theamericanconservative--2020-01-17--Media Skewers ‘Sexist’ Sanders for Refusing to Bend the Knee

Democratic presidential hopeful Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren , billionaire-philanthropist Tom Steyer ( C ) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders speak after the seventh Democratic primary debate in Des Moines , Iowa on January 14 , 2020 .
( Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images ) The media can not forgive Bernie Sanders for refusing to “ bend the knee ” to Elizabeth Warren regarding her recounting of a now infamous December 2018 meeting between the two , in which the Vermont senator allegedly said a woman could not be elected president .
Furthermore , if you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of events , or if you mention her history of “ embellishing , ” you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders .
So fall in line with the establishment narrative , quick .
That is the clear takeaway after the media took off its fig leaf of journalistic impartiality at the seventh Democrat presidential debate in Iowa Tuesday .
Never mind that women make up about 70 percent of Sanders ’ campaign leadership team , or that young women actually make up a bigger share of Sanders ’ s base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , CNN moderator Abby Phillips had this exchange : This is “ when did you stop beating your wife ” level debate questioning from CNN .
The question is premised around an anonymously-sourced story CNN reported Monday describing a meeting between Sanders and Warren in December 2018 , where the two agreed to a non-aggression pact of sorts .
For the sake of the progressive movement , they reportedly agreed they would not attack each other during the campaign : In a statement to CNN , Sanders said before the debate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president , I would tell her that a woman couldn ’ t win , ” said Sanders , chalking up the story to “ staff who weren ’ t in the room … lying about what happened.
” “ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed , ” said Warren in a statement .
Eager to strike all the right girl-power notes for the night , Phillips followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantive policy question , “ what do you say to people who say that a woman can ’ t win this election ?
” and Warren earned cheers for a line about women successfully winning elections .
“ Look at the men on this stage , ” Warren said .
“ Collectively , they have lost 10 elections .
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are the women : Amy ( Klobuchar ) and me.
” After the debate , media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pundits attacked the very idea of questioning the veracity of Warren ’ s account .
Here ’ s CNN , just after the debate : Chris Cillizza , CNN politics reporter : Sanders , look , a lot of it is personal preference .
I didn ’ t think his answer vis-a-vis Elizabeth Warren and what was said in that conversation was particularly good .
He was largely dismissive .
“ Well , I didn ’ t say it .
Everyone knows I didn ’ t say it , we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jess McIntosh , CNN political commentator : And I think what Bernie forgot was that this isn ’ t a he-said-she-said story .
This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking .
So to have him just flat out say “ no , ” I think , wasn ’ t nearly enough to address that for the women watching .
Joe Lockhart , CNN political commentator : And I can ’ t imagine any woman watching last night and saying , I believe Bernie .
I think people believe Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : This was Elizabeth Warren ’ s night .
She needed to do something and there was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came to his comments about women .
I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around .
She knocked that moment out of the park .
But isn ’ t this story the literal definition of a he-said , she-said story ?
The accusation may have appeared in a “ reported-out story , ” but these are its sources : Is it sexist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on the eve of the debate—after months of the two candidates getting along as they had promised to do , when Sanders pulls ahead of Warren in polling ?
If CNN were impartial , they would have mentioned the sourcing and timing of the story , and Warren ’ s fraught history with the truth .
Warren has shown she is willing to tell lies in order to get a job she wants , like when she claimed to have Native American blood .
She has also claimed she go fired from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even when records contradict that .
She ’ s said her children went to public schools , not private ones , even though that ’ s not true either .
In addition to Warren ’ s tenuous relationship with the truth , there also happens to be video from the 1980s where Sanders says a woman could be president : Yet , you wouldn ’ t know any of that , listening to the coverage of the debate , where commentators waxed poetic about Warren ’ s “ win ” and how any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misogyny itself .
Over on Sirius XM POTUS channel Tuesday , an executive producer on Chris Cuomo ’ s show ( Chris Cillizza filling in ) said that the suggestion from Sanders surrogates that Warren ’ s staff knows she is prone to “ embellish ” things is “ a misogynistic thing to put out there … like , ‘ oh well , look at the quaint housewife , she is prone to embellishment . '
” The New York Times also embraced the questionable sexism premise , writing that in “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling the truth , Ms. Warren faces a real risk : Several studies have shown that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty… If voters conclude that Ms. Warren is lying , it is most likely to hurt her more than it will hurt Mr. Sanders if voters conclude that he is lying.
” This sort of language is an insult to all women who have had to deal with sexism and misogyny , both in the workplace and in society , and this need to glom on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how ill-fitting , is getting really stale .
Meanwhile , former Hillary Clinton and Obama Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri tweeted , “ I just rewatched the footage from last night and found it odd that Sanders never says ‘ a woman could beat Trump.
’ His formulation is he believes a ‘ woman could be president.
’ It ’ s only when he speaks about his own abilities that he talks about what it takes to ‘ beat Trump . '
” This is the old sexist standby : “ I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that woman.
” What is it that these people want , for Sanders to endorse his opponent , simply because she is female ?
Isn ’ t that the very definition of sexism ?
By virtue of the fact that Sanders is still in this race , he obviously thinks he can do a better job as president than Warren .
There isn ’ t going to be another presidential race against Trump , but Palmieri still essentially wants Sanders to say , in a five-way race three weeks before the Iowa caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November.
” The question here should be whether this is a person that we can trust , not whether the candidate is male or female .
Does this person have a history of being honest , or do they have a history of lying ?
No wonder Sanders was complaining about liberals ’ obsession with identity politics .
As an elderly , Jewish socialist , he might be an endangered species , but he ’ s one minority group that intersectional politics has no use for .

The media cannot forgive Bernie Sanders for refusing to “bend the knee” to Elizabeth Warren regarding her recounting of a now infamous December 2018 meeting between the two, in which the Vermont senator allegedly said a woman could not be elected president.
Furthermore, if you don’t agree with Sen. Warren’s version of events, or if you mention her history of “embellishing,” you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick.
That is the clear takeaway after the media took off its fig leaf of journalistic impartiality at the seventh Democrat presidential debate in Iowa Tuesday.
Never mind that women make up about 70 percent of Sanders’ campaign leadership team, or that young women actually make up a bigger share of Sanders’s base than young men do.
During the debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillips had this exchange:
Phillips: You’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn’t win the election? Bernie: Correct. Phillips: Senator Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn’t win the election? Warren: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie.
This is “when did you stop beating your wife” level debate questioning from CNN. The question is premised around an anonymously-sourced story CNN reported Monday describing a meeting between Sanders and Warren in December 2018, where the two agreed to a non-aggression pact of sorts. For the sake of the progressive movement, they reportedly agreed they would not attack each other during the campaign:
They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that’s not what happened at all.
“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win,” said Sanders, chalking up the story to “staff who weren’t in the room … lying about what happened.”
“I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” said Warren in a statement.
Cue CNN’s gladiatorial presidential debates.
Eager to strike all the right girl-power notes for the night, Phillips followed up by asking Sen. Amy Klobuchar the substantive policy question, “what do you say to people who say that a woman can’t win this election?” and Warren earned cheers for a line about women successfully winning elections.
“Look at the men on this stage,” Warren said. “Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy (Klobuchar) and me.”
After the debate, media commentators roundly declared Warren the winner, and pundits attacked the very idea of questioning the veracity of Warren’s account.
Here’s CNN, just after the debate:
Chris Cillizza, CNN politics reporter: Sanders, look, a lot of it is personal preference. I didn’t think his answer vis-a-vis Elizabeth Warren and what was said in that conversation was particularly good. He was largely dismissive. “Well, I didn’t say it. Everyone knows I didn’t say it, we don’t need to talk about it.” Jess McIntosh, CNN political commentator: And I think what Bernie forgot was that this isn’t a he-said-she-said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking. So to have him just flat out say “no,” I think, wasn’t nearly enough to address that for the women watching. Joe Lockhart, CNN political commentator: And I can’t imagine any woman watching last night and saying, I believe Bernie. I think people believe Elizabeth. Van Jones, CNN political commentator: This was Elizabeth Warren’s night. She needed to do something and there was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came to his comments about women. I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around. She knocked that moment out of the park.
But isn’t this story the literal definition of a he-said, she-said story?
The accusation may have appeared in a “reported-out story,” but these are its sources:
“The description of that meeting [between Sanders and Warren in December 2018] is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.”
Is it sexist to question why this story would come out on the eve of the debate—after months of the two candidates getting along as they had promised to do, when Sanders pulls ahead of Warren in polling?
If CNN were impartial, they would have mentioned the sourcing and timing of the story, and Warren’s fraught history with the truth. Warren has shown she is willing to tell lies in order to get a job she wants, like when she claimed to have Native American blood. She has also claimed she go fired from her teaching job for being pregnant, even when records contradict that. She’s said her children went to public schools, not private ones, even though that’s not true either.
In addition to Warren’s tenuous relationship with the truth, there also happens to be video from the 1980s where Sanders says a woman could be president:
1988,@BernieSanders, backing Jackson:”The real issue is not whether you’re black or white, whether you’re a woman or a man *in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS* The real issue is are you on the side of workers & poor ppl, or are you on the side of big money &corporations?” pic.twitter.com/VHmfzvyJdy — Every nimble plane is a policy failure. (@KindAndUnblind) January 13, 2020
Yet, you wouldn’t know any of that, listening to the coverage of the debate, where commentators waxed poetic about Warren’s “win” and how any attacks on her predilection for lying were misogyny itself.
Over on Sirius XM POTUS channel Tuesday, an executive producer on Chris Cuomo’s show (Chris Cillizza filling in) said that the suggestion from Sanders surrogates that Warren’s staff knows she is prone to “embellish” things is “a misogynistic thing to put out there … like, ‘oh well, look at the quaint housewife, she is prone to embellishment.'”
The New York Times also embraced the questionable sexism premise, writing that in “a conflict heavily focused on which candidate is telling the truth, Ms. Warren faces a real risk: Several studies have shown that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty… If voters conclude that Ms. Warren is lying, it is most likely to hurt her more than it will hurt Mr. Sanders if voters conclude that he is lying.”
Over at Vox:
The over-the-top language — likening criticism of an opponent to a knife in the back— was familiar. When powerful men have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent years, they and others have often complained that they’ve been “killed” or that their “lives are over” … The situation between Warren and Sanders is very different from those that have arisen as part of the Me Too movement. But the exaggerated language around a woman’s decision to speak out is strikingly similar.
This sort of language is an insult to all women who have had to deal with sexism and misogyny, both in the workplace and in society, and this need to glom on to any aggrieved group, no matter how ill-fitting, is getting really stale.
Meanwhile, former Hillary Clinton and Obama Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri tweeted, “I just rewatched the footage from last night and found it odd that Sanders never says ‘a woman could beat Trump.’ His formulation is he believes a ‘woman could be president.’ It’s only when he speaks about his own abilities that he talks about what it takes to ‘beat Trump.'”
This is the old sexist standby: “I’d vote for a woman, just not that woman.”
What is it that these people want, for Sanders to endorse his opponent, simply because she is female? Isn’t that the very definition of sexism? By virtue of the fact that Sanders is still in this race, he obviously thinks he can do a better job as president than Warren. There isn’t going to be another presidential race against Trump, but Palmieri still essentially wants Sanders to say, in a five-way race three weeks before the Iowa caucus, “Warren can beat Trump in November.”
The question here should be whether this is a person that we can trust, not whether the candidate is male or female. Does this person have a history of being honest, or do they have a history of lying?
No wonder Sanders was complaining about liberals’ obsession with identity politics. As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be an endangered species, but he’s one minority group that intersectional politics has no use for.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-17--Democrats Ignore the Immigration Elephant in the Room

At Tuesday ’ s Democratic debate sponsored by CNN and the Des Moines Register , nobody seemed to notice the elephant in the room—or perhaps the candidates and moderators just didn ’ t want to acknowledge its presence .
Whether it was out of blindness or stubbornness , it tells us a great deal about the state of the Democratic Party in our time—and also about the state of American politics .
That elephant is immigration , and the issue it represents is the defining one of our time .
It is the most intractable , the most emotional , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing Western societies .
And yet it was almost totally ignored in the most crucial debate so far in the Democratic quest for a presidential nominee .
Two passing references was all the issue got over two hours of polemical fireworks .
President Trump certainly came in for his share of opprobrium from the top six Democratic candidates , yet nobody seemed to have the slightest awareness that the single most important issue driving Trump ’ s political rise four years ago was immigration .
A Pew Research Center survey revealed after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters considered immigration to be a “ very big ” problem , the highest percentage for any issue .
For Hillary Clinton supporters , the corresponding percentage was just 17 .
Also , fully 79 percent of Trump voters favored building the border wall he advocated , compared to just 10 percent for Clinton supporters .
During the 2016 campaign , the Washington Examiner called immigration “ the mother of all issues ” —touching on jobs , national security and terrorism , the public fisc , and the cultural definition of America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was a “ nearly existential question ” involving the ultimate definition of a nation without borders .
Elsewhere in the West , we see the same political percolation .
By most analyses , immigration was the driving force behind Britain ’ s 2016 vote for Brexit .
The Atlantic ran a piece in June of that year headlined : “ The Immigration Battle at the Heart of Brexit.
” After the vote , Slate rushed out to interview former British prime minister Tony Blair—who , as the website noted , “ presided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borders.
” That had unleashed “ a wave of immigration unprecedented in [ Britain ’ s ] history.
” Within a few years , noted Slate , “ roughly twice as many immigrants arrived in the United Kingdom as had arrived in the previous half-century.
” The Brexit vote was in large measure a rebuke to that Blair project , pushed avidly and relentlessly by the British ruling class .
Elsewhere in Europe—Hungary , Poland , France , Germany , Italy , even Sweden , among other nations—mass immigration has emerged as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national politics and pushing to the fore various types of conservative populism .
New parties have emerged to join the issue , and old parties have gained new sway .
Many commentators and political analysts in recent years have posited the idea that a new political fault line has emerged throughout the West , between the globalist elites and ordinary citizens who are more nationalist in their political sensibilities and more culturally protective .
This is true .
And while there are many issues that have come into play here , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and political correctness , immigration is the key driver .
Generally , the open-border elites have been on the defensive since Donald Trump seized the issue in 2015 and tied it to the emotional matters of terrorism and crime .
Trump was probably correct in the first Republican debate of the 2016 election cycle when he said that , were it not for him , immigration probably wouldn ’ t have been a major topic of discussion .
It certainly seemed as if the other candidates preferred to keep it out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handled after the election in the more controlled environments of Congress and the courts .
By bringing it up , even in his crude and disturbing manner , Trump galvanized a large body of voters who had concluded that the elites of both parties didn ’ t really care about controlling the borders .
Indeed , in their 2018 book , The Great Revolt , Salena Zito and Brad Todd posit that Trump got an extra boost from working class Americans put off by the attacks on him from prominent politicians of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unhinged , ” “ reprehensible , ” “ xenophobic , ” “ racist , ” and “ fascist.
” Zito and Todd write that many Trump voters “ saw one candidate , who shared their anxiety about immigration ’ s potential connections to domestic terrorism , being attacked by an entire political and media establishment that blew off that concern as bigotry.
” In this great political divide , the Democratic candidates at the debate represent the elite preference for policies that embrace or nearly embrace open borders .
An NPR study of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of whether illegal crossings should be decriminalized , four of those on the debate stage say yes , while the positions of the other two remain “ unclear.
” On whether immigration numbers should be increased , four say yes , while two are unclear .
On whether federal funding for border enforcement should be increased or decreased , five have no clear position , while one says it should be decreased .
A separate Washington Post study on the candidates ’ views as to whether illegal immigrants should be covered under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say yes while one has no clear position .
The Democratic Party has become the party of the country ’ s elites—globalist , internationalist , anti-nationalist , free-trade , and open borders .
Those views are so thoroughly at variance with those of Trump voters that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have here a powerful issue of our time , perhaps the most powerful issue .
Yet the journalistic moderators at Tuesday ’ s event didn ’ t see fit to ask about it .
And the candidates weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any serious way .
Perhaps they thought that if they just ignored that elephant , eventually it would go away .
It won ’ t .
Robert W. Merry , longtime Washington , D.C. , journalist and publishing executive , is the author most recently of President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

At Tuesday’s Democratic debate sponsored by CNN and the Des Moines Register, nobody seemed to notice the elephant in the room—or perhaps the candidates and moderators just didn’t want to acknowledge its presence. Whether it was out of blindness or stubbornness, it tells us a great deal about the state of the Democratic Party in our time—and also about the state of American politics.
That elephant is immigration, and the issue it represents is the defining one of our time. It is the most intractable, the most emotional, and the most irrepressible of all matters facing Western societies. And yet it was almost totally ignored in the most crucial debate so far in the Democratic quest for a presidential nominee. Two passing references was all the issue got over two hours of polemical fireworks.
President Trump certainly came in for his share of opprobrium from the top six Democratic candidates, yet nobody seemed to have the slightest awareness that the single most important issue driving Trump’s political rise four years ago was immigration. A Pew Research Center survey revealed after the 2016 election that 66 percent of Trump supporters considered immigration to be a “very big” problem, the highest percentage for any issue. For Hillary Clinton supporters, the corresponding percentage was just 17. Also, fully 79 percent of Trump voters favored building the border wall he advocated, compared to just 10 percent for Clinton supporters.
During the 2016 campaign, the Washington Examiner called immigration “the mother of all issues”—touching on jobs, national security and terrorism, the public fisc, and the cultural definition of America. That latter factor, said the paper, was a “nearly existential question” involving the ultimate definition of a nation without borders.
Elsewhere in the West, we see the same political percolation. By most analyses, immigration was the driving force behind Britain’s 2016 vote for Brexit. The Atlantic ran a piece in June of that year headlined: “The Immigration Battle at the Heart of Brexit.” After the vote, Slate rushed out to interview former British prime minister Tony Blair—who, as the website noted, “presided over the opening of Britain’s borders.” That had unleashed “a wave of immigration unprecedented in [Britain’s] history.” Within a few years, noted Slate, “roughly twice as many immigrants arrived in the United Kingdom as had arrived in the previous half-century.” The Brexit vote was in large measure a rebuke to that Blair project, pushed avidly and relentlessly by the British ruling class.
Elsewhere in Europe—Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, Italy, even Sweden, among other nations—mass immigration has emerged as the dominant issue, roiling the waters of national politics and pushing to the fore various types of conservative populism. New parties have emerged to join the issue, and old parties have gained new sway.
Many commentators and political analysts in recent years have posited the idea that a new political fault line has emerged throughout the West, between the globalist elites and ordinary citizens who are more nationalist in their political sensibilities and more culturally protective. This is true. And while there are many issues that have come into play here, such as trade, military adventurism, identity politics, and political correctness, immigration is the key driver.
Generally, the open-border elites have been on the defensive since Donald Trump seized the issue in 2015 and tied it to the emotional matters of terrorism and crime. Trump was probably correct in the first Republican debate of the 2016 election cycle when he said that, were it not for him, immigration probably wouldn’t have been a major topic of discussion. It certainly seemed as if the other candidates preferred to keep it out of the campaign debate so it could be handled after the election in the more controlled environments of Congress and the courts. By bringing it up, even in his crude and disturbing manner, Trump galvanized a large body of voters who had concluded that the elites of both parties didn’t really care about controlling the borders.
Indeed, in their 2018 book, The Great Revolt, Salena Zito and Brad Todd posit that Trump got an extra boost from working class Americans put off by the attacks on him from prominent politicians of both parties who called his immigration concerns “unhinged,” “reprehensible,” “xenophobic,” “racist,” and “fascist.” Zito and Todd write that many Trump voters “saw one candidate, who shared their anxiety about immigration’s potential connections to domestic terrorism, being attacked by an entire political and media establishment that blew off that concern as bigotry.”
In this great political divide, the Democratic candidates at the debate represent the elite preference for policies that embrace or nearly embrace open borders. An NPR study of candidate positions indicated that, on the question of whether illegal crossings should be decriminalized, four of those on the debate stage say yes, while the positions of the other two remain “unclear.” On whether immigration numbers should be increased, four say yes, while two are unclear. On whether federal funding for border enforcement should be increased or decreased, five have no clear position, while one says it should be decreased. A separate Washington Post study on the candidates’ views as to whether illegal immigrants should be covered under a government-run health plan found that five say yes while one has no clear position.
The Democratic Party has become the party of the country’s elites—globalist, internationalist, anti-nationalist, free-trade, and open borders. Those views are so thoroughly at variance with those of Trump voters that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have here a powerful issue of our time, perhaps the most powerful issue. Yet the journalistic moderators at Tuesday’s event didn’t see fit to ask about it. And the candidates weren’t inclined to bring it up in any serious way.
Perhaps they thought that if they just ignored that elephant, eventually it would go away. It won’t.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).


theamericanconservative--2020-01-16--Abandoning Broken-Windows Policing, de Blasio Invites Disaster

Two New York City mayors are feuding over the alarming increase in antisemitic attacks in Brooklyn and Manhattan in recent weeks .
Former mayor Rudy Giuliani has accused current Mayor Bill de Blasio of being responsible because he failed “ to learn lessons from the Holocaust.
” In fairness , de Blasio is likely aware that the Shoah began with the defaming of Jews , which later turned into physical assaults and eventually death camps .
This , however , does not absolve him of culpability .
Giuliani is correct in the sense that de Blasio is responsible for New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new crisis of disorder , our diminished quality of life above ground and the consistent harassment in the subways below , the 2019 increase in violent crime , and now the rise of antisemitic attacks .
This is not the return of history .
As the late , great Charles Krauthammer said , decline is a choice .
When de Blasio abandoned broken-windows policing , he chose to consign a city of 8.6 million to fate and a naïve progressive ’ s hope that bad actors would not indulge their revanchist impulses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last six years have been impressive .
Belligerent beggars , aggressive vagrants , and juvenile delinquents now accost taxpayers and tourists with impunity , from Times Square to the 2 train .
Violent crime has also made a comeback .
In 2019 , murder , rapes , robberies , shootings , and assaults were all up over the previous year .
Broken-windows policing maintains order by addressing the small acts of anti-social behavior—think disorderly conduct , fare beating , vandalism , aggressive begging , open drug use—that , when tolerated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The theory ’ s architects explained that a building with “ one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares , so breaking more windows costs nothing.
” Before you know it , “ vandals break a few more windows ” and eventually “ break into the building.
” Repair the broken window , prevent the burglary .
Arrest the fare beater , reduce subway assaults .
Even de Blasio conceded that “ the underlying principle was the right principle , which is you address little things that come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notwithstanding .
By retreating from this proven strategy , informal societal controls were weakened and de Blasio ’ s permissive approach to deviance enabled the repugnant social contagion of antisemitism to flourish .
When the fevered minds harboring religious hatred observed the incremental breakdown of social order , they understood that it “ costs nothing ” to act on their diseased prejudices .
The first antisemitic attack—which the mayor limply condemned for its “ affront to our city ’ s values ” rather than its intrinsic and absolute evil—on December 23 , 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first broken window.
” Over the last three weeks , there have been at least 13 of these attacks in New York .
Thus , when Giuliani said de Blasio has “ ruined things that I worked [ on ] 24 hours a day , ” he was right .
For the last six years , New York City has been living off the Giuliani-Bloomberg inheritance .
But the disordered atmosphere de Blasio tolerates in the subway is the same in which the criminally antisemitic feel empowered to act .
Our inheritance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depleted .
On New Years Day 2018 , de Blasio gave his second inaugural address and announced “ what the next four years will be like.
” He told New Yorkers : “ Something big is happening in New York City , something new , something different , something that has begun a new progressive era in this city ’ s history.
” We know what this “ new progressive era ” looks like , and concerned New Yorkers are clamoring for a return to the status quo ante of the Giuliani-Bloomberg years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is term-limited out in 2021 , though this will provide little comfort to those Jewish New Yorkers who no longer feel safe in their own communities .
If de Blasio ’ s first term was defined by his surrender to lawlessness masquerading as reform , then his second term will be remembered for his failure to respond forcefully to antisemitic violence .
Since New Yorkers can not expect de Blasio to accept responsibility , it falls to imperious liberal Democrat and de Blasio antagonist Governor Andrew Cuomo to do the right thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage , rather than a petulant child ’ s instinct to torment , he will exercise his power under the city charter and state constitution to remove de Blasio for maladministration in the face of a public safety crisis that the mayor has not only tolerated but hastened .
If not , it will only get worse .
Craig Trainor is a criminal defense and civil rights attorney in New York City .
Follow him on Twitter @ TrainorLaw .

Two New York City mayors are feuding over the alarming increase in antisemitic attacks in Brooklyn and Manhattan in recent weeks. Former mayor Rudy Giuliani has accused current Mayor Bill de Blasio of being responsible because he failed “to learn lessons from the Holocaust.” In fairness, de Blasio is likely aware that the Shoah began with the defaming of Jews, which later turned into physical assaults and eventually death camps. This, however, does not absolve him of culpability.
Giuliani is correct in the sense that de Blasio is responsible for New York City’s comprehensive decline: the new crisis of disorder, our diminished quality of life above ground and the consistent harassment in the subways below, the 2019 increase in violent crime, and now the rise of antisemitic attacks.
This is not the return of history. As the late, great Charles Krauthammer said, decline is a choice. When de Blasio abandoned broken-windows policing, he chose to consign a city of 8.6 million to fate and a naïve progressive’s hope that bad actors would not indulge their revanchist impulses. They have, and their successes over the last six years have been impressive. Belligerent beggars, aggressive vagrants, and juvenile delinquents now accost taxpayers and tourists with impunity, from Times Square to the 2 train. Violent crime has also made a comeback. In 2019, murder, rapes, robberies, shootings, and assaults were all up over the previous year.
Broken-windows policing maintains order by addressing the small acts of anti-social behavior—think disorderly conduct, fare beating, vandalism, aggressive begging, open drug use—that, when tolerated, encourage criminals to commit more serious offenses. The theory’s architects explained that a building with “one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, so breaking more windows costs nothing.” Before you know it, “vandals break a few more windows” and eventually “break into the building.” Repair the broken window, prevent the burglary. Arrest the fare beater, reduce subway assaults. Even de Blasio conceded that “the underlying principle was the right principle, which is you address little things that come from big things,” his cognitive dissonance notwithstanding.
By retreating from this proven strategy, informal societal controls were weakened and de Blasio’s permissive approach to deviance enabled the repugnant social contagion of antisemitism to flourish. When the fevered minds harboring religious hatred observed the incremental breakdown of social order, they understood that it “costs nothing” to act on their diseased prejudices. The first antisemitic attack—which the mayor limply condemned for its “affront to our city’s values” rather than its intrinsic and absolute evil—on December 23, 2019, “is, in effect, the first broken window.” Over the last three weeks, there have been at least 13 of these attacks in New York.
Thus, when Giuliani said de Blasio has “ruined things that I worked [on] 24 hours a day,” he was right. For the last six years, New York City has been living off the Giuliani-Bloomberg inheritance. But the disordered atmosphere de Blasio tolerates in the subway is the same in which the criminally antisemitic feel empowered to act. Our inheritance, in other words, has been depleted.
On New Years Day 2018, de Blasio gave his second inaugural address and announced “what the next four years will be like.” He told New Yorkers: “Something big is happening in New York City, something new, something different, something that has begun a new progressive era in this city’s history.” We know what this “new progressive era” looks like, and concerned New Yorkers are clamoring for a return to the status quo ante of the Giuliani-Bloomberg years.
On the upside, de Blasio is term-limited out in 2021, though this will provide little comfort to those Jewish New Yorkers who no longer feel safe in their own communities. If de Blasio’s first term was defined by his surrender to lawlessness masquerading as reform, then his second term will be remembered for his failure to respond forcefully to antisemitic violence.
Since New Yorkers cannot expect de Blasio to accept responsibility, it falls to imperious liberal Democrat and de Blasio antagonist Governor Andrew Cuomo to do the right thing. If Cuomo has an ounce of moral courage, rather than a petulant child’s instinct to torment, he will exercise his power under the city charter and state constitution to remove de Blasio for maladministration in the face of a public safety crisis that the mayor has not only tolerated but hastened. If not, it will only get worse.
Craig Trainor is a criminal defense and civil rights attorney in New York City. Follow him on Twitter @TrainorLaw.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-20--With Democrats Imploding, It’s Beginning To Look A Lot Like 2004

A divisive Republican president has plunged the country into a new , questionable Middle Eastern imbroglio .
Seeking a renewal of his electoral charter , that president warns voters that his would-be replacements would bring about dangerous , sweeping , even un-American social change .
Meanwhile , the replacements themselves are divided , with a Democratic Party torn between a safe pair of hands to take out a dangerous president , and a changing of the guard that would thrill its youth wing .
2020 ?
Or 2004 ?
President Donald Trump ’ s explicit renunciation of his Republican predecessor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sybarite salesman has little , personally , in common with the born-again scion of traditional , center-right politicians .
It ’ s actually unclear who Trump voted for in 2004—he ’ s claimed he never voted for Bush , but has also claimed the opposite .
Bush ’ s political architect , Karl Rove , has claimed that Trump voted for Kerry as has Trump ’ s main 2016 primary rival , Ted Cruz .
Yet , like or not , it ’ s now Trump ’ s time in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only reluctantly inherits the mantle of Bush , who waged a cynical campaign against gay marriage and war protest to secure four more , miserable years in the White House .
Taking a peek at the number of Bush allies who signed an amicus brief in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges , and now lament the Iraq decision , as well , can make for infuriating research .
But Trump ’ s almost three years in office—from the Obamacare repeal disaster , to a middling tax cut , to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a testament to his struggles to banish the ghosts of Republicanism past .
Trump perhaps won the war , the 2016 election , and lost the peace , his time in power , and now stands poised to run “ against socialism ” and “ for hamburgers , ” some of his earliest supporters quietly grumble .
Take a look at any of the president ’ s recent rallies , or bear witness to the chants of “ USA ” as his entered the college football championship earlier this week .
Helmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s in danger of running a campaign that ’ s the heir in spirit to the Naughties bromides against “ latte liberalism.
” Outside of Never Trump , it ’ s not an accident that that some on the right most mortified by Trump ’ s rise—legal conservatives , tax and foreign policy hawks , traditional party operatives—have been pleasantly surprised by the reign of a politician they once regarded as a heinous interloper .
On a recent trip out of the country , a Bush alum told me he thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance ” of re-election .
Despite non-existent evidence of a coming landslide , other former Bushies have insisted to me that he could win forty-five states .
Now , as then , they view the incumbent Republican president as the unlikely heir to Reagan .
And in another eerie parallel to 2004 , when Trump rained missiles down on Mesopotamia earlier this month , just as Bush did , it again fell to lonely voices such as The American Conservative to point out the folly of such a course .
And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really want that 2004 energy , let us turn to Michael Moore , who recently weighed in on the controversy of the day : the spat between the socialists .
“ So , to be honest , the night that happened my first thought was that they will mark this day , January 13 , as the day Donald Trump was re-elected , because once again the Democrats , the liberals , the left couldn ’ t get it together.
” The shell game between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders has transmogrified .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ duo has the progressive left fearing repeat business from ‘ 04 : like Howard Dean ’ s electric antiwar campaign , the air is coming out of the balloon at just the wrong time , only weeks ahead of the first primaries .
Already , progressives are on their back foot , with Senators Warren and Sanders forced to return to Washington to tend to a show trial , that unlike the election , has little chance of removing the president .
Left on the trail is the center .
That means Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ’ s John Kerry .
That means Pete Buttigieg , a young gun hoping to surprise in Iowa and onward , as John Edwards once did .
And finally , Amy Klobachur , a Midwestener like Dick Gephardt who never caught fire but could easily end up on the ticket .
It ’ s a long year ahead , and the deja vu is real .

A divisive Republican president has plunged the country into a new, questionable Middle Eastern imbroglio. Seeking a renewal of his electoral charter, that president warns voters that his would-be replacements would bring about dangerous, sweeping, even un-American social change. Meanwhile, the replacements themselves are divided, with a Democratic Party torn between a safe pair of hands to take out a dangerous president, and a changing of the guard that would thrill its youth wing. 2020? Or 2004?
President Donald Trump’s explicit renunciation of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, is well-known. The sybarite salesman has little, personally, in common with the born-again scion of traditional, center-right politicians. It’s actually unclear who Trump voted for in 2004—he’s claimed he never voted for Bush, but has also claimed the opposite. Bush’s political architect, Karl Rove, has claimed that Trump voted for Kerry as has Trump’s main 2016 primary rival, Ted Cruz.
Yet, like or not, it’s now Trump’s time in the barrel. The socially moderate Trump likely only reluctantly inherits the mantle of Bush, who waged a cynical campaign against gay marriage and war protest to secure four more, miserable years in the White House. Taking a peek at the number of Bush allies who signed an amicus brief in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, and now lament the Iraq decision, as well, can make for infuriating research.
But Trump’s almost three years in office—from the Obamacare repeal disaster, to a middling tax cut, to the Iran crusade, to underperformance on immigration—have been a testament to his struggles to banish the ghosts of Republicanism past. Trump perhaps won the war, the 2016 election, and lost the peace, his time in power, and now stands poised to run “against socialism” and “for hamburgers,” some of his earliest supporters quietly grumble.
Take a look at any of the president’s recent rallies, or bear witness to the chants of “USA” as his entered the college football championship earlier this week. Helmed by the culture warrior Brad Parscale, Trump’s in danger of running a campaign that’s the heir in spirit to the Naughties bromides against “latte liberalism.” Outside of Never Trump, it’s not an accident that that some on the right most mortified by Trump’s rise—legal conservatives, tax and foreign policy hawks, traditional party operatives—have been pleasantly surprised by the reign of a politician they once regarded as a heinous interloper.
On a recent trip out of the country, a Bush alum told me he thought the president had a “100 percent chance” of re-election. Despite non-existent evidence of a coming landslide, other former Bushies have insisted to me that he could win forty-five states. Now, as then, they view the incumbent Republican president as the unlikely heir to Reagan. And in another eerie parallel to 2004, when Trump rained missiles down on Mesopotamia earlier this month, just as Bush did, it again fell to lonely voices such as The American Conservative to point out the folly of such a course.
And that’s just the Right. If you really want that 2004 energy, let us turn to Michael Moore, who recently weighed in on the controversy of the day: the spat between the socialists. “So, to be honest, the night that happened my first thought was that they will mark this day, January 13, as the day Donald Trump was re-elected, because once again the Democrats, the liberals, the left couldn’t get it together.”
The shell game between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders has transmogrified. The brutal, post-debate exchange between the duo has the progressive left fearing repeat business from ‘04: like Howard Dean’s electric antiwar campaign, the air is coming out of the balloon at just the wrong time, only weeks ahead of the first primaries.
Already, progressives are on their back foot, with Senators Warren and Sanders forced to return to Washington to tend to a show trial, that unlike the election, has little chance of removing the president. Left on the trail is the center. That means Joe Biden, the front-runner and maybe this year’s John Kerry. That means Pete Buttigieg, a young gun hoping to surprise in Iowa and onward, as John Edwards once did. And finally, Amy Klobachur, a Midwestener like Dick Gephardt who never caught fire but could easily end up on the ticket.
It’s a long year ahead, and the deja vu is real.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-20--The Covington Kids’ Revenge, One Year Later

Almost to the day CNN paid out a notable cash settlement to Nick Sandmann , the Covington High School kid it defamed as a racist pup for grinning at a Native American whilst supporting President Trump , the network was one of a gaggle of MSM outlets out to spin the killing of an Iranian general—into another Orange Man Bad .
As with Sandmann , the facts never support the heavy metal screeching , but the facts also matter little .
The anti-Trump agenda rules no matter the price .
You remember about a year ago , when Sandmann and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D.C. , to join the annual March for Life rally on Capitol Hill .
Sandmann was photographed smiling at a Native American .
With one mighty flatulent blast , outlets like CNN imagined Sandmann , wearing his MAGA cap , as the distillation of everything evil , some redneck from Kentucky a-protestin ’ them abortions and rubbing his smug grin in the face of a noble Native American supposedly trying to defuse a tense situation .
The Native American was also quickly ( but wrongly ) glorified as a Vietnam vet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the face , and veiled suggestions of mob action led to threats .
Sandmann ’ s family was temporarily run out of their home .
Disciplinary action included coerced apologies .
Progressive media gleefully piled on .
It was right out of Orwell ’ s 1984 , the Two Minutes Hate .
But not only was everything CNN and the others said absolutely wrong ( Sandmann was never an aggressor , and alongside his peers , said nothing in return to those taunting him ) , it wasn ’ t even news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a field trip .
But the media appointed Sandmann their racist oberfuhrer , fashioned the others into props , and had the entire white nationalist anti-Trump agenda in one handy snapshot .
Most agenda journalism victims are expected to disappear in shame .
But this time it was different .
Sandmann sued a range of journalists , including Maggie Haberman , Ana Navarro , and Shaun King , for slurs they threw at him on Twitter .
Included in the swath of additional lawsuits by Sandmann were CNN , MSNBC ’ s parent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HuffPo , Slate , and The Washington Post .
In the words of the suit , they “ brought down the full force of corporate power , influence , and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking , vilifying , and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.
” The suits charged that journalists “ maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.
” They asserted that CNN and the others would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ untrue had they undertaken any reasonable efforts to verify their accuracy before publication.
” In other words , they should have committed journalism , the finding of facts , in lieu of packaging what was actually nothing at all into a steamy piece that fit an existing agenda .
Sandmann beat CNN ( the other suits are pending ) , which settled and paid rather than risk a trial .
Assuming credibility and self-respect are worth about zero , we now know that the price tag for the agenda journalism CNN practices is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is probably half of what the network spends on botox for Anderson Cooper , but as Cooper ’ s aestheticians are prone to say , it ’ s a start .
With a win in Sandmann ’ s pocket and as his cases against the other media outlets work their way through the courts , others also appear ready to challenge agenda journalism via the defamation laws .
Ten more Covington students are now suing various media .
Elsewhere , writer Peter Brimelow is suing the New York Times for labeling him an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Donald Trump , filed suit against Fox a month ago , claiming defamation .
George Zimmerman , who killed Trayvon Martin , filed a defamation suit against HarperCollins , the Martin family lawyer ’ s publisher .
Trump critic and Harvard prof Lawrence Lessig is suing the New York Times , accusing them of publishing “ false and defamatory ” information about him .
Representative Devin Nunes sued CNN last month , claiming the network defamed him with false reports that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ukrainian prosecutor Joe Biden helped oust in 2016 .
Under current law , most of those suits will fail .
Going forward , how powerful a weapon defamation lawsuits might prove to be against agenda journalism will depend on how flexible the courts choose to be .
Historically they have given great leeway to anyone , journalist or not , who appears to defame public figures .
The idea is that if you put yourself out there , you ’ re expected to take a few slings and arrows and so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what allows tabloids like the National Enquirer to get away with making up stories about popular figures .
But defamation as a business practice was once upon a time what bottom feeders did for the shock value , not regular practice for the media of record .
The hope is that justice recognizes that a new media environment has emerged , one that drags innocent people onto the national stage unnecessarily in a way that is unethical and exploitative—and that even politicians , never mind the voters who select them , deserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of CNN and Nick Sandmann , it appears the network would rather pay out millions of dollars than see what a court would say .
That CNN has not made any noticeable changes in its obsessive stream of agenda journalism since the original incident a year ago , or since settling with Sandmann , suggests what they paid out is to them a reasonable price to continue to lie to the American public .
Most MSM gave the settlement little or no coverage .
CNN itself devoted 29 seconds to the story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ business expense .
If this agenda-driven journalism was limited to individual acts of defamation , such as the Sandmann case , it would be bad enough .
But the MSM extend the same thinking to significant geopolitical events , using their vast resources to convince the public that Donald Trump threatens their very existence .
Remember how Trump was going to start global economic war with China , withdraw from NATO , start a wider war in Syria by bombing Russian bases , start World War III with North Korea , sell out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea , start World War III because he is Hitler , start a war over Venezuela , start a genocide of Kurds with Turkey… The giveaway that journalism is near-singularly devoted to an agenda , frightening the public in service of somehow driving Trump from office , is how the mistakes are always wrong in same direction .
Contrast the beatification of the good victims of the Parkland shooting with the Parkland kid who supports the Second Amendment—he was media-doxxed out of Harvard .
Meanwhile none of the people who keep track of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding “ fact checks ” before ads are allowed to run on social media seem to spend any time on the other side of the equation .
Who would accept a track record this bad from their doctor , lawyer , or even their nail technician ( “ no , seriously , cracked nails are hot this year , it was in the NYT “ ) ?
Is there any price to be paid for agenda journalism ?
In a rare breath of self-examination , one New York Times columnist wrote , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narcissistic and intellectually dishonest .
So you ’ d think that those of us in the anti-Trump camp would go out of our way to show we ’ re not like him — that we are judicious , informed , mature and reasonable .
The anti-Trump echo chamber is becoming a mirror image of Trump himself — overwrought , uncalibrated , and incapable of having an intelligent conversation.
” The Founders assigned journalism a specific role to ensure that citizens would be able to carry out informed debates .
Truth , they understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is a perspective .
Yet over the last three years , serious journalism has all but been pushed aside in a rush to do away with Trump , not by honest persuasion but by any means necessary .
Fear won out , and so objectivity is now # Collusion .
Seeking facts before going viral is so 2015 .
The media gutlessly picks on kids because they can ’ t get Trump .
We asked for an informed citizenry and we instead got Mean Girls .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

Almost to the day CNN paid out a notable cash settlement to Nick Sandmann, the Covington High School kid it defamed as a racist pup for grinning at a Native American whilst supporting President Trump, the network was one of a gaggle of MSM outlets out to spin the killing of an Iranian general—into another Orange Man Bad. As with Sandmann, the facts never support the heavy metal screeching, but the facts also matter little. The anti-Trump agenda rules no matter the price.
You remember about a year ago, when Sandmann and his Catholic school classmates traveled to Washington, D.C., to join the annual March for Life rally on Capitol Hill. Sandmann was photographed smiling at a Native American. With one mighty flatulent blast, outlets like CNN imagined Sandmann, wearing his MAGA cap, as the distillation of everything evil, some redneck from Kentucky a-protestin’ them abortions and rubbing his smug grin in the face of a noble Native American supposedly trying to defuse a tense situation. The Native American was also quickly (but wrongly) glorified as a Vietnam vet.
Blue Check Twitter suggested Sandmann be punched in the face, and veiled suggestions of mob action led to threats. Sandmann’s family was temporarily run out of their home. Disciplinary action included coerced apologies. Progressive media gleefully piled on. It was right out of Orwell’s 1984, the Two Minutes Hate.
But not only was everything CNN and the others said absolutely wrong (Sandmann was never an aggressor, and alongside his peers, said nothing in return to those taunting him), it wasn’t even news. Nothing really happened. Students on a field trip. But the media appointed Sandmann their racist oberfuhrer, fashioned the others into props, and had the entire white nationalist anti-Trump agenda in one handy snapshot.
Most agenda journalism victims are expected to disappear in shame. But this time it was different. Sandmann sued a range of journalists, including Maggie Haberman, Ana Navarro, and Shaun King, for slurs they threw at him on Twitter. Included in the swath of additional lawsuits by Sandmann were CNN, MSNBC’s parent company, the AP, Gannett, HuffPo, Slate, and The Washington Post. In the words of the suit, they “brought down the full force of corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”
The suits charged that journalists “maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” They asserted that CNN and the others would have “known the statements to be untrue had they undertaken any reasonable efforts to verify their accuracy before publication.” In other words, they should have committed journalism, the finding of facts, in lieu of packaging what was actually nothing at all into a steamy piece that fit an existing agenda.
Sandmann beat CNN (the other suits are pending), which settled and paid rather than risk a trial. Assuming credibility and self-respect are worth about zero, we now know that the price tag for the agenda journalism CNN practices is reportedly $25 million. That amount is probably half of what the network spends on botox for Anderson Cooper, but as Cooper’s aestheticians are prone to say, it’s a start.
With a win in Sandmann’s pocket and as his cases against the other media outlets work their way through the courts, others also appear ready to challenge agenda journalism via the defamation laws. Ten more Covington students are now suing various media. Elsewhere, writer Peter Brimelow is suing the New York Times for labeling him an “open white nationalist.” Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Donald Trump, filed suit against Fox a month ago, claiming defamation. George Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin, filed a defamation suit against HarperCollins, the Martin family lawyer’s publisher. Trump critic and Harvard prof Lawrence Lessig is suing the New York Times, accusing them of publishing “false and defamatory” information about him. Representative Devin Nunes sued CNN last month, claiming the network defamed him with false reports that he traveled to Vienna to meet with the Ukrainian prosecutor Joe Biden helped oust in 2016.
Under current law, most of those suits will fail. Going forward, how powerful a weapon defamation lawsuits might prove to be against agenda journalism will depend on how flexible the courts choose to be. Historically they have given great leeway to anyone, journalist or not, who appears to defame public figures. The idea is that if you put yourself out there, you’re expected to take a few slings and arrows and so the standards of proof are higher. This is what allows tabloids like the National Enquirer to get away with making up stories about popular figures. But defamation as a business practice was once upon a time what bottom feeders did for the shock value, not regular practice for the media of record.
The hope is that justice recognizes that a new media environment has emerged, one that drags innocent people onto the national stage unnecessarily in a way that is unethical and exploitative—and that even politicians, never mind the voters who select them, deserve factual reporting. But in the case of CNN and Nick Sandmann, it appears the network would rather pay out millions of dollars than see what a court would say.
That CNN has not made any noticeable changes in its obsessive stream of agenda journalism since the original incident a year ago, or since settling with Sandmann, suggests what they paid out is to them a reasonable price to continue to lie to the American public. Most MSM gave the settlement little or no coverage. CNN itself devoted 29 seconds to the story. Like botox, settlements are just another business expense.
If this agenda-driven journalism was limited to individual acts of defamation, such as the Sandmann case, it would be bad enough. But the MSM extend the same thinking to significant geopolitical events, using their vast resources to convince the public that Donald Trump threatens their very existence.
Remember how Trump was going to start global economic war with China, withdraw from NATO, start a wider war in Syria by bombing Russian bases, start World War III with North Korea, sell out the U.S. to get peace with North Korea, start World War III because he is Hitler, start a war over Venezuela, start a genocide of Kurds with Turkey…
The giveaway that journalism is near-singularly devoted to an agenda, frightening the public in service of somehow driving Trump from office, is how the mistakes are always wrong in same direction. Contrast the beatification of the good victims of the Parkland shooting with the Parkland kid who supports the Second Amendment—he was media-doxxed out of Harvard. Meanwhile none of the people who keep track of the lies Trump tells and who are demanding “fact checks” before ads are allowed to run on social media seem to spend any time on the other side of the equation. Who would accept a track record this bad from their doctor, lawyer, or even their nail technician (“no, seriously, cracked nails are hot this year, it was in the NYT“)? Is there any price to be paid for agenda journalism?
In a rare breath of self-examination, one New York Times columnist wrote, “Donald Trump is impulse-driven, ignorant, narcissistic and intellectually dishonest. So you’d think that those of us in the anti-Trump camp would go out of our way to show we’re not like him — that we are judicious, informed, mature and reasonable. The anti-Trump echo chamber is becoming a mirror image of Trump himself — overwrought, uncalibrated, and incapable of having an intelligent conversation.”
The Founders assigned journalism a specific role to ensure that citizens would be able to carry out informed debates. Truth, they understood, is more than an ideal; it is a perspective. Yet over the last three years, serious journalism has all but been pushed aside in a rush to do away with Trump, not by honest persuasion but by any means necessary. Fear won out, and so objectivity is now #Collusion. Seeking facts before going viral is so 2015. The media gutlessly picks on kids because they can’t get Trump. We asked for an informed citizenry and we instead got Mean Girls.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-20--Elizabeth Warren is a Professional Scold and an Academic Elitist

Watching Elizabeth Warren refuse to shake Bernie Sanders ’ hand after the recent presidential debate only confirmed my view that she ’ s the perfect candidate to run against Donald Trump in 2020 .
While even Fox News admits that most Americans want to see the president impeached , Warren can lead Democrats to a crushing defeat in the general election .
It ’ s not just a matter of policy—though , to be sure , Mrs. Warren ’ s policies are batty .
Her signature issue , “ free ” college education , wouldn ’ t just ludicrously expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , a Warren administration wouldn ’ t place any conditions on what the beneficiaries of this “ free ” education would study .
The result would be millions more teenagers going to C-list liberal arts colleges to smoke pot and complain about the patriarchy for four years ; they ’ ll come away with degrees in 20th-century Mongolian poetry and a big , fat sense of entitlement .
True , they won ’ t have student debt .
But they ’ ll still be saddled with an enormous tax burden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while trying to pay $ 1,500 a month for a studio apartment in Brooklyn—all because President Warren told them to live their best little bourgeois lives .
If Warren were a real leftist , she ’ d be fighting to bring back honest , blue-collar jobs .
But Mr. Trump already has that lane pretty well stitched up .
So she ’ s left propping up the crumbling artifice of late capitalism like the upper-level bureaucrat she is .
( What need have coal miners of a Harvard professor who got paid $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And when she meets Mr. Trump on the debate stage , she won ’ t even have the chance to make her case for socialized education .
The president will wipe her from the history books before she finishes her opening statement , because Mrs. Warren is by far the most unlikeable candidate to seek the White House since Walter Mondale ( who , incidentally , endorsed her right out of the gate ) .
And Trump is the only politician in modern history who would tell her that .
Now , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I endeavor to do in the spirit of Christian charity .
I have nothing against Mrs. Warren personally , except that which I have against all of my fellow Massachusettsians : that we ’ re nasty , cold , and smug .
Pot-and-kettling aside , the problem with Mrs. Warren is that she ’ s a professional scold .
She ’ s the very avatar of a screechy , preachy schoolmarm .
Everyone ’ s met a social studies teacher who fancies himself an expert on labor relations because he lectures 14-year-old children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people won ’ t be much more impressed with Professor Warren because she lectured 25-year-old children in bankruptcy law .
She ’ s still a quintessential academic elitist who thinks she ’ s morally superior to the unwashed masses because she has a bit of paper from the University of Pennsylvania on her wall .
So it is with Bernie Sanders .
No one really thinks the senior senator from Vermont said that a woman can ’ t be president .
He might have said something that sounds very much like it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way— “ Sometimes I fear the American people are still too bigoted to vote for a woman , ” or something like that .
Yet every Clinton staffer was muttering the same thing under her breath at 3 a.m. on November 9 , 2016 .
What ’ s more , Mrs. Warren never denied that Mr. Sanders only ran in the last election cycle because she declined to do so .
Nor can anyone forget how vigorously he campaigned for Mrs. Clinton , even after she and the DNC rigged the primary against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrogates at CNN are claiming that Bernie meant that a person with two X chromosomes is biologically incapable of serving as president , they ’ re lying through their teeth .
This is how Liz treats her “ friend ” Bernie—and when he denies that absurd smear , she refuses to shake his hand and accuses him of calling her a liar on national television .
Then , of course , the # MeToo brigades line up to castigate him for having the temerity to defend himself—further evidence , of course , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bernie is , like , literally Weinstein .
Then there ’ s the “ Latinx ” thing , which is the absolute summit of progressive elites ’ disconnect with ordinary Americans .
In case you didn ’ t know , Mrs. Warren has been roundly panned for referring to Hispanics by this weird neologism , which was invented by her comrades in the ivory tower as a gender-neutral alternative to Latino or Latina .
The thing is , Spanish is a gendered language .
What ’ s more , a poll by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that just 2 percent of Hispanics call themselves “ Latinx.
” ( In fact , most prefer the conventional “ Hispanic , ” which is now verboten on the Left because it hearkens back to Christopher Columbus ’ s discovery of La Española . )
So here comes Professor Warren—white as Wonder Bread , the mattress in her Cambridge townhouse stuffed with 12 million big ones—trying to rewrite the Spanish language because she thinks it ’ s sexist .
How she ’ s made it this far in the primary is absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Hispanics , much less their culture .
Like every employee of the modern education system , she ’ s only interested in processing American citizens into gluten-free offal tubes of political correctness .
Of course , if one of her primary opponents or a cable news “ Democratic strategist ” ( whatever that is ) dared to say as much , they ’ d be hung , drawn , and quartered .
Partisan Democrats have trained themselves not to think in such terms .
That might not matter much if Mrs. Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the general .
But she ’ s not .
If she wins the primary , she ’ ll be up against Donald Trump .
And if you don ’ t think he ’ ll say all of this—and a whole lot more—you should apply for a job at CNN .
Again , I don ’ t want to be cruel .
But in the Trump Era , we must be prepared to face a certain amount of callousness in politics .
Just imagine all the terrible shots Mr. Trump could take at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like you a lot .
I think you ’ re a nice person .
But you need to calm down .
I don ’ t know if you take any medication—your blood pressure must be very high .
I ’ m worried about you .
I really am .
Relax .
Put on a nice sweater , have a cup of tea , grade some papers.
” “ I went to Wharton , okay ?
A much better school than Harvard , by the way .
Harvard used to be a very good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because of people like you .
And I did very well at Wharton .
Very well .
I don ’ t need any more lectures .
Save it for your students , professor.
” “ Professor Pocahontas , I call her .
Iron Eyes Cody had more Indian blood than Liz !
Remember him ?
‘ Keep America Beautiful.
’ That was his thing .
I like that .
He would vote for Trump .
But maybe he ’ d vote for his fellow Native American .
I don ’ t know.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ well with the Latino community , even the Latina community .
Not so much with the Lateen-ex community .
But that ’ s okay .
Liz can have them .
All seven of them .
What do you do with a Lateen-ex ?
Blow your nose with it ?
” And on and on .
What then ?
What would happen when The New Yorker responds by calling Mr. Trump a sexist and a racist ?
The same thing that always happens when The New Yorker calls him a sexist and a racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they already hate Trump , because there ’ s nothing sexist or racist about it .
None of this has anything to do with the fact that Mrs. Warren is a woman .
None of it would come into play with Amy Klobuchar or Tulsi Gabbard—or Hillary Clinton , for that matter .
Mrs. Warren is singularly and excruciatingly unpleasant .
She has no gift for communicating beyond her small circle of East Coast ideologues .
She ’ s the kind of politician who takes videos of herself drinking a beer because you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beer in the wild .
( “ This is a , uh , beer we have here .
I drink one every New Year ’ s Eve .
Very cold and refreshing .
A cerveza , if you will—or cervezx , preferably.
” ) For all my reservations about Mr. Trump—his lagging commitment to protectionism , his shafting of Amy Coney Barrett , his deportation of Iraqi Christians , his burgeoning hawkishness , his total lack of decorum—he ’ s infinitely preferable to anyone the Democrats could nominate .
Going up against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have his work cut out for him .
Even a Sanders or a Buttigieg could be a close call .
But running against Mrs. Warren would be a walk in the park .
So my progressive friends , do the right by your country and vote for “ Big , Structural Change.
” It ’ s the only way to be sure we ’ ll get none .
Michael Warren Davis is the editor of Crisis Magazine .
Read more at www.michaelwarrendavis.com .

Watching Elizabeth Warren refuse to shake Bernie Sanders’ hand after the recent presidential debate only confirmed my view that she’s the perfect candidate to run against Donald Trump in 2020. While even Fox News admits that most Americans want to see the president impeached, Warren can lead Democrats to a crushing defeat in the general election.
It’s not just a matter of policy—though, to be sure, Mrs. Warren’s policies are batty. Her signature issue, “free” college education, wouldn’t just ludicrously expensive; it would also be completely unproductive. Of course, a Warren administration wouldn’t place any conditions on what the beneficiaries of this “free” education would study. The result would be millions more teenagers going to C-list liberal arts colleges to smoke pot and complain about the patriarchy for four years; they’ll come away with degrees in 20th-century Mongolian poetry and a big, fat sense of entitlement. True, they won’t have student debt. But they’ll still be saddled with an enormous tax burden on their $15.75 an hour job while trying to pay $1,500 a month for a studio apartment in Brooklyn—all because President Warren told them to live their best little bourgeois lives.
If Warren were a real leftist, she’d be fighting to bring back honest, blue-collar jobs. But Mr. Trump already has that lane pretty well stitched up. So she’s left propping up the crumbling artifice of late capitalism like the upper-level bureaucrat she is. (What need have coal miners of a Harvard professor who got paid $400,000 to teach one class?)
And when she meets Mr. Trump on the debate stage, she won’t even have the chance to make her case for socialized education. The president will wipe her from the history books before she finishes her opening statement, because Mrs. Warren is by far the most unlikeable candidate to seek the White House since Walter Mondale. And Trump is the only politician in modern history who would tell her that.
Now, what I’m about to write, I endeavor to do in the spirit of Christian charity. I have nothing against Mrs. Warren personally, except that which I have against all of my fellow Massachusettsians: that we’re nasty, cold, and smug.
Pot-and-kettling aside, the problem with Mrs. Warren is that she’s a professional scold. She’s the very avatar of a screechy, preachy schoolmarm. Everyone’s met a social studies teacher who fancies himself an expert on labor relations because he lectures 14-year-old children about the Homestead Strike. The American people won’t be much more impressed with Professor Warren because she lectured 25-year-old children in bankruptcy law. She’s still a quintessential academic elitist who thinks she’s morally superior to the unwashed masses because she has a bit of paper from the University of Pennsylvania on her wall.
So it is with Bernie Sanders. No one really thinks the senior senator from Vermont said that a woman can’t be president. He might have said something that sounds very much like it, in a kind of ham-fisted, virtue-signaling way—“Sometimes I fear the American people are still too bigoted to vote for a woman,” or something like that. Yet every Clinton staffer was muttering the same thing under her breath at 3 a.m. on November 9, 2016.
What’s more, Mrs. Warren never denied that Mr. Sanders only ran in the last election cycle because she declined to do so. Nor can anyone forget how vigorously he campaigned for Mrs. Clinton, even after she and the DNC rigged the primary against him. If Mrs. Warren and her surrogates at CNN are claiming that Bernie meant that a person with two X chromosomes is biologically incapable of serving as president, they’re lying through their teeth.
This is how Liz treats her “friend” Bernie—and when he denies that absurd smear, she refuses to shake his hand and accuses him of calling her a liar on national television. Then, of course, the #MeToo brigades line up to castigate him for having the temerity to defend himself—further evidence, of course, of his sexism. I mean, like, Bernie is, like, literally Weinstein.
Then there’s the “Latinx” thing, which is the absolute summit of progressive elites’ disconnect with ordinary Americans. In case you didn’t know, Mrs. Warren has been roundly panned for referring to Hispanics by this weird neologism, which was invented by her comrades in the ivory tower as a gender-neutral alternative to Latino or Latina. The thing is, Spanish is a gendered language. What’s more, a poll by the left-wing market research group Think Now found that just 2 percent of Hispanics call themselves “Latinx.” (In fact, most prefer the conventional “Hispanic,” which is now verboten on the Left because it hearkens back to Christopher Columbus’s discovery of La Española.)
So here comes Professor Warren—white as Wonder Bread, the mattress in her Cambridge townhouse stuffed with 12 million big ones—trying to rewrite the Spanish language because she thinks it’s sexist. How she’s made it this far in the primary is absolutely mind-boggling. She doesn’t care about Hispanics, much less their culture. Like every employee of the modern education system, she’s only interested in processing American citizens into gluten-free offal tubes of political correctness.
Of course, if one of her primary opponents or a cable news “Democratic strategist” (whatever that is) dared to say as much, they’d be hung, drawn, and quartered. Partisan Democrats have trained themselves not to think in such terms. That might not matter much if Mrs. Warren was facing Mitt Romney or John McCain in the general. But she’s not. If she wins the primary, she’ll be up against Donald Trump. And if you don’t think he’ll say all of this—and a whole lot more—you should apply for a job at CNN.
Again, I don’t want to be cruel. But in the Trump Era, we must be prepared to face a certain amount of callousness in politics. Just imagine all the terrible shots Mr. Trump could take at Mrs. Warren:
“Liz, I like you a lot. I think you’re a nice person. But you need to calm down. I don’t know if you take any medication—your blood pressure must be very high. I’m worried about you. I really am. Relax. Put on a nice sweater, have a cup of tea, grade some papers.”
“I went to Wharton, okay? A much better school than Harvard, by the way. Harvard used to be a very good school. Now it’s failing, because of people like you. And I did very well at Wharton. Very well. I don’t need any more lectures. Save it for your students, professor.”
“Professor Pocahontas, I call her. Iron Eyes Cody had more Indian blood than Liz! Remember him? ‘Keep America Beautiful.’ That was his thing. I like that. He would vote for Trump. But maybe he’d vote for his fellow Native American. I don’t know.”
“I’m doing very well with the Latino community, even the Latina community. Not so much with the Lateen-ex community. But that’s okay. Liz can have them. All seven of them. What do you do with a Lateen-ex? Blow your nose with it?”
And on and on.
What then? What would happen when The New Yorker responds by calling Mr. Trump a sexist and a racist? The same thing that always happens when The New Yorker calls him a sexist and a racist: nothing. Nobody cares, unless they already hate Trump, because there’s nothing sexist or racist about it.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that Mrs. Warren is a woman. None of it would come into play with Amy Klobuchar or Tulsi Gabbard—or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. Mrs. Warren is singularly and excruciatingly unpleasant. She has no gift for communicating beyond her small circle of East Coast ideologues. She’s the kind of politician who takes videos of herself drinking a beer because you would never, ever catch her drinking beer in the wild. (“This is a, uh, beer we have here. I drink one every New Year’s Eve. Very cold and refreshing. A cerveza, if you will—or cervezx, preferably.”)
For all my reservations about Mr. Trump—his lagging commitment to protectionism, his shafting of Amy Coney Barrett, his deportation of Iraqi Christians, his burgeoning hawkishness, his total lack of decorum—he’s infinitely preferable to anyone the Democrats could nominate. Going up against a Biden or a Klobuchar, he might have his work cut out for him. Even a Sanders or a Buttigieg could be a close call. But running against Mrs. Warren would be a walk in the park.
So my progressive friends, do the right by your country and vote for “Big, Structural Change.” It’s the only way to be sure we’ll get none.
Michael Warren Davis is the editor of Crisis Magazine. Read more at www.michaelwarrendavis.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-21--Is Mass Civil Disobedience Our Future?

Is Mass Civil Disobedience Our Future?

Whether it 's sanctuary cities for gun rights or illegal immigrants , burning draft cards , or refusing the back of the bus , this is in our DNA .
On the holiday set aside in 2020 to honor Martin Luther King , the premier advocate of nonviolent Gandhian civil disobedience , thousands of gun owners gathered in Richmond to petition peacefully for their rights .
King had preached that there was a higher law that justified breaking existing laws that mandated racial segregation .
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the front of the bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bus terminals , when black students sat at segregated lunch counters in North Carolina , they challenged state law in the name of what they said was a higher law .
And Virginia gun owners believe their moral obligation to protect families , friends and themselves in a violent society justifies their right to keep and carry firearms , no matter what the Virginia legislature says .
Americans have a long history of breaching laws in the name of a higher law or God-given rights .
The patriots of Boston gathered an arsenal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To protest a tea tax imposed by parliament , they dressed as American Indians and threw shiploads of imported tea into Boston Harbor .
Shays ’ Rebellion in Massachusetts , to protest debt collections in 1786-87 , and the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania , to protest a tax , both had to be crushed with force .
Abolitionists supported the violation of fugitive slave laws , the enforcement of which Lincoln endorsed in his first inaugural as a national necessity to restore and preserve the Union .
A constitutional prohibition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and liquor in the U.S. , following the enactment of the 18th Amendment , led to massive civil disobedience in the Roaring ’ 20s , before it was repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment .
During Vietnam , burning draft cards was a regular feature of anti-war rallies .
Historians may describe the racial riots of the 1960s — Harlem , Watts , Newark , Detroit , and 100 U.S. cities including Washington , D.C. , after King ’ s assassination — as popular uprisings , but many required National Guard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting and arson .
By the late 1960s , LBJ , who had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 , could not visit a college campus without a violent demonstration .
This week , Washington hosts the 46th annual March for Life to commemorate the 60 million unborn killed in the abortion mills of America since Roe v. Wade in 1973 .
In conservative states , restrictions imposed on abortion facilities have put some out of business .
The legislators and governors who have done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Warren Court ruling in Roe v. Wade .
Perhaps the greatest manifestation of civil disobedience today is the illegal presence of between 12 million and 20 million immigrants who broke into our country or are breaking the law by being here after their visas expired .
Their collaborators are the business owners who hire them and the public officials who refuse to treat them as lawbreakers .
“ Sanctuary cities ” have been created where local and state authorities refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement .
Now , towns , cities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” where laws restricting gun rights will not be enforced .
If state and local police , themselves gun owners , stand with those who defy the new state laws on guns , who enforces the new laws ?
The Virginia Senate has begun to move bills requiring background checks for gun purchasers including red flag laws to disarm individuals deemed at risk to themselves or others , and bills granting permission for locales to restrict the carrying of arms in government buildings and confining the purchases of handguns to one a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic legislature in Richmond and governor are ready to move , including restricting the number of bullets in clips and magazines and halting sales of rifles like the AR-15 .
Gun owners see these as the onset of an all-out assault on gun rights .
For a republic to endure , there has to be a common consent on the rule of law and what constitutes a good society .
But these seem to be at issue again in America .
Is abortion the killing of an innocent human being ?
Do Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep and carry firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones ?
Who is and who is not a rightful resident of our national home ?
Do illegal migrants have a right to come here and stay here ?
Or do their numbers imperil our national identity and existence as “ one nation and one people ” ?
Violent crime was greater in America in the early 1990s .
Urban riots were far more common in the 1960s .
And there is nothing today comparable to the bloodletting of the 1861-65 War Between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disagree with each other more and to dislike each other more than they have in the lifetime of most of us .
One wonders : How does it all stay together ?
And for how long ?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

On the holiday set aside in 2020 to honor Martin Luther King, the premier advocate of nonviolent Gandhian civil disobedience, thousands of gun owners gathered in Richmond to petition peacefully for their rights.
King had preached that there was a higher law that justified breaking existing laws that mandated racial segregation.
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the front of the bus in Montgomery, when Freedom Riders integrated bus terminals, when black students sat at segregated lunch counters in North Carolina, they challenged state law in the name of what they said was a higher law.
And Virginia gun owners believe their moral obligation to protect families, friends and themselves in a violent society justifies their right to keep and carry firearms, no matter what the Virginia legislature says.
Americans have a long history of breaching laws in the name of a higher law or God-given rights.
The patriots of Boston gathered an arsenal at Concord in defiance of the British. To protest a tea tax imposed by parliament, they dressed as American Indians and threw shiploads of imported tea into Boston Harbor.
Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, to protest debt collections in 1786-87, and the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania, to protest a tax, both had to be crushed with force.
Abolitionists supported the violation of fugitive slave laws, the enforcement of which Lincoln endorsed in his first inaugural as a national necessity to restore and preserve the Union.
A constitutional prohibition of the sale of beer, wine and liquor in the U.S., following the enactment of the 18th Amendment, led to massive civil disobedience in the Roaring ’20s, before it was repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment.
During Vietnam, burning draft cards was a regular feature of anti-war rallies.
Historians may describe the racial riots of the 1960s — Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit, and 100 U.S. cities including Washington, D.C., after King’s assassination — as popular uprisings, but many required National Guard and federal troops to stop the looting, shooting and arson.
By the late 1960s, LBJ, who had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, could not visit a college campus without a violent demonstration.
This week, Washington hosts the 46th annual March for Life to commemorate the 60 million unborn killed in the abortion mills of America since Roe v. Wade in 1973.
In conservative states, restrictions imposed on abortion facilities have put some out of business. The legislators and governors who have done so believe the right to life trumps the Warren Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.
Perhaps the greatest manifestation of civil disobedience today is the illegal presence of between 12 million and 20 million immigrants who broke into our country or are breaking the law by being here after their visas expired.
Their collaborators are the business owners who hire them and the public officials who refuse to treat them as lawbreakers.
“Sanctuary cities” have been created where local and state authorities refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement.
Now, towns, cities and counties are creating “Second Amendment sanctuaries,” where laws restricting gun rights will not be enforced.
If state and local police, themselves gun owners, stand with those who defy the new state laws on guns, who enforces the new laws?
The Virginia Senate has begun to move bills requiring background checks for gun purchasers including red flag laws to disarm individuals deemed at risk to themselves or others, and bills granting permission for locales to restrict the carrying of arms in government buildings and confining the purchases of handguns to one a month.
There are other restrictions the Democratic legislature in Richmond and governor are ready to move, including restricting the number of bullets in clips and magazines and halting sales of rifles like the AR-15.
Gun owners see these as the onset of an all-out assault on gun rights.
For a republic to endure, there has to be a common consent on the rule of law and what constitutes a good society. But these seem to be at issue again in America.
Is abortion the killing of an innocent human being? Do Americans have a constitutional and human right to keep and carry firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones?
Who is and who is not a rightful resident of our national home?
Do illegal migrants have a right to come here and stay here? Or do their numbers imperil our national identity and existence as “one nation and one people”?
Violent crime was greater in America in the early 1990s. Urban riots were far more common in the 1960s. And there is nothing today comparable to the bloodletting of the 1861-65 War Between the States.
Still, Americans seem to disagree with each other more and to dislike each other more than they have in the lifetime of most of us.
One wonders: How does it all stay together? And for how long?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.