• 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

Leftist Star, Alan Dershowitz, a Liberal Conservative!? Welcome!!

Two of my favorite people in today’s Leftist political wars against our American democracy,  Dennis Prager and John Hinderaker have been writing sweet  about leftist, anti-American, ACLU fanatic for about 45 years,  super arrogant lefty loud-mouth, Alan Dershowitz.

Dershowitz is closer to my age….in his early 80s.      It  is unlikely that either of these younger American heroes of our day remember or  ever heard, felt the heat against our America  emanating from the  lefty  mouth of  Dershowitz throughout those decades.

I’ll be 85 later this Summer.   I have loved learning, accumulating knowledge in countless directions, all of my thinking life, and in the meantime collected two Bachelor degrees, one Master’s degree, and one credit short of a second Master’s degree in Horticulture…..my major  profession  in life,  landscape gardening.

I did teach Russian and Social Studies at the high school level during the first stage of my adult labor.    In total I gathered  over 700 quarter credits of college study in my schooling years.   I had dyslexic issues, as it turned out.   I couldn’t read books.   But newspapers were a different arrangement of paper.

I could read headlines of the St. Paul Pioneer Press’s Sunday editions shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.   By June 1942 I could read every article in the Press’s rotogravure pages of the war section.   Some of the pictures of the Midway attack that month are still in my mind.   I could read cut lines to National Geographic pictures without trouble soon after.   I have never been able to read a novel.   But I have read countless newspapers.  I used to teach Russian, American History, and Social Studies for about fifteen years until 1972.

I  even voted  Democrat during  Dershowitz’s 30 plus  mouthier anti-American years.  Perhaps  he has softened his brain and mouth these days  because of the dangers Israel has to endure merely to survive.     I thoroughly support him on that.   And because of my great esteem for Dennis Prager and John Hinderaker in this current civil war to save American democracy,  I shall try hard to smile when I see and hear the NEW Alan Dershowitz pump up his words on television these days.

THE LEFT VS. ALAN DERSHOWITZ

by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Alan Dershowitz is a lifelong liberal, but in recent years he has diverged from the left-wing line on a few issues, including Israel and, to a degree, the Trump administration. That has brought the knives out. Liberal anti-Semites, in particular, are out to get him. The New Yorker, a disgusting rag, has been “researching” a hit piece on Dershowitz for some time. Apparently the magazine has dredged up two “accusers” who had something to do with Jeffrey Epstein, and claim that Dershowitz had sexual relations with them. The allegations appear to be entirely false, and may have been cooked up by the partisan lawyer David Boies, who somehow has gotten into the act.

Dershowitz has written an open letter to the New Yorker, defending himself against the smears that apparently are in progress. His defense is exhaustive and eloquent. This is how it starts:

Having been contacted by your “fact” checkers, I now understand the thrust of Connie Bruck’s hit piece: You must know there is no actual evidence that I engaged in sexual misconduct or even met my false accusers — because I did not. So, you appear determined to concoct a false narrative of my life, going back more than 40 years to my first marriage, that falsely suggests that I am the kind of person who “could” or “might” have engaged in such misconduct. To support your false narrative, you began your negative “research” – as you acknowledged to my son — by sourcing a Holocaust denial site that circulates false stories about prominent Jews, including me. You then interviewed my enemies, my critics, dissenting students and especially anti-Israel and, in some cases anti-Semitic, zealots. The original reporting, which took place over many months, did not include interviews with longtime friends and associates who know me well and can present a more balanced perspective. …

You have even refused to interview me face-to-face. When your negative sources are dead or unwilling to be interviewed, you have quoted decades old adversarial court documents that contain false information that you believe is protected by the litigation privilege. You report old, negative articles about me even though they are based on false information. You don’t seem to care whether the information is provably false, as long as you are protected from a lawsuit. Most importantly you are apparently refusing to include in your one-sided screed information that undercuts your false narrative that I and others have provided you.

Based on the claims of your fact checker, your reporter originally wrote an entirely false account regarding a confrontation between me and a summons server that was fed to you—-as many false stories about me have been fed to you. Your writer reported that a summons server tried to serve me in my apartment and that I told him to go “f.. himself.”

The problem is that he tried to serve someone else three times in an apartment that I haven’t lived in for seven (7) years. Finally, that person told him what he could do. But that person wasn’t me. I don’t use that kind of language. Your reporter believed your “source” and was prepared to attribute the episode to me without any proof that it was me. I wonder how many other stories in the article are also the product of such shoddy reporting.

Here is a list of just some of the information and documents that you and your fact checkers have been given. I urge readers of the published article to compare this list with what appears in your article and more importantly what has deliberately been excluded.

There is much more. Among other things, Dershowitz points out the obvious difference between the hostile attitude toward him that results in printing provably false assertions with Jane Mayer’s recent sympathetic defense of Al Franken. The difference? Politics. The New Yorker has no integrity, and no one should take anything it publishes seriously.

 

The Left vs. Alan Dershowitz

Will Minnesota Re-elect President Trump in 2020?

WILL ILHAN OMAR RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP?

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

President Trump tweeted yesterday that Ilhan Omar will help him to carry Minnesota in 2020:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

In 2016 I almost won Minnesota. In 2020, because of America hating anti-Semite Rep. Omar, & the fact that Minnesota is having its best economic year ever, I will win the State! “We are going to be a nightmare to the President,” she say. No, AOC Plus 3 are a Nightmare for America!

Other pundits echo that claim, like Stewart Lawrence at The Federalist:

Thanks to the success of Trump’s policies and other fortuitous developments, several other blue-trending states are certain to be in play in 2020.

Of these, none is more important than Minnesota.
***
Trump, with his own brand of populism, nearly captured the state in 2016. He carried 78 of the state’s 87 counties, double the number carried by President Barack Obama in 2012. Overall, the margin between Trump and Hillary Clinton was a mere 1.5 percent — just 44,000 votes — the weakest Democratic tilt in decades.

That is true, and it is also true that Trump has been paying attention to Minnesota. Lawrence thinks Omar will help Trump in 2020:

Add to this the growing controversy over newly elected in-state Rep. Ilhan Omar, who is widely viewed as anti-Semitic and extremist, and the Democrats are confronting a major crisis of credibility with Minnesota’s electorate.

There is no sign of any such “crisis of credibility.” And this is delusional:

Trump’s growing popularity with Minnesotans was apparent in 2018 when the two candidates he endorsed and campaigned for easily won their races.

2018 was a disaster for Minnesota Republicans. It is true that the GOP scored pickups in the rural 1st and 8th Congressional Districts. But, consistent with national trends, the suburbs swung massively to the Democrats. A Democrat was easily elected governor (along with a full slate of Democratic constitutional officers, including the radical Keith Ellison), and two strong GOP incumbents in the Twin Cities suburbs went down to defeat, while the Democrats took the Minnesota House away from the prior GOP majority. Most local observers attribute the Republicans’ disastrous performance to revulsion against Donald Trump in the Twin Cities suburbs, especially among women. I think that is probably the correct diagnosis. My own organization’s polling finds that President Trump is not as popular in Minnesota today as he was in 2016.

This does not bode well for Trump in 2020, obviously.

But what about the suggestion that Ilhan Omar’s radicalism and tangled personal history will significantly benefit President Trump, as well as other Republicans? This CBS News pollperhaps sheds some light.

Starting with the most basic data, this poll finds President Trump with 36% favorable and 51% unfavorable ratings, which–to be fair–is quite a bit below most polling these days. So the sample skews left. The same survey finds Ilhan Omar polling slightly worse–19% favorable and 36% unfavorable. Quite a few have never heard of her, while others are neutral.

But if we focus on Trump’s attacks on Omar and the other Squad members, the numbers are rather grim. Seventy percent say they are aware of the tweets and surrounding controversy. Of those, 40% agree with what Trump said and 59% disagree. Further, 55% “dislike” Trump’s tweets.

Other results are even worse. The Democrats’ claim that criticizing “Congresswomen of color” must be racist is winning. Forty-eight percent say Trump’s tweets were racist, while only 34% say they were not racist. Similarly, 33% say the president’s tweets were pro-American, while 45% say Trump’s tweets were un-American. By 42% to 38%, respondents approve of the House of Representatives denouncing Trump’s tweets as racist. There is more at the link, but you get the drift.

Minnesota voters no doubt are considerably more aware of Ilhan Omar than voters nationally. It is likely that more of them understand how radical and how dishonest she is. On the other hand, Minnesota voters are well to the left of the nation generally, and a lot of them voted for Omar, who won election overwhelmingly. And, as we saw last year, there is a great deal of hostility toward President Trump, not only in the inner cities but increasingly in the suburbs.

So I see no reason to think that Ilhan Omar’s problems will lead to President Trump carrying Minnesota in 2020. On the contrary, it seems that the Democrats’ attacks on the president as a “racist” have gotten a great deal of traction, despite their being entirely unfounded.

Will Ilhan Omar Re-Elect President Trump?