• 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

Will Obama Era Crimes At Last Become Exposed???…MAYBE!!!


by  Scott Johnson at PowerLine:

The New York Times reports that Attorney General Barr’s review of the Obama administrations spying on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign has turned into a criminal investigation. The linked article is an editorial in the guise of a story. Some might say — I would — that it is about time for a criminal investigation of the spying. Others (such as the authors of the laughable Times story) are breaking into a flop sweat and feigning outrage at the allegedly political motivation of the investigation.

The scandal that underlies the current investigation puts Watergate in the dust. What we have here is the biggest scandal in American political history.

Once upon a time the Times expressed concern with the government’s abuse of the awesome powers it wields in the name of national security. Now it occupies itself exclusively with the potential benefit exposure might have on the political fortunes of Bad Man Orange.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal also reports on the turn of Barr’s review into a criminal investigation here.


Barr probe turns criminal

A Curse in Today’s Dem Feminized America: Moms Making Sons Girls with Court Approval!!

Jury Condemns 7-Year-Old Boy to Live with Woman Determined to Make Him a Girl

By Taylor Day at American Thinker:

Yesterday, a Dallas jury decided that father Jeff Younger was not only to lose his joint custody over his 7-year-old twin boys, but that one of those children, under the mother’s care, will have his hormones suppressed and his body surgically altered to appear female.

I reached out to Kayla White, a #SaveJames supporter who flew from Illinois to Dallas last week to document the trial.  In her own words, she explains what it was like to be in that courtroom and witness the heartbreak delivered by the jury that is absolved from the effects of its decision.  She, like most of the nation, is horrified that a Texas jury gave sole custody to Anne, a woman propositioning a court to chemically castrate a young child.  Our interview below has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

DAY: How do you know James?

WHITE: I met James this weekend and have seen how he truly is through that meeting, the videos, and photos that have been shared since last year (via Jeff Younger’s SaveJames website).  I’ve taken some of my own photos and videos of James along with his brother, Jude.  He wrote the name “James” down at least twice while I was with him this weekend.  He knows who he is and is constantly reminding himself of that.

DAY: What do you think about the verdict today?

WHITE: Honestly, I thought we had the jury on our side, but I gave them too much credit.  I was told by other audience members that most of them checked out during Jeff’s expert witnesses’ testimonies.  When the verdict was being read, something in me said that there was more to it and that it was not over.

DAY: I’m seeing a lot of people on social media saying that Anne isn’t the biological mother.  Is this true?

WHITE: It is.  Jeff and Anne had gone through a process to choose eggs that were fertilized inside of her.  I’m not sure how the process overall works, but the eggs were from a donor.

DAY: How would you explain the jury’s decision?

WHITE: I honestly thought we were dealing with semi-intelligent and responsible people.  One of the requirements the judge gave to her jury was “do not worry about the implications of your decision.”  Looking back at it now, it’s so morbid.

I also remember the jury being told not to let what they personally do or don’t agree with get in the way of their decision.  I’m still shocked that people these days are that far gone in their logic and sense of morality to think it’s okay for any parent to subject their child to that kind of abuse.  It shows how much society has devolved, if not the tip of the iceberg of our moral decay as humans.

It was an 11-1 vote against Jeff.  Only one seemed to grasp what was really happening.  God bless whoever that individual was.

DAY: What was the reaction in the court and community when the verdict came in?

WHITE: One woman who sat next to me, started to break down, and I saw another one turn around to face the back wall to avoid watching Anne dance.  She did an “in your face” jig once Judge Cooks left the courtroom.  No one who came there for Jeff was happy.  I broke down sometime later while talking with Odeneal (Jeff Younger’s attorney) and Jeff.

I’ve cried a couple of times before and after the verdict.  Jeff was very quiet and seemed defeated.  Even Odeneal was rather silent.  There was a lot of hugging and reassurance from supporters and friends alike, that we are not giving up.

Something else I will add, too: There was talk of how the judge had written her verdict a day or two before the jury gave their own decision.  Judge Cooks did not present it yesterday but will [tomorrow].

In my heart, there is hope that Judge Cooks saw what was happening and will reconsider her original stance.  It does not make sense for a judge not to announce her final verdict along with the jury’s when she had it prepared.  I believe she will have to make changes to either accommodate the jury’s decision or reconstruct it altogether.

The community itself — everyone was freaked out or angry.  I’ve seen shock at the decision of this jury.  Many can’t seem to grasp it, and a lot of Texans are upset at what’s become of their proud state.

DAY: Was there any testimony from a medical professional who did not support James transitioning?

WHITE: Yes.  Jeff’s expert witnesses, Dr. Paul W. Hruz and Dr. Stephen Levine from Beachwood, Ohio.  Both gentlemen spoke about the major risks of transitioning, how their preference for their patients was for them to desist and align their gender identity back to their biological body, and went over the history of their patients’ lives and environments to determine the possible cause for their gender dysphoria.

They both described how trans patients become medically bound to the system and can never come off the hormones once the medical transition is complete.  Both described how if the child is not affirmed, there is a high chance that the child will desist.

A study was cited, that was done with 11 children, I believe.  Eighty-five percent of those children seemed to have desisted and aligned their gender identity back with their biological body.

DAY: Your notes say Anne changed James’s name to Luna — was this done legally?

WHITE: No, this was done illegally.  None of this was run by Jeff until afterward.  From the testimony, there is no application to change James’s legal name to Luna…yet.

DAY: Has James seen a counselor selected by Jeff for a second opinion?

WHITE: No, he has not.  Anne’s original lawyer, Kim Meaders, sent a letter to Jeff threatening that they would enjoin him from doing so if he attempted to, as well as jailing him for contempt.  They don’t want a second opinion, or at least, one that goes against their agenda.  Also, Anne considers Albritton [chosen by court]’s evaluation to be Jeff’s second opinion.

DAY: Anne repeatedly told the court she hasn’t considered hormone-blockers despite it being part of the literature from Genesis [medical facility she visited for gender transitioning].  Was the jury told to deliberate over this or made aware of its side-effects, like sterilization?

WHITE: Honestly, no, they were given some information, but we observed the jury checked out during Levine’s and Hruz’s testimonies…

The jury was given two questions.  Should the joint conservatorship be replaced with a sole conservatorship?  If the answer is yes, should the sole conservator be Jeff?

They were also told to put their own beliefs aside.  How can you make a decision like that and not consider the ramifications using your own moral stance?

DAY: Do you know if Jeffrey is planning to appeal the decision?

WHITE: Yes, there was talk before the verdict was given that if things did not go well for Jeff, to raise an appeal.  I was also made aware that this process was going to take about two years.  Jeff really wishes to fight this.  Many of us will be here to support him, fighting alongside him.