• 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

The Crooked Hillary Hysterical Lefty Women Love So Much

Cheryl Strayed: Someday, a ‘Nasty’ Woman Like Hillary Clinton Will Win

The following “article” below my commentary, appeared at the leftist journal, TIME……..written by  Cheryl Strayed:
(Introductory comment:   For the sake of the survival of the human  species, the human male animal  is programmed by birth to be a killer and a sexual predator.  It is the culture of the human family into which he is born that will determine the degree and form of civilization he will enter to be melded to  perform and defend his natural  characteristics….to be profoundly visual and curious, to build, to discover, to imagine, to  invent, to hunt, to explore,  to mate and protect  his offspring, his species and realm, to guide his male offspring into manhood,  and in the ideal, to achieve something lasting, meaningful within the larger community to which he is attached.
The human female is born ditsy,   sensitive, emotional, rich with  feelings, yet wily.   It is SHE who  bears and nurses the  offspring, the foundation of  the family, so vital for the future of the community, the tribe, the nation, indeed,  the species itself.
Generally, she, as Cheryl Strayed demonstrates below,   emotes feelings over seeking Truth.
 Cheryl Strayed is the author of the number one New York Times best-seller Wild, among other books:

“My kids didn’t have school the day after Donald Trump won the presidential election and eventually, near noon, they came into my room to see what was wrong with me. Perhaps they’d come to me at their father’s prompting. Perhaps they’d heard me weeping. They’d never seen me this way before. Inconsolable.

“Hillary didn’t lose!” I insisted, as they sat on the bed around me, even as Hillary’s voice drifted into the room — her concession speech, on the radio downstairs, my husband shouting up, “Honey, you should come listen to this!”

I would not listen. I would never listen. The sound of Hillary Clintonconceding to Donald Trump is what compelled me to rise at last, if only to shut my bedroom door.

“It can’t be true,” I said to my kids, back in my bed encampment. “It can’t be. It can’t!”

“I know,” said my daughter with real sorrow in her voice.

“Is Trump going to ruin our lives?” asked my son, with real worry. Hillary Clinton wasn’t, to them, a distant and unknown figure. They’d met her six months before, when I’d been invited to introduce her at an event in San Francisco. We’d flown there from Portland for the occasion. My husband and kids and I got to hang out with Hillary in a room backstage before the event began. When my son asked Hillary what she thought of Donald Trump, she didn’t answer. She turned the question around and instead asked him what he thought of Donald Trump.

“I think he’s very disrespectful,” he said. “I agree with you about that,” she replied.

His disrespect was the reason I’d repeatedly assured my children in the months leading up to the election that Donald Trump could not win. He slandered Muslims and immigrants and those of Mexican heritage. He referred to women as pigs and dogs. He repeatedly criticized the grieving parents of a young soldier who’d been killed in the line of duty. He mocked a disabled man in front of cameras and denied having done so. He failed to disavow the white supremacists who campaigned for him. He cheated those he’d employed out of money. He bragged about not paying his taxes. He laughed when his supporters threatened journalists with violence. He said he could grab women “by the pussy” if he felt like it because he was a “star.” He did and said so many horrible things I couldn’t any longer keep a list in my head.

He had no shame. He had no grace. He had no dignity. He had no moral code. Never mind whether you were conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, with the evidence mounting by the day, it seemed apparent to me — and many — that Trump was characterologically unfit for the office. Countless members of his own party, both prominent and not, abandoned him in droves. They announced they could not vote for a man who had so little respect — for others, for the bounds of decorum, for the rule of law, for the office of the presidency, for the fundamental principles of American democracy itself. Many of them didn’t much care for Hillary or her political views, but they loathed Trump so deeply, they’d vote for her instead. Newspapers that had never in their history endorsed a Democratic candidate for president did. Among the few who endorsed Trump, one was The Crusader, the official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan.

Week by week through the late summer and autumn, my certainty that he could not win deepened. I knew the American electorate was divided politically, but I also knew something else: for all our flaws, we were not a people who’d choose a man to be our president who was so plainly, so essentially, so completely, a disrespectful brute.

I was wrong.

The fact of my wrongness felt like a blunt-force blow. I wasn’t naive. I’d long known there were misogynists and racists and people who voted against their own economic interests. I knew that some people voted out of their fear and rage and ignorance, but I didn’t know how deep and wide it was in America until November 9, 2016. I believed we, as a people, were better than we turned out to be.

On that day after the election, after I finally pulled myself out of bed, I walked around in a state of numb shock. My numbness was interrupted only by two extremes of emotion: more jags of crying — this cant be true! — and an ever-heightening state of outrage — she won by nearly three million votes!

In this manic zombie/teary/rager dream state, I somehow managed to go to the grocery store, where I managed to figure out what to make for dinner and then, at home, made it. All through this managing, a memory kept floating into my mind of a conversation I’d had with my maternal grandfather when I was eleven or so and I’d asked him who he planned to vote for in a political race in his city of Huntsville, Alabama — for what office, I do not recall. We were in the car, him at the wheel, me in the front passenger seat. Moments before I asked my question, we’d driven past a campaign sign that caught my eye because emblazoned on it was the name of a woman, a fairly rare occurrence in 1979.

My grandfather replied he hadn’t yet decided who he’d be voting for but he knew for certain it would not be the woman. When I asked why, he told me it was because women were not qualified to lead and therefore should not hold elected office. He did not say this unkindly. He didn’t become defensive or angry when I vehemently disagreed with him. He only chuckled and explained I’d someday understand that there are certain things men are better at than women, and making important decisions was one of them.

I admired my grandfather and I loved him, too. He was a good man in that way men get to be thought of as good even though they do not believe in the basic human rights of women and girls. Around the time that he told me he would not be voting for the woman because she was a woman, he’d also observed over lunch one day what a shame it was that I was the one who’d “gotten the brains” among my siblings and my brother (according to him) had not. Why was it a shame? Because my alleged brains would only be “wasted” on me since I was a girl.

But of course it wasn’t only my grandfather who thought this way. By the time I argued with him in the front seat of the car about the political race in his town, by the time I was told my intelligence was a useless asset, I was well aware that he was not alone in his opinion that women were inherently inferior to men. I knew that in arguing with him, I was arguing with the entire culture — one that had told me what I could not and should not and would not be because I was a girl.

I get asked a lot in interviews when I first became a feminist and why, and though my answer has remained the same since the election, the way I feel about it has changed. I’ve been a feminist since my earliest understanding that what it means to be female is to be limited by society in ways that males are not. And though I’ve never been under the illusion that sexism had vanished, before Trump was elected there was a history-lesson element to the stories I told of my first consciousness about what it meant to be female in America, a quality that had made the sexism I experienced as a girl seem antiquated and nearly extinct. The message was: This is the way it used to be! Isn’t that amazing? In witnessing the presidential race and Trump’s eventual win, I’ve concluded that I had it wrong. This isn’t how it used to be. It is the way it is. It amazes me still.

Perhaps that’s the reason I felt Hillary’s loss on a physical level — like someone had actually delivered a blow to my body — and perhaps, too, it’s the reason that long-ago conversation with my grandfather came circling repeatedly into my mind the day after the election. Hillary Clinton’s victory would’ve in some measure healed the lifelong wounds that patriarchy has made on my heart. When people accused me of “voting with my vagina,” I laughed. I was proud to do it. President Hillary Clinton would’ve been repudiation, finally, of all those people who’d said women were not fit to lead (or vote or be doctors or write great books or . . . well, you fill in the blank). Her defeat was personal to me. This election wasn’t simply a political contest. It was a referendum on how much America still hates women.

I never have listened to her concession speech and I probably never will. I didn’t watch because I’ve already seen it: the woman who works fifty times harder than the man who got the job. It isn’t a story I don’t know. I’ve heard she was strong and dignified and inspiring. I’ve heard she rose to the humiliating occasion with astounding grace. None of that surprises me. Hillary Clinton grew up in the world I grew up in, only in one that was even harder for girls and women because she’s a generation older. She — like so many whose very humanity has been questioned because of race or sexuality or gender identity or physical ability — has had to make her way forward steeped in a culture that usually told her no. One that said: We willpunish you if you try and we will applaud when you fail. And did.

In San Francisco, when I was introducing Hillary before a thousand or so people six months before the election, the line that got the biggest applause was this: “Hillary Clinton made the world ready for Hillary Clinton.” It was the line she thanked me for specifically when she walked onstage and we embraced while the audience went wild. “No one has ever said that about me,” she said into my ear. “Thank you.”

What I meant when I said that Hillary Clinton had made the world ready for Hillary Clinton is that I recognized her as a woman who had whacked the weeds to blaze her own trail, who had always stood up again after she was told to sit down, who had persisted, and persisted, and persisted, nevertheless. What I meant is that a woman like this was finally going to win.

Someday she will.”


Commentary II:   GOD FORBID! ghr

Respite for Those, Such as I, Who Respect Ulysses S. Grant as U.S. President


by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“For years, John and I have defended the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, rated by most historians as a failure and by some as among the worst in American history. This post is, I think, my most extensive commentary on the subject.

In addition to defending Grant’s presidency, my post considers why historians have treated it so unfairly. The answer, I argued, is that historians found it in their interest to slam Grant. Southern historians, whose influence was too large for a long period, hated Reconstruction, which Grant oversaw and took seriously (they also, in many cases, resented the successful war he waged on the Confederacy).

Democrat historians hate the economics of the era Grant, among other Republican presidents, presided over. Unbridled capitalism, and all that.

The fatal blows against Grant’s presidency were struck, however, by a Northern Republican, Henry Adams. The savage attack he launched against Grant in The Education of Henry Adams, published commercially almost 100 years ago, is still quoted today. It reflects the snobbish criticism Adams had articulated privately for decades.

As I tried to show in my post, Adams’ criticism was made in bad faith. Indeed, Adams basically admitted as much in his Education. As he belatedly acknowledged, he turned against Grant because one of the president’s cabinet selection, George Boutwell of Massachusetts, was a political rival of his family. Boutwell’s selection, he complained melodramatically, “cut short the life which Adams had laid out for himself in the future” and “meant. . .the total extinction of anyone resembling Henry Adams.”

In other words, Adams attacked Grant not as good faith political commentator or historian, but as a disappointed office seeker.

Ron Chernow, the distinguished biographer of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, has just published a biography of Grant. One of us, most likely Scott, linked a while back to a review of Chernow’s Grant in the New Yorker. The review is by Adam Gopnik.

Gopnik starts his review just where he should — at the moment when Henry Adams waits breathlessly in the Capitol Building for word of Grant’s Cabinet appointments. This was the moment that determined the accepted narrative of Grant the president, and Grant the non-military personage, until now. Gopnik’s review suggests to me that Chernow’s book may finally reverse the view Adams so successfully promoted.

According to Gopnik:

[Chernow] makes a convincing case that Grant actually behaved nobly, even heroically, while in the White House. He pressed the cause of black equality under the law, and was consistently on the right side of Reconstruction-era issues — winning more heartfelt praise from Frederick Douglass than Lincoln ever did.

The reason Reconstruction failed, and ended with the reimposition of an apartheid system, had to do with an exasperating coalition of self-styled Northern “reformers” and the openly revanchist, anti-Grant Southerners — misguided progressives making common cause with true reactionaries against a well-meaning middle — and also with a general battle fatigue that afflicted the nation.

It’s a case I’ve subscribed to since reading Brooks Simpson’s The Reconstruction Presidentsyears ago.

Chernow also presses the case against Henry Adams and other snobs who were able to paint the negative picture of Grant that persisted even after historians finally came to recognize his heroic efforts in the Reconstruction Era. Gopnik writes:

With class animosities disguised as high-minded mistrust, Adams’s anti-Grant virus communicated itself to other “reformers,” who saw in Grant’s readiness to use the normal spoils system of civil-service appointments a form of rampant corruption.

What they missed, Chernow notes, was Grant’s remarkable advances in hiring minorities to federal positions. Small incidents of nepotism, Chernow maintains, have “overshadowed this far more important narrative.” Grant’s open affirmative action on behalf of the Jews—he “appointed more than fifty Jewish citizens” at one friend’s request alone, “including consuls, district attorneys and deputy postmasters”—was doubly significant given that, in a fit of anger at a handful of opportunistic merchants in the midst of the war, he had imposed an anti-Jewish ukase in one district under occupation.

They also missed the fact that George Boutwell, whose appointment caused Adams to start beating the anti-Grant drum, was a fine Secretary of the Treasury and an important, though underappreciated, figure throughout the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Boutwell was anything but a hack.

Towards the end of his review, Gopnik veers off into incoherent praise of modern identity politics as practiced by the Democratic Party. He fails to distinguish between, on the one hand, opening opportunities to groups that have largely been excluded from office because of race and religion and, on the other, creating a racial spoils system.

But before going off the deep end, Gopnik makes a compelling case for Chernow’s new book. In light of the review, the subject, and Chernow’s past work, the publication of Grant might well be a landmark event.”

Dept of Defense Severs Relations with Marxist, Hate-White Southern Poverty Law Center


by Paul Mirengoff a PowerLine:

“The Daily Caller reports that the Department of Defense has officially severed all ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The DOD’s Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, which teaches about racial, gender and religious equality and “pluralism,” had been using SPLC material.

In 2014, the Pentagon told CNS News it would remove information on hate groups provided by the SPLC, but continue to rely on SPLC data. It will no longer do so.

This is good news, though it’s shocking that the DOD has been relying to any degree on the SPLC until now. The SPLC is a powerful left-wing interest group that tags as “hate groups” those with whom it strongly disagrees about matters of public policy. Its abuse of that appellation and the term “extremist” has attained an alarming degree of acceptance.

Mark Pulliam observes that the SPLC has branded Somali-born reformer Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “anti-Muslin extremist” for her opposition to female genital mutilation and other oppressive Islamic practices, and designated the respected Family Research Council as a “hate group” for its opposition to same-sex marriage. In addition, the organization deems mainstream immigration-reform advocates such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) as hate groups. British Muslim activist Maajid Nawaz — regarded by most observers as a human rights leader — is suing the SPLC for listing him as an extremist.

Pulliam laments that the SPLC has “borrowed itself into the civil rights movement, the organized bar, the cloistered culture of large law firms, the education system, and even law enforcement as a champion for ‘the exploited, the powerless and the forgotten.’” The civil rights movement, big law firms, and the education system are probably hopeless cases.

Law enforcement and the Defense Department aren’t. The FBI reportedly has already purged itself of SPLC materials. Now the DOD is joining in.

These are important steps in the process by which SPLC becomes recognized for what it is — an advocate, and a particularly noxious one, not an arbiter.”