• 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

“Britain and other Western nations are using economic sanctions to cripple the Russian economy!”

UK ready to lift sanctions if Russia withdraws

JAZZ SHAW Mar 27, 2022 at HotAir:

It’s hard to say whether this is a serious offer from the Brits or just an additional sweetener to move Vladimir Putin away from his current position. No matter the motive, British Foreign Minister Liz Truss said yesterday that if Russia halts its attacks on Ukraine and withdraws from the country, Great Britain “could” lift the heavy sanctions currently being imposed on the country and Putin himself, along with other individuals in his administration. She referred to the sanctions as “hard levers” that could be used to move Russia into compliance but held open the option of “snapback” sanctions if Putin went back on his word (again) and renewed aggression against its neighbor. But if Mad Vlad is in any mood to negotiate something along those lines, he’s certainly not showing any signs of it yet. (Reuters)

British foreign minister Liz Truss says sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and companies could be lifted if Russia withdraws from Ukraine and commits to end aggression, the Telegraph newspaper reported on Saturday.

Britain and other Western nations are using economic sanctions to cripple the Russian economy and punish President Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine, seeking to press him to abandon what he calls a special military operation to demilitarise and “denazify” Ukraine.

In an interview with the Telegraph, Truss held out the possibility the measures could end if Moscow changed course.

Seemingly looking to find a bright side in this mess, Truss noted how the UK had “worked very closely” with the European Union during this conflict and improved some of the relations that “were strained during Brexit.” That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose.

I’m still left wondering what Russia could do that would qualify for such an offer. A complete ceasefire would be the number one item, of course, assuming Putin actually maintains enough influence to force compliance on his non-uniformed brigands in the Donbas who have been fighting an unofficial war there since 2014. (And that’s far from certain.) But a ceasefire with thousands of troops still camped out inside of Ukraine wouldn’t mean much when they can simply start shooting again the next day.

That brings us to the idea of withdrawal. But how much of a withdrawal would the west settle for and how much would the Madman of Moscow actually be willing to offer? If he pulled out of all of western Ukraine but simply moved all of his troops into the mythical “breakaway provinces” in the east, would that be good enough? He would still be partitioning the country and seizing more Ukrainian territory by force. It also would fit in with Russia’s recently announced “pivot” into the “next stage” of the invasion. It’s not much of a compromise if we simply let him take the disputed territories and create a heavily armed border there.

This once again brings us back to the question I raised when discussing more of Joe Biden’s overseas comments that had to be “clarified” by his staff. While it’s too soon to get our hopes up and we can’t predict the actions of a madman who has repeatedly proven to be a serial liar, world leaders are starting to show signs of believing that the end of the invasion of Ukraine may be in sight. But what happens then?

Getting back Crimea looks like a lost cause. The time to do that would have been in 2014 to 2015, but nobody lifted a finger to stop Russia then. Putin needs to fully pull out of the entire country, including the Donbas region. But even that’s not enough. How could any NATO leader look at themselves in the mirror if we simply ignored the ruined cities of Ukraine and the morgues that are overflowing with the bodies of civilians killed in this war? Russia should be made to pay reparations to the families of the victims and cover the infrastructure costs of rebuilding all of the damaged hospitals, schools, and other civilian buildings at a minimum. Everyone seems eager to find increasingly lavish ways to shower money on Ukraine, but expecting us to pay to clean up the mess Putin made is simply a bridge too far.

Sadly, given the messages that Putin is sending to his own people on Russian state news, it still seems inconceivable that he would agree to anything that he couldn’t spin as a win for his agenda. And anything that looks remotely like a win for Mad Vlad will be a very real loss for both Ukraine and NATO. How much crow are we expected to eat just to get Putin to halt an unjustified war that he and only he is responsible for?

Senile Biden IN ACTION!

MARCH 27, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:

CHAOS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

I wrote yesterday about Joe Biden’s Warsaw speech in which, at the end, he called for regime change in Russia: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” Predictably, that seemingly unscripted outburst has provoked a crisis in international relations. The Washington Post headlines: “How Biden sparked a global uproar with nine ad-libbed words about Putin.”

Because the WaPo story is behind a paywall, and because Ann Althouse’s comments on the incident and WaPo’s coverage are interesting, I am going to quote from Ann’s site, identifying the Post’s reporting (WP) and Althouse’s comments (AA) for clarity. The Post writes:

WP: It was a remarkable statement that would reverse stated U.S. policy, directly countering claims from senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who have insisted regime change is not on the table. It went further than even U.S. presidents during the Cold War, and immediately reverberated around the world as world leaders, diplomats, and foreign policy experts sought to determine what Biden said, what it meant — and, if he didn’t mean it, why he said it.

The Post assumes that Biden is a sentient being whose intentions are worth discussing. Many would think, on the contrary, that this kind of imprudent outburst is merely a symptom of his dementia.

Ann makes a comment that occurred to me as well:

AA: Watching the video, I can’t understand the basis for labeling the statement “ad-libbed.” Biden seems to be reading a speech, a bit robotically and on the edge of stumbling, and he slows down a bit and gets quite emphatic. He seems to build up toward that conclusion and fully intend it as a conclusion. I don’t see how it’s “an unwanted distraction to… otherwise forceful remarks.” It’s delivered in a manner that is more forceful than the surrounding remarks.

That is true. Is it possible that someone wrote a speech for Biden that included a significant change in American foreign policy, and he read it off the teleprompter? One of Ann’s commenters writes, “Release the teleprompter script!”

The WaPo story describes how both White House aides back in Washington and the reporters themselves scrambled to pick up after the president:

AA: Some White House official — who? — reacted almost immediately and tried to make it go away with an incredibly lame argument that Biden just meant that “Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region.”

So, the evidence that it was “ad-libbed” is merely that unnamed associates of the President are saying that after the fact. The WaPo writers assist the White House:

WP: Biden’s line was not planned and came as a surprise to U.S. officials, according to a person familiar with the speech who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation.

Sensitive indeed! Back to the Post, then Ann’s comments:

WP: In the immediate aftermath of the remark, reporters rushed to find Biden aides and seek clarity on the president seemingly supporting a regime change in Russia. But Biden aides demurred, refusing to comment as they scrambled to craft a response.

AA: Reporters rushed and aides scrambled. This sounds like a description of the in-person scene. One of the article-writers, Pager, was there in Warsaw. I presume he witnessed chaos. This next part sounds like it’s the scene back in Washington. The other article writer, Viser, reported from Washington.

WP: White House officials were adamant the remark was not a sign of a policy change, but they did concede it was just the latest example of Biden’s penchant for stumbling off message. And like many of his unintended comments, they came at the end of his speech as he ad-libbed and veered from the carefully crafted text on the teleprompter.

AA: Do you believe that? I don’t. There is mind-blowing incompetence whether it’s true or false. How can you have a United States President, giving the most high-profile speech on the most dire matter, and accept that he stumbles off message. It’s his penchant. They had a “carefully crafted text,” but he veered.

More at the link. Likely we will have more to say about this matter in the days to come, but for now I will just observe that we are paying the price of having a president and a White House that are utterly incompetent.

Her Majesty……CRIMINAL FOR YEARS!

How Hillary Clinton colluded with US intelligence

If you worry about democracy, worry about the fact that she almost became president anyway

March 24, 2022

hillary clinton

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Written by: Peter Van Buren at the Spectator:

Part I of this article demonstrated that a conspiracy to smear Donald Trump with false allegations of collusion with Russia took place, with Hillary Clinton at its head. This second part will show the FBI was an active participant in the conspiracy.

The FBI smoking gun has been hiding in plain sight. In June 2018 Inspector General for the Department of Justice Michael Horowitz released his report on the FBI’s Clinton email investigation, including FBI director James Comey’s drafting of a surprise press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even complete.

Horowitz found it “extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors… for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same.” Comey took it upon himself to exonerate Clinton at a politically crucial time, whitewashing her clear use of an unclassified server with classified material.

Related Stories

Horowitz also criticized Comey’s boss, attorney general Loretta Lynch, for meeting privately with Bill Clinton as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. “Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem was an error in judgment.” Lynch then doubled down, refusing to recuse herself from the Clinton case, creating “public confusion.”

The report also criticizes FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one exchange that read, “Page: ‘[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right?’ Strzok: ‘No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.’” Another Strzok document stated “we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least one secret message,” though that was never prosecuted. Strzok purposely allowed Clinton a pass on a criminal act.

Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton’s in-person interview in light of the fact that she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as “the President” and in a message told a friend “I’m with her.” The FBI also allowed Clinton’s lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to possible crimes committed by Clinton. Strzok purposely granted Clinton significant advantages to prevent her interview containing statements which could have been used against her, and to muddy the potential witness pool.

If that does not add up to a smoking gun that the FBI conspired pre-dossier to help Hillary Clinton, how about this?

Following Hillary’s exoneration over her emails and mishandling of classified information, the FBI launched its Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump-Russia, based in whole or large part on the infamous Christopher Steele dossier. The public now knows the dossier was paid for and stocked with falsehoods by the Clinton campaign. The unanswered questions from that investigation themselves comprise a second smoking gun of FBI conspiracy.

Why did the FBI not inquire into Steele’s sources and methods, which would have quickly revealed the information was wholly false? Why was the FBI unable to discover Steele (and later, Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, who gave false info to the FBI about Trump and Alfa Bank) were double agents working for and paid by the Clinton campaign?

When the FBI discovered that the target of its first FISA warrant out of the dossier, Carter Page, was actually a paid CIA asset, why did they hide this information from the FISA court instead of dropping Page? Why did this not cause them to question the credibility of Steele, a master spy who couldn’t identify that his source was actually a CIA asset? Steele claimed the Russians offered Page a comically huge bribe — billions of dollars — to end US sanctions if Trump became president. Page clearly could never have played a significant role in ending sanctions. Why did the FBI find those statements credible enough to pursue the warrant?

Why did the FBI cite an open-source press article by Michael Isikoff claiming Trump had Russian ties as part of its FISA warrant application against Page, without finding out who Isikoff’s source was? The source, of course, was Christopher Steele, who was interviewed in a hotel room booked by Fusion GPS, who was paid by Clinton. The FBI nonetheless claimed an article from Yahoo! corroborated the dossier, a citation unlikely to pass muster on an undergrad term paper. Were they really fooled?

Why did the FBI not discover the dossier’s false claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet with the Russians? Robert Mueller was able to conclusively dismiss it. Confirming Cohen in Prague would have been a cornerstone of the FBI’s larger case, but the matter was left open until Mueller.

Why did the FBI not question Sussmann about the source of his DNS data, some of which came directly from inside the White House? Why would a private citizen have such information? Did the FBI know Sussmann had previously represented the DNC when its server was hacked — an obvious bias?

When Sussmann, claiming to be a concerned citizen with White House DNS data, first approached the FBI, why was he assigned to meet with the FBI’s general counsel, its lawyer, and not a case agent? Was something other than his information, possibly FBI collusion with fraud, being validated?

Why was the CIA investigation referral saying Hillary was behind Russiagate ignored by the FBI? The memo was addressed to director James Comey, who claimed he had no knowledge of it, and Peter Strzok, who should have been the action officer but did nothing.

Why did Kevin Brock, the FBI’s former intelligence chief, say “The fact pattern that John Durham is methodically establishing shows what James Comey and Andrew McCabe likely knew from day one, that the Steele dossier was politically-driven nonsense created at the behest of the Clinton campaign. And yet they knowingly ran with its false information”?

Despite the investigation being run by the FBI, why was it CIA director John Brennan who briefed Obama on the Hillary connection in July 2016 and not Comey?

If any of those questions seem rather obvious, that is the point. The cover stories only had to hold long enough to infect the media, sufficient to make denials seem plausible for the FBI. Clinton and her co-conspirators were so certain they would win the election that they felt none of their tricks needed to stay hidden much past victory.

At this point you can believe the multiple ops paid for and run by Clinton people were uncoordinated events, or that they were part of the broad campaign Hillary was an active participant in, and about which John Brennan warned Barack Obama, and which the CIA warned the FBI, not knowing they were in on it. You can believe the FBI acted incompetently and unprofessionally (yet consistently, no breaks went Trump’s way), or as part of a conspiracy.

What you cannot do any more is pretend this did not happen, and that the person most involved came close to being elected president because of it. If you worry about democracy, worry about that.

By Peter Van Buren

Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi PeopleHooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent.

When Beauty And God Existed IN THE WORLD!

Today’s disappearance of Our God…..Why? Why has the great beauty of our religious past disappeared in our once Beautiful America? That BEAUTY OF MY CHILDHOOD NEARLY A CENTURY AGO WHEN MOTHERS OF OUR CHILDREN EXISTED, NEIGHBORS WERE CIVIL AND KIND, AND WHEN CHILDREN WERE TAUGHT TO BE GODFEARING, LOVING, CIVIL, POLITE, AND SUNDAYS WERE CLOSED FOR MOST BUSINESSES.

THE FAMILY WAS HONORED THEN…..BOTH IN CITIES, SMALL TOWNS, AND ON THE FARMS……WHEN AMERICANS USED TO OWN THEIR FARMS.

TODAY’S AMERICA IS GODLESS. TODAY’S AMERICA IS GREEDY IN ONE CROWD AND VILE IN ANOTHER.

TODAY’S AMERICA IS JOE BIDEN AMERICA…..A SWINDLE HERE, A SWINDLE THERE, AND EVIL FOR SOUL.

THE HUMAN BEING IS DYING AS A HUMAN, FOR ITS GOD HAS BEEN MADE TO DISAPPEAR!

TODAY’S BIDEN AMERICA ANIMAL SELLS THE HUMAN WITHOUT A SOUL, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE, WITHOUT GOODNESS, WITHOUT OUR HUMAN GOD!

The Composer of “THE MESSIAH”, WAS GERMAN WHO SPENT HIS PROFESSIONAL LIFE IN ENGLAND:

GEORGE FRIDERIC HANDEL, BORN 1685, DIED 1759…..

What Should Dennis Mark Prager AND DONALD J. TRUMP Do In The Year Of OUR LORD, 2024AD, TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP SHOULD COMPETE FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA……THE OFFICE HE GOT SCREWED BY DEM FASCISTS AND REPUBLICAN MORONS IN AD2020!

DENNIS MARK PRAGER SHOULD BECOME VICE PRESIDENT TO DONALD J. TRUMP AND OUR BELOVED AMERICA…..TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

These two Americans have been on my “love America” agenda for decades…..Donald Trump, whom I “met” 30 or more years ago watching on a rainy day Saturday a two-hour television session. Young Mr. Trump was alone discussing matters of life personally displaying his intelligence, purpose, and abilities during the program by habit. Later, when alone, the television host mentioned the suicide of Donald’s older brother via alcoholism. The event was a horror to Donald….and the reason why HE REFUSED TO TOUCH ALCOHOL.

I had taught high school students for twelve years, Russian, the language, and “Modern Problems” for Senior Social Studies. I enjoyed my students! THEY LISTENED WELL, AND ASKED QUESTIONS! It wasn’t unusual for me to respect folks who have recovered from horrors, usually among neighbors and family.

Only a today’s DEM MORON, of which there have been many at the national level led by corruption, a President called Joe Biden, and followed by goofy Veep, named Kamala Harris who becomes President in case something goes wrong with “him”….until the end of the year 2024.

WHO WOULD BE THE BEST AMERICAN OF TODAY….A TEACHER-LIKE ADULT AMERICAN WHO REALLY LOVES HIS COUNTRY BESIDES PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO HAS BEEN PREACHING WONDERFUL, TRADITIONAL AMERICANA FOR YEARS AND, TELLING THE TRUTH…..THE BEST TRUTH THAT CAN BE HEARD TODAY AND TOLD IN OUR ONCE BELOVED CIVIL AMERICA FROM COAST TO COAST!

DENNIS MARK PRAGER!

YES, A RADIO MAN OF YESTERDAY’S INSTRUMENT…..AND A GREAT SUCCESS PREACHING CIVIL AMERICAN AND ITS TROUBLES FOR YEARS….

I HAPPEN TO KNOW THIS DENNIS PRAGER…..I FIRST MET HIM AT THE AUGUST 2004 YEAR MINNESOTA STATE FAIR LISTENING TO HIS HOURS OF PREACHING AMERICA AS IS AND COULD BE….ITS BEAUTY AND ITS DISORDER…..AS A CONSERVATIVE. HE WAS WELL EDUCATED!

THE BEST OF HIS TALENT….IS TELLING THE TRUTH AND KNOWING HOW TO TEACH IT…..!

DEAR FRIENDS WHO KNOW OUR DENNIS….YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT A WONDERFUL AMERICAN PRESIDENT OUR DONALD WAS…..PLEASE BEGIN YOUR PRESSURE LEVEL ASAP.

AMERICA NEEDS AMERICA AGAIN!!! ITS SCHOOLS ARE IGNORANT AND FASCISTIC. ITS FAMILIES HAVE DISAPPEARED. ITS MOTHERS HAVE ALSO DISAPPEARED AS WELL AS TRUTH IN THE GOINGS ON IN OUR AMERICA FOR THE PAST GENERATION AMONG THE GREEDY WEALTHY!

WAKE UP, AMERICA!

“BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC”

Let us Pray for OUR AMERICAN FUTURE!