• 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

Minnesota’s DFL Party = Democrat Fascistics in Labor!!!


by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

Minnesota Rep-elect Ilhan Omar presents as a case study in the way the Democrats hate now. I have pursued the case study for Power Line readers in numerous posts as well as for Weekly Standard readers in “The anti-Israel seat” and City Journal readers in “A question for Democrats.” I wrote all the most prominent Minnesota Democrats I could think of for their comment on the Omar case. To a man and woman, they all rested on their right to remain silent.

David Harsanyi took up Omar’s case this week in the New York Post column “Here’s the anti-Semitism the media doesn’t want to mention.” Citing Power Line, he has now followed up his New York Post column with the Federalist column “Ilhan Omar’s Election Shows Democrats Aren’t Interested In Confronting Anti-Semitism.” Indeed, from Omar’s case we may infer that Democrats are becoming purveyors of anti-Semitism.

Mark Levin read Harsanyi’s Federalist column on his radio show this past Wednesday (audio below at about 1:21:00). He takes us on an entertaining and informative ride getting there. I thought Power Line readers might find it of interest.



Of Course Patriots are Nationalists, NOT Saboteurs!

Trump’s a Nationalist. That’s What All Presidents Should Be!

By Frank Hawkins at American Thinker


Thomas Friedman is a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner with a distinguished career as columnist, reporter, author and TV host. I have admired him and his work for as long as he has been visible. I’ve never met him but our careers overlapped in London and we both spent time in Beirut.

Recently he wrote a column called, “George Washington for President.” The subtitle was, “Patriots put love of their own people first, while nationalists put hate for other people first.”  This came right after President Trump proclaimed himself to be a nationalist.

Friedman really teed off on the president, calling him a disturbed man whose job description – to be a healer of the country in times of great national hurt and to pull us together to do big hard things that can only be done together – conflicts with his political strategy, which is to divide us and mobilize his base with anger and fear.



With that, my admiration for Friedman took a deep dive. I had to ask myself: is this the comment of a rational or even sane person?  Here’s my problem with Mr. Friedman. He managed to avoid the real situation and in fact spun diametrically away from the real story of Donald Trump and those who would destroy him.

Oh, Friedman also said, “Our country is in danger.”  Well, at least we agree on that sound bite.

In recent times, trying to play the role of healer and unifier has been a weakness for Republicans, such as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. They and others, including  Reagan and even McCain, tried to various degrees to act as healers and unifiers. But the other side had no intention of letting them get away with that.

These Republican presidents and candidates let themselves be turned into punching bags taking the crap thrown at them while trying to be perceived as “presidential” by remaining above it all.  Remember, “Bush lied, people died!”?  Remember the full pass McCain and Romney both gave Obama on so many critical issues including his relationships with Frank Marshall Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, George Soros, Sayed Hassan AlQazwini and others?

Now, the liberals and progressives are outraged that President Trump refuses to play traditional Republican, that is, refuses to play patsy. Their heads have been exploding over it. Listen to the late night talk show crowd, left wing Hollywood types, the pussy hat crowd, crazy Democrat politicians, Antifa mobs and other radical groups funded by George Soros. Tell me Tom, who is really blasting away with anger and fear?

And since November of 2016, it’s been going on non-stop day and night on a daily basis.  And then there’s the media itself, the big three broadcast networks, CNN and MSNBC. On these networks, Trump has been called a “white supremacist,” a “Nazi,” a “virus,” “unfit to be human,” a “bigot” and other lovely terms. Tom, talk about dividing the country! Hint: It ain’t Trump.

This is what Friedman is not discussing or dealing with.  The abuse and hatred aimed at Trump, starting the moment of his inauguration, has been unprecedented.   It explains perfectly why the role of healer has not only been not possible, but not appropriate.

It’s the same reason Israel has not been able to make peace with the Muslim Arabs. Much of the other side doesn’t want peace except 100% on their terms.

We are in a low-grade civil war.  These are the people who intimidated and basically destroyed the reputation and presidency of George W. Bush (who, regardless of what you thought of his politics was one of the most decent men to ever be president). He was totally disrespected and made to look weak. It set the stage for Obama.

This is why we love Trump. He is our Netanyahu. Yes, it’s a terrible time. The opportunity for healing at present is minimal. If Trump doesn’t fight to protect America from these people, our country will irreversibly slip into socialism or worse and will be totally taken over by the Antifa thugs, the leftist academics who have already shut down free speech in our universities, the progressives who are demanding open borders, the left wing media that has become a cheering squad for the Democrat Party, the Democrat election fraud ballot stuffers,  anti-Semites, and the likes of Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Keith Ellison, Linda Sarsour, Louis Farrakhan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and the rest of them. Somehow Friedman didn’t get around to mentioning all of this. Maybe there wasn’t enough space.

The Trump now infamous press conference last Wednesday with Jim Acosta was highly revealing. For those who didn’t watch it, all you probably know about it is that Trump got into a shouting match with the great grandstander CNN reporter Jim Acosta, who was subsequently barred from the White House. That sucked all the oxygen out of the story. So of course what Trump really said was ignored.

But did Friedman or any of Trump’s detractors pay any attention to Trump’s important comments?  The President made a number of conciliatory statements during the press conference that any fair person would say were attempts at unifying the country.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  And I give her a lot of credit.  She works very hard, and she’s worked long and hard.  I give her a great deal of credit for what she’s done and what she’s accomplished. Hopefully, we can all work together next year to continue delivering for the American people, including on economic growth, infrastructure, trade, lowering the cost of prescription drugs.  These are some of things that the Democrats do want to work on, and I really believe we’ll be able to do that.  I think we’re going to have a lot of reason to do it.”

Trump went on to say,

“I really think, and I really respected what Nancy said last night about bipartisanship and getting together and uniting.  She used the word “uniting” and she used the word the bipartisanship statement, which is so important because that’s what we should be doing.”

And then this,

“Now is the time for members of both parties to join together, put partisanship aside, and keep the American economic miracle going strong.  It is a miracle.  We’re doing so well.  And I’ve said it at a lot of rallies.  Some of you have probably heard it so much you don’t want to hear it again.  But when people come to my office — presidents, prime ministers — they all congratulate me, almost the first thing, on what we’ve done economically.  Because it is really amazing.”

I haven’t been able to comb through all of the reporting on the press conference, but my guess is none of the MSM headlined or even reported this huge olive branch that Trump threw out. Certainly CNN didn’t. The event was overshadowed by Acosta and another reporter who tried to bait the President with a white nationalist comment. Trump aggressively and appropriately pushed back.

 “Hi, Mr. President.  Yamiche Alcindor with PBS NewsHour.  On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist.  Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists.  Now people are also saying . . . .

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know why you’d say that.  That’s such a racist question.

Q:   There are some people that say that now the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric.  What do you make of that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I don’t believe that . . . . . Why do I have my highest poll numbers ever with African Americans?  . . . That’s such a racist question.”

Trump was understandably insulted by the question and said so. This is what people like this woman and Friedman refuse to understand about Trump. In fact, they don’t want to understand him. They hate him so badly, they can’t do their jobs. Or, in some cases, hate has become their job.

I believe Trump tends to see Americans as just Americans regardless of sex, color, gender or any other inherited characteristic. He doesn’t play the identity politics game that the left thrives on. Friedman quoted Charles de Gaulle as saying, Nationalists put hate for other people first.” Trump’s answer: “I love my country.”

That’s what they don’t want to hear. That’s the Trump message they want to bury. Yes, there are white nationalists. Our country also has more than its share of communists, socialists, progressives and anarchists. But just as all left-wingers don’t fit into those categories,  it’s unfair and outrageous to stick Trump and other nationalists with the label of white nationalist.

For America, Trump is the right man for the times we are in. He’s a fighter and a brawler. He has been belligerent and rude and, at times, even over the top. But any fair-minded person can see this is what Trump has been faced with from the beginning. Trump is both a patriot and a nationalist who puts America and Americans first. He clearly loves our country and wants to see it succeed.. That’s been apparent in all the interviews he has given over the years. But he will not be bullied by these people. That’s what Friedman doesn’t seem to comprehend or want to talk about.

Frank Hawkins is a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, Associated Press foreign correspondent, international businessman, senior newspaper company executive, founder and owner of several marketing companies and published novelist.  He currently lives in retirement in North Carolina.


Note:  In TRUTH,  Tom Friedman is a spoiled, greedy, bigoted  lefty Jewish climber guy from St. Louis Park , Minnesota seeking popularity, a drive of serious popular consequence in our nation’s leftist bondings!   THAT IS A TRUTH IN THIS MATTER!   Yet, lefty fascists will not allow this TRUTH to be told, because  Friedman’s UNTRUTHS, in this case about the President are good for lefty political souls, if they have any souls, which are needed to gain total  control over the nation’s abilities to communicate Truth to its public….an old fascistic  Soviet Communist trick!  (I’ve been there folks….twice, speaking Russian all the time.)

It is likely by uttering the above truths,  fascistic lefty Google will make this article disappear…..and eventually of us JudeoChristian conservative writers and readers too,  if you know anything about the censor googles of life past!  ghr

New York’s Senator “Sillybrand” Attempts Thinking about A Presidential Run in 2020!

We certainly all most know there are more ditsy chicks in Congress than ever before.   The human female animal is born ditsy.   They used to be devoted to bearing children, their primary function to secure a future for the species.

Today, she goes to college where she learns how to weep, think, and strike leftishly as a New Woman must to spread her noise.   To Hell with family.  She has Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Pocahantas as her primary mentors as goddesses.

Leftist emotion is her primary tenet,  security  her primary comfort, jealousy her primary foil…..and then there is this “Sillybrand” Gillibrand of New York:

Feelings, not problem solving, run the feminist show, yesterday, today, and likely forever!

Gillibrand Two Weeks Ago: I Will Serve My Full Senate Term. Gillibrand Today: I’m Thinking About A Presidential Run.

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

I know Jazz has written about this (more than once, actually) but I can’t get over it. The sheer pettiness of the lie flabbergasts me. Gillibrand, October 25:

SEE ALSO: Did San Francisco pass a tax to raise money for the homeless? The answer is yes and also maybe

She won by 33 points. Eighteen days later:

I’m wrestling with my own anti-Gillibrand bias in trying to decide how much to fault her for this. Does it bug me so much because I already didn’t like her, seeing her as an unusually cynical, weaselly politician even by Washington standards, or does it bug me because it really is an unusually brazen lie even by the usual “I’m not running for president” standards? It’s not like she’s the first pol to have a change of heart about running for the White House. The day after he was elected to the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama all but ruled out running for president in 2008. He reconsidered. Voters forgave him. They know how this game is played.

In Gillibrand’s case, though, the question is this: Why even bother to play? If she were running in a purple state, with a two-point lead, admitting to presidential ambitions during a Senate debate might have been enough to sink her. Swing voters would calculate that they were better off with the candidate whom they knew would hold the office for all six years; a bald-faced lie about serving out a full term would at least be understandable under those circumstances, if not honorable. But Gillibrand was always going to win in deep-blue New York, and win big. Other 2020 hopefuls in the same position were candid about their ambitions: When Bernie Sanders was asked last month if he’d serve his full six years if reelected to the Senate, he declined to promise to do so.

“Right now, my focus is on the year 2018, but if you’re asking me to make an absolute pledge as to whether I’ll be running for president or not, I’m not going to make that pledge. The simple truth is I have not made that decision. But I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I may not run. I may. But on the other hand, I may not,” he said at a forum Monday night in Vermont.

He won by 40 points. There’s no need to lie when you’re headed for a landslide. Voters are big boys and girls about these things. And the weirdest part with Gillibrand is that her intentions haven’t been a secret. She’s been positioning to run for president for a year at least. As noted in the first clip, she didn’t spend money on her Senate race this year because she obviously has another purpose for her war chest in mind. So why didn’t she just give the Bernie answer at the debate? “I’m not thinking about 2020, I’m thinking about what New Yorkers need right now,” yadda yadda. Her promise to serve her full term made news precisely because it was such an obvious lie, which makes it a form of political malpractice, however minor. Takeaway: Gillibrand will lie straight to your face, even when you both know she’s lying, even when she doesn’t need to. You can’t trust her. If the previous 40 illustrations of that weren’t enough to convince you, maybe the 41st will.

I think she’ll end up keeping her promise. With 32 candidates for Democrats to choose from, it’s unimaginable that she won’t get trounced in the primaries.

Compiled a list of the at least 32 potential and/or likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. This is going to be a full-on three ring circus


What IS the Primary NEGATIVE Trait the Female Homo Sapiens Brings to the Human Evil Table of Life?

Until the late 1960s it is unlikely any native born American would have ever thought about such a ridiculous purposeless question!  Our United States was still a JudeoChristian nation.   LSD was thought a misspelling for the Mormon initial, LDS, LATTER DAY SAINTS.   Cannabis was a weed in an empty urban lot with a funny smell if stood upon.

Today is 2018 and Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Schumer time, their Lefty Socialist Democrat  days,  when their fascistics strive to govern, own the American show, its  press, its communications, education,  political climate, and the world’s Big Business!

Since these 1960s Americans have been informed there is no God, “goodness” is a matter of leftist opinion, drugs are a thrill, and “I do as I feel” if one is “forever” under 40 years of age.

“White man is evil”….we are told by Dem-lefties, especially  their fems at school, college, television and movie stars and lefty females  of  all sexes from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the Hawaiian Islands.   (I’m not sure this Lefty Commandment of the Stars  has, as yet, reached Guam.)

I learned the Truth decades ago when Truth was still sought at college and school, that the human male animal is born a killer, a trait necessary for the survival of the species.  The second world war was my teacher.   I never forgot Winston Churchill’s quip….”The most exhilarating experience in Life IS TO BE SHOT AT………and to have been missed!”

I actually joined the US Army with wondering what I would do in such a circumstance!

The human male animal  is born to be curious, to build, explore, problem solve, to defend and to KILL to survive, feed, and  protect his flesh and blood, his family, himself,  if needed….I learned….a human male proclivity designed by his MAKER millions of years ago!

The human female animal is rarely a killer when compared to her male beings.   Despite today’s feminized military propaganda, she is not a killer anywhere equal to her sexual competitor.

WHAT THEN, IS THE HUMAN FEMALE’S MOST POWERFUL PROBLEM  TRAIT FROM BIRTH she carries through life  if it isn’t  violence or worse, murder?

The thoughtless reader (usually a female) usually  becomes offended by the very question.   In my lifetime…now at 84 years…..the human female was to be  idealized according the our JudeoChristian theology.

In the 1960s   the American college “she” found herself  whoring around   public parks and offices    to  show off her  power and drive for individual freedom…..the beginning of today’s feminized rebels for superiority!

She is born ditzy,  moody,   governed, directed by feelings yearning for comfort and understanding rather than problem solve.

Seeking Truth is not a primary drive of the human female masses where ever they roam.    Motherhood used to be at the center of their realm.   It still is in many nonAmerican cultures.    Today America’s fems are Democrats!

Why should fems care about Truth?….Hillary never did!




Fascistics Klobuchar, Ellison, Omar, Strib, Cannabis Win In Minnesota


by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

In Minnesota Republicans experienced electoral disaster that verges on disgrace if it doesn’t get there. We lost both Senate races by wide margins. We lost the governor’s race by a wide margin. Indeed, we lost every constitutional office. We even elected former hate cult and longtime supporter of cop killers Keith Ellison over Republican Doug Wardlow in the contest for attorney general. Ellison was assisted by the fact that his disgraceful views were held in confidence by the reporters at the Star Tribune. Ellison’s 4-point margin over Wardlow, however, made for the narrowest statewide win last night.

I should add that Green Party and Legal Marijuana Now/Grassroots Cannabis candidates siphoned votes from Democrats in several of these races. The performance of Republicans statewide last night was pathetic. They were outspent and outgunned. If Republican insiders seriously thought that Karin Housley posed a substantial threat to the vacuous Tina Smith, they might be ripe for the plucking by the Legal Marijuana Now crowd. Soul-searching is always in order, but in this case it is mandatory.

Republicans held the state senate by virtue of their success in a special election for one open senate district, but they lost their majority in the state house.

Democrats Angie Craig and Dean Phillips (my cousin) knocked off incumbent Republicans Jason Lewis and Erik Paulsen in Minnesota’s Second and Third Congressional Districts, respectively, but their victories may have been offset by the possible victory of Jim Hagedorn (he leads by 1500 votes with 15 precincts yet to be counted) and the certain victory of Pete Stauber in the First and Eighth Districts, respectively.

Oh, and Ilhan Omar “made history” by her election to succeed Ellison representing Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District (Minneapolis and inner-ring suburbs). I previewed the race in this Weekly Standard article published just after the special DFL Fifth District endorsing convention this past June. According to the Star Tribune, Omar “made history” by becoming the first Somali-American elected to Congress. I say she made history by becoming the first person elected to Congress after marrying her brother.



Where Does All That Dem Money Come From?

Democratic Attacks: Who’s Paying?

by Steve Feinstein  at  American Thinker


One thing is for sure: the Democrats never give up trying to pull fast ones on their Republican opponents and force them to defend and explain things the Republicans never in a million years thought they’d have to defend and explain.  Recent political history abounds with incidences of political attacks intended to blindside the Republicans, force them off their game, pull them far off message, and generally reset the daily political narrative to language the Democrats prefer.  That these attacks are almost always spectacularly unsuccessful doesn’t dissuade the Democrats from trying again and again.

A notable recent Democratic attempt was Dianne Feinstein’s astonishing 11th-hour, 59th-minute ambush of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh with the totally unsubstantiated, embarrassingly vague “charges” of supposed sexual misconduct some unspecified number of years ago by Kavanaugh against one Christine Blasey Ford.  The whole episode was laughable on its face from a legal standpoint: if you gave a Democratic defense lawyer a case in which the accuser couldn’t identify the time or location when and where the incident allegedly took place, couldn’t produce any corroborating witnesses, and demonstrably had lied in her basic story (Ford said she was afraid to fly yet had provably flown on multiple occasions for both personal and professional reasons), the defense lawyer would not merely be giddy with how easily the case could be won with “reasonable doubt,” but would likely go to the judge and ask that the case be dismissed entirely for lack of evidence.  No doubt, the request would be granted.  It was and remains a ludicrous, transparent political ploy of the lowest kind.

The real question is, how did the Ford fandango come to be?  Who put her up to it?  Who paid for the political digging and research?  Who paid for the logistical expenses – the travel involved in cultivating her as a witness, the legal preparations, the food and lodging accrued by everyone during the process?  Are we to believe that Ford came forward totally voluntarily by herself and then funded her own expenses throughout the ordeal?  Did Feinstein’s office pay for everything?  Or did some outside entity concoct the entire thing, find an acceptable accuser with a plausible and suitably unverifiable story, and fund the entire operation behind several layers of completely untraceable money?  It’s incredible that no one is asking.

Similarly, the Honduran caravan seems just too convenient and perfectly timed to be a coincidence, doesn’t it?  All of a sudden, 10,000-plus politically oppressed people just absolutely have to make their way to the U.S. border, right now, just as the midterm elections are upon us.  The Democrats once again have brought forth one of their favored issues: Republican hardheartedness, coldly turning away pregnant women and helpless, undernourished children from a better life in America.  Well, that just isn’t who America is, is it?  Where is the Republicans’ soul?  Where is their basic human decency?  Formal laws can come later.  Court appearances can come later.  Right now, this very moment, it’s time for compassion, generosity, and human kindness.  Just let them in, and everything will get sorted out in due course.  That’s what the Democrats are banking on – that voters will reject the Republicans because of their total lack of basic humanity.  The fact that the general public isn’t buying the Democrats’ message of “The Republicans caused the caravan in the first place with their unwarranted meddling in these countries’ affairs” hasn’t stopped the Democrats from trying to foist it on the public.

The question that seems obvious is, how did this caravan come to be?  Why now?  How do they eat, and who provides for their basic sanitary, transportation, and shelter needs along the path of their valiant, arduous journey?  It’s a long trek.  It ain’t free.  Who’s paying?  Who’s the organizer?  After this particular issue is resolved – one way or the other – there will be another.  The Democrats always try to create a “Republicans are heartless” issue.

And of course, there’s the big one: the whole Russia collusion thing.  There was the dossier paid for by Fusion GPS, for starters.  Where did that money come from?  Was that money backed by the Clintons? Did the funding actually come from shadow money collected by the charitable Clinton Foundation?  If the Democrats spied on and wiretapped the Trump campaign prior to the 2016 election (as appears virtually certain to all but the most vociferous, dishonest deniers and the hopelessly naïve believers), who organized and funded that operation?  It was no easy, one-time task.  To actually spy on and surreptitiously record detailed private conversations is a technically complicated exercise, requiring cutting-edge technology and sensitive inner contacts.  Both of those are expensive propositions.  It can be safely assumed that the requisite monies to fund such an operation are not traceable to the Obama White House, or even obviously to the Clintons.  Then who? How?  By what actual device was it paid for and executed?  Like the Honduran caravan, the wiretapping of candidate Trump and the framing of Carter Page weren’t free, and they weren’t coincidental happenstance occurrences.  They were planned and paid for.  After all this time, expense, and effort, the broad public realizes that there is no “there” there, no so-called collusion, nothing with which to pin blame on Trump and delegitimize his triumph over the increasingly pathetic Hillary Clinton.

All of this frenzied activity by the Democrats to distort the national political dialogue, of course, flies in the face of real Trump-Republican accomplishments – accomplishments that have made the lives of real Americans better on a day-to-day basis.  In eight years of the Obama administration, the Democrats couldn’t do for the American people what President Trump has done in less than two years:

  • GDP growth of 4.2% in Q2 2018, on track for over 3% for calendar 2018.  Obama’s average was 1.8% for his term in office.
  • Black unemployment at an all-time low.  All-time.
  • Hispanic unemployment at an all-time low.  All-time.
  • Persuaded NATO countries to finally step up and pay their share.
  • Withdrew from pointless, job-killing Paris Climate Accords.
  • Restructured NAFTA to benefit American workers.
  • Rebuilding and modernizing American military to better meet our national security needs.

There are countless additional accomplishments by Trump that have tangibly improved the quality of daily life in America.  However, the Obama administration was more interested in imposing their ideological imprint on American society and the economy than they were in actually increasing GDP, median household income or reducing unemployment.  The ultimate maximization of economic, energy and foreign policy factors was never their primary aim. Obama’s main goal was – and the Democrats’ remains – to identify victim groups (real or imagined) and then fabricate government programs to rescue those groups for the purpose of winning votes.  All the Democrats actually want to do is to keep the GDP, household income, unemployment and foreign affairs in good enough shape so as not to become issues in and of themselves.

In order to accomplish this, the Democrats must keep the national conversation away from easily understood, instantly recognizable things like unemployment, national security, and household income.  Voters like it when those things are good, the way they are now.

So Democrats go to great lengths to divert the voters’ attention and shift the conversation, à la the Honduran caravan, the Kavanaugh confirmation process, and the Russian collusion investigation.  There are more Democrat-created diversions to come.  It’s a never-ending integral component of modern-day Democratic political strategy.  The actual success of these hijinks is extremely questionable, and the non-partisan segment of the voting pool is rapidly catching on and discounting them as so much white noise, to be totally disregarded at best or accruing to the Democrats’ detriment at worst.

Nonetheless, the Democrats keep trying, successful or not.  The question remains: who is paying for these?  Someone is.  Will we ever know?




A Glenza Drift of Arrogance, Ignorance, and Prejudice!


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Since becoming President of Minnesota’s public policy organization, Center of the American Experiment, at the beginning of 2016, I have gotten a new perspective on media bias and ineptitude. I have always thought those problems were bad. Now I think they are worse. Take a look at the email that I received this morning from Jessica Glenza, a reporter for the Guardian US. Its subject is an “URGENT Press Inquiry.” Ms. Glenza’s email drips with arrogance, ignorance and prejudice:

Dear Sir:

My name is Jessica Glenza. I am a health reporter for the Guardian US, based in New York.

I am writing because the Guardian is conducting a wide-scale investigation on the tobacco policy positions of Atlas Network and associated thinktanks. This thinktank was identified by Atlas Network as an affiliate, and identified by The Guardian as taking positions on tobacco policies.

There is a significant body of evidence which demonstrates the following:

* Smoking kills more than 7 million people each year, according to the World Health Organization. That total is expected to rise to 8 million by 2030, without action to control tobacco use, the WHO has said.

* Tobacco taxation is “widely recognized as the most effective way to reduce smoking rates”, according to the National Health Service. However, the policy is often ineffective, NHS said, because the approach is “open to industry circumvention”. This view is shared by the World Health Organization, World Bank and US Surgeon General.

* According to the WHO, “a large body of empirical evidence” has shown that plain packaging reduces the attractiveness of tobacco, eliminates packs as a form of advertising, and encourages smokers to quit.

* Smoking also harms non-smokers, as secondhand smoke causes thousands of lung cancer and heart disease deaths per year in the United States alone, according to the WHO.

Our research demonstrates more than 100 Atlas Network affiliated organizations have taken positions against tobacco control, principally tobacco taxation, plain packaging and clean indoor air laws. In addition to this, our findings also indicate more than 50 Atlas Network affiliated thinktanks have accepted donations from the tobacco industry, most often while arguing against tobacco controls. Transparency experts have told The Guardian this causes the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially when donors are not disclosed.

To that end, we have the following information and questions specifically about your organisation:

* The Center of the American Experiment accepted donations from Altria, parent company of Philip Morris USA, in 2013, 2014 and 2016, according to disclosures by Altria. Can you comment?

* Has the Center of the American Experiment accepted donations from transnational tobacco companies, such as British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International or Japan Tobacco, in the last 10 years?

* Our reporting shows the Center of the American Experiment opposed measures that would tax cigarettes. At the same time, the group accepted donations from Altria, according to disclosures by the tobacco company. Can you comment?

* In commentary, the Center of the American Experiment did not reference the large body of evidence, often cited by the World Bank or World Health Organization, which ties smuggling rates to weak governance and corruption. Instead, the Center of the American Experiment tied smuggling to taxes. Why did the Center of the American Experiment choose not to include this large body of evidence in its analyses?

* The Center of the American Experiment was among dozens of Atlas Network thinktanks which received funding from the tobacco industry and opposed tobacco taxation. What is the Center of the American Experiment response to these findings?

* Economists and public health authorities have told the Guardian the actions of Center for the American Experiment and other Atlas affiliates, taken together, represent an influential global network which benefits the tobacco industry by arguing against control policies. They say such actions, by undermining controls, can cause real public health harms. Can you comment?

I believe these are matters that it is in the public interest to investigate with a view to publication. I only intend to publish information where I believe there is a legitimate public interest in doing so.

If I do not hear from you by 9am ET Thursday 1 Nov (preferably by email to jg.reply@theguardian.com), I shall proceed on the basis that you do not wish to comment on or amend my information.

I hope you will take this opportunity to respond if you wish. Your substantive responses to each of the above matters will be carefully considered and published if appropriate.

(For the avoidance of doubt, we do not normally regard any generalised assertion of “inaccuracies” as a substantive response; nor any generalised statement that you acted on advice. Neither will we regard as substantive any comment that only refers to the present state of affairs and not to the past.)

I am, of course, happy to discuss directly any concerns you may have.

I would be most grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter. This will save me from chasing.

Thanks very much,
Jessica Glenza

Is this a “journalist” with an agenda? You be the judge. Rather than comment on Ms. Glenza’s email, I will simply reproduce my response to her:

Ms. Glenza, you seem to be under the impression that our organization is in favor of smoking. We are not.

You do not appear to have much familiarity with our work, if any. We have argued against regressive taxation, and tobacco taxes are regressive. We have pointed out that unusually high tobacco taxes in a state like Minnesota hurt merchants, especially gas stations and convenience stores, located near the state’s borders where customers can easily take their business to neighboring states with lower tobacco prices. And we have noted that Minnesota’s tobacco tax is poor public policy because it features an automatic increase that excuses legislators from having to review the impact of the tax on smoking and the businesses that sell tobacco products.

We also have argued that our state’s unusually high tobacco taxes create opportunities for smuggling cigarettes from states with lower taxes, thereby introducing an organized crime element into Minnesota. A Tax Foundation report found that cigarette smuggling is a serious problem in Minnesota, with more than one-third of all cigarettes smoked in Minnesota being trafficked into the state from lower-tax jurisdictions. Your email suggests that you are not well-informed about these issues. Is it your position that the smuggling of enormous quantities of cigarettes into Minnesota results from Minnesota’s “weak governance and corruption”? That is a novel theory that I have never heard expressed before.

I do not believe the Center has done any work on tobacco taxation in the last several years.

You mention the Atlas Network. I do not recall having heard of the Atlas Network, and don’t know anything about it.

You seem to be interested in our organization’s donors. The overwhelming majority of American Experiment’s financial support comes from thousands of individual Minnesotans who share our goal of making Minnesota a better place. Like all 501 (c)(3) non-profits, we do not disclose information about our donors. However, since you say you have already reviewed Altria’s disclosures of its extremely modest contributions to the Center, I will add that in the last three years, donations from Altria have represented nowhere near one tenth of one percent of our organization’s revenue.

I have never had a high opinion of the quality or integrity of the Guardian’s reporting. I must say that your email, which displays both extreme bias and a striking lack of knowledge or understanding, has done nothing to enhance my opinion of the Guardian.

John Hinderaker
Center of the American Experiment

Not all reporters are biased and incompetent, but an extraordinary number are. And, somehow, their bias pretty much always tilts to the left.



Comment:  I am guessing Glenza is a name for a current female in our year AD2018.

The human female by nature is not particularly devoted to Truth.  She is born to be leftist  for security’s  sake to produce and early train the species offspring,   her principal charge in life.

Generally she CAN  be truthful when in the mood, or is grown conservative and Godfearing,  but feelings are her major   drive of her day.  She wasn’t  born driven by Nature’s God to problem solve, to invent, explore, be curious, build, hunt defend,   neither in yesteryear or in these days of unisexism and fascism popularity  driven by Hillary and Obama folk in politics, at feminized university, and at CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and such at the New York Times and Washington Post. (ghr)