• 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

“I Don’t Want Some Zucker” Like Fascist Zuckerberg Dictating!!

Why I Left Facebook — And Why You Should Too

By Mark St.J. Couhig at American Thinker:

Like millions of Americans, I have in recent days grown sick of Facebook. Like hundreds of thousands, I’ve abandoned it for Parler.

When I said goodbye to my friends on Facebook, they were all kind. Many said they’d miss me, and others offered advice. One told me she had glanced into Parler and had found it horrifying. But, she said, she was sure I had done my due diligence before signing on. 

Indeed I had. Parler allows you to choose whose words you read and whose memes you chuckle at. I’m not a fan of outlandish conspiracy theories so I don’t keep up with the Joneses — Alex or Mother. I enjoy reading intelligent articles from all sides, so I follow the American Thinker and National Review on Parler. I’m a libertarian, so on Parler I also follow Reason and the Cato Institute. Because they haven’t yet signed on to Parler, I subscribed to the New Republic and Harpers. I don’t want to be trapped in a bubble of anyone’s making.

Problem solved.

Another pointed out that according to Wikipedia, “Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists, and posts often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories.”

That sounds to me a great deal like conversations in the real world, yet so far I’ve avoided falling prey to the emotional disorders that underlie many of the worst excesses of the left and the right. I still believe most people are good and kind, and I never call people fascists or communists, racists or baby-killers. The evidence I find on Facebook indicates strongly to me that doing so is emblematic of a larger unhinged hatred within, no matter which side you’re on. And I happen to like people. I think some are dumb, because some are, and some are misguided, because many are, but that’s okay.  Sometimes I’m dumb and misguided. But at least I like people.

That fact — the fact that I like people — is what separates me from Facebook. It isn’t the people I follow and engage with who are at issue. Not even the dumb or misguided ones.  It’s the children in San Francisco who are now determining what I should hear, read, and think.

Another friend wrote, “Oh, Mark, we will miss you. But that Zucker’s failure to censure Bannon for calling for Fauci’s beheading on FB may drive me off too.” My friend is a dyed-in-the-wool lefty and an academic. And a lovely, lovely woman. We just see this issue from a different perspective.

I don’t want some Zucker like Zuckerberg determining for me that I shouldn’t hear what Steve Bannon has to say regarding the appropriate proximity of Dr. Fauci’s cranium and clavicles. I think allowing him to post this comment has the beneficial effect of reminding those who need reminding (yes, there are some) that Bannon is a particularly nasty carbuncle on the wrinkled bottom of American politics. Let it run.

One friend of mine recently commented that “Biden voters are idiots,” which earned her a month-long stay in Facebook jail. At most points in time this is nothing more than a comical anecdote, but my friend is deadly ill with advanced cancer and was using her Facebook account to communicate with her family and her several hundred friends. Among her missives was a series of requests for prayers.

Nevertheless, the children in San Francisco who decide these things determined calling Biden supporters idiots was simply too much. Those words could not be borne by others, some of whom may have been Biden supporters and others of whom may in fact be Biden-supporting idiots.

Ergo, she had to go.

The argumentum ad nauseum, of course, is that Facebook is a privately owned entity and as such is free to choose what it will publish and what it won’t. That’s not entirely true. Facebook, Twitter, Parler, MeWe, and everyone who posts unmonitored comments from the public enjoy special privileges not enjoyed by others on the web. A specific federal law, Section 230, provides immunity for platforms on the web that post comments and articles submitted by the public as long as they don’t pick and choose.  The only exceptions are those that are prima facie illegal (for example, promoting violence), though there is also a long history of judicial support for suppressing obscenity.

Facebook and Twitter are abusing this privilege by acting as publishers — that is, they decide what will be published on their platform and what won’t. That should negate the Section 230 protections, leaving them open to the same legal liabilities incurred by other publishers. If they allow stories to be published describing high-school graduate and recent multi-millionaire Nicholas Sandmann as a racist — and a confrontational one at that — they should be as liable to lawsuits as the Washington Post.

Parler promises to be hands-off, which has led many in the clueless media to declare it a hazard to American democracy, saying it will increase the likelihood of “bubbles” and “echo chambers.” Yes, this is very amusing given the now well-documented bubble in which virtually all of American’s news organizations function. But it is also telling of exactly what is said and believed within that bubble: The people must be protected from certain thoughts. And that’s our job.

This wouldn’t be true even if they weren’t delusional regarding their own intelligence and mental reach. (“What is a reporter? Someone who can become an expert in any field in an afternoon.”) But unfortunately, they are delusional, and they do regard themselves as gatekeepers. They are just like the children in California who decide what you must not hear and see on Facebook. After all, it’s for your own good.

So Zuckerberg and his minions, the children of California, are not only making money from your private information, they are also putting you into a bubble of their making. 

Let me say this: I’ve been on Facebook for more than a decade. I credit it with renewing old friendships I thought were lost to diverging lives, and for making many new friends. But this combination — selling me to the highest bidder and treating me like a rat in a maze — is simply too much. I will miss Facebook and the ready possibility of conversations with friends and family, but I’m gone. If you’re looking for me I’m on Parler at @Mcouhig.

Mark Couhig is a retired reporter, editor and publisher.

The Corrupt Presidential Election Keeps Its Stench!

It’s in the code: Trump won Michigan and Wisconsin

By Nick Chase at American Thinker:

Last Sunday, in my article “‘Lost votes are fraud votes,” I looked at the “lost votes” for the 2020 presidential election listed in Internet blogger “Pede’s” analysis, and I described how, after adjusting for the thrown-away votes, Trump won Pennsylvania and will win (after the recount) Georgia, while Biden likely won Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and possibly Arizona.

But there’s still something missing. “Pede’s” data search exposed votes switched from Trump to Biden, and “votes lost” (mostly Trump votes thrown away); but there is a third category that escapes this type of data scanning: “votes added.”

By “votes added” I mean fraudulent “votes” that were all, or almost all, for Biden. This would include (and account for) the massive “Biden vote dumps” that occurred in Wisconsin and Michigan in the early morning hours of Nov. 4 which shrank Trump’s lead by 1.5% to 2% in those states and eventually resulted in Biden “wins.”

On Saturday, in American Thinker article “Biden’s Great Leap Forward: A split second in Wisconsin” author Dan Rabil, who lives in Switzerland, described how he personally saw the sudden switch from a Trump to Biden lead in Wisconsin. As he describes it, “I was stunned to see the Fox election map suddenly do something completely unnatural: in a split second between 3 A.M. and 4 A.M. U.S. Central Time, the Wisconsin icon switched from light-red Trump to light-blue Biden.  In that same instant, the probability meter, which had been very accurate in 2016, likewise jerked from a 77% Trump likelihood to over 80% Biden.” (Please read his complete story about this fraud – it will be well worth your time.)

So Dan downloaded the data from the New York Times, searched for the exact moment of the switch, and found it (see below):

For non-programmers, here is the translation:

At 3:37 AM CST, total votes were 3,018,212; Trump had 1,536,270 votes (50.9%); Biden 1,427,614 votes (47.3%); other candidates 54,328 votes (1.8%).

At 3:42 AM CST, total votes were 3,186,598; Trump had 1,561,433 votes (49.0%); Biden 1,570,993 votes (49.3%); other candidates 54,172 votes (1.7%).

Total increase in Trump votes in 5 minutes: 25,163 (1.64%).

Total increase in Biden votes in 5 minutes: 143,379 (10.04%).

(These vote numbers are approximate because they’re calculated from the percentages, which are given to only one-tenth of 1%. But they’re good enough for statistical analysis.)

Before the Biden vote dump, both candidates’ votes were increasing at about the same rate, 1.64% per 5 minutes. So the “legitimate” Biden vote increase is likely around 23,400 votes. The remaining 119,979 votes are fake.

Adjusting the Wisconsin figures for the “votes added” fraud, we get:

Wisconsin

Nov. 13 unofficial vote totals: Trump – 1,610,030, Biden – 1,630,570.

“Pede’s” numbers: Votes switched from Trump to Biden – 2,078; “Lost votes” – 3,408.

 (Remember, I’m allocating 85% of “lost votes” to Trump, 15% to Biden).

Deduction for fraudulent electronic votes added to Biden: – 119,979.

Adjusted totals: Trump – 1,615,005 (51.7%), Biden – 1,508,970 (48.3%).

After recount, Trump wins (10 electoral votes).

That massive (almost 120K) increase in Biden votes within 5 minutes is most likely entirely electronic, without any paper ballots to back it up, which is why an honest recount of the paper ballots (a recount is underway, but I can’t guarantee it will be an honest one) will flip the state to Trump.

Now we come to Michigan.

I have not seen anybody else analyzing the data for Michigan, searching for “votes added,” so I did it myself. On Nov. 14, from the New York Times I downloaded the JSON data for Michigan, and I extracted the following snippet for the early morning hours of Nov. 4:

I know, it looks like Greek to most people, but for many programmers, because it is English-like, it’s a fairly straightforward process to analyze and interpret it with the naked eye. No software program is needed.

Here is the translation and explanation:

At 5:32 AM CST on November 4, total votes were 4,574,555; Trump had 2,346,747 votes (51.3%); Biden 2,150,041 votes (47.0%); other candidates 77,767 votes (1.7%).

Then, still at 5:32 AM CST, only five seconds later than the prior reading, total votes were 4,724,327; Trump had 2,352,715 votes (49.8%); Biden 2,291,299 votes (48.5%); other candidates 80,313 votes (1.7%). In that brief five-second period, Trump’s vote total increased by 5,968 (0.25%) while Biden’s vote total increased by 141,258 (6.57%)! Folks, that is a clear, fraudulent electronic “ballot dump” for Biden. I calculate that this fraud created about 135,883 fake votes for Basement Joe.

The count kept uneventfully grinding on to 6 AM CST, where at 6:03 AM total votes were 4,752,966, Trump votes were 2,366,977 (49.8%), Biden votes were 2,309,941 (48.6%). Ballots (presumably real paper ballots) had been counted at the rate of about 1,000 ballots per minute for the preceding half-hour, with Trump votes having a slight edge over Biden votes during the counting.

Then between 6:03 and 6:14 AM CST, more than 113,000 “votes” were counted, at an average rate of 9,800 ballots per minute. Total votes increased sharply to 4,866,279. Trump votes were 2,403,942 (49.6%), an increase of 36,965 votes (8.16% increase). Biden votes were 2,379,610  (48.9%), an increase of 69,699 votes (30.17% increase). Unlike the previous half-hour of counting, this deluge produced almost two Biden votes for every Trump vote counted.

Of those 113K total votes, 40K showed up in the last two minutes – between 6:12 and 6:14 AM. In two minutes, Trump gained 5,665 votes; Biden gained 29,588 votes. That’s about 5.2 Biden votes for every Trump vote. Because paper ballots simply cannot be fed into the ballot boxes that quickly, I consider this interval to also be electronic vote fraud, adding about 24,037 fake votes to Biden.

Then the ballot-counting quieted down and returned to “normal,” with votes for Trump and Biden about equal, until just before 8 AM, when another sudden burst of 107,700 heavily-Biden votes – 41,914 for Trump, 65,786 for Biden – erased Trump’s lead and tied the candidates at 49.2% each of the total votes.

Trump Team lawyer Sidney Powell says that in Michigan there were between 69,000 and 115,000 ballots (presumably fraudulent paper ballots) in which there was only one vote cast on the ballot, for Biden; no votes for anybody else on the ballot, not even for state and local races. Would anybody care to bet that more than 30,000 of those fakes were fed into the counting machines in Detroit’s TCF Center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4?

My total count for electronic fraudulent Biden ballots from this 2-hour, 30-minute period is 159,920. Recalculating the results for Michigan, we get:

Michigan

Current unofficial vote totals: Trump – 2,664,525; Biden – 2,790,648.

“Pede’s” numbers: Votes switched from Trump to Biden – 20,213; “Lost votes” – 21,882.

Deduction for fraudulent electronic votes added to Biden: – 159,920.

Adjusted totals: Trump – 2,703,298 (50.8%); Biden – 2,613,797 (49.2%).

Trump wins (16 electoral votes).

Interestingly, this is closer than the Wisconsin result, and Wisconsin was supposed to be a tighter race. I surmise that’s because there was significant paper ballot fraud committed in Michigan, whereas in Wisconsin it was primarily electronic.

Sadly, no recount is currently planned for Michigan. But if it were honestly recounted, even with all of that poison paper that has been added, Trump would still win the state.

Previously I had said that with Pennsylvania and Arizona undecided, and with an honest recount in Georgia, Trump will have 248 electoral votes, Biden 259. If the Wisconsin recount flips Wisconsin from Biden to Trump, it will be: Trump, 258, Biden, 249 (260 with Arizona included).

So it all comes down to what will happen with Pennsylvania. Are you paying attention, Supreme Court?

Previous articles in this seriesExamining the code, internet geeks conclude ‘Trump’s win was yuuuge’‘Lost votes’ are fraud votes.

Nick Chase is a retired but still very active writer, editor and webmaster, and records classical music concerts for radio broadcast. You can read more of his work on the American Thinker website and at contrariansview.org.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/its_in_the_code_trump_won_michigan_and_wisconsin.html#ixzz6eCsQv6bw
@AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Twitter Dictator, Fascistic Jack Dorsey’s PROBABLY!

Twitter CEO: Yeah, It Was Probably “Wrong” To Block The Hunter Biden Laptop Story

JAZZ SHAWPosted at 9:52 am on November 18, 2020SHARE ON FACEBOOKSHARE ON TWITTER

Hey, do you remember that story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and the sweet deals he made while agreeing to cut “the big guy” in for a piece of the action? No? Oh, then you must have been getting all of your election news from CNN, MSNBC or the social media tech giants. They locked that story down harder than a synagogue in New York City under Bill de Blasio. But now that Blue America seems to feel that the coast is clear and Hunter’s father Joe is safely on his way to the White House, perhaps that sort of media blackout will be coming to an end. As National Review points out, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was pausing for a few moments of reflection during congressional hearings yesterday and considering the possibility that perhaps his outfit shouldn’t have censored everyone trying to discuss the laptop story online.

SEE ALSO: Turley: Biden’s choice for global-media honcho an “ominous sign” for free speech

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Tuesday acknowledged that the platform was “wrong” to block a New York Post report about Hunter Biden last month…

Dorsey responded in his opening remarks, explaining that the platform made the decision to block the story in accordance with a 2018 policy against sharing hacked materials.

“We made a quick interpretation using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread,” Dorsey testified. “Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours.”

We should check and see if that testimony was given under oath because Dorsey was most certainly wrong about “correcting” the decision within 24 hours. The New York Post’s Twitter account was locked for six weeks. And they clearly continued to either flag or shadowban anyone talking about the paper’s article on the younger Biden’s laptop. Their feeble excuse for doing so was that the Post’s original article shouldn’t be entirely blocked, but the first tweet about it had taken place before the policy changed so they still weren’t going to unlock the account unless the Post deleted it. The paper refused to do so until the stalemate finally ended and Twitter caved.TRENDING:

CNN reporter to Georgia: Loeffler slept her way to the top, you know

So does this mean that any stories seen as potentially damaging to Sleepy Joe’s reputation will now be allowed to run freely across social media? Possibly, but not because of some new tide of responsibility and transparency at Twitter HQ or Facebook. There is more afoot in this drama than first meets the eye, or so I would wager, anyway.

Isn’t this just what many conservatives were predicting all along? Once liberals felt that the election was safely behind them and that the Bad Orange Man had been defeated, all sorts of things would suddenly be okay to talk about. (Specifically Joe Biden’s China and Ukraine connections and sexual assault accusations against him.) Other things would suddenly become far less important to talk about, including what a “poor job” the government was doing to control the pandemic once Uncle Joe takes office. Of course, any credit for a successful vaccine will be given to the incoming administration, despite all of the development work being rushed through while Donald Trump was in office.

But why allow the Hunter Biden news to flow freely now? Here’s a thought. For many Democrats, Joe Biden was hardly their first choice to be president. But he did serve as a useful vehicle to get Kamala Harris into the Vice Presidency. And do they really want to wait around for four or eight long years before celebrating her “success” in becoming the historic First Female President? Probably not. So if anything were to happen that would gently give Joe Biden a shove toward an early exit, that wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, right? They could just thank Joe for his service, wish him the best in his retirement years and begin planning Harris’ inaugural gala.

Some of you are no doubt already writing this off as a wacky idea that quickly veers into conspiracy theory territory. But is it really? Time shall tell.