s history. Someone else’s culture. Not only that, this culture he’s supposed to learn is the same culture that’s systematically rejected him, denied his humanity.”

Precociously Afrocentric, Ayers has been making the same case since he first got involved in education.  “The public schools’ idea of integration is racist,” he said early in his career.  “They put Negro children into school and demand that they give up their Negro culture. Negro children are forced to speak, behave, and react according to middle-class standards.”

The second of Obama’s educational mentors is “Frank,” Obama’s mentor in Hawaii, the Communist Frank Marshall Davis.  Frank tells the college-bound Obama, “You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already know.”

Ayers makes the identical distinction in his 1993 book To Teach.  “Education is for self-activating explorers of life, for those who would challenge fate, for doers and activists, for citizens. Training is for slaves, for loyal subjects, for tractable employees, for willing consumers, for obedient soldiers.”

By 1994, Ayers had been preaching educational reform for nearly thirty years, but one major force still intimidated him: Chicago’s sluggish and self-interested educational bureaucracy.  Over the years, this bureaucracy had morphed, as Ayers notes in “Navigating,” from being a bastion of “[w]hite political patronage and racism” to being “a source of Black professional jobs, contracts, and, yes, patronage.”  For reasons both ideological and practical, Ayers wilted in the face of this bureaucracy.

On this racially tender issue, not so strangely, Dreams tells a different story.  Obama openly chides the black “teachers, principals, and district superintendents,” who “knew too much” to send their own children to public school.

“The biggest source of resistance was rarely talked about,” Obama continues – namely, that these educators “would defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before.”

As to the claims of these educators, affirmed in “Navigating,” that “cutbacks in the bureaucracy were part of a white effort to wrest back control,” the author of Dreams says, teasingly, “[N]ot so true.”

“Not so true”?  In these three words one can anticipate Obama’s potential return on Ayers’s investment.  Simply put, as a black American, Obama could address sensitive racial issues in ways Ayers could not.  Ayers surely recognized this.

To advance Obama’s career, it appears, Ayers finished up Dreams, got Obama appointed chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant, and launched his state Senate run, all in 1994-1995.

The political calculus behind that ambition helped shape Dreams.  This was a careful book written to jump-start the career of a deeply indebted and highly malleable Chicago politician, maybe even a mayor, one who saw the world through white eyes, as Ayers did, but one who could articulate the city’s real problems in words that Ayers could not.

This would have worked out much better for Ayers if Obama had contented himself with Chicago.  As history records, he did not.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/so_when_exactly_did_bill_ayers_and_barack_obama_meet.html

DEMOCRATS PLAY SOVIET FASCISM IN ATTEMPT TO DUMP TRUMP

Democrats project their own Soviet betrayals on Trump

by James Lewis   at  American Thinker:

“Democrats acted in close collusion with the Soviet Union when Lenin, Stalin, and all the other Red totalitarians were in power.  In some cases, leftists betrayed U.S. national security secrets to the Soviets, the most famous being the atom bomb secrets.  Today, Democrats are accusing Donald Trump of plotting with Vladimir Putin to steal an election.  They have convinced themselves that Trump is giving away national security secrets, right in the Oval Office.

This is, in fact, what Bill Clinton did by re-classifying U.S. missile launching secrets to become non-secrets, allowing them to be sold to China.  It is also what Hillary may have been doing with Huma Abedin (from the Muslim Brotherhood family) and letting her email server be so easily hacked that any knowledgeable foreign power could get the U.S. SecState’s confidential information.  Hillary took Muslim Brotherhood money through the Clinton Foundation, and now we know that Bill and Hillary were both involved in a Russian buyout of 25% of U.S. uranium sources.

During the Cold War, when conservatives criticized Soviet Russia, they were viciously slandered by liberals.  Americans in the Cold War always had two great enemies: the Soviet Empire and the domestic left.  If you doubt it, look back at Vietnam, Korea, and other big flare-ups in the Cold War.  The left was always 100% predictable.

If Democrats had a conscience, it would sink them from their weight of guilt.  Fortunately, their media dominance can block out a whole century of pro-totalitarian agitation and propaganda.  The left is utterly deaf, dumb, and blind, most of all to their own guilty collusion with Marxist totalitarianism wherever it spread.

So be it.

But now that Trump and Putin are seeking a way to work together to defeat today’s greatest dangers, the North Korean-Iranian Axis of Evil, the Dems are accusing the president of ratting to the Russians.

Weird, isn’t it?

Ego defenses are very simple.  Let’s say you hate Donald Trump with a deadly passion and have wishful dreams of murdering him, along with Ivanka and the rest of the family.  But you believe you’re a loving peacenik, so you can’t actually admit your hatred to yourself.

So you end up believing:

1. I don’t hate Trump.  I just think he is an idiot who will sell us out to the Russians. My hatred is righteous anger.

2. I don’t hate Trump.  I just think he’s guilty of firing the FBI director to cover up his criminal collusion in stealing the election with Putin’s help.

More righteous anger.

3. I don’t hate Trump.  I just think Trump hates women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, militant atheists, and me.  (Projection.)

All the defense mechanisms are lies.  They distort our feelings in different ways.  The more you distort your feelings, the more primitive and infantile your defenses are.

Obama has pretty primitive defenses, which is why he keeps tossing out blatant lies to the public and praising himself.  Narcissists start with infantile grandiosity and sometimes hatred for others, because deep inside, they are extremely insecure and self-critical.

When Obama did his “blame America” bowing trip eight years ago, he never, ever blamed himself.  Or the left.  Even though the left killed 100 million people in the 20th century, according to Marxist historians.

Obama seems to be utterly incapable of saying, “I was wrong.  I’m sorry I ordered the disastrous invasion of Libya, for no reason whatsoever.”

He will never apologize to Egypt’s President Sisi for overthrowing his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak, and installing an M.B. stooge instead.

Today, Sisi is still in a civil war with the M.B.s in the Sinai Desert and Gaza.

Obama took the side of the Moobers against Sisi, and in Syria and Libya, he took the side of al-Qaeda.

If you’re having trouble understanding the twisting party line of the left, just take a look at Wikipedia’s article on ego defenses, and you can pretty much put a check mark next to whichever one they are using today.

It’s sad.  I wish they would grow up.

But so far they are stuck in denial and infantile rage.

When Communism first swept European universities, a wise man remarked, “These people think they are physicians to society, when they are only the disease.”

It’s their only playbook, and they never stop following it.

Conservatives haven’t fought the left nearly hard enough, because we keep thinking they will change and be open to reason.  But they haven’t.  When they were discredited after the 1940s and ’50s, they just went into hiding to come back in the 1960s.  They are a stubborn virus, and they prey especially on the young and historically ignorant.  They have turned our universities upside-down with malice aforethought.

Nobody in Russia and China seriously wants to bring leftism back.  They are still suffering from the effects.  But in many Western universities, the toxic doctrine of violent utopianism is being preached, along with violent jihadism (which is another utopian cult belief).

We failed to stop them when the virus was still controllable.  Let’s hope the administration can appoint enough constitutionalist judges to help us return to a free and open society.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/democrats_project_their_own_soviet_betrayals_on_trump.html

Our Constitutional Crisis Has to Do with Democrats Corrupting America’s Intelligence, Decency, and Freedom

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JAMES COMEY

by William Sullivan  at American Thinker:

“President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey has been pretty big news, and there will be no dearth of continued commentary about what it means.  But what rings hollowest in all the commentary surrounding it have been the nearly uniform claims among the left that his firing represents a “constitutional crisis.”

Does the left now care about the United States Constitution?  Because that would certainly be newsworthy.  This is the same left which, as David Harsanyi of The Federalist reminds us, didn’t utter a peep of disapproval about President Obama’s efforts to “unilaterally legalize millions of people without Congress.”  What about the constitutionality of the federal government forcing people to purchase health insurance, forcing private health insurance companies to cap prices for higher-risk clients, setting school lunch menus, peculiarly targeting conservative groups for tax audits, or executive directives to ignore federal immigration law?  The left didn’t care about “constitutionality” when all of those things happened during Obama’s presidency, but now are shouting from the pulpit that Donald Trump’s firing of the current FBI director, whose direct role is to “serve at the pleasure of the president,” is somehow some incredible affront to the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution?

The left’s hypocrisy here is certainly stark, but in a way, it is evidence that the term “constitutional crisis” has been thrown around in so many pithy accusations over the years by the left and right that the phrase no longer has any meaning relative to the actual Constitution of the United States.

Consider that Princeton political scientist Keith Whittington suggests that “[c]onstitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions.”

The “central function” of our Constitution has always been to limit the authority of the federal government, and to clearly enumerate the “few and defined” powers of the federal government to be held in contrast to the “numerous and indefinite” power of state governments, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45.

Yet today, a great many of the things that we consider to be within the federal government’s purview are absolute affronts to the Constitution, and particularly the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson held to be the foundation of the Constitution:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: “That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States and the People.”  To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

How can we define our nation to be one of limited federal authority when, every day, we see that the restrictions of our Constitution have become meaningless? And if the limitations of the Constitution (again, its central function) have largely become meaningless, how can it be denied that we have long existed in a state of “constitutional crisis?”

A federal Department of Education (DoE), for example, has absolutely no right to exist in the scope of the Constitution.  Congress was beyond its tether when it allowed for this executive institution to have been born.  Yet billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars have been thrust into this federal institution to regulate our children’s education, and few ever consider the question as to whether there was the right, in the first place, of the federal government to create such an institution with the immeasurable power it has.

Tell me, where in the Constitution can you find any evidence that the federal government has the right to confiscate wealth from Americans, and then to grant or withhold payment to states based upon this federal agency’s evaluation of their adequate adoption of Common Core curricula?  And when you cannot find any such evidence that the federal government has such a right granted by the Constitution, wouldn’t you have to admit that the Obama administration’s having done precisely that is in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, and thus represents a “constitutional crisis?”

Take a look at the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Department of Transportation.  There is equally no allowance given to the federal government, by the Constitution, to regulate these spheres of assumed jurisdiction.  All of these agencies, including the DoE, more embody the planks of Communism found in Marx’s Manifesto than our own Constitution.  And yet the mere fact that these federal now agencies exist is enough to give us, with our modern sensibilities, the presupposition that the federal government must have a right to exert its influence in said areas of life, however cumbersome or costly they may be, and however absent any validation for that assumed power might be in our nation’s Constitution.

The reality is that very little of anything Washington considers its day-to-day business today has anything to do with the Constitution.  Our constitutional crisis is, and for quite some time has been, that the Constitution no longer matters in our political discourse.  Our national conversation about whether a thing is right or wrong tends to be a matter of preference and partisan interest.  Yes, the Constitution can be opportunistically invoked by either side as substantiation for any outrage. But it is generally an argumentative substrate of convenience, and rarely of principle.

The left is currently demonstrating this with the furor over Comey’s firing, but I sincerely hope that when conservatives talk about “draining the swamp” in D.C., they are suggesting a return to constitutional principles of limited federal authority, because this thing works both ways.

After all, if Ivanka Trump pushes for a $500 billion federal childcare bill (as she’s doing) because it’s her preferred cause du jour, and Congress indeed acts to provide single mothers with taxpayer dollars for childcare, wouldn’t it be very much like the federal overreach that we once claimed Obamacare represented, and thus be a true “constitutional crisis?”  Where does the Constitution define that the role of the federal government to seize wealth from taxpayers to provide childcare for American mothers?

If you happen to like this idea so much, you are free to petition your state to enact such a law with your state’s money to subsidize the payments.  I believe it would still be wrong, but this is how federalism works, and how the Constitution was intended to work.

We can only make American great again by again making America what the Constitution intended it to be.  And we can only do that by working to rein the federal government back within the boundaries that the Constitution defines.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/our_constitutional_crisis_has_nothing_to_do_with_james_comey.html#ixzz4hNTStOJk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/our_constitutional_crisis_has_nothing_to_do_with_james_comey.html