• 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

A Rare Look at Minnesota’s Revered Democrat Senator AL FRANKEN

AL FRANKEN….A SENATOR MIRROR MISFIT OF OUR TIMES

Rare, Disturbing Images Of Al Franken’s Sexual Behavior

 by Benny Johnson  at the Daily Caller:

Monday, news broke of another Franken accuser, who claims that as senator, Franken “grabbed her buttocks while taking a photo at the Minnesota State Fair.” A spokesperson for the senator said he would not be resigning and is instead “reflecting.”

However, a brief dive into Franklin’s past reveals that the offensive photo is just the beginning of Franken’s peculiar attempts at dark sexual humor.

This reporter went through hours of Al Franken sketches on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” and hundreds of Getty Images to find incidents where Franken revealed his true character to the camera.

***Graphic content ahead***

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/20/rare-disturbing-images-of-al-frankens-sexual-behavior/

Sen. Al Franken is in hot water after a series of bombshell sexual misconduct allegations against him surfaced over the past week.

Leeann Tweeden, a California broadcaster, has accused Franken of sexually molesting her in 2006.

A photo of Franken groping Tweeden surfaced in light of the allegations.

The 2006 incident was not the first time Franken has posed groping a woman:

On “SNL’s” “Weekend Update,” Franken also used inappropriate hand motions to describe President Ronald Reagan’s prostate:

Comment:  My JudeoChristian training presures me not to find Senator Al Franken an obnoxious creep, scumbag, repulsive, which, of course, he is.   He chose to make a living off of his endless vulgarities he loves to perform.   Perhaps, he has some kind of hate fixation on JudeoChristian standards….or didn’t have a father.

We Minnesotans knew he was a creep when he stole the 2008 Senatorial election from election winner, (my man) incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman, also Jewish.   Yet, as much as I dislike everything I know, see, and hear from this disgusting person, I just don’t see any criminality, or rather proof of criminality to displace him from his Washington’s seat of office.

Being obnoxious was probably what he was trained to do to become a popular entertainer in our New Age Leftist America post JudeoChristian ethics period.  Why should he be removed from a Senate office when so many other Democrat Senators are equally obnoxious but behave far more deceitfully than Our Minnesota U.S. Senator, Al Franken?  After all, he won his reelection ‘fair and square’.

He represents the State of Minnesota, 2017!

Advertisements

Hillary Goes Bananas With Her Insanity about Her Enemies in WHAT HAPPENED

Hillary’s Version

by Conrad Black  at  National Review

“The American political community has not taken adequate notice of Hillary Clinton’s book What Happened (the title is not posed as a question). It was generally panned when it came out a couple of months ago for blaming everyone but herself for her defeat. I have never been a Clinton-basher, and I was astonished by the venom, untruthfulness, and zealotry of her account. Mrs. Clinton writes persuasively of seeking “grace” after her defeat, and concluded most of her speeches throughout the 2016 campaign calling for “love and kindness,” yet she is unrelievedly ungracious. She describes her opponent as a clear and present danger to the country, . . . an unqualified bully [whose] towering self-regard blotted out all hope of learning or growing, . . . a charlatan . . . [who is] sexist, misogynist, [who] appealed to the ugliest impulses of our national character, . . . [is] on the wrong side of justice, history, and basic human decency, . . . [is] hostile to civil rights and voting rights across the board, is for nuclear proliferation, against NATO, and for torturing prisoners, . . . lacks character, values, and experience, [and] will be the most reckless president in American history, and put at risk our country’s national security and well-being. She claims that Trump implied she would be assassinated by “the Second Amendment people,” when he was referring to their talent at lobbying the Congress; and implies that he called the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012, where 27 people were killed, including many children, “a hoax” (an outrageous falsehood). She calls Trump “an America-bashing misogynist,” like Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange (of WikiLeaks), really thinks he might have been conspiring with Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks, and even attaches some credence to the “golden shower” rumor that Trump organized a group of prostitutes to do unsanitary things on a bed in a Moscow hotel where the Obamas once slept. In sum, she declares Donald Trump to be “the least experienced, least knowledgeable, least competent president our country has ever had, . . . who doesn’t think in terms of morality or human rights, he only thinks in terms of power and dominance.” Her opponents are always “the extreme right,” though Trump is in fact a centrist on most issues except law enforcement, well to the left of the Ted Cruz Republicans. “He dreams of Moscow on the Potomac.” She writes that Trump has “an affection for tyrants, hostility toward allies, and alleged financial ties to shady Russian actors.” He has “degraded national life” and “is a tumor on the American soul,” and comes to the very edge of an accusation of outright treason. There’s not much “grace, love, and kindness” here.

Previous narrowly defeated presidential candidates have been almost uniformly civilized. It never seems to have occurred to Hillary Clinton that Trump won because the previous 20 years of government had been utterly and bipartisanly incompetent, in the White House and the Congress. Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama produced the housing bubble and the Great Recession, endless and fruitless war in the Mideast and an immense humanitarian tragedy, mountainous budgetary, current-account, and trade deficits, and, under Obama, serious increases in poverty and violence, a shrinking work force, and a foreign policy of telling America’s allies and enemies to change roles and places. (Clinton proudly claims that the surrender to Iran’s nuclear military ambitions avoided an arms race in the Middle East, and fears what a mess Trump might make of North Korea, oblivious to her own and her husband’s bungling of the issue.) She somewhat grasps that tens of millions of voters don’t enjoy being called “deplorables” (though she thinks they are anyway), but doesn’t grasp that Trump was running as much against the Bushes and Obama as against the Clintons. She seems not to realize that he and his supporters concluded that the entire political class, including its national-media launderers, Wall Street paymasters, greasy lobbyists, and Hollywood cheerleaders, all had to go when the swamp is drained. Mrs. Clinton attributes her defeat to the malice of James Comey (the former FBI director), popular misogyny, the Russians, Republican chicanery, the Electoral College, and the near impossibility of a party’s winning three straight terms. She saluted Comey when he vastly exceeded his authority as a senior police official by announcing that she would not be prosecuted, but he subsequently (very clumsily) reopened and then closed the investigation of the email controversy. Mrs. Clinton describes this sequence as being “shivved by Jim Comey three times.” It was an eruption of Comey’s egotism and poor judgment, but he exonerated her twice, while admitting that she had lied to federal investigators — Martha Stewart went to prison for less — and he merely said some new emails were being examined on the third occasion. Not much of a shivving. Then comes the misogyny of the American electorate, which did not prevent them from giving her more votes than Trump (albeit not as usefully distributed). Five previous presidents were elected with fewer votes than their chief opponent, because the United States is a federation where all the adhering states entered with the same level of jurisdictional sovereignty, regardless of population. If it were a straight matter of popular plurality, Trump would have campaigned in California, New York, and Illinois, where Clinton racked up big majorities; and if it were like the French system, where a second ballot is required between the two leading candidates where there is no majority on the first vote, Trump would have won anyway, as he would have picked up most of the Libertarian vote (4 million), while Clinton would have got most of the Greens (1 million). Party control of administrations has lately tended to change after two terms, but the Republicans had three straight terms in the 1920s, followed by five straight Democratic terms, and the Republicans had three terms in a row under Reagan and Bush. It can be done, with a popular retiring president and a strong successor, but neither was the case in 2016. There was no argument to reelect the Democrats after the general policy fiasco of the Obama tenure, and the whole Democratic campaign was to pillory Trump as a gangster, a traitor, and a buffoon. Hillary also thinks she was a victim of the disenfranchisement of non-white and youthful voters, though there is no evidence that this happened, and neither Trump nor the Republican party would have had any ability to do it.

More alarming than Mrs. Clinton’s ungraciousness is her dishonesty. She all but accuses Trump of treasonable collusion with Russia, and Russian interference in the election looms even larger than misogyny and Comey’s skullduggery in her demonology of causes of the national tragedy of her defeat. But all the “evidence” she cites of Trump–Kremlin collusion is taken from the now-infamous Christopher Steele dossier. Since the publication of this book, it has come to light that the Clinton campaign paid $10 million for Steele’s unverifiable pastiche of defamatory gossip and fabrications against Trump. The entire case against Trump has, after 16 months of FBI investigation, turned up no evidence. The Clinton campaign denied, until the facts came to light, that it had any knowledge of the origins of the Steele dossier, and now says that it doesn’t matter who paid for it; and she now refers to it as “campaign information.” The bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed that this dossier is the sole basis for the continuation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Mrs. Clinton professes to believe that she faced a hostile press throughout the campaign, an unimaginable liberty with the facts to anyone who saw the relentless sandbag-job the press conducted against Trump. She writes that, on October 31, 2016, the New York Times, which she thinks was hostile to her, ran “one of the worst stories of the entire election, claiming the FBI saw no link between the Trump campaign and Russia.” It is nearly 13 months later and the Mueller leak machine has confirmed the same finding. The outright dishonesty of her citing a smear campaign she had commissioned and paid for as evidence of her opponent’s perfidy is a historic pathfinder in electoral dirty tricks, vastly surpassing anything from hardballers like FDR, LBJ, or Richard Nixon (whom she falsely accuses of “crimes,” though no serious evidence of any has been produced against him, though members of his entourage certainly were guilty of crimes). “Even if no direct ties ever come to light, we need to know how the right-wing war on truth opened the door to Russian attack,” she writes. Yet everyone agrees that though the Russians meddled in the election, they had no impact on the result. The Russians took only $6,500 worth of Facebook advertisements, without endorsing a candidate, in an election in which Trump and Clinton spent $1.85 billion, most of it being spent by Clinton. She has an unblemished record, she implies, and the fact that the majority of Americans don’t trust her is due to the “viciousness of the Republican smear merchants.” She says that the timely release of the Billy Bush tape of Trump’s verbal indiscretions eleven years before (about the ease for a celebrity of groping women), though it was clearly fired as an intended game-ender, came as a surprise to her, and that she was heroic in “winning” the second presidential debate two days later, given the pressure she was under. In fact, Trump, with his campaign apparently in shambles and principal figures deserting or taking their distance, was under more pressure than anyone in the history of those debates going back to Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, and he won the debate. Trump’s production, earlier in the day, of a trio of women who alleged sexual assault against her husband was, in Mrs. Clinton’s view, a tawdry and outrageous resurrection of those she memorably described in the past as “the bimbos.” Trump’s coarse locker-room reflections are apparently disqualifying, but Bill Clinton’s scandalous and possibly criminal sexual assaults on various women when he was governor and president do not alter the Norman Rockwell marriage of Bill and Hillary. The author is a relentless partisan: Republicans are under-educated pessimists, “the deplorables,” as she called them last year.

Reagan “sapped the spirit of the country,” though he restored the country’s confidence. (He also led the greatest economic boom in modern U.S. history and won the Cold War, but she doesn’t mention that.) Dwight Eisenhower isn’t mentioned at all, apart from having been Adlai Stevenson’s opponent, and Richard Nixon was a criminal, never mind that Nixon ended school segregation and conscription, extracted the country from the Democrats’ war in Vietnam while preserving a non-Communist government in Saigon, opened relations with China and the Mideast peace process, signed the greatest arms-control agreement in history with the USSR, founded the Environmental Protection Agency, reduced the crime rate, and stopped the endless rioting in American cities.

Since the publication of this book, former party chairman Donna Brazile has written that Mrs. Clinton rigged a number of primaries in her struggle with Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, and may have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. Mrs. Clinton dismisses Whitewater (which led, circuitously, to the impeachment of her husband), Travelgate, the Benghazi tragedy (where the American ambassador to Libya was murdered by terrorists and she and Obama pretended that it was mob anger provoked by an anti-Islamic video produced by a private American citizen), and the email controversy that “amounted to precisely nothing” (I think not). She does not mention her speech of apology to the world’s Muslims, a toe-curling embarrassment to the entire Western world, nor her inability to utter or write the words “Islamic terrorism or extremism,” nor the very disconcerting pay-to-play activities of the Clinton Foundation, including the payment or pledge of $145 million and a $500,000 speech fee for Bill Clinton at a time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s agreement was required to approve a sale of uranium assets in the U.S. to Russian interests. Democratic senators whom she praises in comradeship have turned on the Clintons: Elizabeth Warren accuses her of cheating Bernie Sanders, and Kirsten Gillibrand says that Bill Clinton, because of his peccadilloes, should have resigned. They may be unjust, but this is what the Clintons’ allies now think of them. Her righteousness is moth-eaten and threadbare. Mrs. Clinton believes she is a good and sincere Christian, though she makes it clear that joining a church and being a communicant in it should be with the purpose of turning that church into an agency for leftward political action, what she calls “progressive reform.” By this, we are left in no doubt, she means rounding up all those who are beneath the average in prosperity or acceptability in mainstream-majority society, or if not, at least highly dissatisfied with the lot of those who are, and mobilizing them as a democratic majority to impose transfers of wealth and status from those who have earned or inherited it to the less fortunate or successful. This is a constant process of evaluating where the electoral majorities are, pitching to them as victims in the name of a benign state, and representing to those who pay for these transfers that it is their Christian and social duty and that they should rejoice in their opportunity to better the quality and stability of American life and society. More alarming than Mrs. Clinton’s ungraciousness is her dishonesty.

In Mrs. Clinton’s America, spiritual inspiration exists to pursue redistributive materialism, all “progress” apart from a little doughty self-help is the result of state intervention, the state has a practically unlimited right and duty to correct meritocratic as well as inherited or exploitive socioeconomic imbalances, and the U.S. Democratic party must be a secular church militant where those who oppose abortions (about half the American public) are, along with many other large groups, unwelcome. All politics is a constant process of “reform,” in which, miraculously, the majority gain at the expense of the more accomplished (as well as more fortunate) minority. This isn’t really Christianity or democracy; it easily slips into rank acquisition of votes with the money of part of the electorate in a cynical and corrupt manner, and Mrs. Clinton convicts herself of such attitudes with this astonishing display of rage, affected humility, idealism, and myth-making. It is a sobering and a disturbing read…..”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453933/hillary-clinton-what-happened-false-history-bad-policies

AL FRANKEN, THE MOVIE

AL FRANKEN: THE MOVIE

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

“I have written a lot about Al Franken on Power Line over the years. I posted this review of the Doob/Hegedus documentary on Al Franken in September 2006. The movie was a complete and utter commercial bomb (domestic gross: $102,990). Just about no one saw it. As Franken rides out the scandal deriving from recent disclosures of his past behavior, I thought back to the film. A.O. Scott reviewed it for the New York Times. Stanley Kaufmann reviewed it for the New Republic, writing: “This film by Nick Doob and Chris Hegedus forces us to make some decisions about him. For myself, I find him generally gross, in person and in manner.” I thought some readers might find this of interest, however slight, in the context of the recent disclosures. Before the Scott and Kaufmann reviews appeared, this is what I wrote (slightly edited):

Last week I received a DVD screener of Al Franken: God Spoke on the condition that I post a review on our site between September 6 and September 13. The film is scheduled to open in theaters on September 13.

I watched the film over the weekend and again last night. It’s hard for me to believe how bad it is. Directed by Nick Doob and Chris Hegedus, the makers of The War Room, their new film might more aptly have been titled The Bore Room. Although Franken made his name as a comedy writer for Saturday Night Live, the film provides additional evidence to support my view that Franken hasn’t been funny since the expiration of the Al Franken Decade in 1990.

I have been a fan of Franken for a long time. In June 2005 I was given a press pass to attend the Democratic fundraiser in Minneapolis where Franken was the featured speaker. The fundraiser was held on the west bank campus of the University of Minnesota within shouting distance of where I had first seen Franken perform with his former comedy partner, Tom Davis. The film shows Franken in 1977 performing the same skit on Saturday Night Live with his parents that I saw Franken try out in Minneapolis in the summer of 1976 at the Dudley Riggs Workshop.

What kind of a documentary is God Spoke? It feels like a 90-minute vanity production cum campaign video, geared to promote Franken’s apparent candidacy for the Senate seat currently held by Norm Coleman. In that respect, however, the film closes on an extremely sour note. Franken is at the wheel of his car driving from the airport in Minneapolis and musing on some advice given to him by Minneapolis attorney Tom Borman. In an early scene in the film, Franken is seen telling his favorite joke (from Buddy Hackett) before a Minneapolis audience. The final scene shows Franken reflecting on Borman’s statement that his parents (wisely) thought Franken should stop telling that joke at political appearances. Franken is incredulous and unhappy about the advice.

Whereas The War Room portrayed the inside of a successful presidential campaign, God Spoke appears to be a study in failure, though no one knows it. The film opens with Franken promoting Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them before an appreciative audience. Thereafter it’s mostly downhill with Air America. God Spoke portrays Franken’s involvement with the debut of the liberal radio network, Franken’s coverage of the 2004 Democratic and Republican conventions in 2004, Franken’s campaigning for John Kerry, Franken’s disappointment on election day, Franken’s announcement that he’s thinking about running against Norm Coleman and Franken’s related move from New York back to Minneapolis.

At what appears to be an Air America planning session for a meeting with investors, Franken is asked what Air America is to be. “It’s about answering the fuckheads,” Franken says. On his first Air America show in March 2004, Michael Moore is Franken’s in-studio guest; together Franken and Moore interview Al Gore by telephone. The film shows Franken exulting that his ratings for the first month of the show beat those of Rush Limbaugh in New York.

The network’s financial difficulties are intimated by reference to a missed payroll, but the abject failure of the network’s lineup to generate an audience remains a deep secret of the film. The film portrays Franken hinting darkly of network difficulties deriving from the “active intimidation” of advertisers and leaves it at that. “Less is more” seems to be the spirit with which Doob and Hegedus approach the story of Air America’s difficulties and disappointments.

The film includes a kind of “Man from Hope” element, showing Franken returning to the house he grew up in for a look around and reminiscing about his father. It also shows him on one of his USO tours impersonating Saddam Hussein to entertain the troops in Iraq. It is an unfunny sequence that appears to have been edited to show the troops laughing uproariously over Franken’s routine.

Doob and Hegedus work hard to portray Franken in a flattering light, but ninety minutes with Franken is about eighty minutes too many. Franken does not wear well; he comes across as a boor and a profoundly ugly man. Doob and Hegedus have blundered into the truth, though I can’t for the life of me imagine why they think an audience would want to pay to see it…….”

Comment by ghr:  (My, how refreshing it is living here in Goopherland, to have sleaze Franken represent us in the U.S. Senate and around the country.  He fit so well in the corrupt Obama administration, especially the first session in 2009 when Minnesota Democrats stole the previous November election from Minnesota Senator, Norm Coleman.)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/al-franken-the-movie.php

Welcome America to Your Leftist Democrat Era of Black Savagery

“FREE! FREE, AT LAST TO RAPE, PILLAGE, AND BURN” in the Obama Era of Al Sharptonia!


America’s Mobs of Leftists Attack Bible Museum

People are Mad the Museum of the Bible Represents ‘Only a Judeo-Christian Perspective’

Apparently they miss that it’s called the Museum of the Bible.

(Article sent by Mark Waldeland:)

Apparently they miss that it’s called the Museum of the Bible.

Life sized sculptures of Galileo, right, and George Washington Carver, center, at an exhibit showing biblical influence on science at the Museum of the Bible which opens to the public today on November, 18, 2017 in Washington, DC.

By   (Article sent by Mark Waldeland:)

Some people have voiced frustration with the fact that the Museum of the Bible only represents a “Judeo-Christian” perspective and leaves out other religions Friday.

These critics say the Museum of the Bible, within walking distance from the National Mall in Washington, D.C., doesn’t reflect other religious point of views, such as an Islamic one, and also singularly focuses on American Protestantism, reports The New York Times. One professor also critiqued the museum for not telling viewers which areas in the Bible are historically accurate or not.

“There are a number of prominent omissions that make it clear that it’s not a museum of the Bible as one might imagine it from a secular perspective. They don’t do a good job of talking about whether parts of the Bible are historically accurate,” Joel S. Baden, Yale University’s professor of the Hebrew Bible, told the outlet. Baden also disagreed with the lack of representation of Islam and Mormonism in the Museum of the Bible.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity.Support The Stream »

The Museum of the Bible, with six floors of religious pieces, opened Saturday to the public. Described as a “must see” museum of 2017 by the Smithsonian Institute, the museum offers viewers the opportunity to see some of the earliest Bibles made in the United States, as well as witnessing an Israeli scribe working on a Torah and parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hobby Lobby CEO Steven Green founded the museum and set up the foundation that would fund the $500 million project.

Please read on:

https://stream.org/people-mad-bible-museum-represents-judeo-christian-perspective/

What Caused Our Era of Black American Urban Savagery?

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE BLACK FAMILY?  or, THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE BLACK FATHER?  or, THE LEFT’S ‘PURCHASE’  OF THE AMERICAN BLACK VOTER?  OR, THE DECLINE OF TRADITIONAL  AMERICAN JUDEOCHRISTIAN VALUES?

“OUT OF CONTROL” VIOLENT CRIME IN BALTIMORE TAKES THE LIFE OF POLICE OFFICER

by Paul Mirengoff   at  PowerLine”

“Sean Suiter, an 18 year veteran of the Baltimore police force, joined its homicide unit two years ago to help combat the murder spree plaguing the city. Suiter thus bucked a trend. The Baltimore police force was shrinking due to the resignation of officers in response to lack of support from the mayor and the local prosecutor following the accidental death of Freddy Gray while in police custody.

Last week, Suiter became Baltimore’s 309th murder victim this year. 2017 is the third consecutive year in which Baltimore’s rate exceeds 300. That level hadn’t been reached since the 1990s.

The murder rate surged following the shameful performance of the mayor and the city prosecutor in response to Gray’s death and the subsequent rioting in April 2015. Acknowledging the obvious, Baltimore’s new mayor says that violent crime in the city is “out of control.”

Suiter was shot in a notoriously violent section of the Harlem Park neighborhood of West Baltimore. The father of five was in the neighborhood investigating a triple killing from last year and saw a man acting suspiciously. When Suiter, wearing a suit and tie like all homicide detectives, attempted to speak to the man, the suspect shot him.

More than a dozen people have been shot or killed in the same area in recent years. One resident, a 26 year-old man, told the Baltimore Sun, “It’s getting crazy — almost as if death and murder is the norm today.” To another resident it seemed like “we experience these killing every single day.”

That’s how it looks to residents. To the Obama Justice department, it looked like a racist police force was over-policing a largely African-American neighborhood.

How does it look to CNN? We don’t know. It largely ignored the murder of Sean Suiter. Brad Wilmouth of NewsBusters has the details (or lack thereof)…..”

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/out-of-control-violent-crime-in-baltimore-takes-the-life-of-police-officer.php

Sunday Schadenfreude: Another socialist monster thrown out

by Monica Showalter   at   American Thinker:

 

Zimbabwe’s hideous 93-year-old dictator, Robert Mugabe, was given until noon Monday by his former security chief to pack his bags or leave the Ceaucescu way.

If Mugabe refused to go, “We will bring back the crowds and they will do their business,” Mutsvangwa told reporters.

Reuters continued:

[Emmerson] Mnangagwa, a former state security chief known as “The Crocodile,” is expected to head an interim post-Mugabe unity government that will focus on rebuilding ties with the outside world and stabilising an economy in freefall.

What a pathetic miserable end to one of the world’s most odious thugs in power. Hailed by the left as a new kind of socialist liberationist, he was nothing but a monster, not only to the white farmers he persecuted, but to every citizen in the country, blacks and whites alike.

Mugabe, the Reuters report noted, bragged he had a ‘degree in violence.’

He’s famous for bringing hyperinflation to a once-prosperous post-colonial African state and destroying property rights in the country, leaving it a smoking ruin. Zimbabweans of all colors fled the place, many of them escaping under fences to South Africa if not making their way to Europe and a few to the U.S. He was a rabid identity politician and racist, targeting white-owned farms for expropriation in the name of ‘social justice.’ In the process his country was left in rubble.

So what a fine thing that unlike Castro, his good socialist buddy, he didn’t live to die in his bed.  He’s going out the Khadafy way if he doesn’t leave the premises asap.

What’s schadenfreude-fine is not only that the monster is meeting a bad end, Zimbabweans are dancing in the streets, sending a message that Mugabe’s socialist horror show, is finally over. The whole world is seeing it on Twitter. Who knew they hated the ogre so much? After all, they are dancing wildly even as the man who is replacing him doesn’t have a very savory past himself. That shows that Mugabe is so awful that Zimbabweans consider absolutely anyone to be an improvement. They look like the crowds that joyfully threw Nicolai Ceausescu of Romania out. Metro of London has some fine Getty images viewable here. The Zimbabwean has some good local pictures here.

The left of course, looks the worst in this fiasco. Not only have they coddled him and showered him with honors for being a liberationist who wrecked his country, they have been wrong about how strongly ordinary Zimbabweans hated being under his leftist boot. The United Nations in particular has been guilty in this regard. Here’s a lefty writing in the Guardian four days ago intoning that Zimbabweans wouldn’t be dancing in the streets if the socialist Mugabe were to be thrown out. That didn’t age well.

For the rest of us, it’s a great pleasure to mentally celebrate and savor the joy the Zimbabweans feel at being freed from one of the world’s most destructive dictators. Another socialist monster is gone…..”    (Please read on!)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/sunday_schadenfreude_another_socialist_monster_thrown_out.html