• 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

America’s Rogues at MSNBC, 2017…..where People are Not Okay!


by Scott Johnson at PowerLine:

Washington Free Beacon managing editor David Rutz looks back on 2017 at MSNBC in the supercuts video below. He presents it as his fifth annual nod to the worst MSNBC had to offer this year (in only three minutes?). It ends with a bang, so to speak.

“In 2017,” he writes, “the poor folks at the left-leaning cable affiliate had to lean forward into covering undivided Republican government for the first time in more than a decade. Ratings were up, for sure, but so was the heat level of the takes leveled from morning to night.”

I’m filing this one under Laughter is the Best Medicine.

(Please click below for a good look and hearing at Leftist America’s   Auld Lang Syne studio of screwball characters drunk on fascism:)


Never Forget the Night of the Fall of our American “Fascistics”

Learn More About Prager University!

2017 has been an amazing year for PragerU and America. Thank you for making it such a success! But there is much more to be done. Watch this short video to find out more.    HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Click Here to Donate


Our Donald Interviewed by NY Times Agent, Michael Schmidt


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

“President Trump sat down with New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt for an interview in West Palm Beach yesterday. Schmidt was low-key and even respectful, while Trump was ebullient. You can read excerpts here. (As always, there is no point in reading any newspaper’s account of the conversation.)

Trump was his usual unscripted self–rambling, not very articulate, sometimes humorously self-promoting, generally correct if often imprecise. He talked at length, and with great confidence, about Mueller’s investigation. Here, he knows things are going his way:

Let’s just say — I think that Bob Mueller will be fair, and everybody knows that there was no collusion. I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion. She’s the head of the committee. The Republicans, in terms of the House committees, they come out, they’re so angry because there is no collusion. So, I actually think that it’s turning out — I actually think it’s turning to the Democrats because there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion.

SCHMIDT: Dossier?

TRUMP: Starting with the dossier. But going into so many other elements. And Podesta’s firm.

He’s right about that. The liberal press has done its best to avert its eyes from the real collusion scandal involving the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, Steele. the Russians who fed lies about candidate Trump to the Clinton campaign through Steele, and the FBI. But the more Trump talks about the real scandal, the harder it will be for liberals, including but not limited to those at the Times, to ignore it.

The Times’s own account of the interview led with the fact that Trump said the Mueller investigation was bad for the country. Well, it is. What Trump actually said is, I think, indisputable:

TRUMP: [Inaudible.] There was tremendous collusion on behalf of the Russians and the Democrats. There was no collusion with respect to my campaign. I think I’ll be treated fairly. Timingwise, I can’t tell you. I just don’t know. But I think we’ll be treated fairly.

SCHMIDT: But you’re not worked up about the timing?

TRUMP: Well, I think it’s bad for the country. The only thing that bothers me about timing, I think it’s a very bad thing for the country. Because it makes the country look bad, it makes the country look very bad, and it puts the country in a very bad position. So the sooner it’s worked out, the better it is for the country.

Trump also is clued into the Awan scandal, although he doesn’t describe it with any precision:

But there is tremendous collusion with the Russians and with the Democratic Party. Including all of the stuff with the — and then whatever happened to the Pakistani guy, that had the two, you know, whatever happened to this Pakistani guy who worked with the D.N.C.?

Whatever happened to them? With the two servers that they broke up into a million pieces? Whatever happened to him? That was a big story. Now all of sudden [inaudible].

Here, too, it would be smart for Trump to keep talking about the Awan scandal. It is a classic example of Iowahawk’s dictum that journalism is all about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.

Mostly, the interview is fun to read because you can tell the expansive Trump knows he is increasingly ascendant. Massive deregulation; economic growth picking up; standing up to Russia, Iran, China and North Korea; destroying ISIS; remaking the federal courts; recognizing Jerusalem; and now, the greatest tax reform in a generation–all while the Mueller investigation crumbles, and his opponents are tied up in knots over his tweets. The winning is under way….”


Shortly after 1 p.m. on Thursday, President Trump came off the 18th hole of his golf course here and walked into the club house’s Grill Room. Waiters scurried to bring menus and drinks to a large round table reserved for him as he stopped to shake hands and make small talk with members eating lunch.

The president, in black pants and a white golf shirt, sat down with his golf partners for the day, including his son Eric and the pro-golfer Jim Herman. He took off his white hat, “45” emblazoned in black on the side, ordered a salad and began talking politics to his golf partners.

Usually I cover national security in the Washington bureau, but I spent the past week in Florida covering the president’s Christmas vacation to give my colleagues on the White House beat the chance to take some time off. It’s a familiar assignment for me; I also covered Barack Obama’s vacations in Hawaii in 2014 and 2016.

Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights from The New York Times. Visit us at Times Insiderand follow us on Twitter. Questions or feedback? Email us.

Until Thursday, my time in Florida had been quiet. But that afternoon, I went to Mr. Trump’s golf club with his longtime confidant Christopher Ruddy, who had invited me for lunch. We were seated at a table next to the president and a few minutes into our meal, Mr. Ruddy, who runs the conservative website and television channel Newsmax, went over to say hello to Mr. Trump. The president appeared excited to see Mr. Ruddy, who often goes on cable television to defend him.

I stood behind Mr. Ruddy, who told the president that Mike Schmidt from The New York Times was with him. As I made eye contact with the president, he appeared confused about who I was and why I was there. I walked up, shook his hand and reminded him that I had interviewed him in July in the Oval Office along with two of my colleagues, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker. He said he remembered me and, despite the fact that we’re “the failing New York Times,” he thought we had treated him fairly.

Continue reading the main story   



Big Political Surprise in 2018

Newt Gingrich: Get ready for the great political surprise of 2018



Have NeverTrumpers Awakened Yet?

Why the Remaining NeverTrumpers Should Apologize Now

“Public apologies are difficult for most people, but particularly for political pundits whose livelihoods and reputations depend on their being right at least some of the time (Paul Krugman excepted).

Such statements can be emotionally wounding, even humiliating.  But it isn’t my purpose to humiliate or, worse, to gloat — which is a repellent trait and almost always counterproductive.  No spiking the football here.

Nevertheless, it is time for the remaining NeverTrumpers to apologize for a reason far more important than self-castigation or merely to make things “right.”  Donald Trump — whose initial victory was a shock, even, ironically, to those of us who predicted it — has compounded that shock by being astoundingly successful in his first year, especially at the conclusion. (He’s a quick study, evidently.) More conservative goals have been achieved or put in motion in eleven months than in any time in recent, or even distant, memory. It’s an astonishing reversal for our country accompanied by the beginnings of an economic boom.

But that same success is causing, it’s becoming increasingly clear, an equally determined, even virulent, reaction from the left. At first they too thought Trump was an ineffectual blowhard who would shoot himself in the foot, ultimately redounding to their advantage.  Now that they have found that not to be the case, they are in a state of panic, fearing a defeat for their ideals that would set them back years, even decades. They cannot let this stand and are marshaling all their forces from the media to Hollywood to the academy, not to mention at least some of the investigative units of the FBI.



Comment:   I have subscribed to the Weekly Standard for more than a decade.  It was/is  not an American conservative publication.  It was a snotty, arrogant, Easterner Bill Kristol publication who pontificated as a conservative rather than tolerating being one….at least one for America.

I confess I did suffer a Kristolosis dislike of Donald Trump until August 6, 2015, the evening of the first debate at the Fox empire when Kristol’s GOP was still plotting to rid the New Yorker from its offerings as its Presidential candidate in 2016.

After a round of softy questions and winks to the candidates, Megyn Kelly approached Candidate Trump with a GOP dagger to his heart with the question;  “You seem to have some troubles with women”, or something of that nature…..”You’ve called them fat pigs….”….and whatever at the same time FOX NEWS HAS ITS CAMERA FOCUSED DIRECTLY ON DONALD JOHN TRUMP’S PROFILE expecting to display a wilt in this “witness” to the 50,000,000 plus tv viewers.

“Is that the way you feel about all women?” Megyn pursued for the kill…….

With the large Fox audience in total silence, nearly all of them GOPers against anything and everything Donald J. Trump,  awaited a dying candidate’s response, and they got:

“No!  Only Rosie O’Donnell.”

The overwhelming anti-Trump Republican audience exploded with laughter, almost as much as I!

(Oh, the reality of his answer referring to Crooked Hillary’s kin “sister”.

I was aware of the Donald for thirty years of reading  front page articles about his successes and failures in New York’s big business world, that he adored his parents, had lost a brother to suicide from a drinking problem, that Our Donald was  outstanding in nearly anything he touched including baseball, and had become a television success with something to do with “You’re fired!”

I was aware of his first wife, Ivana’s  divorce rages in the newspapers   against Our Donald who was charged with  succumbed to certain  pleasures from other female sources.    I did know they were exceptionally close in family and in business, and had three children.

She was asking fifty million dollars for ‘damages’……and got it, if I remember correctly.

Our Donald would be interviewed on national television fairly often over a twenty or more year period.  Although  I was an outdoor guy,  owner of a local  landscape company then,  I used to teach Russian and Modern Problems to high schoolers for years.   I remember being attracted by his intelligence, focus, and his command of speech when responding to news  reporters.  My God, he was quick and  smooth explaining matter!  This guy loved is world of work as much as I did!

In my computer  hunt for more  info on Donald, I came across a letter to-the-editor in a July, 2015 Washington Post issue written by his ex-wife, Ivana.   The leftist Post apparently had already started smearing  him in countless ways as a candidate.

Ex-wife, Invana, was challenging the Post’s editor’s  vicious attack on him using words she had said  during divorce proceedings years ago.   She had good things to say about her Donald husband and confessed some of her accusations were ‘trumped’ up by  pain caused by the  divorce.   She wrote Donald was a wonderful father to their three children, among other warm comments.

Later in the month I caught a television interview with Our Donald, most likely by folks who already were serious about a Donald run for the White House.

PS….Months after Our Donald’s election, already  in the White House, Dennis Prager had invited David Horowitz to his radio show  to discuss his feelings about this new American President.   Dennis admitted he was a strong anti-Trumper until he was the only candidate left to defeat “CrookedHillary”…although may not have used that exact  description.   Dennis mentioned he was aware David was an early supporter, and an enthusiastic one, of Our Donald, and asked him what won him over.

David Horowitz, a person I have followed closely in the American political arena since the 1960s, long before his wonderful conversion to American conservatism, answered something like, “It was at the first Fox Television debate, when he referred to Rosie O’Donnell, displaying the guts, the devotion, the determination and honesty Our Donald possessed beyond his opponents.”

Troubles at the Fascistic Washington Post


by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine:

“The Washington Post is worried. The lead headline in today’s paper edition reads: “Mueller criticism grows to a clamor — FBI Conspiracy Claim Takes Hold — Driven by activists, GOP lawmakers, Trump tweets.”

Turnabout is fair play. Last year around this time, an honest newspaper could easily have written: “Trump criticism grows to a clamor — Russia Collusion Takes Hold — Driven by activists, Democratic lawmakers, leaks.”

A year ago, an honest newspaper could not have written that the Trump collusion criticism was driven by the FBI. The facts supporting such a headline were not known. Now we have good reason to suspect that the FBI was, in fact, advancing the collusion claim.

The FBI reportedly offered money to Christoper Steele to continue his work on the anti-Trump dossier (in testimony before Congress Rod Rosenstein refused to say whether the FBI paid or offered to pay for the dossier). The FBI may well have used information in the dossier to secure approval of surveillance efforts from the FISA court.

The FBI also helped push the dossier into the public’s consciousness. Its general counsel, James Baker, reportedly told reporter David Corn about the dossier, thus enabling Corn to write about it just before the election. And FBI director Comey briefed president-elect Trump on the dossier, which led to publication of its contents by BuzzFeed.

We also know about the quest of Peter Strzok, a high-level FBI man, for an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.

But let’s return to the Washington Post’s story about growing criticism of Mueller. The three distressed Post writers are less than fully open when it comes to informing readers what — other than activists, GOP lawmakers, and Trump tweets — is causing criticism of Mueller to grow to a clamor.

They acknowledge that it has something to do with Strzok’s role as Mueller’s former top investigator. However, they do their best to make Strzok seem innocuous.

The story introduces him by noting that he called Trump an “idiot” and predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the election in a landslide — statements that don’t distinguish him from tens of thousands of government employees and millions of other Americans. They also quote a former colleague of Strzok who says:

To think Pete could not do his job objectively shows no understanding of the organization. We have Democrats, we have Republicans, we have conservatives and liberals. . . . Having personal views doesn’t prevent us from independently following the facts.

The problem with peddling this happy narrative is that it ignores Strzok’s anti-Trump zeal, his obvious desire to impress his mistress, and his damning statement about the need for an “insurance policy” against Trump becoming president. The Post, in fact, never mentions that statement.

The Post also manages to ignore the hyper-partisan nature of Mueller’s staff, even excluding Strzok, whom he reassigned. There is a passing reference to Andrew Weissmann’s gushing note to Sally Yates praising her for her resistance to Trump, but no discussion of the ideologically one-sided composition of Team Mueller — a marked contrast to Ken Starr’s balanced staff.

Even with that diverse staff, Starr was successfully portrayed as spearheading a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It’s not surprising that as more and more evidence emerges of bias within Mueller’s team, criticism mounts and takes hold.

Mueller himself is a Republican. But he is also a friend of James Comey, another fact the Post ignores. The steady stream of evidence of Comey’s anti-Trump animus and manipulative conduct has contributed to declining faith in Mueller.

And then, there’s the fact that Mueller appears to have come up empty so far on “collusion” by Trump. A prosecutor investigating a president is bound to lose credibility if, after an extended period of time, he neither produces evidence against the president nor exonerates him of the set of crimes that supposedly underlie the investigation.

A prosecutor who cannot credibly be accused of bias — either personal or within his team — buys himself time and patience from the public. Mueller is not that prosecutor.

In sum, the Post’s account of how Mueller lost the “near-universal support” he enjoyed earlier is shallow.

The Post’s story is significant, nonetheless. Clearly, the Post is concerned that, as it states, the growing criticism of Mueller “threatens to shadow his investigation’s eventual findings.”

It does, indeed. A recent Harvard poll found that 54 percent of voters believe that “as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey,” Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Meanwhile, only 35 percent believe that evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia has been found.

I’m sure Mueller believes his own press-clippings, but the public no longer does. The press, it seems, is beginning to realize this.”

Is today’s Human Female Animal Allergic to Governments Based on the Essentials for Democracy?

………”that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Those beautiful words and their sentiment were advanced by a human male, referring to  the human males of a Judeo-Christian culture based upon the age-old understandings of human life expressing the genetic duties of this God-fearing animal….a) the female bears the child….and b) the male protects and provides for his family.

We now live, however,  in an America revolutionized by fascist female human animals of the leftist state preaching and learning at university and school that there are no differences between human male and human female.

The human male is by Nature, and/or Nature’s God,  born to  father, born to kill,   to protect his kin, driven to explore, to build, to be curious, to investigate,  to solve problems, discover Truth,  to invent, to ‘compose’, to lead.  He must learn to adjust to the pressures of  the cultural  changes he causes from his discoveries.

The human female is, by Nature, the bearer of offspring….She  emotes,  seeks security, comfort, peace and order…… over Truth!

Today, the American university and college have been overrun by feminists who disdain motherhood, who instead preach power as in  WOMAN power, her 21st century gift to human kind.

Today’s leftist male fascists in our American universities   have maneuvered  these feminists to join their war against the traditional freedom-loving, inventive  human male,   against Truth and its Nature…..He for power…..she for greater security, comfort, and power…..and the feel she is as male as anyone else.

And then, there comes along a Donald John Trump to upset the Obama-Democrat Party  apple cart selling leftist single sex and its power for America’s future.

The entire American communications industry is in a feminist tizzy about Our Donald, the human male.   How dare he speak, write, lead, or even twitter as a real American male ready to problem solve, restore Truth in word and education to resurrect America, the free the Beautiful rather than build that Obama prison of forced equality!

Or will the feminists find their way to one-party,  “Democrat”  feminazism ala Animal Farm?



NFL Black Racist Showoffs Cause Empty Seats, Sagging Ratings

NFL Plots A Cure For Sagging Ratings, Empty Seats

We’re quickly approaching New Years, which is traditionally a time for reflection on the events of the past year and plans for how to do better over the next twelve months. That’s particularly true for the NFL, which has seen both its television ratings and live attendance in many stadiums plunge precipitously in 2017. As the Washington Times reports this week, the leadership in the league is busy analyzing precisely what caused all of this and how they might address it in 2018.

SEE ALSO: The Trump prophecies

Your first guess might logically be that the National Anthem protests were a big driving factor. That was definitely part of it, but media analysts and league insiders are also seeing a number of other disturbing trends affecting their bottom line, many of which were entirely of their own making.

NFL plots a cure for sagging ratings, empty seats

Outcry over players protesting by taking a knee during the national anthem isn’t helping, but it’s only one of several reasons fans are turning away from professional football, media analysts say.

Injuries to marquee players such as Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, teams with losing records in the nation’s largest media markets such as New York and Chicago, a glut of prime-time games, and viewers with other options have also taken a toll.

“I’d be stunned if any single factor contributed more than 2 percent to the ratings decline,” said Andrew Billings, director of the University of Alabama’s Sports Communication program.

So how bad were the numbers overall? In week 15, average television viewership was down 9 percent from the same point in 2016. Week 14 was similarly off. That translates into an average loss of 1.6 million viewers for each televised game overall. And it’s been an ongoing problem rather than a case of a single week here or there when the nation was otherwise distracted.

Some of the drivers of this were, to be fair, beyond the control of the league. Two of their biggest markets are New York and Dallas, and if you’ve been following the fortunes of the Giants, the Jets and the Cowboys you can see how people might be less excited to tune in. Ratings for the Cowboys and Giants games are down by 7% while viewership for New York Jets games is off by, er… 37%. Doesn’t that seem a bit unfair? True, my Jets are stinking up the joint at 5-10 going into the final week, but the Giants have only won two games! C’mon, man.

The league couldn’t predict or correct for the implosion of those popular teams in large media markets, but other factors were definitely under their control. The obvious target of criticism is the anthem protests which the league could have shut down as soon as Kaepernick started all of this. They didn’t do that and they’ve paid the price. If a combination of new rules from the top and a tougher line from the owners can eliminate that problem over the offseason they may begin to recover next fall.

But the other big driver seems to have been market saturation. The NFL Network has simply gotten too greedy, trying to have football on for half the days of the week. (That’s in addition to locking off certain games so they are only available on their own cable network, which not everyone has or wants.) We’re up to four different game slots on Sundays when there’s a game in London (another colossally bad idea), with prime time games on both Monday and Thursday, in addition to Sunday night. No matter how big of a fan you may be, there’s such a thing as too much football. Fans primarily want to watch their own team, and if they’re not playing they’ll watch one or two other games. But now the market is drowning in games and fewer people are making the time to watch.

On the bright side, all of these things sound fixable… except for the Jets fielding a winning team, apparently. Now that Roger Goodell has somehow landed himself another plush, five-year contract, will he make the needed course corrections and turn this around? Money is what makes the league go ’round, so I’m holding out hope that he will.


Trump Collusion with Russia?

Trump Colludes with Russia by Arming Ukraine

by Daniel John Sobieski   at   American Thinker:

“Memo to Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va. and Rep. Adam Schiff, D- Ca. — if  President Trump is colluding with Russia he has an odd way of showing it. He unleashed America’s energy resources, most recently in Alaska’s ANWR, which puts downward pressure on oil prices, which is the only thing Putin’s Russia has to sell. Then he revives missile defense including a pledge to Poland to deploy missile defenses there.

Now he has announced plans to reverse the policy of the Obama administration, which stood silently when Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine, and sell the Ukrainians lethal defensive weaponry, including anti-tank missiles designed to destroy Putin’s Russian tanks in the hands of separatist rebels:

President Donald Trump is expected to announce his approval of a plan to sell anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainian government, a move that would mark a significant escalation in lethal U.S. military support for Ukrainian forces battling Russian-aligned forces in the border region, four State Department sources tell ABC News…

The sale of anti-tank missiles, which could possibly include the U.S.-made Javelin system, provoked a strong reaction from Russia on Saturday, saying it “crossed the line,” and could threaten to derail Trump’s calls for better relations with Moscow.

This hardly fits the narrative of a Trump Administration in thrall to the Kremlin and once again begs the question of why Putin would have wanted Trump to win over Hillary. Hillary would never have sold anti-tank weapons to Ukraine though she was quite willing to sell Russia 20 percent of our uranium.

President Trump, unlike President Obama, is well aware that it is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expressed view that the demise of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest disasters of modern times. His actions in Ukraine in conjunction with massive Russian rearmament show his desire to reassemble the old Soviet Union.

In his annual address to parliament in 2005, old KGB boss emeritus Putin made the grotesque claim that the “demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest political catastrophe of the century,” demonstrating a nostalgia for what he considers the good old days.

Back in 2012 when Romney put Russia at the top of the geopolitical threat list, President Obama gave a mocking response more worthy of a former community organizer rather than the leader of the free world. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

“You said Russia. Not al-Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama rebuked him regarding our biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because… the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” said the president who promised the Russians more flexibility as he disarmed the United States.

If the Cold War was over, somebody forgot to tell Moscow, for their belligerence towards Ukraine is straight out of the playbook of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. They ruthlessly repressed with Soviet armor the 1956 Hungary rebellion and the 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia.

Putin’s approach is perhaps more subtle, arming so-called “separatists” rather than sending in Soviet armored columns, but it is a distinction without a difference. Grave concerns and sternly worded letters carry no weight with Putin, whose stated ambitions are clear. President Obama did less than nothing, sending only supplies worthy of a Boy Scout Jamboree rather than a sovereign nation resisting Russian aggression. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2015 warned Congress that Russian actions in the Ukraine were the start of a new Cold War and that President Obama’s actions were inadequate:

On Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko gave a 40-minute speech to a rare joint session of Congress alerting lawmakers to the plight of his country under Russia’s creeping “Anschluss.”

Poroshenko once again pled for meaningful aid, including an affiliation with NATO, and warned that a new Iron Curtain may soon descend as Vladimir Putin tries to reassemble the Soviet Union whose demise he has publicly mourned….

In March, Ukraine asked for arms and ammunition, intelligence support, aviation fuel and night vision goggles. The Pentagon agreed only to provide the Ukrainians with supplies of U.S. military rations known as Meals Ready To Eat, or MREs.

This time Ukraine did not get much more than that — just some peripheral gear such as night-vision goggles and helmets. But once again it received no lethal aid that Poroshenko’s country desperately needs, such as requested anti-tank weaponry.

Just as Obama failed to aid Iran’s “Green Revolution” in Iran in 2009 when it might have brought the mullahs to their knees and nipped Iran’s nuclear threat in the bud, Obama allowed Putin and Russia to take the first steps toward rebooting the old “evil empire” President Ronald Reagan worked so hard to defeat. Thanks to President Trump Ukraine’s long-desired anti-tank weaponry is on its way.

Merry Christmas, Vladimir Putin, from President Donald Trump.