• 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

Lefty Fascistics at CNN to Sue White House for Withdrawing Obnoxious Lefty Fascist Acosta’s Pass

Sam Donaldson claims CNN suing over White House pass for Acosta

by Thomas Lifson  at Amerian Thinker:
.

According to Sam Donaldson (video below) CNN is preparing  a lawsuit over the denial of a White House “hard pass” to Jim Acosta. Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday, the former ABC News correspondent claimed that he had been asked to prepare an affidavit for the suit, and had done so. Donaldson added (via the Washington Examiner):

“I hope I’m not mistaken, but it’s my understanding that CNN and Acosta have sued, that there will be a court hearing on Tuesday on this very matter that we’ve been discussing,” Donaldson said.

Remarkably, the host of the program, a CNN employee with the media beat, denied knowing of the lawsuit:

Host Brian Stelter replied that he was not aware of such a case.

And CNN denied that a suit had been filed, but not asking for an affidavit (or other preparations):

 A CNN spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that a lawsuit has not been filed yet. “No decisions have been made. We have reached out to the White House and gotten no response,” the spokesperson said.

On the surface, a lawsuit contesting the decision to permit or deny a press pass seems silly, as there is no constitutional right to have a press pass. But we live in an era in which certain federal judges see their function as being the all-powerful second-guesser of executive branch authority, substituting their own judgment for that of the office-holders, including the president. But Donaldson sees it differently, arrogantly concluding his segment by saying:

….the president does not understand a lot of things about our Constitution, but I expect and I believe the courts will instruct him.

Watch below. Donaldson’s interview begins at 2 minutes 20 seconds:

 

According to Sam Donaldson (video below) CNN is preparing  a lawsuit over the denial of a White House “hard pass” to Jim Acosta. Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday, the former ABC News correspondent claimed that he had been asked to prepare an affidavit for the suit, and had done so. Donaldson added (via the Washington Examiner):

“I hope I’m not mistaken, but it’s my understanding that CNN and Acosta have sued, that there will be a court hearing on Tuesday on this very matter that we’ve been discussing,” Donaldson said.

Remarkably, the host of the program, a CNN employee with the media beat, denied knowing of the lawsuit:

Host Brian Stelter replied that he was not aware of such a case.

And CNN denied that a suit had been filed, but not asking for an affidavit (or other preparations):

A CNN spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that a lawsuit has not been filed yet. “No decisions have been made. We have reached out to the White House and gotten no response,” the spokesperson said.

On the surface, a lawsuit contesting the decision to permit or deny a press pass seems silly, as there is no constitutional right to have a press pass. But we live in an era in which certain federal judges see their function as being the all-powerful second-guesser of executive branch authority, substituting their own judgment for that of the office-holders, including the president. But Donaldson sees it differently, arrogantly concluding his segment by saying:

….the president does not understand a lot of things about our Constitution, but I expect and I believe the courts will instruct him.

Watch below. Donaldson’s interview begins at 2 minutes 20 seconds:

https://share.grabien.com/share.php?id=501437&userid=2948&playercolor=%23ee1a3b&playersize=600&code=beae3c2c9b29cf1eb0f112128f169c0c

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/sam_donaldson_claims_cnn_suing_over_white_house_pass_for_acosta.html

New York’s Senator “Sillybrand” Attempts Thinking about A Presidential Run in 2020!

We certainly all most know there are more ditsy chicks in Congress than ever before.   The human female animal is born ditsy.   They used to be devoted to bearing children, their primary function to secure a future for the species.

Today, she goes to college where she learns how to weep, think, and strike leftishly as a New Woman must to spread her noise.   To Hell with family.  She has Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Pocahantas as her primary mentors as goddesses.

Leftist emotion is her primary tenet,  security  her primary comfort, jealousy her primary foil…..and then there is this “Sillybrand” Gillibrand of New York:

Feelings, not problem solving, run the feminist show, yesterday, today, and likely forever!

Gillibrand Two Weeks Ago: I Will Serve My Full Senate Term. Gillibrand Today: I’m Thinking About A Presidential Run.

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

I know Jazz has written about this (more than once, actually) but I can’t get over it. The sheer pettiness of the lie flabbergasts me. Gillibrand, October 25:

SEE ALSO: Did San Francisco pass a tax to raise money for the homeless? The answer is yes and also maybe

She won by 33 points. Eighteen days later:

I’m wrestling with my own anti-Gillibrand bias in trying to decide how much to fault her for this. Does it bug me so much because I already didn’t like her, seeing her as an unusually cynical, weaselly politician even by Washington standards, or does it bug me because it really is an unusually brazen lie even by the usual “I’m not running for president” standards? It’s not like she’s the first pol to have a change of heart about running for the White House. The day after he was elected to the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama all but ruled out running for president in 2008. He reconsidered. Voters forgave him. They know how this game is played.

In Gillibrand’s case, though, the question is this: Why even bother to play? If she were running in a purple state, with a two-point lead, admitting to presidential ambitions during a Senate debate might have been enough to sink her. Swing voters would calculate that they were better off with the candidate whom they knew would hold the office for all six years; a bald-faced lie about serving out a full term would at least be understandable under those circumstances, if not honorable. But Gillibrand was always going to win in deep-blue New York, and win big. Other 2020 hopefuls in the same position were candid about their ambitions: When Bernie Sanders was asked last month if he’d serve his full six years if reelected to the Senate, he declined to promise to do so.

“Right now, my focus is on the year 2018, but if you’re asking me to make an absolute pledge as to whether I’ll be running for president or not, I’m not going to make that pledge. The simple truth is I have not made that decision. But I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I may not run. I may. But on the other hand, I may not,” he said at a forum Monday night in Vermont.

He won by 40 points. There’s no need to lie when you’re headed for a landslide. Voters are big boys and girls about these things. And the weirdest part with Gillibrand is that her intentions haven’t been a secret. She’s been positioning to run for president for a year at least. As noted in the first clip, she didn’t spend money on her Senate race this year because she obviously has another purpose for her war chest in mind. So why didn’t she just give the Bernie answer at the debate? “I’m not thinking about 2020, I’m thinking about what New Yorkers need right now,” yadda yadda. Her promise to serve her full term made news precisely because it was such an obvious lie, which makes it a form of political malpractice, however minor. Takeaway: Gillibrand will lie straight to your face, even when you both know she’s lying, even when she doesn’t need to. You can’t trust her. If the previous 40 illustrations of that weren’t enough to convince you, maybe the 41st will.

I think she’ll end up keeping her promise. With 32 candidates for Democrats to choose from, it’s unimaginable that she won’t get trounced in the primaries.

Compiled a list of the at least 32 potential and/or likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. This is going to be a full-on three ring circus

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/11/12/gillibrand-two-weeks-ago-will-serve-full-senate-term-gillibrand-today-im-thinking-presidential-run/