Insane Obsession of President Trump’s “Insanity”

Have you heard the one about the clinically insane commander-in-chief?

If not, you just haven’t been watching enough CNN and MSNBC.  Those networks, along with some anti-Trump print outlets, have been gleefully and repeatedly questioning the president’s mental stability.

This is another effort by hard-core leftists to somehow get Donald Trump out of the Oval Office.  Immediately after last year’s election there were allegations of voter fraud, followed by the absurd hope that some Trump electors would break faith and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Then Trump’s legion of enemies settled on Russia and “collusion,” which they believed would finally nail the coffin shut on Donald Trump’s presidency.  But barring something unforeseen, allegations of collusion are going nowhere.  That’s why the left has recently swung from collusion to “obstruction of justice.”

Throughout all this there has been another ominous undercurrent that the left believes could pull President Trump beneath the water.  That is the notion that he is insane.  Literally.

MSNBC’s Morning Joe and his merry band of armchair shrinks have been leading the way.  Joe Scarborough has decided that President Trump is “completely detached from reality” and perhaps in the “early stages of dementia.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski and the regular guests, following Joe’s lead as always, also question the president’s mental fitness.

Not to be outdone, CNN’s Brian Stelter has tried to boost his anemic ratings by implying that the president of the United States is off his rocker.  He recently sat spellbound as a historian declared that there is “a sick man in the White House.”

TV hosts and publicity-seeking historians are free to think and say whatever they want, no matter how irresponsible.  But things get dicier when mental health “professionals” race to analyze the president from afar.

Last weekend, MSNBC welcomed psychologist Bandy Lee, who bandied about some truly reprehensible implications.  “We must act soon,” she warned, because “things will get worse.”  Lee actually declared that President Trump is “mentally falling apart” and warned that he will “likely become violent.”

Evidently the esteemed Dr. Lee has never heard of the “Goldwater Rule,” which was enacted by the American Psychiatric Association after scores of shrinks questioned the sanity of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.  According to that edict, it is unethical and irresponsible for a mental health professional to diagnose a person they have never met.

So who’s nuttier?  President Trump, who by all accounts commands the respect of his closest aides, or Bandy Lee, who smashed her professional code of ethics just to get a little face time on TV?

The goal of all this is, as always, to get President Trump out of the White House.  The best mechanism to do that, his antagonists now believe, is the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1967.

Under Article Four, a president can be removed when the Vice President and a majority of Cabinet secretaries deem their boss to be “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Donald Trump is certainly an unusual president, which is putting it mildly.  His tweets, jokes, and comments can be strikingly odd.  But he was making those same tweets, jokes, and comments during last year’s campaign.  His unconventional behavior was a major force behind his victory, and that behavior simply hasn’t changed.

His foes are desperately trying to find some way, any way, to overturn the results of the election.  Their efforts began last November 9th and they have not stopped.

Nor are they likely to stop any time soon.  If the Republicans hold the House next year, hopes for impeachment are pretty much gone unless Robert Mueller comes up with a smoking cannon.  Even if Democrats take the House, it will require two-thirds of the Senate to actually convict the president and remove him from office.

So if impeachment is nearly impossible, the bitter clingers only have the 25th Amendment on which to pin their fading hopes.  Trump-loathers in the media are trying to lay the groundwork with all this reckless talk about insanity.

Do they really think Mike Pence and the majority of the Cabinet will stage a coup against a man they genuinely seem to respect?

Now that is a true sign of insanity.

Advertisements

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: LGBT Advocates Seek to Abandon a Vital Constitutional Right

phillips
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips cracks eggs into a cake batter mixer in 2014 inside his store in Lakewood, Colorado. U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear arguments December 5th on whether a baker who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

In 2012, two men asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop (a bakery in Colorado), to create a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage. Phillips told the couple that he would gladly sell them any of the premade baked items in his store or create a cake for them for another occasion, but he was unable to create a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. The couple left the store and, shortly thereafter, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

In 2014, the Commission determined that Phillips’s artistic freedom didn’t extend to a choice not to celebrate same-sex marriage (a strange and remarkable decision given the Commission’s subsequent deference toward cake artists who declined to create cakes expressing disapproval of same-sex marriage). The Commission ordered Phillips to celebrate same-sex marriages through his artistic designs to the same extent he celebrates any other marriage. This order forced Phillips out of the wedding industry, which has cost him about forty percent of his business and left him struggling to keep his family business afloat.

The Commission also instructed him to teach his staff, which includes his family members, that he was wrong to operate his business consistently with his religious beliefs. Finally, it directed Phillips to file quarterly reports with the government for two years, explaining to state officials when and why he declined any commissioned order. In other words, Phillips was ordered to provide a defense every time he exercised his First Amendment right to be free from compelled expression. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the commission’s ruling in 2015.

Phillips is going to the Supreme Court to vindicate not only his own First Amendment rights, but also the freedom of other artists to decline to celebrate events or express ideas that they do not support. Thus, freedom for Phillips is freedom for all artists.

As the December 5th oral argument date for his case grows near, the drumbeat proclaiming Jack Phillips must be forced to create a same-sex wedding cake against his conscience grows louder.

The most important consideration in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, we are told, is eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Finally, the state and its defenders claim, the emotional harm felt by prospective customers upon hearing someone disagrees with their actions for religious reasons cannot be tolerated either.

Yet none of what we are being told here is true. First, no “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” has occurred in this case at all.

Phillips is not opposed to serving people who identify as homosexual; he simply objects to the celebration for which he is asked to create a cake — the same-sex wedding.

This becomes even clearer when we understand that Phillips will not create a wedding cake for two men even if they claim a heterosexual orientation, but will create a cake for a wedding between a man and a woman despite them identifying as homosexual.

Thus, Phillips is not acting based on the sexual orientation of his prospective customers; he’s only opposed to what they are celebrating, and asking to not be forced to be a part of it.

The cost of protecting this freedom is minimal, only entailing some offense on the part of the prospective customers, who will now have to go elsewhere to find a cake, most couples inquire with multiple shops anyway, for their wedding ceremony.

The two men who initiated the legal case against Phillips could have visited any one of sixty seven other bakeries in the Denver area willing to create their cake, including one only a tenth of a mile from the Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Instead, they filed complaints against Phillips with the state, which followed up by suing him. But in light of all these providers happy to create the cake, is it really necessary to force Jack Phillips to be the one to do so?

The would-be customers, after getting over their offense at Phillips’s beliefs, could have traveled 500 feet down the street to obtain their cake from someone happy to provide it.

Instead, they want to force Jack Phillips to create it, meanwhile, they had already obtained one free of charge from another bakery by the time they filed charges against Phillips.

Unfortunately, this coercion comes with the heavy price of forcing Phillips to violate his conscience or shutting down wedding cake operations and possibly going out of business.

At a recent practice oral argument, the American Civil Liberties Union claimed that this case is about “full and equal participation in civic life,” and if Phillips wants to say “God blesses this union” for any wedding, he must be forced to say it for all weddings.

Yet if those who want the government to punish Masterpiece Cakeshop get their way, Phillips and many like him around the country will themselves be excluded from full and equal participation in civic life.

Allowing religious business owners to continue to operate their businesses according to their deeply held religious beliefs will not push those identifying as homosexual out of society. However, forcing business owners to violate their beliefs could force many religious individuals out of the marketplace.

The Supreme Court should keep this in mind as it decides this case in the upcoming months.

NEWSMAX: Bill O’Reilly’s Accuser Arrested for False Allegation of Crime

Sorry to have to post this article but it is necessary to expose the evil that is in play in this country. I’m not going to say “I told you so”, but it did predict this. The Reagan Conservative is always right!


A 2015 arrest by Detroit police of a key accuser of Bill O’Reilly for giving a false report of a crime has raised serious doubts as to her credibility.

In April, O’Reilly was fired from Fox News shortly after Perquita Burgess claimed the host made sexually suggestive comments to her, including calling her “hot chocolate.”

Burgess worked at Fox News for several weeks in 2008 as a clerical temp.

Shortly after an April 1st New York Times report detailed sexual harassment allegations by several women against O’Reilly, Burgess called a 21st Century Fox hotline claiming alleged workplace misconduct by O’Reilly. 21st Century is the parent company of Fox News.

At the time her charges emerged, O’Reilly’s program, “The O’Reilly Factor,” was already in the throes of an advertiser-boycott campaign being pushed by several liberal organizations.

All of the allegations included in the Times report were more than a decade old.
Burgess’s more recent allegations, however, played a significant role in O’Reilly’s termination at the network, a source close to Fox News told Newsmax.

This article originally appeared on Newsmax. Read the full article here.

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.