Turley To Speak At Utah Valley University

I have the pleasure of speaking today and tomorrow at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. I will be speaking on Wednesday on “A Crisis of Faith: How Trump Has Changed Journalism in America.” The speech will explore the history and evolution of American journalism as well as the challenges presented in the last two years. While I have been critical of President Donald Trump over his attacks on the media, I also believe that American media has become more partisan and biased in its coverage. The speech will look at the changing standards and economics governing journalism in America.

The speech will take place at the UVU at the Fulton Library (Bingham Gallery).

The Center for Constitutional Studies at the Utah Valley University will hold the conference entitled 2019 First Amendment Conference: Freedom of the Press in Tumultuous Times.

It is another incredible conference by the CCS. I have had the pleasure of watching UVU blossom with the university itself into a major academic center. UVU is truly one of the greatest success stories in academic development and the CCS offers programs that bring together academics from all over the world.

The trip also brings me back to one of my favorite places in the world. As an avid hiker, Utah is an endless adventure of breathtaking sights and gorgeous trails. The national and state parks are experiences that everyone should enjoy at some point in their lives. I am hoping that news in Washington does not force me back prematurely but I brought my gear in the hopes of hitting the trails after my speeches in Orem.

167 thoughts on “Turley To Speak At Utah Valley University”


    “Ex-Obama Counsel Expects to Be Charged Soon in Mueller-Related Case”

    WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, expect him to be indicted in the coming days on charges related to his work for the Russia-aligned government of Ukraine.

    The case against Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

    An Ivy League-educated lawyer who held prominent positions in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Mr. Craig would become the first person who made his name in Democratic Party politics to be charged in a case linked to the special counsel’s investigation.

    – NY Times

    1. NEWSFLASH –


      “Two men drove up to my mailbox late at night and told me that the government had been politically weaponized against candidate Donald Trump.”

      – John Soloman, The Hill

      1. Don’t those ’60’s radical, activist, hippie, parasitic, communist revolutionaries seem familiar?

        Did they have TDS then?

        “For What It’s Worth”
        Buffalo Springfield

        There’s something happening here
        But what it is ain’t exactly clear

        There’s battle lines being drawn
        Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
        Young people speaking their minds
        Getting so much resistance from behind

        What a field day for the heat
        A thousand people in the street
        Singing songs and carrying signs
        Mostly saying, “hooray for our side”

        Paranoia strikes deep
        Into your life it will creep
        It starts when you’re always afraid
        Step out of line, the men come and take you away

        We better stop
        Children, what’s that sound?
        Everybody look – what’s going down?

  2. Mr. Kurtz,
    Maybe they’re obsessed
    because they fear that the Russians🤪😳 are actually running Fox News.

    1. Tom, Fox News is, and has always been owned by a Native Australian who actually spent most of his life in London. There, in the British capital, Rupert Murdoch is well-known as a frequent visitor to 10 Downing Street.

      Murdoch meddles politically on 3 different continents. In fact a conservative government in Australia was denying climate change while droughts became an issue. That denial was in consideration of Rupert Murdoch who still wields power there.

      Fox News viewers might be interested to know that Murdoch’s longtime co-invester is Prince Waleed of Saudi Arabia, a mega wealthy investor known for business savvy. The Prince owned roughly 40% of Fox News as measured by his investments in Murdoch’s empire.

      But did Fox viewers know a Saudi Prince owned that much of Fox? I’d love to see a poll on that. I think viewers imagine Fox News as totally American. They don’t know the owner is like a British Lord. And his longtime investment partner is a Saudi Prince. It doesn’t matter. Fox viewers also watch The Country Music Channel. Networks they perceive as very American.

        1. Yes, Tom I was off. But my ratio of ownership, in comparison to Murdoch’s, is not that far off. This is from the article:

          “The Murdochs control about 39% of the voting rights in Fox, giving them control of the key decisions, but own only about 17% of the shares”.

          See that, the Murdoch’s actually own just 17% of the stock. Which is worth several billion, of course. But that 6% the prince owned is almost one third of 17%. So my ratio of ownership, as compared to Murdoch’s, isn’t that inaccurate. The Prince’s 6% was probably worth several billion dollars.

          One should note that William Paley controlled CBS for several decades while owning just 6% of the stock. That was still enough to make Paley very rich.

          1. Prince Alweed is no longer involved. I think he owned about half of what you say and I think the value was around 1.5Billion. I don’t think he had voting shares. It isn’t unusual for people with loads of money to invest in multiple sectors of the world’s economy all around the world. Non voting shares are different from voting shares so one’s personal equity in the business need not be the same % as one’s shares.

          2. what matters is who has a plurality of voting shares to secure directorships to elect officers teams who chart and execute the course of he company. that is called control.

            nonvoting shares don’t matter for control.

            1. Kurtz, you’re always asking why I’m obsessed with Fox News. This came to my attention just this morning:

              “Forty percent of Trump voters cited Fox News as their “main source” of news about the 2016 campaign, according to the Pew Research Center. Next in line was CNN, which a mere 8 percent of Trump voters cited as their “main source.”

              That same survey drives at why Fox News deserves special consideration in the pantheon of influential media organizations. Voters for Hillary Clinton showed no corresponding devotion in terms of their news sources, as 18 percent cited CNN, 9 percent cited MSNBC, 8 percent cited Facebook, and so on. There’s simply no outlet that dominates any other part of the political spectrum in the way Fox News dominates the right”.

              Edited from: “Yes, Fox News Matters A Lot”

              Today’s WASHINGTON POST

  3. Depends on which “Fox News Host” you’re looking at.
    It’s generally the same with other cable news networks .
    I have’t had cable or dish access for years, but “on the road” I still catch CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC and others from time to time.
    Maybe things have changed, but I’ll watch Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, and John King on CNN.
    There are others that WAY below the standards of those I mentioned.
    Despite your obsession (and that of others), FOX NEWS isn’t the only media outlet.
    There’re one news organization among many.
    And the people you or I can cite as “not humble” on FOX and a VERY small percentage of the working press.
    My previous comments were based on a “macro- view” of characteristics of those on the media.
    Citing some jerk at Fox does not alter or undercut that macro-view I presented; that us, that overall, there is a tendency for many of those in the media industry who think their **** smells pretty good.
    I’ve met and interacted with enough of them to base that observation on more than a “distant” observation as a “media consumer”.
    To your earlier point about sending reporters to backwater ( relatively small) markets; that would not produce “conservative journalists”.
    More likely, a good percentage of those reporters sent/ based there would see it as their evangelical obligation to guide those readers/viewers in their market to the “righteous path” of liberal groupthink.
    In other words, the area market would not shape them so much as their desire to idealogically influence those in their area/ market.

  4. If addressing the change most of it from what I can see ties to the 1998 change to allow 24 hour broadcasting. It was done under the Clinton administration. CNN lobbied the FCC to allow 24 hour coverage. The warnings were clear. As soon as they went for profit, 24×7 then they’d run out of things to say fast, end up overhyping stories, not properly vetting stories, etc. And that’s exactly what happened. Remember all we heard for months was Chandra Levy. They hung Gary Condit , a California congressmen out to dry, speculating endlessly because the “news” had been read and now all they had was “talk”. Gossip. And they had half the country and the DOJ believing Gary Condit had killed her. A long time after they ruined his career, it came out it was a foreigner. And no one cared any more. That was the beginning of the end of the free press. Now its a Fee press.

    1. By the way, if you get a chance head down to Bryce and stay at the Bryce Valley Inn. If you follow the dirt roads behind it they lead to the edge of Bryce Canyon area along with some amazing hidden farmland. You will love it.


    Here in Hollywood most of us have taken screenwriting workshops at one point or another. Whether one becomes an actual screenwriter, actor, director or agent, an understanding of story-telling techniques is helpful.

    One basic premise of screenwriting is this: “The hero must be sympathetic with a positive goal”.

    If the hero is unlikable or his goal is negative, the script might never sell. There are always exceptions, of course. But sympathetic heroes with positive goals are generally considered essential.

    This brings us to a phenomenon that forever baffles American conservatives: “Why mainstream media seems hostile conservative candidates and agendas”.

    Mainstream media seems hostile because conservative candidates are often ‘less’ than sympathetic. What’s more, conservative goals are frequently negative.

    Republican candidates are often under pressure to show how ‘tough’ they are. They have to be tough on crime, welfare cheats and more recently immigrants. In fact, the pressure to sound tough compelled Mitt Romney to identify as a ‘severe conservative’. Like ‘conservative’ alone wasn’t tough enough.

    Consumers of right-wing media expect their candidates to stake a number of positions to display their ideological backbone. Candidates must champion tax cuts regardless of fiscal realities. They must champion cuts to social programs and safety nets. The EPA must be singled out as a plague to businessmen. Regulations in general must be scorned as oppressive to business. Women’s rights must be checked to prevent ‘Fem-Nazis’ from ‘murdering their babies’.

    All these goals that Republicans commonly cherish might warm the hearts of ‘severe conservatives’. But these goals generally sound negative outside right-wing media.
    Cutting taxes to the wealthy, for instance, sounds insane when millions of Americans can barely pay their rent. Denying Climate Change seems tone deaf as time-lapse photography documents melting glaciers.

    Opposition to abortion plays big to evangelicals. But to educated women, in large metro areas, threats to reproductive rights sounds regressive at best. It sounds like conservatives want to take women back to the 1950’s.

    Therefore it should be no surprise that conservatives and their goals get bad coverage in mainstream media. Candidates who beat their chests to show how tough they are tend to look ridiculous. And cutting social safety nets to pay for tax cuts sounds aggressively stupid.

    So there you have it: “Simple reasons mainstream media seems hostile to conservatives”.

    1. Peter Shill is a sad paid troll conspiracy monger addicted to fake news outlets

      “addictions are so sad”, Sissy and LaVonda
      Sordid Lives

      1. Tom, should there be affirmative action quotas for journalists?

        Here’s the truth: “People who rise to the highest levels of journalism are generally well-educated, well-traveled and have lived in more than one major metro area”.

        Now people fitting that profile are not inclined to be conservative. Education, travel and residency in major metro areas tends give people a more liberal outlook. And one can see those dynamics among Republicans.

        For decades the most moderate Republicans tended to live in the northeast, west coast or suburbs of Chicago. They were the establishment, corporate Republicans. Some still exist, but they’re endangered species in the Trump era.

        The most conservative Republicans typically live in smaller states lacking major metro areas. Kansas, South Carolina and Wyoming come to mind.

        So if conservatives think the media should be more conservative, then perhaps media companies should be based in Wichita or O K City. Never mind that big news rarely happens in those cities. Keeping journalists in places like that would definitely offset any liberal bias.

        1. Peter

          1. Tom, you would have us believe that Fox News hosts are paragons of humility? Why sure, they all have the soft-spoken nature of people whose feet are close to the earth. People who know what it’s like to walk barefoot on dewy grass. And Rush Limbaugh is so laid back he’s been compared to the Dalai Lama. ..Yeah, ‘right’..!

            1. why are you people obsessed with fox news and talking about it all the time? i could throw any number of topics up here that are worth talking about and you guys always come back to

              1- fox news bad
              2- orange man bad
              3- russia russia russia

              now i realize that journalism was the topic so I guess its fair.

              IMO journalism has always been little better than propaganda.
              some of it is more factual than others
              even the best of it serves the ownership interests

              this morning on npr they had a guy on talking about his bio on lbj
              he was talking about how much LBJ hated the kennedys
              he never suggested what i and many others believe that lbj green liighted a cabal to whack him. …. but i had to tune out when it turned to that time frame anyhow.

              early in the internview they asked him about wanting to “write for a newspaper that took sides” etc. he did not shy away from saying that was what he had tried to do all his life.

              bunch of liberals talking to themselves there like no knuckle draggers from flyover like me were listening. and there was no pretense of “objectivity” in that part of the conversation

              look it up you might enjoy the interview. cant recall the guy’s name

              drop a link here if you do and I will finish listening

              1. Mr. Kurtz,
                That sounds like Robert Caro….he’s compiled a series of biographies on LBJ over the years, covering different time frames and aspects of LBJ’s life and presidency.
                I haven’t read any of Caro’s works, but I’ve seen him in a number of good interviews over the years.
                Did he mention Jumbo in the NPR interview?
                One interviewer pressed Caro about Jumbo, and Caro answered him somewhat reluctantly.

        2. you got it wrong peter. actually liberal tone is required by editors who are generally executing orders from corporate ownership.

          90% of this revolves around what they think drives sales of advertising which were all the real money in legacy mass media comes from.

          10% of this is just vaguely held cultural notions, around what’s good for business in america particularly publically owned business which owns more and more of the legacy media, that they want to “educate” us about as we listen to their garbage. So…..

          free markets, free trade,
          equality, tolerance diversity and other meaningless shibboleths
          liberation, democracy, revolution
          social security and other welfare type programs
          whatever signs kids up for school
          fun stuff that people can find out about in the paper/ tv who will pay for advertising (insert local advertising buyers special interests: _____________________)
          especially sports whatever

          anything old fashioned or conventional which might bore people
          “gun crime” of any sort although because attracts eyeballs
          “sexual crimes” of any sort although good because attracts eyeballs
          “corruption” although good because people want to read that too
          extremism although good because that gets looks too
          “hate” etc

          really really bad:

          -anything overly complicated or certainly boring to viewers like in depth treatments of complicated social or economic issues.
          -anything that reflects poorly on the ownership or their particular interests

          Really that is what it’s all about. The business of attracting eyeballs so they can sell advertising drives 90% of it and the other 10% of it comes from vaguely held cultural preferences.

          you get the idea.

          1. Well Kurtz, you live in Chicagoland. I would be willing to bet that Republicans on the North Shore, for instance, are more moderate than Republicans in Peoria, for instance. in fact, I understand Chicago suburbs are trending more liberal than ever. And those dynamics are what I’m talking about here.

            In almost every country throughout the world educated people in the biggest cities are more liberal than people in the backwood hamlets. Remember that populist uprising in Iran during the Arab Spring? Those were educated youths in Tehran, Iran’s biggest city by far. The Revolutionary government draws most of it’s support from the provinces.

            The Jews in prewar Germany were concentrated in Berlin. And Hitler blamed Berlin’s decadence on that Jewish population. They were the liberals, of course. Hitler’s support definitely came from the smaller cities.

            1. I can agree with some of what you say there but please dont start on Hitler, it has very little to do with where we are today.

              Hitler spent his youth in Linz Austria the third largest city in austria at that time. In German politics the NSDAP drew support from cities as well as countryside. He could not have won a plurality in the 1932? elections without significant support from the cities.

              Hitler was not a conservative. He was a nationalist. Von Papen and Hindenburg were conservatives and they made a coalition government with him. But in the context of European Continental politics, nationalists were more progressive than conservatives by far. For example. There was lots of social legislation in the Reich for protection of the workers and so forth. There is a book I saw once called “the nazi war on cancer” that elaborated on product and workplace safety regulations in the interests of the Volk. Ie the people, or, society. It is not entirely false to say they were socialists of a certain variety. National socialists rather than liberal socialists, ie, mensheviks, and certainly not Bolsheviks.

              There is a book out there called “Fascism Viewed from the Right” which is a critique of both NS and Mussolini style fascism by Julius Evola an intellectual who was considered something of an ally of both, but years after the war elaborated on his personal dislikes of the two systems. If you are into the history of Continental politics might be worthwhile but you probably wouldn’t like it.

              In short, however, you have to understand the American experience had no period of legal aristocracy post 1789. It was abolished. So, “conservativism” here starts with men who were all rich themselves for the most part and agreed on capitalism as a norm. The only lmitation on that was slavery often considered a feudal relic, properly so. But remember a “conservative” in Europe may be someone who looks back to the pre-Revolutionary time period before 1789 and indeed might have titles of aristocracy and so forth. That’s what a conservative used to be in Europe. So for example, sometimes that older right was associated with Charles Maurras, before him De Maistre, and later after them, Brazilian Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, about the only one I could think of from the Americas. That kind of conservativism just never existed here unless it was part of the Loyalists who lost the war of independence I guess. Even in England the aristocratic “conservatives” were more capitalistic than the Continentals. But that is getting too complicated. Trying to keep it short. and failing.

              Back to the bete noire for a moment, Germany. Who was the greatest intellectual of the Nazi party? None other than Martin Heidegger the most important philosopher of the 20th century, by far, who has inspired decades of leftists since he quit the party and the war was done and over. And for good reason. I won’t bore you with him again, however.

              1. Kurtz, I didn’t mean to get you started. Conservative and Nationalist are often linked. But the range is broad, of course, and varies by country.

                The coolest conservatives, though, tend to be more moderate. Like Ronald Reagan, for instance. We knew he and Nancy would retire in West L.A. That was reassuring. West L.A. is very liberal.

        3. and it hardly matters because syndication is what supplies content to anthing but the biggest cities anyhow, isnt that right?

          it all is coming down from above in legacy media, which is a big reason it stinks so badly, fox included, and people go on the net to do their own diligence

          in short, it’s a business, and you liberals get that when you’re taking a paycheck, following the editor’s orders, but then you act like they are high holy priests of truth rather than a bunch of glorified advertising broadsheets. ridiculous.

          liberals, mistrust big business habitually, unless it’s the mass media. then they’re like the Holy Inquisition. Really hilarious if you ask me,

      1. Matt Taibbi on the Russian collusion story:

        “There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.””

        1. You’re leaving out one alternative possibility. The role of the unwitting stooge.

  6. Lets talk about Andrew Yang’s UBI and how automation and artificial intelligence will decimate the workforce not too far off. This concern is very real and not overstated.

    Value added tax on Silicon Valley can pay for it. We need this NOW before they get the stronger AGI online and then it will be too late


    Andrew Yang says Boston may be a winner of what’s been dubbed the “fourth industrial revolution” — but only relatively.

    The 44-year-old acclaimed entrepreneur is running a unique campaign in the crowded field of Democratic presidential candidates on a platform to address the effects of “the biggest economic and technological transformation in the history of our country,” which he blames for the current “political and social disfunction.”

    Experts predict that anywhere between 15 and 40 percent of jobs will be eliminated by artificial intelligence and automation in the next 15 years, likely quicker than the economy will replace them. And while the Boston area may not suffer the same level of job displacement that is ravaging other parts of the United States, Yang says local residents will feel the impact in other ways, if they haven’t already.

    “The most proximate cause of Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 was that we automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,” he told Boston.com in an interview ahead of his rally Wednesday evening on Boston Common. “And we’re about to do the same thing to millions of retail jobs, call center jobs, fast food jobs, truck driving jobs, and on and on through the economy.”

    The son of Taiwanese immigrants, Yang attended Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire and Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and says there “wasn’t a year that went by” that he didn’t visit friends of family in Boston. To this day, his conversations with local residents of the city help inform his worldview. Yang says one Boston-based venture capitalist told him that half of the business plans he now sees involve significant “headcount” reductions through technology.

    “It’s not enough to say, ‘Hey, we’re going through this process,’” Yang said. “You have to advance meaningful solutions.”

    His solution is relatively straightforward: Give $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year, to every American citizen over the age of 18.

    A form of universal basic income, Yang’s so-called “Freedom Dividend” is the centerpiece of his campaign. He says it would end poverty in the “most direct manner possible,” support those whose lives have been disrupted by AI and automation, and share the prosperity the new economy has created (and thus far distributed unevenly).

    1. lets see, Elon Musk says it’s a real concern, he knows, he deploys existing forms of AI and robotics in the workplace. should we listen?


      I have been bookmarking articles like this for 3 years. So far almost no politicians have touched on it outside a few obscure Labor MPs in England. Yang is a genius to bring this up, not a second too soon~

      1. here is what the pro AI lackeys say


        ai will destroy jobs yes but it will create them

        LOL! if you are a middle or near retirement worker whose job is destroyed, GOOD LUCK RETRAINING TO BE A ROBOT HANDLER

        Teamsters Union, which I like, sadly, asleep at the wheel on this issue, abdicating leadership like they have done in avoiding the immigration impact on their rank and file

        1. somebody can get behind paywall and post this text?


          April 1, 2019 6:04 p.m. ET
          Autonomous cars, cashier-less stores, chatbots. Artificial intelligence already is changing the way we live and work, and machine learning promises to transform the world in ways we can’t even imagine.

          Businesses are racing to adopt AI technology, betting it will help them boost productivity and cut costs. A recent global survey of chief information officers by Gartner Inc. found that more than 90% plan to have deployed AI technology in their companies in some way within the next three years.

          1. and let me ask you this. if you are old enough to remember what it’s like when a human answers a phone, would you say customer service is better now, talking to a machine? lol

            how’s it like finding something at walmart if you dont know where? oh, sorry, no workers to be found. how about the checkout lines? oh sorry get in line for the computer, only two humans working and the line is a half hour long. it’s so wonderful!

            one could go on and on. i may sound like a curmudgeon, but you will live to remember when you were warned, and did not listen.

            the promise of technology is generally just to enhance profits for those who first are deploying it. everything else is secondary.

            AI is going to be a doozy. nobody knows where it will go. why? BECAUSE IT WILL BE ABLE TO GO PLACES ALL ON ITS OWN. IT’S PROGRAMS WRITING PROGRAMS. Controlling it alone is an unsolved technological quandry that has not been fully addressed let alone impact on society.

            Climate change, ha. Bigger changes are coming, faster, that will make that seem like a quaint concern by contrast.


            1. its funny because i have been mentioning this to my personal contacts for years and they just get a glassy look in their eyes like I’m boring them., at best they reference Hal. Open the pod doors Hal. Kubrick, the prophet.

              This coming change will dwarf everything we have seen before including the development of nuclear energy and weapons. 30 years or so out it is an event horizon. Cant see where this is going, nobody can.

              Now some crazy fools like Kurzweil think they will upload their brains to the internet and live forever and it will be freakin nirvana. ha., wow. What a nut. But the one thing Kurzweil will be proven to be correct about is not that kind of nonsense but rather the speed at which this is approaching. the change will be geometric not arithmetic progression.


              three weeks old from that story on march 15, Google already disbanded its socalled ethics board. Whow knows why? I have a guess.

              The only ethics here is the one that Frederick Nietzsche identified: will to power. and once this genie’s out of the bottle, it’s going to have its own will.

              1. Legal scholars are so far, not coming up with much in the way of ideas. Not in America at least. there’s a flicker here and there, viz below MIT course

                At least the war machine gets how dangerous this may become. of course they want the weapon first. but at least they understand it will be weaponized.

              2. I guess Frank Herbert covered this in the 80s too, novel “the white plague” and the “butlerian jihad” of Dune’s backstory

                then of course farther back, isaac asimov, I Robot

    2. Macroeconomics may not be Mr. Yang’s strong suit. $12,000/year in every adult’s hot little hands will drive prices at least basic goods and services up to the point that poverty would be in no danger of ending. Certainly, New York and other megalopoli will experience an explosion of “welfare hotels”.

      Any retiree depending on Social Security can tell you that $1000/month won’t get all of the bills paid. Something like COLA will soon be discovered to be necessary to keep the citizen/clients’ heads above water.

      Cutting all the unionized bureaucrats in the Social Security Administration, once everyone is entitled to that $12,000/year may reduce the total bill somewhat, but it’s still not going to be even remotely sustainable without swingeing taxation of every salaried worker all the way down to the working poor.

      1. Jean

        I agree the impact on inflation is worth studying. That is the main negative concern, you really hit the nail on the head.

        VAT on digital empires’ products finances it.
        Jeff Bezos won’t like that, but he doesn’t like forcing his customers to pay sales tax either, but he does.

  7. Professor Turley, you might hop over to Salt Lake City and inquire as to the proceedings of U.S. Attorney, District of Utah, John Huber whom Attorney General Jeff Sessions

    “…quietly tapped…to work in tandem with the Justice Department’s inspector general to determine whether conservative allegations of abuse at the FBI and the Justice Department merit investigation.”

    – The Hill

    Given the long list of co-conspirators to the Obama Coup D’etat in America, U.S. Attorney Huber undoubtedly found himself in a target-rich environment and is loaded with criminal referrals after earning every penny of his hard earned and generous government salary.

    To wit,

    Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates,

    Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson,

    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett,

    Sessions, Obama et al.

    1. NEWSFLASH –


      “Two men drove up to my mailbox late at night and told me that the government had been politically weaponized against candidate Donald Trump.”

      – John Soloman, The Hill

  8. Superb….strangely from Wah Putz


    Barr’s announcement was a thunderclap to mainstream news outlets and the cadre of mostly liberal-leaning commentators who have spent months emphasizing the possible-collusion narrative in opinion columns and cable TV panel discussions.

    “Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media,” Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi wrote in a column published Saturday, a day before Barr nailed the collusion coffin shut. He added: “Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population.”

    Taibbi wrote that the reporting and commentary asserting collusion between Trump and Russia belonged in the dustbin of other discarded stories, such as Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in 2003. He even called out “Saturday Night Live” — one of Trump’s favorite Twitter foils — for a cast singalong to Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You” that featured the line: “Mueller, please come through, because the only option is a coup.”

    Journalist and commentator Glenn Greenwald — a longtime skeptic of the collusion angle — tweeted his contempt for the media coverage on Sunday, too: “Check every MSNBC personality, CNN law ‘expert,’ liberal-centrist outlets and #Resistance scam artist and see if you see even an iota of self-reflection, humility or admission of massive error.”

    Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian election interference is over. Here’s what we know. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)

    He added: “While standard liberal outlets obediently said whatever they were told by the CIA & FBI, many reporters at right-wing media outlets which are routinely mocked by super-smart liberals as primitive & propagandistic did relentlessly great digging & reporting.”

    Greenwald reserved special vitriol for MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who he said “went on the air for 2 straight years & fed millions of people conspiratorial garbage & benefited greatly.”

    An MSNBC representative declined to comment Sunday; CNN’s representatives did not respond.

  9. the Liberal News Media failed Americans.

    Thankfully AG William Barr is opening investigations on issues long overdue


    Barr: ‘I Think Spying’ On Trump Campaign ‘Did Occur’

    Attorney General William Barr told a Senate panel Wednesday that he believes American “intelligence agencies” did spy on the Trump campaign but said he has not yet determined whether there was a proper justification for that surveillance.

    “I think spying did occur,” Barr said during a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee. “But the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I am not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated. . . . I am not suggesting those rules were violated, but I think it is important to look at that. And I am not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.”

    “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal — it’s a big deal,” he added.

    Barr was addressing a question from Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) about the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. Intelligence officials involved in the probe relied in part on the Steele dossier — an unsubstantiated opposition-research file compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele — to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page, but did not tell the FISA court that the dossier was commissioned by a company contracted by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

    Barr told lawmakers Wednesday that he will form a team to investigate whether those FBI and Department of Justice officials misled the FISA court to further a partisan attack on Trump’s campaign.

    “I’m not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that,” Barr said.

    “I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of the intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016,” he added.

    The attorney general made clear, however, that his investigation will be focused on the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign and will not encompass the entire FBI.

    “This is not launching an investigation of the FBI,” he added. “To the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon, so I don’t like to hear attacks of the FBI.”



    Since the Nixon era, conservatives have whined about negative portrayals in mainstream media. Fox News, in fact, was founded in part by former Nixon supporters who felt conservatives needed their own network to prevent another Watergate. They weren’t seeking to prevent abuses that led to Watergate, mind you. No, their real concern was countering mainstream coverage of conservatives.

    In other words, Fox News was born from a desire to ‘obstruct’ mainstream media. The concept was to provide 24 hour spin in which mainstream talking points would be constantly questioned, doubted and distorted. Fox would make every effort to play on the fears of conservative viewers. Liberals would be portrayed as homegrown enemies bent on the destruction of ‘traditional values’.

    Fox News rose in tandem with A M Talk Radio. Rush Limbaugh inspired a wave of conservative radio hosts who made it their business to buttress Fox News talking points. Like Fox News these hosts pandered to fear!! Listeners were constantly updated regarding liberal agendas to ‘undermine traditional values’. An ‘us versus them’ mentality clearly took hold. There was money to be made promoting polarization. Right-wing media became a major industry.

    At one point, in the Bush era, I learned that right-wing media hosts were actually making a conscious effort to always link the word ‘liberal’ with terms repellant to conservatives. Terms that reinforce conservative fears and perceptions. Like ‘flaky liberals’, ‘nutty liberals’, ‘godless liberals’, ‘liberals, gays and feminists’, ‘liberals gays and Blacks’. These last two phrases got heavy rotation.

    The idea was to make the term ‘liberal’ synonymous with gays, Blacks and feminists. There was a strong purpose to these links. Right-wing media emasculated ‘liberal’ to make the term abhorrent to White men in small towns. So they would literally keep their mouths shut regarding any view not solidly conservative. The last thing White men wanted was having their buddies link them to ‘gays, Blacks and feminists’.

    Over time the word ‘liberal’ was shortened to ‘libs’. Never mind that ‘libs’ sounds oddly like ‘jews’. It would be subtle enough to convey the same threat level Jews posed to Nazi values. Like Jews in Nazi Germany, ‘libs’ were godless traitors trying to subvert traditional values. ‘Libs, however proved a little too obnoxious for even right-wing media. Therefore ‘liberals’ became ‘leftists’; a term that historically referred to actual communists and Marxist sympathizers.

    This brings us to the Trump era where conservatives now use ‘leftist’ in reference to any non-supporter of Donald Trump. You either support Trump 100% or you’re a leftist. What’s more the communist threat has made a huge comeback in the Trump era. Almost every liberal viewpoint is now interpreted as communist in nature. Comprehensive healthcare, renewable energies and taxes on the wealthy are all portrayed as ‘communist’ threats by today’s right-wing media.

    With regards to Trump himself, right-wing media is flexible; adjusting coverage to suit the moment. If the topic concerns Robert Mueller or the Russia Probe, Trump is portrayed as a fine statesmen undeserving of a smear campaign. But on those days when Trump behaves like an unhinged, irrational bully, right-wing media reminds us that ‘voters wanted Trump to shake things up’. Never mind that Trump lost the Popular Vote by two percentage points. In right-wing media a fluke of an Electoral College victory is typically portrayed as a mandate for boorish behavior.

    1. except there was right wing media all along. just not as successful as FOX. and I am not sure how different FOX really is from the rest. and they got rid of Roger Ailes and a few others too in a purge not so long ago so maybe it will meet your tastes better ere too long

      1. Kurtz, I think their viewership is gradually moving towards more specific content as Fox News suspends people that have said nothing wrong. Some people from the left are joining that movement.

    2. “Fox News was born from a desire to ‘obstruct’ mainstream media”

      Left wing sociopaths that desire only their voice to be heard cannot function like normal adults because one station deviated from their left wing viewpoints and became centrist right rather than a voice for the left. Thus to TDS we can add FDS.

  11. I hope someone will video your UVU talk, or at least post a transcript.

    One of my big concerns about journalism is that the profession has not developed countermeasures to effectively beat back infowarfare (deceitful opinion-shaping campaigns waged by trained pros). The toolset of infowarriors has exploded in the past 15 years. The most advanced infowarfare “universities” are the state intelligence services such as CIA and FSB.

    It’s not enough that journalism adhere to traditional standards. It has to deeply understand the methods of professional infowarriors (including PR flaks), and devise effective countermeasures. Part of this “narrative vs. truth” competition implies that journalists police their own ranks to weed out and expose infowarriors.

    I hope you’ll discuss audience abandonment of biased/untrustworthy media sources as the primary tool for disciplining errant journalism in a 1st Amendment society.

  12. This just in from the Ministry of If You Say or Do Anything That is Contrary to Our Agenda We Will Do Our Level Best to Destroy Your Life and Career:

    “Kirstjen Nielsen’s Job Prospects Are Probably Pretty Slim”


    Sounds like Professor Turley’s talk will be both thought provoking and interesting. If he isn’t careful, he could end up like Kirstjen. But if he plays his cards right he could end up with book deals and gofundme’s like Jim, Andrew, and Christine.

    1. RL Burns, step forward. RL Burns? Anybody named RL Burns here? OK Who’s Dick Burns in here? remember that from SNL? Long time ago

    2. Let this be a warning to you, brought to you by the Ideas section of the Boston Globe:

      “Keep Kirstjen Nielsen Unemployed and Eating Grubhub Over
      Her Kitchen Sink

      A petition from a coalition of progressive groups calls on American CEOs to refuse to give jobs to former members of the Trump administration. That’s a good start.

      One of the biggest regrets of my life is not pissing in Bill Kristol’s salmon.”


      Not only will you have to eat by yourself in the faculty lunchroom, but now they will be messing with your lunch.

      1. “A petition from a coalition of progressive groups calls on American CEOs to refuse to give jobs to former members of the Trump administration. That’s a good start.”

        That is what progressives are, racists and demonizers. The Southern Democrats / Progressives wouldn’t even let blacks eat in their restaurants, sleep in their hotels much less mingle with any white person. Remember the white and black drinking fountains? That is the Progressive mindset whether it be of a Progressive President such as Woodrow Wilson or the regular Progressive of the day. Those Progressives didn’t like blacks, Catholics, Irish, Jews and a whole host of other people. Their DNA is filled with racism. Now we hear this type of garbage that jobs should be denied to people that serve our nation and did nothing wrong. We have to remember the same type of jerks spit on our soldiers.

    3. More of what passes for “ideas,” from the same Boston Globe article:

      “White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and others in the administration or associated with Trump — such as Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Mitch McConnell, and white nationalist and dirty coward from the zombie movie who gets everyone else killed Stephen Miller — were themselves being shown the door at restaurants and movie theaters around the country.

      It was the last time I remember being proud to be an American.”

      This message has been approved by the Ministry of If You Say or Do Anything That is Contrary to Our Agenda We Will Do Our Level Best to Destroy Your Life and Career

  13. “While I have been critical of President Donald Trump over his attacks on the media, I also believe that American media has become more partisan and biased in its coverage.”

    What the Professor says about the media is true. We should therefore applaud Donald Trump for his actions to change the media’s behavior. Trump’s behavior might not be of the nature the Professor likes but the more polite behaviour hasn’t worked in decades. I think we all owe Donald Trump our thanks and gratitude for his attempt to move the American media in the right direction.

    1. I totally agree. One of the allowable ways an elected leader can discipline media in a 1st Amendment society is to coach the audience to use its “power of the clicker” — audience abandonment (low ratings). The left is deranged to think that this coaching equates to sending in the police to shut down a media operation.

      1. What a crock. Newspapers (yay!) and cable TV (boo!) are doing fine since Trump’s election, and their bigger problem is the demise of print journalism and how news sources can fund reporters and desks to cover localities, the nation, and the world.

        To the extent people like the regulars here abandon legitimate news sources, it shows. Ya’ll are pretty ignorant of issues and facts not covered by Fox.

      2. Thank you pbianca, but as Trump has done his deed a temporary rise in circulation has occurred as the major newspapers are dealing in fiction like ‘Cow born with 5 heads’. That temporary rise will disappear and print journalism will be on its death bed. We are now seeing the rise of journalism outside of the normal modes. A good deal of what I read comes from responsible parties that rely on a more intelligent readership.

        1. A good deal of what everyone reads is still based on reporting by a limited number of real sources still maintaining reporters and desks around the world and across the nation. Supposed alternative sources are rehashing and spinning these sources, so the ignorant celebration of the very real demise of print and network journalism is a celebration of the lights going out while basking in the confirmation bias their preferred “sources” sell. Enjoy your self imposed brainwashing.

          1. The news that is mostly being distorted, reinvented and refurbished by the NYTimes and Washington Post is mostly political The majority of those stories are directed against Trump by anonymous and unverified sources that have been proven wrong time and time again.

            These stories sell newspapers and the mentally deficient eat them up.

            Many secondary stories arise from this crazyness and are written so that the story represents a more truthful view of what is happening. That type of story isn’t as cartoonish so doesn’t attract the mentally deficient.

  14. The best piece thus far on the failed US liberal media, and perhaps JT can build upon it, was authored by Matt Taibbi. who’s contempt for Trump is only a tad less than his disdain for the US Media. This is coming from a Rolling Stone journalist, no less.



    It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD
    The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it

    Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.

    As has long been rumored, the former FBI chief’s independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no “presidency-wrecking” conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman’s definition of “collusion” with Russia.

    With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of the Mueller investigation was best expressed by the New York Times:

    A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.

    Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to congress summarizing Mueller’s conclusions. The money line quoted the Mueller report:

    [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

    Over the weekend, the Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn of the Trump presidency in Mueller. As with most press coverage, there was little pretense that the Mueller probe was supposed to be a neutral fact-finding mission, as apposed to religious allegory, with Mueller cast as the hero sent to slay the monster.

    The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members singing “All I Want for Christmas is You” to him featuring the rhymey line: “Mueller please come through, because the only option is a coup.”

    The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller’s reputation, noting Trump’s Attorney General William Barr’s reaction was an “endorsement” of the fineness of Mueller’s work:

    In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a “witch hunt,” Mr. Barr said Justice Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.

    Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?

    For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia “contacts,” inviting readers to keep making connections. But in a separate piece by Peter Baker, the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:

    It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress, for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole…

    This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing, emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting “We don’t need to read the Mueller report” because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: “Have journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?”

    The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like itself made galactic errors by betting heavily on a new, politicized approach, trying to be true to “history’s judgment” on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse, in a brutal irony everyone should have seen coming, the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.

    Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.”

    Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller’s final report might leave audiences “disappointed,” as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.

    Openly using such language has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without pants.

    There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn’t prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters! There’s an ongoing grand jury investigation, and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and…

    Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.


    1. We’ve got a gaggle of whispy-bearded (yeah the women, too) Ivy Leaguers trying to set the national discourse from their journalistic pulpits. It’s not working – transparent lies rarely do. They’d be better served writing about things they know. Like sailing conditions off Martha’s Vineyard or the latest swimwear from Katama.

      1. i never heard of katama until you mentioned it. i looked. sorry i don’t pay $175 for a $20 pair of swim trunks. i know, i know. i know, that’s because i live in flyover and voted for Trump

          1. you must have more contact with our betters than i do. shows how low I am on the totem poll. pretty near the dirt. lol

    2. Tabibi is an attention seeking clown who misrepresents the actions of most of the “press” – it’s not a monolith – while taking a victory lap Trump style on a report he hasn’t seen. On one hand he mocks undue reverence for Mueller while later praising his apparently by the book – with no leaks – investigation while under daily attack from Fatso. Which is it? Perhaps Tabibi thinks the press should have given short shrift to the investigation while not uncovering events like the Trump Tower meeting, FISA warrants and the Dossier, etc. Hey, it’s not like headline after headline – and public letters from Comey – about Hillary’s emails were written – they were.

      Maybe Tabibi can see if he can break a story instead of reading Glenn Greenwald all day and prejudging a reoort no one has seen.

      1. which is why Joe Biden would never win the Presidency.
        The Left like L4D live to eat their own, which is aligned with their pro-abortion, disdain for life ethos..

        at least you are consistent

        It is Lent. Metanoia maybe?

        1. Wait! So how has the Democratic candidate won 6 of the last 7 popular votes, and I thought they rigged the primaries for Hillary?

          1. Given your affection and adulation for gays, people of color and journalists, ask Glenn Greenwald and his gay ethnic boyfriend. You cant go wrong

            1. Yeah, ’cause if somebody gay says something, I’m down with it!! Smart call.

              1. gays are like black folks and asians to Democrats. they have to vote for the annointed ones like Hillary or they are just as bad as the rest of us.

                Democrats are equal opportunity haters, kind of like Dirty Harry

                some of you may be too old to get that one. look it up on youtube

          2. The Democrats have won an actual majority twice, and one of them required every contingency break their way. Obama still didn’t do any better than George Bush the Elder did in 1988.

            And, of course, you lost 1,000 state legislative seats during BO’s tenure. Heckuva job.

            1. The Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, including the last, when Hillary’s % margin was equal to or greater than 11 previous elected Presidents. If there numbers encourage absurd and estowhatever, enjoy!!

              1. Actually repeating an inaccurate statement doesn’t make it accurate. This is a real problem with you.

                1. Perhaps you can point whatever inaccuracy you think I’ve stated. Probably not, since it is all factual.

                  1. Oh Anon, How you are inaccurate, let me count the ways……nod to Elizabeth Barrett Browning

                    Anon “Yeah, ’cause if somebody gay says something, I’m down with it!! Smart call.”

                    That is the only strategy Dems have….identity politics. But lo! You now say not all gays are viable! Kinda like how your ilk says not all life is viable. See how that relativism works?

                    Me thinketh the womyn protesteth mucho mucho

                    you can quote me on that

                    See how you missed me?

              2. We have a “federal” structure in our country(for very good reasons) and it’s enshrined in our Constitution with the system of the electoral college. We are a nation of free states whose own people can move to leave that union at their sole discretion at any time. Take away the electoral college and you will inevitably cause the demise of our Union.

                The left never ceases to amaze with their lack of understanding of the Constitution and why our fundamental law is the way that it is. At every turn these days they seek to discard our founding principles seemingly on a whim. It wasn’t always this way, but it is now. This is why I left the left and now see their ideology as the enemy of our Republic.

                1. The electoral college has failed us twice in the last 16 years, putting in office candidates rejected by voters. The supposed benefits of the system typically means that the largest groupings of Americans are completely ignored during campaigns while much smaller but deemed flipable states receive all the attention. There is nothing wise or representative in this flawed scheme.

                  Nothing in the Constitution precludes an end to the winner take all contests – a few states award college votes representationally, while others have voted to award their votes based on the national popular vote. Alternatively we can pass an amendment to change this outmoded system which was a compromise with the slaver states, not some high minded expression of principle as Ivan incorrectly claims.

                  1. it failed YOU not US

                    NO CHANGE IN SENATORS

                    OVER OUR DEAD BODIES

                    we mean that literally — this political question can be resolved the old fashioned way, if you think you can

                    Molon Labe.

                    1. It is true that the minority you belong too is very happy with winning despite not representing the vote or opinions of most Americans.

                      Hey, that internet tough guy stuff really scared me!

                    2. I have no problem with winning under any lawful circumstance.

                      And if you and a currently unwilling army want to try and change the lawful order of our elections, I would welcome the chance to hop off the internet and put some three dimensional energy into that expression “meatspace”

                      I am only a small humble person but i try. as I age I am physically less tough but mentally and psychologically healthier then ever, thank God. Of course I am a little wacky so that may not be saying much.

                  2. “The electoral college has failed us twice in the last 16 years”

                    The electoral college succeeded but to dummies that can’t see farther than their nose it didn’t. Arrogance wipes out the little intelligence they might have in remote areas of the brain.

                2. Ivan, of course you are correct. Our federalist system is gradually being abandoned and the left will gladly put into its place a dictator. Historically this has happened over and over again. One should look at the French Revolution where the Anon’s of the world ended up losing their heads though one cannot be sure if this would change anything in this case.

                  1. they can try. i suspect Obama disappointed them in that regard. for all his many faults he didn’t change much. which is good. in retrospect he will not seem as bad as he was as when he was president saying annoying things all the time

      2. “Barack Obama said in Berlin on Saturday: “One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States … is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad’, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.”


        1. The best Democrat candidates are those unannointed. Which are worth listening to for their frequent good ideas, in spite of some bad ones:


          Andrew Yang

          and the lovely lady from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard

          1. Andrew Yang is making a hell of a good point that the AI is coming to kill jobs like nothing ever seen before. Silicon Valley should be taxed to put $1,000 UBI into every adult’s pocket. Bezos won’t like that much but he can afford it.

            In ten years people will understand how smart a proposal this really was.

            Geo Steph. asked Yang, “isnt this socialism?”

            Yang laughed. he said no, it’s just capitalism which does not start at zero income, rather, $1,000 a month.

            I know the liberterians haven’t figured this one out yet, but they will


            1. if you think about how many people already get FREE STUFF in america, from the elderly on medicare and ss, to the crippled on SSDI including nutters and drunks, to the welfare people (thats like 20 some diff programs from food stamps to section 8 housing) to all the refugees getting resettlement help and all that, the supposed former “alt right” supporters of the YANG GANG is comprised of those who don’t get to “dip their beak” but welcome the chance. what’s fair is fair? ok if everybody gets welfare but us then yeah how about it.

            2. Mr. Kurtz, America is like the board game, Monopoly, it is conducted by rules. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution denies any power by Congress to tax for the purpose of redistribution of wealth or “…individual Welfare…” allowing Congress merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” which includes items such as roads, water, electricity, sewer, trash pick-up, post office, etc.; things all or general, people use in similar amounts and frequency which are not readily available in the free markets of the private sector.

              Article 1, Section 8 also denies any form of regulation by government other than that of trade, exchange or “…commerce…among the several states…” to preclude favor or bias by one state over another. Period. No other regulation is enumerated, valid or legal.

              I regret to inform you that the entirety of the American welfare state is unconstitutional including the pure unconstitutional communism of UBI.

              Mr. Yang or Congress may NOT deprive citizens of their private property as you are aware of the nature of the 5th Amendment. James Madison defined private property as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

              Mr. Yang enjoys the freedom of speech but not the freedom of treason and insurrection. Mr. Yang should be prosecuted for subversion and treason, understanding that Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg were sentenced to death for treason.

              Article 1, Section 8

              The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

              To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

              To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

              5th Amendment

              No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

              Private property is “…that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

              – James Madison

              1. George, the SCOTUS threw that older interpretation in the garbage in the 1930s. You and I can’t turn it back by wasting our breath over it. Time to adjust to the next thing that will crush those of us who are still the living, instead of worrying about old lost causes.

                1. The SCOTUS has zero authority to legislate or modify legislation and one does not “interpret” the clear words of the English language, one simply reads them. You are simply wrong on the facts and your motive, according to your “interpretation,” the Founders wrote the Constitution to say, “Do anything you like.” Unfortunately, you are not a “Great American” – you have no concept of American freedom, the essence of which is freedom from government dictatorship. The whole American thesis is maximal individual freedom coinciding with infinitesimal government.

                  The Constitution enumerates in clear English the power to tax for general or all, the whole or every member, and excludes one or individual, specific or particular.

                  As an analogy, the FBI and co-conspirators threw out the law in the 2016 election, taking political acts, surveiling and counteracting a presidential campaign, and AG Barr is indicating a willingness to go back in time and correct those egregious violations of law committed by the FBI, CIA, DNI, MI5, MI6, ASIS, Obama et al. Apparently, you disagree with that act of retroactive law enforcement, believing that the statue of limitations on usurpation, subversion and treason by the SCOTUS is one day. Do you seriously believe that nullification of the Constitution by the corrupt SCOTUS is an act that must be ignored and overlooked? Do you believe in an omnipotent SCOTUS – that America is a judocracy?

                  It is not inconceivable that some groups will read the Constitution, consider the logic and go back in time to correct egregious violations of law and, specifically, the fundamental law you just referred to.

                  It took six years to end World War II. It took 13 years to repeal the 18th Amendment. It took 40 years to adjudicate and correct criminality in the case of the Golden State Killer.

                  With attitudes such as yours, the rules (i.e. Constitution) change allowing anybody to do anything anytime they want – governance on a whim.

              2. George, Chairman Yang is the first Democrat that actually wants to give some money to a sector of the population that already isn’t getting the handouts. Is it smart to dismiss him as just another commie pink Dem?

                Because the unconstitutionality of all these handouts programs is not coming back. Ever. FDR fixed that goose, killed and cooked it and ate it for dinner. Gone

                Yang is a genius, a brilliant figure, shining forth now like the diamond found in dust. a historical moment in American history when a wise person with long seeing vision hops out of nowhere to speak to what is coming inevitably as a clear danger. We are so lucky! In a way this is like what happened with Donald running for POTUS and adopting fair trade over the free trade dogma so long embraced stupidly by the GOP. Even the Democrats like Clinton who signed the NAFTA and Obama pushing the Pacific deal that would have benefited mostly just China. Trump cut through that like a hot knife through butter!

                Sign me up for my $12 K a year Chairman Yang it will be the first time I ever got a single dollar in transfer payments from the US Government in my life. Even as all these others were dipping their beaks. I never even had a federally guaranteed loan. So let me get a little taste too, eh?

                1. “Be careful what you wish for, you may receive it.”

                  – W. W. Jacobs

                  If democrats wish to ignore the rules, republicans may wish to ignore the rules.

                  If liberals may ignore the rules, so may conservatives.

                  If “Crazy Abe” Lincoln evaded and abused the rules by force, so may a patriotic and constitutional American.

                  If communists have nullified the Constitution, Americans may restore the full force and effect of the “manifest

                  tenor” of the Constitution.

                  1. the difference is the Yankee Army followed Lincoln’s orders which ;ead to a victory in war and Congressional actions after the fact which made his extra-constitutional activities, otherwise

                    the bottom line for any legal system is that it is a system of rules imposed by organized force.

                    now let’s answer your question

                    “Do you seriously believe that nullification of the Constitution by the corrupt SCOTUS is an act that must be ignored and overlooked? Do you believe in an omnipotent SCOTUS – that America is a judocracy?”

                    I do believe that Congress is the Supreme Branch. And that is self evident considering it essentially made the Constitution law in the first place and only it can amend it.

                    But due to judicial review and two centuries of aquiescing to it, the nation’s political system clearly integrates SCOTUS as the Supreme arbiter of intramural disputes over what it means.

                    In theory either branch could challenge that.

                    But me? As a private person I am nothing. No I can’t challenge it. It is not omnipotent, but it is more-potent on any constitutional issue than I am, that’s for sure

                    Sorry to tell you George. but the final arbiter of any ultimate question in politics, is made from a position of power, based on
                    who controls the forces that occupy the field at the end of the war.

                    So if the army obeys the POTUS who obeys the SCOTUS and Congress does not contradict and countermand convincingly, then that’s that

                    if they come into conflict then it is called “constitutional crisis” and the matter is resolved by politics or perhaps by politics and perhaps ultimately the political means of civil war

          2. No one is anointed to be the democratic candidate for president. We have primary elections.

            1. And gay Pete and crony Kamala and Beto the ______ are losers

              Bernie Gabbard and YANG are where the action is at

              it’s ok, I know how it works, you gotta get busy now for da Boss trying to screw the good ideas off to the sidelines in favor of the designated cronies.

              1. The ideas of individul candidates are over rated, though possibly inspirational. Change in America is slow and plodding – that’s how our government is designed – and the party that wins will advance it’s concensus goals – Republicans do tax cuts, Democrats advance social programs. I’m for who ever will win.

                Amy Klobuchar

                1. omg the most boring candidate imaginable. you must be a Trumper in drag. lol. ok! thanks for your support

                  AI will not be slow and plodding. its development is escalating rapidly and when it reaches a certain critical mass it is going to blast things wide open.

                  the extent to which we already have it as deployed by Google or in relational database enterprises like youtube and facebook and twitter ie social media– or in retail like by amazon– is already RAPIDLY CHANGING the literal landscape before our eyes

                  YANG said and he is right that Amazon is KILLING MALLS AND RETAIL JOBS. Kind of like walmart killed small business before it and then there was the transition to exurban big box stores.

                  Well changes like that are inevitable to some degree. But how does society adjust? Well AI beyond just how it’s deployed at amazon will have more as yet unforeseen econmic and social dislocations that will make earlier disruptions seem tame.

                  With the next economic downturn whomever is president will face an unemployment groundswell that will be terrifying

                  Trump is trying to address that with an incremental change aimed at fair trade and industrial revitalization and tax law reform and labor supply restriction that is fine and good and I support it.

                  but neither Trump nor pretty much anybody else is tuned into what is coming besides Yang

                  that is the real reason socalled right wingers are supporting yang. because a lot of supposed right wingers are actually smart and can identify a smart guy when they see one. Yang is smart in so many ways, the more I look into him the more impressed i get.

                  UBI i thought was what we call jokingly a “scientific wild azz guess” type idea when i first studied it. now it makes more and more sense to me. some WAG type guesses are actually near the mark

                  1. Exactly. America is exhausted by Trump’s ego trip and an adult, serious, responsible, pleasant, AND BORING woman is the perfect antidote.

                    Change is happening, but mot as quickly as in our past, and it has to reach crisis stage for the government to react. If you think Trump grasps any of this, or even cares, you’re dreaming.

                    1. No, we don’t need another American version of Frau Merkel or incompetent Theresa May in charge. and quit trying to run back to your favorite tired old subject, bashing Trump. this is an issue that will bite mostly after he is termed out.

                      Change is happening FASTER by far. You are clueless. look into developments in artificial intelligence and robotics.

                      anybody fixiated on gay nonsense in the upcoming cycle is a fool. republicans dont care and Democrats are just autoeroticizing themselves over their last culture wars victory

                      AI is an emergent trend in every field. The changes for some sectors of the workforce are already being felt. The impact will be devestating, soon, to more than just the niche fields that have been affected

                      and by the way a lot of those niche fields are skilled professions, like doctors and lawyers, that in some narrow fields have already been decimated

                      other workers in large sectors will soon be decimated. as Chairman Yang says, good exmaple, is what Amazon has done with its own present level of AI. that is destroying retail bricks and mortar shops. Where will it end?

                      It’s coming to kill the truck drivers too. Ten years, automated fleets. The guys with CDLs making 50-100K now will be out of work sooner than anybody should want

                      wake up, wake up. you Democrats finally have some good ideas percolating, don’t let the cynical careerists like Kamala run them over. For all our sakes!

                    2. As if you resist your auto pilot trashing of Democrats. At least I keep most of bile aimed at just Trump, not his party – an ignorant world class liar, braggart, and pig of a man – anything you disagree with there, let me know.

                      I am well aware of changes affecting our society – big data, internet commerce, increased cultural and geographic mobility – but our recent ancestors experienced the nation moving off the farm, a massive immigration wave, the automobile, electricity and indoor plumbing as SOP, two world wars and the Great Depression – all those occurred in about 50 years. Don’t be a drama queen about our own experiences. That’s a common human position but worth some reflection.

                      In any case, political change that is significant takes time, Beyond process changes like heightened partisanship, the biggest political change of the last 16 years is the almost complete success of gay rights, and that was partly due to courts but also to quickly changing attitudes. Can’t always predict these things. Otherwise, the world and the nation looks much like it did in 2000.

                    3. In my last sentence I should have said “the political world looks much the same…”

                    4. ha anon of course I disagree with you about trump but lets not waste our keystrokes over it

                      as for gay rights you not surprisingly celebrate this imposition of major social change by the SCOTUS down the throats of an american majority that was clearly not behind it at the time. which you pretend to care about, sometimes. Just as how the Democrats or at least the ones from NY and a handful of other states at the time, shoved abortion down the populations throat antidemocratically with Roe. Desegregation was the same. More SCOTUS legislation. But hey I don’t really care about gays getting “married” and I am barely prolife anymore so those are lost causes just like segregation. Who cares. These are not real issues for our day.

                      what is of concern that nobody besides Andrew Yang is discussing is AI and how it will decimate jobs for working people very soon even as it already is doing now under our noses.

                      Chairman Yang, Hail his genius!

                    5. The most amazing thing about gay rights is the social, not legal change which was incredibly fast moving. How that occurred is a case study for someone.

                      I don;t disagree about AI and automation has been moving along quickly to unemploy the unskilled – and some skilled – around the world. This raises the old questions asked in the 60’s when abundance was part of the change agent for dropping out – work would be optional soon. Well, that is actually happening and how we deal with that will be require a major change.

                      Desegregation happened quickly, but tough s..t. That was some f..d up BS. I lived in the deep south then and now, and the power of the federal government to affect change for the good was a lesson well relearned.

            2. LOL you have SUPERDELEGATES read up on that. and quite a few other tricks in the bag. you’re a persistent Hillary sycophant, i know, but for your own good, broaden your horizons some.

              btw. convinced HIllarites are directed to vote for Kamala. She is Hillary’s heir apparent. Your orders have been received, now get to writing copy for Kamala. Or else your invitation to the local Dem powwows is cancelled.

              1. I’m unapologetic Hillary fan – why wouldn’t I be – but went early for Obama in 2007.

                No candidate has won our primary without winning the primaries. The Super-delegates are a proper check by actual party office holders who have to run with the presidential candidate but have so far never swung any convention.

                There are no orders. This isn’t 1952 and party’s have declining power as candidates are not “chosen” they are independent contractors. Catch up to the change.

                1. Amy Klobuchar, the woman who won every congressional district in Minnesota, including the red ones and Michelle Bachman’s old district.

                  She’ll kick Trump’s ass.

                  Cory Booker, VP means male/female, white/black, midwesy/NE, farm/urban, solid/electric.

                  1. Cory Booger wants reparations. Nobody white other than a complete idiot would vote for him.

                    Amy who? A boring corporate lawyer who will fare just as well as Michelle Bachman, which is to say, she will be gone soon. At least Bachman was good looking!

                    Kamala can actually deliver California, and Beto could possibly deliver Texas. Which makes them establishment favorites for that reason alone. Pete can lock up the gay money, that’s about it. Kamala is likely to get the nod. Let’s see if I was right come the end of your dog and pony show primaries.

                    But you can still wake up. Take my good advice and study the left wing of your party where the ferment and thinking actually is active analyzing emergent social trends with seriousness. Like Bernie, Tulsi, and Chairman Yang. Their ideas if taken seriously can have an impact on the Republican narrative as well. But if you party hacks crush them like you did Bernie in 16 it will be a net loss for us all.

                2. lol ok whatever you’re intellectually stuck in the mud like a Bush family sycophant

                3. you switched to obama because everybody was sick and tired of hillary the most boring woman ever

                  i liked bill clinton in spite of his METOO moments and various policy errors, but the sight of hillary always made me sick

                  at least obama could deliver an amusing speech

                  listen to Tulsi Gabbard now there is a woman who can hold one’s attention. Smart, beautiful, poised, with many good ideas. Really fantastic but you Dem party hacks will studiously ignore her.

                  Go shine Kamala’s boots. That is to say, get in line, there are ten thousand hacks ahead of you in line to polish her apple. have fun with that. Amy who?

                  1. You presume to know my reasons without really knowing me. No, I saw Obama being interviewed by Russert in early 2007 and was very impressed by his intelligence and thoughtfulness. I was very much against Hillary because of Iraq, which she had not yet apologized for and that was it for me.

                    Gay Pete as you call him – I thought you were a big Gay Glenn supporter – has a similar mix of intelligence and thoughtfulness, the only reason he is catching fire. For the reason I gave above – winning – I’ll stick with Amy , but Pete unbelievably could be a player. That combat experience will wipe off a lot of the gay for many voters otherwise hesitant. If you haven’t seen him I suggest you do if you like to see a phenomenon.

                    1. i’m from the midwest i know plenty about gay pete. He is a decent mayor but no wunderkind. south bend as I observed yesterday is still very much the rust belt violence infested city it was when he took office. there are some new buildings with one degree or another of government patronage backing them and that’s the main extent of the recovery.

                      That the whole swath from Chicago to Detroit is a Rust belt now, is not the fault of Democrats, nor Republicans. though they each will say such things. it’s a function of how labor markets operate under capitalism and interact with technological change and other factors like international trade and all that it entails, laws about trade and tariffs, relative currency values and labor regimes among the nations, etc. A complicated development but one that only TRUMP has had the GUTS to take on seriously as POTUS since the heady days of globalism when the Republicans and Dems were both bringing NAFTA into law.

                      I am not sure what pete has brought to to the table about really helping make an industrial recovery happen. Not much as far as I can tell except that he is aware of the problem. that’s nice thank you but so is Donald obviously. at least he has a plan, which is, fair trade over free trade. Thank you Donald.

                      back to gay pete. I call him that because he reminds everyone about it incessantly. to an annoying degree. yes we know he is gay. on to the next thing. but what else is there? Oh on everything else he is basically a rank and file Democrat blah, his only claim to fame is that he’s a midwestern homosexual who doesn’t act like a queen. Ok! I got it. Thanks, that’s great.

                      moreover i don’t hold it against him that he’s gay I am not one who cares about what a man does in the bedroom with other consenting adults. we have always had gays generation to generation and plenty of them have been excellent leaders.

                      however i do not like it when gays make gay lib their issue that i find incredibly annoying. gays should recognize they are a very small minority and if all folks adopted that method of sexual intercourse the human race would die out very quickly. hence it is natural that even tolerant societies will stigmatize it to some degree.

                      gays I have known socially did not make an issue out of it nor did I. I was not part of all that and it did not concern me. But neither did they seek to impose their private tastes on me or seek my sanction for theirs. I always treated them with respect as partners when this was a social fact, but I did not then nor now consider legalized homosexual marriage a favorable social norm. of course that was an older generation of gay men who were gentlemen and I am not aquainted with the current age of in your face homosexual activists. Our paths simply do not cross as far as I can tell.

                      but because our imperial SCOTUS has issued the unassailable edict that the fourteenth amendment requires it, my opinion as a citizen means nothing. But I have bored you with it nonetheless. sorry.

        2. Obama was no progressive. He was barely to the left of the Clintons. The money powers were perfectly fine with his tenure.

          They don’t want anybody that will rock the boat too much. that is important. they always pick these flunkies like Kamala and Beto who have little imagination and will take orders

          That’s what really scares the bejeezus out of them about Trump. he actually thinks he is in command!

    3. Anyone who spends even a few minutes thinking about Russiagate will realize that Israel has done every thing that Russia was accused of and far more. Russiagate was a diversion to obfuscate the real problem of Israelgate.

      1. an interesting proposition, but ones Democrats would shy away from. Ilan Omar is the tip of the iceberg on that.

        Jewish people have over the past century voted Democrat, by and large. But, in the past 20 30 years, Republicans have picked up a lot of support. yes it tends to come from Jewish Americans that are more pro-zionist (Sheldon Adelson) than left wing marxist types like Noam Chomsky.

        Republicans get this and are not going to turn them away. It’s actually a natural fit, in some ways, given the greater respect for the idea of nationalism in the Republican party and its conservative base. That nationalism and the legal basis of it in international law– the older kind that dates back to Westphalia– is what allows the Jewish nation-state of Israel to maintain its security.

        Which it does very aggressively!

        1. Noam Chomsky isn’t anymore a democrat than Glenn Greenwald is.

          A good part of the GOP support for Israel is due to evangelicals who have the whole prophesy thing going on which requires the Jews – who they think will burn in hell for eternity – to start Armageddon.

          1. I am anything but an evangelical. I don’t worry about who will populate Hell, there’s plenty of room for all of us.

            & I have been called an ant-eye seemite more than once. But I can appreciate the historical ambitions of the Jewish people to have their own ethnic homeland and nation state, and I guess Palestine was as good a place as any. Why not? And they’re tough as nails. The sabras have earned my respect for their strength and determination. The Palestinians, many good people, legit aspirations of their own, but they have a knack for going about things the wrong way.

            Democrats seem to love Palestinians not because of their ethnic nationalism, which I can respect, nor their religion, which Democrats think is just a club like any other– it isnt, but we need not address that at the moment. No they like the Palestinians just because they are stuck in this “Whitey is bad” mentality that is a leftover from Soviet propaganda elevating assorted third world “liberation movements” to plague NATO aligned forces everywhere. Which was a very cynical thing for the Russians who could have cared less. Anyhow, some Democrats just seem to curry favor to the PLO as a form of radical chic. Both in the days of Yassar Arafat and still yet today.

            it’s not serious, just annoying.

            Israelis can have a serious conversation about their national future and we can have a serious conversation about ours. If our interests intersect, great!

            1. Most American Jews – by fay – vote Democratic and they therefore have a lot of influence in the party. Most of these Jews want a two state solution as the only sustainable goal and long term is how they see Israel’s survival. Almost all relate to Israel on some level and care for it, but that’s not their main focus in politics.

              1. I”m neither a Jew nor Democrat. But I am ok with Israel remaining a Jewish state and I am ok with a Palestinian state alongside, however that can be worked out. A one state solution is politically impossible. We all know that. And so I am not ok with the US picking the weaker side and antagonizing the stronger side. Which is Israel obviously. The US should remain above this regional struggle and allow people on the ground over there to figure it out. Like Syria. If the Syrians cant over throw Assads then why should we do it? No good reason. So that is how a lot of Republicans think too I believe, no particular animus towards Arabs really, just a hard look at reality. You and many others put it down to evangelical fantasies about the Rapture, but that is ridiculous. Seriously.

                Now, lets turn back and take a look at ideology. I observe that there are some Jews who are antizionist leftists who regard religion as a cultural artifact and not a valid reason to exclude arabs in occupied areas from the “one man one vote” principle. That is consistent with Jewish leftist “freedom rider” type attitudes which saw that their grandparents going down to act as activists to impose this on the southernors during the 60s. I find their intellectual consistency admirable. For Jewish people who call me an antisemite for making the comparison, I can only smile and say I welcome your freely expressed opinion and will peacefully continue to hold my own.

                Now such persons (not me but the Jewish pro Palestinian admirers) are often reviled and hated by Democrat activists who call them “Self hating Jews” and so forth. to me they are just Marxists with a little better education than their half baked cousins.

                You are correct that many are not “Democrats” in the same sense you say Bernie is not a Democrat but in the vaguer cultural sense they most certainly would be Democrats if your party could find a place for them amidst all its tolerance and diversity. But you have consistently marginalized them unless they were talking bout something you liked such as gay lib etc. the reason for this is that the billionaires which control the Democrat party are not for a second going to allow any “marxist cranks” to get control of their rackets. The objective is to keep serious money related class conflict thinking as far away from the average American college student as possible. They want them to be all fired up over civil rights of trannies and so forth but not a moment do they want them to apply any kind of Marxist thinking to economics. Where it might actually do us all some good!

                There are some “right wingers” who like to print editorial and other essays from these outliers and that is what makes American Conservative magazine worth reading for fun and information. That is now run by Ron Unz who is called a right wing self hating Jew, and has printed columns by another socalled right wing self hating Jew, the younger guy who did a holocaust denial type video at Oswiecem, I forget his name, just as they will publish some left wing socalled self hating jew essays as well. Your much hated adversary TIA here calls Ron Unz a crank. I will take TIA’s word for it but I still like to read it


                there is a Vietnamese poet who has a colum there too, Lin Dinh? writes a good travelogue. i just found out he made some Jews mad too.

                The thing that some people hate about Jews I have come to like. The old joke goes, “two jews, three opinions” and another one is “a foot in every camp” rather then dislke them for this i have come to see the smarts in it. always gives you a new direction to go, if you need one!

                1. OK, not sure I get all that, but picking at the nits, Bernie says he’s not a Democrat. I said Chomsky isn’t. I think your belief that powerful money controls the democratic – and I assume you also mean the GOP – to the extent we allow big money to run unbridled through elections, yeah, they can pick winners and losers, but only within a limited sense. I assure yo Obama did not have the big money behind him when he started, though it flowed eventually and even then , by far most of his money was from small contributors. On the state and local level we have rich pople buying their way into office – see Scott of Florida. If you don’t like that, vote Democratic and dump Citizen’s Untied and institure publicly funded campaigns as they do in many other countries.

                  1. You need to study up on fundraising of the Democrat party if you think big money doesn’t control it. Now big money is not monolithic. But big money speaks for itself. Or easily hires a “spokesperson”… under any system anywhere at any time in history.

                    Citizens United is a correct reading of the First amendment which guarantees the core value of political speech and donations are definitely a form of speech.

                    If you want to change the electoral system to strip that freedom from our citizens you can try and amend the First amendment. But don’t be pissed that the SCOTUS can read and interpret law in the most obviously correct manner. However much people may dislike the seeming effects of it.

                    I do not favor public funding of elections but the systems as they are implemented in Western Europe do have some advantages. They are worth studying just as much as parliamentary system alternatives are worth studying. These differences help illuminate the strengths of our own system and possible difficulties which may or may not ever be resolvable.

                    I also welcome rich people actually campaigning in the open rather than just pulling strings from obscurity. that is good not bad.

                    1. The conservative majority of the SC rewrote the 1st amendment to suit their politics in a 5-4 vote. Absent a complete turn around in the demographics and politics of the US, the court will not remain conservative.

                      If you like the current system you have no cause to complain about money bosses running the parties.

                    2. they did not. donations are clearly speech. they confirmed the freedom of political associaton and speech at the core concerns of the first amendment.

                      economic regulation of private interests in the interests of society is legitimate. and constitutional. you can take their money by taxes and regulations. BUT — the first amendment makes it so you can’t shut them up. that’s called Freedom

                      people need to be smart and educated about money interests, there is no lazy way out of that. as Jesus said the poor will always be with us. So will the rich. Just figure out the problem don’t try and pass another stupid set of laws that wont work to “fix” it. these laws never work anyhow. any rich guy can just send a person with a briefcase full of cash. duh! that’s how bribes work and they are endemic in the most authoritarian worker’s paradises in the world like China. where the never ending compendia of utopian laws are just ignored.

                      that’s the same kind of stupidity people apply to criminalizing sex work. sex work will always be with us. between consenting adults it should be fundamentally lawful and no stupid regime of laws can ever “outlaw” it completely. it mostly causes more harm than good. hurting the poor people it used to presume to “protect” most of all

        2. “Which it does very aggressively!”

          Kurtz, When the enemy is targetting your women and children and wants you dead one has to take a very strong position. I don’t know that I would call it aggressive since they could blow up Gaza tomorrow and don’t despite the fact that Gaza has been launcing missiles at them. Anytime the enemies of Israel on the border want peace they could have it almost immediately, but they want all of Israel gone and that will not happen.

          1. Israel is stronger. That’s pretty much all I need to know. And Israel’s aggressiveness is constrained by the realities of international relations and finance. It has to be careful or it could end up like its old ally the apartheid regime in the Republic of South Africa.

            Which was a better government than the ones that the commies run down there today.

            1. “Israel’s aggressiveness is constrained by the realities of international relations and finance.”

              Kurtz, It’s more constrained by Israeli humanity towards others, even those that hate them. I would’t call South Africa an ally. It was a trading partner just like Saudi Arabia is to a lot of the world. Israel is alwasy in trouble with Europe. The anti-Semitism there is stifling.

              1. RSA and Israelis exchanged nuclear weapons technology. That’s a fact. Pretty solid allies seems like to me. And I guess that there was an existing trade relationship in the diamond of the diamond trade, between the RSA as producer, Tel Aviv, Antwerp, and New York, as finishers and retailers.

                Presently, right wing populist parties like the Front National, have officially condemned antisemitism and have embraced the legitimacy of the Jewish state Israel, consistent with their own aspirations to reclaim their own ethnostates in Europe. Orban of Hungary whom I admire likewise is considered a friend of Israel


                the petty moralizers of the left will always be picking away at nations which strongly act to protect their borders and culture. that is their function and why the global billionaires like Soros pay them, to chip away at national sovereignty as such. that is what we call “globalism” and I oppose it. That Soros is Jewish is something of a paradox but that’s for them to figure out and they have spent plenty of ink on it and can explain it better than me.

                1. “RSA and Israelis exchanged nuclear weapons technology. That’s a fact. ”

                  Kurtz, Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and I am not surprised. Some of the people you follow have frequently had issues with their veracity on things of this nature. I don’t think Israel would risk an exchange that would have helped provide RSA with nuclear weapons. I think you are talking about a claim in the mid 1970’s. Even some of the people that thought it might have happened stated that the deal could not go through without additional people from the Israeli government agreeing and that would not occur. No deal was made and South Africa never got nuclear weapons from Israel and after all these years if confirmation would have occurred we should have seen it.

                  The important thing is how you jump from an unproven question of disccusions to an actual exchange of nuclear weapons technology which didn’t occur. Then based on an unproven question you conclude that unproven things makes them solid allies. Your starting to sound like some of our friends from la la land.

                  1. its not really conspiracy. you can judge the information below on your own., i judge that while as you say there is a lot of rumour in the mix, it is basically supportive of my assertion. you may disagree. but if you are waiting for any admissions from the Israeli government, hell, they don’t even admit to having the 200 plus nukes that they are full well known to have.

                    from wiki

                    David Albright and Chris McGreal have claimed that South African projects to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s and 1980s were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel.[16][17][18] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of 4 November 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all states to refrain from “any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons”.[19]

                    According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium for 50 tonnes of South African uranium and in the mid-1980s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 and RSA-4 ballistic missiles, which are similar to Israeli Shavit and Jericho missiles.[20] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six nuclear bombs.[21]

                    In September 1979, a US Vela satellite detected a double flash over the Indian Ocean that was suspected, but never confirmed, to be a nuclear test, despite extensive air sampling by WC-135 aircraft of the United States Air Force. If the Vela Incident was a nuclear test, South Africa is one of the countries, possibly in collaboration with Israel, that is suspected of carrying it out. No official confirmation of its being a nuclear test has been made by South Africa. In 1997, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad stated that South Africa had conducted a test, but later retracted his statement as being a report of rumours.[22]

                    In February 1994, Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, former commander of South Africa’s Simon’s Town naval base who was later convicted of spying for the USSR, was reported to have said:

                    Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test code-named Operation Phoenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up.[23][24]

                    In 2000, Gerhardt claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with “special warheads” for South Africa.[25]

                    In 2010, The Guardian released South African government documents that it alleged confirmed the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. According to The Guardian, the documents were associated with an Israeli offer to sell South Africa nuclear weapons in 1975.[26][27] Israel categorically denied these allegations and said that the documents do not indicate any offer for a sale of nuclear weapons. Israeli President Shimon Peres said that The Guardian article was based on “selective interpretation… and not on concrete facts.”[28] Avner Cohen, author of Israel and the Bomb and the forthcoming The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb, said “Nothing in the documents suggests there was an actual offer by Israel to sell nuclear weapons to the regime in Pretoria.”[29]


                    1. it is not conspiracy if it happened, simply because, Israel is not a signatory to the NNPT. hence, its sovereign actions trading some kind of nuclear materials or tech with the former RSA regime, were simply acts of a sovereign who did what it decided to do. it may have been secret, but not necessarily unlawful.

                      Of course not belonging to the NNPT hampers them when complaining about proliferation to countries that are signatories, like Iran, though they were found to be noncomplaint with peaceful development guidelines

                      that’s a matter for Israelis to be concerned about. apparently taken as a whole, they tend to favor Bibi and whatever his methods have been, because he has been reelected


                      I will say this much for Bibi. he acts like he is a boss. which he is, of course. you live in a place like that, better to have a boss in charge than a glorified committee placetaker

                    2. “it is not conspiracy if it happened,”

                      Kurtz the operative word in that sentence is “if”. It is a big stretch from “if” to proof something you haven’t shown us. Does that individual claim matter. No, not really but it is used against the state in the same manner as a lot of conspiracy theories are used, to demean one’s enemies.

                      In your discussion of a single point you travel far and wide to things having nothing to do with whether something happened or not (likely not at all). It almost sounds as if all the other talk is a smokescreen for your lack of proof.

                    3. Kurtz, you have made yourself unbelievable because what was some think was a discussion between two leaders. from that you jump to “RSA and Israelis exchanged nuclear weapons technology. That’s a fact.” But it is not a fact and even your article doesn’t show it to be a fact and then you jump one step further concluding that makes then “solid allies”. I’d throw you out of court if I were the judge and send you for remedial training.

                      Your story has a lot of claims and some citations. Skip the story and go directly to the citations and look for the proof. The trade described requires proof. Let me now when you have enough proof to win in a court of law.

                    4. dont hold your breath allan i have no such proof. such things are by their nature secret.

                      there is a long treatment of the subject in various books including The Sampson Option by Sy Hersh. I realize you may not like himsince he is perceived as a big critic of Israel, but in my opinion he’s an excellent investigative journalist.

                      Martin Van Creveld has addressed the Israeli nuclear program and he’s got many fine books worth reading

                      If you are interested they both have lots of grist for the mill.

                      Now if you want a book that has passed Israeli’s official censors– not sure if people know they have lawful official government censorship of anything related to security– but here is a good one you will like


                      Allan, you can suspect me of covert antisemitism if you like. I will just laugh like I do whenever i Have been called that in the past. It never bothers the Jews I talk to on a regular basis, so I don’t worry about it too much. And we can keep on enjoying our conversations likewise. cheers!

                    5. “dont hold your breath allan i have no such proof. such things are by their nature secret.”

                      Kurtz, I didn’t even have to hold my breath for a second. Your own words told me junk, junk, and more junk. “RSA and Israelis exchanged nuclear weapons technology. That’s a fact. Pretty solid allies seems like to me.” THAT’S A FACT??? …(“i have no such proof.”)

                      “I guess that there was an existing trade relationship in the diamond ”

                      Yes, I feel fairly sure there was trade going on between the two nations. I have even smoked Cuban cigars, but does that make me best friends with Fidel Castro?

                      “That Soros is Jewish is something of a paradox”

                      Why, doesn’t every religion, race, color or whatever have abhorent people in their ranks? Why would you expect Jews not to. Soros is worse than most and an animal at that with no conscience. He feeds on his own kind and gets a kick out of it.

                      Anyhow Kurtz, I don’t think the whole issue of RSA and its connections to the State of Israel are of any great importance except to those wishing to find reasons to hate Israel, Jews or both. I am definitely not talking about you but that is something seen quite frequently. Obama “is something of a paradox” , but no, he really isn’t. He had the ability to unite but he was born to be a divider. Hillary Clinton “is something of a paradox”, not really, she just likes money and figured the biggest bank to rob was the US treasury. Everything seems like a paradox until one takes a closer look.

                    6. i never cared if the old RSA and Israelis traded uranium or whatnot. I still think the old RSA was a better regime than the one the commie ANC has implemented and over time a lot of black SA people who have had to deal with the corrupt and viscious group of thugs have wondered that too.

                      As for Israel there is a certain parallel because however bad people think they are, they are probably a hell of a lot better off with them in charge than the corrupt muckups of the PLO or the nutters at HAMAS. Hence, most Arab Israelis who can vote — i think that’s around a fifth of the population– don’t show any signs of wanting to move out in any signficant numbers, at least as far as I could tell from this article


                      so that tells you a lot. Israeli government has many faults perhaps but it’s a more hospitable place to live than most of its neighbors, thats for sure; even for Arabs. At least inside the 47 borders.

                      And so you see that there are a few notable Arab Americans who are favorable voices to the Israeli government, such as Jeanette Pirro and Brigette Gabriel

                      Arabs are no more monolithic a group than Jews. Very diverse!

                    7. “i never cared if the old RSA and Israelis traded uranium or whatnot. ”

                      I don’t care either, and I don’t care if you are an alcoholic that’s been arrested many times. However, I don’t say “That’s a fact.” when it isn’t because it has repurcussions that can cause one to lose his job and more.

                      The quality of life in Israel is quite high. I’ve travelled a lot and Israel is one of my favorite places. It’s a speck on the map but its impact on the world is tremendous. A desert without water that has farms in the desert. It learned how to recycle perhaps better than any other nation in the world and it created desalinization plants that produce fresh water very inexpensively. It even exports fresh water. Look at your phone and see what wouldn’t work but for Israeli technology. Look at Google maps purchased from Waze. Look at the history and look how Israel preserves it so that in places one can look down on the dig in the street. Look at their medical research. It is one impressive nation.

                      Kurtz, you would love the book Start Up Nation.

                    8. I still think the old RSA was a better regime than the one the commie ANC has implemented and over time a lot of black SA people who have had to deal with the corrupt and viscious group of thugs have wondered that too.

                      South Africa isn’t a communist country, it hasn’t lost ground economically vis a vis the West since 1994, and the overall homicide rate is not as bad as it was 25 years ago.

                    9. Soros is not an outlier. Among the billionaires of the world, there are counted many jewish people. Among them, I would guess nearly all of them were Ashkenazim, that is to say, their acnestors were at one time or another, living in the Pale of Settlement in the old Russian Empire. Not sure about how many Sephardics are counted in this number at this time, but I guess a minority of them.

                      Among them, some are like Adelson, who strongly support Israel, some like Kissinger (not a billionaire but a leader for sure) are considered moderates, and some are considered adverse, like Soros.

                      It is not all that rare for a Jewish person in Diaspora to be negative about Isreal. We know a lot of the run of the mill activist BDS left wing kooks fit the bill obviously. They are strong in the Dem party even ostentatiously backing this Omar lady

                      The less known Jewish critics of Israel are religious jews, haredim, whether ultra Orthodox abroad, or the dissenters from public service in Israel itself. The notion among these is that the secular state of Israel is a prideful arrogation of God’s privilege to restore Israel or not. That is something of a footnote to the rest of us, I am only familiar with it due to an intellectual curiosity about observant religious communities. Netanyahu has courted these haredi, and had some success drawing them into the fold, if I understand correctly. This is not really covered in the American press very much but you can get it in Israeli newspapers

                      What does Soros have in common with some other famous Jews who were anti-zionist? One might say that Trotsky was not a zionist. Since so many leftists adore Trotsky these days, they can read his own words on it below.

                      I am pretty sure Soros, in spite of being a billionaire capitalist, I am sure he sees a lot of logic in Marxism. And he would not be the first either. Remember Armand Hammer? Quite the friend of the old soviety union.

                      I think Trotksy’s viewpoint may be worth a study, to understand what Soros may think about Israel


                      But keep in mind this was written prior to the declaration of Israel in 47. This was written 37-40 it says. So before the war, even. I think Ole Lev Bronstein was in Mayheeco at the time. Before Stalin gave him an icepick in the skull. (40)

                    10. The ANC controls the government of RSA. The ANC was communist. Today it is just corrupt. It has a nominal parliament controlled all along by the ANC since it got the reins from the whites in april 1994.

                      As you say RSA is a market based economy.

                      But It is also a very unsafe and disorderly place. outside the enclaves that is.


                      are you suggesting that it does not have a crime problem?
                      surely the ANC with all the power it has had should have done better than the mess that it had in place when it took over. Which was in part due to its own conditions of riot, sabotage, and insurrection. Without their own saboteurs agitating, fully in charge, why can’t they put a lid on crime? Is that still the Afrikaaner’s fault?

                      And to say it has not gained ground since the sanctions were lifted, it also to say, gee, one would think they could have done a lot better.

                      In short they are a woefully bad governing party, and a massive disappointment to anybody outside their own spoils system.

                      They only look good by contrast to the odious Mugabe, their former ally

  15. Trump hasn’t changed American journalism, he’s challenged it, and their response to that challenge has added clarity to our public discussion. The press corps in this country has been for several generations increasingly composed of people who had a uniform outlook and (more recently) increasingly composed of people of very little integrity.

    1. TIAx3:
      Trump not only challenged it, he exposed it for the leftist propaganda arm it’s always been. The media’s response has been to meltdown in a partisan huff and forfeit any claim of credibility or journalistic intergrity (if that ever existed) especially that gang of Lack’s Liars at NBC and MSNBC. Most of us have moved on from network and cable news because most of us don’t enjoy hamfisted manipulation.

      1. Prior to about 1955, newspaper proprietors put their personal stamp on their papers and you had competing papers in many markets, so Monovox wasn’t such a problem. In re broadcasting, Nat Hentoff, working in radio in 1948, had stories of how the (then novel) Fairness Doctrine was used to shut down robust public discussion. (It was later weaponized by the Kennedy Administration). You also had prominent journalists whose political outlook was non-liberal. Dorothy Kilgallen was one, Mike Wallace was another.

    2. nincompoops and steppinfetchits of the billionaire media bosses, playing pied piper to the urban masses to keep them in line and just uppity enough to make the rest of the working population scairt and so to manipulate us all

  16. One reason “freedom of the press” has lost its way is the demise of “the press”. For those of you who do not know it “the press” refers to the mechanical device that can print ink onto paper in large volumes so that pages can be formed into what we used to call “newspapers”. What we have today is no longer the “free press” of the days of Joseph Pulitzer and others. We have what is called “the media”. That term refers to all aspects of so called “journalism”. The “ism” at the end of that word is important. Capitalism, Communism, Journalism all were around in the past hundred years and still exist. China went from Communist to Capitalist. The media there has remained controlled by the likes of Mao. In America we have Journalism Schools. People are taught how to make some form of news and present it to the public. All the news which is fit to print can be put in the New York Times. All the notions of Mao as pertains to Trump can be seen and heard on television on CNN. Those three letters stand for Copulating Nasty Nitwits.
    The First Amendment has its role in all of this. It includes not only the right to freely speak but the right to associate and the right to think. The Framers would be a bit disdainful of some of the media outlets.

    We should consider other aspects of the Constitution and it’s Amendments. Take the Fifth and Take The Ninth. The right not to talk and the right of privacy.

    One more thing. The media is not free. Go on-line and try to open up articles on the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. They demand money to read their “free press”.
    Chairman Mao would probably have something to say about all of this.

    One of the best things we have in this brave new world though is the internet and “blogs”. A blog like the Turley Blog is one of the better ones in America. Here we can sprec frei as long as we do not cuss or too highly condemn. I do not think that cuss words deserve full protection under the First Amendment. Pig Latin comes in handy. Hillary can be called an itchBay but not that other word beginning with a letter b. To refer to Paul Manafort as Paul Man A Fart is mean but not too far out of bounds. Men are allowed to control their artFays. I just cut one and the rats are leaving the outhouse as I speak. Or as I write. Well. As I type.

  17. Professor Turley, you might hop over to Salt Lake City and inquire as to the proceedings of U.S. Attorney, District of Utah, John Huber whom Attorney General Jeff Sessions

    “…quietly tapped…to work in tandem with the Justice Department’s inspector general to determine whether conservative allegations of abuse at the FBI and the Justice Department merit investigation.”

    – The Hill

    Given the long list of co-conspirators to the Obama Coup D’etat in America, U.S. Attorney Huber undoubtedly found himself in a target-rich environment and is loaded with criminal referrals after earning every penny of his hard earned and generous government salary.

    To wit,

    Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates,

    Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson,

    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett,

    Sessions, Obama et al.

  18. EXCLUSIVE: Documents Detailing Google’s ‘News Blacklist’ Show Manual Manipulation Of Special Search Results


    P Turley, have you had the time to follow the latest Patients Zero when it comes to the US’s/Worls’s Free Speech Rights/ Journalism aka WikiLeaks/ Julian Assange & Alex Jones/Infowars.com?

    New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), ring a bell anyone?

  19. Welcome to Orem, Utah, dear Host! Hope your stay exceeds expectations. I’m sure you’ll find a fond group of happy admirers in our beloved State of Utah.

Comments are closed.