March 5, 2016 --

New York Times columnist David Brooks made it perfectly clear in his February 26 column that he is a propagandist for the left. Given that he is a Times columnist, this is not at all unusual, but for the fact that the Times seemingly hired him as a conservative commentator. Was he transformed into a leftist zealot by his service at the Times, or was he a leftist all along, masquerading as a p.r. person for the Republican establishment? That his February 26 column excoriates political "outsiders" would make it seem that he remains merely an establishment p.r. person. But in attacking populist conservatives as ruling out compromise and aiming for "total victories for themselves and their doctrine," Brooks reveals himself for the leftist propagandist that he is. Who, after all, delegitimizes its opponents if not the left. Who seeks total political domination, if not the left. Indeed, who would criminalize political differences, if not the left. Further, who, now, would accuse political opponents of being unethical, if not the left.

Brooks suggests the populist conservatives as opposed to politics. He then claims they "want to elect people who have no political experience." How are people to get elected if not through the political process?

Brooks goes on to accuse Donald J. Trump of taking "the path the founders rejected." More nonsense. It is the left, President Obama, in particular, that rejects the founder's path. It is President Obama who acts without authorization of congressional enactment.

It is the left, joined by establishment Republicans -- particularly Sen. Mitch McConnell -- that have trampled on the checks and balances provided by the Constitution: crushing the "power over the purse" given to the House by the founders to keep in check a runaway senate or president; turning the treaty power given the Senate on its head so that a Senate minority can rubberstamp the president in making treaties with hostile foreign powers,

And so, read the Brooks column of February 26 and behold a leftist propagandist.