• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

CNN’S Jake Wonders Why President Trump More Warmly Received in Riyadh Than Islamist Obama

CNN’s Jake Tapper wonders why Trump more warmly received in Saudi Arabia when Obama’s father was a Muslim

by Thomas Lifson   at  American Thinker:

“Somebody please explain to Jake Tapper about Arabs and the “strong horse.”  Osama bin Laden explained it pretty economically years ago, but that’s a message that is difficult for liberals living in a fantasy world to grasp.  After all, Barack Obama had a Muslim father, and he’s a “person of color” (one of the most annoying expressions in the English lexicon, casting Caucasians as colorless), so there must be some kumbayah, right?

Jen Psaki, to whom Tapper asked his question, is in no position to explain, as she first tries to grab credit for the arms deal Trump just announced before denouncing it.  Both people are completely unable to deal with the realities of a power equation, especially one that shows the emptiness and futility of Obama’s policies.

Watch and wonder at the kind of people who get access to media time, and ……..”

Please do read on:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/cnns_jake_tapper_wonders_why_trump_more_warmly_received_in_saudi_arabia_when_obamas_father_was_a_muslim.html

Harvard Study: Media Overwhelmingly ANTI Trump!

John Kass

John KassContact ReporterChicago Tribune

Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone of the coverage of President Donald Trump is over-the-top hostile, I get the same darn reaction.

The eye-roll.

That big Anderson Cooper CNN eye-roll, often accompanied by a few theatrical sighs.

And when I leave the newsroom, it gets even worse on social media.

But now Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has come out with a study of media coverage of the Trump White House in its first 100 days.

It is astonishing because it comes from Harvard, not exactly the bedrock of American conservatism.

The study found that in Trump’s first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.

CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

So what does fair and balanced really mean, anyway?

“It confirms what most people understand,” said Tom Bevan, publisher and co-founder of RealClearPolitics, one of the go-to websites for media and political junkies.

Bevan spoke as a guest on “The Chicago Way” podcast that I co-host with WGN-AM radio producer Jeff Carlin.

“The response will be that Trump is deserving of this kind of coverage because he’s conducted himself inappropriately, and these are self-inflicted wounds, and the press is doing nothing but covering him and his actions. But that’s a little bit disingenuous,” Bevan said.

“I think Trump has been treated unfairly by the press in his first 100 days. Everything he does is seen as a five-alarm fire.”

Trump bears some of the blame for this. He mocked the media, called journalists “the enemy of the people,” and went to Washington with much vulgar bragging, essentially promising he’d kick the political establishment right in the private parts. And telling the Russians that former FBI director James Comey is a “nut job” doesn’t help.

And now the establishment kicks back.

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump’s 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

“That’s a significant shift, a significant difference,” says Bevan. “I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others.”

I have my own memory of the media’s tone after Obama took office. It wasn’t merely positive, it was adoring, gushy, in the way a small child looks up to a beloved parent, or a dog to the master who gives it biscuits.

It was as if the media were hugging a magical unicorn. Obama wasn’t only given the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the Nobel Peace Prize though he hadn’t done anything to earn it. And critics were trashed as nothing but racists.

Obama controversies, from his administration’s gun running scandal in the “Fast and Furious” debacle to using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against conservative groups, were covered, somewhat. But generally, the tone was muted, respectful, nothing like it was for Trump or the Clintons.

Later, in Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, leaks of Democratic National Committee email — whether hacked by the Russians or not — demonstrated collusion between journalists and Democrats. But that cozy relationship has never properly been addressed, and that avoidance undermines the credibility of journalism as the media challenges Trump.

“Because of the way the press covered Obama, they lost so much credibility,” Bevan said. “And because they did not take these things seriously, the IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious, you could go down the list of where they turned the other cheek. … And now where they’re giving Trump the third degree on everything, that makes the contrast all that much greater.

“So you have a certain segment of the public, the people who voted for Trump, who literally do not trust what the media says.”

And the divide between rigidly defined political tribes, one courted by the media, the other dismissed by it, grows even wider.

“It’s not good for journalism, and it’s not good for the country,” said Bevan.

Agreed. But I don’t see it changing any time soon. Do you?

Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone of the coverage of President Donald Trump is over-the-top hostile, I get the same darn reaction.

The eye-roll.

That big Anderson Cooper CNN eye-roll, often accompanied by a few theatrical sighs.

And when I leave the newsroom, it gets even worse on social media.

But now Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has come out with a study of media coverage of the Trump White House in its first 100 days.

It is astonishing because it comes from Harvard, not exactly the bedrock of American conservatism.

The study found that in Trump’s first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.

CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

So what does fair and balanced really mean, anyway?

“It confirms what most people understand,” said Tom Bevan, publisher and co-founder of RealClearPolitics, one of the go-to websites for media and political junkies.

Bevan spoke as a guest on “The Chicago Way” podcast that I co-host with WGN-AM radio producer Jeff Carlin.

“The response will be that Trump is deserving of this kind of coverage because he’s conducted himself inappropriately, and these are self-inflicted wounds, and the press is doing nothing but covering him and his actions. But that’s a little bit disingenuous,” Bevan said.

“I think Trump has been treated unfairly by the press in his first 100 days. Everything he does is seen as a five-alarm fire.”

Trump bears some of the blame for this. He mocked the media, called journalists “the enemy of the people,” and went to Washington with much vulgar bragging, essentially promising he’d kick the political establishment right in the private parts. And telling the Russians that former FBI director James Comey is a “nut job” doesn’t help.

And now the establishment kicks back.

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump’s 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

“That’s a significant shift, a significant difference,” says Bevan. “I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others.”

I have my own memory of the media’s tone after Obama took office. It wasn’t merely positive, it was adoring, gushy, in the way a small child looks up to a beloved parent, or a dog to the master who gives it biscuits.

It was as if the media were hugging a magical unicorn. Obama wasn’t only given the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the Nobel Peace Prize though he hadn’t done anything to earn it. And critics were trashed as nothing but racists.

Obama controversies, from his administration’s gun running scandal in the “Fast and Furious” debacle to using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against conservative groups, were covered, somewhat. But generally, the tone was muted, respectful, nothing like it was for Trump or the Clintons.

Later, in Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, leaks of Democratic National Committee email — whether hacked by the Russians or not — demonstrated collusion between journalists and Democrats. But that cozy relationship has never properly been addressed, and that avoidance undermines the credibility of journalism as the media challenges Trump.

“Because of the way the press covered Obama, they lost so much credibility,” Bevan said. “And because they did not take these things seriously, the IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious, you could go down the list of where they turned the other cheek. … And now where they’re giving Trump the third degree on everything, that makes the contrast all that much greater.

“So you have a certain segment of the public, the people who voted for Trump, who literally do not trust what the media says.”

And the divide between rigidly defined political tribes, one courted by the media, the other dismissed by it, grows even wider.

“It’s not good for journalism, and it’s not good for the country,” said Bevan.

Agreed. But I don’t see it changing any time soon. Do you?

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

Schumer’s Con-artist Democrats Have Nothing to Offer by Lies and Leftism

Victor Davis Hanson: Whole Trump-Russia-Collusion Story Is A “Big Lie”

“Citing a term coined by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, Hoover Institution scholar Victor Davis Hanson explains that the allegations that President Trump worked with the Russians in any way are a “big lie” created by the Democrats with no evidence.

TUCKER CARLSON: Professor, you’re saying that this whole thing is basically nonsense, is that what you’re saying?………”   Please continue below:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/20/victor_davis_hanson_whole_trump-russia-collusion_story_is_a_big_lie.html

The Fascist Left’s Long Hand in Controlling News and “Learnings”

‘Last Man Standing’ was more than a show; it was a prophecy

by Steve Deace  at Conservative Review     (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/last-man-standing-was-more-than-a-show-it-was-a-prophecy

Fascist Merkel Invades Germany with Islamists at Citizen Home Owners’ Expense

Germany Is Now Confiscating Homes To Use For Merkel’s Invaders!

Yeah, but Americans have a Constitution that protects our property from a corrupt government. Right? People in government don’t believe in private property. We have that problem in the states too. They just use different tactics to get the property; large fines, heavy tax burdens, crazy building codes.

If it was my property, it would be tempted to burned to the ground before I let the government confiscate it and use it for this purpose. 
TGP: We all knew this day would come – we just didn’t know how soon. Germany is now confiscating residential units to rent out migrants living in the city of Hamburg.
Germany Is Now Confiscating Homes To Use For Merkel’s Migrants!
Gatestone Institute: Authorities in Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany, have begun confiscating private dwellings to ease a housing shortage — one that has been acutely exacerbated by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than two million migrants into the country in recent years.
City officials have been seizing commercial properties and converting them into migrant shelters since late 2015, when Merkel opened German borders to hundreds of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Now, however, the city is expropriating residential property units owned by private citizens.
In an unprecedented move, Hamburg authorities recently confiscated six residential units in the Hamm district near the city center. The units, which are owned by a private landlord, are in need of repair and have been vacant since 2012. A trustee appointed by the city is now renovating the properties and will rent them — against the will of the owner — to tenants chosen by the city. District spokeswoman Sorina Weiland said that all renovation costs will be billed to the owner of the properties.
The expropriation is authorized by the Hamburg Housing Protection Act (Hamburger Wohnraumschutzgesetz), a 1982 law that was updated by the city’s Socialist government in May 2013 to enable the city to seize any residential property unit that has been vacant for more than four months.
The forced lease, the first of its kind in Germany, is said to be aimed at pressuring the owners of other vacant residences in the city to make them available for rent. Of the 700,000 rental units in Hamburg, somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000 (less than one percent) are believed to be vacant, according an estimate by the Hamburg Senate.
This is truly UNPRECEDENTED! Will Merkel’s madness ever come to an end?
(Article sent by Lisa Rich in California.)

Time for America to Confront the Democrat Party Fascist Left and Its Strangle Hold on Communication

It is certainly understandable that the American atheist, fascist Obamaling Democrat  savage Left is enjoying its total control over the nation’s press and indoctrination institutions called courts, school, and university.

There is a lot rotten in America’s “State of Denmark” in the left wing of the recently beaten Obama fascist, racist, sexist Democrat Party determined  to continue control the Presidency……feminist fangs, black racists and gangsters, the smug Hollywood millionaires and friends, 20 million or more illegal immigrants hidden and protected by taxpayer money in political cells called “Sanctuary Cities”  weren’t quite enough to con enough Americans to send that oily, noisy,  political slimy criminal, “Crooked” Hillary to the White House.   She should be sent to jail for her crimes against the State.

She’s free, however.   She’s a feminist, leftist Democrat…an Untouchable?

Our Donald was fairly, cleanly, honestly, Constitutionally elected to become the Nation’s 45th President…..and BEST yet, he is not a crooked Democrat, or sleazy Republican….but a businessman skilled at solving problems to build matter.

Over 90% of the American communications empire is grease-mouthed by the Charles Blows,  nearly all of television “news” at the level of Rachel Maddow, the Washington Post’s billionaire,  and the  Jake Tapper “boys” at CNN……folks of the same bath tub oils.    Then there are CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC,  and the Ninth District Courts politically, educationally crippled enough to make certain TRUTH AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ARE LOST IN THE PAST to make room for the goons of their religion, their gods of feelings over Truth!

Will these Obama fascists join the NeverTrumpers…the Bushes et alia to sabotage our refreshing, America-loving, America built, Donald Trump…..or will one party fascism finally kill the United States of America?

OUR AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE, FOLKS.   The Charlie Schumer people of Communist George Soros land are leading our nation  to a Venezuela future!    PAY ATTENTION….AWAKE!  Please read the following article by Newt Gingrich!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/18/gingrich-surrender-or-fight-our-country-is-at-stake.html

The Left’s War on Free Speech

by Kimberley Strassel  at  IMPRIMIS       (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

“The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 26, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

I like to introduce the topic of free speech with an anecdote about my children. I have three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five. They are your average, normal kids—which means they live to annoy the heck out of each other.

Last fall, sitting around the dinner table, the twelve-year-old was doing a particularly good job at this with his youngest sister. She finally grew so frustrated that she said, “Oliver, you need to stop talking—forever.” This inspired a volley of protests about free speech rights, and ended with them yelling “shut up” at each other. Desperate to stop the fighting and restore order, I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.

The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.” She added that we could all start by listening more to what she says.

Then it was the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”

It was at this moment that I had one of those sudden insights as a parent. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies.

With that introduction, my main point today is that we’ve experienced over the past eight years a profound shift in our political culture, a shift that has resulted in a significant portion of our body politic holding a five-year-old’s view of free speech. What makes this shift notable is that unlike most changes in politics, you can trace it back to one day: January 21, 2010, the day the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling and restored free speech rights to millions of Americans.

For nearly 100 years up to that point, both sides of the political aisle had used campaign finance laws—I call them speech laws—to muzzle their political opponents. The Right used them to push unions out of elections. The Left used them to push corporations out of elections. These speech laws kept building and building until we got the mack daddy of them all—McCain-Feingold. It was at this point the Supreme Court said, “Enough.” A five-judge majority ruled that Congress had gone way too far in violating the Constitution’s free speech protections.

The Citizens United ruling was viewed as a blow for freedom by most on the Right, which had in recent years gotten some free speech religion, but as an unmitigated disaster by the Left. Over the decades, the Left had found it harder and harder to win policy arguments, and had come to rely more and more on these laws to muzzle political opponents. And here was the Supreme Court knocking back those laws, reopening the floodgates for non-profits and corporations to speak freely again in the public arena.

In the Left’s view, the ruling couldn’t have come at a worse time. Remember the political environment in 2010. Democrats were experiencing an enormous backlash against the policies and agenda of the Obama administration. There were revolts over auto bailouts, stimulus spending, and Obamacare. The Tea Party movement was in full swing and vowing to use the midterm elections to effect dramatic change. Democrats feared an electoral tidal wave would sweep them out of Congress.

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents,  it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation. It would send a message: conservatives choosing to exercise their constitutional rights will pay a political and personal price……..

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/lefts-war-free-speech/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=april17&hootPostID=1cc5fb9c0443fe5c1329715435c94eac