• 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

FBI’s Corrupt Rosenstein Exposed as Another Obama Fascistic!

ROD ROSENSTEIN EXPOSED

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Judicial Watch has pried loose a small quantity of Rod Rosenstein’s emails (suspiciously small) from the Department of Justice. They cover a few critical days in May 2017 when Rosenstein was in the process of appointing Bob Mueller as Special Counsel.

I am on an airplane (headed for another White House meeting tomorrow) and can’t comment on the emails in detail, but if you read through them, a few impressions jump out at you.

1) Rosenstein was a darling of the Democratic Party news media. His email exchanges with reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post, who fawn over him, are striking. He gets to review news stories in draft form so as to correct any misimpressions the reporter may have formed. Stories are modified per his off-the-record input. Suffice it to say that this is not how reporters treat conservatives!

2) Reading emails to Rosenstein about the imminent appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the Trump campaign conveys a sense of how pretty much the entire establishment has been arrayed against President Trump from the beginning. The self-righteousness–over a purported issue that we now know to be entirely fabricated–is nauseating.

3) This laughably pretentious email by Rosenstein, to a lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis, says it all. I would love to cross-examine Rosenstein on what he means by Mueller “sharing his view.” Click to enlarge:

4) Rosenstein acted as a political operative, behind the back of his putative boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions. No doubt he would say this was appropriate because of Sessions’ recusal. Still, this is childish at best, sinister at worst. You get the sense of Rosenstein and Mueller scheming together. Again, click to enlarge:

5) In the emails, there is one voice of sanity: Carter Page, the most innocent man in America! Once again, click to enlarge:

It is a very small window on to a very corrupt culture.

 

Rod Rosenstein Exposed

Fascistic BBC Reports Suggest Netanyahu Will Fail !

Israel election result too close to call – exit polls

From the Socialist BBC:

Exit polls following Israel’s second general election in five months suggest the result is too close to call.

The centrist Blue and White alliance of former military chief Benny Gantz is projected to win between 32 and 34 seats, and PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party 30 to 33 seats.

Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Lieberman may end up being kingmaker.

Mr Netanyahu called the snap vote after failing to form a governing coalition in the wake of an election in April.

Negotiations on the formation of a new coalition are expected to start as soon as the preliminary results come on Wednesday morning.

Speaking to supporters early on Wednesday, Mr Netanyahu said: “We’ve all been through a difficult election campaign.

“We are still waiting for the actual results but one thing is clear. The state of Israel is at a historical point, we faced great opportunities and great challenges.”

Mr Gantz sounded more optimistic when he spoke to supporters a little earlier.

“Of course we’ll wait for the real results, but it seems we have accomplished our mission,” he said.

“The unity and reconciliation is ahead of us.”

What are the exit polls saying?

A revised exit poll released by Israel’s public broadcaster Kan early on Wednesday projected that Blue and White would win 32 seats and Likud 31 in the 120-seat Knesset.

In third place was the Israeli Arab Joint List with 13 seats; followed by Mr Lieberman’s secular nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party with nine; the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties with nine and eight respectively; the right-wing Yamina party with seven, and the left-wing Labour-Gesher and Democratic Union alliances with six and five respectively.

Channel 12 News put Blue and White and Likud level on 32 seats, while an updated poll Channel 13 News predicted that Blue and White would win 32 seats and Likud 30.

There was a muted response at Likud’s election night headquarters in Tel Aviv as the exit polls were released.

Hundreds of chairs for party supporters remained empty, as activists were kept outside the hall and leaders digested the numbers.

Likud’s foreign affairs director noted that Israeli exit polls had got things wrong in the past. Last time, they underestimated the number of votes for Likud and also for some of the religious parties allied to Mr Netanyahu.

“There is no point starting to work out a coalition based on these numbers as they will change,” Eli Hazan said.

But Blue and White was “cautiously optimistic” that Israel would get new leadership, spokeswoman Melody Sucharewicz told the Times of Israel.

Presentational grey line
Analysis box by Jeremy Bowen, Middle East editor

The votes will be counted through the night. But it could take weeks of coalition horse-trading before the next government and prime minister emerge.

The election has been a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu’s last 10 years in office. In opposition strongholds in Tel Aviv I saw queues of voters were waiting and hoping to end his political career.

Mr Netanyahu was, as usual, a formidable campaigner, even starring in his own commercials. His message was that he’s the only one – with his powerful friends like Donald Trump – to protect Israelis from Iran and the Palestinians.

On walkabout in Tel Aviv, I saw Avigdor Lieberman, who could be the politician the prime minister fears most once the coalition negotiations start. His Yisrael Beiteinu party could hold the balance of power.

One important factor is that although he used to be a major ally of the prime minister, now they’re opponents, even enemies.

After the exit polls Mr Lieberman’s supporters were the only ones who were celebrating. If the results back that up – polls aren’t always accurate – then the Netanyahu era in Israeli politics is ending.

I wonder how well the prime minister will sleep tonight.

Presentational grey line

What could happen next?

The BBC’s Tom Bateman says that if the polls are correct Mr Netanyahu has no simple route to government. In fact, the figures put him in an even weaker position than after April’s election, when coalition talks collapsed, he adds.

Mr Gantz could emerge as leader of the largest party, but he could have an even more complex job to form a government.

Mr Lieberman, an ally-turned-rival of the prime minister, could be crucial in deciding who takes office.

He prevented Mr Netanyahu from forming a coalition after the last vote because he refused to back down over a longstanding dispute with religious parties over a bill governing exemptions from military service for ultra-Orthodox young men.

At a rally in Jerusalem on Tuesday night, Mr Lieberman reiterated a call he made during the campaign for unity government.

“We only have one option,” he told supporters. “A broad, liberal, national government made up of Yisrael Beiteinu, Likud and Blue and White.”

Our correspondent says such a coalition only seems feasible if Mr Netanyahu were toppled as leader of Likud, as opposition groups have vowed not to sit with him at the helm.

Other possibilities could well play out first, including a third election, complicated by Mr Netanyahu’s looming hearing on corruption allegations, he adds. The prime minister denies any wrongdoing.

If the official results prove to be inconclusive, it will fall to President Reuven Rivlin to decide who gets the mandate to try to form a government. That person will have 28 days to do so, with a possible extension of not more than 14 days.

A spokesman for Mr Rivlin said he would hold consultations with party representatives “after he receives a clear picture of the results, and as soon as possible”.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49735963

Today in American History

Where Lincoln Stood on Slavery

by Carl M. Cannon at realclearpolitics:
August 22, 2019

Seven years ago today, as the presidential election contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney entered the home stretch, Vice President Joe Biden spoke at three events in Detroit. Biden was in the news that week because of an intemperate assertion that Republicans desired to put African Americans “back in chains.”

Such rhetorical excess is a hallmark of our time, especially when Democrats discuss race, but Biden’s infelicity put me in mind of a time a century and a half earlier when a Republican president was publicly challenged within his own party to do more to free human beings who were literally in chains.

The unsolicited advice to Abraham Lincoln came in the form of an open letter in a newspaper published by Horace Greeley. Although remembered today mostly for a phrase he didn’t utter (“Go west, young man”), in his own time Greeley was known as an ardent social reformer, journalist, and politician. He came relatively late to the cause of abolition, but once he did, Greeley was all-in. Even as Lincoln pushed reluctant Union Gen. George B. McClellan to press the fight against the Confederates, Lincoln was hearing it from his other flank. Greeley’s New York Tribune published an editorial headlined “Prayer of Twenty Millions,” in which Lincoln was told that many of those who had voted for him in the 1860 election were now “sorely disappointed and deeply pained” by the president’s presumed moderation toward the Southern states then in rebellion.

Three days later, on this date in 1862, Lincoln gave his answer.

 * * *

Unbeknownst to Horace Greeley, Lincoln had been considering decisive action on the question of Southern slavery in the summer of 1862. The president had discussed it with his Cabinet and drafted a version of a sweeping executive order. But Lincoln believed it was best delivered from a position of strength. In the commander-in-chief’s mind, this meant issuing it after a military victory by Union troops. For this reason, Lincoln didn’t want to tip his hand entirely; neither did he want the Tribune’s editorial sitting out there unanswered. And on Aug. 22, 1862 — 157 years ago today — he formulated his reply.

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave,” Lincoln wrote to Greeley, “I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

This statement has been used by 20th century revisionists of various stripes to assert that Lincoln wasn’t all that committed to the cause of ending slavery. This criticism is not only wrong, it’s wrong in every respect. Abraham Lincoln had made his name in politics by speaking against slavery; the nascent political party he had joined was created to end it. Even as he wrote to Greeley, he was commanding a huge military force suffering frightful losses, a force called “Mr. Lincoln’s Army,” whose infantrymen marched off to war singing “John Brown’s Body,” later to be known as “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

In fact, Lincoln tipped his hand even in the Greeley letter, with his concluding statement: “I intend no modification,” he wrote, “of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

The “oft-expressed” observation was no exaggeration. Lincoln had forcefully denounced slavery before the Civil War and continued to do so throughout its duration. And he did so in ways that helped Americans see the cosmic issue at stake, which was whether all the Founders’ talk about freedom really meant anything at all.

In an Oct. 4, 1854 speech in Springfield, Ill., Lincoln had expressed it this way: “We were proclaiming ourselves political hypocrites before the world, by fostering human slavery and proclaiming ourselves at the same time, the sole friends of human freedom.”

In an 1855 letter to his friend Joshua Speed, Lincoln amplified on this theme in more caustic language. “Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid,” he wrote. “As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal except Negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Three years later, Lincoln gave his famous “house divided” speech at the Illinois state Republican convention that nominated him for a Senate campaign.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” Lincoln said. on that occasion. “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or the other.”

In his December 1862 State of the Union message to Congress, President Lincoln portrayed the intertwined goals of ending slavery and preserving the Union as one and the same. “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free,” he asserted. “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of Earth.”

At Gettysburg, Lincoln referred to the “unfinished work” of the Union dead as “a new birth of freedom” that validated not just the hopes of enslaved Americans, but the soaring principles of America’s founding.

In an 1864 letter to a friend from Kentucky, a newspaperman named Albert G. Hodges, Lincoln wrote, “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.” A month before he died, in a speech to the 140th Indiana Regiment, Lincoln said simply, “Whenever [I] hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

Lincoln’s actions, of course, spoke loudest of all. The military success he was awaiting on this date in 1862 came three weeks later at Antietam Creek. The cost was frightful: 2,100 Union soldiers killed, and another 9,500 wounded. The result was really a military stalemate, not a Union victory. But the Confederate losses were nearly as high, and the Battle of Antietam drove Robert E. Lee out of Maryland and back to Virginia. Less than two weeks later, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/22/where_lincoln_stood_on_slavery_141074.html

Our Blessed Dennis Prager Goes to Washington Today to Challenge GOOGLE’S LEFTIST FASCISM!!

Dennis Prager On Suing Google For Alleged YouTube Censorship

 

Syndicated radio host Dennis Prager joined Tucker Carlson Monday night about his lawsuit against Google for allegedly censoring his ‘Prager U’ short videos relating to conservatism.

Prager said Google is “transparently ideological” and “there is no question” that they censor conservative information.

“Google needs to say, ‘The truth is, we are not a conduit for free expression. We are here to, in fact, promote our views that are on the left,'” Prager said. “Either we’ll we a win or we’ll get honesty, and either way it’s a win.”

Prager U videos will always be available on RCP Video:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/03/06/dennis_prager_on_suing_google_for_alleged_youtube_censorship.html

Star GOP Recruit for Coming Senate Race in Michigan!

In the battle for control of the U.S. Senate in 2020, Republicans got some welcome news Thursday when Republican John James announced that he would challenge Democratic Sen. Gary Peters in Michigan’s Senate race. With the GOP defending 22 of the 34 seats that will be up in 2020, the party could really use more opportunities to go on the offensive — and the Michigan race may be just that.

Why is James’s candidacy notable? Well, the businessman and Army veteran ran for the state’s other Senate seat in 2018 and outperformed expectations against longtime Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, losing by only 6.5 percentage points. In the context of the 2018 cycle, this was the GOP’s seventh-best performance, according to a simple regression analysis that predicts a Senate race’s result by looking at the partisan lean of each state (how much more Democratic- or Republican-leaning the state is than the country as a whole1) and whether an elected incumbent from either party was running or not.2 That shows us how the actual candidates did compared to the baseline expectations for a generic candidate from that party:

James was one of the strongest Republicans in 2018

Margins of victory or defeat for Republican Senate candidates vs. their forecasted margins based on incumbency and the state’s partisan lean

MARGIN OF VICTORY OR DEFEAT
STATE REPUBLICAN RESULT EXPECTED DIFFERENCE
Utah Romney R+31.7 R+17.0 R+14.7
New Jersey Hugin D+11.2 D+22.5 R+11.3
Massachusetts Diehl D+24.2 D+34.5 R+10.3
Rhode Island Flanders D+23.1 D+31.8 R+8.7
Florida Scott R+0.1 D+8.5 R+8.6
Mississippi Wicker R+19.0 R+11.1 R+7.9
Michigan James D+6.5 D+13.5 R+7.0
Indiana Braun R+5.9 R+0.9 R+5.0
Washington Hutchison D+16.9 D+21.2 R+4.3
Missouri Hawley R+5.8 R+1.7 R+4.1
Mississippi special* Hyde-Smith R+7.3 R+5.1 R+2.2
Wyoming Barrasso R+36.9 R+35.1 R+1.8
Nebraska Fischer R+19.1 R+17.6 R+1.5
Wisconsin Vukmir D+10.8 D+11.5 R+0.7
Delaware Arlett D+22.1 D+22.7 R+0.6
Connecticut Corey D+20.2 D+20.6 R+0.4
Ohio Renacci D+6.8 D+7.0 R+0.2
California* NA D+30.2 D+30.3 R+0.1
Pennsylvania Barletta D+13.1 D+11.6 D+1.5
North Dakota Cramer R+10.8 R+12.3 D+1.5
Minnesota special* Housley D+10.6 D+8.0 D+2.6
Arizona McSally D+2.3 R+0.5 D+2.8
Hawaii Curtis D+42.3 D+39.5 D+2.8
Maine* Brakey D+19.1 D+16.2 D+2.9
Virginia Stewart D+16.0 D+12.6 D+3.4
Tennessee Blackburn R+10.8 R+14.6 D+3.8
Montana Rosendale D+3.6 R+0.7 D+4.3
New York Farley D+34.0 D+29.0 D+5.0
Maryland Campbell D+34.5 D+29.4 D+5.1
Nevada Heller D+5.0 R+0.6 D+5.6
New Mexico Rich D+23.6 D+17.9 D+5.7
Vermont* Zupan D+39.9 D+30.6 D+9.3
Texas Cruz R+2.6 R+12.2 D+9.6
Minnesota Newberger D+24.1 D+14.1 D+10.0
West Virginia Morrisey D+3.3 R+10.3 D+13.6

* In Vermont and Maine, the independent is treated as the Democrat. In California, two Democrats advanced to the general election, so the aggregate results for all Democratic candidates in the June 5, 2018, primary used in the calculations and no Republican is listed in the table. However, in the Mississippi special election, the result of the Nov. 27, 2018, runoff is used since that race featured a Democrat against a Republican. Races with appointed incumbents — namely, the Minnesota and Mississippi special elections — are treated as open seats rather than as equivalent to races with elected incumbents.

SOURCE: DAVE LEIP’S ATLAS OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

The only Republicans who did better than James in races that were at least somewhat competitive (races our model rated as anything less than “solid” for either party) were Rick Scott in Florida and Bob Hugin in New Jersey, though Hugin was likely aided by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez’s scandals. During the campaign, James attracted support from top Republicans, including President Trump. James’s showing immediately put him on 2020 candidates-to-watch lists, and Peters’s seat seemed like a likely target.

Speaking of the incumbent, Peters could be vulnerable — in particular, more vulnerable than Stabenow was. First, he’s defending one of just two Democratic Senate seats that will be up in 2020 in states that Trump carried in 2016. (Alabama is the other.) The president only won Michigan by a whisker, but if Trump can keep the state in play next year, that would probably help down-ballot Republicans — Senate contests increasingly align with presidential races when they’re on the ballot at the same time. In 2016, for the first time in a presidential cycle,3 every Senate race went for the same party that carried the state at the presidential level.

Second, Peters remains fairly unknown to his fellow Michiganders. In the first three months of 2019, 43 percent said they had no opinion of Peters — the largest share for any senator — according to Morning Consult’s job-approval data. Although Peters’s net approval rating was +10, his relative anonymity might make it easier for Republicans to define him negatively. His voting record is more conservative than that of many other Democrats in the Senate, but he has voted in line with Trump less often than the partisan lean of Michigan would predict.

Still, Peters shouldn’t be underestimated. He first won this seat in 2014 by a margin of 13 percentage points, successfully retaining it for Democrats despite a Republican wave environment that saw the GOP gain nine seats in the Senate. Peters also has a history of winning tough contests. Besides the 2014 campaign, which was initially viewed as competitive, he also won an incumbent-vs.-incumbent House primary in 2012 after being redistrictedfrom the suburbs into a Detroit-centered seat where then-Rep. Peters, who is white, prevailed in a majority-black district against Rep. Hansen Clarke, who has a mixed-race background (his mother is black and his father was an Indian immigrant).

Election handicappers agree that the Michigan race favors the Democrats, though there is some disagreement as to how much. With James in the race, the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections rate the contest as “likely” to go Democratic, but Sabato’s Crystal Ball says the race only “leans” toward the Democrats. Peters starts as a favorite, but James gives Republicans a real chance of winning Michigan’s Senate race in 2020.

Geoffrey Skelley is an elections analyst at FiveThirtyEight.  

 

 

No One, Even Heroes Like Martin Luther King, Are Perfect

How to Make Sense of the Shocking New MLK Documents

A new trove of FBI records has become yet another political weapon in our hyper-partisan age. That doesn’t mean we should ignore it.

What do you do when a great hero is alleged to have done something awful?

Politicians, historians, universities, artists and citizens in general have been grappling with this question for years. Renewed attention to racism and discrimination has prompted the reassessment of historical giants from Andrew Jackson to Woodrow WilsonWinston Churchill to Gandhi. Sexual harassment revelations have felled a forest of cultural, political and business bigshots. Tasteless jokes, dubious comments or ill-advised tweets have led to scores of people being fired from prominent positions.

Now Martin Luther King Jr. is in the spotlight. On Thursday, David J. Garrow, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of King—and the author of other acclaimed books on Roe v. Wade and Barack Obama—reported in the conservative British magazine Standpoint on explosive material that he found in recently published FBI documents. The article, based on FBI reports summarizing the bureau’s audio surveillance of King, makes for uncomfortable reading, to say the least.

The most shocking claim Garrow relates is that King was present in a hotel room when a friend of his, Baltimore pastor Logan Kearse, raped a woman who resisted participating in unspecified sexual acts. The FBI agent who surveilled the room asserted that King “looked on, laughed and offered advice.” Other allegations include that King’s philandering—long known to be extensive—was even more rampant than historians knew; that King took part in group sex; that King may have fathered a child with one of his mistresses; and—less pruriently—that King continued taking money from his onetime ally Stanley Levison, a Communist Party member, even after he was supposed to have broken off ties.

Right-wing media have pounced on the story, fairly delighting in the discomfort it poses to liberals, especially those who’ve been calling for the demotion of other eminences. “Martin Luther King Jr. Was Reportedly an Abuser Who Laughed at Rape,” blared The Daily Wire. “Is It Time to Tear His Monuments Down?” Meanwhile, liberal and mainstream media have so far seemed skittish about the topic—as Garrow discovered when he tried but failed to get several non-partisan U.S. publications to run it. (One paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reported on Garrow’s claims last week while also publishing a thorough account of its decision not to publish the original article itself.) News outlets usually pause before running salacious allegations against public figures, especially when they’re open to doubt—although in recent years that restraint has been eroding quickly. But with a long-dead historical figure, the hesitancy is more surprising. It’s easy to wonder if a desire to shield King’s reputation, or to avoid Twitter blowback, could be at work. Even discussions of history, it seems, are becoming ever more politically polarized.

***

Since the 1986 publication of Bearing the Cross, his account of King’s life from the Montgomery bus boycott until his assassination, Garrow has periodically written articles updating the story of the FBI’s surveillance of King—as he did, for example, in the Atlantic in 2002. These latest tidbits come from bureau reports and summaries that were recently published online under terms of the 1992 President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. Inside this new records dump, Garrow discovered, were a number of FBI documents that pertained to King. “Winnowing the new King items from amidst the Archive’s 54,602 web-links, many of which lead to multi-document PDFs that are hundreds of pages long,” Garrow noted in his new piece, “entailed weeks of painstaking work.”

The reports are full of erotic details and include revealing handwritten marginalia. But to the uninitiated, the written reports that Garrow cites are hard to interpret. They can’t be checked against the original surveillance tapes, which remain sealed, according to a judge’s order, until 2027. It’s hard to tell from a glance who precisely authored them, for what purpose they were drafted or what information they’re based on. It is Garrow’s decades of expertise in reviewing and analyzing FBI materials about King that gives these startling revelations their weight. Garrow has explained that while not all FBI claims are to be believed, these sorts of summaries of surveillance intercepts are unlikely to have been fabricated or manipulated.

And Garrow’s overall assessment is measured. Nowhere does he renounce the esteem for King that can be seen in his three important books on the minister’s life. Rather, he proposes that the possibility King tolerated or abetted a rape “poses so fundamental a challenge to his historical stature as to require the most complete and extensive historical review possible.” Garrow concludes with a call to preserve the recordings on which the FBI reports are based, so that we can learn more when they’re scheduled to be opened eight years from now.

Not everyone, however, has been so judicious in putting these FBI documents into context. Standpoint published a companion editorial to Garrow’s piece asserting that “the wiretaps reveal [King] to be the Harvey Weinstein of the civil rights movement.” That analogy is absurd. For one thing, King himself isn’t said to have assaulted women (although “offering advice”—whatever that might mean—to a friend committing a rape certainly comes close). For another, Garrow is relying on summaries, not the original wiretaps, and those summaries can’t be taken at face value. As we know in part from Garrow’s past research, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was obsessed with King. Notoriously, bureau agents tried to blackmail him into committing suicide by sending him a letter threatening to expose his affairs. Also, summaries aren’t recordings; it’s hard even to imagine how audio recordings could offer dispositive proof that a rape did or didn’t happen. This context thus weighs against any simple conclusion about the incident. The magazine’s overwrought editorial undermines Garrow’s patient work.

An equally untenable judgment, however, comes from the Washington Post’s “Retropolis” blog, which declares Garrow’s article to be “irresponsible.” The thrust of the article is to insinuate that the FBI reports aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, and so Garrow shouldn’t have published them. But while the Post piece quotes some respected historians (including friends of mine) rightly noting that the FBI documents may not be entirely reliable—not least because of Hoover’s vendetta against King—it avoids the obvious, if painful, corollary that they may well be accurate to a significant degree. We should at least allow the possibility that the accusations are true.

That’s why it’s a mistake to discount Garrow’s article wholesale. Any historian who came across a new cache of documents related to a longstanding area of research would feel compelled to explore it—and, if those materials shed new light on the subject, to publish them. When in 1990, Stanford University’s Clayborne Carson and other scholars at the King Papers Project found that King had committed plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation and other works, they felt obliged to divulge it—even though, as one editor on the project said, he suffered “many hours of lost sleep.” That the revelations in this case turned out to be scandalous warrants, as Garrow argues, intensified efforts to confirm or rebut their veracity. Bringing them to light, while acknowledging their uncertainty, is perfectly defensible.

***

Garrow’s disclosures are, in fact, important to incorporate into our historical knowledge. First, whether or not the allegations against King are true, they add weight to the widely held conclusion that Hoover’s FBI was a corrupt organization, in particular in its pursuit of King and the civil rights movement. The extent of their surveillance, even if originally motivated by legitimate concerns about Soviet influence (via Stanley Levison), seems in retrospect to be excessive.

Second, the piece strengthens the picture of the bureau as inordinately fixated on sex, whether out of the prurience of its director and agents or out of a misbegotten assumption that engaging in what the reports call “unnatural acts” (seemingly oral sex) somehow indicates “degeneracy and depravity.” Alas, this tendency to take private sexual behavior as an indicator of virtue remains all too prevalent today. Historians of sexuality will continue to consider FBI surveillance as a “site of contest,” as we academics like to say, over sexual behavior and norms.

Most important, the piece will surely prompt discussion of how to assimilate these allegations, should they be true, into our understanding of King. It’s worth remembering that we’ve discovered unflattering sides of King before. News of his philandering has been common knowledge since at least the 1975 Church Committee hearings into the dubious actions of the U.S. intelligence agencies. The 1989 memoir of King’s close associate Ralph Abernathy divulged that he spent the night before his assassination with a mistress. The following year saw the news about his plagiarism.

King’s greatness is such that he has weathered these disclosures. The rape charges are of course graver, but they don’t negate the historic achievements for which he has long been properly celebrated.

Even if the ugliest charges against King are bolstered by additional evidence, that doesn’t mean we should talk about renaming Martin Luther King Day, tearing down statues of him, or stripping him of his Nobel Prize. In recent years, we’ve had altogether too much wrecking-ball history—history that takes public or private flaws or failings as reason to cast extraordinary men and women out of our political or artistic pantheons. Historians know that even the most admirable figures from our past were flawed, mortal beings—bad parents or bad spouses, capable of violence or cruelty, beholden to sexist or racist ideas, venal or megalomaniac, dishonest or predatory. Awareness of these qualities doesn’t mean despising figures once held up as heroes. Rather, it gives us a more complete and nuanced picture of the people who shaped our world.

“It was Mr. King whose quest for black economic and social progress started this nation on the road to full integration—the most dynamic step forward in the status of the races since the Civil War. His courage in breaking down racial taboos and facing down opponents of integration, his unwavering insistence on a peaceful revolution, the elevating power of his message to the nation are beyond question.” So opined the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in 1990, days after the same paper brought King’s plagiarism to light. “We suspect Mr. King’s reputation will outlast the questions now being raised,” it concluded. That judgment—from a leading conservative opinion outlet of the day—seems far more sensible than the troll-like schadenfreude peppering right-wing media in the last few days. They are words we should bear in mind again today.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/how-to-make-sense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042

Police Approve Milk Shake Attacks in Britain Against Nigel Farage!?!

AG BILL BARR IS DEFINITELY NOT A CLONE OF OBAMALAND’S AGs

 Democratic smears of Bill Barr would be more accurately applied to Obama’s AGs

 

William Barr has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate four times, has served two U.S. presidents, and has proven himself to be a consummate professional who deeply respects the great responsibilities and boundaries of the office of the attorney general. Considering the turbulent tenures of President Obama’s two attorneys general, Democrats’ partisan attacks on Barr’s honesty and transparency should fall on deaf ears.

To refresh your memory, Obama’s first attorney general, Eric Holder, became embroiled in a scandal when guns illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

When the House of Representatives requested documents related to the scandal, Holder refused and was held in contempt of Congress with 17 Democrats crossing the aisle to formally condemn him – the first time Congress had taken such action against a cabinet official. Obama invoked executive privilege to protect Holder and hide those documents from the American public: a decision that is still being battled in the courts.

REP. COLLINS BLASTS BARR CONTEMPT VOTE AS ‘DESPERATE’ MOVE TO DISCREDIT ATTORNEY GENERAL

His successor didn’t fare much better. In June of 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton on her private plane on the tarmac in Arizona for an hour while his wife was being actively investigated by the Department of Justice for mishandling classified information through a private email server – an investigation Lynch later decided to close without pursuing charges.

Lynch claimed at the time that she would accept the FBI’s recommendation to pursue charges in the Clinton investigation, but according to testimony from FBI lawyer Lisa Page released earlier this year, it was, in fact, the Department of Justice that determined not to bring charges.

Democrats’ absurd claims about Barr are, in actuality,  the sad truth about President Obama’s AGs.

A private meeting with the spouse of a major presidential candidate in an election year – which would have gone unnoticed was it not for a local television station – should be cause enough to doubt the impartiality of the nation’s top law enforcement officer. A secret meeting with the politically powerful husband of an investigative subject days before declining to pursue charges against her is a solid “F” grade on the tests of trust and transparency.

Barr, by contrast, has handled the release of the Mueller report with unprecedented transparency: releasing the full report with minimal redactions as quickly as possible and even allowing select members of Congress to view all of the report that is legally viewable at their convenience. As of this week, no Democrat has taken him up on that offer.

It wasn’t enough. Following Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats’ slander reached fever pitch: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasted no time or investigation in declaring the attorney general of the United States a criminal, the junior senator from California falsely claimed Barr “lied to Congress,” and another Democratic colleague said he was “a paid hack for the president.”

Democrats’ public vilification of Barr is a glimpse into how Holder’s “Fast and Furious” scandal or Loretta Lynch’s tarmac summit with Bill Clinton might have played out without the air support of a breathless liberal media unwilling to portray Obama officials as anything but selfless public servants and Trump officials as anything but supervillains.

Democrats’ absurd claims about Barr – that he’s calling balls and strikes based on partisan allegiance, that he’s refusing to cooperate with reasonable congressional requests, that he may have declined prosecution to protect his political ally – are, in actuality, the sad truth about President Obama’s AGs.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Americans should remember this blatant double standard as we watch Democrats’ last-ditch effort to destroy Attorney General Barr, a distinguished public servant, and call these smears what they are: bluster from politicians desperate to stretch out the Mueller investigation as long as possible in an attempt to damage President Trump and baseless political grandstanding from presidential candidates.

In both cases, it should be treated as exactly as what it is: hypocrisy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. MIKE BRAUN

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/senator-mike-braun-bill-barr-obama-holder-lynch

Prager University…..”The Electoral College” to Keep the United States UNITED!

America’s Democrat Party’s Feminazi Wing Recently Demanded  the Elimination of the United States’ “ELECTORAL COLLEGE”!  Hillary Clinton had lost the November, 2016 Presidential Election according to the FEDERAL LAW of our American  nation since 1801.

Without the establishment of the “Electoral College” there most likely  would  never have been a Republic called the  “UNITED STATES of America” without wars!   Comprises had to be made to satisfy the ‘power’ of the more populated states, such as massive Virginia, yet respect the existence of the needs of those states such as Rhode Island, Delaware,  and Connecticut, and soon after the 13 Colonies becoming states, tiny  Vermont and New Hampshire.  Therefore the male wisdom of that era of the birth of our Nation, a bicameral legislature was agreed upon….the Senate,  where the States would be equal in number (2) in the upper chamber, the Senate, and be awarded membership relative to their populations in the House of Representatives where mob rule could fight things out based upon the State’s population: with each state awarded one Representative.   Today’s ‘bullies’ in the House are from California…..with 53 members,  Texas, with 36,  and New York and Florida each with 27.

Each state’s Electoral College vote depends upon the total number of Senators and Representatives determined by  the general population of citizens registered in each state….

Census taking occurs every ten years.    Why do you think the fascist leftists who  own California these  days are circling their wagons around those millions of illegal immigrants they are amassing for the 2020 decade?

 

 

Do You Understand the Electoral College?

Do you understand what the Electoral College is? Or how it works? Or why America uses it to elect its presidents instead of just using a straight popular vote? Author, lawyer and Electoral College expert Tara Ross does, and she explains that to understand the Electoral College is to understand American democracy.

 

Please click below for the Prager University review of our American Electoral College system:

WHAT A TRUMP RALLY WAS REALLY LIKE!