• 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

Transgenders in the Military? Let Them Be Segregated!! Why Not Female-Only Battalions!

AN ATTACK BY TRUMP “ON THE WHOLE LGBT COMMUNITY”?

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“That’s how (minus the question mark) Steven Petrow, a gay Washington Post columnist, characterizes President Trump’s decision to reinstate the ban on transgender people in the military. This characterization tells us plenty about what’s wrong with leftist identity-politics.

The question of whether transgender people should serve in the military is first and foremost a decision about how best to defend America militarily. The purpose of our armed forces is not to promote or reject the LGBT agenda. Its purpose is not to serve as a model for tolerance of transgender and other LGBT people, or to afford them employment opportunities, or even to treat them fairly as individuals. The purpose of our armed forces is to defend the country from its enemies.

Does a ban on services by transgender people serve this purpose? I don’t know.

Petrow cites a 2016 Rand Corporation study, commissioned by the Pentagon, that led the Obama administration to lift the ban. That’s one important piece of evidence. However, it was pretty clear the direction in which Obama wanted to go, so I can’t help but wonder whether the results of the study were preordained. (For a discussion of the manipulation associated with Obama’s decision to ditch “don’t ask, don’t tell,” see this post I wrote in 2010).

Dan McLaughlin at NRO offers countervailing evidence. He cites a 2015 study by the National Center for Transgender Equality. It found:

Fifty three percent (53%) of [transgender] respondents aged 18 to 25 reported experiencing current serious psychological distress [compared to 10% of the general population] . . . Forty percent (40%) of respondents have attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6% in the U.S. population.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year, compared to 4% of the U.S. population, and 82% have had serious thoughts about killing themselves at some point in their life . . .

29% of respondents reported illicit drug use, marijuana consumption, and/or nonmedical prescription drug use in the past month, nearly three times the rate in the U.S. population (10%)

Military veteran and Bronze Star recipient David French, also at NRO, argues that the military is justified in making decisions based on group characteristics:

Do people with certain kinds of criminal backgrounds tend to be more trouble than they’re worth? They’re out. How about folks with medical conditions that have a tendency to flare up in the field. They’re out also.

It’s foolish to create a force that contains numbers of people who are disproportionately likely to have substantial problems. Increased injuries lead to manpower shortages in the field. Prolonged absences create training gaps. Physical weakness leads to poor performance.

It may well be true that military service is one way that transgender people can feel more accepted in society. Again, however, that’s not the purpose of the military.

French concludes:

The military has to make hard choices on the basis of odds, probabilities, and centuries of hard-earned experience. Our national existence – ultimately, our very civilization – depends on getting those answers right. And if there’s one thing that any person learns in war, “fairness” has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.

The battlefield is the most unjust place on earth.

Again, I don’t know what the correct answer is on transgender people serving in the military. But I submit that French’s mode of analysis is the correct one. Focusing on whether a ban amounts to “an attack on the LBGT community” is the wrong mode.”

Glenn Ray wonders if Paul Mirengoff was ever in military service.   I wonder if Paul Mirengoff recognizes there are tremendous differences between the human male and the human female animal (despite the lies, the deceit, the corruption of our nation’s feminized colleges and universities?

I am a child of the second world war.   War was the event of every day even on the home front.   We boys played war games at home.  We went to war movies.  Girls played paper dolls and jumped rope.   From early on I wondered whether I’d have the courage to expose myself to death to save my buddies when I ‘grew up’ .  Did I have that animal drive in me?  I was certain I did.  I would serve my country in any way I could.

One of the main reasons I entered the army was the hope I would have the opportunity to do so.   I can’t imagine an army with females running around pretending to be men.   How could they be trusted in a fox hole.  When would they break and scream which is their nature, an animal  message to the nearby human male they need help?

In those days when adults were adults, men men and women women, the human male was made well aware of his duties in life.   Why would anyone go to war relying on  Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, or Madame Hillary in ones fox hole?

 

 

Franken the Ill, Klobuchar the Sweet Obstruct Judicial Nomination

THE DEMOCRATS’ OBSTRUCTION CONTINUES

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“I wrote about the Democrats’ unprecedented obstruction of President Trump’s executive branch and judicial nominees here, and specifically about Democratic Senators blocking judicial nominations with the archaic “blue slip” practice here.

One of the nominees being blocked by the Democrats is Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court. President Trump has appointed Justice Stras to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are preventing Stras from getting a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Rumor has it that while other Democratic senators are at least meeting with judicial nominees from their states, Klobuchar and Franken have not even condescended to meet with Justice Stras to discuss any reservations they may have about his nomination.

Perhaps this is because they have no such reservations, but are engaging in obstruction for its own sake. Justice Stras’s nomination is supported by an extraordinary array of judges, lawyers, professors and politicians of all stripes. No one has offered even a theory as to why he should not be confirmed to the 8th Circuit.

A number of letters have been written to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, and Senators Franken and Klobuchar. They testify to Justice Stras’s extraordinary abilities and unimpeachable character. Letters have been submitted by 12 former Minnesota senators and representatives of both parties; three retired justices who served with Stras on the Minnesota Supreme Court; 107 distinguished Minnesota lawyers and retired judges, many of whom I know, who span the full ideological spectrum; 29 members of Justice Stras’s U.S. Supreme Court clerkship class (Stras clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas); 38 Minnesota Law School professors who know Stras from his time teaching there; and 34 lawyers from my former law firm, Faegre Baker Daniels, where Stras was of counsel prior to his appointment to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

All of the letters wholeheartedly endorse Justice Stras’s nomination, and many of those who signed them are Democrats. The letter that was signed by 107 lawyers and retired judges is typical:

Re: Nomination of Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Dear Senators:

The undersigned are Minnesota lawyers from all political walks of life who join in respectfully urging the Senate to confirm Justice David Stras’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In his seven years as a Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Justice Stras has distinguished himself not only as a top-notch jurist, but as a judge who decides cases without regard to political affiliation or party lines. He has sided with both “liberal” and “conservative” Justices during his tenure on the court, always in pursuit of applying the law as it comes to him, without ideology or favoritism.

Justice Stras has also proven to be a collegial and collaborative judge, as three of his former colleagues on the Minnesota Supreme Court (retired Justices Alan Page, Helen Meyer, and Paul Anderson) explained in publicly endorsing him in a recent editorial in the Minneapolis StarTribune. (“The case for the nomination of David Stras to the federal courts,” June 2, 2017.) This comes as no surprise. After practicing law, Justice Stras came to Minnesota to teach at the University of Minnesota Law School. Just two years later, he was named Stanley V. Kinyon Tenure Track Teacher of the Year. He was such a student favorite that the staff of the Minnesota Law Review published a tribute to Justice Stras in their Spring 2011 issue. That tribute included accolades from then-Dean David Wippman as well as former Dean Robert Stein, the latter of whom concluded his remarks by stating that “[t]he citizens of Minnesota and the entire nation will be the better for [Justice Stras’s] appointment” to the Minnesota Supreme Court. (Robert A. Stein, Distinguished Scholar, Dedicated Teacher, and Now Justice: David R. Stras, 95 Minn. L. Rev. 116, 124 (2011).

Those of us who have appeared before Justice Stras regard him as a very skilled, polite, engaging, inquisitive, intellectually curious judge who is fair, impartial, and interested in one thing: getting to the right answer under the law. Politics plays no role in arguing a case to Justice Stras. Arguing for a “conservative” result does not help. Only dealing objectively with the law will be effective with Justice Stras.

Justice Stras has all of the qualities of an excellent judge. He is hard-working, intelligent, and open to all views. He would be an outstanding addition to the Eighth Circuit, and we respectfully urge the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to confirm his nomination to the Eighth Circuit.

Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar should be ashamed of themselves. They don’t even pretend to have any basis for objecting to Justice Stras’s nomination. They are acting out of sheer partisanship and, frankly, hatred of the president who surprised them by being elected. Their conduct is ignoble and dishonorable.

You can send Amy Klobuchar an email here, politely asking her to stop obstructing the nomination of a superbly qualified jurist to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. You can email Al Franken here. Please do!”

Firing Sessions is a Terrible Idea!

Firing Sessions Is a Terrible Idea

By Bruce Walker at American Thinker:

“Donald Trump is a naturally polarizing figure.   His bread and butter is brazen attacks on those who challenge him.  As a media figure and as a business promoter, that worked well.  As president, however, Trump needs to pick his fights carefully and avoid needless political bloodletting.  Changing people in his administration when he feels that things have gone wrong suggests that he picked the wrong people to begin with, especially in the first six months of his administration.

In some cases, like Comey, a holdover from the Obama administration, Trump should have cleaned house right at the beginning of his term of office, when people naturally understand Trump’s need to have his own people in key positions.  When Trump gets rid of people who have been his supporters and who have interviewed for the job Trump gives them in his administration, it is a different matter.

Jeff Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump in his run for the Republican nomination.  Sessions is also a man who during his political career has stood up to the Establishment and done what he has believed to be the right thing even if it was not the most politically expedient.  Sessions has a reputation among the Republican caucus in the Senate as a particularly honorable and decent man.  He also gave up a safe Senate seat as a member of the majority party to serve on Trump’s team.

If President Trump fires Attorney General Sessions or if Trump continues to harass Sessions with dumb tweets, then the president runs the risk of alienating honest, genuine Senate conservatives who are immune to threats from Trump but who can give him headaches and problems he cannot imagine.

Almost everything Trump does, except for executive orders, must go through the Senate – legislation, appointments, and treaties.  If Trump alienates conservative Republicans in the Senate, it is hard to see how he will be able to do anything during his term as president.  Why should these senators trust Trump?  Why should they believe he is really conservative, particularly if he taps Rudy Giuliani as the next attorney general, a decent man on the wrong side of nearly every social issue?

When every single Republican Senate vote is vital in repealing Obamacare, why in the world would President Trump risk offending those conservative senators whose support he desperately needs?  While pressure from McConnell and Trump have doubtless switched some votes, every single vote in the Senate is necessary to beginning the repeal process.

When the investigation of Trump and his family bubbles into allegations that suggest the need for congressional investigation, why would Trump go out of his way to outrage conservative senators who will be on the very committees interrogating his family and his staff?  Does Trump grasp that these senators could garner rave reviews from the mainstream media by asking tough questions in these hearings?

Trump behaves as if he were the head of a corporation called the federal government and everyone were his employee subject to firing at his wish.  His influence over senators in conservative states, however, is limited.  (The same is true of House members from safe districts, which is to say nearly every House member.)

Donald Trump won the presidency with less than 46% of the popular vote because conservatives supported him.  Conservatives wanted to support Trump and wanted to believe that he represents their values.  Without their support, Trump cannot do anything at all except lose the next election by a landslide and perhaps even lose the Republican nomination in 2020 to someone like Jeff Sessions……”   There’s more…Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/firing_sessions_is_a_terrible_idea.html

Washington Post Headline Hides Wasserman-Schultz Scandal

CONGRESSIONAL IT STAFFER CHARGED WITH HOME EQUITY LOAN FRAUD

by Spenser S. Hsu  at the Washington Post:

“A congressional information technology staffer was arrested Monday evening before a scheduled flight for Lahore, Pakistan, and charged with bank fraud in connection with a $165,000 loan from the congressional Federal Credit Union, authorities said.

Imran Awan, 37, pleaded not guilty Tuesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey in Washington and was released to a high-intensity supervision program whose conditions include GPS monitoring, a nighttime curfew and staying within a 50-mile radius of his home in Lorton, federal prosecutors said. He was arrested at Dulles International Airport, his attorney said.

Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, allegedly secured a $165,000 home equity loan in January from CFCU on a house in Alexandria after claiming it was their primary residence, when it was a rental property, FBI Special Agent Brandon C. Merriman wrote in an affidavit for Awan’s arrest. The couple told the credit union to wire the money to Pakistan for use in purchasing a property, Merriman wrote.

Alvi, also a former House IT worker, and the couple’s three school-aged children, were approached by federal agents but allowed to board a flight to Lahore on March 5 Merriman wrote, but he said that he “does not believe that Alvi has any intention to return to the United States.”

Awan’s attorney, Chris Gowen, said in a statement, “Because we are confident in the integrity of the U.S. justice system, we are confident that Mr. Awan will soon be able to clear his name and get on with his life. Neither Mr. Awan nor his wife have ever had any intention to ‘flee’ the United States……….”

PLEASE READ THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER BELOW  EXPLAINED BY MARK STEYN

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/congressional-it-staffer-charged-with-home-equity-loan-fraud/2017/07/26/f5f402e8-71a7-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.d224f51ce305

Protestor Brit Actress “Pooped out” While Invading Farmer’s Property

 Arrogance and Emma Thompson, Actress
Despite the courts telling her that she couldn’t come onto private property to host her fracking protest, Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson obviously thought she was above the law given her celebrity status. In defiance of the court system, she and her sister Sophie entered a local farm with a small group of other protesters. There, the two spoiled brats set up their bake sale where they displayed energy-themed cakes as part of a Greenpeace-backed protest stunt.
The farmer who owned the land wasn’t having any of this; so shortly after witnessing the trespassers, he cranked up his tractor with the manure sprayer hooked to the back of it. You’ll love this. 
 
This is my kind of guy……. 
 (article sent by Bruce Taber)

Is Fox Going Leftist?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/fox_news_takes_a_sharp_left_turn.html    (article sent by California’s Lisa Rich)

Fox News Takes a Sharp Left Turn

If any doubts remained that the Fox News channel is continuing to swerve hard left away from its conservative roots, they were erased on July 16, 2017 when Ezekiel (Zeke) Emanuel, M.D. appeared on the channel’s signature weekly program Fox News Sunday in his new role as a paid contributor. Dr. Emanuel was a principal architect of Obamacare and he is now speaking out widely in favor of its retention as the law of the land. He’s a very influential medical policy maker and also happens to be a life long, in-your-face spin doctor for the Democrat socialist left. During the Fox News program, the ever arrogant Emanuel jumped on the Resist Trump bandwagon and suggested that President Trump is worthy of being impeached. Hired last February by Fox News primarily as a health policy analyst (he is a prominent physician and professor, after all), Emanuel is now providing opinions not only on medical subjects but on political ones, as well.
The turning point in his role – and an indication of where Fox News is heading – was his appearance on the high-profile, politically-charged Fox News Sunday. In addition to the nation’s cable and satellite channels, Fox News Sunday is also broadcast on over 200 Fox network-owned or -affiliate terrestrial broadcast television stations around the country.
An excerpt from the July 16th program’s transcript provided by Fox News is illustrative:
CHRIS WALLACE [Fox News Sunday host]: Since you’re a panelist, I’m not going to call you Dr. Emanuel. I’m going to call you Zeke.
EZEKIEL EMANUEL, M.D. [Fox News Contributor]: That’s fine.
WALLACE: How far as a committed Democrat are you prepared to go? Because – I mean, we aren’t going to talk in specifics. But are you willing to see the country paralyzed for the next year? Are you willing – if – and I repeat – if more information comes out to see the president impeached, how far do we need to go on this?
EMANUEL: Well, we have – democracy is at stake here in America. Having our biggest enemy, Russia, come in and try to meddle and change our election that is the bedrock of democracy. That is the most important thing.
I do not want to see this country paralyzed, but I do not want to see our democracy undermined by having the president of the United States colluding and his officials colluding with Russia.
And, remember, there are – you know, when people go into government, they actually have to abide by the laws here. And one of the laws is you can’t get anything of value, whether money or other things of value from a foreign country.
WALLACE: Let me just bring –
EMANUEL: Opposition research is true, it’s of value. It may not be dollar value.
WALLACE: Well, I was going to say, you heard what [White House attorney] Jay Sekulow had to say about that. . .
EMANUEL: Democracy is a very fragile thing. We have seen in other countries, Turkey is a very good example of how someone can win an election and totally undermine democracy by taking down judicial independence, the press, and reelection.
I believe that Emanuel deserves the nickname “Death Panel Doc” because of his contention that no one should be allowed to live – or, perhaps more accurately, no one should expect or have the gall to want to live – after the age of 75 because it would adversely impact national health care costs, determined according to so-called global budgets, funded by the government. Almost two-thirds of the nation’s $3.2 trillion a year medical care costs are now paid for by the federal government.
Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D. in his office at the University of Pennsylvania
In a highly touted article titled “Why I Hope to Die at 75,” published in The Atlantic Monthly in October 2014, Emanuel, who is 60 or 61 but looks like he is fast closing in on 75, wrote “this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive.” A maximum lifespan of 75 years, he added, “forces each of us to ask whether our consumption is worth our contribution.” This, from a licensed medical doctor who presumably at some point may have taken the traditional, newly-minted doctors’ oath to “First do no harm.” In another irony, Emanuel is considered a leading bioethicist and is widely quoted as a reigning expert on medical ethics issues.
Emanuel goes on for over 5,100 words in the Atlantic Monthly article trying to make his case – for exactly what, one wonders after reading it. He doesn’t appear to advocate mass killings of everyone who reaches the age of 75 – including himself.
I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life. . . Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. . . I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75.
So, without exactly spelling out his prescription for old age in the New Transformed America – that as a top advisor to President Obama he helped to usher in – the renowned bioethicist appears to be recommending in his lengthy screed no medical treatment for people older than 75 other than palliative or hospice care that would help to hasten or would not impede these unfortunate geriatrics on their road to a quick death.
 
Rationing on Steroids
In a number of his many other writings, Ezekiel has more clearly spelled out what he is advocating. It’s the “R” word, meaning in this case rationing of medical care and allocating limited health resources according to the criteria of age. In an article in The Lancet on January 31, 2009, when he was the head bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health, Ezekiel and two co-authors wrote:
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-yearolds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.
Commenting on Ezekiel’s writings in 2009, Wesley J. Smith wrote:
A lot of people are frightened that someone who thinks like Emanuel is at the center of an administration [Barack Obama’s] seeking to remake the entire health care system. Having read these two articles, I think there is very real cause for concern.
A question arises: what is of more concern here?  That Emanuel is one of the nation’s leading medical philosophers and health care policy makers and was a key architect of Obamacare?  Or that he is now opining for dollars on Fox News?  In addition to having been an oncologist (of all things) and a prominent “bioethicist,” Emanuel’s other credentials are substantial, detailed in his 92-page curriculum vitae. Some highlights: Harvard M.D., M.Sc. in biochemistry from Oxford University before that, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, top advisor to the federal government at too many levels to mention, member of President Bill Clinton’s 1993 Health Care Task Force (Hillarycare), noted academician, etc., etc. Last but definitely not least, Dr. Emanuel is also the brother of Chicago Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel (and already legendary Hollywood supertar agent Ari Emanuel).
For decades, judging by the content of his C.V., Zeke Emanuel has been one of the nation’s leading physicians and most influential medical policy wonks. Much of the work in that arcane area has been conducted behind the scenes, behind closed doors, relatively distant from public view – and with a notable lack of transparency as in the Hillarycare days. Now, it appears that we will have the benefit of seeing Emanuel often on Fox News, where his convoluted ideas can directly reach a new audience of millions. The channel is well-known for frequently presenting its highly paid contributors, some would say ad nauseum, on all of its platforms (the Fox News channel, FoxNews.com, the Fox Business Channel, Fox News Radio, and others).
 
Enter Jessica Tarlov and Exit the Political Insiders
An additional rusty nail in the Fox News channel coffin, perhaps not quite as notable or obnoxious as Ezekiel’s ascent to on-camera prominence, is the ever expanding role of another left wing Fox News contributor,Jessica “Jessie” Tarlov, the most recent chapter of which was also observed on July 16. On that Sunday evening, Tarlov made another of her weekly appearances on the channel at 7:30 PM ET in a segment with RINO and never-Trumper Evan Siegfried that lasted a painfully long 15 minutes. Tarlov, easier on the eyes than Emanuel (but not on the ears), is a screechy voiced leftist well-versed in the art of talking heads/talking points banter that dominates cable TV news. Smile, wear short skirts, show a lot of shapely leg and thigh – you get the picture. In addition to being actress and celebrity Mollie Tarlov’s sister,
Jessica Tarlov’s current claim to fame is that she’s the senior director of research at Bustle.com. Bustle is a lightweight infotainment site aimed at PC Millennials who are looking for quick takes, designed for viewing on smart phones, on trendy topics like hookups, celebrities, shopping, and pink hair.
Jessica Tarlov in her pre-makeover days before Fox News, 2014 Skyping in to Newsmax
Jessica Tarlov, Fox News Contributor 2017
The irony here – and it’s an especially painful one for this viewer who longs for the good old days of 2011-2016 to return – is that this very time slot – Sundays at 7:30 PM ET, during the second half hour of Fox Report Weekend with Harris Faulkner – was the home for five years (2011-2016) of the Fox News Political Insiders. Comprised of independent-minded traditionally liberal Democrats Patrick Caddell and Doug Schoen (curiously, Tarlov’s mentor after she returned to the country from the UK circa 2012 after getting a Ph.D. at the London School of Economics with a thesis about a UK political scandal), and Republican John LeBoutillier, the weekly Political Insiders segment was appointment viewing for political junkies who were tired of the same old same old.
The Fox News Political Insiders July 10, 2016
L. to R.: John LeBoutillier, Patrick Caddell, and Doug Schoen
The Insiders, in fact, offered consistently probing expert analysis based on real polling and their uncanny ability to accurately assess the mood of the country that was ready to upend the political establishment and elect someone like Donald Trump. For at least two years prior to the 2016 election, Caddell, Schoen, and LeBoutillier were anticipating, alone among TV pundits, that someone unexpected would emerge and potentially ride a new wave to an electoral victory.
The Insiders were riding high on FNC for five years. On Saturday and Sunday, July 23 and 24, 2016, they even enjoyed a one hour prime time special program that aired at least three times over two days. At the time I thought that it might be a try-out for a regularly scheduled program of their very own.
But right after the November 2016 election, the Insiders’ weekly FNC segment on Sunday evenings disappeared without explanation, as did the group’s weekly Monday morning podcast on FoxNews.com. The Political Insiders’ Twitter page is still online, but it has not been updated in over eight months. Schoen occasionally pops up in appearances on Fox News, while Caddell and LeBoutillier appear rarely on Fox News. (LeBoutillier is doing a regular political Internet audio podcast “Revolution_The Podcast” with Arlene Bynon, linked from his site Boot’s Blasts.)
As a longtime fan of the Fox News channel, Sundays – and the Fox News channel itself – just aren’t the same anymore.
 
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran journalist who writes about national politics, media, popular culture, and health care. His new Web site is AltMedNews.net. His July 13, 2017 one-hour interview on the Hagmann Report can be watched here.

Prager U….Why Did Democratic South Become Republican?

“Is it true that in the 1960s and 70s, around the time of the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party switched identities with the Democratic Party? Is it true that the Republicans abandoned their historic support of civil rights for blacks in order to get the Southern vote? In this week’s video, Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain tackles the thorny subject of what has come to be known as the GOP’s “Southern Strategy.” Watch the video here to learn whether the two parties really “switched.””

Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, explains.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/why-did-democratic-south-become-republican