• 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 Ignorance of Today’s American Fascist CNN Left…. They ARE Animals!


WASHINGTON — It’s never right to call other human beings “animals.” It’s not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.

This is why we need to reflect on the controversy over exactly whom President Trump was referring to as “animals” during a roundtable discussion last week at the White House with state and local officials from California on so-called sanctuary laws.



“If you want to understand the moral sickness at the heart of leftism, read the first paragraph of the most recent column by Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne:

“It’s never right to call other human beings ‘animals.’ It’s not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger that genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.”

Let’s begin with the first sentence: “It’s never right to call other human beings ‘animals.'”

This is so self-evident to Dionne that he adds, “It’s not something we should even have to debate.”

Only someone who has never debated the issue could make such a claim.

So allow me to debate the assertion.

My view is the antithesis of Dionne’s. As I see it, it is not right to never call another human being an “animal.”

Calling the cruelest among us names such as “animal” or any other “dehumanizing” epithet actually protects humans. The word “beastly” exists for a reason and is frequently applied to human beings. By rhetorically reading certain despicable people out of the human race, we elevate the human race. We have declared certain behaviors out of line with being human.

Biologically, of course, we are all human. But if “human” is to mean anything moral — anything beyond the purely biological — then some people who have committed particularly heinous acts of evil against other human beings are not to be considered human. Otherwise “human” has no moral being. We should then not retain the word “inhumane.” What is the difference between “he is inhumane” and “he is an animal”? Both imply actions that render the person no longer human.

Dionne provides his answer at the end of the paragraph: “dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.”

He provides not a single argument or illustration for this truly absurd comment.

Anyone who refuses to “dehumanize” the Nazi physicians — who, with no anesthesia, froze naked people for hours and then dropped them in boiling water to rewarm them; put people in depressurized rooms where their eardrums burst, driving them out of their minds from pain; rubbed wood shavings and ground glass into infected wounds, etc. — is, to put it very gently, profoundly morally confused.

What would Dionne have us call those Nazi physicians — “not nice,” “badly flawed,” “evil”? Why is rhetorically ostracizing them from the human race “a dangerous path”? He doesn’t have an answer because he lives in the left’s world of moral-sounding platitudes. Leftism consists almost entirely of moral-sounding platitudes — statements meant to make the person making them feel morally sophisticated. But based on their relative reactions to the sadists of the MS-13 gangs, I trust Donald Trump’s moral compass more than E. J. Dionne’s.

It is ever dangerous to use dehumanizing rhetoric on people? Of course — when it is directed at people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or any other immutable physical characteristic. The Nazis did what they did to Jews and others because they dehumanized them based on their religious/ethnic/racial identity. That’s why racism is evil. But why is it dangerous to use such rhetoric on people based on their behavior? By equating labeling the cruelest among us “animals” with labeling Jews “animals,” Dionne cheapens the fight against real evil.

I once asked Rabbi Leon Radzik, a Holocaust survivor who had been in Auschwitz, what word he would use to characterize the sadistic guards in the camp. I will never forget his response: “They were monsters with a human face.”

Incredibly, Dionne would not agree with him.”


Commentary:   E. J. Dionne, like 99% of  today’s America’s newsprint propagandists apparently has never been educated in things “science” or “arithmetic”, such as “two plus two equals four”…..unless the feminized are overcome with emotion.

Dionne has been around these feminized a long, long time.  What else can be expected at today’s Obama New York Times, Washington Post, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Harvard and Yale, and your local high schools of lower learnings.

Thank you Dennis Prager for your courage to remind collapsing Americana that there is still meaning to the word “Truth” even in this world of today’s Schumer Democrat Party of fascistic persuasion from ignorance.

Do Leftist Fascists Already Own America’s News Industry?

(Leftist fascists already own the university social sciences!!  ghr)


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Last night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner was a disgrace. “Comedian” Michelle Wolf was vulgar and partisan. I know, that is par for the course at these events, but Wolf went far beyond the pale. Her attacks on Sarah Sanders were particularly vicious and inexcusable. I spent some time with Hugh Hewitt tonight; he was at the dinner and said–I don’t think he would mind my repeating this–that he would have walked out in disgust, except that Sanders sat through it. If she had walked out he would have followed her, but as long as she was willing to take the abuse, he stuck it out.

President Trump showed good judgment by staying away and addressing a big crowd in Washington, Michigan instead. A few star baseball players were invited, like Brooks Robinson and Dennis Eckersley. One can only speculate as to what they made of it.

As far as I have seen, the dinner has been universally panned. CNN’s Jeff Zeleny said: “It was an embarrassment in the room and surely to the audience at home.”

Audience? What audience? I haven’t seen the ratings, but I can’t imagine many people were watching. Unfortunately. It would benefit Republicans if this sort of fiasco were more widely viewed. Those who suffered through the event on television presumably saw, in addition to Wolf’s mean-spirited attacks, comments by Correspondents’ Association president Margaret Talev, who betrayed a remarkable lack of self-awareness:

Correspondents’ association president Margaret Talev — standing under a banner that said “CELEBRATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT” — began the evening by saying:

“The journalists we’re celebrating tonight help keep our democracy healthy.”

Actually, they don’t. For the most part they are a disgrace to their profession. They have betrayed the longstanding ideals of objectivity and accuracy, and thereby have brought political journalism into disrepute with most Americans.

We reject efforts by anyone, especially our elected leaders, to paint journalism as un-American, to undermine trust between reporter and reader, to cast doubt on the relevance of facts and truth in the modern age. An attack on any journalist is an attack on us all.

I don’t know of anyone who has said that journalism is un-American. I assume she was talking about President Trump, but he has never said any such thing. As for trust between reporter and reader, that has been undermined over a period of decades by biased and incompetent reporters and editors. And no one “casts doubt on the relevance of facts and truth.” The problem is that all too often, we don’t get facts and truth from White House correspondents and other reporters. And finally, the claim that an attack on any journalist is an attack on all journalists is idiotic. Biased and inept reporters deserve to be attacked.

This isn’t about protecting the business of journalism. It’s about protecting the rule of law.

More lunacy. When the rule of law was actually under attack during the Obama administration, almost all journalists cheered the president on as he signed unconstitutional orders like DACA, and as he politicized the Department of Justice and the intelligence agencies.

What I don’t understand is why the Democrats don’t pay a bigger price for the crazed hatred that they continually display. Since the 2016 election, the Democrats have directed toward President Trump an unprecedented stream of over-the-top, and sometimes demented, vitriol. Last night’s hate-fest was sadly typical–for the Democrats, all in a day’s work. Is this really the party that voters want to see in power again? One wouldn’t think so, but I guess we will find out in November.




How Millennial Socialists Endanger America

by Jeffrey Folks  at American Thinker:


Millennials, those born between 1982 and 2004, are the largest age cohort in American history, and according to a recent poll, most of them (44%) prefer socialism to capitalism (42%).  An earlier 2015 poll found an even larger number of Millennials (53%) with a “favorable opinion” of socialism.  Inference: America is in trouble.

Maybe Donald Trump can stem the tide for another four or even eight years, but support for socialism will continue to mount as long as Millennials remain ignorant of what socialism really is.  The greatest danger to this country comes from the fact that so many Millennials don’t understand politics and economics.

How else to explain Millennial support for Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist?  With a 75% approval rating overall, and higher among Millennials, Sanders is “the most popular politician in the country,” according to the Observer.  According to his official website, Sanders supports a long list of liberal causes: free health care and college tuition for all, “combating climate change to save the planet,” “fighting for women’s rights,” “fighting for LGBT equality,” “fighting for nurses,” “empowering tribal nations,” “fighting for the rights of native Hawaiians,” “standing with Guam” (huh?) – all of it paid for by “making the wealthy pay their fair share.”  It seems that Bernie is “fighting” for just about everybody except straight white males and that nebulous crowd he calls “the rich.”

Sanders intends to use the tax code to force the rich to pay more.  Oddly enough, Sanders himself is one of these nefarious rich people.  His net income in 2016 was over one million dollars.  Nothing in the tax code prevents any taxpayer from contributing more than their required amount of tax to the federal government.  So far as I know, Bernie has not done so.  So it would seem that he doesn’t mean it when he talks about the rich paying more, or he would have done so.  Maybe Bernie is just a clever capitalist, who, along with Nancy Pelosi with her $140 million and financier husband, masquerades as a socialist.

At its heart, capitalism is a liberating philosophy of life whereby individuals participate freely in markets by trading their goods or services for those of others.  Under capitalism, individuals are incentivized to work by the rewards of the free market.  Socialism substitutes state control and state ownership.  It dictates wages and prices, creating a hugely inefficient and corrupt system that always ends in bankruptcy.  Bernie’s vision of the future is so hackneyed a version of all this that it would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

According to one respected website, Bernie’s health care plan (“Medicare for All”) alone would bankrupt America.  Estimates of Medicare for All costs to taxpayers range from $3.1 to $14 trillion over the first decade.  Bernie proposes to fund his proposal by raising taxes on the rich, but that revenue, even if it could be collected, would not be enough.  With F.Y. 2018 federal spending at $4 trillion, the addition of another $855 billion in annual spending (based on an average of the estimates for Bernie’s plan) involves a 21.4% tax increase (not counting funding for all of Bernie’s other initiatives).  Since they already pay 90% of taxes, and since Bernie rules out middle-class tax increases, this increase would fall exclusively on the top 10% of earners.  So for those affluent taxpayers, Bernie’s plan for health care alone would entail a tax increase of 23.75%.

Meanwhile, Bernie’s “free” college tuition plan would cost an estimated $70 billion annually.  That’s another 1.94% increase in federal tax for “the rich.”  Climate change initiatives, increased regulation, and race- and gender-based giveaways would place more burdens on affluent taxpayers.  Altogether, Sanders-style socialism would drive marginal federal and state rates to at least 70% in high-tax states, not counting sales tax, property tax, and countless other taxes and fees.

Meanwhile, socialism promises what amounts to income for life for those who choose not to work.  This being the case, who in his right mind would strive to become a successful entrepreneur – or surgeon, accountant, or business leader – when he could hang out in Boulder and smoke dope for the next forty years?

There are many words to describe socialism. Having lived under communism myself, I am thoroughly familiar with the idleness, poverty, and demoralization collectivism breeds.  It was commonplace to visit a restaurant in Belgrade, be handed an elaborate menu listing hundreds of choices, and then be told, “Soup, salad, and bread – nothing else today.”  Loss of power and water in communist Yugoslavia and Bulgaria was an everyday occurrence.  And secret police and neighborhood spies were everywhere.  Among the old, there was bitterness, and among the young, only the ambition to get out.  That to me is the essence of socialism: idleness, poverty, and repression.  But how many Millennials know this?  How many care to know?

Not many, and not many of their teachers are making an effort to teach them about socialism.  Within university departments of history, among faculty who should know better, liberals outnumber conservatives by a ratio of more than 33 to 1.

With the sort of education they receive, it’s not surprising that Millennials are attracted by the increasing radicalism of the Democratic Party – and given the radicalism of its base, it’s not surprising that the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming openly socialist.

According to Pew Research, Millennials tilt Democratic by a 51-to-35% margin.  Interestingly, their grandparents (the “Silent Generation,” aged 69-86) have now abandoned the Democratic Party in large numbers.  These voters contributed to Trump’s victory in 2016.  What does the Silent Generation know that Millennials don’t?

To begin with, they know that the world is a dangerous place.  They grew up in the shadow of WWII and lived through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War.  They lived with the fear of all-out nuclear war, with reports of Soviet spying and the horrors of Chinese and North Korean communism.  They learned of gulags, executions, and starvation – and they knew how fortunate they were to have been born in America.

They also know how difficult it is to maintain a decent standard of living.  In their childhood, they heard tales of the Great Depression.  They grew up at a time when the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour – that’s an hour of real labor, not chatting or surfing the internet.  They built wealth patiently from small beginnings, via a 30-year mortgage, Social Security, and contributions to retirement plans.  They knew how hard it was to put money away.

The Silent Generation’s hard-knocks wisdom is a long way from the smug assurance of those who have never lived without wi-fi.  I don’t wish ill on anyone, but I know that a time of testing is at hand for Millennials.  With more than $21 trillion in debt America is moving toward a debased currency and a permanently lower standard of living.  And despite the assurances of Millennial historians such as Yuval Noah Harari, war is not really a thing of the past.  Another great war is coming – one America may well lose.  I doubt if our adversaries will be as magnanimous as America was following WWII.

Millennials seem willfully blind to these possibilities.

Millennials as a group have lost sight of a fundamental law underlying all civilization.  Call it self-preservation, self-interest, or simply survival.  It was the great truth that Churchill cited when he rallied Britain to defense in 1940.  It was what George S. Patton meant when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.”

Most Millennials, I suspect, are not great Patton fans.  They can’t understand the wisdom underlying his salty language or his heroic life.  They can’t appreciate Patton because they don’t accept that life involves struggle.  And since that truth is at the heart of capitalist economic theory, they don’t understand or accept capitalism.

Socialism obscures that truth, and it does so in the service of the selfish ends of both the ruling elite and the dissolute masses.  It is founded on the lie that the human species can live everywhere in peace, accepting the rule of distant bureaucracies and subsisting on an “equal” dole of crumbs.

Inevitably, Millennials will learn from their mistakes, but the learning curve will be difficult and the consequences painful.

If Millennials succeed in installing an Elizabeth Warren-like figure in the White House, it will be a long and uncertain road back to human freedom.  After decades of socialism, aging Millennials may learn their lesson, but at the cost of a lifetime wasted, and the future ruined for the rest of us.

Wouldn’t it be better if they would just wake up?



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



by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they took down the wrong statue.



Today’s Ugly, Confused America IS THE INEVITABLE PRODUCT of the Disappearance of its Biblical JudeoChristian Values

How Religious Are You And Your Region? Gallup Knows

The Southwest part of the U.S. is the most religious with the Southeast not far behind, praise the Lord. I would have guessed the Southeast on top.

 As you might also have guessed, New England where the Puritans first settled is the least religious U.S. region followed closely by the Pacific coast. Everybody else is sort of in between and sort of religious here and there.


These results come from a massive yearlong Gallup survey involving nearly 131,000 adults during 2017 with at least 6,000 interviews in each region. (Map of regions here.)

They found that 45 percent of respondents in the Southwest and 43 percent in the Southeast described themselves as Very Religious, meaning weekly attendance at church. While about a quarter of respondents in those regions considered themselves Not At All Religious, meaning never attending services.

As for the you-know-who crowd in New England, the numbers were almost exactly reversed — 26 percent Very Religious and 48 percent not religious. For those anxiously awaiting their earthquake Armageddon on the Pacific coast, 29 percent Very and 43 percent Not at All.

Gallup’s East Central region (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan) was right about in the middle–37 percent Very, 37 Not. West Central (Dakotas down through Kansas and Missouri up through Wisconsin and Minnesota) it was 39/32.

The Rockies were 35/38.

Gallup reported:

Mormons are most likely to be very religious (73%), followed by Protestants (50%), Muslims (45%), Catholics (40%) and Jews (18%).

Religiosity increases with age: Only 28% of those younger than 30 are very religious, compared with 47% of those aged 65 and older. Blacks (48%) are more likely than whites or Hispanics (36% each) to be very religious.

Even the least religious state in the Southeast — Florida with 35/33 — was more religious than those pagans in California 29/42.

In New England, by far the least religious state is Vermont where only 16 percent claim to be Very Religious and a whopping 59 percent are Not At All Religious.

Gallup summarizes:

While the percentage of all Americans who are very religious has shrunk over the past decade, the differences in religiousness between the regions have held firm, with no indication that these regional differences will change in the near future.


But Kid Hogg Performs to Be a Brat with a Big Mouth and Sad Education!

Facing boycott, Laura Ingraham apologizes for taunting Parkland teen over college rejections

Laura Ingraham appeared to take back her comments

from the Washington Post at the Denver Post

By Amy B Wang and Allyson ChiuThe Washington Post

When Fox News host Laura Ingraham taunted a Parkland shooting survivor in a Wednesday-morning tweet about his college applications being rejected, Twitter users hit back where it hurt most: among her advertisers.

David Hogg, the 17-year-old high school senior turned gun control activist, mustered the collective power of social media – and his more than 630,000 Twitter followers – and urged them to “tweet away” at her top sponsors to call on them to boycott her TV show, “The Ingraham Angle.”

Within 24 hours, several companies responded – among them the pet food brand Nutrish and the home goods retailer Wayfair – announcing on Twitter and in media interviews that they would pull their ads from the show. Stitch Fix and Hulu also announced via Twitter that they would no longer advertise on Ingraham’s show. The #GrabYourWallet campaign reported that Johnson & Johnson has also pulled its ads from the show.

By Thursday afternoon, Ingraham apologized. “On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland,” she tweeted.

In the era of boycotts as a byproduct of outrage, with figures such as President Donald Trump threatening the NFL over player protests and airline customers employing the tactic to force change, Hogg’s push for Ingraham’s advertisers to respond to her comments worked remarkably quickly.

The swift results showcase the power that the Parkland survivors have, not just in organizing rallies but in spurring corporate America to act. Brands, too, have become quicker to distance themselves from controversy, whether by renouncing white supremacy after neo-Nazis praise their products or by pulling their sponsorship after another Fox News personality, Bill O’Reilly, was accused of sexual harassment.

Since the 2016 election, calls to boycott retailers have become frequent: The #GrabYourWallet campaign began as a way to protest Trump, and it identified companies that carried merchandise bearing the Trump name. Those calls have been met with equally passionate responses by Trump supporters who say they are determined to use their buying power to stand with the president and his family.

On Thursday, #GrabYourWallet co-founder Shannon Coulter called Ingraham’s mocking of Hogg’s college rejections “really egregious violations of basic human decency.”……..Please click below for more:


Trouble in Lefty Greenfield

by George Neumayr  at the American Spectator:

“Hillary famously shouted during the throes of the campaign, “Why am I not up by 50 points?” No doubt the media feels similar rage as it pores over Trump’s latest job approval numbers, which have actually gone up since February, according to CNN: “42% approve of Trump, highest in 11 months.” The CNN correspondent, grudgingly reporting these numbers, chalked Trump’s staying power up to the “economy.”

But in a reversal of the Clintonian adage, it is not the economy, stupid, around CNN these days. It is the sex scandal. Womanizing pundits and louche-living hosts profess shock at Trump’s behavior. They act like it is all so incomprehensible to them. Jeffrey Toobin likes to crank up his wind machine about Trump’s lack of integrity, but not so long ago Toobin’s squalid personal life was tabloid fodder. He was cheating on his wife with former CNN correspondent Jeff Greenfield’s daughter, impregnated her, then (unsuccessfully) put pressure on her to get an abortion, according to the New York Daily News in 2010.

“Jeff and Casey [Greenfield] saw each other off and on over the years,” says one source. “She was married to someone else for two years. After her divorce, she started seeing Jeff again. He said he was going to leave his wife for her. But, by then, Casey had begun to distrust him. She suspected he had several other mistresses.”

In 2008, when Greenfield became pregnant, and when she told Toobin the news, he offered her “money if she’d have an abortion,” says a source. He also allegedly offered to pay for her to have another child later via a sperm donor.

“When Casey wouldn’t have an abortion, Jeff told her she was going to regret it, that she shouldn’t expect any help from him,” claims another source.

Greenfield underwent a risky DNA test while pregnant, but Toobin didn’t provide his sample and stopped talking to her, according to sources. On the day she gave birth, Greenfield e-mailed Toobin, inviting him to meet his son, Rory. A source says Toobin didn’t reply.

How come the angry gods of me-too feminism haven’t gotten around to smiting Toobin? Oh, that’s right. He works for CNN. He enjoys that special immunity accorded members of the self-appointed ruling class. The Toobins look out for each other. Just ask Ryan Lizza, who resurfaced at CNN after the New Yorker sacked him for alleged goatishness, prompting the Washington Post to note:

The restoration of Lizza to his punditry duties marks quite a turnabout from December, when his employer issued this statement: “The New Yorker recently learned that Ryan Lizza engaged in what we believe was improper sexual conduct. We have reviewed the matter and, as a result, have severed ties with Lizza. Due to a request for privacy, we are not commenting further.” Lizza’s name popped up in the controversial and once-privately circulated “Sh—y Media Men” list with the cryptic allegation of being “creepy af in the dms,” apparently a reference to unwanted direct messages on Twitter.

But why should any of this stop CNN from providing near-hourly coverage of whatever Trump was up to eleven years ago? It is still not clear what exactly that entails. Maybe Toobin could enlighten us on whether or not a single consensual act qualifies as an “affair” to be enumerated among feminism’s index of patriarchal offenses. It was humorous to see the greasy lawyer of Stormy Daniels insisting on the relevance of her story while simultaneously describing his opposition research for Rahm Emanuel as old news. Why, he hadn’t talked to Emanuel “since 2007,” he said. In other words, the year after Stormy Daniels said she trysted with Trump. Naturally, he wasn’t pressed on the matter.

But what about the non-disclosure payment? Surely, we can get Trump on that, salivated the media — the same media that has been doling those payments out for years. How many non-disclosure agreements has Jeff Zucker overseen? And isn’t this the same media that yawned at the news of Bill Clinton giving Gennifer Flowers state jobs down in Arkansas? The same media that pooh-poohed the significance of Clinton’s boon companion Vernon Jordan generating job interviews for Monica Lewinsky?

The media’s coverage of Trump is like a nuisance suit that never ends. But instead of finishing Trump off, it wins him enduring sympathy. People turn on CNN and see correspondents who have divorced each other (John King and Dana Bash) reporting with such gravity about Trump’s broken vows and what all of that means for poor Melania, right before, of course, they humiliate her anew by whipping up yet another report on Stormy Daniels…..”