• 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

The Curse of Feminized USA Schools and their Gun Problems

Despite the political clap-trap being sold as “freedom”  in today’s American schools, kindergarten through to graduate school, fascism is not yet full blown, but it IS feminized, and it is conquering the American community.

Feminists of all sexes, colors, shape, and sizes are poisoning American education, and therefore. our America!…..They are from and in the mouthy Democratic leftist quadrant of Barack and Hillary where two and two do not necessarily  equal four……Especially if they are NOT IN THE MOOD to make the masses be equal and poor!

The modern  human females,  the today’s Hillary ones drooling and fevered at college, unless taught otherwise, have, at last “become free”!  Unlike the past, they now “own” their feelings.  They go to college, Harvard and Yale, California and Evergreen…..

Yes, Egyptian, Greek, and such MEN of the before and after,  invented arithmetic!

“We are the NEW woman… We can add or subtract, however, whatever  we please without those damned men telling us the answers!”

ELIMINATE THE PAST….BAN HISTORY! the Hillary Clinton act-alikes shout, compose, and write novels, rally at political gatherings, and teach at school!

I attended public schools from kindergarten through high school in St. Paul, Minnesota from 1939 to June, 1952…..Until my senior year when the leftists first began their assault to force everyone to think the same, be equal,  and so, know nothing,  decided to eliminate evaluating student achievement by grades beyond pass-fail.   (The rising fem class at university  thought students would feel better without pressure!  Better yet, the teachers wouldn’t have to know as much in their field of study.)

And then there arrived the mid sixties and the sexual, druggie, Abbie Hoffman  revolution…..where college gals felt and were taught they had as much right to screw as any guy around.

That old JudeoChristian human male was so boring, so wussy; human female so prissy…. without LSD, especially.

JudeoChristians were sent backstage to the new American catacombs, their living rooms, their mothers, their fathers…..but about half of our American ones were taught to turn  to “freedom”…to be free  to be a vulgar, programmed, leftist animal with heap big mouth, and no brain and feel great about voting for Hillary, Barack, and the Socialist from Vermont.

Shootings in schools have excited the vulgar American feminized leftists to the thrill  of blaming the…..the….human American WHITE male animal for its victims.

“THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND THEIR SUFFERINGS THESE WHITE AMERICAN MALE HUNTERS CAUSE WITH THEIR HUNTING  TOYS!  END WAR FOREVER, VOTE DEMOCRAT!”,  the feminist of all sexes, colors, shapes, and sizes shout at their rallies, and write at the New York Times and Washington Post, PBS, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and so one!

Why don’t the Washington Post and New York Times, and all the rest of the still remaining newspapers, all lefties from coast to coast, offer the American public statistics of number of deaths by guns have occurred at schools since, let’s say 1875?

Could FEMINIZED  schools, GOD FORBID, BE TO BLAME?…..the disappearance of MOTHERS AT HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD….like the beautiful ones who used to command the neighborhoods where I was born  and raised…..Or, the disappearance of  the family and school that used to teach decency in the name of God by which THIS NATION, UNDER GOD, WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED!!!!



No one really wants to face the reason….reasons for the vulgarity, the ignorance, the violence, the murderousness  of American male adolescent youth ages 15 to 35 these days.

The disappearance of the stable family…..The disappearance of the family mother at home,  the disappearance of neighborliness, the disappearance of knowledge and the joy of learning among the feminized animals of all sexes, colors, shapes, sizes, and stupidities in charge of  American education at colleges and universities from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

In a free society  citizens earn what they deserve, and deserve what they earn.  Men are men, women are women and both work their world from that understanding of the species.

In American society today from education to government and private enterprise, winning is who can con others faster than others can con you…….with the exception of what remains from  what once was the foundation of the decency of the  decent:  Americans were once family, industrious and honest in their culture, and were Godfearing……JudeoChristians who founded, designed, and defended “righteousness according to the holiness collected in the  King James version of the Holy Bible.

Decency, courtesy, honesty,  politeness, neighborliness care for others, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you”, was the ORDER  of my day from kindergarten 1939 through Liberal Arts of college until the  the mid 1960s……Woodstock, drugs, “free and open sex”, television, the loss of learnings, the birth of the feminazi and feminizing of the male, the disappearance of the JudeoChristian God causing the destruction of the American family began   the sabotage and collapse of American culture civilization.

Today’s devoted JudeoChristian has been confined to the catacombs once again.  Marriage and raising a Godfearing family  remains sacred, but must be kept personal to avoid attack and/or  collective abuse for their children at school.

That 44th American President,  Barack Hussein Obama’s religious “minister” for twenty-two years, Jeremiah Wright was a black racist preaching white hate from his Chicago  pulpit and preached so.    Obama considered racist Jeremiah as the most inspiring man in his life.

God has become a foreigner to the majority of Americans these past fifty years.  WE REAP WHAT WE SOW….I was taught in Church and Sunday School in the 1940s, and in Church and public school until the 1960s.   I taught high school social studies and Russian language from 1960 to 1972.   My first student noticeably drugged in my presence was a male senior new to  the  Minneapolis high school where I taught in 1971.  I was transferred to a predominantly black public high  school the next year.   The school was constantly under theft and attack solely from  black uncivilized males both in school and from the neighborhood.    We public school teachers had to enter the building through the boiler room encircled by a metal fence  to avoid stones thrown, physical attacks,  or women’s purses stolen.

Lefties began their invasion in 1951-52 my   senior year at Central High School in St. Paul.  Their  experts in education eliminated marking grades based upon achievement in classes.   Grade thereafter were pass or fail…….No one really failed anymore….no matter how absent the student learning.

School administrators belittled the women teachers whose purses were stolen.  School biggies announced the thefts were the teachers fault….”They should have been smart enough to keep their purses at home!”

Lefties began their invasion in 1951-52,  my   senior year at Central High School in St. Paul.  These  “experts” in education eliminated marking grades based upon achievement in classes.   Grades thereafter became pass or fail…….No one really failed anymore….no matter how absent the student learning.


Families in America went to Church in those days before the mid-1960s.  Moms and dads were still married.    I wonder if at any time, at any place in America then and before, any student was shot in any state in any school K through 12 by an adult or adolescent male!

Please continue reading below…….about another deadly school shooting in our today’s Godless America:


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.”



Democrats Continue Their War Against President Trump and America

Democrats Disgrace Themselves Interrogating Trump’s CIA Nominee

by Elise Cooper  at  American Thinker:

“Anyone who watched the confirmation hearings of Gina Haspel should be astonished at the way most of the Democrats treated her.  KSM, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, and the Senate intelligence panel”s Democrats both agree that they are against the nomination of Gina Haspel to lead the CIA.  He has written a letter to them giving information about Haspel, who in 2002 was a chief of base at a black-site prison in Thailand, where detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogation.  Waterboarding was a big issue, but none thought to mention that it happened to only three terrorists.  Maybe the Democrats should call KSM as a witness, since they appear to be singing the same tune of Kumbaya.

At best, these Democrats were playing Monday-morning quarterback, but more likely, the takeaway is that they are politically correct, while appearing to sympathize with the terrorists.  New Mexico senator Martin Heinrich asked her, “Do you think that a transcript that says the detainees continued to scream has the same gravity, the same reality of an actual video?”

Is he kidding, or does he believe that Americans will ever feel sorry for these jihadist extremists who brutally killed 3,000 Americans?  This just shows how out of touch the Democrats are with reality.  Maybe Heinrich should think about the screams of those 3,000 people on 9-11 as they plunged to their deaths, were burned alive, or were dismembered.  After all, KSM said how his brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks: “[e]ventually America will expose her neck to us for slaughter.”

Democratic senators on the Intelligence Committee – Heinrich, Feinstein, Warner, Harris, and King – ignored the legality of the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation programs by calling them immoral.  They had the attitude of Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who asked over five times if Haspel “believed the previous interrogation techniques were immoral” and Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), who stated, “It is not enough that you have committed to the rule of law?” and called it “a get out of jail free card.”

They refuse to remember the fear of a ticking time bomb.  As Jose Rodriguez, Jr., the former director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, previously told American Thinker, “to prevent a second wave of attacks, the detention and interrogation program was formulated.  We made sure that we vetted information.  Everything was based on legality, a training manual, strict procedures, and guidelines.  There were reports that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists, there were attempts to smuggle nuclear weapons into New York City, and al-Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.  This program led to the disruption of terrorist plots that saved American lives.  It contributed to helping us learn more about al-Qaeda, including the best way to attack, thwart, and degrade it.”

The Democrats seem to be playing right into KSM’s hands, since they frame what the CIA did as morally wrong.  Maybe someone should point out to them that KSM considers responses like theirs “one of Allah’s gifts.”  “The long war for Islamic domination wasn’t going to be won in the streets with bombs and bullets and bloodshed, but would be won in the minds of the American people.”

Haspel was pressed by the Democrats to throw her fellow CIA peers under the bus.  Speaking of moral courage, it is so obvious she has it all over the Democrats.  She stuck to her beliefs, refused to play their political game, and should be admired for doing this.  Her response: “It was the CIA who identified and captured the mastermind of 9-11 [KSM] in a brilliant operation.  I am proud of our work during that time, which allowed us to defend this country and prevent another attack.”

She went on to say, “Under my leadership and watch, the CIA will not start the RDI program.  I support the higher moral standard that this country has decided to hold itself to.  I would never take the CIA back to an interrogation program.  We followed the law then; we follow the law today.  I support the law.  I would not put CIA officers at risk by asking them to undertake controversial field activities again.  The CIA has learned some tough lessons from that experience.”

Former CIA director Michael Hayden previously noted that he was afraid that congressional actions would create a risk-averse environment.  He stated in an earlier interview, “This organization is in a lose-lose situation.  The curse of American intelligence officers is that we are criticized for not doing enough when the nation feels endangered and are criticized for doing too much when everybody feels safe again.”

Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) had the audacity to compare a CIA officer to a terrorist when asking, “If one of your operation officers was captured and subjected to waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques, would you consider that to be moral and good tradecraft?”

Really!  These bona fide American heroes, among whom Gina Haspel is included, men and women who serve in the intelligence agency, never get the heroic welcome or thanks they so rightly deserve for the risks they take.  Their names will never be known, and they will never receive the public gratitude so many others get.  There are no parades for these quiet professionals.  Maybe Senator Reed should be reminded that the first person to die in battle, defending this country, right after 9-11 was Mike Spann, a CIA paramilitary officer, who was beaten to death by the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan as they screamed “Allah akbar.”  Note to the senator: Waterboarding would be the least of the CIA’s problems, considering that the terrorists enjoy beheading people.

Gina Haspel was put through the ringer, while in 2013 many of these same Democrats had a love-fest with John Brennan during his confirmation hearing. Surprisingly, even some Republicans voted for him, including Arizona senators John McCain and Jeff Flake.  Even though he was the fourth person in charge at the agency during those turbulent times, never was Brennan asked about his role, or why more information was not de-classified.  In fact, Senator Heinrich agreed with Brennan – “I would just say I agree with you that sources and methods, and many of the operational details, absolutely should never be declassified” – while denouncing Haspel for not declassifying.  Senator Warner described Brennan’s dedication, selflessness, intelligence, and patriotism but did not use those terms of endearment for Haspel.

Americans should feel anger and frustration toward the Democrats who are obviously hypocrites for disparaging a patriot such as Gina Haspel.  She has made sacrifices, put herself in harm’s way, and faithfully served her country.  Why?  To protect her fellow citizens.

Although Michael Hayden did not make this statement about the current Senate Democrats and the confirmation of Gina Haspel, it is applicable today.  “It feels like September 11th never took place, that Americans are living in the bubble of September 10th, 2001.  Americans need to wake up and not forgot the real dangers under which we are living.”

(Glenn’s note:  These Democrats ‘turned fascist’ were despicable distorting  their snotty faces and phony noises pretending this woman’s life service to her country made her unworthy of CIA leadership because she was honest enough not to join these lying leftists in concocting their sudden disdain for water boarding.

I was one of the proud watching the Dianne Feinstein and friends display their leftist vulgarities every moment of their turn to belch fascistic disdain against Donald Trump’s administration by attacking one of the most admirable candidates ever selected for American public service leadership in Washington, Gina Haspel……what a credit to the ideal American public servant class this candidate displayed reeking with earned honesty,  confidence, service, and devotion to duty!)



What Happened to the 50 Years of Socialist “Soviet” Ad Man, Alan Dershowitz?

‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?’

How a liberal Harvard professor became Trump’s most distinguished defender on TV, freaked out his friends and got the legal world up in arms.

“If you wanted to feel the full force of the intellectual whirlpool that is American politics in 2018, the place to go on February 25 was the Village Underground, a nightclub beneath East 3rd Street, where Alan Dershowitz, the longtime Harvard Law professor and civil liberties lion, was debating the future of American democracy on the side of President Donald Trump.

Opposing him were a National Review writer and a former FBI agent, arguing that the special investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign is well within the bounds of American law. Dershowitz, along with a conservative columnist for the Washington Examiner, was making the case that the Mueller investigation is dangerous to our entire system. In the room, which is normally a comedy club, it was impossible to shake the feeling that something was off. Two years ago, it would’ve seemed far more natural for the quartet to swap partners and switch sides.

On our way out, my wife and I were handed free copies of Dershowitz’s newest book, “Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy,” in which Dershowitz writes that special prosecutor Robert Mueller is subjecting Trump to “the legal equivalent of a colonoscopy.”

The woman behind us in line took her free book, turned to her husband and asked, “What happened to Alan Dershowitz?”

In certain circles—the legal academy, defense attorneys, Martha’s Vineyard—it is the question. Dershowitz, an iconic civil libertarian and criminal defense lawyer, who circulates between the liberal redoubts of Miami, New York and the Vineyard, has emerged in the past year as the most distinguished legal defender of Trump. He’s met Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and he dined with him at the White House the day after the FBI raid on Michael Cohen’s office. He’s a regular presence on TV, especially Fox News, where he’s a reliable voice on the president’s side against the investigation. In April, following the Cohen raid, Dershowitz appeared on “Hannity” nine times—including three days in a row. His message is clear: Mueller’s investigation is a witch hunt, and although he doesn’t think Trump should fire Mueller, the president would be within his rights to do it.

“People everywhere ask what happened to him,” said Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge and lecturer at Harvard Law School who has known Dershowitz for years. “I get that from everyone who knows I know him.”

Anyone under 30 could be forgiven for seeing Dershowitz as just another talking head on Trump TV, but to Gertner and her peers, that’s not even remotely who Dershowitz is. Gen Xers may know him as a celebrity lawyer, a member of O.J. Simpson’s defense team. Baby boomers know him for clearing the socialite Claus von Bulow of poisoning his wife in the 1980s. But Dershowitz had a 20-year career before that, during which he established himself as one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America.

In 1963, as a law clerk, he drafted a crucial memo for Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg that led to the death penalty being ruled unconstitutional. (The ruling was later reversed.) At Harvard, he sued the university’s all-male social clubs, and though he didn’t prevail, he was ahead of his time: Harvard recently severed its ties with the clubs. His legal scholarship articulates an expansive view of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and even animal rights.

Over this storied career, Dershowitz’s public persona has remained more or less unchanged: loud, provocative, brilliant and principled, if also relentlessly self-promoting. And, until recently, his positions have been tolerated, if not always embraced, by the legal academy and universally acknowledged for their moral seriousness.

About a year ago, after Mueller’s appointment on May 17, that started to change. Around then, Dershowitz—never one to overlook a celebrity being railroaded—started getting more TV airtime for his argument that a sitting president could not be guilty of obstruction of justice. The liberal intelligentsia recoiled. Dershowitz speaks openly of having been shunned by friends and condemned by relatives since then—even, he told me, at his family’s recent Passover Seder, where his grandson and nephew urged him to dial down his public defense of the president. He’s been harshly critiqued by former Harvard colleagues and within the small, tightly entwined community of civil libertarians. In late March, when legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin confronted him directly on Anderson Cooper 360—“I don’t know what’s going on with you … this is not who you used to be”—it felt like a moment of collective catharsis for liberals who see Trump as a threat to democracy.

But is Dershowitz really a turncoat? I spent two months interviewing leading civil libertarians and Dershowitz’s former colleagues, reading through his life’s work, and interviewing him twice. In one view, Dershowitz, at the end of his career, has finally crossed the line, defending a demagogue who rejects and threatens the very principles of liberty and fairness to which Dershowitz has dedicated his life. In another view, the people who’ve lost their way are the liberals and civil libertarians, blinded by their rage for Trump, who have dropped their principles in a moment of political threat and are taking out their anger on a man who has been their staunchest ally.

Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz.

Maybe it’s what happened to everyone else.

When Alan Dershowitz arrived at Yale Law School in the fall of 1959, there was no road map on how to be an American civil liberties lawyer, let alone an Alan Dershowitz. Even now it’s difficult to name anyone comparable. There have been other prominent lawyers who have represented controversial political causes and unpopular defendants—Clarence Darrow, William Kuntsler and Ramsey Clark are obvious candidates—but none carried on their careers with the publicness with which Dershowitz has conducted his life. “There isn’t another lawyer like Dershowitz,” civil rights attorney Ron Kuby told me. “Alan is sui generis and he knows it.”

At his Sutton Place apartment, overlooking the East River, Dershowitz explained to me that he had no role model. “I have no lawyer heroes,” he said. “Every lawyer I know has been deeply flawed in one way or another.” The closest comparison he could come up with was to Edward Bennett Williams, the Washington trial attorney who defended Jimmy Hoffa and Mafia boss Frank Costello—“except that Ed Bennett Williams is to the Catholic Church as Judaism is to me.”

Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz. Maybe it’s what happened to everyone else.

The decision to pursue his path in the law was organic. “I never decided to be a civil libertarian,” Dershowitz said. “I was born a civil libertarian. I was brought up a civil libertarian.” At 14, against the wishes of his parents, Dershowitz signed a communist-inspired petition opposing the death penalty for Ethel and Julius Rosenberg as a matter of principle, even though he personally detested communism. But he hadn’t heard the term “libertarian” until he took an ethics course at Brooklyn College with John Hospers, later the 1972 presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, and even then Hospers’ libertarianism had an economic emphasis on free markets that didn’t resonate with Dershowitz’s left-leaning social politics.

Today, the idea of “civil libertarianism” still doesn’t quite have a defined spot on the intellectual and political map. The right to bear arms, the school-choice movement, desegregation, abortion rights and fetal rights—a set of issues wildly incompatible in the rest of public life—have all been defended under the mantle of “civil liberties.” Dershowitz’s conception of pure civil libertarianism resembles the “original position”—the thought experiment developed by the philosopher John Rawls, with whom Dershowitz was in a reading group at Harvard. Rawls, widely regarded as the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, suggested people should think about ethics as if they were operating behind a “veil of ignorance”—as if they were building a society without knowing what their race, gender and social standing would be, and were trying to develop rules that would work to everyone’s benefit. It’s an attempt to think about justice purely from the standpoint of fairness. In the contemporary context, the challenge might be to consider what you would think about, say, the Electoral College without knowing whether it would work to the benefit of your party or the opposition.

Rawls is ordinarily classified as a liberal philosopher, since “justice as fairness” requires equal rights, equal opportunity and, generally speaking, fair treatment of the powerless. But some of the neutral principles that would likely emerge from that approach—say, “every person should be entitled to the presumption of innocence and a vigorous legal defense”—benefit not only the powerless but also the rich and powerful, like, say, Donald Trump.

“I call it the shoe-on-the-other-foot test,” Dershowitz told me. Several days after our first talk, the FBI raided Michael Cohen’s offices, and he appeared on Fox News to say much the same thing. “You know, if this were the shoe on the other foot,” Dershowitz told Hannity, “if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer’s office—the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down.”    Please continue reading the politico article below:

(Note:  Leftist Dershowitz was a television ensemble temper-filled trouble maker leftist for more than 40 years of my lifetime following news from our American arena.  He earned a reputation of being a fascist for the American Civil Liberties Union.

He didn’t appear to love stardom on television…HE ADORED HIS STARDOM APPEARING ON TELEVISION CAUSING TROUBLE FOR UNCLE SAM WHAT EVER HE COULD ADVERTISE HIMSELF…..(my opinion throughout those decades when I was a voting Democrat most of the time the Party was still civilized American.

I welcome his bipartisanship at this date of  his and my age.  It could be that Mr. Dershowitz has become more conservative tolerant in truth rather than consequences.  It appears so,  for leftist Dershowitz I believe is sincere when he advertises his worries about a diminished, abused, damaged White House leader in today’s rise of a  fascist movement  among today’s Charles Schumer-Nancy Pelosi  Party and the national press and public education. ghr)





This morning I watched   the entire morning television presentation of the fascistic plotting  Democrat Charlie Schumer’s Senators lying, conning, distorting, stalling, obstructing the confirmation of a highly qualified, intelligent woman, Gina Haspel, to become head of the CIA.   This fascist plot to disrupt an administration is new to our Congress.  It is plotted by today’s Democrats in Congress.

It is  unfortunate Charlie Schumer’s fascistic leftist American citizens, voters and otherwise called “Democrats”, aren’t forced to spend a day or two in the good old Soviet Union…..even the one without the slaughterer of millions of the state’s citizens,  Josef Stalin.

In 1966 I received a NDEA grant to join a group of twenty American master’s degree level  of American Russian language teachers  to absorb the language according to ‘natives’ of European Soviet Union that August.  I had never experienced life in a police state much less one whose  citizens avoided speaking in public  unless forced to by ‘authorities’.

Today’s Democrats in Congress led by Charles Schumer, Mark Schiff, Richard Blumenthal, Kamala Harris, Ron Wyden, Martin Heinrich, even Dianne Feinstein and countless other Marxist-likes have chosen to play slimy games, lying, cheating, sabotaging, concocting scenarios to cripple and destroy the leadership of our duly elected 45th American President, Donald J. Trump.

This is a newbie for our America, a fascist revolutionary attempt  consistent with the George Soros money and the Barack Hussein Obama promise in November,  2008 to change America forever  (by “Sovietizing” America through dictating  education,  communications, the economy, and the FBI),  to destroy the Trump presidency.

“Obstruct, destroy”  everything conservative possible”, is the fascist Democrat call for political revolution….in the streets, in schools, in Congress…where ever!!

I returned to the Soviet Union October 1990 when it was on the verge of  collapsing as a Communist state.   A local Twin City Protestant religious group had collected quite a sum of money they had raised to donate  “in person by group” to the hospitalized victims of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl.

While in Soviet police state Kiev, a morning when I was shaving, housed  in a room on the twelfth floor of a newly built hotel room without working elevators,  despite closed windows I heard whistles, the manufactured kind being blown from thousands of  human breath from  the plaza and streets below.

Soviet Communism 70 plus years in the Ukraine, was ruled by   vile, conniving  leftist revolutionaries, killers of the democratic process akin to our Charlie Schumers, Mark Schiffs, Ron Wydens, Richard Blumenthals and  other Communist George Soros financed Obama type neoDemocrats  of our America over the last ten years, began its  collapse in Kiev that day.  The whistlers, by the thousands, came to surround Kiev’s Communist Party headquarters building that day.   Tanks, motor-pooled, countless in number, were visible and  in reserve less than  a mile away.  They remained silent.   Please read the article below!

Sen. Tom Cotton: Gina Haspel has spent her life defending our country. She’s an excellent choice for CIA



President Trump: Don’t Belittle the Presidency of Today and Tomorrow by Being Dragged into Mueller and Rosenstein Folly!

Mueller’s Questions for Trump Show the Folly of Special-Counsel Appointments

by Andrew C. McCarthy  at National Review:

The Justice Department should not permit the president to be interrogated on so paltry and presumptuous a showing.

I am assuming the authenticity of the questions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly wants to ask President Trump. The questions indicate that, after a year of his own investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor lacks evidence of a crime. Yet he seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom.

If Bob Mueller wants that kind of control over the executive branch, he should run for president. Otherwise, he is an inferior executive official who has been given a limited license — ultimately, by the chief executive — to investigate crime. If he doesn’t have an obvious crime, he has no business inventing one, much less probing his superior’s judgment. He should stand down.

The questions, reported by the New York Times, underscore that the special counsel is a pernicious institution. Trump should decline the interview. More to the point, the Justice Department should not permit Mueller to seek to interrogate the president on so paltry and presumptuous a showing.

When should a president be subject to criminal investigation?
It is a bedrock principle that no one is above the law. The Framers made clear that this includes the president. But, like everything else, bedrock principles do not exist in a vacuum. They vie with other principles.

Two competing considerations are especially significant here. First, our law-enforcement system is based on prosecutorial discretion. Under this principle, the desirability of prosecuting even a palpable violation of law must be balanced against other societal needs and desires. We trust prosecutors to perform this cost-benefit analysis with modesty about their mission and sensitivity to the disruption their investigations cause.

Second, the president is the most essential official in the world’s most consequential government. That government’s effectiveness is necessarily compromised if the president is under the cloud of an investigation. Not only are the president’s personal credibility and capability diminished; such an investigation discourages talented people from serving in an administration, further undermining good governance. The country is inexorably harmed because a suspect administration’s capacity to execute the laws and pursue the interests of the United States is undermined. Naturally, this is of little moment to rabid partisans who opposed the president’s election and object to his policy preferences. By and large, however, Americans are not rabid partisans; they want the elected president to be able to govern, regardless of which party is in charge.

Still, the president cannot be above the law. Executive powers are too awesome to abide presidential immunity from the laws and the limits on those powers. So how do we police the president while minimizing the damage that an investigation of the president can do to the country? We acknowledge that we are willing to endure this damage, but only if there is strong evidence that the president is guilty of a serious crime or abuse of power.

A president should not be subjected to prosecutorial scrutiny over poor judgment, venality, bad taste, or policy disputes. Absent concrete evidence that the president has committed a serious crime, the checks on the president should be Congress and the ballot box — and the civil courts, to the extent that individuals are harmed by abusive executive action. Otherwise, a special-counsel investigation — especially one staffed by the president’s political opponents — is apt to become a thinly veiled political scheme, enabling the losers to relitigate the election and obstruct the president from pursuing the agenda on which he ran.

That is what we are now witnessing.

Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel for two reasons: (1) ostensibly to take over a counterintelligence probe; (2) in reality, as a cave-in to (mostly) Democratic caviling over Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey — which was lawful but incompetently executed. Democrats contended that Comey’s dismissal, in conjunction with Comey’s leak of Trump’s alleged pressure to drop the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn, warranted a criminal-obstruction probe. That is, the pretext of obstruction was added to “Russia-gate,” the already-existing pretext for carping about the purported need for a special counsel.

Neither of these reasons was a valid basis for a special-counsel investigation.

Russia’s effort plainly warranted a counterintelligence investigation. But reliance on that necessity as a rationale to appoint a special counsel was a subterfuge.

As we have repeatedly noted, a counterintelligenceinvestigation is not a criminal investigation. To the extent it has a “subject,” it is a foreign power that threatens the United States, not an American believed to have violated the law. A counterintelligence investigation aims to gather information about America’s adversaries, not build a courtroom prosecution. For these (and other reasons), such investigations are classified and the Justice Department does not assign prosecutors to them, as it does to criminal cases. Counterintelligence is not lawyer work; it is the work of trained intelligence officers and analysts. It is not enough to say that Justice Department regulations do not authorize the appointment of a special counsel for a counterintelligence probe. The point is that counterintelligence is not prosecution and is therefore not a mission for a prosecutor.

Foreign efforts to meddle in our elections are nothing new, but they are not to be taken lightly. Russia’s effort plainly warranted a counterintelligence investigation. But reliance on that necessity as a rationale to appoint a special counsel — a lawyer independent of the executive branch, who uses the president’s executive power to investigate the president — was a subterfuge. (Because of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s passivity, Mueller is de facto independent, even though he is technically Rosenstein’s subordinate.)

Prior to Comey’s firing, Democrat demands for a “Russia-gate” special counsel were rebuffed because they were nakedly political. Even if one accepts the dubious premise that Trump materially benefited from Kremlin interference in the election, there was no known credible evidence that he or his campaign committed a crime in that connection. If there had been such evidence, no one would ever have mentioned a counterintelligence investigation; they would have said a special counsel was being appointed to investigate, say, a hacking conspiracy — an actual violation of federal criminal law.

The Democrats did not want a special counsel in order to investigate a crime; they wanted a special counsel (a) to promote a political narrative that Hillary Clinton lost because of something other than her lack of appeal and (b) to frustrate Trump’s ability to govern — to mollify their “Resist!” base, to stop Trump from implementing policies they oppose, and to enhance their electoral hopes in the 2018 and 2020 cycles.

As for the second purported basis for Mueller’s appointment, the crime of obstruction, it cannot be established by lawful exercises of executive prerogatives. A president, of course, may not subvert an investigation by unlawful actions — e.g., by conspiring to suborn perjury or bribe witnesses (cf. Clinton, Nixon). Illegal acts could amount to actionable obstruction. But the president’s dismissal of subordinate executive officials (such as the FBI director), and his exercise of prosecutorial discretion (by merely weighing in on whether a person — here, Flynn — deserves to be investigated), are constitutional acts that are not judicially reviewable. Executive prerogatives that are not subject to judicial review may not be subjected to judicial review by indirection, under the guise of a prosecution.

If Congress believes that Trump has committed impeachable offenses, it is free to open an impeachment inquiry. Mueller is not Congress.

This is not to say that lawful presidential actions are beyond reproach. Acts that do not transgress the criminal law may nevertheless be despicable. It is not a crime, for example, for a president to use the Oval Office for extramarital trysts with an intern, or to lie to the public about people being able to keep their health insurance. Nor am I contending that lawful presidential actions are unreviewable: The president can be impeached — just as the president has plenary power to fire an executive subordinate, Congress has plenary power to determine what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. If Congress believes that the president’s lawful exercise of an executive prerogative was corruptly motivated, Congress may remove the president. If, for example, there was a concrete basis to suspect the president of a crime, and the president pardoned his accomplices in return for their silence, the pardons would stand but Congress could impeach the president for abusing his power to conceal his misconduct.

But impeachment is not prosecution. If Congress believes that Trump has committed impeachable offenses, it is free to open an impeachment inquiry. Mueller is not Congress. He does not report to Congress. He is a subordinate officer of the executive branch whose job is to investigate and (if merited) prosecute crimes specified by his Justice Department superiors. A special counsel is not supposed to be Congress’s lawyer for the purpose of investigating non-crimes that might nevertheless constitute impeachable abuses of power.

The corrupt-motive theory is legally and factually specious
The list of questions elucidates that Mueller is pursuing the legally suspect theory that legitimate exercises of presidential prerogatives can become prosecutable obstruction crimes if undertaken with an arguably corrupt motive. This theory is specious on at least two grounds.

First, it would empower a subordinate executive official (an unelected bureaucrat who serves at the president’s pleasure) to second-guess the chief executive’s every action and judgment — not just to investigate a patent, serious crime but to question what the president was thinking even when his actions were within his constitutional authority. The president is answerable to peer branches and to voters, but not down his chain of command. If an order is lawful, it is not the captain’s place to question the general’s motives.

Second, the corrupt-motive theory is factually meritless as applied to Trump. Whatever pressure Trump may have brought to bear regarding Flynn’s investigation, it had zero impact. Comey has testified that the FBI disregarded Trump’s comments. The Flynn investigation proceeded without a hitch, and Mueller ultimately charged and convicted him. Trump could have ordered the investigation to be shut down, but he let it continue.

A president should not be under investigation in the absence of an obvious crime serious enough to implicate impeachment. The stakes for the nation’s effective governance are too high.

As for the Russia investigation, it has proceeded apace. Comey’s firing had no effect on the FBI’s capacity to investigate. Moreover, the evidence is that Trump was not trying to impede the Russia investigation. To the contrary, the president simply wanted the FBI director to state publicly what he was assuring Trump privately: that Trump was not suspected of wrongdoing. This was hardly an unreasonable desire given that (a) in the Clinton-emails investigation, Comey took it upon himself to publicize the FBI’s determination that Hillary Clinton should not face prosecution, and (b) after repeatedly telling Trump he was not a suspect, Comey gratuitously created the public impression that Trump was a suspect by making an extraordinary announcement (in House testimony on March 20, 2017) that both revealed the existence of the Russia investigation and suggested Trump-campaign “coordination” in Russian espionage.

Not so fast, argue Trump’s antagonists: To be obstruction, an action need not succeed in corruptly influencing an investigation; it need only endeavor to do so.

This returns us to where we began: A president should not be under investigation in the absence of an obvious crime serious enough to implicate impeachment. The stakes for the nation’s effective governance are too high. Here, we do not have real obstruction. We have, at most, a politicized, hyper-technical claim of obstruction that rests on a suspect legal theory and a dearth of evidence that anyone was impeded in the slightest. Those are frivolous grounds for an investigation that compromises the president’s capacity to govern. The criminal law inquires into intent when actions patently violate criminal statutes; its purpose is not to manufacture crime by speculating about the intent behind apparently lawful actions.

Justice Department indifference
I am not a Trump fanboy. The administration’s conflicting explanations for Comey’s firing, which Mueller wants to inquire about, were an embarrassment — and the president’s badmouthing of the former director for the consumption of Kremlin emissaries was a disgrace. Trump’s Twitter tirades demanding investigations inject politics into law enforcement and undermine the administration of justice. His conception of the loyalty he is entitled to demand from law-enforcement officials is skewed — his citation of Eric Holder as a model attorney general (the only AG ever held in contempt of Congress) is repugnant. His orchestration of Donald Trump Jr.’s misleading statements to the Times (and thus to the public) regarding the Trump Tower meeting with a Kremlin-tied lawyer was unseemly.

None of this, however, is a basis for criminal prosecution. Being inconsolably upset about the outcome of the 2016 election does not entitle Democrats to an Oval Office minder with subpoena power. The actions and intentions Mueller seeks to probe are bases for political opposition to Trump, not prosecution. If you think his derelictions outweigh the positive policy outcomes of his presidency, then work to defeat him in the coming election cycles. But that is not prosecutor work.

Trump would be foolish to answer questions from Mueller, who has made a habit of turning witness interviews into false-statements prosecutions. More important, absent concrete evidence of his complicity in a serious crime, a president should not be put in the position of being pressured to answer a prosecutor’s questions. When Trump complains that the Obama Justice Department would never have permitted President Obama to be treated this way, he is right.

Put the president aside for a second. A Justice Department prosecutor would not be permitted to subpoena, say, a journalist or a lawyer, unless doing so was vital to the investigation of a serious crime — to the acquisition of critical information that was unavailable from any alternative source. The firewall that would prevent a heedless prosecutor from running roughshod over free-press principles or the attorney–client privilege is Justice Department leadership. It is astonishing that current Justice Department leadership apparently believes that the president of the United States, despite his responsibilities for our governance and security, is entitled to less deference.

Unless Mueller can demonstrate that a serious crime has been committed, that Trump was complicit in it, and that Trump is in possession of evidence that is essential to the prosecution, Rosenstein should bar him from seeking an interview, let alone issuing a subpoena demanding grand-jury testimony. This is not merely about protecting Trump; it is about protecting the office of the presidency.