• 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


Major media organizations are about to be sued for irresponsibly turning innocent Covington Catholic school boys into objects of national hatred. A lack of standards threatens to open the media to all kinds of legal liabilities.

By Mark Hemingway  at the Federalist:

While the outrage over the Covington high school kids in MAGA hats may have blown over online, the story is far from over. On February 1, an attorney retained by the family of Nicholas Sandmann, the 16-year-old who allegedly “smirked” at the Native American activist banging a drum in his face, released a video that succinctly explained the broader context of what happened. Suffice to say, the video is a damning indictment of how many media outlets and personalities led a social media-fueled outrage mob and wrongly rushed to smear Sandmann and his fellow students.

On Monday, Sandmann’s legal team told the Cincinnati Enquirer that more than 50 letters had been sent to various organizations and people that are likely to precede defamation and libel lawsuits. A host of elite media outlets received some of these letters, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Atlantic, TMZ, National Public Radio, The Guardian, and Conde Nast. A number of prominent reporters also received letters individually, such as Maggie Haberman, Chuck Todd, Savannah Guthrie, Erin Burnett, David Brooks, and Andrea Mitchell, among others.

Media organizations and reporters have traditionally been given extremely wide latitude by courts in the name of protecting free speech, so at first glance it may seem absurd to sue America’s biggest media organizations en masse for defamation and libel. But for those who have been paying attention, for decades now, courts have been trying to balance privacy concerns with rapidly evolving technology that allows for dissemination of information at a rate that far outpaces editorial judgment. Far from endorsing a maximalist vision of what journalists are allowed to get away with, relevant court decisions have trended toward winnowing the definition of what journalists are allowed to print.

Further, the people wronged by the media in the Covington case were not public figures who have to clear a high legal bar of proving actual malice. They were, in fact, children. Further, a majority of the public distrusts the media — and that distrust didn’t start in 2016, despite the media trying to define this distrust as a wholly Trump-related phenomenon.

To the extent that politicized charges of “fake news” do enter the picture, can anyone honestly say there isn’t good reason to suggest that elite media are overwhelmingly biased against certain political and religious viewpoints? The media response to public anger at the media thus far amounts to little more than a condescending chorus of complaints that half the country doesn’t know “the facts” and lacks the sophistication to appreciate the editorial worldview being foisted on them.

But that flippant dismissal could have painful consequences for the media, because media protections ultimately depend on a societal consensus that they are working in the public interest. Put another way, if you were a lawyer who had to represent CNN and The New York Times in the Covington case, how apprehensive would you be about defending the honor and integrity of the media before a Kentucky jury?

The incident with the Covington high school students could well prove to be a perfect storm that forever reshapes how we view media rights and responsibilities, as well as the consequences of social media mobs. At the bottom of the Covington case is a truth the media don’t want to confront: The greatest threat to First Amendment freedoms might be irresponsible journalists.

Eroding Consensus on Press Freedoms

You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2015, Tulane law professor Amy Gajda wrote “The First Amendment Bubble: How Privacy and Paparazzi Threaten a Free Press.” “In an age when news, entertainment, and new media outlets are constantly pushing the envelope of acceptable content, the consensus over press freedoms is eroding. The First Amendment Bubble examines how unbridled media are endangering the constitutional privileges journalists gained in the past century,” notes the book’s jacket copy.

For decades, judges have generally affirmed that individual privacy takes a back seat to the public’s right to know. But the growth of the Internet and the resulting market pressures on traditional journalism have made it ever harder to distinguish public from private, news from titillation, journalists from provocateurs. Is a television program that outs criminals or a website that posts salacious videos entitled to First Amendment protections based on newsworthiness? U.S. courts are increasingly inclined to answer no, demonstrating new resolve in protecting individuals from invasive media scrutiny and enforcing their own sense of the proper boundaries of news.

Indeed, journalists should be required to read Gajda’s book. If they did, they would probably be mortified to discover that skirting the fringes of libel and defamation has become standard operating procedure for their entire industry.

Ramping up in the 1990s, there was a litany of cases where courts ruled against media on privacy grounds. Some of these cases involve very sympathetic plaintiffs, and one might understand where, say, the distressed mother of a murder victim who did not want to be quoted might be shown deference over Chicago Tribune reporters, as happened in one case. On the other hand, courts also been more than willing to smack the press for violating the privacy rights of people whose behavior might court attention, such as swingers, psychics, women who flash their breasts in public, and men who appear on “To Catch a Predator.”

The simultaneous rise of the internet has caused media to stretch arguments for newsworthiness until they break. In the book, Gajda delves into plenty of legalities involving specific cases, but notes that the cases where newsworthiness has been regularly disputed by courts “can be grouped into five main categories, included here as an overview before a closer look at specific causes of action: (1) those in which the disputed information shows, to this author’s mind, clear newsworthiness; (2) relatedly, those involving information concerning public wrongs; (3) those that seem a response to push-the-envelope media; (4) those involving celebrities in some way; and (5) those involving nudity.”

Now think about how much content online, especially on social media, falls into one or more of those categories where the “newsworthiness” is far from clear. And it’s not like there haven’t been warning signs that juries are more than willing to put entire media organizations on blast.

Gajda spends a fair amount of her book discussing various controversies involving the website Gawker—again, the publication was called “Gawker” as if announcing it specialized in exactly the kind of content that courts found increasingly hard to justify. At the time “The First Amendment Bubble” was published, the lawsuit over their decision to publish Hulk Hogan’s sex tape, which was filmed without his knowledge, had yet to be resolved.

As we now know, a jury slapped Gawker with a fine so large the publication was shuttered. This should have been a warning shot across the bow for the media writ large. Instead, we’ve seen even the prestige media outlets that purport to have higher standards than the tabloid-esque Gawker ramp up the sensationalism, increase partisanship, and willingly bully ordinary people.

‘Actual Malice’

Here some political context behind modern libel law is in order. While the First Amendment generally provides very wide latitude for the press, the more proximate reason why there are so few libel lawsuits in modern America, as opposed to, say, the United Kingdom, is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This is the 1964 Supreme Court case that established the “actual malice” standard, which raised the bar for public figures looking to sue the media.

The case arose because hundreds of millions of lawsuits had been filed in the South seeking to silence out-of-state media outlets that were aggressively covering the civil rights movement, and it’s fair to say that libel and defamation lawsuits were being used to prevent media from shining a critical light on institutional racism.

More specifically, the “Sullivan” in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a Montgomery, Alabama public official suing The New York Times for running an ad that sought to raise funds for Martin Luther King Jr.’s legal defense and the civil rights movement. The ad was wrong in some particulars—King had only been arrested four times, not seven times as the Times ad alleged—but the general sentiment that King was being harassed was obviously correct.

Still, you can see where lawsuits such as this could portend big problems for the media. Politicians and public officials with access to the public coffers could bankroll lawsuits indefinitely in ways that could break many journalism outlets, or at least those that have fewer resources than The New York Times. So the Supreme Court made it so that public figures would have to clear a high bar to justify libel and defamation lawsuits—they couldn’t just file suit because a paper got minor details wrong, they had to prove the publication was reckless or had a personal or institutional vendetta. This helped establish a balance of power between the public officials and other powerful public figures the media is obligated to cover and hold accountable.

That balance of power mostly held for decades. But what no one foresaw, and perhaps should have, is that the media would eventually abandon the pretense of “objective journalism” and their role as a conduit for the people. Instead, the press is using the legal deference and protections afforded them as a shield to drive their political agenda on a very broad cross-section of ideas, none of which approach the moral clarity of racial injustice in Alabama in 1964. Instead of politicians and powerful public figures abusing their power to go after the media, we now have media going after them, and often without provocation.

And the media writ large is so zealously invested in their self-righteousness that they are no longer able to restrain themselves when even the lowliest of private citizens is seen as an impediment to them forcing political and cultural consensus on the country. That’s how we got much of the media establishment punching down on a teenager whose only crime was wearing a baseball cap supportive of a duly elected president.

In point of fact, the media figures and publications who led this two minutes’ hate are supposed to be people among us who set an example of restraint. They are professionally obligated and trained on how to reserve judgment and wait for the facts to emerge, but time and again they are proving incapable of doing that.

Further, 16-year-old Sandmann doesn’t begin to meet any reasonable definition of a “public figure,” so the basic protection against libel and defamation that so many in the media bank on doesn’t apply here. There’s a real chance that some media entities get taken to the cleaners in his lawsuit, and it’s hard to imagine what their defense will be.

Testing the Norms of Objectivity

Even with Sandmann’s lawsuit preceding, there might be a temptation for the media to dismiss this all as a bout of unfortunate hysteria. They will still feel secure going after Donald Trump and the other disagreeable public figures, content that they’re still protected by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This is probably also a big mistake, seeing as the broader standards of what constitutes “actual malice” are still significantly defined by cultural and political consensus. And that consensus is fraying, big time.

For one thing, the “actual malice” standard isn’t only defined by proving someone deliberately published falsehoods. It can also be a result of exhibiting a “reckless disregard for the truth.” The actual malice standard can also be established by circumstantial evidence. You don’t need a smoking gun where an editor or reporter admits he lied to hurt someone. With that in mind, let’s look at the reporting standards the media have embraced in recent years, as embodied by a couple of notable media screw-ups.

In December 2017, CNN reported that Donald Trump Jr. received an email giving him the hacked Democratic National Committee emails released by WikiLeaks before they were public. MSNBC and CBS “independently” confirmed the story. It was later revealed that the date on the email was wrong, and Donald Trump Jr. didn’t get the emails before they were public.

CNN eventually revealed they never saw the original email, and based on the very lawyerly and suspect denials issued, it appears that the anonymous sources who gave CNN the story, as well as confirming it to MSNBC and CBS, were Democratic partisans from the House intel committee. CNN did not discipline the reporters who botched the story. There was no formal retraction. Instead, CNN rewrote the story so it was an inane recounting of how Donald Trump Jr. got an email about a big news event.

Last month, BuzzFeed issued a bombshell report about the president suborning perjury from his lawyer, who is cooperating with the special counsel investigation into the president. After the report the special counsel’s office took the unusual step of denying the report. Of the two reporters on the story, only one claims to have seen documents supporting the report — and he has an extensive history of fabulism.

Now I went to journalism school, albeit over 20 years ago, and I was under the impression that it was highly unethical to publish anonymously sourced stories based entirely on the word of sources with obvious political axes to grind without seeing any corroborating evidence. I was also taught that the idea that you could accuse anyone of a felony, much less the president of the United States, without producing any supporting documentation to back your claims up was likely grounds to have an editor fire you on the spot. Now major media do these things almost on reflex.

These are just two of many, many examples of media malpractice since Trump took office where the “bombshell” report blows up in the journalists’ faces. Instead of reflecting on how they’re abandoning basic standards and making an unprecedented number of astonishing errors, there has been a raft of navel-gazing from media types about how Trump’s hyperbolic style and falsehoods essentially justify throwing caution to the wind and covering him as aggressively as possible.

Journalists haven’t been shy about acknowledging what’s happening. “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?” wrote New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg, a few months prior to Trump’s election. “Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century.” At this point, however, there’s a strong case to be made that the decision, in the words of The New York Times, to test “the norms of objectivity” has ultimately hurt their ability to hold Trump accountable.

Aside from further intensifying public distrust, the media’s defensiveness is shortsighted for a couple of important reasons. One is that when an industry is widely perceived not to be living up to its own ethical guidelines, it’s not hard to imagine courts and juries will start deciding that this behavior is, at a minimum, reckless.

There’s no guarantee the courts won’t look at all journalists’ egregious behavior and decide to readjust libel law in such a way that shifts the balance of power away from journalists and provides more deference to the government and public figures. Notably, such a shift was being hinted at long before the phrase “President Donald J. Trump” roiled newsrooms.

In 2014, Sullivan was already starting to look like little more than an “interesting cultural artifact,” observed Columbia law professor David Pozen:

‘There is still a tendency among members of the media to view the courts in somewhat romantic terms as natural allies and guardians against overreaching by the political branches,’ he says. ‘I’m not confident that remains a descriptively accurate view of the courts.’

‘Courts have pulled back on the reporter’s privilege, generally in the national security concept,’ adds Pozen. ‘It’s not at all clear that judges will be protective of journalists’ interests in light of the way judges have handled recent national-security-versus-open-government issues.’

The second is that the press won’t have Trump to kick around forever. When you look at the media problems of the Trump era—the errors all uniformly cut in one political direction, the over-reliance on compromised sources, the refusal to make basic corrections and retractions, the eagerness to grant anonymity to anyone airing damaging and wholly speculative claims, and so on—these are all existing problems that Trump merely accelerated. It appears that the entire journalism industry is establishing norms that could soon be defined as running afoul of libel law.

When CNN fired three journalists in 2017 for their handling of a story on Trump confidant Anthony Scaramucci—one of very few times where a major journalistic error covering the Trump administration met actual newsroom punishment—CNN doesn’t appear to have been motivated to action in order to protect their integrity. The network was staring down the barrel of a $100 million lawsuit as the result of the story.

The message the media should be receiving right now couldn’t be clearer: Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Never Tweet

The final ingredient cooking up this hellbroth is social media. The cultural toxicity of social media is coming to be generally acknowledged, and why media remain somewhat uniquely oblivious to how Twitter in particular is destroying their cr



Q: Is Bill Maher a Racist? NO! (if TRUTH could be told) He’s Just Another Lefty Jew on Television!


by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

These days we hear about racism–more often than not, and fictitious racism attacks from the Left on a daily basis.  Today  is about Bill Maher, who was interviewing a black Republican Congressman, Will Hurd, and made a “joke” about Popeye’s Chicken. The joke is a bit of a mystery, although a bigger question is why a Republican Congressman would go on Maher’s show. Here is the very brief clip:

Embedded video

Curtis Houck


Video: Here’s Bill Maher lobbing a clearly racist joke to GOP Congressman Will Hurd, asking him if he gathered undercover intel for the CIA out “by the Popeye’s Chicken.”

My rule would be, if you have to puzzle over whether something is racist, it isn’t. This, as far as I can see, is just a not-funny crack about chicken in back alleys.

In my opinion, Maher displayed racism in a far more fundamental and important way than the Popeye’s Chicken crack in his assumption that it is bizarre for an African-American to be a Republican. His aggressive questioning of Congressman Hurd betrays the belief that by virtue of skin color, all blacks are obliged to have the same (left-wing) political views, and any who disagree should be treated with incredulity or worse. That is real racism. Get back on the plantation, boy, or suffer the wrath of us rich liberals with television shows!





by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

This is 100% stolen from Julie Kelly at American Greatness, but trust me, it’s worth stealing:

In a recent court filing, the defendant’s attorneys begged for mercy. The offender—once a high-level government official assigned with protecting national security secrets—had pleaded guilty to one charge of making a false statement to the FBI in 2017.

Citing his modest upbringing, community involvement, and decorated military service, the defendant’s lawyers asked the judge only to impose a sentence of probation rather than jail time.

“This case has garnered a significant amount of media attention,” the attorneys wrote, “and plainly sends a message to the public that lying to federal agents—even when those lies were denials animated by a desire to conceal a personal failing—has profound consequences.”

The appeal was supported by letters written by powerful people, including top lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who attested to the man’s overall decency, claiming he had already suffered enough and how his “conduct is contradicted sharply by the character of the man that his family and community and country relied upon and loved and respected.”

So General Michael Flynn…no, wait!

No, that entreaty was not about Lt. General Michael Flynn; it was on behalf of James Wolfe, the former security chief for the Senate Intelligence Committee who was caught not just lying to FBI officials but illegally leaking classified information to journalists, including his 20-something girlfriend. Wolfe’s misconduct was far more egregious—and damaging—than the process crime committed by Flynn.

Late Thursday, a federal judge sentenced Wolfe to two months in jail for one count of lying to the FBI; the prosecution had asked for 24 months. After a tearful apology to the judge, Wolfe essentially escaped with a slap on the wrist. Outrageous.

Wolfe, 58, was a key player in the leaking strategy employed by anti-Trump bureaucrats to seed bogus Trump-Russia collusion stories in the news media during the administration’s early months. Entrusted with safekeeping the committee’s most secret documents, Wolfe was caught passing off the information to four reporters. One of the journalists, Ali Watkins, was at least 30 years his junior; their three-year affair began when she was a college intern working for a Washington, D.C. news organization.

I am so old, I can remember when intelligence officials leaking top secret information to women they were sleeping with was frowned upon. At one time, the fear was that such women might be Russian spies. Now, it is reasonable to assume that they are Democrats.

When confronted by the FBI about the affair and the disclosure of classified information to the other reporters, Wolfe repeatedly lied both during a personal interview and on a questionnaire. The investigation into Wolfe’s activities was so critical and risky that “the FBI’s executive leadership took the extraordinary step of limiting its notification to two individuals—the Chair and Vice Chair of the [committee]. Had this delicate balance not been achieved, this situation could easily have resulted in the possible disruption of information flow—an untenable degradation of national security oversight.”

Sounds a little bit more consequential than a phone conversation about Russian sanctions, right?

But here is the real injustice: While it was clear by both the original indictment and the sentencing memo that Wolfe was responsible for disclosing details about the FISA warrant on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, he was not charged with that crime—a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The swamp protects its own.

Yes, the truth is coming out, and it’s a nasty, ugly truth. If you reside in the protected class of Washington bureaucrats who break the law, betray your public duty and attempt to destroy innocent Americans by wielding unchecked power, you will get away with it. You will have a letter of commendation written on your behalf by U.S. senators, including Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.). You will avoid being charged with a felony, even though your conduct presented serious national security risks. You successfully will evade nonstop media coverage by sympathetic journalists while they instead obsess about a lesser crime committed by an ally of the president they despise.

That sums it up pretty well. I confess that I had forgotten James Wolfe’s name. Somehow, no one seems interested in his crimes. Meanwhile, Ali Watkins, who began her affair with Wolfe while a college student and was covering national security for the Times by the time she was 25–it helps to be sleeping with the security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee–is still employed by the paper, although she has been reassigned to the metro desk. As Julie Kelly says, “[h]er sex-for-scoops strategy worked like a charm.”

Somehow, though, all of this isn’t front-page news.



Aussie Foreigners at Fox Join Forces with Fascistic Mouthed Jim Acosta?!!

One America News Chief: We’re Standing With Trump Against Jim Acosta, Not With CNN Like Fox News Is

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

We love you more, Mr. President. It’s a sensible pitch as OAN grasps for ways to cut into the Fox behemoth’s market share. But Fox’s decision to stand with Acosta is sensible too. If in fact Trump wins in court and gains the power to exclude particular reporters from White House events, liberals will want the next Democratic president to make use of that power too. And we all know who the prime target will be, and it won’t be OAN. Fox was targeted years ago for exclusion from interviews with the Obama administration, as Ed noted a few days ago; only because CNN and other networks hung with them in objecting did Team O finally relent. Siding with CNN again now is Fox’s way of taking out a little insurance just in case President Kamala Harris decides that FNC is too evil or whatever to be allowed into her briefings. They’re scratching Acosta’s back today so that CNN will scratch theirs tomorrow.

No doubt Herring has also been paying attention to the fact that Fox has put a little daylight between itself and the president lately. Emphasis on “a little.”

But the network has made several moves in recent weeks to distance itself. Fox News was quick to condemn the two hosts for appearing to campaign with Trump, especially after Hannity had pledged to not take the stage with the president.

“FOX News does not condone any talent participating in campaign events,” a Fox News spokesperson said in a statement at the time. “This was an unfortunate distraction and has been addressed.”

And earlier this month, Fox News pulled an immigration ad put out by the White House, which other networks had labeled as racist. Nonetheless, the network’s coverage of immigration still tended to align with Trump’s interests — Fox News devoted significant air time to a caravan of migrants heading through Mexico in hopes of seeking asylum in the U.S.

If I know my president, he’ll be delighted at an opportunity to play Fox off of OAN and vice versa for more flattering coverage from both. Supposedly he used to enjoy watching underlings at the Trump Organization vie with each other for dominance; the same dynamic played out for awhile during the 2016 campaign when Corey Lewandowski and his loyalists battled Paul Manafort and his team for control of the Trump train. Now Trump has OAN seizing the Acosta dust-up to declare itself the one true Trump News Network. POTUS will probably reward them with some sort of extended interview, or much more frequent interviews, if only to remind Fox that he’s capable of singlehandedly elevating OAN as a serious rival to them if they wander too far off the reservation. If you think primetime on FNC is pro-Trump now, check back this spring and see what it looks like.

Speaking of which, this can’t be true, can it? Since when does Trump show contempt for his biggest sycophants?


Any President should, must have the right to ban from his news gatherings  obnoxious, rude,  insulting, lying, Hitlerian, fascistic mouthies like Jim Acosta who spend energy and precious time selling falsehoods TO THEIR FELLOW FASCISTS as news to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC and the Rinos at Fox News to smear the President.



Corrupt Journalists Destroying the American Media

Media Continues Its Slow Suicide

by Julie Kelly  at American Greatness:

After reviewing last week’s news coverage, I would encourage President Trump to come up with a more accurate taunt than “fake news.” Maybe “garbage news.” Or perhaps “bottom-feeding news.” Even try “we-are-a-collection-of-dishonest-miscreants-who-are-unworthy-of-an-ounce-of-the-American-people’s-trust news.”

But “fake news” is tame in light of the media’s misleading, destructive, and willfully ignorant reporting last week that was intended further to inflame a divided body politic.

Some of the lowlights featured MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough, claiming Trump has done more damage to the country than the 9/11 terrorists; the editorial board of a major newspaper blaming Trump for Hurricane Florence; the wholesale acceptance of a highly flawed paper about hurricane deaths used to bash the president; and a despicable crusade not just to quash Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, but to destroy his reputation and damage his young family.

And it wasn’t just the dependable lunatics on the Left pushing trash commentary. Bret Stephens, the NeverTrump “conservative” columnist for the New York Timescompared Trump to a drug addict. Washington Post “conservative” blogger Jennifer Rubin warned that if Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted to confirm Kavanaugh, their names would be, “as was the case with [Nazi-era traitor] Vidkun Quisling—synonymous with ‘sellouts,’ ‘collaborators,’ or, to use a Trumpism, ‘phonies.’”

As the week came to a close, the New York Times was forced to append its misleading article that criticized U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley for buying pricey curtains to decorate her official residence. The window coverings, it turns out, actually were purchased by her predecessor in the Obama Administration. But it was too late. Social media had pounded Haley all morning for being extravagant and heartless.


This is why Americans, in a recent poll, cited inaccuracy and bias as the key reasons why they no longer trust the media.

But there is a more sinister agenda behind this collective media cacophony: To hide their complicity in the biggest political scandal of all time, which included the weaponization of the nation’s most powerful government agencies to spy on a rival presidential campaign; the illegal leaking of classified information to friendly journalists to defame American citizens associated with the campaign; and the sabotage of an incoming presidency, the media is happy to distract us with manufactured non-scandals that advance the political interests of their friends.

Each week, new details emerge about how the media seeded the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. High-level federal officials acting in bad faith schemed with reporters eager for a scoop to spin nefarious tales about the president and his aides. Some of the resultant articles were cited as evidence to persuade a secret court to allow the U.S. government to spy on private citizens. Former FBI Director James Comey admitted he had a friend leak a copy of his internal memo to the press to help prompt the special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion.

The Justice Department’s Inspector General recently exposed the cozy ties between reporters and FBI personnel. Journalists wooed agents with drinks, meals, tickets to sporting events and other perks in clear violation of ethical standards and agency protocol.

The government and the media were not just figuratively “in bed” with each other during 2016 and 2017; it was quite literal. This year, federal investigators uncovered an illicit affair between the married Senate Intelligence Committee’s security chief and a young unmarried reporter; James Wolfe was arrested by the FBI last spring for covering up the three-year relationship. He was passing along nonpublic and classified documents to Ali Watkins, his much younger journo-girlfriend, who then disclosed the information in her reporting on Trump-Russia “collusion.” This helped the 20-something reporter rise from an intern to a New York Times contributor in less than four years.

But the public is only now starting to get a full view into what journalist Lee Smith has called an “extinction-level event” for the press. (Smith compiled a terrific rundown of the Trump-Russia “echo chamber,” which was similar to the strategy employed by the Obama administration to sell the Iran Nuclear deal.) Text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two high-ranking FBI agents (also in the midst of an illicit affair at the time of these events), continue to expose how they planted damaging stories about Trump associates in the press, even after Trump was sworn in as president.

Strzok—a ubiquitous figure tied to the Clinton email investigation, the Trump-Russian counterintelligence probe, the Mueller team (until he was dismissed from it over the Lisa Page affair), and the Michael Flynn investigation—was fired from the agency last month. He boasted about a “media leak strategy.” The ploy used reporters as conduits to help justify the FBI’s interrogation of Trump officials.

Page and Strzok orchestrated newspaper hit jobs in April 2017 on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page—Strzok even joked with Lisa Page about their shared last name—by illegally divulging details about the FISA warrant on the short-term campaign volunteer. The Washington Post was the first news outlet to report on the FISA surveillance on April 11, 2017. (Comey confirmed in congressional testimony that disclosing FISA information is a crime.) That scoop apparently ruffled some feathers at the New York Times; Strzok told Page a few days later “the Times is angry with us.”

Aren’t you relieved to know that this is what the country’s top law enforcement officials are worried about?

The same outlets who report any shred of nonsense as long as it damages Trump and his allies, of course neglect to cover these unseemly connections between investigators and the media. The Postinconceivably defended the “media leak” strategy as an attempt to combat media leaks, not facilitate them, even though all evidence supports the opposite conclusion. The Post insists that drawing this clear conclusion is succumbing to just another Trump conspiracy theory. A parody-like piece in CNN contended that congressional Republicans were accusing Strzok and Page of misconduct “without evidence” and that it was “an unproven and disputed assertion that the President amplified.”

Other journalists declare Strzok is a victim, targeted by Kremlin-loving Republicans because he once fought a Russian crime ring. The New York Times has not reported on the latest trove of texts at all.

The media’s scorched earth strategy to take down Trump as they cover their own asses is not an accident. They are doing whatever they can to try and stop the inevitable: the self-inflicted extinction of their integrity and credibility. Seventy percent of Americans—including 90 percent of Republicans—have lost faith in the news media over the past decade. More ignoble performances by the press only will deepen Americans’ distrust of this once-respected institution—and prove that the president is right.


Today’s Quixotic American Jew

Trump, Socialism, and the Jews

by Alexander G. Markovsky  at American Thinker:


Winston Churchill called Jews “the most formidable and the most remarkable race, which has ever appeared in the world.”  As a Jew, I am perplexed by the Jews’ remarkably irrational commitment to the Democratic Party and their formidable opposition to Donald Trump.

The old saw, “There are two types of Jews: those who believe that Judaism is about social justice and those who know Hebrew,” contains more than a kernel of truth.  By and large, orthodox Jews voted for Trump in 2016, showing superior foresight.

Domestically, as the Trump economic policies are producing prosperity and economic dynamism, Jews benefit just as the rest of Americans and arguably more.  Internationally, Trump has proven to be an unabashed supporter of Israel; he terminated the Iranian nuclear deal, moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, persuaded Saudi Arabia to cooperate with Israel against Iran, and broke the back of the Palestinian Authority.  He destroyed ISIS and supplied Israel with the most sophisticated weaponry in the American arsenal.  Incredibly, he has accomplished all of this in his first 18 months in office.  No American president has done for Israel so much in such a short period of time.  As a matter of record, with the exception of President Richard Nixon, no president has done for Jews and Israel so much, period.

A vast majority of American Jews remain unimpressed.  They are not motivated by concerns for Israel; they are not motivated by the interests of the United States and are eminently not practical about their own necessities.  What they all passionately care about is social justice.  Social justice, in terms of helping the sick and the poor, is deeply embedded in Judaism; for Jews, it is a case of irrational obsession.  With the emergence of the industrial revolution and massive generation of wealth, Jews took up economic inequality and embraced ideas of socialism.

The Jewish love affair with socialism which began in Russia with the fanaticism of the grandparents has been transformed into the fear of the parents and subsequently into the conviction of the children and grandchildren; it is embedded deeply in the Jewish DNA.

Living in ghettos for two millennia, the Jewish people have been struggling to reconcile their tragic history with the logic of modern reality.  They have a difficult time coming to terms with the freedom and equal opportunities that America offers.  They continue to fight for social justice, refusing to recognize that, as far as Jews are concerned, what they have accomplished in this country goes well beyond their wildest expectations.  Sons and daughters of the first immigrants, who dug trenches and washed dishes in New York, became doctors, lawyers, senators, bankers, and industrialists.

Unfortunately, the descendants of the first immigrants inherited the genetic memories of their ghetto ancestors.  They feel guilty for achieving a standard of living as good as or better than any other ethnic group in this country.  The guilt associated with their own success has led them to take on, and support, the cause of every underdog and liberal and socialist movement in sight, no matter how undeserving, no matter how irrational.

Although socialism brought terrible suffering to Jews, they would not abandon their devotion to the cause.  As prominent Zionist Zev Jabotinsky once said, “logic is an art of the Greeks; a Jew has his own logic.  Jewish logic is the logic of catastrophe.  Jews do not detect danger; they face it when it comes.”

But history punishes willful blindness, and catastrophes keep reappearing.

In many ways, the 1917 socialist revolution in Russia was in fact a Jewish revolution.  Jews founded and shaped the Soviet state.  Yet these same Jewish Bolsheviks quickly became the first state’s victims.  Over the next twenty years, by 1937, practically all of them were executed or murdered abroad.

In the late 1920s, some German Jews voted for Hitler’s National Socialist Party, only to become victims of the Holocaust a decade later.  They chose to ignore Hitler’s anti-Semitic rhetoric; he could not be bad, much less evil.  After all, he was a socialist!

Jews passionately supported and continue to admire Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in 1939 denied entry for Jews seeking asylum from Nazi extermination and sent them back to the concentration camps.  Nevertheless, Jews voted for FDR and still love him – after all, the New Deal was a giant step toward socialism.

In our own time, Jews continue to ignore the teachings of Karl Marx, their fellow member of the tribe, that socialism is about redistribution of wealth.  The aim is to take it from the rich, even though there are many Jews among them.  This is what Bernie Sanders’s suicidal “Future to Believe In” is about.

What is really remarkable is that over the last century, no social macrocosm has more consistently voted against its own self-interest and survival.  We may expose Jewish devotion to socialism and shame Jews for betraying their own interests; however, conviction is stronger than reason.

As the leadership of the Democratic Party dropped all pretenses and openly advocates socialism in this country, the heritable socialists impelled by conviction will ignore once again the political necessities and vote for the party that speaks their language.


Fake News at AP


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Tonight President Trump addressed a raucous rally in Florida. His speech featured a call for voter ID, a popular issue with most Americans but one the Democratic Party press opposes, since pretty much all voter fraud favors the Democrats. The Associated Press, perhaps Trump’s most bitter enemy other than CNN and MSNBC, headlined just one “fact” about Trump’s speech: “Trump at rally makes false claim on photo IDs for groceries.”

The AP starts its story:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday wrongly claimed that shoppers need to show photo identification to buy groceries and accused Democrats of obstructing his agenda and his Supreme Court nominee during a raucous rally aimed at bolstering two Florida Republicans ahead of the state’s primary.

Later, the AP elaborates:

Tuesday night’s freewheeling rally lasted more than an hour and included numerous attacks on the media, as well as one glaring false claim. Trump was railing against the idea of noncitizens voting and advocating stricter voting laws when he claimed that IDs are required for everything else, including shopping.

“If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID,” he said at the event at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa. “You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”

A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about when the billionaire president last bought groceries or anything else himself. Photo IDs are required for certain purchases, such as alcohol, cigarettes or cold medicine.

This is classic Democratic Party press coverage. The AP doesn’t want to deal with the fact that Trump’s point was correct. We have to show ID for all kinds of things; everyone has identification. We should have to show ID to vote, too. The logic is unassailable, and it doesn’t turn on groceries.

Did the AP catch Trump in an untruth? No. Trump wasn’t making a specific point about groceries, he used groceries as an example. He went on to say that “You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.” I think it is obvious that Trump was talking about paying for purchases (groceries or otherwise) with a check. Yes, Trump is so old that he remembers when people actually paid for things with checks.

In case you have forgotten, it is common practice for stores to ask for identification when you buy groceries or other goods with a personal check. For those who haven’t used checks in years, this site provides a helpful reminder:

If a business accepts checks, you will need to provide identification proving that the checking account you are using belongs to you. Some small businesses cannot afford the risk of bad checks, so they only accept other forms of payment. However, if you are allowed to pay with a check, your ID will be requested to try to minimize loss from people writing checks against closed accounts or accounts with no money.

Your check should contain your name and address, which should match the same information on your ID. Most businesses require a government-issued ID, such as a driver’s license or military card.

That obviously is what Trump was talking about when he said that “You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”

The problem with the Associated Press isn’t just that its reporters are stupid or ill-informed, although that often is the case. The real problem is that the AP’s reporting is so often in bad faith, deliberately pretending not to understand, as in this instance, President Trump’s reference, and doggedly refusing to engage with the point he was making: identification is required all the time, we all have identification or can easily get it, the only reason not to require it for voting is a desire to enable voter fraud. The Associated Press’s reporting is a giant exercise in trying to change the subject.