The Left Is a Greater Threat to America Than Putin

Dennis Prager

Last week, I tweeted, “The news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does.”

To my surprise, the tweet went viral. And while there were more likes than dislikes, 99 percent of the written reactions were negative.

Typical reactions were:

–“F— you.”

–“Move to Russia.”

–“Your very full diapers pose a very great danger, please change them.” That received 1,880 likes.

–“I’ve wiped s— off my shoes more trustworthy and patriotic than your sorry a–.” That received 606 likes.

You get the idea.

But it wasn’t the ad hominem insults that I found troubling. What was troubling was the low state of logical thinking that so many responses reflected.

This was exemplified by their reminding me how important a free press is to democracy (as if attacking the behavior of the media were the same as denying the need for a free press); their asking how many nukes the media have compared with Russia (as if a threat to lives were the same as a threat to a civilization); and their thinking that my tweet was about President Donald Trump (he was never mentioned, and the words were just as true when Barack Obama was president).

My tweet was about the Western left undoing Western civilization. My one regret is that I did not mention universities along with the media.

The tweet had nothing to do with the existence of a free press. Attacking what the media is doing is not the same as attacking the existence of the media—any more than attacking Trump is attacking the existence of the presidency.

With regard to Russia having more nukes than the media, those who noted this fact so missed the entire point of the tweet that it is almost breathtaking.

When one speaks about dangers to a civilization, one is speaking ideologically, not physically. Of course, if Russia were to unleash its nuclear weapons against the West, it would kill vast numbers of Westerners.

However, that would no more mean the end of Western civilization than the Holocaust meant the end of Jewish civilization. Civilization connotes a body of ideas and a value system.

Furthermore, a Russian nuclear attack threatening the West’s physical existence is an utterly remote possibility. Russian leaders, just as Soviet leaders before them, fear what is known as MAD (mutually assured destruction).

The real nuclear threat comes from North Korea and, above all, Iran, which constantly announces its intent to exterminate Israel. But while The New York Times cannot stop writing about the threat Russian President Vladimir Putin poses, it accuses Trump of “demonizing” Iran.

The real threat to Western civilization is Western civilization ceasing to believe in itself. And, in that regard, Russia poses no danger, while the left-wing-dominated media and universities pose an existential threat.

That’s why the most depressing of the negative reactions were those from people calling themselves conservatives. If conservatism isn’t about conserving Western civilization first and foremost, what is it about?

Students in college have voted the American flag off their campus. Where did these students learn their unprecedented contempt for America and patriotism, if not from their schools and the media?

European countries continue to welcome in millions of Muslims, adding to the tens of millions of Muslims already in Europe—many of whom, if not most, have no interest in adopting Europe’s values.

Do the critics of my tweet conclude nothing about the left’s role —meaning the role of Western media and academia— in promoting multiculturalism, the doctrine that holds that no cultural, religious, or value system is superior to any other?

At the University of Pennsylvania, its left-wing English department has removed its long-standing portrait of Shakespeare because he was white and male. Is that not a direct hit on Western civilization?

The left-wing prime minister of Canada has proudly announced, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” and that Canada is “the first postnational state.”

What produced him? Putin?

Is it Putin who is removing American flags from American campuses?

Is Putin destroying the notion of male and female?

Has Putin convinced half of America’s millennials that socialism is preferable to capitalism?

Did Putin convince Pope Francis that Islamic terrorists are no more of a threat to Europe than baptized Catholics who kill their girlfriends?

Is Putin the reason Oxford University students voted that Israel is a greater threat to peace than Hamas?

Putin is indeed a murderous quasi dictator. But all this contempt for Western civilization comes from the Western media and the Western universities.

The smoking gun was provided just two weeks ago in the media’s reactions to Trump’s speech in Warsaw, Poland, in which he called for protecting Western civilization.

Virtually the entire Western media said it was a call to protect white racism —because the media deem Western civilization to be nothing more than a euphemism for white supremacy.

That’s what my tweet was about.

SOURCE

************************************

A partisan rush to prosecute Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz

When I taught law at Harvard, I always gave a final exam that included what is called “an issue spotter.” I presented a complex hypothetical case, often based on a real one, and asked the students to stretch their imaginations to come up with every conceivable crime that might be charged and every conceivable defense that might be offered. That was the first part of the question, and most students excelled at spotting the relevant issues. In the second part of the question, I asked them to use their judgment in deciding which, if any, of these crimes could realistically be charged and which defenses could realistically be offered. It was this part of the question that separated the very good lawyers, which included the vast majority of the students, from the truly exceptional ones. To be a great lawyer requires the exercise of judgment, subtlety, nuance, and an ability to predict what the courts will do.

I am reminded of these exams when I read op-eds and listen to TV appearances, some by my former excellent students, that apply only the first part of the test to the current legal situations confronting the Trump administration. These smart lawyers try to come up with every conceivable statute that an imaginative lawyer could identify, ranging from the Logan Act (which hasn’t been used in 215 years), to treason (which is narrowly defined in the Constitution), to obstruction of justice, to witness tampering, to violations of campaign financing laws (which are so vague and open-ended that half of America’s politicians would be in jail if they were broadly applied).

I have to admit that these lawyers show great imagination – imagination they rightly condemn when Republications play the same game, accusing Hillary Clinton of espionage and other open-ended crimes. But they show scant judgment or nuance in distinguishing what might be possible based on the broadest interpretation of the language and what is realistic based on court precedents, prosecutorial discretion, equal application, and simple justice. It is not that these lawyers aren’t brilliant. They are. It’s not their intellect I am questioning. It is the double standard they seem to be applying to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in particular, and to the opposing party and their party, in general. The one factor that must never enter into prosecutorial judgment is partisanship, regardless how strong and even legitimate the negative feelings are about a political opponent.

It is tempting, because it is so easy, to comb the statute books in an effort to identify every conceivable crime that might be applicable to any given situation. As Harvey Silverglate wrote in his superb book, “Three Felonies a Day,” prosecutors play the following game: One names a well-known and controversial person, and the others search through the statute books to figure out which three felonies they committed on a given day. That is what prosecutors do when they are playing games. It’s not supposed to be what they do when they destroy a person’s life by indicting them.

Former FBI director James Comey understood the role of a prosecutor when he concluded that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information” by Clinton. But after engaging in the first part of the criminal law exam exercise, he turned to the second part, involving judgment and concluded that “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Silverglate shows that our criminal statute books are overloaded with crimes that can be expanded to fit any politician or businessman or any controversial figure.

Comey’s conclusion generated outcries of protest from Republican partisans who had played the same game that Democratic partisans are now playing when they demanded that if there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes, then a prosecution must be brought. But these zealots were wrong and Comey was right. (He was not right in making public his evaluation of the evidence and his finding that Clinton was “extremely careless [in her] handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” But that is a different matter).

Democratic partisans, who were happy with Comey’s conclusion not to prosecute Clinton, should be applying the same standards to Trump. No reasonable prosecutor would bring a charge of treason, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice, or violating campaign laws, based on the evidence that is now available. (It is possible that evidence may emerge of such crime. But based on what we now know, that is highly unlikely.)

So, let’s not treat the criminal justice system as a law school exam in which students are asked to catalog every possible violation of our accordion-like laws. But if we insist on doing so, let’s at least include the second part of the exam question: showing judgment and nuance in deciding whether to bring a case even if there is “evidence of potential violations of the statutes.” The rule of law cannot survive a double standard. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander, and what we applauded with regard to Hillary Clinton we must not condemn with regard to Donald Trump.

SOURCE

*******************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************