• 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

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

Fascist Canada’s Review of President Donald J. Trump

Obama’s Comey is Out. “If I Were Hillary Clinton, I’d be Afraid!”

Comey’s Out. Who’s Next for Rosenstein?

by Roger L. Simon at PJMedia:

“If I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be afraid.  I’d be very afraid.

Something has happened that has drastically changed her position in the world and that is the advent of Rod Rosenstein as deputy attorney general, a name not well known by many until now, although he has had quite an illustrious career at the Department of Justice and elsewhere.

Confirmed only April 25, 2017, Rosenstein wrote the well-crafted “Memorandum to the Attorney General” on the subject of “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.”  The contents of this memorandum are what many are assuming impelled Donald Trump to take an action he was hesitant to do, but probably should have done, on taking office  — firing FBI director James Comey before the reputation of the FBI was even more tarnished than it was.

Of course the left exploded, claiming a cover-up of the endless Russia investigation. But no matter when Donald Trump had fired Comey, day one or day one hundred and one, it would have created a conflagration.  Chuck Schumer would have yelled and screamed and waved his bloody shoe even though he himself had previously called for the same thing only months before. That’s what Schumers do, as does much of the rest of the not-so-loyal opposition.

Interestingly, a great deal of the minority leader’s immediate fulminations after the defenestration of Comey centered not on Trump but on Rosenstein, who is apparently that most terrifying of all things — a by-the-book straight shooter who espouses equal justice for all under the law.  Schumer demanded the deputy AG immediately appoint a special investigator to get to the bottom of the supposed Russia allegations.  Rosenstein may just make such an appointment, but for another purpose not as salutary to Schumer. From the deputy AG’s memorandum:

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016 and announce his conclusion that the [Clinton email] case should be closed without prosecution.  It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement.  At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.  There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General.  On July 5, however, the Director announced his views on the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation [bold mine], without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Rosenstein goes on to quote numerous statements from attorneys general and deputy attorneys general of both parties concurring with his view, but this is a memorandum all should read in its entirety for themselves. Besides being an impressive brief for the firing of James Comey, it also appears to open the door for something else, for that “well-established process for other officials to step in” to lead to something yet more dramatic — the renewed investigation of Hillary Clinton.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/09/comeys-out-whos-next-for-rosenstein/

Can Mass Voter Fraud in 2016 Presidential Election in California be Proved?

CAN MASS VOTER FRAUD BE PROVED IN CALIFORNIA?

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Voter fraud is a Rorschach test of American politics. If you are a liberal, you fervently believe that it is virtually non-existent, and any effort to prevent it must be a pretext. If you are a conservative, you believe that voter fraud is a reality and are probably suspicious that it sometimes swings elections.

At Breitbart News, former California State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly points out that California’s record keeping in relation to the driver’s licenses it issues to illegal aliens may provide a simple opportunity to find out, once and for all, how serious a problem voter fraud is:

[T]he California DMV can internally differentiate within their database who holds an “illegal alien” AB60 license — which contradicts what is being pushed by left-wing activist websites that have reassured illegal aliens that once the driver’s license is entered in the database, the entry is indistinguishable.

In a state like California, where every regular driver’s license holder is automatically registered to vote, and where almost a million illegal aliens have received these “federally-restricted, drive only” licenses — it’s critically important that additional safeguards be in place to prevent non-citizens from being “accidentally” registered to vote.

When asked about how the DMV prevents this from happening, Gonzalez said “[t]he programming blocks AB 60 applicants from having the option to register to vote.”

How is the California voter assured that voter fraud is not happening, given that the only safeguards in place are a computer program and the honor system?

Donnelly suggests that Attorney General Jeff Sessions subpoena California’s AB 60 list and its voter list from the last election, and compare the two. Good idea! We join in that suggestion.

If it turns out that there is no, or almost no, overlap, it doesn’t mean that voter fraud doesn’t happen anywhere else. (In Minnesota, for example, quite a few specific instances have been documented where the identity of the person casting an illegal ballot is known.) But if voter fraud isn’t happening in California, with its huge population of illegal immigrants, it probably isn’t a very big problem in most other states, either.

So let’s compare California’s lists and settle the question.”

Ben Stein: We’re Losing the Freedom Our Fathers Fought For

IT’S HAPPENING RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES!

by Ben Stein   at The American Spectator:

“Night after night, I stay up late watching documentaries about World War II. I’m obsessed with it. Not surprising, since it was the biggest event in the history of the human race. My father was in the Navy during the war, though to this day, I am not sure what he did. My father-in-law served in combat under Patton and was awarded the Silver Star for combat gallantry, before he was 22 years old, fighting hand to hand against the toughest of the tough, Hitler’s S.S., near Zeitlen.

The documentary I am watching right now is The War by Ken Burns. It came out ten years ago or so. I love every part of it. What I love most, though, is the portrayal of a nation totally united behind the goal of securing freedom and defending the Constitution. From every hill and hollow, every tenement and mansion, men and women fought, sacrificed, worked to defeat the incredibly powerful Nazis and Japanese. The pain and struggle that the men, women, and children of this nation went through to preserve our freedoms was literally fantastic.

I watch the men dying in Italian valleys, shot out of the sky above Schweinfurt, and tortured in Japanese prison camps, and I go to sleep deeply saddened. These wonderful people bled and died and cried for our freedom — and now we are throwing it away with both hands at what should be the bastions of freedom — the universities.

The nation’s universities have become no-go zones for people who do not hew to the one-party, anti-American, anti-police, anti-business attitudes of the violent brownshirts. Quiet, scholarly geniuses like Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald — who dare to suggest that Americans should work for a living, who speak out in defense of the police — are shouted down, shoved, sometimes assaulted, and chased from campuses under guard. Ann Coulter — a long-time friend, staggeringly intelligent and amusing — is not permitted to speak at a University of California, Berkeley, campus, because she makes such witty, shining defenses of our great nation. This is a taxpayer-funded campus.

There’s an atmosphere of terror on campuses across the country. My beloved law school alma mater, mighty Yale, shamed itself recently by blackballing faculty who wanted to keep a sense of humor on the campus.

The formula is simple. Get a few nonwhite students to label a potential speaker a racist, whether or not there is the slightest evidence he or she is. Then bring in the looney left faculty, then bring in the women with fake charges of sexism, and soon you have a mighty avalanche against the speaker. The fascists call themselves anti-fascists, of course. But anyone with eyes and ears can see and hear who’s burning the books.

As far as I know, neither Hitler nor the Japanese ever planned to invade America. Certainly Vietnam didn’t. North Korea is a menace, but a poverty-stricken nation of 22 million is not going to subjugate us and take away our freedom……”   Please read on below:

 https://spectator.org/were-losing-the-freedom-our-fathers-fought-for/

David Horowitz Visit to Minnesota

David Horowitz: “This Is A War”

Commentator and activist David Horowitz was blunt to the point of making Minnesota Republicans uncomfortable.

(article sent by Lisa Rich in California)

“EDINA, Minn. – Conservative author, commentator, and activist David Horowitz came to Edina, Minnesota April 27to address the Freedom Club. Before giving his keynote speech, Alpha News was able to interview him about the state of the nation almost 100 days into a Trump presidency.

Horowitz was blunt to the point of making Minnesota Republicans uncomfortable, which is perhaps exactly what they need. Ranging from suppression of free speech on university campuses, to Rep. Keith Ellison, to Black Lives Matter, to Congressional Republicans, Horowitz set out in simple, stark terms what needs to be done, in his view, to capitalize on Republicans’ historic victory of last November. The interview has been edited for clarity and ease of reading…….”   Please read on below:

http://alphanewsmn.com/david-horowitz-war/