• 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

CJACK Reviews the Current Democrat Condition


Ghr, It would be quite useful to obtain a list of the ‘big’ donors who funded the intellectually deficient and shameless California liar Kamala Harris on her run for the US Senate; and a list of those who are now backing her for the DNC nomination in her insane quest to reach the White House.

Well, the community organizer Barack Obama went from the streets of Chicago to the Illinois Senate, and from there to the US Senate and into the Oval Office. So why wouldn’t ‘calypso’ Kamala seek the nomination; after all, only in racist America is this possible, right?

Kamala Harris is married to a white man. Her father is a black man from Trinidad & Tobago, and her mother from India, both parents are natives of Trinidad & Tobago. According to her father, his white ancestors owned slaves in the West Indies.

According to his African grandmother, Barack Obama was born in her hut in Kenya. None of his African ancestors were brought here as slaves. Yet the mulatto Barack Obama was desperately embraced by Black America as an African-American.

Elizabeth Warren aka Pocahontas apologized to an assembly of Native Americans for lying about her claim of Native American ancestry. Ms. Warren, a fake minority, has lied about her ethnicity to obtain educational benefits, a position at Harvard, and her ascension to the US Senate; now this pathological liar is in pursuit of the DNC nomination for the US presidency.

Joe Biden: liar, thief, insane. ‘Beto’ O’Rourke: fake Latino. Bernie Sanders: seltzer salesman, communist, crook, charlatan, certified nut.

Schiff, Nadler, Waters, Pelosi, Schumer, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayana Pressley, Elijah Cummings, Hank “Guam” Johnson…yikes! There is plenty of room for the DNC on the fetid streets of San Fran.

The Democratic National Committee? A big wagon of loons!

Best regards.

(Thank you, Cjack,  for your help!  Good to hear from you!  It’s amazing that these characters you listed above are actually  members of our American Congress or wannabes to become our next American President!)

Buttigieg Blowing “Them Out of the Water?”


The Buttigieg Money Pit

Mayor Pete is the latest in a long line of presidential candidates to learn that dollars aren’t votes.

With great fanfare last month, Pete Buttigieg has announced “Phase Three” of his presidential campaign. Campaign adviser Lis Smith described the first two phases as teaching people how to pronounce his name and then raising gobs of money. For this new phase, the Buttigieg team plans to “blow them out of the water with our organization.” To that end, 20 new field offices in Iowa are opening this month, plus another 12 in New Hampshire.

Here’s a more accurate description. In Phase One, Buttigieg milked $32 million from 390,000 donors, most of whom knew next to nothing about his record, but were bowled over by a guy under 40 who can speak in complete paragraphs, sometimes in Norwegian. Phase Two was learning that Buttigieg has no strong and unique governing vision. We also learned his South Bend record on race relations as mayor, however well intentioned, is checkered. Phase Three, which so far has been a series of boasts about the campaign’s field operation, does nothing to solve the problems of Phase Two.

But his campaign will keep going for months thanks to those swooning donors, who don’t reflect actual voters. You may have seen Democratic presidential candidates categorized as “wine track” and “beer track.” Political analyst Ron Brownstein popularized those labels, observing that the “brainy liberals with cool, detached personas and messages of political reform” on the wine track tend to lose in Democratic presidential primaries to candidates with support “rooted in the blue-collar and minority communities” on the beer track. But six months after Buttigieg wowed the Democratic donor class in a CNN town hall, and four months after he peaked at 8 percent in the RealClearPolitics poll average, Buttigieg can’t even crack the wine track. Instead, he seems to be pioneering a new campaign lane: the “craft beer” track.

With his national polling average down to a paltry 4.5 percent, Buttigieg’s support is narrow and idiosyncratic. He’s the IPA of Campaign 2020, a hipster nerd flavor.

Buttigieg is the latest candidate to teach political junkies and reporters that dollars aren’t votes. Through June, Buttigieg raised more money than any 2020 candidate save for Bernie Sanders, and he had the third-highest number of individual donors. Buttigieg, unlike Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, isn’t shunning large donor events, but 43 percent of his second-quarter haul came from donors who gave less than $200. Doesn’t that show broad-based support?

Well, no. Even though the Democratic donor community has been expanded with the rise of easy-click online giving, it remains a small, disproportionately white, disproportionately wealthy faction of the total Democratic electorate.

The progressive think tank Demos, in an analysis of 2012 presidential giving, found that only 15 percent of Democratic small donors were people of color. In 2016, the Democratic primary electorate was 38 percent people of color. Demos also found that 15 percent of Democratic small donors, and 25 percent of all Democratic donors, were millionaires (who are 3 percent of the U.S. population).

Past presidential candidates with lots of small donors have failed to win the most votes. Howard Dean was leading the 2004 Democratic presidential field in fundraising when John Kerry successfully kept his campaign afloat before the Iowa caucuses by mortgaging his house. In 2016, Sanders had approximately 2.4 million individual donors—twice as many as Hillary Clinton—yet Clinton won 15.6 million votes, nearly 4 million more than Sanders.

Of course, having millions of dollars in the bank gives a candidate the resources to expand support and surge at the right moment. And the Midwestern Buttigieg does poll slightly better in Iowa than he does nationally. He could still have a breakthrough.

But even if Buttigieg improbably won Iowa, he would probably then suffer the fate of previous wine-track candidates. In 1992, Paul Tsongas impressed wealthier, college-educated whites and pulled off an upset in New Hampshire. But he hit a brick wall in the Deep South. Bill Clinton won every Southern state that Rev. Jesse Jackson won four years earlier, contributing to Tsongas’ surrender just one month after his New Hampshire upset.

Like Tsongas before him, it’s hard to see how Buttigieg could ever build a diverse coalition to win the crucial African American South. In a July Monmouth poll, Buttigieg was at 1 percent with black voters in South Carolina.

Buttigieg may have been honorable when, during the first debate, he accepted fault for failing to diversify the South Bend police force. And he is trying to make inroads among black voters with his multifaceted, anti-racism “Douglass Plan.” But suddenly showing up with a set of grandiose proposals is not an effective shortcut for white politicians to earn black support, as Sanders learned the hard way in 2016.

Rep. Jim Clyburn, the influential South Carolina Democrat, has explained why it can be hard for whites to win over African Americans with big promises. “The black community, as a whole, has a very long history of being lied to,” he told South Carolina’s The State. “The reason there is distrust of politicians is because you promise them one thing, you double-cross them later.” In an interview with Rolling StoneJamil Smith, Buttigieg appeared to grasp the size of his challenge, candidly concluding: “Good intentions are not enough. Just ’cause I seek to heal, and move beyond racism, and act accordingly, doesn’t mean, A) people are gonna trust me even — or especially — if I’m tellin’ the truth. And B) that we’re gonna get the results we’re after.” But he hasn’t shown he knows how to overcome that challenge.

For a nationally unknown mid-size city mayor to go as far as Buttigieg has in the Democratic presidential primary is a testament to his political skills. He doesn’t deserve criticism for making an audacious run even if he eventually falls short. But we should question the quick-to-click culture of his Democratic donors. A decent guy with lots of potential is far from the best qualified candidate to be president of the United States.

Candidates with better résumés—such as the forgotten governors Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper and Jay Inslee—made their own mistakes and maybe are inherently limp performers. But they didn’t get the same opportunities as Buttigieg to prove themselves because the whims of a very small, disproportionately white, disproportionately wealthy faction of Democrats can determine who gets critical early attention.

The irony is that many of these donors were searching for a youthful outsider to prevent a Beltway septuagenarian from claiming the nomination. But Buttigieg’s 15 minutes of fame boxed out the previous young darling of the donor class: Beto O’Rourke, and froze out all the other promising candidates who hail from outside Washington. As the Buttigieg campaign pocketed tens of millions of dollars, the top tier has solidified around the field’s elders: Joe Biden, Sanders and Warren.

Maybe that would have happened anyway, and there’s certainly time for the race to shift. But the yawning gulf between Buttigieg’s dollar numbers and his poll numbers illuminates how Democratic donors, both small and large, do not intrinsically reflect the will of the broader Democratic electorate, and cannot dictate the ultimate outcome of the primary.

Chasing online donations may have been necessary to meet the Democratic National Committee’s new debate rules, and eye-popping dollar figures will also be a great way to get media coverage. But the Democratic primary is ultimately won with the votes of those who spend their dollars on six-packs, not on politicians.


Dem Judge’s Sugar Punishment to Fascistic Dem’s Violent Attack on Senator Rand Paul to Be Reviewed!

Grievously Injured Rand Paul Gets a Second Chance at Justice

by Fletch Daniels  at  American Thinker:


The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the ridiculously lenient sentence received by Rene Boucher for assaulting Senator Rand Paul, a sentence that fell well below the sentencing range of 21 to 27 months in jail that he should have received.

Boucher was sentenced by Clinton-appointed judge, Marianne Battani, to one month in jail and a $10,000 fine for what was almost surely a hate-inspired crime.  He got less than 5% of what is recommended as the bare minimum sentence when all factors were taken into account.

For those who don’t remember the attack, Judge Jane B. Stanch, writing for the appeals court panel, summed it up pretty well.  She wrote, “While Paul had his back to the hill, Boucher ran 60 yards downhill and hurled himself headfirst into Paul’s lower back. The impact broke six of Paul’s ribs, including three that split completely in half.”  In fact, the injuries were so bad that Paul continues to suffer and recently had a part of his lung removed.

The cover story, assisted by the media, was that Boucher was a kind and educated bloke, a real giver, who snapped because of Paul’s lawn care techniques.  While sucker-freight-training his neighbor definitely is evidence that Boucher snapped, it is doubtful that it had much to do with lawn care.  Boucher is a liberal who despised Rand for being guilty of the greatest of all possible crimes — chief among them, judging from the Democrat primary, the only one that appears to be relevant in the liberal mind: the crime of being a Republican.

At least in this case, it appears that Boucher’s Democrat privilege might be revoked.

The reason the judge gave for such a light sentence is worth examining.  The judge indicated that Boucher was an educated person who was respected within the community with no criminal history.  What was left unsaid in the interest of championing better lawn care is that Boucher was an outspoken Democrat, meaning a proud member of the protected club.

That judge got this backwards.  Boucher, a physician like Paul, is both educated and wealthy, meaning there were no mitigating circumstances to his extreme criminal behavior.  Instead of being a Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, he was a rich deranged psychopath who nearly killed a man.

Reasonable Americans would agree that if you beat your neighbor, unprovoked, to within an inch of his life — which is exactly what Boucher did here — you should expect to spend a couple of years in prison.

The damage this attack did to Paul was life-threatening and will permanently rob the senator of the health he knew.  While there are whole paragraphs on the extent of the damage in the court’s opinion, Paul’s wife, Kelley, noted that the assault began “‘a long odyssey of severe pain and limited mobility for’ Paul.  ‘A cough or hiccup would literally drive him to his knees, his face in a white grimace,’ and ‘[t]he trauma to his body caused him to suffer night sweats accompanied by uncontrollable shivering and shaking.'”

Adding insult to injury, not only was Boucher let off with a hand slap but the Pauls now have to live next door to this psychopath who suffered no lasting punishment for his crime.

The panel clearly felt that the judge’s decision to prioritize Doctor Deranged’s education, professional success, and standing in the community to give him such a light sentence was a legal travesty.  The final decision:  “We therefore vacate Boucher’s sentence and remand for resentencing.”

Compare the treatment Boucher got to Paul Manafort.  Paul Manafort is also highly educated, is older, had professional success, and no doubt had wonderful standing in his community, all of the factors that made Boucher too good for this judge to seriously punish.

Manafort was found guilty of a crime most Americans barely understand, one that did not even warrant prosecution until it was a useful tool in the pursuit of the president.  Manafort was sent to solitary confinement in one of the worst prisons in the country while liberals, who would normally consider this torture, cheered.

It is worth examining this story within the current climate that no longer affords equal justice under the law.  Republicans are regularly hammered for minor or trumped up offenses (à la Lieutenant General Michael Flynn), while liberals can quite brazenly plan an administrative coup against a duly elected president without any perpetrator serving jail time, at least not yet.  It is fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that we have lost that vital principle of equal justice under the law.

This dynamic is a primary reason why industry and community leaders routinely and aggressively virtue-signal in support of the full liberal laundry list, from abortion on demand to homilies on the global warming cult.  It buys them protection, akin to a payoff to a mob boss.  If you are going to be a criminal, it quite literally pays to be an outspoken liberal, or at least to pretend to be one.  That message has been received loud and clear.

One of the most important steps in reversing this trend is removing the extreme liberal activist bent of the courts.  Nothing President Trump has done has been more important than appointing fair-minded and Constitution-respecting judges across the Judiciary.  These judges are much more likely to enforce equal justice under the law.

Five of the judges on the Sixth Court of Appeals, the court that voided the Boucher sentence, were appointed by Trump, although in fairness, it was a President Obama–appointed judge who wrote the decision on behalf of the panel of three who heard the case.  The Senate has already confirmed 146 judges whom this president has nominated.  Another 41 are awaiting Senate action, with plenty more vacancies to be filled.  The president, in partnership with Senate Republicans, has already reversed much of the damage Obama did to the Judiciary.

This is where President Trump is making the most lasting impact and where he may quite literally be saving America.  At the very least, he has bought the country time to recover.

Even should Democrats retake the presidency now, the courts will still have moved decidedly to the sane.  If Trump wins re-election and Republicans hold the Senate, he will have saved the courts for a generation.  Eight years of a Hillary Clinton presidency may have moved the courts so far to the left that they would have been irrecoverable.  It is nearly impossible to understand NeverTrump Republicans within this context.

The courts were so out of balance that activist judges have succeeded in thwarting President Trump at many turns, significantly slowing down the implementation of the agenda he was elected to put in place.  That is why Attorney General William Barr felt compelled to demand an end to nationwide injunctions by lone rogue judges.  The president literally had to change the balance of the courts before he could fully do the job he was elected to do while performing duties that are fully within his purview as the head of the Executive Branch.

This week, a federal appeals court struck a blow for justice.  Let’s hope that will start a long judicial trend toward reversing the damage done to justice in America.