• 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

Victor Davis Hanson on the American Left War of Trump Derangement

What Is the Alternative to Trump Derangement?

by Victor Davis Hanson at National Review:

“If they weren’t trying to destroy the president, Democrats would have to focus on an agenda most Americans don’t support. By 1968, voters had tired of the failed Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Four years later, the 1972 Nixon reelection re-emphasized that a doubled-down McGovern liberalism was even less of a viable agenda. In that context, in 1974, obsessing on Watergate and a demonized Nixon were wise liberal alternatives to running on a positive left-wing vision, given the growing conservative backlash of the 1970s. After Watergate and the Ford pardon, Jimmy Carter squeaked to a close victory and a one-term presidency — before the country tired of his strident liberalism poorly cloaked in conservative clothing. Bill Clinton’s third-way centrism eventually was a winning Democratic alternative to regain the presidency — albeit with help from two Ross Perot third-party candidacies. Given these historical reminders, the current efforts at Trump character assassination may be the best — or only — progressive pathway back to political power. In the last few days, the Democratic party lost its fourth special House election; most of the four were billed in advance as likely negative referenda on the contentious first six months of the Trump presidency. Post facto, the uniformly unwelcomed results were written off as idiosyncratic outliers of no importance. Shortly before the Georgia election, a hard-left-wing killer attacked the players at a congressional baseball practice, intent on the assassination of Republican legislators, whom he had targeted on his hit list. The shooter was foiled, but not before seriously wounding Steve Scalise, the current Republican majority whip in the House. The two events in saner times might have prompted introspection about why the Democrats keep losing elections and why a hard-core progressive supporter would seek to assassinate key Republican leaders. Indeed, for a brief moment, there were calls on both sides of the aisle to scale back inflammatory rhetoric that in theory might push such politicized would-be shooters over the edge. One might have hoped that self-reflective Democrats could begin to grasp why voters distrusted them more than they feared Trump. Such moments quickly vanished. Progressives saw any remedies to identity politics as worse than the disease of electoral defeat. Elizabeth Warren, with her trademark rancor, was once again talking about Republican “blood money” — as if her opponents in the Congress were legislative assassins rather than the recent targets of such. An increasingly addled Hillary Clinton (she had loudly joined the “Resistance”) accused the GOP of becoming the “death party,” reminding the country why progressive fanatics such as James Hodgkinson might think rifle fire is the only answer to conservatives who traffic in blood. Meanwhile, another day, another Hollywood celebrity dreaming of, or advocating, the assassination of Donald Trump: This time a disturbed Johnny Depp (playing the role of Kathy Griffin or Snoop Dogg) mused out loud about repeating a John Wilkes Booth–style shooting. Since January, left-wing pundits and celebrities have alluded that Trump might be decapitated, stabbed by a mob, shot, punched, hit with a bat, blown up, strung up, and flipped off. Incineration and drowning are about the last modes of Trump mayhem left unsaid. Barack Obama, amid the assassination chic and the obscenity of key Democrats such as Kamala Harris, Tom Perez, and Kirsten Gillibrand, recently remonstrated about the evils of inequality and the need for more diversity — at $10,000 a minute to largely white, Wall Street audiences, while whining about the ongoing recalibration of his failed Obamacare project.

That is what passes for 21st-century progressive community organizing. Left unsaid was that Obama had virtually destroyed the Democratic party, which during his tenure lost more than 1,000 state and local elections and both the House and the Senate. Obama left a personal legacy of a party agenda that had no popular support, an incoming Republican presidency, a conservative Supreme Court, a tenure to be systematically overturned, and a one-time progressive electoral paradigm that could work only for himself while imploding almost any other candidate foolish enough to try to replicate it. And progressives oddly loved him for all that. Of the Democratic policies once envisioned under Bill Clinton, few are left. It is said that Democrats are in an existential crisis because of their obsessions with Donald Trump — suing over the election, trying to subvert the Electoral College, dreaming of impeachment and the 25th Amendment, filing briefs under the emoluments clause of the Constitution, stalling appointments, relying on deep-state insurrectionary bureaucrats, cherry-picking liberal judges for obstructive passes, and going from one conspiracy theory to the next as collusion begat obstruction that begat witness tampering.

More outsider advice is for Democrats to focus instead on their agenda. But nothing could be more paradoxical. Or rather, what agenda? Of the Democratic policies once envisioned under Bill Clinton (opposing illegal immigration, dreams of abortions as rare, balanced budgets, workfare, being tough on crime), few are left. In other words, progressives logically obsess about Trump, because otherwise they would have to defend agendas that most Americans simply do not support. Do voters really wish to hear that illegal immigration is healthy and that the greater problem lies with us (the paranoid host) rather than the millions who knowingly cross the border illegally? Would Americans wish to be lectured about transgendered restrooms by those who as late as 2011 opposed gay marriage? Do voters think that progressive administrators, whiny indebted students, and the end of campus free speech and free assembly are models for higher education and arguments for federal bailouts? Do voters really wish to hear that illegal immigration is healthy and that the greater problem lies with us (the paranoid host) rather than the millions who knowingly cross the border illegally? (Most Americans believe that there is no such thing as an “undocumented immigrant,” given that most illegal aliens in fact possess ample documentation — albeit false social-security numbers, false IDs, and occasionally false names. “Falsely documented immigrants” is the more intellectually honest rubric.) Do voters wish to hear from those who doubled the debt in eight years that Trump, after six months, is fiscally reckless? Are they tired of “make America great again” and “our farmers,” “our veterans,” and “our miners,” and prefer instead another “you didn’t build that” sermon or a finger-pointing “now is not the time to profit” scold? Is snarky anti-American sloganeering preferable to honest pro-American mantras? Perhaps Trumpian triumphalism has embarrassed voters and they yearn for a return to progressive apologetics — they’re nostalgic for another Cairo speech from Obama, or more ceremonial bows to foreign leaders, or more outreach to the Cubans and Iranians? Do they want to be told that Trump’s efforts on deregulation, jobs, and energy won’t work by those who could not achieve a single year of 3 percent annual GDP growth over eight years? What otherwise would fill the progressive void, if Democrats were not currently obsessed with Donald Trump? Advocating more illegal immigration, more entitlements, and fewer voter-identification requirements to continue to alter the demographics of voting? Expanding food-stamp and disability rolls? Higher health-care premiums and deductibles?

Would Democrats run on their opposition to the sudden Trumpian use of words such as “radical Islam,” “jihadism,” and “terrorism”? Are there too few abortions in America? Would they trash Trump for suggesting that “all lives matter” or that newcomers to the U.S. should avoid the welfare rolls for five years? Would those be more winning issues than the current obscenity, conspiracy theories, and assassination chic? Would Democrats instead run on a more resonant foreign policy? Perhaps advocacy of a 2.0 reset with Putin to recalibrate the appeasement of Russia? Or a doubling down on the Iran Deal to allow more “latitude” to the Khomeinist autocracy? Should the downward defense budget descend to 2 percent of GDP? More stringent rules of engagement for our troops on the ground? Should more identity-politics activists on cable TV wish more often for the death of Representative Scalise, or urge people of color to let such conservative whites bleed in extremis, or certainly not lament the targeted, given that they supposedly got what they deserved?

In general, are we in need of more ethnic, religious, and racial separatism, a greater investment in the progressive salad bowls than the ossified traditional melting pot? Do we need more trilling of our names, more accent marks sprinkled over our nomenclature? Should Democrats, the party of youth, vigor, hip, cool, hope, and change, simply forget Trump and instead showcase their dynamic leadership and forward-looking activists: a 69-year-old Hillary Clinton, an 84-year-old Dianne Feinstein, a 79-year-old Jerry Brown, a 77-year-old Nancy Pelosi, a 75-year-old Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old Joe Biden, a 68-year-old Elizabeth Warren, or a young 66-year-old Chuck Schumer? Or should a next generation of minorities and women now take over the reins from ossified progressives — such as an obscenity-shouting Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, or Tom Perez?

Does Keith Ellison offer the proper agenda and background profile for national progressive exposure? Should more Pajama Boy candidates such as Jon Ossoff be recruited to highlight the big-city, hip, metrosexual core of the Democratic party? If freed from the Trump obsessions, would progressives make great inroads by renouncing increased oil and gas production through fracking and horizontal drilling, all while they re-up Solyndra-like projects, shut down the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines, and hope, as did former secretary of energy Steven Chu, that energy prices rise so that subsidized wind and solar will be more viable? Would they run on discouraging thousands of new jobs in the petrochemical, aluminum, and fertilizer industries, given that such companies are relocating to the U.S. to capitalize on its cheap energy? The Democrats are now a pyramidal party — ethnic-identity groups at the base and wealthy elites on top, all united by a mutual disdain for the half of the population that covers 85 percent of the geography. The point is that somewhere between 2006 and 2009, Bill Clinton’s formerly competitive Democratic party aged and then evaporated. It was replaced by a hard-left coastal coalition, a pyramidal party — ethnic-identity groups at the base and wealthy elites on top, all united by a mutual disdain for the half of the population that covers 85 percent of the geography. What followed were universities, Hollywood, the media, and the wealthy damning supposed “white privilege” (a phrase rarely spoken outside of university ethnic-studies departments prior to 2009), as those who did not have privilege were damned by those who most certainly did.

So the Democrats logically grew hysterical over Trump because they had few choices other than a rescue through a Watergate-like crisis. Democrats forgot the unprecedented conditions that brought a hard-left icon such as Barack Obama into power in 2009: an orphaned election without a run by an incumbent president or vice president, the largest fundraising in presidential history, unprecedented media bias, the anger over the Iraq War, the panic over the September 2008 Wall Street meltdown, the novelty of the first African-American president, the weakness of the McCain candidacy, and the media demonization of incumbent George Bush. They also ignored that the Obama agenda after 2010 was relegated to executive orders and treaties abroad that bypassed the Senate, because it had lost public and legislative support. Today progressives revere the rarity of the left-wing presidency of Barack Obama despite its failures and what it did to the Democratic party — and with the full realization that Obama’s electoral formula and his agenda are not inheritable. Given those realities, Trump Derangement is not a misappropriation of progressive resources. Instead it is logically the chief and only viable message that the current Democratic party has left.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448992/trump-derangement-only-alternative-democrats-have-no-agenda

The Democratic Party ISN’T Democratic Anymore. It’s Selling Fascistic Leftism, a Religion!

The Democrats’ Deadly Rhetoric

By Daniel John Sobieski  at American Thinker:

“As moving as the “Kumbaya” moments at the Congressional baseball game were on Thursday, we cannot and should not forget that it was a Bernie Sanders supporter, inspired by what Illinois Republican Congressman Rodney Davis called “political rhetorical terrorism,” that inspired the leftist loon who set out to assassinate Republicans practicing for the charity game.

Bernie Sanders rightly and correctly disavowed the crimes of a volunteer whose actions he could not envision or control. Yet he and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have spent the time since President Trump’s election yelling fire in the political theatre we call democracy, warning endlessly that people will die because of the Trump agenda, painting apocalyptic visions of planetary doom. With them claiming the Republican agenda is dooming the sick, the elderly, and the planet itself, was it so surprising that another liberal infused with the left’s messianic complex, would try to save us all by killing Republicans trying to implement Trump’s agenda?

There sat House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a pregame interview making nice and channeling Rodney King’s mantra of can’t we all just get along. As The Hill reported:

Republican and Democratic leaders stressed unity Thursday night as members of both parties gathered for the annual congressional baseball game a day after a gunman opened fire at a practice, injuring House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and three others.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appeared together in their first-ever joint interview on CNN, where they offered well wishes for Scalise, who remained in critical condition Thursday evening.”

Gingrich: Media and Elites Still Don’t Understand Trump

Please read the following article from the astute American conservative Newt Gingrich.  He lives and mingles close to those Congressional  warriors who have come to  hate America and our very intelligent,  capable,  America loving Donald J. Trump.   What if American voters do finally discover the tremendous talents now available from the White House from a builder who loves, not a racist who hates, his America?

But Mr. Gingrich doesn’t seem to understand that a fascist movement is  now afoot, led  by the once honorable Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman.

Where is there any evidence Trump’s ‘enemies’ have any interest in draining the swamp they have built and enjoyed for the past decades?

We traditional voting age Americans of all colors, sexes, shapes, and sizes should all fear the powerhouse of Obama’s legacy of   fascism and its hate and violence  with the arrival of fifteen to twenty million illegal  immigrants guarded by and available to the Left  now organizing in  Sanctuary Cities uniting  with  the rise of black racism violence during the past eight years of his New America one party fascist dream regime.

Is not this fascist feminized and black racified Left the regime dedicated to the defeat of America’s political freedom,   to rewrite history by  selling fake news, fake feminism, fake black history, fake everything in order to unite its flock to destroy this Donald J. Trump dream and drive to drain THE SWAMP?

These fascists spent  $3,000,000,000 beyond the fake news from  print and vision to bury Our Donald last year.   With their shocking  defeat they now are relying on spies and tricks of the fascist leftist  lawyer trade, starring James Comey, Robert Mueller, and that Rosenstein guy to sneak things up.

And the Republican Party remains silent.   GO DONALD!  Beat ’em all!  Save Our America and its precious freedoms now so brazenly under siege!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/13/newt-gingrich-media-and-elites-still-dont-understand-trump.html

Watch Fired FBI Director Comey’s Testimony Here

I didn’t have an opportunity to watch the political  leftist arranged television event today starring former FBI director, James Comey…..the one newly elected President Donald J. Trump fired recently…..the one Democrats hated for sniping publicly about one of countless Hillary crimes while running for the American Presidency, the one she and all of her devoted racists and feminists felt she deserved for being Hillary.

I had to go to work.

On my way to work, and until 11AM I caught the event on radio.

Our American deviates in Washington, the  Axis concocted by Hillary sore losers,  Chas  Schumer deviates, you know the creepier Al Franken types, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, NBC, MNBC and nearly all of the rest of the media including Fox on a bad day;   the new leftier klutzes causing American President Donald J. Trump trouble in Washington.  I follow American national politics closely…and have so since the Dewey-Truman presidential campaign in 1948.  (It sure beats going to the horse races.)

I admit I love our American 45th President.   I love him for his obvious traits and gifts…and his honesty according to what he sees and senses.  He loves his country.  He sees it, knows it is in financial and moral decay.

We haven’t had a really gifted and astute, uplifting  President during  my life with the exception of  Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy,  and Ronald Reagan.  Worse, the country was profoundly struck down by American hater, racist, feminist, open borders for illegal voters foreigner Barack Hussein Obama for the past eight years of national disorder and decline.

Best of all, Donald J. Trump is an American non-politician.   He’s “Ugely” American bright….and the fascist-feminists leftist hounds controlling  our today’s  education world hate him  and all the rest of us over age 60 as well who aren’t drugged by the glory of ignorance, atheism,  and meaningless unemployment.

THE COMEY PERFORMANCE

Mr. Comey seemed a good man….a gentle man…..or perhaps not quite a man, but rather a boy scout determined to do good by obeying Obama’s urban  scoutmasters……a  2017 man, that is, not quite a man at all.   Gentle, plotting, polite, shy-pretending, a person who loved his job station in life…..an almost man, a bureaucrat who wanted to do good to honor his name….an almost man who had worked in the political maneuvering world all of his adult life, who tried to do good so others would know him as good.

And then along comes businessman, Donald J. Trump winning a presidential election beating the  government establishment, the Hillary establishment, the newsprint establishment, the television news establishment, the leftist college urchins without knowledge and careers, countless  programmed black racists, 12,000,000 illegal voting immigrants….some less illegal than others whose arrivals were all seen by leftist fascists as  votes for their inevitable forever dictatorship  future.

Business man Trump is hated by countless Republicans as well….news industry people.   His  nose isn’t sufficiently perfect for the manikin they could display as their toady.   Mr. Trump reeks leadership.  He builds towers, golf courses, skating rinks.  He likes people.  He is a Republican who  loves his country and is fed up with those GOPers who have colluded with   leftist leaches draining our America of blood for more than a decade in  the name of the  gods of global warming, sanctuary cities,  brainless screamy coeds, and Windy City urban murderers.

Be sure to enjoy this spectacle presented below….how these Democrat vermin and their Republican compatriots welcomed President Donald J. Trump to the 45th presidency of these “United” states of America to solve our nation’s countless problems…..

GOD BLESS PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP and Marco Rubio!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/08/watch_live_fired_fbi_director_james_comey_senate_testimony.html

 

The Disappearance of Beauty in Mind and the English Tongue

Allan Bloom on American Nihilism and Its Degrading Vocabulary

“What would have happened if literature professors had continued to love literature, admire Shakespeare, and teach others to do the same? Perhaps if they had emulated Allan Bloom’s attention to words—if they’d taught writing and written well themselves—our colleges would not now be so enraged.

[ . . . ]

“Never Shall I Utter These Words”

Toward the end of Part Two, Bloom asks whether, if we Americans were forbidden to use all these words, we would be speechless. Alternatively, if we were deprived of the word “lifestyle,” would we say “living exactly as I please”? If stripped of “my ideology,” would we say “my prejudices”? If unable to say “my values,” would we, now naked and a touch ashamed, try to give reasons for our views and our choices, begin to know ourselves, and live seriously?

A couple of years ago, I was very pleased when the whole class studying Part Two took the pledge I offered, and solemnly swore, with a smile: “I shall never utter these words, but ever seek better ones, so help me God.”

What words might we seek? While Bloom’s exposure of the new words often includes better words, Americans can find plenty elsewhere as well. There remains the mighty fortress of the King James Bible, for instance, and the boundless treasury of Shakespeare.

In Shakespeare, you won’t find such words as lifestyle, ideology, or even entertainment in its shallow modern sense. The word “creative” does not appear, only creature, creation, and creator, for creativity was only recognized in “great nature” and nature’s God. The later philosophic sludge of “concept,” “objective” and “subjective,” and “fact” vs. “value” are not there to stymie our search for truth. Instead of “values,” you will find the exposure of their danger when the amorous Troilus defends the abduction of Helen: “What’s aught but as ’tis valued?” and is refuted by Hector: “value dwells not in particular will; / It holds his estimate and dignity / As well wherein ’tis precious of itself . . . ’Tis mad idolatry / To make the service greater than the god.”

The seven most common adjectives in Shakespeare are “good,” “great,” “fair,” “sweet,” “true,” “poor,” and “noble.” The use of “good” (2985 times) exceeds all others. When teaching Shakespeare, I challenge students to spend a week using such words, and no words not in Shakespeare. They get extra credit if they get some winsome Shakespearean word, like “romage,” into the Daily Dartmouth. How many knaves would be recognized and some restrained if we used the word as often as Shakespeare did? (247 times, to be exact.) Perhaps we would not have to suffer so many fools if we used “fool” too…….”   Please read on:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/05/19063/

Mass Media Infected with Deadly Mental Disorder: Feminist Fascism

The Mass Media Cult Goes Pathological

By James Lewis at American Thinker:

“In the five months since the election, the media haven’t been able to get over getting Trumped.  They’ve gone through the five stages of grief, some of them over and over again, and still The Donald drives them crazy.  Hillary was one of the worst candidates in history, but it didn’t matter.  In our Mass Cult mind, she couldn’t lose.

This is a mass media pathology, as we can see from their uncontrolled emotional outbursts.  The latest is Comeygate, which looks like a trap Trump laid for James Comey, who came out of the White House babbling that the president had demanded Comey’s personal loyalty – a no-no by Watergate standards.  But Comey has no Oval Office tapes, so it’s his word against Trump’s.  Comey has no evidence, while making an “impeachable” allegation against POTUS.

Where’s John Dean when they need him?

Every time they lose another power player in D.C., like Clapper and Comey, they have to go through the five stages of grief.  First denial.  Then tears.  Then asking God to make it not so.  On and on.

If these people weren’t so malignant, I’d feel sorry for them.

This is a kind of death anxiety for the American ruling class, which is also why they constantly fantasize about killing Donald Trump.  For psychiatrists, it’s an interesting mental disorder, and it’s too bad that millions of Americans still depend on Mass Cult for their daily news.  This is not a college textbook; it’s America today.

When Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo first showed how normal Stanford students could be cultified, I felt skeptical.  It couldn’t be that easy.  Basically, the kids were voluntarily isolated, so all their daily sources of real news were blocked.  Then some authority figure sold them a bill of goods, and the test was whether they would obey a plainly illegal command – to give “dangerous electrical shocks” to a confederate, who yelled in pain.

(Today this experiment is illegal, but it has been repeated in other countries with low-level shocks given to animals.)

History books have been written about crazy cult behavior, especially utopian cults.  But we think they have no real lesson for our lives because we aren’t crazy.

Most people don’t realize that “media concentration” – a functional news monopoly, day after day – has the same effect as cult indoctrination.  It doesn’t matter if Disney Corp. has a different name from the New York Times.  It matters only that they tell the same “news” story every day.  For a mental mass monopoly, you don’t need to violate anti-trust law.  All you need is mass media that make up the “news” by consensus, not by empirical reality.  Dr. Michael Barone actually looks up facts for his political column, but he is a rarity in the media business today.  The Big Media are basically playing telephone.

Closed cults like Jim Jones and Scientology do some very nasty stuff, and when it gets to the Kim Jong-un level they build nukes and fire ICBMs over countries like Japan.  Today, Kim III is pushing his WMD program as fast as he can, and where Kim goes, the mullahs follow.  Iran and North Korea co-develop those weapons and test the bombs underground in Korea, but the mullahs get the same technology.

The bottom line is that any ideological monopoly creates cults.

Where the United States used to have about 80 different newspaper owners in 1980, today we have fewer than a dozen conglomerates, with only one storyline.

The JournoList scandal showed that 400 “journalists” (propaganda liars) were able to drive the “news” in the U.S. and Europe.  They are still doing it, because nobody can stop them.

What we are seeing is cult pathology on a mass basis.  That is pathogenic (it makes people genuinely crazy), because cults that hear only one mental channel become delusional.  (The “Russian election hack” scam is a classical mass delusion.)  Fear gets amplified enormously by the headline rumor machine, which cult followers can no longer distinguish from reality.  The old 24-hour news cycle is now every hour on the hour, and human beings can easily get flooded with too much information, so their judgment is impaired.  We are seeing all of that in the media today.

Everybody has defense mechanisms, even healthy people, but healthy folks tend to ward off anxiety by rationalizing danger, both real and imagined.  But medical students, for example, can become hypochondriacs with whatever disease they are studying this week.  You study heart attacks twelve hours a day without enough sleep, and you start wondering if your heart is okay.  Medical students are physically very healthy, but med school is what it is.

Healthy people do get over all that, but if you’re caught up in the Mass Media Cult, every single day, and you don’t get enough time to recover, you become stressed out and ultimately dysfunctional.

Historians will look back at this time as a case of mass hysteria on the national level.  Ph.D. dissertations will be written about the Trump Mass Hysteria of 2016-17, but by that time the grad students will be lolling in easy chairs and chatting about the Third Millennia Frenzy, like Orson Welles’s radio drama of 1938, The War of the Worlds.

Technology gets faster and more powerful, but human beings don’t change.

I suppose it’s a kind of poetic justice, the biter being bit, but it’s sad to see.  Maybe conservatives should get together and send them all a good supply of cheap whiskey, the traditional newsman’s medicine.  I’m sure it’ll work for newswomen, too.

(http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/the_mass_media_cult_goes_pathological.html)

NEW OBAMA BIO IS NOT JUST EXHAUSTING, IT’S INSULTING

New Obama Bio Is Not Just Exhausting; It’s Insulting

by Jack Cashill   at American Thinker:

Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography;” writes Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow, “it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction.”

Garrow makes this claim, italics included, in his massive new biography about Obama’s pre-presidential years, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. For myself and other citizen journalists who have followed Obama, this is hardly a revelation.

We concluded many years ago that Dreams was in large part fiction. We came to this conclusion during the same period when our betters were writing paeans such as, “Whatever else people expect from a politician, it’s not usually a beautifully written personal memoir steeped in honesty” (Oona King, London Times).

The book, we realized, was steeped in something, but it certainly wasn’t honesty. Before the election in 2008, no one in the major media would admit this, and afterwards mainstream critics did so only partially and reluctantly. Garrow continues the tradition.

The New York Times has dismissed Rising Star as “a dreary slog of a read.” I have seen nothing in what I have read of the book to dispute the Times on the tedium part. (My ebook version runs 2,000 pages, and it has just crashed.) I have read enough, however, to feel insulted, not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of those other citizen journalists who dared to report the truth before the major media grudgingly did the same.

Garrow adds a little more to the accepted record — oh yeah, there was no Obama family — but the book serves in certain ways to cauterize Obama’s wounded reputation. It is hard to imagine another author going deeper. Garrow spent ten years on the project. He interviewed more than a thousand people. There is much not to like about Garrow’s Obama, but the faithful need never fear learning anything worse than that their man was shallow and self-centered. What politician isn’t?

Like other mainstream biographers, Garrow has the unfortunate habit of insulting those who challenge the orthodoxy, myself included. In July 2008, I first raised the issue of the authorship of Dreams. Beginning in September 2008, I traced the muse behind Dreams, speculatively at first, to the notoriously unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers.

Obama biographer David Remnick admitted just how problematic this revelation could have been. “This was a charge,” he wrote in his 2010 biography, “that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy.”

The way for Remnick, the New Yorker editor, to deal with the charge was to attack its provenance — “the Web’s farthest lunatic orbit.” To assure the charge was not repeated, he accused anyone who repeated it, Rush Limbaugh most notably, with racism.

Garrow has his own way of slighting the assertion that Ayers had a hand in Dreams. He ignores it. He makes no mention of my name in the text of the book. Nor does he mention Christopher Andersen. Andersen presented more of a problem than I did. A bestselling biographer with solid mainstream credentials, Andersen gave biographical detail to what I had inferred from textual analysis.

In his 2009 book, Barack and Michele: Portrait of an American Marriage, Andersen spent six pages on Ayers’ role in helping craft Dreams. As Andersen related, Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” What attracted the Obamas were “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer” as evident in his 1993 book, To Teach.

Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives, both African and American, Andersen elaborated, “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.” Although I had not talked to Andersen, his observations, based on two unnamed sources, made perfect sense given Obama’s repeated failures to complete the book on schedule.

One of Obama’s radical friends in Hyde Park did not shy from giving Ayers his due. “First, chronologically and in other ways,” wrote Rashid Khalidi in his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, “comes Bill Ayers.” Khalidi elaborated, “Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the project.” Khalidi did not need the table.  He had one of his own. He needed help from the one neighbor who obviously could and would provide it.

Garrow has not a word to say about Andersen’s claim, not even to rebut it. In fact, the reader of Garrow’s book would have no reason to believe anyone ever questioned Obama’s authorship. As for me, Garrow adds a comically gratuitous slap.

The reference is a telling one. It involves a poem Obama submitted to his college literary magazine as a sophomore called “Pop.” Garrow writes that most critics presumed the poem was about Obama’s grandfather, but “hostile critics,” namely me, claimed the poem was about Obama’s Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

In his footnotes, Garrow cites an article published in American Thinker in 2011. In it, I quoted Remnick’s claim that “’Pop’ clearly reflects Obama’s relationship with his grandfather Stanley Dunham.” I disagreed. “The poem does no such thing, “ I wrote. “For starters, if the poem really were about ‘Gramps,’ Stanley Dunham, why didn’t Obama simply call it ‘Gramps.’”

There is a variety of evidence arguing for Davis as “Pop.” This includes a 1987 interview with Davis recorded by the University of Hawaii for a documentary on his life.  Watching it, one can visualize “Pop”: the drinking, the smoking, the glasses, the twitches, the roaming eyes, the thick neck and broad back. “I could see Frank sitting in his overstuffed chair,” Obama remembers in Dreams, “a book of poetry in his lap, his reading glasses slipping down his nose.”

Among the details in the poem that disqualified Dunham as the poem’s subject was this one: “he switches channels, recites an old poem/ He wrote before his mother died.” As I explained, Dunham’s mother died when he was eight years old. Frank Marshall Davis’s mother died when he was twenty and had already established himself as a poet of promise. “When an insider like Remnick gets something this obviously wrong,” I concluded, “I begin to suspect disinformation, not mere misinformation.”

Remnick and those critics who preceded him insisted the poem was about Dunham because they did not want to give Davis his due. To his credit, Garrow admits Davis was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA and a pornographer with at least a fictional taste for the underaged and the male.

Garrow knows I am correct about the authorship of “Pop.” But Remnick is the editor of the New Yorker. Even when he is wrong, Garrow writes about him respectfully. Here, Garrow concludes the brief discussion on ‘Pop” by writing, “Yet Barack would forcefully reject the Davis hypothesis.” Of course he would.

Here is the kicker. When Garrow cites me by name in his endnotes on this subject, he adds in parentheses, “someone who is cited with the greatest reluctance.” Ouch! I suppose I would be reluctant to cite me too. I can disprove Garrow’s thesis that the muse for Dreams was his law school buddy Robert Fischer as convincingly as I can disprove “Pop” was Stanley Dunham. More to come.

In July 2008, on the cyber pages of WND, I first raised the issue of the authorship of Barack Obama’s acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.

In September 2008, again at WND, I traced the muse behind Dreams to the notoriously unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers.

If other conservative media had the courage that WND has shown over its twenty-year history, they would have followed up on my story, and Barack Obama would not have been elected president. But they did not, and he, alas, was.

A book by Pulitzer Prize-winner David Garrow about Obama’s pre-presidential years, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, has the potential to tell the stories the major media and much of the conservative media refused to tell. No Obama fan, Garrow critiques Obama from his left.

Garrow allegedly interviewed a thousand or so people for the book. When I suggested to friend Susan Daniels last week that Rising Star, out May 9, has potential, she asked, “Did Garrow interview you?”

No, come to think of it, he did not. I asked Susan if Garrow interviewed her. He should have. A licensed private investigator, it was Susan who discovered that Obama was passing through life with a Connecticut social security number.

No, Garrow had not talked to Susan either, despite the fact that she had taken her case against Obama’s use of that number to court in her native Ohio.

That got me to wondering just who(m) did Garrow talk to. I contacted Joel Gilbert, producer of the widely seen documentary, Dreams from My Real Father.

“Not me or anyone I know or interviewed in Obamaworld. Not Malik or Keith etc.,” Gilbert replied.

Malik would be Obama’s half-brother and the best man at his wedding, Malik Obama. Keith Kakugawa, was Obama’s best friend in high school. He appears frequently in Dreams as “Ray.”

Gilbert added, “We know he interviewed Barry, which is a red flag! Claim sounds like BS.”

I reached out to Charles Johnson, founder of Gotnews.com and a deep Obama researcher. Johnson is also the possessor of an early draft of Dreams. Said Johnson of Garrow’s claimed thousand interviews, “I think he is lying.”

“He never contacted me,” said Jerry Corsi who led the quest to secure Obama’s birth certificate at WND and in a best-selling book.

Given that Garrow has reportedly discussed Obama’s alleged bisexuality, I thought for sure he would have interviewed Larry Sinclair.

In June 2008, Sinclair held a press conference at the august National Press Club in Washington to discuss what he claimed were his drug-fueled sexual assignations with Obama in Chicago.

The media called the conference a “circus act” and refused to follow up. To be sure, they did not review his book, Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder. For all his eccentricities, Sinclair tells a convincing tale.

I reached out to Sinclair through Facebook. “I just don’t know any David Garrow,” he told me, “nor have I given any interviews in last couple of years as I have been restoring a neglected community.”

When I told Sinclair that Garrow has not interviewed anyone I know who knows anything about Obama, he replied, “That doesn’t surprise me considering he is connected to the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] which listed me as a racist and hate group promoter.”

Finally, though, I did hear from one fellow whom Garrow had contacted, John Drew. Drew met Obama in December 1980 in California. He had flown to visit his girlfriend and fellow traveler, Caroline Boss. A few years earlier, Drew had founded the Marxist-Socialist group at Occidental College.

Drew was at Boss’s parents’ home when an expensive luxury car with two well-dressed young men pulled up. One was Obama, the other Hassan Chandoo, “They’re on our side,” Boss told him.

Throughout the long evening, the group talked Marxist politics. Drew recalled Obama repeatedly using the phrase “When the revolution comes.”

Drew met Obama on several occasions in the future. “At that time,” say Drew, “the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps — for the first time — considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism.”

Garrow interviewed Drew in December 2011. He told Drew that his next stop was to visit Caroline Boss. It appeared that he had already interviewed others at Occidental.

“From a recent radio interview,” Drew said, “I’m not sure that you or I had much impact on [Garrow’s] thinking. He believes one of Obama’s friends at Harvard Law School helped with the rewrite of Dreams and not Bill Ayers. (This just seems absolutely stupid to me.)”

Drew continued, “Darrow also dismissed the ‘conspiracy theories’ that Obama was a Marxist, Muslim, or gay. Although I use the broadest definitions, I see Obama as all three. I’m not even sure I made the final cut of the book at this point.”

When I asked Drew if he minded if I quoted him, he replied, “Not at all. I think Garrow made a huge mistake by not speaking with you.”

The New York Times has already panned the book. It will probably flop. My suspicion at this point is that it will be too honest for the left and not honest enough for the right.

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