• 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

A View of Dennis Prager’s Obamaland 7 Years Ago

The following article appeared at this site on March 16, 2010.

WHY CAN’T DENNIS PRAGER IDENTIFY A MARXIST WHEN HE KNOWS ONE?

“I have known Dennis Prager (via radio) now for five and a half years.  Summing up the time I have spent in mental conversation with him, listening to his theses, assumptions, interpretations and conclusions and his conversations with folks he interviews, I have spent more time in his “presence’  than with anyone outside my  immediate family and the handful of compatriots with whom I work.

I know nothing about the private Dennis….and don’t wish to.  What Dennis envisions about America, I envision.  What Dennis fears about America’s future are my fears.

Dennis’ attitudes and experiences with academic America are my attitudes and experiences.  I have taught.    Dennis has taught.   How Dennis interprets, Glenn has interpreted and had done so years before there was any Dennis to “talk to” in his life.   Dennis  thoughts were isolated within my own thinking.

Back in those days when Dennis was at Columbia University, a student  enduring  the attacks from the “fascist left”  (Dennis’ own words) disrupting his classes, defacing the school, and shutting it down in the name of druggies  for love, more drugs and the righteousness to  “Hate America,”  I watched the same insanity  every evening on television alone, a Democrat, married with children.

Dennis Prager declares the first Republican he ever voted for was in November, 1980.    I had never failed to vote for a Democrat  until November, 1980….for the same candidate, Ronald Reagan…..although I voted for him as a Democrat…..the final end of my line with  that party affiliation.

Dennis taught himself Russian.  I majored in Russian, was taught the language by Czarist aristocrats who unbeknownst to me, made me pronounce my Russian at the level of the ‘Queen’s English.’   Dennis possesses a quaint Brooklyn Jewish accent when he says, “dobroe ytro….kak dela?’.

I earned a graduate degree in “Soviet Studies” and spent much of the summer of 1966 in the good old USSR.  Dennis, too, has a post graduate degree, I think from Columbia, from the School of International Relations there.  Dennis likes to travel, likes people, talks to people often about cultural matters while traeling, just as I used to  do.

Dennis likes hockey.  Some of my best times in life  have revolved around hockey.

Dennis,  during the opening moments of his radio program  on that Wednesday after the November Tuesday when the vapid, (Dennis’ words) very vapid John F. Kerry was defeated by President George W. Bush broke into tears….mumbling…..unable to speak, choking up , failing in his attempt to maintain his reserve.

I wept the night before when at midnight, my son Christian, disturbed my sleeping pill by waking me up, per instruction, if G.W. had won Ohio.    I was certain vapid man was going to  win.  But, Chris had jumped in joy too soon….George was only leading in Ohio, and  the vote was narrowing.

I believe, as does Dennis, that America is in deep trouble as America.  We never have had a foreign president running the country as we have in Obama.   Foreign in experience of life and family,  president Obama is nevertheless, simply the inevitable result of  a new religion sweeping the nation’s universities and schools, Marxism.  The man shows no romance, no love, no tears, no honest and sincere feeling about America.  He ran to “Change America”.

He was trained to be a Marxist, and accepted the cloak willingly.

But  Dennis Prager refuses to use this “M” word for the “Marxists” Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and Harry Reid the Lefties they  truly are.    Does he  allow  the Left to determine his vocabulary.  Why?

Dennis admits there are nearly no Liberals left in the Democrat Party.  They have been purged or forced into compliance and silence….only the “Left” exists, as he likes to say.  That “Left” as he likes to say, are Marxists, but he cannot utter the word.  Why?

The bigger the government…the smaller the citizen!  What a wonderful Prager truism….but how big must government get before it achieves the noun “Marxism” from Dennis’ lips?

“Our country is becoming  more Marxist”.   That is as true a statement as any.   Dennis cannot deny its truth.  “Our country is becoming Marxist”…..yes, that is true as well, but, Dennis could say ala parsing Bill Clinton, it depends on what you mean by “Marxist”…….but Dennis wouldn’t parse.  Here is a typical Dennis explanation….regarding lying….as in “telling a lie”….or “being a liar”.

Dennis has explained often that a lie is not  a lie, if the person telling the lie does not believe it to be a lie.

That tricky scenario does occur in life, but it rarely occurs in politics, the world in which Dennis so often excuses liars for lying.   He prefers  them to be people who are unaware of their lying….even though they are paid to know the difference between lies and unlies.   Weren’t they elected to help lead the country?

Dennis is simply not combative on radio.   He may be in private, but he is not on radio.  He was a terrible wuss during a full hour radio show  interview with Henry Waxman, a sharp Marxist Democrat from California.  Dennis showed respect for this weasel no matter the size of  lies and distortions he repeated, one of the  most devious-tounged Lefties  in the House of Representatives.  Certainly Dennis  should not name-call using the word Marxist…..but use it often when appropriate.

What does Marxism entail?

Government ownership of major industries, including those of finance and auto production.  Government micromanagement of citizen lives.  Punishment meted out to those who use  more water than allotted by bureacrat design……rural agricultural schools must have the proper number of lesbians on teaching staffs…..living space must be limited so everyone shares the same size domestic experience…..rearing children will be rationed as will be the number of people allowed to be older  than sixty years old…..rearing or marrying dogs or cats are substitutes for children or husbands for equality standards…….all decided  by Lefty bureaucrats……..car ownership limited to government enterprises…….everything will be micromanaged to pretend equality.   Eventually only Marxists will have “spending money.”  For others money will be made equal.

President Obama is a Marxist because he is selling Marxism.  He advocates government micromanagement of personal life.  He opposes private enterprise and prizes depriving people of wealth reforming  them as drones, naked and impotent  before his bureas of Washington management and in the future, their henchmen by  the tens of millions to oversee religiously dedicated “government” dictating  equality of health care passed March 2010…….the first  major Marxist victory over the diminishing citizen   in American history.

Marxism is the religion of government forced equality.  The high priests of the religion come from academia who “know” they know best the ways of human behavior.   They have been trained to pass written tests and deserve  the riches that come from such superior experience and great expectation.   Obama comes from this class.

Since no one is born equal, nor can learn equally, cannot  live life equally and die equally,  equality must be forced on the people according to  Marxist religious tenets.  Some Marxists, those who govern,  will inevitably be made more equal that others.  That is the law of the jungle, Marxism or no Marxism.

Think of the billions of dollars that will be earned through the boundless possibilities for   bribery!   How much will be paid under the table to buy the Commissar of Aging, to allow your mother to live past 60?…….Who will have the “luxury” of a sex change or a hip replacement except through payoffs?   Bureaucrats usually crave Marxism as a religion.  It increases their profit margin.

Dennis prefers to be liked.  He has a radio show…..is a teacher more than an entertainer.  He is cautious by nature, doesn’t want to be thought of as a crank, which the Marxists would certainly quickly jump on…….Dennis has a personna that helps him succeed  winning over listeners who might not  show up if he uses the word “Marxist” even where it should be used.

Perhaps Dennis thinks that president Obama doesn’t yet know he is a Marxist!   Although he preaches Marxism, advances Marxism by stealth and wealth,   hires Marxists, befriends Marxists, avoids criticisms of Marxists, because he doesn’t know he is  a Marxist, why shouldn’t he  still be identified as he is….a Marxist?

Only in America!”

(The above was printed at this site on March 16, 2010.  May God continue to Bless Dennis, and therefore the cause for  freedom in America,  in the future as well as he has in the past.)

Harvard Study: Media Overwhelmingly ANTI Trump!

John Kass

John KassContact ReporterChicago Tribune

Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone of the coverage of President Donald Trump is over-the-top hostile, I get the same darn reaction.

The eye-roll.

That big Anderson Cooper CNN eye-roll, often accompanied by a few theatrical sighs.

And when I leave the newsroom, it gets even worse on social media.

But now Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has come out with a study of media coverage of the Trump White House in its first 100 days.

It is astonishing because it comes from Harvard, not exactly the bedrock of American conservatism.

The study found that in Trump’s first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.

CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

So what does fair and balanced really mean, anyway?

“It confirms what most people understand,” said Tom Bevan, publisher and co-founder of RealClearPolitics, one of the go-to websites for media and political junkies.

Bevan spoke as a guest on “The Chicago Way” podcast that I co-host with WGN-AM radio producer Jeff Carlin.

“The response will be that Trump is deserving of this kind of coverage because he’s conducted himself inappropriately, and these are self-inflicted wounds, and the press is doing nothing but covering him and his actions. But that’s a little bit disingenuous,” Bevan said.

“I think Trump has been treated unfairly by the press in his first 100 days. Everything he does is seen as a five-alarm fire.”

Trump bears some of the blame for this. He mocked the media, called journalists “the enemy of the people,” and went to Washington with much vulgar bragging, essentially promising he’d kick the political establishment right in the private parts. And telling the Russians that former FBI director James Comey is a “nut job” doesn’t help.

And now the establishment kicks back.

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump’s 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

“That’s a significant shift, a significant difference,” says Bevan. “I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others.”

I have my own memory of the media’s tone after Obama took office. It wasn’t merely positive, it was adoring, gushy, in the way a small child looks up to a beloved parent, or a dog to the master who gives it biscuits.

It was as if the media were hugging a magical unicorn. Obama wasn’t only given the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the Nobel Peace Prize though he hadn’t done anything to earn it. And critics were trashed as nothing but racists.

Obama controversies, from his administration’s gun running scandal in the “Fast and Furious” debacle to using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against conservative groups, were covered, somewhat. But generally, the tone was muted, respectful, nothing like it was for Trump or the Clintons.

Later, in Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, leaks of Democratic National Committee email — whether hacked by the Russians or not — demonstrated collusion between journalists and Democrats. But that cozy relationship has never properly been addressed, and that avoidance undermines the credibility of journalism as the media challenges Trump.

“Because of the way the press covered Obama, they lost so much credibility,” Bevan said. “And because they did not take these things seriously, the IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious, you could go down the list of where they turned the other cheek. … And now where they’re giving Trump the third degree on everything, that makes the contrast all that much greater.

“So you have a certain segment of the public, the people who voted for Trump, who literally do not trust what the media says.”

And the divide between rigidly defined political tribes, one courted by the media, the other dismissed by it, grows even wider.

“It’s not good for journalism, and it’s not good for the country,” said Bevan.

Agreed. But I don’t see it changing any time soon. Do you?

Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone of the coverage of President Donald Trump is over-the-top hostile, I get the same darn reaction.

The eye-roll.

That big Anderson Cooper CNN eye-roll, often accompanied by a few theatrical sighs.

And when I leave the newsroom, it gets even worse on social media.

But now Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has come out with a study of media coverage of the Trump White House in its first 100 days.

It is astonishing because it comes from Harvard, not exactly the bedrock of American conservatism.

The study found that in Trump’s first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.

CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

So what does fair and balanced really mean, anyway?

“It confirms what most people understand,” said Tom Bevan, publisher and co-founder of RealClearPolitics, one of the go-to websites for media and political junkies.

Bevan spoke as a guest on “The Chicago Way” podcast that I co-host with WGN-AM radio producer Jeff Carlin.

“The response will be that Trump is deserving of this kind of coverage because he’s conducted himself inappropriately, and these are self-inflicted wounds, and the press is doing nothing but covering him and his actions. But that’s a little bit disingenuous,” Bevan said.

“I think Trump has been treated unfairly by the press in his first 100 days. Everything he does is seen as a five-alarm fire.”

Trump bears some of the blame for this. He mocked the media, called journalists “the enemy of the people,” and went to Washington with much vulgar bragging, essentially promising he’d kick the political establishment right in the private parts. And telling the Russians that former FBI director James Comey is a “nut job” doesn’t help.

And now the establishment kicks back.

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump’s 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

“That’s a significant shift, a significant difference,” says Bevan. “I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others.”

I have my own memory of the media’s tone after Obama took office. It wasn’t merely positive, it was adoring, gushy, in the way a small child looks up to a beloved parent, or a dog to the master who gives it biscuits.

It was as if the media were hugging a magical unicorn. Obama wasn’t only given the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the Nobel Peace Prize though he hadn’t done anything to earn it. And critics were trashed as nothing but racists.

Obama controversies, from his administration’s gun running scandal in the “Fast and Furious” debacle to using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against conservative groups, were covered, somewhat. But generally, the tone was muted, respectful, nothing like it was for Trump or the Clintons.

Later, in Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, leaks of Democratic National Committee email — whether hacked by the Russians or not — demonstrated collusion between journalists and Democrats. But that cozy relationship has never properly been addressed, and that avoidance undermines the credibility of journalism as the media challenges Trump.

“Because of the way the press covered Obama, they lost so much credibility,” Bevan said. “And because they did not take these things seriously, the IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious, you could go down the list of where they turned the other cheek. … And now where they’re giving Trump the third degree on everything, that makes the contrast all that much greater.

“So you have a certain segment of the public, the people who voted for Trump, who literally do not trust what the media says.”

And the divide between rigidly defined political tribes, one courted by the media, the other dismissed by it, grows even wider.

“It’s not good for journalism, and it’s not good for the country,” said Bevan.

Agreed. But I don’t see it changing any time soon. Do you?

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

The Fascist Left’s Long Hand in Controlling News and “Learnings”

‘Last Man Standing’ was more than a show; it was a prophecy

by Steve Deace  at Conservative Review     (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/last-man-standing-was-more-than-a-show-it-was-a-prophecy

Fascist Merkel Invades Germany with Islamists at Citizen Home Owners’ Expense

Germany Is Now Confiscating Homes To Use For Merkel’s Invaders!

Yeah, but Americans have a Constitution that protects our property from a corrupt government. Right? People in government don’t believe in private property. We have that problem in the states too. They just use different tactics to get the property; large fines, heavy tax burdens, crazy building codes.

If it was my property, it would be tempted to burned to the ground before I let the government confiscate it and use it for this purpose. 
TGP: We all knew this day would come – we just didn’t know how soon. Germany is now confiscating residential units to rent out migrants living in the city of Hamburg.
Germany Is Now Confiscating Homes To Use For Merkel’s Migrants!
Gatestone Institute: Authorities in Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany, have begun confiscating private dwellings to ease a housing shortage — one that has been acutely exacerbated by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than two million migrants into the country in recent years.
City officials have been seizing commercial properties and converting them into migrant shelters since late 2015, when Merkel opened German borders to hundreds of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Now, however, the city is expropriating residential property units owned by private citizens.
In an unprecedented move, Hamburg authorities recently confiscated six residential units in the Hamm district near the city center. The units, which are owned by a private landlord, are in need of repair and have been vacant since 2012. A trustee appointed by the city is now renovating the properties and will rent them — against the will of the owner — to tenants chosen by the city. District spokeswoman Sorina Weiland said that all renovation costs will be billed to the owner of the properties.
The expropriation is authorized by the Hamburg Housing Protection Act (Hamburger Wohnraumschutzgesetz), a 1982 law that was updated by the city’s Socialist government in May 2013 to enable the city to seize any residential property unit that has been vacant for more than four months.
The forced lease, the first of its kind in Germany, is said to be aimed at pressuring the owners of other vacant residences in the city to make them available for rent. Of the 700,000 rental units in Hamburg, somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000 (less than one percent) are believed to be vacant, according an estimate by the Hamburg Senate.
This is truly UNPRECEDENTED! Will Merkel’s madness ever come to an end?
(Article sent by Lisa Rich in California.)

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

When Did America Haters Barack Obama and Bill Ayers First Meet?

So When Exactly Did Bill Ayers and Barack Obama Meet?

by Jack Cashill   at American Thinker:

“In his massive new biography about Barack Obama’s pre-presidential years, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow makes hash out of the lie that preserved Obama’s candidacy in 2008.  That said, he pulls back from the implications of his own revelations to protect what remains of Obama’s literary reputation.

In the way of background, during an April 2008 presidential primary debate on ABC, George Stephanopoulos said about Bill Ayers and pals, “They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings.  He’s never apologized for that.”  He then asked Obama, “Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” said Obama dismissively of Ayers.  “He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from [sic] on a regular basis.”

The question fueled what the L.A. Times called a “storm of criticism.”  The rage was directed not at Obama for his dissembling, but at Stephanopoulos for his effrontery.  How dare he ask Obama about an “obscure sixties radical”? asked Michael Grunwald of Time.  The media chose not to follow up.  If they had, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination.

Garrow has come along nine years too late to do Clinton any good.  But after ten years researching this book and interviewing a thousand people, he reveals just how strong was the relationship between Ayers and Obama and how deep was the lie that protected it.  Unfortunately, there is an element of that lie Garrow himself insists on protecting.

Garrow sticks to the story that state senator Alice Palmer asked Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn to host a fundraiser for state Senate candidate Obama in the fall of 1995 – as if they needed to be asked.

Then Garrow begins adding information.  “After that gathering, Barack and Michelle began to see a great deal more of not only Bill and Bernardine but also their three closest friends, Rashid and Mona Khalidi and Carole Travis.”  Rashid Khalidi was a Palestinian native of radical bent then living in Chicago.

According to Garrow, Obama did the following during the next eight years.  He organized a panel on juvenile justice based on a new book by Ayers.  He served on the Woods Fund board with Ayers.  He joined Ayers for a panel discussion, “Intellectuals, Who Need Them.”  Up until the time of his 2004 Senate run, he and Michelle attended “the almost nightly dinners” held with Ayers, Dohrn, and the Khalidis.

Ayers obviously meant a whole lot more to Obama than “a guy who lives in the neighborhood” might be expected to.  But how much more?  Khalidi did not shy from giving credit where it was due.   He began the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to his own literary muse: “First, chronologically and in other ways comes Bill Ayers.”  Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship.  Obama obviously did.

Garrow obliges him.  Although he concedes that Ayers and Obama both dated the same woman, Genevieve Cook, in New York City in 1984, he does not try to connect the dots.  Nor does Garrow try to connect dots when Ayers follows Obama to Chicago and both work on educational reform with the same people during the years 1987-1988.

No, Garrow specifically traces the first meeting of Ayers and Obama to a time in 1995 immediately after pre-publication galleys for Obama’s book Dreams from My Father arrived in Chicago – in other words, too late for Ayers to have helped at all with the book’s writing.  This is way too convenient.

For all his research, Garrow refuses to ask what Bill Ayers saw in Obama.  The answer may well be found in a 1994 essay that Ayers co-authored, whose title befits a former merchant seaman: “Navigating a restless sea: The continuing struggle to achieve a decent education for African American youngsters in Chicago.”

In “Navigating,” Ayers and his nominal co-author, former New Communist Movement leader Michael Klonsky, offer a detailed analysis of the Chicago school system and a discussion of potential reforms.

Garrow cites “Navigating” twice but chooses not to see the obvious – namely, that Obama offers a nearly identical analysis in Dreams.  This analysis was completed in the same year, 1994, as “Navigating.”  The particular value Obama brought to the relationship can be found not in the many points on which Ayers and the Obama of Dreams agree, but rather on the one point on which they at least seem to differ.

First, the areas of agreement.  Dreams tells us that Chicago’s schools “remained in a state of perpetual crisis.”  In “Navigating,” the situation is described as a “perpetual state of conflict, paralysis, and stagnation.”

Dreams describes a “bloated bureaucracy” as one source of the problem and “a teachers’ union that went out on strike at least once every two years” as another.  “Navigating” affirms that the “bureaucracy has grown steadily in the past decade” and confirms Dreams‘ math, citing a “ninth walkout in 18 years.”

“Self-interest” is at the heart of the bureaucratic mess described in Dreams.  “Navigating” clarifies that “survivalist bureaucracies” struggle for power “to protect their narrow, self-interested positions against any common, public purpose.”

In Dreams, educators “defend the status quo” and blame problems on “impossible” children and their “bad parents.”  In “Navigating,” an educator serves as “apologist for the status quo” and “place[s] the blame for school failure on children and families.”

Another challenge cited in Dreams is “an indifferent state legislature.”  Ayers cites an “unwillingness on [the legislature’s] part to adequately fund Chicago schools.”

In Dreams, “school reform” is the only solution Obama envisions.  In “Navigating,” Ayers has no greater passion than “reforming Chicago’s schools.”  In fact, in that same year this article was written, 1994, the ambitious Ayers co-authored the proposal that would win for Chicago a $49.2-million Annenberg Challenge grant.  Obama would later be made its chair.

In Dreams, the thoughts on educational reform are channeled through the soulful voice of two older black Americans.  The first, Moran, a composite, tells Obama, “The public school system is not about educating black children.  Never has been.  Inner-city schools are about social control.  Period.”

“Social control” is an Ayers obsession.  “The message to Black people was that at any moment and for any reason whatsoever your life or the lives of your loved ones could be randomly snuffed out,” he writes in his memoir, Fugitive Days.  “The intention was social control through random intimidation and unpredictable violence.”

In Dreams, Moran elaborates on the fate of the black student: “From day one, what’s he learning about? Someone else’s history. Someone else’s culture. Not only that, this culture he’s supposed to learn is the same culture that’s systematically rejected him, denied his humanity.”

Precociously Afrocentric, Ayers has been making the same case since he first got involved in education.  “The public schools’ idea of integration is racist,” he said early in his career.  “They put Negro children into school and demand that they give up their Negro culture. Negro children are forced to speak, behave, and react according to middle-class standards.”

The second of Obama’s educational mentors is “Frank,” Obama’s mentor in Hawaii, the Communist Frank Marshall Davis.  Frank tells the college-bound Obama, “You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already know.”

Ayers makes the identical distinction in his 1993 book To Teach.  “Education is for self-activating explorers of life, for those who would challenge fate, for doers and activists, for citizens. Training is for slaves, for loyal subjects, for tractable employees, for willing consumers, for obedient soldiers.”

By 1994, Ayers had been preaching educational reform for nearly thirty years, but one major force still intimidated him: Chicago’s sluggish and self-interested educational bureaucracy.  Over the years, this bureaucracy had morphed, as Ayers notes in “Navigating,” from being a bastion of “[w]hite political patronage and racism” to being “a source of Black professional jobs, contracts, and, yes, patronage.”  For reasons both ideological and practical, Ayers wilted in the face of this bureaucracy.

On this racially tender issue, not so strangely, Dreams tells a different story.  Obama openly chides the black “teachers, principals, and district superintendents,” who “knew too much” to send their own children to public school.

“The biggest source of resistance was rarely talked about,” Obama continues – namely, that these educators “would defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before.”

As to the claims of these educators, affirmed in “Navigating,” that “cutbacks in the bureaucracy were part of a white effort to wrest back control,” the author of Dreams says, teasingly, “[N]ot so true.”

“Not so true”?  In these three words one can anticipate Obama’s potential return on Ayers’s investment.  Simply put, as a black American, Obama could address sensitive racial issues in ways Ayers could not.  Ayers surely recognized this.

To advance Obama’s career, it appears, Ayers finished up Dreams, got Obama appointed chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant, and launched his state Senate run, all in 1994-1995.

The political calculus behind that ambition helped shape Dreams.  This was a careful book written to jump-start the career of a deeply indebted and highly malleable Chicago politician, maybe even a mayor, one who saw the world through white eyes, as Ayers did, but one who could articulate the city’s real problems in words that Ayers could not.

This would have worked out much better for Ayers if Obama had contented himself with Chicago.  As history records, he did not.”

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