February 6th, 1911. What. A. Day.

February 6th, 1911. What. A. Day. A day in which this great world, our great nation received a gift. We didn’t deserve such of a man as great as he was. February 6th.

On this day we were gifted perhaps one of the greatest men ever to set foot on this earth. February sixth, year two thousand and eighteen marks the one hundred and seventh anniversary of which the true man, the true myth, and the true legend Ronald Wilson Reagan entered into this world. The man who did so much good for this country, the man who was the thirty-third governor of California, the man who was the fortieth president of our great nation, the man who ended the Cold War, the man who invented Reaganomics (cutting taxes and spending, also sprinkled in with some deregulation), the man who revitalized the conservative movement, the man who achieved peace through strength, the man who invented the defense strategy of Star Wars, the man who drastically deduced the number of nuclear arms on the world, the man who appointed the first woman SCOTUS justice, the man who was so witty and charming at debates, the man who is (and will always be) my favorite president, the man who is my idol, the man who’s name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. Ronald Wilson Reagan. This great nation will never have a leader as great as he was. This day should be remembered for eternity for the yearly observance, the commemoration, and the jubilee of the anniversary of President Ronald Wilson Reagan was born. Join me as many other conservatives and patriots across this great nation celebrate this momentous occasion.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

-The Reagan Conservative 🇺🇸

Advertisements

The House Memo Reveals Disturbing Facts About the Misuse of FISA

Now we know why the FBI tried so hard to block release of the House Intelligence Committee memo. And why Democrats and the media want to change the subject to Republican motivations. The four-page memo released Friday reports disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath.

The White House declassified the memo Friday, and you don’t have to be a civil libertarian to be shocked by the details. The memo confirms that the FBI and Justice Department on Oct. 21, 2016 obtained a FISA order to surveil Carter Page, an American citizen who was a relatively minor volunteer adviser to the Trump presidential campaign.

The memo says an “essential” part of the FISA application was the “dossier” assembled by former British spy Christopher Steele and the research firm Fusion GPS that was hired by a law firm attached to the Clinton campaign. The memo adds that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the committee in December 2017 that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.

This is troubling enough, but the memo also discloses that the FBI failed to inform the FISA court that the Clinton campaign had funded the dossier. The memo says the FBI supported its FISA application by “extensively” citing a September 2016 article in Yahoo News that contained allegations against Mr. Page. But the FBI failed to tell the court that Mr. Steele and Fusion were the main sources for that Yahoo article. In essence the FBI was citing Mr. Steele to corroborate Mr. Steele.

Unlike a normal court, FISA doesn’t have competing pleaders. The FBI and Justice appear “ex parte” as applicants, and thus the judges depend on candor and truthfulness from both. Yet the FBI never informed the court that Mr. Steele was in effect working for the Clinton campaign. The FBI retained Mr. Steele as a source, and in October 2016 he talked to Mother Jones magazine without authorization about the FBI investigation and his dossier alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The FBI then fired Mr. Steele, but it never told the FISA judges about that either. Nor did it tell the court any of this as it sought three subsequent renewals of the order on Mr. Page.

We don’t know the political motives of the FBI and Justice officials, but the facts are damaging enough. The FBI in essence let itself and the FISA court be used to promote a major theme of the Clinton campaign. Mr. Steele and Fusion then leaked the fact of the investigation to friendly reporters to try to defeat Mr. Trump before the election. And afterward they continued to leak all this to the press to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s victory.

No matter its motives, the FBI became a tool of anti-Trump political actors. This is unacceptable in a democracy and ought to alarm anyone who wants the FBI to be a nonpartisan enforcer of the law.

We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.

Democrats are howling that the memo, produced by Republican staff, is misleading and leaves out essential details. They are producing their own summary of the evidence, and by all means let’s see that too. President Trump should declassify it promptly, along with Senator Chuck Grassley’s referral for criminal investigation of Mr. Steele. But note that Democrats aren’t challenging the core facts that the FBI used the dossier to gain a FISA order or the bureau’s lack of disclosure to the FISA judges.

The details of Friday’s memo also rebut most of the criticisms of its release. The details betray no intelligence sources and methods. As to the claim that the release tarnishes the FBI and FISA court, exposing abuses is the essence of accountability in a democracy.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is doing a service by forcing these facts into the public domain where the American people can examine them, hold people accountable, and then Congress can determine how to prevent them in the future. The U.S. has weathered institutional crises before—Iran-Contra, the 9/11 intelligence failure, even Senator Dianne Feinstein’s campaign against the CIA and enhanced interrogation.

The other political misdirection is that the memo is designed to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible Trump collusion with Russia. I doubt Mr. Mueller will be deterred by any of this. The question of FISA abuse is independent of Mr. Mueller’s work, and one that Congress takes up amid a larger debate about surveillance and national security. Mr. Trump would do well to knock off the tweets lambasting the Mueller probe, and let House and Senate Republicans focus public attention on these FISA abuses.

If all of this is damaging to the reputation of the FBI and Justice Department, then that damage is self-inflicted. I recognize the need for the FBI to sometimes spy on Americans to keep the country safe, but this is a power that should never be abused. Its apparent misuse during the presidential campaign needs to be fully investigated.

Toward that end, the public should see more of the documents that are behind the competing intelligence memos to judge who is telling the truth. President Trump and the White House should consider the remedy of radical transparency.

The Problem With Net Neutrality

When the idea was created in 2002 by leftist college professor Tim Wu, Net Neutrality was just four innocuous things:

  • Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
  • Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
  • Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
  • Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

But as with oh-so-many things devised by the left, Net Neutrality sounds good, but isn’t. It is, in fact, a terrible idea, for a whole host of reasons.

It is always a bad idea to have government enforce, especially what the private sector is already enforcing without government. You never want government involved, unless you absolutely can not help it.

All of these four Net Neutrality things were being adhered to at the time Net Neutrality was coined and created. And they have all been adhered to each and every day since.

So Net Neutrality was and is totally unnecessary. So any government enforcement thereof is totally unnecessary.

Net Neutrality is a solution running around, in chicken-headless-fashion, blindly looking for a problem.

But that’s not why Wu created it. The left saw the private sector Internet take off like a rocket, totally government-free. The left desperately needed a fairy tale to convince people to allow the burying of government hooks into the Internet, so as to then reel it back in.

That fairy tale is Net Neutrality. We’ll let another leftist college professor, Robert McChesney, explain what then:

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

How very Venezuela of them.

Net Neutrality’s “ultimate goal” is to have government be the only way you can connect to the Internet.

How very China-North Korea-Iran-Saudi Arabia of them.

Net Neutrality has always been the left’s Trojan Horse, to get the government into the Internet, with the “ultimate goal” of a total government takeover.

Which is what the Barack Obama Administration executed in 2015. Under the false rubric of “Net Neutrality”, the Obama Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pretended to be Congress and totally rewrote existing telecommunications law.

Congress had in the 1996 Telecommunications Act classified the Internet as Title I. Which leaves the Internet largely unmolested by government, no coincidence that the internet did so very, very well.

Obama’s FCC, without Congress, “reclassified” the Internet to Title II  which was created by the 1934 Telecommunications Act. Because we all know that 1934 Congressional intent was to regulate something that wouldn’t be created for another sixty years.

Title II is for landline telephones. The telephone network bears just about zero resemblance to the Internet network. The Internet network is significantly more complex.

So why did Obama’s FCC do this? Because the FCC has HUGE regulatory (and taxing) powers in Title II. They have just about none in Title I.

Having the government regulate the Internet like a telephone will cripple the Internet. And shrink it back down to phone network size, scope and power.

(See also: Obamacare driving private health insurance providers out of the Obamacare network.)

Which, again, is what the left actually wants. Kill the private providers, ultimately leaving us with government as our only one.

Thankfully, the Donald Trump FCC is in the process of undoing the Obama reclassification power grab. Which has led to this last fortnight’s left-media freakout.

Repeated again and again in the freakout is the “Net Neutrality” Trojan Horse lie, with endless mentions of the the harmless “Net Neutrality” but with zero mentions of the accompanying HUGE power grab.

Leaving out the HUGE power grab allows the left-media to dishonestly portray the Trump FCC as “tools of the Internet providers.”

Rather than as what the Trump FCC actually is: reasoned, reasonable steward of 1/6th of our entire economy.

Restoring the pre-Obama-power-grab status quo will allow the private sector to deliver us the free speech-free market, that is the government-free Internet.

This is really very good news – no matter what the leftist “news” media says.

At What Point Does the Mainstreaming of Conspiracy Lunatics Become Dangerous to America?

I have to admit that I have a fascination with conspiracy theorists. It’s not a fascination with their theories which are mostly illogical nonsense resulting from the application of a strong cocktail of conjecture and insanity to cherry picked facts. The fascination comes from trying to figure out how people who otherwise manage to be functional members of society can and do sometimes believe this malarkey.

I look at how figures like Alex Jones have been all but mainstreamed in recent years and wonder at what point does this garbage become dangerous for our country.

Given some of Alex Jones’ antics it is easy for a rational person to believe what his lawyers told a judge during a custody battle over his children. They said that Jones is only playing a role. He’s an actor portraying a character. They clearly hoped to convince the court that Jones isn’t the paranoid lunatic he appears to be whenever he’s in front of a camera or behind a microphone. Was it just a legal maneuver telling the judge what they thought he wanted to hear or an admission to being a total fraud? It didn’t resonate as the latter. Jones is still out there acting as if he is authoritative and floating crackpot theories that are being gobbled up by his fans.

Many of his fans are certainly just listening for the entertainment value. Jones is a spectacle like professional wrestling. A lot of people who know it’s fake still have fun watching, but there are some who buy Jones’ take on politics. I’ve been politically involved long enough and I routinely see people sharing and seriously discussing Jones’ claims as if he is really on to something.

Often the same people whose knees jerk to “fake news” at the mention of anything reported on CNN will tell me that Jones might be a little crazy but he reports a lot of legitimate news stories. How they can differentiate the fact from the fiction in one case while rejecting the content of an entire network in another is something worth examining. In the end I think it comes down to who they perceive as being loyal to Trump.

The crazy fringe of Trump loyalists often dismiss any news outlet except for Breitbart, Infowars, and Sean Hannity as leftist propaganda which is, by any objective measure, completely nuts. Meanwhile they will share or retweet conspiracy paranoia as if it were legitimate reporting. It’s not the content, it’s the loyalty.

There are usually nuts that fomenting anger against me for not carrying water for Trump or his Fox News surrogates (aka Sean Hannity (who I absolutely despise) and Fox & Friends). Call it a tribe or a cult, but there is a seemingly increasing number of people who decide what statements are true based entirely on whether it makes their favorite politician look good or bad.

Mentality is no longer unique to the rank and file. People who were formerly thought to be mainstream conservative commentators who appeared to know that holding politicians accountable was a good thing have joined the ranks of the people who place feelings and fealty ahead of facts.

Yesterday, Jones told his listeners that President Trump’s Diet Cokes are being drugged without his knowledge. (Somehow Alex Jones knows this while no one in the White House loyal to Trump—including Trump himself—has caught on.)

“It’s known that most presidents end up getting drugged. Small dosages of sedatives till they build it up. Trump’s such a bull he hasn’t fully understood it yet, but I’ve talked to people, multiple ones, and they believe that they are putting a slow sedative that they’re building up that’s also addictive in his Diet Cokes and in his iced tea and that the president by 6 or 7 at night is basically slurring his words and is drugged.”- Alex Jones (of course citing no evidence to his ludicrous claim)

Jones says presidents are drugged by “the power structure” in order to make them “puppets.” Is this how Jones is trying to process Trump’s sudden camaraderie with leftists Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi? You can see the video below. Jones puts on a great show and tells his listeners that his very life is in danger for bringing them this information.


Alex Jones’ pro-Trump audience members likely won’t cry “fake news” about the claim that Trump is a doped up puppet, because it’s being delivered by a loyalist. However, if CNN reported that the President appeared to be under the influence of drugs, they would almost certainly unleash hell. It would be the same story but they would judge its veracity differently depending on who delivers it. The validity of anonymous sources seems to be judged similarly.

Given that Trump has granted interviews to Alex Jones and has spoken approvingly of him in the past, someone in the White House should stomp on this latest fever dream Jones is peddling. There are some in America who are in a literal frenzy over politics.

Jones has every right to spout his nonsense but there comes a point where grown ups need to call it what it is before someone does something stupid. Is now that time?

Hillary’s New Book

Hillary Clinton’s new book is being scrutinized, as it should be.
Initial reports from the liberal press say the book assigns blame for her presidential loss to James Comey, Bernie Sanders, and herself among others.
She also says she was the victim of sexism which is total bull and disqualifies the book from my reading list. But it all seriousness, I probably wasn’t going to read it anyway.
Enough is enough with the gender, ethnic, and race cards.  It’s boring.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump because voters simply did not trust her.  One of the big stories that was mostly ignored is how Mrs. Clinton used her charitable foundation to benefit herself.  That and dozens of other dubious situations gave voters pause.  Sexism had nothing to do with it.
Apparently, Hillary Clinton writes that she will not run for office again.  Good.  She had her shot.  If the Democrats want to improve this country, they will find candidates who are problem-solvers – not politically correct zealots who seek to demonize and divide.

Did the Mainstream Media Forget How Obama Treated Fox News?

I know the mainstream media is always licking its wounds after President Donald Trump smacks them around in his press conferences since being in office.

And I hate to add salt to their wounds, but it seems they’ve got a case of amnesia.

It all started when President Trump went all-out against the network because they reported on an unsubstantiated 35-page document that claimed Trump is being blackmailed by the Russian government.

Trump praised those in the media who had restraint from peddling the false report.

“I have great respect for the news, great respect for freedom of the press,” Trump said, thanking those who didn’t run the unsubstantiated story, saying his opinion of them may have “gone up a notch.”

But the mainstream media rallied around CNN.

“The journalist whom Trump called on should have yielded to CNN. Don’t allow him to refuse to answer questions  from certain news outlets,” Politico reporter Peter Sterne tweeted.

Acosta whined that incoming press secretary Sean Spicer threatened to toss him out of the press conference after he repeatedly interrupted the president-elect demanding to get his question answered.

I can’t recall the mainstream media rallying around Fox News anytime over the last eight years when President Obama attacked them.

In fact, let’s review the times Obama blamed the number one name in news (AKA Fox News).


October 25, 2008

Then-candidate Obama complained he would be polling higher if Fox didn’t exist. This may work in soap operas and song lyrics, but that’s not exactly the best start to a working relationship with the press.

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. “[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latté-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

June 16, 2009

Obama says that Fox News is entirely devoted to “attacking my administration.”

JOHN HARWOOD: Last question. When you and I spoke in January, you said–I observed that you hadn’t gotten much bad press. You said it’s coming. Media critics would say not only has it not come, but that you have gotten such favorable press, either because of bias or because you’re good box office, that it’s hurting the country, because you’re not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies. Assess that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that’s a pretty…

HARWOOD: I assume you’re talking about Fox.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone. And you’d be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front.

October 14, 2010

Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

December 2010

After the Democrats’ midterm election shellacking, President Obama reportedly toldlabor leaders in a private meeting that Fox News was partly responsible for him “losing white males” who tune into the network to “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7.”

He needed someone to blame for the massive losses because the next election was his.

May 10, 2011

Obama takes a shot at Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.

“One CEO had this to say about reform. ‘American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society… Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, science, higher education and innovation.’ That’s Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, and an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with his views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama bumper sticker on his car.”

January 27, 2013

Obama hits Fox News for making “compromise” a “dirty word.”

“One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

September 26, 2013

Obama went after Fox News on the campaign trail for his health care law.

“If you’ve talked to somebody who said, ‘Well, I don’t know, I was watching Fox News and they said this is horrible,’ you can say, ‘you know what? Don’t take my word for it! Go on the website.”

February 2, 2014

During a pre-Super Bowl interview, President Obama suggested Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly was being unfair for asking questions about ObamaCare’s shortcomings, the IRS scandal and Benghazi.

“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said. “That’s what they believe.”

“And they believe it because folks like you tell them that,” Obama said, adding on the IRS scandal: “These kinds of things keep on surfacing, because folks like you will promote them.”

October 2, 2014

President Obama insisted ObamaCare is “working pretty well in the real world” despite it being a “fanged threat to freedom on Fox News” in a speech at Northwestern University.

May 12, 2015

Obama hits Fox News for anti-poverty narrative.

“There’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead. And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And, look, it’s still being propagated.

“I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re like, ‘I don’t want to work, I just want a free Obama phone’ — or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative, right? That gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress — which is much more typical — who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.”

September 20, 2015

Obama takes a shot at Fox News for allegedly covering him unfairly.

“I want to repeat — because somehow this never shows up on Fox News. I want to repeat — because I’ve said it a lot, unwaveringly, all the time: Our law enforcement officers do outstanding work in an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. They put their lives on the line for our safety. We appreciate them and we love them.”

October 27, 2015

Obama claims “certain televisions stations” distort his position on guns.

“And some of you who are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs. Please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everybody’s guns away and every time a mass shooting happens one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of firearms and ammunitions jump up because folks are scared into thinking that Obama is going to use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights.”

November 5, 2015

Obama blames Fox News for making him “seem scary.”

“It’s interesting, because we’re talking in Iowa; people always, I think, were surprised about me connecting with folks in small-town Iowa. And the reason I did was, first of all, I had the benefit that at the time nobody expected me to win. And so I wasn’t viewed through this prism of Fox News and conservative media, and making me scary. At the time, I didn’t seem scary, other than just having a funny name. I seemed young. Sometimes I look at my pictures from then and I say, I can’t believe anybody voted for me because I look like I’m 25.”

September 18, 2016

At a Clinton fundraiser in New York City, President Obama predicted a close election “not because of Hillary’s flaws,” but because of Fox News and some blogs “that are churning out a lot of misinformation…”

November 3, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for “balkanization of the media.”

“The problem is we’ve got all these filters. Look, if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either because you’ve got this screen—this funhouse mirror—through which people are receiving information. How to break through that is a big challenge.”

November 29, 2016

Obama blames Fox News for election loss.

“In this election, [they] turned out in huge numbers for Trump. And I think that part of it has to do with our inability, our failure, to reach those voters effectively. Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments.”


While the media and liberals are lamenting the fact that Trump is defending himself against CNN and other left-wing news outlets, they were largely silent as President Barack Obama routinely attacked Fox News for 8 years.

So, it happens during every presidency. The president feels a need to defend himself, so before CNN and MSNBC and other speculation news outlets have another seizure, as President Trump points out how unjustly his administration is being covered, think about all that President Obama said about his “enemy” in the media.

The irrationality in some precincts and the dishonesty of the talking heads and the absolute hysteria that surrounds some news stories is simply dumb and incredibly annoying. You get nowhere when you present the facts and they are rejected, so why bother? Facts don’t matter to these ignorant morons or conspiracists, why debate them? And the worst part is if you don’t see it the way that these far leftists do, then you’re branded as a racist.

Anti Antifa, At Last!

There was this astounding headline Monday in the Washington Post:  “Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.”

Put aside the question of how the Post determined that the demonstrators were “right-wing.”  What makes the headline remarkable is that a major liberal newspaper finally and accurately denounced the thugs.  Antifa may be short for “anti-fascist,” but it is in fact just the opposite.

The Los Angeles Times soon chimed in, decrying “violence by far-left protesters.”  And on MSNBC, of all places, Joe Scarborough blasted the antifa goons as “fascists in their behavior.”

A few far-left politicians have also joined the anti-antifa chorus.  Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, who actually applauded the mob that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos in February, now wants antifa officially classified as a gang.  “They come dressed in uniforms,” he observed, “and they have weapons, almost like a militia.”  Hey, Mayor Arreguin, good of you to finally notice.

And the most stunning turnaround came Tuesday, when Democrat Nancy Pelosi issued a statement condemning the “people calling themselves antifa.”  She added that they “deserve unequivocal condemnation.”

What makes all this notable is that just over a week ago Reuters referred to the antifa agitators as “peace activists,” while Democrats refused to say anything mean about the masked warriors.  So what happened to turn the tide?  Let us put forth some educated speculation.

First, professor and philosopher Noam Chomsky openly questioned antifa’s goals and tactics.  Chomsky, always anti-capitalist and often anti-American, has been the guru of the radical left for decades.  When he speaks, progressives listen.

Two weeks ago Chomsky described antifa as “a miniscule fringe of the Left,” and called their violence “a major gift to the right.”  The professor also hammered antifa for shutting down speakers with whom it disagrees.

A few days later, professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz, another lion of the left, warned that antifa-like groups are “trying to tear down America.”  He denigrated antifa as “radical, anti-American, anti-free market, socialist, communist, hard left censorial organization.”

All this criticism was pre-Berkeley, which was another black mark against the black clad antifa crew.  Last weekend the left-wing gangsters assaulted a handful of people who gathered in Berkeley to march against Marxism.

The antifa radicals, their faces masked as always, chased and beat down people whom they considered Trump supporters.  It was an especially ugly scene, even by antifa standards, after which more than a dozen radicals were arrested.

If antifa and other self-styled anti-fascist groups occupied the moral high ground after Charlottesville, they surrendered it last weekend in Berkeley.

But perhaps the biggest reason for the recent opinion shift is old-fashioned politics.  Democrats can read polls as well as anyone else, probably better.  They know that most Americans do not are repulsed by masked marauders running wild in the streets.  That could explain Nancy Pelosi’s surprising statement.  She desperately wants a Democratic majority in 2018, and she won’t get it by ignoring or endorsing violence.

In the Senate, the two darlings of the far left – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – have yet to call out antifa by name, although Senator Sanders did speak out against lefties who shout down campus speakers.

Antifa will always have supporters, especially on elite campuses.  A Dartmouth lecturer named Mark Bray has become a frequent guest on mainstream networks, where he rationalizes and defends violence.  Dartmouth’s president actually criticized Bray for “supporting violent protest,” a rare show of courage from a university administrator.  Naturally, the left-wing Dartmouth faculty was angry not with Bray, but with the president.

But college professors aside, antifa may have overplayed its ugly hand with all the recent violence and vitriol.  Pay close attention the next time there are masked antifa protesters fomenting violence and pelting cops with urine.

Law enforcement, which once looked the other way, might step in to quickly stop the madness.  And Democrats, who were once acquiescent, might rise up in unison to denounce antifa.

That may be wishful thinking, but it would be a very welcome sign in extremely troubled times.