• 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

Dems Turning to Ditsy Liz of Mouth and Massachusetts!?

Desperate Dems turning to fatally flawed Warren

Okay, so Joe Biden is proving such an embarrassment that he can’t be trusted to remain plausibly coherent for the 14 long months until the election.  And Kamala Harris, the Great Intersectional Hope, is so transparently phony that voters are abandoning her.  Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is no longer the anti-Hillary alternative that he was in 2016, and his cranky persona is wearing thin.

So what’s a member of the Democrats’ gentry — the educated professional classes — to do?  Steven Hayward of Powerline, an astute observer, thinks Elizabeth Warren is the next candidate who will take the lead.

Twitter video screen grab (cropped).

Pollster Mark Murray points out that only 9 percent of Democrats say their mind is made up; Warren has emerged as the leading second-choice candidate if Biden stumbles, and Warren’s supporters show the highest intensity/enthusiasm level, which is always something successful campaigns build on. You can almost sense the media starting to get behind her. Biden has the look of Bob Dole in 1996: an old party warhorse that Democrats might accept, but without great enthusiasm[.]

She’s lefty like Bernie, but with an intellectual veneer that comes with having been a tenured professor at Harvard Law School.  That she snagged that prestigious job by faking Native American heritage is her first fatal flaw.  Blacks, who constitute a quarter of the Democrats’ vote in presidential elections, are simply not going to turn out for someone who appropriated victim status and the preferences that accompany it today.  It’s not just an “uphill” struggle, as The Hill delicately puts it; it’s a futile struggle.

Black turnout either makes or breaks a Democrat running for president.  This skinny, white, old lady is just not going to inspire a lot of African-Americans.

And now, seeking feminist credibility, she is turning on the male half of the population:

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all.”

Embedded video

Elizabeth Warren made the political calculation this week that she doesn’t need men to win the presidency.

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men,” she told a rally in Washington Square Park Monday night.

“In fact, we’re not here because of men at all,” she said, emphasizing the “m” word like an expletive.

Great. Then she won’t mind if men don’t vote for her, nor women who like men.

It’s a losing strategy, taken straight out of the playbook of Hillary Clinton, from whom, reportedly and inexplicably, Warren has been taking advice.

Millions of American women showed in 2016 that they weren’t prepared to vote for Clinton just because she had a second X chromosome.  White, non-college-educated women in particular voted almost 2-to-1 for Donald Trump in 2016.

Most likely, they didn’t approve of the denigration of their menfolk as “deplorables” abusing “white male privilege” when the truth is that the males they love are doing their best, even if jobs are scarce and they’re dying of overdoses.

But Warren does play well with the elites of the Democratic Party.  She’s almost certainly popular in faculty lounges across America.  But while the educated elites control a lot of the levers of power in the party, they don’t vote in numbers sufficient to elect a president.  The media love her because she’s well spoken and is a woman.  But I don’t think she can win without the enthusiastic support of blacks.



Truth, at last, Creeps into our American NEWS….

How Feminist Social Justice Warriors are Killing Men

I have said time and time again, that feminism is akin to cancer on the world. Some will undoubtedly question my views on feminism; I agree that first wave, and even to a point second wave feminism did good things for woman and equality. The right to vote, wear clothes we feel comfortable in, and the ability to work outside the home to name a few.

As third wave feminism desperately needs to embrace a cause in order to stay both relevant and valid in the eyes of society, femimists have doubled down on men in general. They denounce “the patriarchy,” the imaginary world that has men running everything and secretly holding women back from certain careers and advancement in the workplace.  They even claim an imaginary wage gap is a problem.  However, none of this exists in reality.

Women and men think differently.  I know this may be a shock to some, but our brains do in fact work differently.  Women are less likely to be attracted to careers that men are typically drawn to. Engineering, math, science and work in the trades are not something many women seek out to find careers in.  Just as men are typically not administrative office support, human resources specialists and even teachers very often.  This being said, nobody is holding women back from certain careers; they are choosing not to pursue those careers upon entering college and then the workforce.

Women also tend to take more time off than their male counterparts in the workplace. Maternity leave and personal time to care for children at home make up the majority of work absenteeism by women. Yet feminists insist that there is a gender pay gap; never once considering that men work longer hours, and are not taking as much time off.

I have never experienced this “patriarchy” that purportedly oppresses women in the workplace. There may be times when disagreements over ideas happened; however in any functioning place of work where critical thinking takes place, there will be alternate views and concepts. This is not oppression. I have even had male colleagues “go to bat for me” in the workplace, stating to our supervisors that I was the correct person to work on certain projects.

So why exactly are feminists of the modern era so angry with men? We live in a world where all the real problems and issues are taken care of, so virtue signaling and social justice has emerged to create issues to be upset over. Imagine waking up each day and looking for things to get riled up over and then deciding men are the root cause of all evil? Imagine turning men’s issues into a way for women to further play victim? Such nonsense has already occurred in the many media outlets, such as this article from Harpers Bazaar “Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden.” Isolated men are a woman’s burden? This incessant pandering to females as the ultimate victims in an oppressive society truly needs to be culled.

Photo credit: Chase Carter

Men are feeling hopeless and unwanted. They are losing the ability to find purpose in life since they are repetitively enlightened by the media about how bad they are for merely existing. If you cannot find a purpose in life, what is the point in living simply to exist? This is a real problem men are facing today and it is women who caused it.

We began to see how this became a problem with the #MeToo movement. What started out as good intentions to shed light on sexual assault and harassment in and around Hollywood, and then into the common workplace, rapidly turned on its own head. When all it took was a person’s word that something happened with no actual proof, this movement started targeting men. “Believe all women” was a battle cry, and yet there is evidence that some women were lying to gain fame and payouts in the end, vilifying men and ruining careers in the blink of an eye.

More and more women are embracing their sexuality and having casual sex with random partners. It has been found that some of the allegations levied against men for sex crimes, were in fact women who later regretted their own decisions. The new ability to withdraw consent at any time is a dangerously slippery slope. When women make poor judgement calls and regret having sex with a man, they can accuse him of rape because they feel like it.

Social Justice Warriors who are screaming the loudest at every possible turn, have decided that all men are a problem. You know these women; they constantly talk about how horrible men are, and how the patriarchy is holding them back.  They set out to destroy men in general.  All men are predators who are in need of being “cancelled” to these SJWs.  This leads to rabid attacks on men all over social media and out in the streets in protest, as well.

Imagine, if you will, being a young man, and all you hear is how terrible, atrocious, predatory, and downright evil men are. Does this type of nonstop barrage of demeaning language make for healthy self-esteem, or mental health? No.  An entire group of human beings is being abused and mentally battered every day, and we wonder why male suicide is on the rise?

With Mental Health Awareness in mind, it is important for SJW’s and especially 3rd wave feminists to understand that they are literally killing men. The suicide rate among males is nearly four times higher (22.4 per 100,000 in 2017) than among females (6.1 per 100,000 in 2017).According to the National Institute of Mental Health.

How about we “cancel” blame shifting for poor decisions, regrets, and making yourself feel superior by demonizing another? That would certainly be a nice change of pace. Maybe the crushing depression of feeling worthless in society will lift and some much-needed civility will return.

If you are in crisis, call the toll-free National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The service is available to anyone. All calls are confidential. http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org

H.K. Rivera is an independent political and philosophical writer





Human  females as a mass  are no enemy to any fascistic state, Soviet, Nazi, or Mao or California or New York state.   Females are easy,  incredibly easy to get on with feminist life in any fascist state, if fed enough water,  food, residence,  or charm.

The human she was never genetically programmed to be a reliable warrior….a killer sniper or two, maybe, …but not much as a warrior.




Long Time New York Dem, “Fats” Nadler, Leads Impeachment Action!

Nadler’s House committee holds a faux hearing in search of a false crime

It is a curious exercise, because the House does not need a criminal obstruction offense in order to impeach the president. But it is a telling exercise, too: Democrats are pretending they have an actual crime, just as they are pretending to engage in an actual impeachment inquiry. Acknowledging the absence of a crime would demonstrate that Chairman Jerry Nadler’s hearings are nakedly political.

As their first witness since Nadler (D-N.Y.) outlined his impeachment investigation without a House vote endorsing one, committee Democrats called Corey Lewandowski, the president’s confidant and one-time campaign manager. The purpose was not to plumb new ground. Congressional Democrats and the White House are arguing over executive privilege; the committee was on notice that Lewandowski — who already had cooperated with the special counsel and testified before Congress three times — would not answer questions about his communications with the president beyond what is laid out in the Mueller report.

Consequently, the purpose of the hearing was to read, again and again, a portion of that report that Democrats deem terribly damaging. To wit, in June-July 2017, Trump instructed Lewandowski — who was not formally on the White House staff — to urge then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit his recusal from the Russia investigation, so that Sessions then could narrow the scope of Mueller’s investigation. The idea was that Mueller would be permitted to continue investigating in order to prevent Russian interference in future elections, but drop the investigation of whether Trump’s campaign interfered in the 2016 election.

Lewandowski never carried out the president’s directive. Yet, by the Democrats’ lights, Trump’s actions amount to felony obstruction of justice. On these facts, however, there can be no such crime.

Insofar as Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign is concerned, Mueller, by order of then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, inherited the investigation described in March 2017 by the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, in House Intelligence Committee testimony. Comey explicitly said that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s election meddling, which would include examination of any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. This is a critical distinction.

Federal obstruction law relates to corrupt interference with the due administration of law in an official proceeding. The crime is called obstruction of justice for a reason. Under federal law, an FBI investigation is not a proceeding that can be obstructed. It is neither a judicial process nor a proceeding (such as a congressional or agency hearing) of the type that the obstruction laws reach.

That is not the end of the matter. The law also says a proceeding can be obstructed even if it is not pending at the time the obstruction takes place. For example, if a person corruptly destroys incriminating evidence or tampers with witnesses out of concern over the possibility that he could be prosecuted in the future, that can amount to obstruction. Naturally, if that kind of corrupt behavior occurs in the context of an FBI investigation, an obstruction crime can occur — but only because the conduct affects the contemplated future proceeding (e.g., the eventual criminal trial), not the FBI investigation itself.

Democrats keep saying Trump obstructed the investigation. He did not, but even if he had, a counterintelligence investigation is not a proceeding that can be obstructed.

Regarding Donald Trump (as candidate, president-elect, and president), the FBI director told him, on multiple occasions, that he was not under investigation.

Now, I happen to believe that was misleading. As I outline in my book, “Ball of Collusion,” I believe the Obama Justice Department and the FBI pretextually used counterintelligence powers against Trump and his campaign — such as surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — in the hope of finding a crime, or some impeachable offense, even though they lacked a factual basis to believe he had committed a crime. Regardless of whether I am right about that, though, the fact remains that Trump was led to believe there was no criminal investigation.

To summarize, then, on the matter of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign, the FBI and, later, Mueller, were not conducting a criminal investigation, and Trump was told he was not a criminal suspect. The FBI and, later, Mueller, were conducting a counterintelligence investigation. Counterintelligence is not a proceeding for purposes of the obstruction laws. Unlike a criminal investigation, counterintelligence does not even contemplate an eventual proceeding; its aim is to gather information about the activities and intentions of foreign powers in order to protect the nation, not to build courtroom prosecutions.

Notice the difference. Criminal investigations are done in order to vindicate the rule of law — i.e., to enforce in judicial proceedings the criminal statutes enacted by Congress. Consequently, we do not want political interference in it — we don’t want partisanship deciding who gets investigated and indicted; we don’t want politics dictating who gets punished and how severely.

By contrast, counterintelligence is unrelated to judicial proceedings. It has nothing to do with the rule of law. It is conducted solely to support the president’s constitutional duty to protect the United States from foreign threats. Consequently, it is completely within the president’s discretion. It is the president, elected by the people whose lives are at stake, who gets to decide what intelligence the country needs — it is not the FBI’s call, much less a determination to be made by a prosecutor dubiously appointed to run a counterintelligence investigation. (The special counsel regulations do not authorize the appointment of a special counsel for counterintelligence purposes. And the Justice Department norm is that counterintelligence cases are not assigned to prosecutors because, to repeat, the objective is not to build a legal case.)

It is certainly true that a president can obstruct justice by corruptly tampering with evidence or witnesses. But a president cannot obstruct justice by shutting down a counterintelligence investigation, or by threatening to shut it down, or by redirecting counterintelligence resources to focus on some threats rather than others. We elect a president to make such judgments, which do involve judicial proceedings that can be obstructed.

Would the lack of an obstruction crime mean Congress lacks legitimate power to consider impeachment? Not at all.

As I observed at the start, Congress does not need a penal crime to impeach a president. If lawmakers believed that the president had irresponsibly endangered the nation by directing the FBI not to collect intelligence on a profound security threat posed by a foreign power, the House would be completely within its legitimate power to file articles of impeachment.

But notice the difference: Under those circumstances, the House would not be impeaching the president over a purported felony obstruction of justice offense. It would be impeaching over abuse of power — what Hamilton described as a political offense, in the sense that it would be a betrayal of the president’s duty to protect the nation.

Of course, even House Democrats would have a hard time leveling that charge against President Trump.

Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign was thoroughly investigated. The Obama administration knew it was happening in real time, and the intelligence agencies compiled a report about it in January 2017. By the time President Trump spoke with Corey Lewandowski about the Mueller investigation in summer 2017, Russia’s meddling had been under scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies for more than two years. Trump never took any action to limit the inquiry into Russia’s activities. Moreover, he expressly stated that he had no problem with a probe of Russia’s potential to threaten future elections, which naturally would have required an understanding of what they’d done in 2016.

The only thing Trump wanted was public clarification that he was not suspected of wrongdoing in connection with Russia’s 2016 espionage activities. Under the circumstances, that was entirely reasonable, even if the president went about it ham-handedly. The FBI repeatedly told him he was not a suspect; the then-FBI director nevertheless made public statements in March 2017 that led to media and public speculation that the president was a suspect — and Mueller has now concluded that there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy.

Even for the Democrats’ faux impeachment gambit, that record is a non-starter. So, they will continue talking about obstruction of justice — even though what they are talking about is not obstruction of justice.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest bestselling book is “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.