• 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

Could Not Have Happened to a Better Bunch of Guys!

The Minnesota Vikings are a team most disliked by the National Football League.   The league is an eastern state Turkey Fest based upon money making.   Money is where the NFC East exists…..New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Dallas Cowboys,  and Washington Redskins are all the most favored….

But a second group of favored DOES exist……the AFC East where the New England Patriots, Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, and the New York Jets…..again heavily favored at National Football League Headquarters.

Both of these  National Football League groups are overwhelmingly favored by the league’s money  gurus to be advertised and displayed on game day television and review of games played thereafter.    Reffing at post season games tends to favor both the big money maker urban community teams as well.    Take a look at the reffing ruffing up of Vikings quarterback, Brett Favre in the NFC playoff in 2010.  New Orleans needed a heartbeat and certainly is a far richer source for $$$ than Minneapolis…..and the NFL obliged with a terribly foul officiated game.

Game officials apparently missed their opportunity to secure a Saint win,  although there was a very foul foul called by the game’s  head ref chief when the Vikings were on a drive to regain a two touchdown lead late in the game.

Even the referees failed to expect the following Minnesota Miracle:

The Conservative Jonahs Who Turn Rodent if Our Donald Isn’t Perfect!


(Dear reader—Fair warning: this is a long post, so best to settle in on the couch and make sure your dogs have completed their morning walks . . .)   

by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

Okay class, everyone settle in for today’s seminar and get out your textbook, Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West.  Turn to page 316, and circle this sentence: “Indeed, as much as I hold Trump in contempt, I am still compelled to admit that, if my vote would have decided the election, I probably would have voted for him.”

I begin with this admission against Jonah’s supposed interest to point out to his many detractors on the right that he is actually on our side. A lot of my friends are on a hair trigger with everything Jonah says or writes these days because of his relentless criticism of Trump. (For some reason most of my critical friends seem to be named Julie. A statistician will probably tell me this can’t be chance—it must be a conspiracy! Though actually it is the pseudonymous “Tom Doniphon” who is working overtime at American Greatness to smack Jonah’s book around.) The ongoing divisions over Trump are provoking complaints that, among other sins, Jonah has committed a literary appropriation (heh) of James Burnham’s famous 1962 title. This is a silly charge, as Harry Jaffa first explained to me about why he wasn’t bothered by the many other authors who also titled their Lincoln books A New Birth of Freedom.

Now, I have my own specific criticisms of Jonah’s book; in fact I have enough nits that I can probably knit a small sweater. Yes, he has some details of Michael Anton’s biography wrong; yes, his handling of the Declaration of Independence is sloppy in a couple of respects (but correct on the essentials); yes, Lockeans in every corner of the ring will want to dispute his summary accounts of Lockeanism as incomplete. (The irony of the long-running disputes about Locke is that they resemble an intellectual state of nature out of which no civil society seems ever likely to arise. But that’s a subject for another day—and 500 more books.) At the end of the day, as I shall try to explain, all of these nits will yield a sweater barely suitable to cover up an anorexic Barbie doll.

My chief overall complaint about Jonah—aside from not coughing up those old blackmail photos of me from Vegas he keeps in a safe deposit box—is that for all of his copious pop culture references, there is a conspicuous absence of references to Blazing Saddles. Which absence, as any East Coast Straussian will tell you, obviously means that he screens Saddles every Saturday morning. As I’ve paraphrased to him many times, adopting his own self-description, “What’s a dazzling Upper West Side demi-Jew like you doing in a rustic setting like Washington DC?”

Anyway, rather than embark on an undoubtedly frustrating and unproductive disputation over specific criticisms of Jonah and Jonah’s book from my friends (or enemies), I want to set out instead by disputing a positive review of the book that I think starts out wrongheaded, out of which I think a robust general defense can be constructed that does not require frowning at my friends. Adam Keiper opens his review of Suicide of the West in the Weekly Standard in the following way:

Goldberg’s book is a big, baggy, sometimes frustrating, often brilliant combination of intellectual history and political essay. He says that the original manuscript was twice as long as the final product; it certainly should have been much further pruned.

Wrong, and wrong. It’s not the book that’s baggy. Jonah’s pants are baggy, and perhaps Keiper is coming closer to explaining Trump’s famously inscrutable dig at Jonah’s supposed inability to buy trousers. It’s the last sentence—“it certainly should have been much further pruned”—that is the wrongest part of Keiper’s evaluation.

As Jonah has explained, the original manuscript of the book was more than twice as long as the final product, and was reduced at the request of his editors at CrownForum books (my publisher, I’ll add; they were very indulgent of my preposterous notion of writing a huge two-volume political biography of the life and times of Reagan, for which extraordinary latitude I’ll always be grateful). I understand why the publisher would want the book, or any book, to be shorter, and I’m sure the shorter length aids overall sales, but I think the book is in fact too short. I would like to have had the longer version. Too bad we can’t do books after the fashion of movies, with a “writer’s original edition” like we have a “director’s cut” of so many movies.

Okay, yes, I’m weird. For example, I much prefer the complete, unabridged four-volume version of Churchill’s Marlborough to the dreadful one-volume edition edited by Henry Steele Commager, who managed to be unerring in cutting out the best parts of Churchill’s account. (I have a theory about why Commager edited Churchill as atrociously as he did, but that’s for another day, too.)

Another way of getting at the inherent defect—but necessity—of short books is to ask for a show of hands for the following question: how many of you have read even one volume of Deirdre McCloskey’s magisterial trilogy consisting of Bourgeois DignityBourgeois Virtues, and Bourgeois Equality? Confession: I have only read a little of McCloskey’s triptych, but have long been a huge fan of all of McCloskey’s remarkable body of work, and agree with Jonah about McCloskey’s originality and deep cross-disciplinary perception. McCloskey is one of the very few senior academics who can rightly be called a polymath of the old school. Just have a look at McCloskey’s author description in her books: “Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago.” She really is an Erasmus for our time.

And in fact McCloskey is one of the inspirations and sources for some of the main themes in Suicide. McCloskey set out to get at a surprising mystery: there is no consensus about what causes economic growth, or an explanation for why the “industrial revolution” began to take off like a rocket roughly 300 years ago after centuries of essentially no economic growth at all. (The subtitle of Bourgeois Dignity is Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World.) The standard factors we learned in Econ 101 way back when—land, labor and capital—aren’t the driver, nor is technological progress. Institutions matter, yes, as does most crucially classical liberalism. But our picture of the prosperity and success of the West is getting more out of focus as time goes on.

McCloskey offers some provocative and well-argued ideas, but Jonah’s shorter work casts an even wider net, and attempts to return fire against the contemporary attacks on democratic capitalism, which, in case you haven’t noticed, have been gaining strength lately. One large part of the reason for this is the willful nihilism of the modern left, or what Malcolm Muggeridge way back in the 1970s called “The Great Liberal Death Wish.” Yes, Jonah perhaps owes one of his main themes—that suicide is a choice—more to Muggeridge than Burnham, but in any case he actually explains it with explicit reference to Lincoln’s warning in his Lyceum Address that if America ever fails it will be on account of self-willed causes—suicide—rather than foreign military invasion. Lincoln underestimated the potential for the invasion of bad foreign ideas—this is a major theme of both this book and Jonah’s previous exploration, Liberal Fascism, but in any case this reference alone earns some chits with this Claremonster. (One thinks immediately of Leo Strauss’s remark about German ideology in Natural Right and History that “It would not be the first time that a nation, defeated on the battlefield, and, as it were, annihilated as a political being, has deprived its conquerors of the most sublime fruit of victory by imposing on them the yoke of its own thought.”)

But our confusion over the nature and causes of the success of the West also owes to the increasing specialization of intellectual life. As I plan to explore in either a long article or short book some time soon, the proliferation of academic specializations over the last century, while generating finer and finer slices of advanced insight, has deprived us of our appreciation and perception of the whole. History and politics, for example, were once studied together in universities. Now they are completely separate disciplines, which entails great loss of depth accruing to both. Sociology is really just a branch of political science (ditto anthropology), while social psychology, which is a distinct and separate branch of psychology now, is a bastard recombination of psychology and sociology. Economics is in the process of subdividing into several distinct fields, with the main portion of the discipline looking more like just a wing of the math department, and with one new branch—behavioral economics—ironically casting an imperial reach into psychology. And academic philosophy is almost wholly sidelined and isolated from the public mind in ways and for reasons that take too long to explain. (All of this intellectual subdivision, incidentally, creates a void into which the radicalized “disciplines” of the politicized “studies” departments rush in to exploit. As I say, more on this another time, though I did talk about this some in Power Line Show podcast #69, in case you missed it.)

The result is a situation in which the ambition to write broad-gauge synoptic accounts of the social order of democratic capitalism is nearly extinct. There are a few notable and partial exceptions, such as Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now, offering a robust defense of Enlightenment liberalism. (And the left is fiercely attacking Pinker, who is otherwise an orthodox modern liberal, for this sin.) Jonah’s book is another, except that it is much more ambitious and wide-ranging than anything else on offer today.

Samuel Johnson argued that “Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed,” and as such Suicide of the West is an attempt to remind us with fresh language and up-to-date cultural analysis of the reasons our democratic order is under attack—a state of things that just a couple decades ago seemed impossible to conceive. The central idea of Suicideis the centrality of human nature, which the left today must fundamentally attack because it is the chief obstacle to their authoritarian dreams. Jonah frequently quotes Horace: “Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret.” Actually, Jonah quotes Horace in English: “You can expel nature with a pitchfork, but it will always came back.”

One might try to make something of a contradiction out of Jonah’s embrace of human nature with his parallel argument that what we today deplore as selfish tribalism is in fact the natural state of humanity, and that liberal notions of equal rights—and democratic capitalism—are in fact unnatural, and are undermined precisely by its very success. Here perhaps he is restating some of the ideas worked out a generation ago by Daniel Bell, but Joseph Schumpeter is the acknowledged larger inspiration for his argument. The point is, uncivilized human nature makes our social order always prone to the same law of entropy as our physical order, and as such is the chief refutation of the easygoing historicism behind the favorite modern liberal cliché about “the side of history.” Civilization takes work, as much to maintain it as to create it in the first place. Or as John Stuart Mill suggested, the chief defect of Hegelian liberalism is the assumption that the progress of humanity from barbarism to civilization is an irreversible process………..”

Television Jonah Goldberg is very windy, a good guy who enjoys staring at central stage.   Count the names of the past he adds to his excitements when lecturing!   Certainly, when colleged, the more names dropped in a thesis, the higher the grade!!

Please read on below to get to know Jonah better!


Note Sent, Note Meant! May God Bless America with Donald J. Trump!?!

Godfearing folks in our America voted 72% or more for Donald J. Trump that November 8th when our United States began to bloom again as America the Beautiful.   Our  country with its today’s Godless fascist one party press and university classrooms is still in deep trouble with Marxism.
I wish to share with you readers the  following important  unsigned commentary recently sent to me.  I am not bothered by Donald’s tongue occasionally  invading his gifted American mind and soul.   He is obviously horrified by the rise of leftist godless fascism invading America through its press,  schools and universities and Hollywood.
Please read the following important resume why this extremely intelligent, “Our Donald” is :

“We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.

I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.

Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ’60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ‘s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.

Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today

Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking bully.  In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of his rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastard, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.

It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” – and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri – Trump isolated CNN.. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”… Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. … They need to respond.

This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well – do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do.

These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it – he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!”


The Obama, Clinton, Kerry Creators of Foul Iran Deal Whine Over Iran Foul Deal Fate


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

This is an example of why I like Sarah Sanders. From yesterday’s press briefing:

Q Thank you, Sarah. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and former President Barack Obama all weighed in on the President’s Iran decision. A sampling of what they said: John Kerry was, it “weakens our security, breaks America’s word, isolates us from our European allies.” President Obama — former President Obama said that — called for, “principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country.” And then Hillary Clinton said, “Our credibility is shot.” And they called it a mistake. What is the President’s response to them? And what does the White House think about those former Obama administration officials commenting on this and the appropriateness of that?

MS. SANDERS: I think based on each of those individuals’ lack of success in this entire process on foreign affairs, they would probably be the last three people that we would look to for advice and counsel, and whether or not we had made the right decisions.

My sentiments exactly.


Glenn Replies:   This is the remarkable American era of Donald John Trump, President and fan of these United States.   The Schumer-Pelosi leftist  hate-Trump crowd in Congress has to this date, a year and a half into his presidency,  been  undertaking  a policy to disrupt, corrupt, delay, sabotage  approvals of President Trump’s administration management selections in order to cause delay, disruption and disorder throughout the Trump administration.

Sarah Sanders is the daughter of popular, quick-minded former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee,  one of the most gifted Governor spokesman in the country over the past century.

Welcome Kanye West!!

Poll: Kanye West Now Four Times More Popular Among Trump Voters Than Hillary Voters

by Allahpundit   at HotAir:

The most surprising number here, actually, is how unpopular Kanye was among Democrats even before he went full MAGA. I can understand them turning against him once he put his Trump cap on, just as I can understand Republicans gaining newfound appreciation for him because of it. Especially since Trump’s been tweeting about him too.

But why were they anti-Kanye three years ago? Today he’s at 13/68 among Dems; in 2015 he was at 17/64. Basically no difference. The guy told the country during a nationally televised telethon that George W. Bush didn’t care about black people. What more can a liberal ask of him?

He’s at 34/43 among Republicans today, up from 11/74(!) in 2015. You don’t see many people gain 54 net points in their favorable rating very often, particularly when we’re measuring celebrities and polling right-wing audiences. When you tweak the sample to ask people their feelings on Kanye based on how they voted in 2016, the left/right divide becomes even starker.

To break that down for you, that’s nine percent of Clinton voters who are strongly or somewhat favorable of West (and 74 percent who are strongly or somewhat unfavorable) versus 36 percent of Trump voters who are strongly or somewhat favorable (and 40 percent who are strongly or somewhat unfavorable). Basically, Hillary fans now hate Kanye almost as much as they hate Trump while Trump voters are at about break-even on him. Assuming that most of Kanye’s fans lean Democratic, that means either Kim Kardashian is the new breadwinner in the family or Kanye had better invent the genre of country-rap and tour only red states in the future.

Relatedly, the Daily Caller made an interesting catch in a different new poll, this one from Reuters:

A poll taken on April 22, 2018 had Trump’s approval rating among black men at 11 percent, while the same poll on April 29, 2018 pegged the approval rating at 22 percent. It should be noted that Reuters only sampled slightly under 200 black males each week and slightly under 3,000 people overall…

Black males were also far more likely to say that they had “mixed feelings” about the president. On the 22nd, 1.5 percent said they had mixed feelings, while 7.1 percent said the same on the 29th.

Maybe that’s a “Kanye dividend” for Trump thanks to his Twitter lovefest with West on April 25. Or maybe it’s a Korea-summit dividend, part of a national trend. An 11-point jump is a big jump, though, for a foreign-policy development in which the United States isn’t directly involved (yet).

And so maybe it’s time for a different kind of peace summit:

The White House is exploring plans to host multiple summits on race between prominent athletes and artists and President Donald Trump, according to the outside adviser spearheading the effort…

[Pastor Darrell] Scott said the summits would be open to artists and athletes of all backgrounds and political persuasions. He added that “of course” West would be invited and that he was in the process of reaching out to the artist through an intermediary.

What America really needs is a Trump/LeBron summit to heal the pain from last year’s “unpleasantness.” Watching Kanye’s numbers soar among righties after a few days of flattery about Trump, I wonder if Trump himself would have had a tougher time catching on in 2015 if Republican voters regularly got more love from celebrities. Righties love to posture about hating Hollywood elites (shut up and sing, etc) but any time a B- or C-lister murmurs something sympathetic about them it’s news. It’s been said many times of Trump himself that part of his populism comes from the fact that no matter how much money he makes and how famous he gets, the left-leaning elite class looks down its nose at him. (Most famously at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, which allegedly inspired him to make his mark politically and show ’em.) I think there’s something to that on the broader right. A little more validation from Kanye and comrades in the entertainment industry and maybe GOP voters wouldn’t have savored the validation they got from Trump as much. Or maybe not: They’d still want a 30-foot wall on the Mexican border, right? Well, only one Republican was going to promise them that.

Speaking of celebrities showing affection to Trumpers, your exit quotation from Roseanne Barr: “@kanyewest is telling the truth about Rahm’s Chicago. Ppl do not want to hear the truth-that Chicago could be a better city for its citizens, but the establishment is corrupted.” She’ll regret saying that when she’s running against Kanye in the Republican primaries in 2024.


The Fraud Secretary John Kerry vs. the Quality Secretary of State Appointee, Mike Pompeo


by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

In Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent, still in print after all these years, the president’s left-wing nominee for Secretary of State has a secret. As a young man — echoes of the Hiss case — he was a member of a Communist cell.

Leffingwell’s Communist past is a secret that must be covered up. Complications ensue, giving life to a Washington novel that is one of our favorites. Novelist Thomas Mallon rendered his considered literary judgment in his fiftieth anniversary tribute to the novel.

Times have changed, big league. By the time President Obama nominated John Kerry as Secretary of State, what were once vices had become habits hardly worthy of mention in polite company (as in this Boston Globe backgrounder).

Kerry had been wrong on just about every foreign policy issue he has addressed in the course of a long public career, stretching back to 1971. As an undergraduate, I saw him in person speaking on campus at the Hopkins Center peddling the vicious lies that turned him into a national celebrity. I believed him because I was credulous and sophomoric, but what excuse did he have?

Like Leffingwell, Kerry had been worse than mistaken. But it was no secret. It was out there in the open, and the guy nevertheless came within a hair of being elected president in 2004. John Perazzo reviewed the record of the man Obama saluted as “the perfect choice” to be his Secretary of State: “The historical record informs us that not only has John Kerry been on the wrong side of every major foreign policy issue for most of his adult life, including Iraq, Nicaragua and most recently in Syria, but he has routinely engaged in deception to conceal his folly. What’s worse, Kerry has a clear record of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, all the while never missing an opportunity to viciously trash our brave forces fighting against them.”

Returning to Advise and Consent, I recall recall that a key plot point hangs on the blackmailing of the senior senator from Utah in connection with a youthful homosexual affair. He is threatened with disclosure of the affair if he fails to vote in favor of the left-wing nominee. Rather than submit he commits suicide.

President Trump’s nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to serve as Secretary of State is to be voted on by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week. Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democrats have united in opposition. Given the additional opposition of Rand Paul, observers anticipate that Pompeo will receive a negative recommendation from the committee. Marc Thiessen traces the historic (and disgraceful) nature of such a negative committee vote against a Secretary of State nominee in this column.

One of the Democrats’ points against Pompeo is his disapproval of homosexual sex and homosexual marriage. He is apparently guilty of subscribing to traditional Christian doctrine. If only Pompeo could reveal himself to be a man with a homosexual past proclaiming “correct” thoughts, he might qualify to serve as Secretary of State. Coincidentally, the Democrats would also prefer a nominee who vowed to continue the Obama administration’s love affair with the mullahs who hang Iranian homosexuals for “male to male anal intercourse.”

We are reminded once once again. Democrats, you’ve come a long way from Advise and Consent, from advice and consent, and from the Constitution, baby.


P.S.   A Cause to Remember, by Glenn H. Ray

I am wondering if anyone of any American  party of any kind remembers the profound frauds JFK….that is, John F. Kerry perpetrated while serving and fibbing about his stardom “on military duty” in Vietnam…..the time when he was movie producing about his phony heroism for future political play when he returned to home to enter the lefty  jungles of Massachusetts politics.

Has anyone ever written a book, a page, a paragraph about this contemptible phony  maneuverings in film stardom, directed by the fraud himself?   He became CBS, PBS, ABC, and NBC star playboy at evening news hour playing expert about his false prowess, phony heroism,  absent wisdom and profound fraud on his road to Congress, the Senate   and Presidential contender.

(He did marry into the Heinz fortune, however!)

Why was it likely that the only  human on any  American  air or print wave of that critical election year, 2004, who had the courage, knowledge, the skill,  and honesty to  describe   this  suitless,  JFKerry,   so perfectly as the “creature, fraud and twit” he was came from Our Dennis Prager   that late October radio broadcasting day in 2004……..the first day I,  a lonely conservative, discovered him.

Was Al Franken, or Is It Keith Ellison the Looniest Gopher Nut in Congress?



by Scott Johnson  at  Powerline:

“I think of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison as our man in Havana. He prays for the Castro regime so that it can continue to shelter Joanne Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur), the first woman named by the FBI to its most wanted list. Ellison is also vice chair in charge of vice at the Democratic National Committee.

On Friday Ellison told an audience at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee that they have a moral obligation to defeat Republicans at the polls, saying “women are dying” because they’re losing (video below).

“Did you know that in Missouri and in Texas, and maybe other places, maternal mortality has risen?” Ellison said. Dr. Keith is on the case: “Women are dying because we are losing elections. We don’t have the right to lose a damn election. We have to win. We have to win.” They have to win so that they can socialize the health care system completely. It’s for the women (or the womyn).

Is it still okay to single out women for concern? In their capacity as mothers?

Incidentally, Ellison himself isn’t looking too good, though I don’t think the elections have anything to do with that either.”

Via Paul Crookston/Washington Free Beacon.

UPDATE: The data on maternal in deaths in Texas–I assume the ones Ellison was relying on–turned out to be fake news.