New Yorker Writer Joins Growing List Of Liberals Calling For Censorship

My column in the USA Today concerns the growing movement among Democrats in seeking to limit free speech and embrace censorship. This trend was vividly on display this week when University of California-Berkeley sought to feature a speaker on free speech. The choice was a reporter who seeks to limit free speech and opposes those of us who advocate for the right as “absolutists.” New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz is actively seeking to convincing free citizens to give up this core freedom in the name of controlling extremism. Of course, all of the examples of extremism cited by Marantz seem to be found on the right.

Marantz’s book ANTISOCIAL: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians and the Hijacking of the American Conversation repeats the siren’s call for censorship being heard around the country, particularly on our campuses. Berkeley has been repeatedly accused of curtailing or blocking conservative speakers. Thus, it seems only fitting that its free speech speaker should be someone opposed to free speech. Berkeley Assistant Vice Chancellor of Executive Communications Dan Mogulof said that Marantz’s anti-free speech message “covered issues related to Free Speech of interest to the members of the campus community.” It makes as much sense as inviting a vegan writer to hold forth on the joys of beef.

Marantz insists that our model of free speech is fundamentally flawed and analogized the traditional view of free speech to holding a party where a couch was burned:

“You might strongly disapprove of the person lighting the couch on fire and feel very concerned and have a deeply furrowed brow on your face. But you set the conditions that made that possible. You did or didn’t have a policy at the door of who was going to get carded. You made the lighting choices, you made the music choices, you chose not to have a functional PA system at the party so that if somebody does start lighting a couch on fire, there’s some way to quickly alert everyone, ‘Hey, guys, there’s a couch on fire. We need to do something about this.’ You just opened the doors and said, ‘The marketplace will figure it out.’” And if you’re wrong, which in the case of our current real timeline, they were wrong. It’s not really clear what you can do once it’s too late. And you have authoritarians installed in 10 major democracies and all the rest of it.”

It is a uniquely poor argument since the only choice made in a free country is to guarantee free speech. We certainly do not know who will engage in bad or hateful speech. However, we are more concerned with people like Marantz deciding who will attend “the party.”

Marantz indicated who he would exclude from the party. He speaks of “white supremacy” which he declares “has always been used by what has been called the political right.” He also railed against Fox News and “specious, Dinesh D’Souza arguments about how Democrats are the real racists.” He added a complaint that “apparently Rupert Murdoch just will never die.”

By the end of the remarks, Marantz made a far better argument for my “absolutist” ideas than I could. For Marantz, free speech has to be curtailed to stop conservatives and the forces of “white supremacy.” The problem is found on the right and not in such anti-free speech movements like Antifa. Indeed, Marantz’s arguments seem right out of the Antifa handbook.

 I have previously discussed how Antifa and other college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies. Some protesters reject classic liberalism and the belief in free speech as part of the oppression on campus.  The movement threatens both academic freedom and free speech — a threat that is growing due to the failure of administrators and faculty to remain true to core academic principles.  Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

Marantz expresses the same intolerance for the free speech of those who hold opposing views. It was no doubt empowering for the faculty and students at Berkeley who have actively opposed events featuring those with differing views. Yet, Marantz could be heard as a free speech speaker who opposes free speech.

I actually think it is great to have speakers like Marantz as part of differing views on this and other subjects. However, his message is one of exclusion, regulation, and censorship of others. As such, he certainly found his audience at Berkeley.

155 thoughts on “New Yorker Writer Joins Growing List Of Liberals Calling For Censorship”

  1. It appears Eric Ciaramella speaks Russian! He is one of us!
    Stolichnaya for everyone! Da!


    Eric Ciaramella Wiki, Age, Wife, Biography (CIA) Family & More

    Eric Ciaramella (born in 1986) is an American CIA Analyst from Prospect, (Connecticut, United States). He worked with both Obama and the Trump administration on the intelligence officer position. Furthermore, he was the former National Council Security Staffer.

    He concerned about the discussions between the Presidents of Ukraine and the United States. In addition to this, an investigation report of the Real Clear Investigations came into light on October 30, 2019.

    His information disclosed the political experts and websites like The Federalist and Washington Examiner. Matt Gaetz (Republican Congressman) shared the article link on the Twitter account. RCI cleared that Eric left the Security Council in mid-2017. He posted at the White House West Wing.

    However, he affected due to the negative news in the media. He came back to the CIA headquarters Langley, Virginia. As per the Federal Reports, he was at the Obama office as the certified democrat.

    Profile, Early Life & Parents

    Eric Ciaramella Bio

    CIA Analyst, Eric Ciaramella was born in 1986 in the Prospect (age 33 years old, as in 2019). Still, no information recovered about his dad and mom from the internet sources. Both of them involved in their respective jobs in the government sectors.

    He has two siblings in his family. Furthermore, he completed initial studies at the Woodland Regional High School, Beacon Hills. He passed out from Chase Collegiate School, Waterbury.

    On the other hand, he majored in Russian and East European Studies at Yale University. He went to Harvard University and focused on Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and Russia.

    Real Full Birth Name Eric Ciaramella.
    Nick name Eric.
    Profession CIA Analyst.
    Famous for His reports about President of USA and Ukraine meeting.
    Age (As of 2019) 33 years old.
    Date of Birth (DOB), Birthday 1986.
    Birthplace/Hometown Prospect, (Connecticut, United States).
    Nationality American.
    Sexuality (Gay or Lesbian) Straight.
    Gender Male.
    Ethnicity White Caucasian Race.
    Religion Christianity.
    Sun Sign (Zodiac Sign) Not available.
    House In Virginia, USA.
    Physical Statistics
    Height (Tall) Feet & Inches: 5′ 8″.
    Centimeters: 173 cm.
    Meters: 1.73 m.
    Weight Kilograms: 65 Kg.
    Pounds: 143 lbs.
    Shoe Size (UK) 8.
    Eye Color Brown.
    Hair Color Dark Brown.
    Parents Father: Name not available.
    Mother: Will Update Soon.
    Siblings Unknown.
    Personal Life Relationship
    Marital Status Unmarried.
    Highest Qualification Majored in Russian and East European Studies from Yale University.
    School Woodland Regional High School, Beacon Hills.
    Alma Mater. 1. Chase Collegiate School.
    2. Yale University.
    3. Harvard University.
    Net worth (approx.) $100K-$110K USD.
    Salary, Income & Earnings $50K-$65K.
    Some Lesser Known Facts about Eric Ciaramella

    Eric Ciaramella Job & Salary

    He has former ties with the associates of Obama.
    National Security Council staffer, Eric accused of leaking their information in the media.
    He placed in the World Bank after college.
    A report about Russia’s rephrasing economy published in 2011.
    In addition to this, he added his name to the great contributors’ list.
    He designated as the Consultant in Poverty Reduction/Economic Management in the financial institution.
    On the other hand, he listed as the guest in the 2016s lunch party with Italy’s Prime Minister.
    Don’t Miss: Who is Han Seo Hee? Her Biography, Affairs, Boyfriend & Trivia

    He observed his duties closely with Vice President Joe Biden.
    Moreover, he has secure connections with Alexander Chalupa (Researcher, Democratic National Committee).
    Eric Ciaramella receives a monthly salary cheque of $50K-$60K US Dollars.
    He researched on the EU and the Italian rural residents.
    Additionally, he protested against the Professor of Arabic Department at Yale University.
    He can quickly speak multiple languages like Ukrainian, Arabic, and Russian.

    1. he weights 143 huh. i wonder if his CIA special training could keep him awake on the mat for more than a minute. i bet there’s a few million guys out there who would like to give him the chance to find out! smesh him?

      but he went to YALE! is he skull and bones, too?

    2. You are part of an attempt to weaken the WB laws which are intended to keep our government honest and which will very likely benefit your position someday if it hasn’t already. Who would blow the whistle next time with thousands of JOs like kurtz encouraging physical violence against them while attempting to out not only him but his family.

      The doubly pathetic effort has no effect on this impeachment because that horse has left the barn and the testimony of others and hard evidence is what matters.

      BTW, VP Pence was one of the principle congressional sponsors and promoters of the WB law back in 2007-2008.

      Trumps cult followers are as short sighted, of low morality, and despicable as he is .

      Big surprise.

      1. PS Facebook will attempt to scrub outings of the WB, making JTs blog of lower standards that sewer. Aren’t there any real mods here?

        1. TIA’s link has nothing to do with WB laws or stupid attempts by his fellow cult members to weaken them.

        2. Tabby, your stupid article from The Federalist repeatedly implies that Colonel Vindman was working to “undermine Trump’s foreign policy”. But if the pressure Trump was putting on Zelensky qualifies as “foreign policy”, why was Trump bi-passing State Department channels?? ..It makes no sense, of course..! Real foreign policy is conducted by real professionals. The president doesn’t just send his lawyer and call him an ‘envoy’.

          What a rag sheet The Federalist is. An important sounding name but it’s nothing but a rag.

          1. Like most of the cult posters here TIA likes crackpot sites that tell him what to think. God forbid they actually read a newspaper and comment on the actual news.

            1. No, I’m laughing at you, because these schemes keep blowing up and your response is to pretend they haven’t (while calling other people ‘cult’ posters). The sorosphere isn’t sending their best.

          2. Peter, we have pointed out where the Washington Post has lied on numerous occasions so it is amazing you can’t do the same for the Federalist which doesn’t pretend it is providing unbiased news like the Washington Post does.

          3. your stupid article from The Federalist repeatedly implies that Colonel Vindman was working to “undermine Trump’s foreign policy”.

            Come on Shill, You think like a 5 year old, an article is not stupid. An author might draw unreasoned conclusions or use false logic to advance a narrative. But this article provides actual facts from which the author is asking reasonable questions. Unanswered, the author is providing an opinion as to why the facts are what they are. The implications are consistent with the facts.

            I have repeatedly mocked you for your failure to use critical-thinking skills. Your response to this article is further evidence of that failure. You did not even address the actual facts. Why? The facts are what leads to the implication. If you don’t like the implication, then you cannot ignore the facts. The author reasonably asks: Swalwell, Schiff, and Vindman’s attorney disrupted the witnesses’ testimony time and time again. What in the world does Vindman have to hide?

            But if the pressure Trump was putting on Zelensky qualifies as “foreign policy”, why was Trump bi-passing State Department channels??

            You could have answered your own question, if you had dealt with the author’s implication. If what Vindman had to hide was that various actors within the state department working to undermine President Trump’s foreign policy efforts, then it would be reasonable for the President to use other channels.

            Then we get to your real beef:

            Real foreign policy is conducted by real professionals.

            President Trump has implemented his foreign policy for nearly 3 years. Are we to believe he has had unanimous support for everything he’s done because there have been no whistle-blowers? Trump has utilized various strategies to influence foreign governments, from economic sanctions, to trade deals, to foreign aid and military force. If the President is dealing with a foreign government that wants our aid, but they have a history of corruption, including evidence showing they actively worked to undermine our elections, is it reasonable and within the powers of the executive to make sure we are not furthering corruption that threatens our national security?

            I assume you read the transcript. There clearly was nothing within it so suggest he was conducting his foreign policy any different than he had with every other country he was trying to influence in our national security interests. So I have some questions.

            With all of the foreign policy actions that he has taken that have been criticized, why is this the one Democrats decided was too much? Why not his China policy? Why not the Paris Accord? Why not North Korea? Why not Venezuela? Why not the Trans-Pacific Partnership? If all of those were not a bridge too far, then why Ukraine and why a year before the American people get to vote for a President with a foreign policy they prefer?

            Here’s my opinion: the Democrats bet the farm on the Mueller investigation to impeach the President. That obviously failed. The President’s policies have proven to be so effective that candidates running against him have essentially no room to challenge them. This has forced every one of them, with the exception of Gabbard, into policy positions that will completely undermine everything this republic is. This makes President Trump unbeatable in 2020.

            So what are the Democrats to do? They have to impeach. They have to manufacture an impeachable offense and try and find a way to stick it on this President. In comes the non-WB, WB. Yeah, that’ll work. Oh wait, Trump released the transcript. Now what? Schiff is forced to fabricate a conversation that never took place. The Democrats are forced to open a so-called impeachment inquiry. They are forced to create unprecedented rules, completely inconsistent with fairness equal justice. And we are supposed to believe this is so egregious that it cannot wait until the voters have their say.

            One more point. All of this is taking place with the looming reports from Horrowitz and Durham. I believe those reports are going to bring about a fundamental transformation that will give progressives nightmares for years.

              1. Totally agree. Good job, Olly. Now I would suggest you not expend any more energy on Shill, Anon1, and the other Soros puppets here. They believe what they’re paid to believe.

                1. Thank you FFS. I don’t believe we’re called as citizens to remain silent. What we post may not move the needle on Shill, Anon1 or the others, but perhaps it will move others in positive ways we are unaware of. And besides, it is a way for me to sharpen my sword.

  2. It is illegal, unethical, unAmerican and unconstituional to reveal the name of the Blow Jobber Eric Ciramella who probably has a blue stained dress


  3. These are liberals in name only. Libertas, freedom. Classical liberals believe in individual freedom and limited government intrusion. That is unrecognizable from the beliefs of modern liberals today.

    1. Leftist dictatorships require individuals to cede their rights to the government “for their own good.” That dictatorial government would take care of them. Provide them with everything they needed. Punish the rich.

      It is a paradox that Leftists are terrified that Trump might want to become a dictator, yet are busily creating the components of a dictatorship. They attack free speech with the regularity of a metronome. Threaten or assault conservative speakers on campuses across America. They go after the 2nd Amendment, the right to defend yourself. They go after Christians. Racist against whites. Create class warfare and resentment.

      How is everyone doing currently living off the government? Got a good life on Welfare? How’s that government doing as your provider? Do we really need to repeat history?

    2. Karen, who are these “classical liberals” we should strive to emulate?

      1. GOOGLE “Classical Liberal”, what it stands for, notable figures, its early influence on our government.

        You cannot expect me to research for you.

        1. AS a self proclaimed student of history it is unbelievable that Peter Hill doesn’t know who the classical liberals are. They had a huge influence on our Constitutional Republic.

          It proves Peter Shill’s head is only loaded with slogans and sound bites. No in depth or even shallow depth of knowledge.

        2. Somehow I get the impression that “classical liberals” are today’s Libertarians; people who despise ‘big government’ but are strangely tolerant of big corporations.

          Yeah, I’ve heard this nonsense before

          1. Comrade Петр

            You are making us look badly. Up your gayme.
            Grow some chest hair like our beloved Natacha and Jill.
            Stop acting so sissy because you know our dear leader Putin will shoot you when we call you back to the mother land. For now your pay in rubles will be cut until you put out more, and we don’t mean bending over like you usually do

            no Vodka for you

          2. Yeah, I’ve heard this nonsense before

            Well done Shill. With all of your in depth study of classical liberalism, you only managed that impression. You got one thing correct; your impression is nonsense.

            1. Olly, I’ve heard this crap before. Classical liberals lived in an age when America’s biggest cities had like 40,000 people. Yet today’s Republicans believe Teddy Roosevelt was ‘too liberal’ and put this country on the ‘wrong path’.

              1. If you understood what classical liberalism was, population count wouldn’t be in the equation until you were considering the form of government to make it work. But you have to accept the philosophy first.

                Federalism and our constitution provided the means to protect the principles of classical liberalism. The concept of limited government is not as progressives like to portray it, as an anarchist world of no government. It means the power of government is retained as close to the people as possible. The opposite of this philosophy is progressivism. At its core is the centralizing power at the federal level, weakening the state and local governments, and eventually undermining the principles of the classical liberal philosophy.

                “Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade.

                1. The term has more to do with classic philosophy and less to do with contemporary politics.

                  1. That’s news to you? So what philosophy is guiding contemporary politics today? What philosophy is consistent with our constitution, bill of rights and federalism?

                    1. Olly, what I find amazing is that Peter is so ignorant of classical liberalism and socialism and their respective history. That is what happens when a person deals exclusively with talking points that are not based on consistent principles.

                    2. what I find amazing is that Peter is so ignorant of classical liberalism and socialism and their respective history.

                      I’ve come to the conclusion Shill is not ignorant. Ignorance is a condition that can be changed. He functions more like a jukebox. If you ask him a question that doesn’t have some canned response available, like the questions I asked him in my last post, he just won’t respond. Selection not available. Just like Anon1, Natacha and a few others, there has been absolutely nothing that has moved them to reevaluate their opinions. This cannot be just ignorance.

                    3. Olly, In the end their ideology which is their religion totally dominates their thinking and that ideology is nowhere near as forgiving as religion can be. To them the talking points are accepted as faith based commandments from their leader.

                    4. Olly, Alan: My brother was a Philosophy Major at a very old college. He gave me a good idea of what the study entailed.

                      Your application of the term “Classical Liberalism” refers to social progressives in the 18th Century. Guys like Jefferson were hip back then. And I mean that with all honesty. Jefferson was progressive for that stage in time.

                      In the development of Popular Thought, the late 1700’s marked a major turning point. The American and French revolutions shook up Europe in a very big way. The power of royals would diminish from that time. Napoleon’s brief reign would take down the Spanish and Vatican Empires.

                      But Classical Liberalism has no application to current politics in the United States. It’s only pretentious packaging on the part of Trumpers. Voters who think out-sourcing the government is just ‘common sense’.

                      Imagine the EPA run by contractors. Classical Liberal Tea Baggers would consign us to that fate. Air and water quality determined by Hedge Fund Managers!

                      Donald Trump makes it clear that environmental concerns matter to only flakes. ‘Climate Change is just a hoax’. That kind of thinking pre-dates Classical Liberalism. That’s more like the Spanish Empire. An order where Cardinals set social policy while muzzling astronomers.

                    5. He gave me a good idea of what the study entailed.

                      And there you have it. The Shill has joined the world pre-loaded with ideas he has never had to develop himself. When confronted with ideas that challenge his apparent programming, all he can do is utter does not compute.

                      Do you know why teachers will require students to show their work when they are solving math problems? Because the process of understanding mathematical principles is more important than just getting a correct answer. Sometimes you can stumble onto the correct answer. Sometimes you will cheat and get the answer from someone else. Sometimes devices and programs are available to solve the problem. But when none of that is available and you need to solve it yourself, you’ve developed those critical-thinking skills to work out the correct answer.

                      You clearly have absolutely no skills to work through problems that challenge your current understanding. If I put you in a round room and told you to go stand in the corner, you’d do laps until you passed out from exhaustion.

                      As for your take on classical liberalism; FAILED!

                    6. Your application of the term “Classical Liberalism” refers to social progressives in the 18th Century. Guys like Jefferson were hip back then. And I mean that with all honesty. Jefferson was progressive for that stage in time.

                      [eye roll]

          3. Somehow I get the impression that “classical liberals” are today’s Libertarians; people who despise ‘big government’ but are strangely tolerant of big corporations.

            Contemporary libertarians come in several varieties, but the modal sort are hostile to law enforcement and don’t give a rip about much other than the drug laws.

    1. wentzelwinkie – Bloomberg is jumping in late and hasn’t been tested by fire.

        1. “and bullsh!t walks”, at least that’s what I heard.

          Evidently, neither Elizabeth Warren nor her votaries got the memo.

  4. Money is speech, and the far right has it, and they want something for the money. And now they want students that pay out big bucks for tuition, and see increases in school fees because the school wants to pay Ann Coulter 20,000 dollars for a bat-shit rant.

    1. Perhaps the left will have to console themselves with money from Soros, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Nike, Gillett and a hundred other multi-billionaires who tilt left. As for Coulter and her fee, the point of free speech is that what you consider bat-shit others might want to hear. When you calm down and take your meds you can ponder that idea. It’s kind of an old idea.

    2. that right wing institution, harvard, with a 37 billion endowment, only seeks more while kids in the ghettos attend war-zoned schools that can’t afford metal detectors and a police presence. Their seal, ver it tas, should have remained Christi Gloriam

  5. JT, you have posted with high frequency about “liberals” turning away from free speech. While I agree with this fact and everything you are writing in this column, I am struck with how you actually end up obscuring the attack on free speech by the powerful, be they “right” or “left” wing. This somewhat reminds me of people who are nasty to their neighbors for having voting Trump or Clinton. While either of these choices can legitimately be criticized, our neighbors (well most people’s neighbors) are rarely in charge of policy decisions.

    USG and its corporate owners are the ones actually instituting the restriction of free speech. It is the govt. and their owners who order the minion media attacks on publishers/journalists and whistleblowers such as Assange, Blumenthal and Manning. Each of these cases are the result of decisions made at the highest levels of the corporate state. They are an American slow moving Kristallnacht which strikes at the very core of US and international law. Everyday, USGinc. removes, demonetizes and voids free speech. They will jail those who engage in free speech and they will try to kill them.

    Twitter regularly takes down accounts, giving no reason or appeal. We are prevented from hearing dissent. Elizabeth Lea Vos gave an interview about the Finders Cult, one more CIA linked group which raped children, sold drugs and arms, exactly like Epstein’s network did and continues to do. This interview was immediately demonitized by Alphabet/Google. USGinc. did not allow an engineer who did an extensive analysis of Building 7’s collapse to enter the country to give a talk on how this building came down on 9/11. He’s not a terrorist. Why aren’t we allowed to hear him speak in person?

    Yes, we have state media. That is clear. However, the state media runs across conservative/liberal lines. It is the communication weapon of the powerful. They don’t have an allegiance to conservative or liberal, they have allegiance to power. Further, most major universities function as research arms of USGinc. The list of DARPA contracts at universities is very long! They also do not have a liberal/conservative allegiance. They are about fealty to power.

    In your many columns, I don’t see you getting into this underlying reality. You seem stuck on keeping your analysis within the safe range of individuals or lower level entities, while never confronting the fact that the full faith and credit of this govt. and its corporate masters are coming down on people. The real threat to free speech lies here. That threat expresses itself in ways you are pointing out, but it is not just the expression of the threat that matters. It is WHO is giving the orders that matter.

    PS To those who think tech companies are “private” corporations I can only ask that you read up on how they actually give the orders to this govt., have billions of dollars of contracts with it and in the process, work hand in glove to abrogate your Constitutional rights.

    1. An antidote to Jill and Natacha is a reminder of the pleasant things in life:

    2. “However, the state media runs across conservative/liberal lines.”

      Google, Facebook, Twitter, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. are all run by lefties.

  6. Leftists never specify what they mean when advocating for socialism (do they want to nationalize only the heavy industries or land, industry and means of production?) Neither do they specify the extent of censorship or how it would be carried out. I mean is it “hate speech” to say, “I oppose mass immigration” or “blacks, Hispanics, whites and Asians differ in average intelligence”? Do they advocate the implementation of a federal agency with a police force to monitor social media, Internet and printed media? What would the penalties for “hate speech”? How do they plan to get around the first amendment as currently interpreted? Amending the constitution is a difficult process, much easier to “reinterpret” it.

    I predict 4 things which will occur sooner, rather than later.

    1. Traditional liberals like JT who have always supported free speech will not escape being called “nazis”.

    2. Mainstream conservatives such as those from the National Review will not be allowed to make a separate peace, anyone slightly to the right of Mitt Romney are still considered “nazis” by Leftists and subject to censorship and whatever else they have in store. Mainstream conservatives go to great lengths in an attempt to avoid being called names but to no avail.

    3. As a result of #2, Conservatism, INC will go along but to a lesser degree. Anyone remember the term “me too” Republican?

    4. A major Democratic Party candidate will call for such laws in an attempt to garner support.


    1. well antonio the silver lining is that a general suppression of the common man’s cherished rights of free speech is actually precisely what is necessary for the total mobilization of the common man in favor of the genuine human spirit as it’s been revealed in history, in all its complexity and diversity, a complexity and diversity that is only possible when stable national governments exist to protect boundaries of space from excessively rapid social change.

      for too long, Republicans before Trump were overly fixiated on money and their personal narrow financial interests. there was a lack of common identity and a considerable lack of patriotism that lead them to turn a blind eye to the effects of mass migration on the average person’s fate. it was essentially a bourgeois party. it took the soup that was offered in episodes like the Reagan amnesty, enjoyed the broth, and preserved its pensions for retirement, forgetting the effects on the grandkids.

      Finally, decisively, irrevocably smashing “conservativism inc” is necessary to remake the Republican party into a people’s party. populism can then be the midwife of something even greater, an authentic nationalism.

      the alternative to this is that the Republicans simply cut more deals and resign themselves into returning into an ineffectual party whose only banner is incremental moderation.

      Which of course has been failing for 50 years and will fail again but much faster. With the rise in global communications, and global financial markets, global labor markets, outsourcing, free trade, offshoring and all the rest, the “smart money” is always on changes that erode the nation state.

      The nation state is only possible to be maintained with a strong executive.

      Bush II had many odious features but in a structural sense, he rekindled strength in the executive branch.

      Obama, contrary to what a lot of Republican propagandists say about him and his many executive orders, was actually a weak executive. Compared to Bill Clinton or his rival Hillary, he lacked deep support inside the system, emerged as a more popular candidate mostly by forces that I believed backed him essentially because he was a weaker politician than Hillary.

      The champion of Obama, was the likes of Soros: global financiers who saw in him a weak president who would allow their internationalist schemes to advance without impediment.

      Hillary was too much of a tyrant. But once Obama gone, she had her run at it. She was strong enough to suppress the weaker candidates one way or another.

      Then Trump’s victory over Hillary was unexpected by nearly all. I voted for him fully expecting him to lose.

      In this the popular American spirit showed rebellion against globalization, most of all. Not the usual “conservative” issues in which the average workers is not that interested– such as abortion one way or another. More so things like JOBS for working people, who came to understand JOBS for regular folks are endangered both by the reckless free trade policies of Republican creeps like Romney and the mass migration plans of Democrats. It was clearly popular rebellion at the establishment.

      But the establishment is owned by a global plutocracy. It’s a plutocracy that arose out of America’s victory in the war and marched apace with it. In the collapse of the USSR, it thought it had total victory over nationalism.

      It believed it could buy off the Chinese communists– a strategy that seems to have so far, failed, but might yet succeed.

      Now it has to contend with Trumpism, an unexpected nationalist populism emerging from globalism’s own most secure territory, America.

      Globalism struggles to contend with it.

      But it has many ways. Social media has now been totally coopted by globalization. In China, it collaborates with the regime, and it aspires to lock America down likewise. “Deplatforming” is the tip of the iceberg as this article by Turley shows.

      With ever more powerful means of AI assisted, machine operated censorship, globalism sees its best hope against the populist rival coming from below, from the American natives. It calls on its allies in the “intielligence community” to enact a coup against the Champion Trump.

      If he falls early, or fails in his nerve to rebuild America, globalism will have its complete eventual victory assured.

      the future will then be mostly just boring. It will mean more free porn and cheetos for the couch people. Whatever was bold or strong in man will be essentially suppressed, unless it confines itself to making money.
      Any other daring social venture which brings people together in a way that threatens globalism will have scant hope. Financialization, Mechanization, atomization, and rationalization of human life according to the international financiers highest ambitions– a global economy lacking the impediments to the flow of capital and labor that national boundaries represent– can be realized.

      the massive flooding of the “west” with unforeseen multitudes– eclipsing former mass migrations by far– is precisely what globalism has in mind for “the west.” to keep wages down, to prop pensions up, to retain profit margins in stale old consumer markets– globalism aims to migrate surplus population from places like Syria into Scandanavia; from Somalia into Minnesota. the 500,000 some illegals who came in 2019– projections say– will be eclipsed as one day our country is literally flooded with ten times that number.

      The only thing that can stop it is a much stronger immigration enforcement regime than we have now. We need funding for ten times as many immigration judges to clear the case backlog in years instead of decades. The wall is not even the most important piece– but it will be important eventually.

      Global capital wants to do what capitalism does. Employ the cheapest labor at places of its convenience. National borders must be destroyed to do this. Ironically it is by understanding quasi marxist sounding notions like this that we can see the hidden hand behind the forces acting in the Trump coup.

  7. If one understands English, one has no need for an “interpreter.”

    The singular American failure has been the Supreme Court since 1789.

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  8. Comey. Brennan, Obama did to Trump what liberals have done to other Republicans in presidential campaigns…., like LBJ to Goldwater

    Lyndon Johnson’s Watergate

    It was a political scandal of unprecedented proportions: the deliberate, systematic, and illegal misuse of the FBI and the CIA by the White House in a presidential campaign. The massive black-bag operations, bordering on the unconstitutional and therefore calling for impeachment, were personally approved by the president. They included planting a CIA spy in his opponent’s campaign committee, wiretaps on his opponent’s top political aides, illegal FBI checks, and the bugging of his opponent’s campaign airplane.

    The president? Lyndon B. Johnson. The target? Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate.

    Here are three examples of a presidential abuse of power for political purposes that constitute an even graver offense than Watergate.

    In the fall of 1964, the White House turned to the CIA to get advance inside information about the Goldwater campaign, although the senator could hardly be described as a “domestic enemy” (the only valid excuse for agency action). E. Howard Hunt, later convicted for his part in the Watergate break-in, told a congressional committee a decade later that he was ordered to spy on Goldwater’s headquarters. He said that President Johnson “had ordered this activity” and that White House aide Chester L. Cooper “would be the recipient of the information.”

    CIA Director William Colby admitted that Cooper prepared campaign material for Johnson and obtained advance texts of Goldwater speeches through a “woman secretary,” clearly suggesting that the agency planted someone inside the Goldwater campaign organization.

    The Democrats constantly used the covertly obtained information to undercut Goldwater initiatives. In early September, for example, the Goldwater campaign announced the formation of a Task Force on Peace and Freedom that the AP described as one of the most “unusual tactics in the history of American politics.” Three hours before the Goldwater task force was unveiled, the White House announced that President Johnson had created a 16-member panel of leading authorities to consult with him on international problems. The White House announcement trumped the Goldwater plan. Democratic campaign speechwriter John Roche revealed that he and his colleagues got advance texts of Goldwater’s major speeches. “When I innocently inquired how we got them,” Roche said, “the reply was ‘don’t ask.'”

    Goldwater’s regional political directors were convinced that the telephones of the Republican national headquarters in Washington were bugged. At one private meeting aides discussed the possibility of a campaign stop by Goldwater in the Chicago area. Midwest director Sam Hay called the Republican chairman of Cook County, who agreed it was a good idea but promised to keep the trip confidential. Within the hour, a reporter called to say that he had heard Goldwater would be coming to town and wanted the details.

    Senator Goldwater recalled that two correspondents once questioned him about a proposal not yet made public: that if elected, he would send Eisenhower to Vietnam to examine the situation and report back to him. Goldwater insisted he discussed the Eisenhower mission with only two members of his personal staff, but the two reporters swear they heard about it at the Johnson White House.

    Most disturbing of all was the FBI’s bugging of the Goldwater campaign plane where the senator and his inner circle often made their most confidential decisions. The bureau’s illegal surveillance was confirmed by Robert Mardian, when he was an assistant attorney general in Nixon’s first term.

    During a two-hour conversation with J. Edgar Hoover in early 1971, Mardian asked about the procedures of electronic surveillance. To Mardian’s amazement, Hoover revealed that in 1964 the FBI, on orders from the Oval Office, had bugged the Goldwater plane. Asked to explain the blatantly illegal action, Hoover said, “You do what the president of the United States orders you to do.” William C. Sullivan, the bureau’s number two man, confirmed to Mardian the spying operation against the Goldwater campaign.

    Why did President Johnson order the Anti-Goldwater Campaign and illegally use both the CIA and the FBI as his personal political instruments? All the polls agreed he would win and by a handsome margin. But Johnson wanted the mother of all political landslides, eclipsing FDR’s record presidential victory in 1936 and at the same time burying six feet deep Barry Goldwater and American conservatism. Johnson nearly succeeded in the first objective, receiving 61.5 percent of the popular vote, but miserably failed in the second.

    Of all the men who have run for and lost the presidency in modern times, only Barry Goldwater and the central themes of his campaign were vindicated so quickly. Reviled and rejected in 1964 as no other presidential candidate in the 20th century, Goldwater was easily reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1968 while the president who had won by one of the largest margins in presidential politics dared not seek reelection. Just twelve years later, the Great Society was exposed as a trillion-dollar bust and Ronald Reagan, an unabashed conservative, became our 40th president.

    1. LBJ was to be indicted in January, 1964 but with JFK dead, LBJ president and RFK no longer AG, LBJ was free and clear.

      “On 9th August, 1984, Estes’ lawyer, Douglas Caddy, wrote to Stephen S. Trott at the U.S. Department of Justice. In the letter Caddy claimed that Estes, Lyndon B. Johnson, Mac Wallace and Clifton C. Carter had been involved in the murders of Henry Marshall, George Krutilek, Harold Orr, Ike Rogers, Coleman Wade, Josefa Johnson, John Kinser and John F. Kennedy. Caddy added: “Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders.”

      – Billie Sol Estes, Spartacus

      1. I read Barr McClellan’s book. I find it plausible that LBJ green lighted it but not that Mac Wallace did it. There’s scant proof of that specific and it seemed weakest part of the book.

        Rather more creditable is what E Howard Hunt said to his son:

        “E. Howard scribbled the initials “LBJ,”…….. Under “LBJ,” connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that’s never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer’s name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer’s name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales’ name, with a line, the framed words “French Gunman Grassy Knoll.”

        So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that’s the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

        “Cord Meyer discusses a plot with [David Atlee] Phillips who brings in Wm. Harvey and Antonio Veciana. He meets with Oswald in Mexico City…. Then Veciana meets w/ Frank Sturgis in Miami and enlists David Morales in anticipation of killing JFK there. But LBJ changes itinerary to Dallas, citing personal reasons.”

        David Atlee Phillips, the CIA’s Cuban operations chief in Miami at the time of JFK’s death, knew E. Howard from the Guatemala’ coup days. Veciana is a member of the Cuban exile community. Sturgis, like Saint’s father, is supposed to have been one of the three tramps photographed in Dealey Plaza. Sturgis was also one of the Watergate plotters”

        (from Rolling Stone article about this)

        that’s what his son said E Howard said, and there’s video of it out there. Now Hunt was pretty old and near death, but normally we lawyers think that lends credibility, not takes it away. And E Howard had sworn up and down in court and sued people for saying he was a part of such a plot decades earlier. But then confesses he was a “bagman” and a “benchwarmer” in the plot to his son, decades later. Again pardon me but an “admission against interest” and a “prior inconsistent statement’ are also both considered more creditable in such a context.

        Now that St John Hunt, i admit, seems like a screwy dude, but what can you expect with a dad like E Howard Hunt.

        Of course maybe Hunt was making it up. How can you believe a CIA guy when he says anything, and Hunt was a gifted writer of fiction, too. So there’s that.

        Just for fun, another thing: Woody Harrelson’s dad said he was part of the cabal too. And Woody Harrelson’s dad eventually was convicted for murdering a federal judge. So he had some skills in that line of work, so to speak. They say the picture of the “three bums” arrested near the grassy knoll look like E Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and Charles Harrelson. Maybe just a coincidence huh? Who knows. Michael Franceze gave an interview and suggested the mafia did have a hand in it too. Who konws, who knows. Any president makes a lot of enemies. Kind of like the Donald has too. But they’re more sneaky about taking down a king these days. They lack the flair and panache of the OSS generation. Instead they hire geeky little wispy bearded wimps like ERIC CIARAMELLA to make trouble.

        1. You should entertain yourself with actual detective fiction, not waste your time reading ‘histories’ by people who’ve folded, spindled, and mutilated fact and factoid and produced bad detective fiction.

          1. ok, shoot me some suggestions, I don’t read like i used too, getting old now, but i’m game

            1. Mr. Kurtz, you’ll breeze right through this quick read:

              “Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics – 1776 – 1963 – The History They Didn’t Teach You in School”

              by Donald Jeffries

              The book begins with “Crazy Abe” Lincoln whose regime should have never happened. Like Hitler, that tyrannical despot won 1860 with 38.9% then he, Lincoln, went on to win 1864 with brute military force and intimidation. As Lincoln himself said, “America would be destroyed from within.” Lincoln did it. The constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals have declined while the power of government has risen since Lincoln. Today, the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional yet extant. It all began with “Crazy Abe’s” “Reign of Terror.”

        2. Abuse of Power: When LBJ Spied on Goldwater

          When it comes to their heroes’ criminality, liberals reject the idea of knowing anything about it.

          Aside from Lee Edwards’ reporting, Barry Goldwater himself alluded to LBJ’s sleazy behavior in his 1988 memoir published by Doubleday.

          Goldwater acknowledged the “penetration” by the LBJ sources and wondered who was “supplying information to the White House.” “We were witnessing some of the reasons why I never wanted to run against LBJ from the beginning,” Goldwater wrote. “They went to the very core of the man, his basic character.” He noted how Johnson enjoyed telling people that he had “come to Congress as a $6,000-a-year, dirt-poor Texas schoolteacher,” only to “boast that he had become a multimillionaire.” Goldwater noted that for the 1964 campaign LBJ would use “every federal department and agency to help guarantee a landslide victory. Government was his political action committee, his slush fund, his firepower, his troops.”

          Yes, government was LBJ’s political action committee, and so was the liberal media. So is, always, the Democrat media.

    1. article III tyrant speaks:

      “We are witnessing a chief executive who criticizes virtually every judicial decision that doesn’t go his way and denigrates judges who rule against him, sometimes in very personal terms. He seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a coequal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions.'”




      I would defund them, and strip them of jurisdiction of various subject matter questions, which Congress can do with a simple vote.

      Congress never has the stones to do it, however. They should think about it.

  9. How interesting. The Left is now disinterested in tolerating those who see the world in a different light than they. So we have common ground: I do not wish to tolerate them either. Let me know when the shooting starts. I know how this will work out.

  10. ” Antifa and other college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies ” is innaccurate. A more correct statement would be: Anti-Fa, college protesters, many college professors, much of the Democrat leadership, and some Democrats want to outlaw and punish free speech and speech by conservatives. That’s just the truth.

  11. Back in the day, hippies demanded that love pervade everything, that all people must be loved and accepted, even honored no matter how different they were, how radical their beliefs, how long their hair, for smoking dope, for free love, for everything. Love all. Flower power and power to the people. They were right on.
    As long as you hated all cops (who were all pigs), hated the military, hated everyone who didn’t buy everything they were selling, you were hip and free and embraced.

    “They talk about a life of brotherly love
    Show me someone who knows how to live it” dylan. He’s still a prophet

  12. Still posting anything to avoid the real news shaking the country I see.

    Meanwhile, in the real world:

    The Ukraine was on the edge of making the announcement extorted by Trump and his henchmen – to Fareed Zachariah on CNN – when the WB complaint blew up the news and the scam came into the open. The WB and the news media screwed Trump good and just in time for the Ukraine to get the military aid. The importance of a free press was just validated.

    So much for what Zelensky said publicly and the fact the QPQ was not completed as proof of innocence.

    1. why dont you go to the trouble of copying and pasting the text since it’s behind a paywall? or shall we just rely on your interpretation of their interpretation of the spy and socalled whistleblower ERIC CHIARAMELLA ‘S interpretation of a transcript which was has other dissenting interpretations besides theirs?

      1. Mr. K:

        Will you please stop saying Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella has not been outed by anyone except real journalists. Eric Ciaramella is a partisan hack and won’t be so stupid as to cook-up a totally false complaint that was shelved as a partisan hit job until Eric Ciaramella went to Shifty Schiff where Eric Ciaramella cried and whined about Trump behind closed doors and had the complaint leaked (allegedly). Eric Ciaramella then went into hiding with fake charges of death threats until Eric Ciaramella was disclosed as the whistleblower (allegedly). Eric Ciaramella then was protected by false talking points saying disclosing the name of Eric Ciaramella is a crime – which it isn’t unless you’re an IG which most of us aren’t (allegedly) . Eric Ciaramella and his cohorts even got FB and other media platforms to ban the typing of his name, “Eric Ciaramella,” or face loss of account. Personally, I try to type the name, Eric Ciaramella, as much as possible on FB with the proviso that Eric Ciaramella is only an alleged whistleblower -not having met the legal definition times two – and Eric Ciaramella has not denied he was the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella. So please Mr. K stop saying Eric Ciaramella!

        1. Doofus, the WB complaint was deemed creditable and urgent by the Trump appointed IC IG.

          1. Because the IC IG knew the “wb” had coordinated with Schiff’s office before filing his “complaint” and the IG chose to go along with it so as not to have his life made a living hell by liar Schiff and his demon squad. So the IC IG called it ‘credible’ to let it move forward and let the facts come out, which they are. It is being exposed as the coordinated political hit job it is.

            1. So, you know the IC IG is a person of low character and weak will who does not take his job seriously, or that’s the only way your cult world can make any sense anymore?

              PS Apparently Trump’s millionaire donor ambassador is in on the “political hit job” now.


          2. The IGs office amended the standards for whistle-blower complaints in order to provide a conduit for this one. Pretty funny.

            1. Doofus, the IC IG who deemed the WB’s complaint “creditable” and “urgent” is a Trump appointee.

              1. Doofus, the IC IG who deemed the WB’s complaint “creditable” and “urgent” is a Trump appointee.

                Hmm? Is this one of those times the President hired only the best, or are you mocking this choice? I’m just trying to determine which face you’re using today.

                1. This is one of those zillion of zillions of times when Anon1 pivots and foams at the mouth to change the subject. When you discuss current events, Anon1 screams and throw things about the price of Tea in China, and throw a few insults at you, especially since Hunter Biden profits from such a pivot and foam at the mouth and throws things

                  If only the people of Waldo burned a cross at Anon’s front yard to really watch their mouth foam


                  1. MJ,
                    Anon1 is just one of several people on this blog that views political right and wrong purely by party label. They all have their own unique style, but when you boil their posts down, that’s all you get.

                    1. Says Olly, who with all his cult mates likes to post all day about how bad liberals, leftists, and democrats are while trying to ignore what’s going on around them.

                      Yeah, I’m the partisan guy!

                  2. Doofus, the news of the last 2 months is about Trump’s impeachable offense. Changing the subject from another irrelevant post from JT about some obscure professor, or Hillary laughing at a joke, is what I try to don everyday. If you don’t like it, ignore me.

                    1. Doofus, the news of the last 2 months is about Trump’s impeachable offense.

                      No, it’s not. It’s a mess of broadcast-time filler about the Democratic Party’s latest pantomime. Everyone understands it’s a fraud.

                2. I’m just trying to determine why you don’t get that having a Trump appointee confirm the importance of the WB’s complaint – and ultimately confirmed – puts the lie to the nonsense conspiracy BS you all spend your time trying to convince each other of. I know it’s your only way to avoid the cold evidence, but come on. Where not all cultists here.

                  1. Not confirmed

                    conspiracy is necessary to enact a coup. his lawyer Zaid said a coup was in process.,

                    you’re the evader. but you know that of course. keep up with propaganda. great job. not.

                  2. So back to the question you dodged: Is this one of those times the President hired only the best, or are you mocking this choice?

          1. Eric Ciaramella, a pawn of former CIA boss John Brennan

            here John Brennan urges sabotage of our national government:


            here Eric Ciaramella’s lawyer some creep named Zaid claims coup is in motion, a few days into Trump’s term of office!


            I’ll go out on a limb here and say, CIA coup plotters, current or formerly employed,
            should all be HUNG FOR TREASON

            CRUSH THE COUP


            1. if Ciaramella gets slayed on the street by “muggers” who forget to take his wallet like happened to poor Seth Rich, that would sad!

              Maybe someone will call whomever flicked Epstein off the chess board and see if they’re busy!
              Maybe someone will teach these clowns a lesson, Arkansas style.

              Eric Ciaramella wants to go for the brass ring, but eventually, he may end up in bracelets. Wants to be a bigger snitch than even, say, Whitey Bulger. What happened to him?

        2. in facebook’s censorship of the lawfully reported name of Eric Chiaramella, we see how the global plutocracy will seek to control information and thus to secure its plans to topple Trump by its coup enacted by its hirelings in the CIA.

          this is a critical moment and republishing the name of the spy Eric Chiaramella and saying naughty things about the skinny geek are supremely patriotic acts of self expression that are squarely at the core of what the First Amendment actually should protect.

          Not just porn but political speech.

      2. Later, in the field right now.
        BTW, the WB served his purpose by getting the story out. His version is irrelevant now, since teams of further evidence has clarified and confirmed almost everything he related. He could be the Una bomber and out wouldn’t matter.
        I thought you guys were attorneys?

        1. not confirmed that’s for sure. the whole shebang is mostly just bias. lawyers are good at identifying bias.

          CIA spooks are also the most famous pack of liars in history. If not “regime changers,” too. Keep those dogs on a short leash!

        2. “the WB served his purpose by getting the story out. His version is irrelevant now, ”

          Of course his version is irrelevant. It always was and there is a transcript. But it did help to start a national discussion on the Biden corruption. Add to that the soon to be released IG report and then the more important Durham investigation and I think things will get hotter for Biden. Yes, it causes some angst for Trump supporters but the Democratic claims are becoming so ludicrous that they are imunizing Trump from any pre election gambits by the Democrats.

    2. Anon, Professor Turley’s avoidance of Ukraine Scandal developments in favor of these increasingly shrill ‘free-speech’ sermons is becoming almost comical. Yet I take it as a positive sign. It means the professor is extremely reluctant to go on record writing opinions detrimental to Trump. Which shows how Trump tends to compromise everyone; including academics who don’t necessarily owe him any loyalty.

        1. Tabby, I once imagined you were bright enough to recognize reality. But it appears I gave you far too much credit. And more and more I notice you only post from really obscure sources. Which indicates the origins of your obvious disconnect.

          1. “obscure sources” = voices from outside your locked-down, mass-media groupthink

              1. um, big newspapers are not the only creditable voice of “journalism” in this country. you may not want people to realize that the government does not and MAY NOT, under the first amendment, license or presume to “define” who is a journalist and who is not

       … that link was from 2016, since then how many newspapers have gone out of business?

                and like it or not, the days of newspapers are numbered, and the big ones like your cherished WAPOO and the NYT have helped shorten the lives of those which linger, as they’ve become more discredited than ever

                ironically we can thank the owner of the WAPOO for helping reorient the entire economy to digital. why, jeff bezos of, of course. oh how clever of him to buy a failing newspaper, how clever. see how it all works together? the wonders of capitalism

          2. No, he’s not. He poses and runs when the argument get’s into facts and reality. Good at repeating gross stereotypes of those who must have taken his lunch all these years.

      1. I’m waiting for his correction on the QPQ, of which he has claimed “no proof”. If it never comes, that’s on him.

      2. “It means the professor is extremely reluctant to go on record writing opinions detrimental to Trump. Which shows how Trump tends to compromise everyone; including academics who don’t necessarily owe him any loyalty.”

        Peter, Turley is on the left so what is being seen is that the left has become so outrageous that even its strong supporters with significant intellectual impact have to diverge from the most ridiculous stuff. One recent poll shows that if Warren is nominated 6% of Biden’s supporters will either not vote or vote for Trump.That is likely the tip of the iceberg.

    3. Of course it isn’t “real news”‘ you are ok with censorship. Just admit it, I will respect you at least for your honesty.



      “Attorney Alan Dershowitz on Monday asserted on Fox News that he thought he had been banned from appearing on CNN “because they want a one-sided presentation” in analyzing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

      “I have been right from day one, and almost all the other pundits and professors have just been dead wrong,” Dershowitz told “The Story” anchor Martha MacCallum.

      “CNN banned me from their air because I was being too fair. I was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and I wasn’t being partisan. They didn’t want that. They didn’t want that.”

      “CNN wouldn’t have me on the air because they want a one-sided presentation, and everybody who watches CNN was shocked by the conclusions,” Dershowitz, who is an opinion contributor for The Hill, added. “No one who watches me was shocked.”

      The Hill has reached out to CNN for comment.

      Dershowitz used to regularly appear on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC to talk about the Mueller investigation, but has only appeared on Fox News for the past several months. On CNN, Dershowitz was often paired with CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin to discuss the probe.

      Dershowitz on Sunday took aim at CNN following the release of a summary of the Mueller report sent by Attorney General William Barr to the House and Senate Judiciary committees. In the letter, Barr stated, “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

      Many pundits, including Dershowitz, called the report a win for the president.

      “This is a good day for the president. It’s a very, very bad day for CNN,” Dershowitz said on Fox News. “They should be hanging their heads in shame.” “

  13. On his recently published volume, courtesy a pseudonymous Amazon reviewer:

    “The book is rife with mischaracterizations of individuals and Andrew projects everything he says others do in it. It reads like a lethargic propaganda piece with undertones of 3rd wave feminism and racial bias that are constantly peppered in throughout with the subtlety of a brick. Andrew often misleads by offering leading questions deliberately meant to steer readers towards his ideology. Along with that, there are blatant parts of context left out when certain topics are broached and lies by omission. The same kind of emotional rhetoric he accuses others of is the crux of the book. Andrew fails to understand that he is part of the hegemony and mainstream authoritarianism, while feigning being part of the counter culture.”

    1. in other words another boring book from someone too dull to say something interesting so instead he repeats the favored bromides of whatever faction he’s courting at the moment

  14. Remember, his definition of ‘authoritarians’ means ‘someone pursuing policies I don’t like’. His list of 10 would appear to include Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Victor Orban, Jaroslav Kaczynski, Benjamin Netanyahu, Giuseppe Conte and who knows who else.

    1. I like authority. What’s wrong with authority? I don’t like the people who are always whining and wetting the bed over it.

      I also like “order.” Oh, order and authority, along with that other bugaboo, tradition, my three favorite things, after gambling, girls, and guns!

    2. Tabby, that list kind of reads like a rogues gallery of far-right nationalistic leaders. Though Johnson is vaguely hip compared to Trump.

      1. Try assembling a coherent definition of ‘far right’, Peter. You’re an old man. You’ve had time to do it.

  15. NB.

    1. This fellow was born in 1984. His father (Paul Marantz) is a physician and public health maven on the faculty of the medical school at Yeshiva University. The family once lived in a five bedroom house in Greenwich, Ct. (His parents appear to have relocated to the Bronx, where his father works). He lives in Brooklyn.

    2. He’s the issue of Brown University, the latrine of the Ivy League. His j-school degree is from NYU. (He studied the humanities at Brown).

    3. It appears roughly 70% of his worklife has been logged on the staff of The New Yorker. He was hired right out of J-School.

    This fish doesn’t know he’s wet.

    This is the liberal id, manifest in the words of a man who is a dependent and hanger-on of our intelligentsia. Some law professor might have managed a recondite discourse to put enough trumpery on the argument to obscure its implications. He can’t manage it, or is enough of a bubble-dweller to not realize he should.

    1. I’m ok with free speech, but I’m also ok with the day when the boom lowers on “free speech” because then it will be all the much easier to sweep the garbage up and throw it away. it will at that point no longer be a question of which mouths talk the loudest. they will find that it was a poor tradeoff when it finally comes, and they will have buyer’s remorse over the outcomes.

  16. A declaration of war against any who refuse to abide in their (il)liberal garden of fecal matter. A study years ago demonstrated conservative legal scholars are more productive in peer reviewed publishing. And President Orange has filled the courts with conservative judges. That’s the side I’ll bet on.

  17. AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. to pay all lawful National Debt Obligations pursuant to Instructions from The Last Duly Elected President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s Mandate to Secret Agent Leo Emil Wanta ….

    1. Leo Wanta. a self promoting fraud and a right wing crank. IGNORE

      oh and a tax evader too.

      still out there fleecing right wingers you crank? buzz off

Comments are closed.