• 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

Time for America to Confront the Democrat Party Fascist Left and Its Strangle Hold on Communication

It is certainly understandable that the American atheist, fascist Obamaling Democrat  savage Left is enjoying its total control over the nation’s press and indoctrination institutions called courts, school, and university.

There is a lot rotten in America’s “State of Denmark” in the left wing of the recently beaten Obama fascist, racist, sexist Democrat Party determined  to continue control the Presidency……feminist fangs, black racists and gangsters, the smug Hollywood millionaires and friends, 20 million or more illegal immigrants hidden and protected by taxpayer money in political cells called “Sanctuary Cities”  weren’t quite enough to con enough Americans to send that oily, noisy,  political slimy criminal, “Crooked” Hillary to the White House.   She should be sent to jail for her crimes against the State.

She’s free, however.   She’s a feminist, leftist Democrat…an Untouchable?

Our Donald was fairly, cleanly, honestly, Constitutionally elected to become the Nation’s 45th President…..and BEST yet, he is not a crooked Democrat, or sleazy Republican….but a businessman skilled at solving problems to build matter.

Over 90% of the American communications empire is grease-mouthed by the Charles Blows,  nearly all of television “news” at the level of Rachel Maddow, the Washington Post’s billionaire,  and the  Jake Tapper “boys” at CNN……folks of the same bath tub oils.    Then there are CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC,  and the Ninth District Courts politically, educationally crippled enough to make certain TRUTH AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ARE LOST IN THE PAST to make room for the goons of their religion, their gods of feelings over Truth!

Will these Obama fascists join the NeverTrumpers…the Bushes et alia to sabotage our refreshing, America-loving, America built, Donald Trump…..or will one party fascism finally kill the United States of America?

OUR AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE, FOLKS.   The Charlie Schumer people of Communist George Soros land are leading our nation  to a Venezuela future!    PAY ATTENTION….AWAKE!  Please read the following article by Newt Gingrich!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/18/gingrich-surrender-or-fight-our-country-is-at-stake.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

Ben Stein’s “Witch Hunting for Trump”

“I have heard about “Witch-Hunts” all of my life. When I was a small child, Senator Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) and the House Un-American Activities Committee were said by the left-wingers to be on a “witch-hunt” for Communists in the government. That’s what the left alleged against Richard Nixon when he was a young Congressman from Yorba Linda, too. The allegation was a bit misleading, though, because as far as we know, there are no such things as witches. There’s Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi and they are not nice, but no one could prove that there are even such things as witches, let alone that there are witches in high office.

But there were Communists and Communist sympathizers and friends of our murderous enemy, Stalin’s Russia, in high places in government. One need only mention Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, at State and Treasury respectively, to make the point. There really was something worth looking for — traitors who were demonstrably agents of an enemy.

Now, we have a new kind of witch-hunt going on against the administration and the person of Donald Trump. The allegation is that there was some kind of control of the 2016 Presidential Campaign exercised by the Russia and that the control ran by some kind of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump. And now, with the appointment of Mr. Mueller as a Special Prosecutor in this case, we see a REAL witch-hunt hit high gear. This one is a REAL witch-hunt because there is no evidence at all of any kind whatsoever that there was any collusion with the Russians by Trump. There is no evidence that the Russians controlled Trump or anyone in his campaign.

It’s all about a fantasy. So, now we have a hunt for something that is non-existent, as far as anyone knows. In Watergate, there was at least one little crime — the break-in at the Watergate. Here, there’s nothing. The Democrats are going on a witch-hunt for a woman who can ride her broom stick and cast spells that turn men into animals. There’s no evidence of it, but as Dr. Goebbels said, if you make the lie big enough and repeat it enough, people begin to believe it.

The issue was made incredibly clear — inadvertently — by Bob Beckel on Fox News Wednesday night. He was talking about the need for a Special Prosecutor. One of the sane people on the panel said something like, “But there’s no evidence that anything wrong was done.”

Beckel, who says he’s sober now, answered something like, “That’s why we need an investigation.”

But, if we are to investigate everything that’s not proved, as to which there is no evidence, then let’s start looking for zombies or spiders from Mars or flying saucers. Let’s try looking for evidence of wrongdoing by Trump on planets in other galaxies millions of light years away.

What we are seeing now is the physical manifestation of a bunch of high school girls’ hysteria as we saw in The Crucible. Mr. Rosenstein has bowed to the fantasy paranoid hysteria of the mean girls’ sorority known as the mainstream media and appointed a Special Prosecutor to look into — a fantasy. There’s no stained dress. No hollowed out pumpkin. No hollow nickels with microfilm. No, there’s just the mean girls’ sorority determined to get the Pi Phi’s, and somehow getting the deputy A-G to go along with their fantasy and pretend there’s something real about an allegation that a Pi Phi stole another girl’s boyfriend and flew away with him on her broom. And he’s a Special Prosecutor. He’ll find something someone did wrong somewhere. It won’t be about the subject — Russia-Trump collusion in the election. But he will find something and someone will go to prison. That’s what Special Prosecutors do (to Republicans). That’s why they exist. He’ll find something……”

https://spectator.org/witch-hunting-for-trump/

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

CNN’S LOVE FOR SPREADING FAKE NEWS

CNN goes for another dip into the Fake News pool

by Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

“Awhile back, President Trump declared CNN ‘fake news‘ on Twitter. If you thought that was overstating it, get a load of its latest claim that the public is just pining for a special prosecutor on the increasingly hoary claim that ‘Russia hacked the election.’

The public really wants a special prosecutor for Russia investigation

Really? Really really rilly rilly? I find that extremely hard to believe, just on its surface. I hear no such talk in bank lines, on the headlines of supermarket tabloids, on radio talk show banter, at gas stations, at Starbucks, or even in politically correct classrooms. So color me skeptical.

Unfortunately, skepticism is what’s lacking in the reportage from the writer who had otherwise been a fairly good journalist, Chris Cillizzia, who wrote this tripe under his own byline. You’d think he’d know better.

CNN’s Cillizzia cites an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll purporting to represent the entire nation from a tiny sample of 350 people, not all of them so much as registered voters. Citing President Trump’s skepticism about the Democrats’ demand for a special prosecutor, Cillizzia writes:

The public very much disagrees, according to new numbers from a NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday. Almost eight in ten people — 78% — said they would prefer an investigation led by an independent prosecutor or independent commission. Just 15% said they preferred an investigation led by Congress…….”

Please continue reading below:

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

NEW OBAMA BIO IS NOT JUST EXHAUSTING, IT’S INSULTING

New Obama Bio Is Not Just Exhausting; It’s Insulting

by Jack Cashill   at American Thinker:

Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography;” writes Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow, “it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction.”

Garrow makes this claim, italics included, in his massive new biography about Obama’s pre-presidential years, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. For myself and other citizen journalists who have followed Obama, this is hardly a revelation.

We concluded many years ago that Dreams was in large part fiction. We came to this conclusion during the same period when our betters were writing paeans such as, “Whatever else people expect from a politician, it’s not usually a beautifully written personal memoir steeped in honesty” (Oona King, London Times).

The book, we realized, was steeped in something, but it certainly wasn’t honesty. Before the election in 2008, no one in the major media would admit this, and afterwards mainstream critics did so only partially and reluctantly. Garrow continues the tradition.

The New York Times has dismissed Rising Star as “a dreary slog of a read.” I have seen nothing in what I have read of the book to dispute the Times on the tedium part. (My ebook version runs 2,000 pages, and it has just crashed.) I have read enough, however, to feel insulted, not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of those other citizen journalists who dared to report the truth before the major media grudgingly did the same.

Garrow adds a little more to the accepted record — oh yeah, there was no Obama family — but the book serves in certain ways to cauterize Obama’s wounded reputation. It is hard to imagine another author going deeper. Garrow spent ten years on the project. He interviewed more than a thousand people. There is much not to like about Garrow’s Obama, but the faithful need never fear learning anything worse than that their man was shallow and self-centered. What politician isn’t?

Like other mainstream biographers, Garrow has the unfortunate habit of insulting those who challenge the orthodoxy, myself included. In July 2008, I first raised the issue of the authorship of Dreams. Beginning in September 2008, I traced the muse behind Dreams, speculatively at first, to the notoriously unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers.

Obama biographer David Remnick admitted just how problematic this revelation could have been. “This was a charge,” he wrote in his 2010 biography, “that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy.”

The way for Remnick, the New Yorker editor, to deal with the charge was to attack its provenance — “the Web’s farthest lunatic orbit.” To assure the charge was not repeated, he accused anyone who repeated it, Rush Limbaugh most notably, with racism.

Garrow has his own way of slighting the assertion that Ayers had a hand in Dreams. He ignores it. He makes no mention of my name in the text of the book. Nor does he mention Christopher Andersen. Andersen presented more of a problem than I did. A bestselling biographer with solid mainstream credentials, Andersen gave biographical detail to what I had inferred from textual analysis.

In his 2009 book, Barack and Michele: Portrait of an American Marriage, Andersen spent six pages on Ayers’ role in helping craft Dreams. As Andersen related, Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” What attracted the Obamas were “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer” as evident in his 1993 book, To Teach.

Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives, both African and American, Andersen elaborated, “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.” Although I had not talked to Andersen, his observations, based on two unnamed sources, made perfect sense given Obama’s repeated failures to complete the book on schedule.

One of Obama’s radical friends in Hyde Park did not shy from giving Ayers his due. “First, chronologically and in other ways,” wrote Rashid Khalidi in his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, “comes Bill Ayers.” Khalidi elaborated, “Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the project.” Khalidi did not need the table.  He had one of his own. He needed help from the one neighbor who obviously could and would provide it.

Garrow has not a word to say about Andersen’s claim, not even to rebut it. In fact, the reader of Garrow’s book would have no reason to believe anyone ever questioned Obama’s authorship. As for me, Garrow adds a comically gratuitous slap.

The reference is a telling one. It involves a poem Obama submitted to his college literary magazine as a sophomore called “Pop.” Garrow writes that most critics presumed the poem was about Obama’s grandfather, but “hostile critics,” namely me, claimed the poem was about Obama’s Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

In his footnotes, Garrow cites an article published in American Thinker in 2011. In it, I quoted Remnick’s claim that “’Pop’ clearly reflects Obama’s relationship with his grandfather Stanley Dunham.” I disagreed. “The poem does no such thing, “ I wrote. “For starters, if the poem really were about ‘Gramps,’ Stanley Dunham, why didn’t Obama simply call it ‘Gramps.’”

There is a variety of evidence arguing for Davis as “Pop.” This includes a 1987 interview with Davis recorded by the University of Hawaii for a documentary on his life.  Watching it, one can visualize “Pop”: the drinking, the smoking, the glasses, the twitches, the roaming eyes, the thick neck and broad back. “I could see Frank sitting in his overstuffed chair,” Obama remembers in Dreams, “a book of poetry in his lap, his reading glasses slipping down his nose.”

Among the details in the poem that disqualified Dunham as the poem’s subject was this one: “he switches channels, recites an old poem/ He wrote before his mother died.” As I explained, Dunham’s mother died when he was eight years old. Frank Marshall Davis’s mother died when he was twenty and had already established himself as a poet of promise. “When an insider like Remnick gets something this obviously wrong,” I concluded, “I begin to suspect disinformation, not mere misinformation.”

Remnick and those critics who preceded him insisted the poem was about Dunham because they did not want to give Davis his due. To his credit, Garrow admits Davis was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA and a pornographer with at least a fictional taste for the underaged and the male.

Garrow knows I am correct about the authorship of “Pop.” But Remnick is the editor of the New Yorker. Even when he is wrong, Garrow writes about him respectfully. Here, Garrow concludes the brief discussion on ‘Pop” by writing, “Yet Barack would forcefully reject the Davis hypothesis.” Of course he would.

Here is the kicker. When Garrow cites me by name in his endnotes on this subject, he adds in parentheses, “someone who is cited with the greatest reluctance.” Ouch! I suppose I would be reluctant to cite me too. I can disprove Garrow’s thesis that the muse for Dreams was his law school buddy Robert Fischer as convincingly as I can disprove “Pop” was Stanley Dunham. More to come.

In July 2008, on the cyber pages of WND, I first raised the issue of the authorship of Barack Obama’s acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.

In September 2008, again at WND, I traced the muse behind Dreams to the notoriously unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers.

If other conservative media had the courage that WND has shown over its twenty-year history, they would have followed up on my story, and Barack Obama would not have been elected president. But they did not, and he, alas, was.

A book by Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow about Obama’s pre-presidential years, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, has the potential to tell the stories the major media and much of the conservative media refused to tell. No Obama fan, Garrow critiques Obama from his left.

Garrow allegedly interviewed a thousand or so people for the book. When I suggested to friend Susan Daniels last week that Rising Star, out May 9, has potential, she asked, “Did Garrow interview you?”

No, come to think of it, he did not. I asked Susan if Garrow interviewed her. He should have. A licensed private investigator, it was Susan who discovered that Obama was passing through life with a Connecticut social security number.

No, Garrow had not talked to Susan either, despite the fact that she had taken her case against Obama’s use of that number to court in her native Ohio.

That got me to wondering just who(m) did Garrow talk to. I contacted Joel Gilbert, producer of the widely seen documentary, Dreams from My Real Father.

“Not me or anyone I know or interviewed in Obamaworld. Not Malik or Keith etc.,” Gilbert replied.

Malik would be Obama’s half-brother and the best man at his wedding, Malik Obama. Keith Kakugawa, was Obama’s best friend in high school. He appears frequently in Dreams as “Ray.”

Gilbert added, “We know he interviewed Barry, which is a red flag! Claim sounds like BS.”

I reached out to Charles Johnson, founder of Gotnews.com and a deep Obama researcher. Johnson is also the possessor of an early draft of Dreams. Said Johnson of Garrow’s claimed thousand interviews, “I think he is lying.”

“He never contacted me,” said Jerry Corsi who led the quest to secure Obama’s birth certificate at WND and in a best-selling book.

Given that Garrow has reportedly discussed Obama’s alleged bisexuality, I thought for sure he would have interviewed Larry Sinclair.

In June 2008, Sinclair held a press conference at the august National Press Club in Washington to discuss what he claimed were his drug-fueled sexual assignations with Obama in Chicago.

The media called the conference a “circus act” and refused to follow up. To be sure, they did not review his book, Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder. For all his eccentricities, Sinclair tells a convincing tale.

I reached out to Sinclair through Facebook. “I just don’t know any David Garrow,” he told me, “nor have I given any interviews in last couple of years as I have been restoring a neglected community.”

When I told Sinclair that Garrow has not interviewed anyone I know who knows anything about Obama, he replied, “That doesn’t surprise me considering he is connected to the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] which listed me as a racist and hate group promoter.”

Finally, though, I did hear from one fellow whom Garrow had contacted, John Drew. Drew met Obama in December 1980 in California. He had flown to visit his girlfriend and fellow traveler, Caroline Boss. A few years earlier, Drew had founded the Marxist-Socialist group at Occidental College.

Drew was at Boss’s parents’ home when an expensive luxury car with two well-dressed young men pulled up. One was Obama, the other Hassan Chandoo, “They’re on our side,” Boss told him.

Throughout the long evening, the group talked Marxist politics. Drew recalled Obama repeatedly using the phrase “When the revolution comes.”

Drew met Obama on several occasions in the future. “At that time,” say Drew, “the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps — for the first time — considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism.”

Garrow interviewed Drew in December 2011. He told Drew that his next stop was to visit Caroline Boss. It appeared that he had already interviewed others at Occidental.

“From a recent radio interview,” Drew said, “I’m not sure that you or I had much impact on [Garrow’s] thinking. He believes one of Obama’s friends at Harvard Law School helped with the rewrite of Dreams and not Bill Ayers. (This just seems absolutely stupid to me.)”

Drew continued, “Darrow also dismissed the ‘conspiracy theories’ that Obama was a Marxist, Muslim, or gay. Although I use the broadest definitions, I see Obama as all three. I’m not even sure I made the final cut of the book at this point.”

When I asked Drew if he minded if I quoted him, he replied, “Not at all. I think Garrow made a huge mistake by not speaking with you.”

The New York Times has already panned the book. It will probably flop. My suspicion at this point is that it will be too honest for the left and not honest enough for the right.

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