• 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
  • Advertisements

Today’s CALIFORNIA: The Fascist “Democrat” Future for America….

HOW CRAZY? CALIFORNIA CRAZY

by Steven Hayward   at PowerLine:

“Last week some readers thought I had taken leave of my senses when I wrote that—relatively speaking (the key qualifier)—Jerry Brown is about the only adult in the room among California Democrats (though this may apply to California Republicans, too, as I’ll demonstrate shortly). I wrote: “If you doubt me, just wait till we have a governor named ‘Gavin’ next year (which California richly deserves), and you’ll see what I mean.”

Lo and behold, the Washington Post picked up this theme over the weekend, which just goes to show that Power Line always gets there first:

Think California politics is on the far-left fringe? Just wait for the next elections.

For those who think California politics is on the far-left fringe of the national spectrum, stand by. The next election season, already well underway here, will showcase a younger generation of Democrats that is more liberal and personally invested in standing up to President Trump’s Washington than those leaving office.

Here in the self-labeled “state of resistance,” the political debate is being pushed further left without any sign of a Republican renaissance to serve as a check on spending and social policy ambitions. Even some Republicans are concerned about the departure of Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who proved to be fiscally cautious after inheriting a state seven years ago in deep recession. . .

That means staking out the most liberal stance on issues such as single-payer health care in California, a highly expensive initiative that failed in the legislature last year.

Think there might be an opening for Republicans by this flying leap to the left? Unfortunately, the latest Republican effort to appeal to independent voters is called “New Way California,” sponsored by former State Assembly Republican leader (and chief sellout) Chad Mayes. If this early video is any indication, it means Republicans can do no better than being a “me, too” party. (Warning: have your airsick bags ready.)

I think the next edition of the DSM needs a whole new category and scale to measure mental illness: California Crazy. Definitely goes past 11. No straws needed for inmates in this asylum. At least I get this nifty banner from the Post for future use in our Civil War on the Left series:

IN CALIFORNIA IT’S THE LEFT VERSUS THE MORE LEFT!

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/how-crazy-california-crazy.php

Advertisements

Minnesota Health…..Beware the Newest Obamacare Plan!!

TWILA BRASE:         IMPOSING OBAMACARE – STATE BY STATE!

CITIZENS’ COUNCIL FOR HEALTH FREEDOM

Imposing Obamacare – State by State

Beware the newest Obamacare plan. Liberals are pushing states to reinstate the penalty for being uninsured—using state law. Here are five to-dos for states written by former Obama officials (with my definitions for what they really mean):

  • Restore Individual Mandate — Restore ACA individual mandate by adopting a state “penalty for people who remain uninsured when affordable coverage is available.”
  • Improve Affordability — Seek federal permission to tap taxpayers for funds to cover the cost of annually bailing out health plans (state “reinsurance” program) hoping the plans will be kind enough to reduce deductibles and/or premiums.
  • Limit Substandard Plans — Mandate the very thing that makes today’s “insurance” unaffordable: coverage for uninsurable (pre-existing) conditions.
  • Safeguard Health Benefits — Prohibit coverage that doesn’t include ACA’s “essential health benefits,” which require people to buy coverage they don’t need.
  • Get People Covered — Enroll as many people as possible in government exchange coverage (Obamacare).

Some GOP legislators appear to be on the individual mandate wagon. Minnesota stateSenator Scott Jensen, a physician from the most conservative part of the state, recently declared in the Star Tribune, “An individual mandate resonates with conservative principles of personal responsibility. . . . Public and private entities have both indicated strong support for a health care insurance mandate.”

This is not the first time Sen. Jensen likely surprised his conservative constituents. Last year, he was the sole Republican voting for a Democrat amendment to establish an ACA-like “public option” in Minnesota called the MinnesotaCare Buy-In proposal.

However, Jensen admits “too many ‘essential’ benefits will likely sabotage the affordability and sustainability of such a mandate,” so he suggests the mandate could be for catastrophic coverage of hospitalizations, access to certain medications, ER visits for “true emergencies” and mental health problems.

Freedom-loving conservatives in every state should let their legislators know that a state-imposed individual mandate and annual taxpayer-funded bailouts for health plans rolling in cash are big, bad ACA ideas.

Let me reiterate a fact. The entire Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate and its penalty tax, has not been repealed. And the penalty has only been zeroed out. There are pages and pages of programs, agencies, mandates, taxes, reporting requirements and more that most people don’t know about, but which have changed our insurance and medical delivery systems.

Meanwhile all 2,700 pages of the law (and 20,000+ pages of regulations) remain in force. The photo to the right is the 900-page version of the ACA we have in our office. It’s all still the law of the land. As we begin the battles of 2018, please send a generous donation to support our work to stop government-run health care in America.

Committed to ending the ACA,


Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President and Co-founder

Leftist Wikipedia’s Review of Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct “ALLEGATIONS”!

Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bill Clinton, the 42ndPresident of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women: Juanita Broaddrick accuses Clinton of raping her in 1978; Kathleen Willey accuses Clinton of groping her without consent in 1993; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 and sexually harassing her. The allegations generally became public during the 1998-99 time period, toward the end of Clinton’s second term as president.

Clinton has adamantly denied all three of these sexual misconduct accusations. Through his representatives, Clinton has responded to the allegations by attempting to discredit the credibility of the accusers, noting that (in the case of Broaddrick and Willey) they previously testified, under oath, that Clinton never made unwanted advances. Several witnesses close to Willey and Jones state that the two women described their encounter with Clinton as consensual.

Many other women claim to have had consensual adulterous liaisons with Clinton. Of all the allegations made against him regarding his sexual history, Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. However, some commentators characterize Clinton’s affair with White House intern Lewinsky as sexual misconduct or harassment because of the vast power imbalance between a president and an intern, even though Lewinsky describes the relationship as completely consensual.[1]

Charges of sexual misconduct on Clinton’s part regained publicity during the 2016 presidential campaign of his wife, Hillary Clinton. A lewd recording of Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, boasting about groping women was released during the campaign, and he attempted to deflect the issue by citing Bill Clinton’s accusers. Broaddrick, Willey, and Jones reemerged into the public sphere as critics of Hillary Clinton, accusing her of enabling her husband’s alleged sexual assaults. They appeared as guests at the second 2016 presidential debate and referenced Bill Clinton in pre-debate statements. Subsequently at least fifteen women publicly accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting or harassing them.

During the 1990s, most Democrats suspended judgment on the three accusations or stated that they believed Clinton’s denials. In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations in 2017 and the many other such cases that soon emerged, the allegations against Clinton were revisited and lent more credibility by liberals and feminists than before.

(WIKIPEDIA FROM IS VERY OUTSET  HAS BEEN NOTED AS A COVER FOR THINGS DEMOCRAT PARTY LEFTIST!…ghr)

 

Will America’s “Democrat-Marxist” Tiger Sharks Tear the Nation Apart with Their Leftist Lies at School?

The Left’s Sirens Are Already Hinting Our Culture Wars Will End In Another Civil War

..
“The radicalization of the Democratic Party is transforming everything that happens in America into another battle in our unending culture war.

By John Daniel Davidson at realclearpolitics: John Daniel Davidson

Is there anything left in American public life that isn’t an occasion for political rancor and division? NFL games are now nothing more than crude pieces of political theater. On Sunday even Vice President Mike Pence got in on the act, showing up to a Colts-49ers game then leaving after a few players knelt during the national anthem. Next day was Columbus Day, which the cities of Los Angeles and Austin decided this year to replace with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day,” because Christopher Columbus is apparently the new Robert E. Lee. And it’s only Tuesday.

It should be obvious by now that our culture wars will henceforth be constant and unending; the next battle could be triggered by almost anything. Whether it’s the reactions (or non-reactions) of Hollywood celebrities to the unsurprising news of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misdeeds or the outraged calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment the instant news broke of the Las Vegas massacre, very little can happen in America now without it being an occasion for an appeal to one’s own political tribe. No matter how tawdry or horrifying the news, there is vanishingly little room for solidarity because there is no appetite for it. Not even late-night comedy shows with their shrinking audiences can resist the urge to devolve into partisan political rants.

For all his eagerness to wage the culture wars in his improvised, bombastic style, this didn’t begin with Donald Trump. It didn’t begin with Barack Obama, either, but a recent studyby Pew Research Center found that divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values reached record levels during the Obama administration. You don’t need a Pew survey to tell you that, of course, but the data helps illuminate an otherwise vague feeling that American society is coming apart at the seams, and has been for years.

Right and Left Are Moving Farther Apart, And Fast

The Pew study measures responses to issues Pew has been asking about since 1994, things like welfare, race, and immigration. On almost every count, the gaps between Republicans and Democrats held more or less steady up until around 2010, when they began to widen. Today, “Republicans and Democrats are now further apart ideologically than at any point in more than two decades,” with the median Republican more conservative than 97 percent of Democrats and the median Democrat more liberal than 95 percent of Republicans. Here’s what that looks like in a chart:

Pick your issue. On immigration, 84 percent of Democrats say immigrants strengthen the country, while only 42 percent of Republicans say the same. Ten years ago, those percentages were nearly identical. On environmental regulation, 77 percent of Democrats say more regulation is worth the cost, compared to just 36 percent of Republicans. A decade ago, that spread was 67 and 58 percent, respectively. On whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence, 65 percent of Republicans say it does while 69 percent of Democrats say it doesn’t. When Pew first asked that question in 2002, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the partisan gap was just 11 points.

Here’s the other notable thing about Pew’s findings. Among the ten questions about political values that Pew has asked since 1994, the partisan gap is much larger than divisions based on demographic differences like age, race, and education. For example, the average partisan gap has increased from 15 to 36 points, whereas 20 years ago the average partisan differences on these issues were “only somewhat wider than differences by religious attendance or educational attainment and about as wide as the differences between blacks and whites (14 points, on average). Today, the party divide is much wider than any of these demographic differences.”

The Pew survey is a rich trove of fascinating survey data, but it mostly confirms what we can all see for ourselves: Americans are sorting themselves into political tribes that have less and less in common. Partisanship has even crept into the online dating scene. Last month the dating website OkCupid announced a partnership with Planned Parenthood that allows users to attach a badge to their profile, the obvious purpose of which is to avoid accidentally going on a date with someone who doesn’t share one’s views on abortion.

Identity Politics Is Poisoning American Civic Life

That brings us to something else that might get lost in the Pew numbers: the median Democratic voter has radicalized much faster than the median Republican voter, and most of this radicalization happened while a Democratic president was in office. That counterintuitive trend points to a larger problem with how the Left in particular understands the American project and our prospects for living together in peace and prosperity. Although it’s true that Republicans have moved further to the right as Democrats have moved further to the left, it’s the leftward slide that should worry us.

For all their shortcomings, conservatives at least have a limiting principle for politics. Most of them believe, for example, in the principles enshrined in the Constitution and maintain that no matter how bad things are, the Bill of Rights is a necessary bulwark, sometimes the only bulwark, against tyranny and violence. In contrast, here’s Timothy Egan of The New York Times arguing unabashedly for the repeal of the Second and Fifth Amendments.

The rapid radicalization of Democrats along these lines follows a ruthless logic about the entire premise of the American constitutional order. If you believe, as progressives increasingly do, that America was founded under false pretenses and built on racial oppression, then why bother conserving it? And why bother trying to compromise with those on the other side, especially if they reject progressives’ unifying theory that America is forever cursed by its original sin of slavery, which nothing can expiate?

Before you scoff, understand that this view of race and America is increasingly mainstream on the American Left. To read someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose recent article in The Atlantic is a manifesto of racial identity politics that argues Trump’s presidency is based on white supremacy, is to realize that progressive elites no longer believe they can share a republic with conservatives, or really anyone with whom they disagree.

Coates has attained near god-like status among progressives with his oracular writings on race and politics, which take for granted the immutability of race and racial animus. So it’s deeply disturbing when he writes, as he does in a new collection of essays, that “should white supremacy fall, the means by which that happens might be unthinkable to those of us bound by present realities and politics.”

What does Coates mean by that? It isn’t hard to guess, and lately Coates isn’t trying too hard to disguise it. In a recent interview with Ezra Klein of Vox, Coates expanded on this idea. Writes Klein:

When he tries to describe the events that would erase America’s wealth gap, that would see the end of white supremacy, his thoughts flicker to the French Revolution, to the executions and the terror. ‘It’s very easy for me to see myself being contemporary with processes that might make for an equal world, more equality, and maybe the complete abolition of race as a construct, and being horrified by the process, maybe even attacking the process. I think these things don’t tend to happen peacefully.’

This is the circuitous, stumbling language of man who knows precisely what he wants to say but isn’t sure if he should come right out and say it. Coates isn’t alone in feinting toward violence as a means—perhaps the only means, if Coates is to be taken at his word—of achieving social justice. On college campuses, progressive activists increasingly don’t even bother mincing words, they just forcibly silence anyone who disagrees with them, as a Black Lives Matter group did recently during an event featuring the American Civil Liberties Union at the College of William and Mary. (Ironically, the talk was supposed to be about students and the First Amendment.)

For a sincere progressive, almost everything that happened in the past is a crime against the present, and the only greatness America can attain is by repudiating its past and shaming—or silencing, if possible—all those who believe preserving our constitutional order is the best way for all of us to get along.

Seen in that light, the radicalization of Democrats is something qualitatively different, and much more dangerous, than the radicalization of Republicans. It means, among other things, that the culture war is now going to encompass everything, and that it will never end….”

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: THE WAR BETWEEN VICTORIOUS NOISE AND LOSER MUSIC WITH SOUL

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MUSIC?   WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO TODAY’S HUMAN SOUL?  WHERE DID ALL  TODAY’S REPLACEMENT NOISES FOR THE ANIMAL EAR COME FROM?

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THOSE NOISES FROM BEETHOVEN?  HANDEL?  W.C. HANDY?  RICHARD WAGNER?  GIACOMO PUCCINI?  GIUSEPPE VERDI?

Some guy at the American Thinker seems to want to know as well?   If you too are an American Thinker, THINK ABOUT WHATEVER HAPPENED TO REAL HUMAN MUSIC?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/what_happened_to_our_music.html

Is Fox Going Leftist?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/fox_news_takes_a_sharp_left_turn.html    (article sent by California’s Lisa Rich)

Fox News Takes a Sharp Left Turn

If any doubts remained that the Fox News channel is continuing to swerve hard left away from its conservative roots, they were erased on July 16, 2017 when Ezekiel (Zeke) Emanuel, M.D. appeared on the channel’s signature weekly program Fox News Sunday in his new role as a paid contributor. Dr. Emanuel was a principal architect of Obamacare and he is now speaking out widely in favor of its retention as the law of the land. He’s a very influential medical policy maker and also happens to be a life long, in-your-face spin doctor for the Democrat socialist left. During the Fox News program, the ever arrogant Emanuel jumped on the Resist Trump bandwagon and suggested that President Trump is worthy of being impeached. Hired last February by Fox News primarily as a health policy analyst (he is a prominent physician and professor, after all), Emanuel is now providing opinions not only on medical subjects but on political ones, as well.
The turning point in his role – and an indication of where Fox News is heading – was his appearance on the high-profile, politically-charged Fox News Sunday. In addition to the nation’s cable and satellite channels, Fox News Sunday is also broadcast on over 200 Fox network-owned or -affiliate terrestrial broadcast television stations around the country.
An excerpt from the July 16th program’s transcript provided by Fox News is illustrative:
CHRIS WALLACE [Fox News Sunday host]: Since you’re a panelist, I’m not going to call you Dr. Emanuel. I’m going to call you Zeke.
EZEKIEL EMANUEL, M.D. [Fox News Contributor]: That’s fine.
WALLACE: How far as a committed Democrat are you prepared to go? Because – I mean, we aren’t going to talk in specifics. But are you willing to see the country paralyzed for the next year? Are you willing – if – and I repeat – if more information comes out to see the president impeached, how far do we need to go on this?
EMANUEL: Well, we have – democracy is at stake here in America. Having our biggest enemy, Russia, come in and try to meddle and change our election that is the bedrock of democracy. That is the most important thing.
I do not want to see this country paralyzed, but I do not want to see our democracy undermined by having the president of the United States colluding and his officials colluding with Russia.
And, remember, there are – you know, when people go into government, they actually have to abide by the laws here. And one of the laws is you can’t get anything of value, whether money or other things of value from a foreign country.
WALLACE: Let me just bring –
EMANUEL: Opposition research is true, it’s of value. It may not be dollar value.
WALLACE: Well, I was going to say, you heard what [White House attorney] Jay Sekulow had to say about that. . .
EMANUEL: Democracy is a very fragile thing. We have seen in other countries, Turkey is a very good example of how someone can win an election and totally undermine democracy by taking down judicial independence, the press, and reelection.
I believe that Emanuel deserves the nickname “Death Panel Doc” because of his contention that no one should be allowed to live – or, perhaps more accurately, no one should expect or have the gall to want to live – after the age of 75 because it would adversely impact national health care costs, determined according to so-called global budgets, funded by the government. Almost two-thirds of the nation’s $3.2 trillion a year medical care costs are now paid for by the federal government.
Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D. in his office at the University of Pennsylvania
In a highly touted article titled “Why I Hope to Die at 75,” published in The Atlantic Monthly in October 2014, Emanuel, who is 60 or 61 but looks like he is fast closing in on 75, wrote “this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive.” A maximum lifespan of 75 years, he added, “forces each of us to ask whether our consumption is worth our contribution.” This, from a licensed medical doctor who presumably at some point may have taken the traditional, newly-minted doctors’ oath to “First do no harm.” In another irony, Emanuel is considered a leading bioethicist and is widely quoted as a reigning expert on medical ethics issues.
Emanuel goes on for over 5,100 words in the Atlantic Monthly article trying to make his case – for exactly what, one wonders after reading it. He doesn’t appear to advocate mass killings of everyone who reaches the age of 75 – including himself.
I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life. . . Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. . . I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75.
So, without exactly spelling out his prescription for old age in the New Transformed America – that as a top advisor to President Obama he helped to usher in – the renowned bioethicist appears to be recommending in his lengthy screed no medical treatment for people older than 75 other than palliative or hospice care that would help to hasten or would not impede these unfortunate geriatrics on their road to a quick death.
 
Rationing on Steroids
In a number of his many other writings, Ezekiel has more clearly spelled out what he is advocating. It’s the “R” word, meaning in this case rationing of medical care and allocating limited health resources according to the criteria of age. In an article in The Lancet on January 31, 2009, when he was the head bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health, Ezekiel and two co-authors wrote:
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-yearolds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.
Commenting on Ezekiel’s writings in 2009, Wesley J. Smith wrote:
A lot of people are frightened that someone who thinks like Emanuel is at the center of an administration [Barack Obama’s] seeking to remake the entire health care system. Having read these two articles, I think there is very real cause for concern.
A question arises: what is of more concern here?  That Emanuel is one of the nation’s leading medical philosophers and health care policy makers and was a key architect of Obamacare?  Or that he is now opining for dollars on Fox News?  In addition to having been an oncologist (of all things) and a prominent “bioethicist,” Emanuel’s other credentials are substantial, detailed in his 92-page curriculum vitae. Some highlights: Harvard M.D., M.Sc. in biochemistry from Oxford University before that, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, top advisor to the federal government at too many levels to mention, member of President Bill Clinton’s 1993 Health Care Task Force (Hillarycare), noted academician, etc., etc. Last but definitely not least, Dr. Emanuel is also the brother of Chicago Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel (and already legendary Hollywood supertar agent Ari Emanuel).
For decades, judging by the content of his C.V., Zeke Emanuel has been one of the nation’s leading physicians and most influential medical policy wonks. Much of the work in that arcane area has been conducted behind the scenes, behind closed doors, relatively distant from public view – and with a notable lack of transparency as in the Hillarycare days. Now, it appears that we will have the benefit of seeing Emanuel often on Fox News, where his convoluted ideas can directly reach a new audience of millions. The channel is well-known for frequently presenting its highly paid contributors, some would say ad nauseum, on all of its platforms (the Fox News channel, FoxNews.com, the Fox Business Channel, Fox News Radio, and others).
 
Enter Jessica Tarlov and Exit the Political Insiders
An additional rusty nail in the Fox News channel coffin, perhaps not quite as notable or obnoxious as Ezekiel’s ascent to on-camera prominence, is the ever expanding role of another left wing Fox News contributor,Jessica “Jessie” Tarlov, the most recent chapter of which was also observed on July 16. On that Sunday evening, Tarlov made another of her weekly appearances on the channel at 7:30 PM ET in a segment with RINO and never-Trumper Evan Siegfried that lasted a painfully long 15 minutes. Tarlov, easier on the eyes than Emanuel (but not on the ears), is a screechy voiced leftist well-versed in the art of talking heads/talking points banter that dominates cable TV news. Smile, wear short skirts, show a lot of shapely leg and thigh – you get the picture. In addition to being actress and celebrity Mollie Tarlov’s sister,
Jessica Tarlov’s current claim to fame is that she’s the senior director of research at Bustle.com. Bustle is a lightweight infotainment site aimed at PC Millennials who are looking for quick takes, designed for viewing on smart phones, on trendy topics like hookups, celebrities, shopping, and pink hair.
Jessica Tarlov in her pre-makeover days before Fox News, 2014 Skyping in to Newsmax
Jessica Tarlov, Fox News Contributor 2017
The irony here – and it’s an especially painful one for this viewer who longs for the good old days of 2011-2016 to return – is that this very time slot – Sundays at 7:30 PM ET, during the second half hour of Fox Report Weekend with Harris Faulkner – was the home for five years (2011-2016) of the Fox News Political Insiders. Comprised of independent-minded traditionally liberal Democrats Patrick Caddell and Doug Schoen (curiously, Tarlov’s mentor after she returned to the country from the UK circa 2012 after getting a Ph.D. at the London School of Economics with a thesis about a UK political scandal), and Republican John LeBoutillier, the weekly Political Insiders segment was appointment viewing for political junkies who were tired of the same old same old.
The Fox News Political Insiders July 10, 2016
L. to R.: John LeBoutillier, Patrick Caddell, and Doug Schoen
The Insiders, in fact, offered consistently probing expert analysis based on real polling and their uncanny ability to accurately assess the mood of the country that was ready to upend the political establishment and elect someone like Donald Trump. For at least two years prior to the 2016 election, Caddell, Schoen, and LeBoutillier were anticipating, alone among TV pundits, that someone unexpected would emerge and potentially ride a new wave to an electoral victory.
The Insiders were riding high on FNC for five years. On Saturday and Sunday, July 23 and 24, 2016, they even enjoyed a one hour prime time special program that aired at least three times over two days. At the time I thought that it might be a try-out for a regularly scheduled program of their very own.
But right after the November 2016 election, the Insiders’ weekly FNC segment on Sunday evenings disappeared without explanation, as did the group’s weekly Monday morning podcast on FoxNews.com. The Political Insiders’ Twitter page is still online, but it has not been updated in over eight months. Schoen occasionally pops up in appearances on Fox News, while Caddell and LeBoutillier appear rarely on Fox News. (LeBoutillier is doing a regular political Internet audio podcast “Revolution_The Podcast” with Arlene Bynon, linked from his site Boot’s Blasts.)
As a longtime fan of the Fox News channel, Sundays – and the Fox News channel itself – just aren’t the same anymore.
 
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran journalist who writes about national politics, media, popular culture, and health care. His new Web site is AltMedNews.net. His July 13, 2017 one-hour interview on the Hagmann Report can be watched here.

Jonah Goldberg’s GOP War Against Our Donald

There definitely is a Jewish GOP hate war against Our Donald.   It has persisted for two years perhaps even to forever since the time Our Donald’s name first politically drifted the Republican way.  Jonah Goldberg, Bernie Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, and Ben Shapiro immediately come to mind as I write this critique.

I was raised in the late 1930s through the 1950s in a Jewish minority community in St. Paul, Minnesota.   If truth were allow to be told, this community was, in general, disdainful  of Christians, rude in and after  school regarding Christianity, and cold in general to anyone who wasn’t ‘kinfolk’.  They, my fellow students,  competed among each other for best grades which with some included cheat notes here and there during tests.    Despite Jewish competitiveness, learning knowledge and getting along in America were the primary goals of public schooling K through 8th grade in those days…..even before the War.

I was trained, programmed at home to be obedient, polite, honest, and well behaved by my parents as were those in school  related to me at that time.   Getting good grades was never mentioned by my parents.  Behavior trouble would be unthinkable.   My Mother who was exceptionally alert to anything in real life,  graduated 8th grade before entering the adult competitive world of life at age 12 in 1918.

I taught Russian and Senior Social Studies in high school for twelve years that  past century…..when the American school standards for civility and learning were already in decline.   Forced busing, black rioting and revolting in and out of school,  and  foul politics were becoming  popular rages.

Although terribly dyslexic, I was very well educated, K through College and Graduate school, not because of my parents or relatives,  because of my demanding teachers and the Jewish students with whom I mixed.  I was able to  LOVE LEARNING and still do to this very day.

I used to read newspapers until about fifteen years ago.  I followed feverishly  every presidential election since Harry Truman beat Thomas Dewey in 1948.   I learned to speak Russian quite fluently and visited the USSR prison for humanity on two occasions….1966 and 1990.

I have known Donald J. Trump from the newspapers  for at least a quarter of a century, but    I am not a tv guy.    I personally don’t know rich, competitive, urban in-ones-face people like him….and New York City is a different world from my interests and occupation.  (My daughter and her husband, my son-in-law….a good guy, even a typical New York lefty Jewish guy make a good pair and living there…God bless them.)   I am an outdoor guy where I still work for a living.   I love what I do.

It was August 6, 2015 I fell in love for Our Donald as President to be….and my respect and affection for him achieving what he has accomplished expands every day since that television performance at the first Fox News GOP presidential “debate”….that Rosie O’Donnell evening.    I spent much of the next month exploring the internet to learn more about him……special, brilliant, quick minded, proud, fanatic problem solver, respected by those who work for him, and like I, has a Jewish son-in-law whom he likes and respects.

It was meant to be….for Donald J. Trump LOVES HIS and MY AMERICA.  He is fully aware of the garbage dump it has come to be, AD2016-17….cultural, educational, moral, the violence, feminazism, black racism, fatherlessness, the greed, the drugs, the invasion of millions illegal and legal who are stashed in sanctuary cities where they learn to hate the country and vote Democrat.

Leftist American Jews don’t exist outdoors.   There is no money in farming, raising plants, creating landscapes.   Yet they believe in Global Warming is  caused by Americans.  It is a killer  unless one votes LEFTIST.  They own the New York Times and the Washington Post, etcetera, etcetera….and are well distributed throughout the nation, Democrat Party, law, and other worlds of communications.

I expected conservative Jews, only  20% to 30% of our American Jewish population to be more circumspect than their leftist fanatics.   Intelligent indoor Krauthammer carps against Our Donald consistently even regarding the totally insignificant….Shapiro and Bernie are viscious, for they have that fever….and then there is Jonah Goldberg, a normal appearing intelligent and otherwise tolerant, gentle, patient as well as learned one.

I adore Our Donald because with the Krauthammers, Goldbergs and all, the country is in a stage of collapse….imploding into chaos, ignorance, and such celebrated by the Left at universities, in newsprint, on  television everywhere including regular Fox, and the haters at MSNBC,  PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS and sanctuary city schools from coast to coast where fascism runs the shows.

Even my hero, Dennis Prager, prior to the Trump nomination celebrated a certain arrogant bravado-bigotry disdaining Our Donald without pause, without shame, never interviewing him personally, never once reviewing the countless winsome qualities the skilled problem solving, highly energetic  New Yorker has demonstrated again and again in his adult life…. a winner….an AMERICAN WINNER WHO HAPPENS TO BE CONSERVATIVE!!!!

Hero Prager, may GOD bless him, came through, however.   He knows his failing United States of America well.  He knows we cannot rely on the Republican Party of today to be American conservative….but there is a chance with TRUMP as leader….a man who does not like to fail!!!!  A man who loves his country and does know it is in disrepair.

I am an EVERTRUMPER.    I have researched Our Donald and have found him wonderful, bright, gutsy, direct,  not a politician, but a deal maker to get the country going again…….

Urban Jonah Goldberg writes about my MIND in his recent article in the National Review.   Please eventually read the entire article.   Ask yourself  why such a civil, rational person Jonah Goldberg certainly seems to be, still stands for Our Donald to disappear suggesting he has taken over the Party as a fascist.

Our Donald is NOT a leftist Obama  fascist interested in making America a one party dictatorship of forced equality run by the elite.     He is a traditional American business guy who loves his country and is deeply concerned about its future.

Please read the following Jonah Goldberg review of the MIND OF THE EVERTRUMPER…….and wonder whom he interviewed:

THE MIND OF THE EVERTRUMPER

I am not a big fan of psychologizing. But since I am subjected every day to a barrage of claims based upon what people think my thinking is, I feel compelled to turn the tables and offer a bit of mind-reading of my own. This Jeff Sessions conundrum is all part of a larger trend unfolding right before our eyes. I wrote about it a bit on the Corner earlier this week. The Grand Old Party, at least for some, is now a New Party of One. When conservatives criticize Trump, the common response is “support your party!” or “RINO!” But when the interests of the party and the personality diverge, the same people tend to lambaste the party on the “principle” that Trump demands the greater loyalty. I’ve been using the phrase “Cult of Personality” a lot because that’s what this dynamic often seems like. But, the more I think about it, a Cult of Personality is a far grander thing than what we have here. That concept enlists phrases like “divinization” and “secular religion,” and we could spend years talking about Marx and Weber and what they had to say, never mind all that Stalin stuff. People forget that the actual title of Khrushchev’s “secret speech” exposing Stalin was actually “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences.” Moreover, contrary to what some of Trump’s biggest critics on the left and his biggest fans on the swampier right may think, Trump is no Stalin. While it’s certainly true that there are people sufficiently enthralled with Trump to open themselves up to the charge of being cultists, I don’t think the blind worship of “Cult 45” explains as much as it once did. I mean, sure, if you’re still convinced that everything Trump has done has been brilliant and farsighted, if you can read the president’s New York Times interview and push back from the table with the deep satisfaction that once again the master has out-thought his foes, if you still think his “I alone can fix it!” vow was anything other than the kind of bluster that traditionally leaves you with cider in your ear, then you might as well lead your herd of 50 bulls down to Trump Tower and sacrifice them to your Latter Day Baal. But let’s be honest, the chances that Donald Trump will be a great president — never mind capital-G Great in the historical sense — are now only slightly better than my chances of getting a Super Bowl ring. I say “slightly better” because he is president after all, and historical greatness shares some things in common with the real-estate business and show business: Location and simply showing up matter a lot. Who knows what events might bring? Perhaps we will be visited by orange-hued hostile aliens who speak the language of condo salesmen?

RATIONALIZATION BE MY GUIDE         Anyway, I think there’s a different dynamic at work, at least for some people. I wrote about it in a column last March, after Trump gave a good speech before a joint session of Congress. For those Republicans who are not sold on Trump the man and are nervous about all the distractions and unforced political errors of his first weeks in office, the address was a massive relief. Finally, one heard from nearly all quarters of the skeptical-but-hopeful right, he’s getting his act together. It’s a bit like when a loved one has a drinking problem or some other pathology. When they get their act together, even for a day or two, parents and siblings take heart and say, “This is the first day of the rest of his life.” Or “Now things are going to be different.” It’s an understandable response. But both the head-in-the-sand denial from the left and the “We’re cooking with gas now!” cheerleading from the right encourage people to ignore the substance. That I could have written the exact same thing in the wake of the president’s speeches in Warsaw or Riyadh simply underscores that this has become something of a permanent dynamic of the Trump presidency. But note: The father who doesn’t want to see his son’s faults or the wife who can’t bring herself to see that her husband’s abusiveness isn’t a bug but a feature aren’t worshipful. They’re guilt-ridden and in denial. And in the process, they rationalize vices into virtues. Rationalization, explains professor Wikipedia, encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame). People rationalize for various reasons — sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Put on your hip boots and wade into the swampier recesses of Twitter, Facebook, online comment sections, or Sean Hannity’s oeuvre and you’ll see riots of rationalization. Trump’s lying is celebrated. His petty vindictiveness is redefined as leadership. Cheating is strength. Ben Shapiro argues that Trump has liberated some people who deep down have felt this way all along: All of which suggests that Trump isn’t the engine, he’s the hood ornament for a certain movement that now feels liberated from traditional rules of decent behavior. Trump allows us to indulge our id and feel righteous while doing it. We grew up believing that decent behavior made you a decent person — but then we realized that breaking the rules not only makes victory easier, it’s more fun than having to struggle with the moral qualms of using moral means to achieve moral ends. So we’ve constructed a backwards logic to absolve ourselves of moral responsibility. The first premise: The other side, which wants bad things, cheats and lies and acts in egregious ways. I’m sure that’s true for some. But I think for many more the dynamic works the other way around. Otherwise — or formerly — decent people find it so unthinkable to admit that Trump is in over his head and not a good person that they simply engage in the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesizing. Again Dr. Wikipedia: In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Often, ad hoc hypothesizing is employed to compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. This trait is hardly unique to Trump. When it’s unseasonably cold in summer, when it rains too much or too little in California, never mind when satellite data refuse to cooperate, global-warming alarmists race to bend the facts to the theory by modifying the theory. When George W. Bush would butcher syntax like it was a wayward traveler in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, his defenders — who once worshipped the Gipper’s skill as The Great Communicator — would leap to explain he was “speaking American.” And don’t even get me started with the rationalizations that sustained the Obama presidency. A year ago, Donald Trump was the only man who could beat the dishonest Left and the unfair media at their own game. A year ago, Donald Trump was the only man who could beat the dishonest Left and the unfair media at their own game because he was a media-master and genius dealmaker. He could appeal to Democrats and independents because his vaunted “flexibility” wasn’t locked into True Conservatism or Conservatism, Inc. Now his failures to make deals, his inability to break out of a base-only strategy that is only embraced by the very conservatives he scorned, and his Kelvin-range approval among independents and Democrats all invite a cascade of new hypotheses to place blame everywhere but on the man who, according to the original theory, was supposed to be the one leader capable of overcoming all that. Much of the writing at the blog American Greatness seems to be dedicated to the crafting of new hypotheses to keep the myth of the original theory alive. Even now, you can hear the wheels turning to explain that with poor Sean Spicer now securely under the bus, the true Trump will emerge.

YOU F’D UP, YOU TRUSTED HIM        It’s always hard to admit you were wrong about something in which you invested a lot of energy and emotion. And for some people, admitting that Mr. Only I Can Fix It really had no idea what he was talking about most of the time is too bitter a pill to swallow. It’s even harder when you were warned at the time that you were being conned. As Kevin Williamson wrote in May of 2016: Americans and Republicans, remember: You asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con artist and game-show host, you chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it. Of course, there are conventional political reasons why many people don’t want to admit the error of their ways. Pragmatically, what good would it do? You only have one president at a time. “Of course he’s a hot mess. But he is getting some important things done,” goes this argument, “and if Republicans and conservatives support him, he can get so many more important things done.” This is the argument I hear most from readers, congressmen, denizens of the Fox News green room, and fellow conservative journalists. And it has some merit, particularly when liberals screech that agreeing with Trump on conservative policies is a kind of appeasement. For instance, James Fallows heaps scorn on Senator Ben Sasse because “he leads all senators in his thoughtful, scholarly ‘concern’ about the norms Donald Trump is breaking — and then lines up and votes with Trump 95 percent of the time.” As Ramesh demonstrates with his typically Vulcan economy of language, this is absurd. Ramesh writes: Take that 95 percent figure mentioned by Fallows. Was Senator Lindsey Graham really supposed to vote to keep regulations he considered unwise on the books because he opposes Vladimir Putin? Was Senator John McCain really supposed to vote against confirming Alex Acosta as Labor secretary because the president tweets like a maladjusted 12-year-old? Fallows’s position is a mirror image of the Trump cultists. For the member of Cult 45, Trump is a demigod and whatever he says must be right. For the anti-Trump cultist, Trump is a demon, and whatever Trump does or says must be evil and wrong. Both positions are delusional. This points to why I have such admiration for National Review and other traditional conservative outlets which have managed to keep their heads. For instance, David French and Andy McCarthy have offered full-throated praise of Trump when they thought he deserved it and they have offered full-throated criticism when they felt it warranted. That this approach is denounced by the Manichean extremists on both sides tells you how deep the fever of tribalism has become.

TRUMP, PARTY OF ONE      I have few illusions about my ability to talk anyone out of their delusions, particularly liberals. But it is part of my job description to try, particularly with conservatives. To say I have failed — largely true — is not an argument against making the effort. If you’re a cultist, the only thing that will snap you out of it is Trump himself. At some point, he will do something that will cause the worshippers — or at least most of them — to recognize he was a false god all along. It will be like that scene in The Man Who Would be King, when the girl bites Sean Connery on the cheek. When he bleeds, the faithful realize he is but a mortal. But in the meantime, horrible damage is being done, because the rationalizations and tribalism are being institutionalized. Clicks-from-cultists media outlets strive to justify and rationalize every failure as a success and every setback as part of the master plan. If you don’t see it, you’re part of the establishment, a globalist, or an elitist. The RNC is reportedly refusing to support Republican candidates who criticized Donald Trump in the wake of the Access Hollywood video. “[The president] is unhappy with anyone who neglected him in his hour of need,” an anonymous RNC insider explained. Horrible damage is being done, because the rationalizations and tribalism are being institutionalized. This is sickening madness. If this is true, then the logical inference is that the GOP as a party believes that there was nothing wrong with the president’s conduct, even though he was a Democrat at the time. Or, perhaps, that there is nothing so wrong with what he said — and what he claimed he did — that it can justify breaking faith in the Leader. That is moral rot on an institutional scale and the people aiding and abetting it should be ashamed of themselves. The party needs to support the president, to be sure. But it must support other things — decency, principles, truth — even more. When it ceases to do that, it ceases to be the Grand Old Party and becomes a Venal New Party.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/449747/donald-trump-defenders-rationalizing-failure