• 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

Prager U. How the State Can Save America

Click above or here to watch this video

Washington is gigantic, corrupt, and unaccountable. Can this giant be cut down to size? Yes, but not by Congress. Only by we the people. It’s called a Convention of States, and it’s right there, in Article V of the Constitution. Jim DeMint, former senator from South Carolina, explains.

Warning from ghr:  I would not trust today’s American politicians, nor today’s voting Americans to retain our democratically oriented Federal Constitution.   The nation currently  lacks wisdom and knowledge.  Eighty per cent of the American black and feminist population know little or no American or world  history before ObamaRule.   Immigrants have arrived from crime ridden and/or fascist criminal nations without any Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, and John Adams to our today’s  nearly illiterate  collegiate America.

Mueller….The Bureaucratic Establishment’s Heinrich Himmler


“I believe any reasonable observer, if he considers the matter independently of whose ox is being gored, would agree that it is problematic to have a special counsel with a broad mandate to investigate, unbound by some of the normal constraints of a prosecutor, a campaign and a presidency. Reasonable observers will disagree about the extent of the danger, and about the countervailing value of having such a prosecutor in certain circumstances.

However, it seems undeniable that even a non-conflicted, non-partisan, non-abusive special counsel can severely hamper the ability of the president to perform the job the American people elected him to do. In an extreme case, such a prosecutor can destroy a presidency for no good reason.

That’s why, if we are to have a special counsel, we must be satisfied that he is non-conflicted, non-partisan, and non-abusive.

Does Robert Mueller satisfy all three of these criteria? Does he satisfy any of them?

Given his friendship and ties with James Comey, there is a good case that Mueller is conflicted. Comey is at the center of key aspects of the investigation — alleged collusion and, especially, alleged obstruction of justice. And it was Comey whose manipulation and leakingresulted, as intended, in the appointment of a special counsel.

Mueller has a reputation (deserved or not, I don’t know) for being non-partisan. But the same was true of Mueller’s friend and admirer James Comey. And we all understand that being a Republican is not inconsistent with hating Donald Trump.

It would, of course, be unfair to suggest on this basis alone that Mueller is anti-Trump. But if we examine the people Mueller has hired to work on this investigation, concerns of partisanship come to the fore. It is well-documented that Mueller has assembled a staff full of partisan Democrats, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s opponent in the very election that gave rise to the investigation.

If, as I believe, Mueller and his team fail the non-conficted and non-partisan tests, then he ought not have the power that has been invested in him. I should also note that when Mueller was given this power, it wasn’t known that he would staff up with anti-Trump Democrats; nor was the full extent of his conflict understood.

Accordingly, I think Mueller deserves to be sacked whether or not he acted abusively so far. Has he? I don’t know enough facts or enough about criminal prosecutions to answer.

I do know that leaking news of an impending grand jury indictment is abusive and, as I understand it, illegal. But I don’t know whether Mueller’s team is responsible for the leaking that has occurred so far, including this weekend’s leak that an indictment was about to come down.

Trey Gowdy, a Republican and former prosecutor, has encouraged Republicans to “give [Mueller] a chance to do his job.” He says, “the result will be known by the facts.”

I respect Gowdy, but there are problems with his statement. So far Mueller has had not just a chance, but free rein to do his job. We already know some of the results — (1) a free-wheeling investigation that appears to go well beyond the issue of Russian interference in the 2016 election and alleged collusion by the Trump campaign and (2) a staff full of partisan Democrats.

By the time Mueller and his team of anti-Trumpers reach their “result,” they may have severely impaired this presidency for no good reason.

What can be done to counter Mueller? The first step is to criticize his investigation. Trump did so this weekend in a series of tweets. Other Republicans went on the Sunday shows to raise questions about Team Mueller.

I doubt these efforts will be effective except, perhaps, for the purpose of laying the groundwork for measures that will actually block Mueller, if things come to that. These measures aren’t hard to identify, but discussing them is beyond the scope of this post……”

(Note by ghr:)  “Special counsel” is a witch hunter who has been reduced to,  unconstitutionally given,  the authority to attack, spy on  anyone, accuse anyone, everyone he/she choses for political purposes by merely hunting to see what accusation might work.

Our once honorable Democratic Party has left the world of democracy.   Biggest Businesses like Amazon, criminals……black racists, fanatic feminists of all colors, shapes, sexes, and sizes, legal and illegal immigrants, college instructors and  children  have gathered together to suck America to death from the single teat,  single party fascistic socialism.

How Churches Die


There’s a saying attributed variously to Robert Conquest or John O’Sullivan that “any institution that is not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time.” A good case in point is the Episcopal Church, which was once known as “the Republican Party at prayer,” but which has for the last several decades fallen in line behind every politically correct enthusiasm of the left.

We imagine the conversation in the Episcopal clergy must go something like this:

Bishop: Father Smith, I see that a few parishioners are still showing up for the liturgy on Sundays. Isn’t there something else we can do about this to drive the remaining people away?

Father Smith: Well, I suppose we could double down on the “Star Trek” prayer and use it in every Sunday service until everyone stops coming: “At your command all things came to be: the vast expanse of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses, and this fragile earth, our island home.”*

Bishop: Not sure that will do the trick. ‘The Force’ is great and all, but ironically it just might be too close to the Holy Spirit to be effective.

Father Smith: That’s Star WARS, your excellence, not Star TREK.

Bishop: Well whatever. In either case, their General Conventions are way more intelligent than ours.

Father Smith: I’ve got it! Let’s throw out the honors for George Washington in his old parish in Alexandria!

Bishop: Genius! What didn’t we think of this before?

[*Actual words of Rite II, Eucharistic Prayer C.]

News item:

George Washington’s church to tear down memorial honoring first president

By Stephen Dinan

George Washington was one of the founding members of Christ Church in Alexandria, buying pew No. 5 when the church first opened in 1773, and attending for more than two decades.

This week the church announced it was pulling down a memorial to its one-time vestryman and the country’s first president, saying he and another famous parishioner, Robert E. Lee, have become too controversial and are chasing away would-be parishioners.

While acknowledging “friction” over the decision, the church’s leadership said the twin memorials, which are attached to the wall on either side of the altar, are relics of another era and have no business in a church that proclaims its motto as “All are welcome — no exceptions.”

“The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome. Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques,” the church leaders said.



It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

—President George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, August 21, 1790. Unfortunately this understanding is nowadays lost on the leadership of the Episcopal Church (among many others).



They’re Trump-strong in rural Iowa — and not changing their minds

Trump Dossier not merely funded by Dems. It Was Commissioned by the HILLARY CAMPAIGN

by Scott Johnson at PowerLine:


Now we know that the Trump Dossier was not just a product funded by Democrats, but was commissioned by the general counsel of the Clinton presidential campaign. After the Trump campaign collusion hysteria fomented by Democrats and their media friends roughly since the election, we learn that Russian disinformation (as it seems to me) disseminated by the friends of Vladimir Putin (i.e., the Russian officials identified by alphabetic descriptors in the dossier) has come to us courtesy of Hillary Clinton herself. Yet John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and campaign general counsel Marc Elias have all denied knowledge, either now or in the past. Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on. As for Hillary herself, well, “she may or may not have been aware.”

But there is more. Rowan Scarborough has reported that the first of the dossier memos was circulated last year in late June. The first dossier memo is dated June 20, 2016, and cites Sources A (“a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure”) and B (“a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin”). Sources A and B tout the collusion scenario. Sources A and B were not out to help Donald Trump, were they? They were out to throw sand in our gears or to help Hillary Clinton.

Former CIA Director John Brennan was a key player in the collusion scenario, but he has left much to implication in his congressional testimony. Brennan has acknowledged, however, that “that there were efforts made by the [FBI] to try to understand whether or not any of the information in that [dossier] was valid.”

Following up on his comments yesterday, our friend with two decades of experience in counterintelligence as an FBI Special Agent writes to add “some additional context that may be be useful.” He writes:

Why was the “dossier” ultimately so important for the anti-Trump conspiracy (if you think of a better way of putting it, let me know)? The reason, I think, is that the use of standard political smears against Trump had proven ineffective. Therefore it became necessary to take it all a step further and to attempt to make some superficially credible allegations of action against the national interest (again, the vague allegations of Mafia ties had fallen flat).

We know that that effort began some time in the late Spring or early Summer of 2016 because an application was made to the FISC in June/July. That application mentioned Trump by name–and was rejected. Why FISA? Because a Title III “wiretap” would have required an actual investigation based on a violation of a real US criminal law and a quite high and specific standard in the application for a court order.

Why, you might ask, was that application even made? Why not rely on the flow of info coming from NSA, which notoriously scoops up virtually all electronic communications? The answer is that Trump and all those close to him were US Persons (USPERs). The NSA targets foreign powers and individuals. If those foreign powers and individuals of concern are in contact with USPERs and, in the judgment of NSA, US counterintelligence (basically, FBI) should know about those USPERs, then NSA informs the FBI.

In my own career, outside FBI headquarters, I only saw a handful of NSA referrals of that sort. They were mostly general in nature. They could perhaps be used to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry (PI) to gain a bit more insight into the nature of the relationship between the USPER and the foreign power or individual — if we judged that advisable based on our own knowledge and experience — meaning that typically the NSA info would not rise to the level needed in order to say that there was “reason to believe” (i.e., for practical purposes, probable cause) that the USPER was an actual agent of a foreign power. That means: no Full Investigation (FI), therefore no FISA.

But in the anti-Trump conspiracy that’s exactly what was needed: FISA coverage, “wiretaps.” There was no time to do the painstaking research on Trump and his associates–they needed FISA and they needed it NOW. They’d already been turned down at least once. The NSA info was essentially useless, because what they really wanted was to get conversations between Trump and his associates here in the US–all USPERs–not international conversations (those were either lacking or harmless). Yes, NSA probably scoops up internal US communications of USPERs, too, but to use it without a FI and without a FISA order would be illegal. Therefore, the “dossier.”

For the conspirators the significance of the “dossier” was that it provided supposed “reason to believe” that Trump or those close to him were “agents of a foreign power,” subject to blackmail or pressure by a foreign power, already cooperating with a foreign power. The ability to claim that most of this “information” was coming via friendly foreign intel services with contacts in Russia added a bit of verisimilitude.

A “dossier” that could provide that sort of “reason to believe” would justify a FI and then FISA coverage. And therefore access to Trump campaign related communications (the extent would be dependent on the nature of the FISA order, who were the USPERs listed as targets–Page for sure, Flynn maybe, etc.). NB: Although they were claiming Trump collusion with Russia, what they were really targeting was campaign communications. By claiming that key people were foreign agents they could collect ALL their domestic communications with anybody.

This is why I believe that the dossier took on added importance after the initial denial of a FISA order. We know, or think we do, that the FBI wanted Steele to do additional research. The focus of that research, however, would have to be to establish “reason to believe” that Trump or persons close to his campaign were “agents of a foreign power.” Only that would get them the FISA coverage they wanted. Lacking those, FISA was the quick route, but it required “reason to believe” that Trump or persons close to his campaign were “agents of a foreign power.” Voila the “dossier” as it apparently featured in the successful FISA application in October, the height of the campaign. And then it came to be used in the attempt to nullify the election (the attempted “coup”?).


by Adriana Cohen   at  the Boston Herald:

“When the news broke Friday evening that a federal grand jury has approved criminal charges in relation to the special counsel’s investigation into Russian election interference, the left wing media — especially CNN — frantically launched into wall-to-wall coverage of something that’s still under seal.

With three guests in-studio and seven other talking heads, CNN, which was shockingly the first to break the story, began breathlessly pushing the narrative that this was the big moment they’d been waiting for. This, surely, was the pivotal moment that would lead to the end of Trump’s presidency.

And though these anti-Trump media members went on and on — late into the night — speculating about who the target could be, and what charges they could face, it was all just wild speculation. But the fact that they were all so excited to speculate tells you everything you need to know about these outlets.

For all they know, the person or people facing federal charges could very well be members of the Clinton campaign.

After all, many of these same media members spent the week ignoring or explaining away the fact that John Podesta, Clinton’s former campaign manager, and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz denied any knowledge of funding the infamous and widely discredited Russian dossier on Trump.

An absurd claim considering published reports detailing how they spent a combined $9.2 million to their law firm, Perkins Coie, who then paid Fusion GPS and an ex-British spy to dig up their opposition “research” from Russian informants.

And is it any surprise that CNN was the first network to get the news?

Perhaps that is where some of the real “collusion” lies — between powerful partisan forces within our Justice Department and the anti-Trump media.

Not a stretch given we already know that fired former FBI Director James B. Comey admitted to Congress that he fed a reporter sensitive “memos” detailing private conversations with the president to spur the appointment of a special counsel.

A move that, in addition to whipping the anti-Trump media into a frenzy, led to Comey’s longtime buddy, Bob Mueller, launching into a politically motivated Russian investigation — thanks to a tacit partnership between a high-ranking FBI official and the lefty media.

Jason Chaffetz, former chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, nailed it on the head yesterday.

“All Grand Jury business is supposed to be secret,” he tweeted. “Leak after leak someone should be prosecuted.”

Regardless of what comes out tomorrow, when the indictment is expected to be made public, Americans want fair play and accountability on both sides of the aisle. If politically driven indictments are handed out to Republicans while criminal aristocrats within the Democratic Party get a free ride, it will destroy public trust in our justice system, the very cornerstone of our democracy.

If that doesn’t send a chill up your spine, nothing will……”  Please continue below to view an icon of St. Hillary the Great at her best.


America: Human Life Begins a Conception: DEAL WITH IT!

by Daniel Payne at the Federalist           (Article sent by Mark Waldeland:)

“At FiveThirtyEight, Christine Aschwanden writes: “The GOP’s Abortion Ban Is About Politics, Not Science.” She’s half-right, though not in the way she thinks.

Before we get to that, it is worth reflecting on this simple fact: the progressive contribution to the modern abortion debate is, on average, the most science-free political discourse you’re apt to find. The Left is given to declaring that conservatives are generally “anti-science,” because some fundamentalist Christians don’t believe in evolution and many conservatives don’t believe we can accurately predict what the global average temperature will be in 200 years compared to a 1965 baseline.

“Science Is Real,” a popular liberal yard sign declares. Yet there is no more anti-science position than that of the mainstream liberal stance on abortion. It is textbook intellectual Luddism dressed up as informed political dialogue.

We’re Interested in Fantasy, Not Religion

Consider Cecile Richards, the Grand Master of American abortion rights herself. When asked when life begins, she replied: “For me, life [for my children] began when I delivered them.” Hillary Clinton, a former senator and presidential candidate who came very close to inhabiting the Oval Office, declared several years ago: “I believe the potential for life begins at conception.”

A few years ago, a reporter asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: “Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?” Pelosi explicitly refused to answer this simple tautological question, telling the reporter: “I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect.”

These answers are wrong, and demonstrably so, as we’ll see below. But if it were Republicans and conservatives opining so evasively and illiterately about basic scientific matters, then the media coverage would be wall-to-wall and gleefully destructive, as it was with Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments. Yet liberals tend to get a pass on their anti-science abortion positions.

When Does Human Life Begin, Again?

That brings us to the current “abortion ban” working its way through Congress. At FiveThirtyEight, Aschwanden points out that the science underpinning the debate—that unborn humans can feel pain as early as 20 weeks—is disputed. This is entirely true. But Aschwanden claims the entire discussion is less about the science of fetal pain and more about the ultimate moral facts of abortion itself:

[T]his particular debate over what the science does and doesn’t show is largely a distraction, because what we have here isn’t a scientific debate, but a moral one. Each side is using science to support age-old value judgments about when life begins and how the rights of a pregnant person are weighed against the rights that a fetus may or may not have; new scientific evidence is unlikely to change many minds.

National Right to Life believes human life begins when an egg is fertilized, and several of the bill’s other proponents have also been clear that they’d like to ban abortion altogether. For example, a 2010 brief about fetal pain published by the Family Research Council, another anti-abortion group and supporter of the bill, states that, ‘The humanness of the unborn child is not contingent on its capacity for pain. Whether or not an unborn child can feel pain is irrelevant to the respect that an unborn person deserves.’

“National Right to Life believes human life begins when an egg is fertilized.” You will notice this is stated as if it were in dispute, a partisan political position rather than as settled a scientific matter as the existence of gravity or the Doppler effect. We are supposed to believe, it seems, that the idea that human life begins at conception is merely a policy position, something up for debate, a scientific fact still vigorously debated in universities, labs, and medical conferences across the world.

It is not. Human life begins at conception (“When an egg is fertilized,” as the phrase goes). To pretend as if this is one hazy opinion among many, rather than an established fact underpinning the foundation of human biological science, is singularly bizarre, insofar as it does not square with what we know about allogamy, embryogenesis, embryology, mitosis, and everything else concerning the generative origin of our species.

Claim that the sun revolves around the earth and you’ll be laughed out of the room. Claim that your child suddenly sprang into existence on the day of his birth, on the other hand, and you’ll be given a lucrative position at the head of America’s largest abortion mill.

The Science Is Settled

The actual science on the matter if simple, elegant, easy to understand and easy to explain. Dr. Maureen Condic, an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah’s School of Medicine, provides us with a well-written essay on the matter at the Charlotte Lozier Institute:” …….please read on below:


Know California’s Chronic Liar, Adam B. Schiff Better! However, you’ll have to shower more frequently if you do!

(Note:Representative Adam B. Schiff is a ghostly creature, a chronic liar who wreaks from Sanctuary State California, the home of 5,000,000 or so  legal or illegal nonEnglish speaking foreigners who voted for criminal Hillary Roddham Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election.  Countless enjoy, celebrate  rioting at the state’s countless institutions of mislearning, Kindergarten to and through graduate school these days….ghr)

Benghazi Liar Schiff Now Lies about Uranium One

by Daniel John Sobieski  at American Thinker:

“When the Democratic anti-Trump mantra of “Russia, Russia, Russia” was in its infancy, House Intelligence Committee off ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff from the People’s Republic of California was in high dudgeon over Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes daring to report to the public and the press that, yes, members of Team Trump were in fact surveilled and the contents of their conversations and their names were recorded and disseminated.

Rep. Schiff had no problem with intel leaks to the New York Times, but an intelligence committee chairman giving the President a heads-up that his transition team was in fact caught up in surveillance by his own government is out of bounds? Schiff insisted it was, and claimed Nunes was not acting as a committee chair but as a surrogate of Team Trump:

At his own news conference later that afternoon, Schiff sharply criticized Nunes, given that his committee is in the middle of an active investigation that includes the question of whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia’s suspected attempts to meddle in last year’s election.

“The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both,” Schiff told reporters.

Schiff has no problem acting as a surrogate for Team Obama or Team Hillary. That deafening silence you hear is the outrage he has expressed over the leaking of classified information to the press designed to fatally wound the Trump transition. Schiff had no problem repeating claims without evidence that Team Trump was colluding with the Russians. But he was troubled by Nunes citing reports proving President Trump was right about his team being monitored, creating a kerfuffle that forced Nunes to recuse himself from active leadership of his committee.

Fast forward to Uranium One and Fusion GPS and evidence of actual collusion and coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the Russians, and we find ranking member Schiff once again acting as a surrogate for both President Barack Hussein Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. He cannot do both. Nor can he ignore evidence that Team Hillary conspired with the Russians to both influence our elections and to engage in arguably treasonous pay-for-play in exchanging control of 20 percent of our uranium supply, the raw material for nuclear weapons, for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Yet that is what Schiff is doing, whistling past his party’s political graveyard and ignoring evidence of crimes that, yes, make Watergate look like a third-rate burglary and the treason of the Rosenbergs look like a misdemeanor, He calls Uranium One a politically-motivated “distraction”, showing how unserious the Democrats are about real corruption and collusion and why these “bipartisan” investigations are a sham by definition:

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, accused the Trump administration, Breitbart News and Fox News of promoting news first reported by The Hill last week regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Uranium One deal.

The 2010 deal, covered extensively in Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” gave Russia control of a significant portion of U.S. uranium.

Schiff denounced the new attention as a “partisan effort to distract” and accused House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) of being a part of it given three House committees — Judiciary, Government Reform and Intelligence — were involved.

Schiff, as we know, is no stranger to partisan efforts to distract and is a veteran of using lies, false charges, and obfuscation to distract the American people from the crimes and corruption of Team Obama and Team Clinton. He shamelessly defended the incompetence and criminal negligence of Obama and Clinton in Benghazi

Schiff was the individual who called the heroes who fought off terrorists from the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi liars for their account of the Obama/Clinton administration’s denying security improvements, ignoring warnings of the attack, and the issuance of a stand-down order for any rescue, an order they ignored. AsInvestor’s Business Daily recounted in 2014:

The California Democrat who suggested that his party boycott the Benghazi Select Committee as a waste of time now accuses those who fought on the CIA annex roof of lying “to promote a new book.”

The last we heard from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, was in May. That’s when he told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” he thought the planned select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attack was a “colossal waste of time.”

Calling the yet-to-be-approved committee a “tremendous red herring,” Schiff said: “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”…

… Schiff apparently is still not happy about the hearing, which pointed out the State Department’s pre-Benghazi neglect of security, ignoring the security recommendations after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania….

The hearing came right after Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen, three CIA contractors who on that night fought terrorists from the roof of the CIA’s Benghazi annex building, confirmed that there was indeed a stand-down order given that caused a critical half-hour delay….

Schiff, who was not in Benghazi that night, says Paronto, Geist and Tiegen are making up a tale to sell their book, as if their story is less plausible than the proven lie that the Benghazi attack was caused by an inflammatory YouTube video, a myth promoted both by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama.

After seeing clips of Schiff saying the contractors were trying to sell their book and Smith claiming a stand-down order “was never given,” Geist said he “would like to invite Mr. Schiff to a debate… we can talk about it.” He wondered if Schiff wished to “say that to my face.”

Schiff thought the Benghazi heroes was making it up, and now he thinks Nunes and Team Trump are making up the fact that investigations into Team Trump and the Russians, and the creation of a Special Counsel, were prompted by a fake dossier put together by the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. He claims it is a distraction to point out the truth that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration sold out American national security in exchange for more Clinton cash.

Rep. Adam Schiff, have you no shame?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.          


The Lone Marine

Sent by Bruce and Arlene Taber

For 15 Years, One Marine Has Faced Off with ‘Rolling Thunder’ —

Please view the American hero here: http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/kCxWJIl7-OwlNfjNX

Did Trump Foe, Sour Bill Kristol, Start “Fusion GPS” at Free-Beacon?

Fusion GPS and the Washington Free Beacon

by Matthew Continetti and Michael Goldfarb at Washington Free Beacon:

“Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton. All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

Representatives of the Free Beacon approached the House Intelligence Committee today and offered to answer what questions we can in their ongoing probe of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier. But to be clear: We stand by our reporting, and we do not apologize for our methods. We consider it our duty to report verifiable information, not falsehoods or slander, and we believe that commitment has been well demonstrated by the quality of the journalism that we produce. The First Amendment guarantees our right to engage in news-gathering as we see fit, and we intend to continue doing just that as we have since the day we launched this project.


ghr:   There is no mention above of  the name of primary American Trump-hater, saboteur, William Kristol, who spews hate for President Donald J. Trump so rabidly,  one guesses his hate-time overcomes  him before lunch, before supper, before bed, and before morning rise….He was often used as a  “star” Republican for Fox News not too long ago, but before our Donald defeated criminal Hillary for the American Presidency.

He still writes his hate notes of the President at Weekly Standard, but did resign his editorship there  not too long ago.