• 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

Time to Get to Know Soviet Socialist Bernie Sanders Better


by  Steven Hayward   at  PowerLine:

We at Power Line are not categorically opposed to recycling. So I repair to an old post from the last election cycle in 2016. Back then Bernie Sanders got a lot of buzz over this ad featuring Simon & Garfunkel’s “America,” though as a lot of people at the time remarked, it looked more like scenes from Burlington, Vermont, the morning of a Phish concert:

My first thought on viewing it again is that Bernie has visibly aged in the short two-plus years since this video.

But the real point is that in this age of super-charged and reborn progressivism, this spot really needs a progressive rock backdrop, which I was only too happy to provide:

I really think Bernie should go with this version now. If he wants to be honest.

Why You’re Wrong About the Democratic Primary The wild history of presidential campaigns has a lesson: Nobody knows anything.

by Jeff Greenfield  at Politico:

Warren’s down! No, she’s back! O’Rourke is hot! No, he’s faltering! Biden is dead on arrival! No, he’s unstoppable! The 2020 Democratic presidential campaign already has the feel of a stock market, with TV pundits and internet prediction experts monitoring the minute-by-minute movements on the big board.

There’s much to praise about all this attention. It provides gainful employment for hundreds, if not thousands, of campaign workers, journalists, pollsters and hotel, restaurant and car-rental employees. It offers leisure-time speculation for the millions of TV viewers searching for a successor to “Game of Thrones.” And in the pages and on the websites of our best journalistic enterprises, it even provides detailed, tough-minded looks at what the women and men in the race intend to do with the powers they seek.

Here’s what it does not do, though: tell us what will actually happen in 2020. If voters and the news media take that to heart, and focus our attention on the character and the intentions of the candidates instead of who’s winning eight months before anyone votes, the coverage—and the choosing—will be better for it.

And what the history of modern presidential nominating contests suggests about this moment is that the seemingly daily polling, and the “she’s-surging-he’s failing” stories, have all the staying power of sandcastles at high tide. The last half-century of presidential primaries is a catalog of slow erosions of “insurmountable” leads, sudden shifts of the current, candidates left for dead who have revived and triumphed, front-runners hit with a blow from nowhere that recalibrated the certainties of a moment ago. If there’s a candidate you like in this race who you feel isn’t getting the attention she deserves, it’s far too early to fret. The history is varied enough to worry every one of the top-tier candidates, and provide comfort to most, or even all, of the rest. Even John Delaney. Here are a few lessons for the field.

How confident should Biden be?

Joe Biden entered the race in April, and since then, the former vice president has polled more strongly than nearly anyone anticipated, staking out what is, six weeks later, a 17-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average. How safe is a lead like that? The canonical cautionary tale is that of Ed Muskie, the former senator from Maine. In 1971, he was the consensus choice for president among a wide range of Democrats, considered the most electable challenger to a president despised by progressives: Richard Nixon. But the intensity of the party’s anti-war elements, and a New Hampshire win that was characterized as a defeat by the news media, sank Muskie by spring.

But if Biden starts to fade, that doesn’t mean you can write him off. More than three decades after Muskie, in the summer of 2007, the Republican front-runner, Arizona Senator John McCain, was out of money, having gorged on an army of operatives. His top campaign aides had fled. By that autumn, the new, undisputed poll leader was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose path to the nomination would be a romp through moderate, populous states like New York and New Jersey. In California and Florida, Giuliani was anywhere from two to four times as popular as his nearest rivals. Could an anti-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun-control candidate actually win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party?

Well, no. As soon as voters actually began, er, voting, Giuliani sank like a stone. And as is so often the case in presidential campaign politics, Giuliani’s collapse helped to cement a conventional wisdom that was soon upended. The failure of a mouthy, socially moderate New York mayor was one reason so many discounted the consistent lead in the polls held by Donald Trump in 2016. Could a formerly anti-abortion, currently anti-free trade, anti-war candidate actually win the nomination of the Republican Party? Well, yes.

The very year that Giuliani fell apart, as McCain was going from front-runner to also-ran to GOP nominee, Hillary Clinton held a sizable lead in the Democratic polls. One of the keys to her contest with Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008 was supposed to be her strong position in the battle for African American votes. In November, 2007, POLITICO reported that Clinton was besting Obama among African Americans. As late as December 2007, she and Obama were effectively tied among black voters. But when Obama won the Iowa caucuses, his victory in a virtually all-white state validated him as a credible Democratic nominee. Within days, the African American vote moved decisively to him, and black officials who’d endorsed Clinton began switching almost by the day.

This is why the results in Iowa and New Hampshire are so crucial for Biden: If Kamala Harris or Cory Booker perform well in the early states, Biden’s own significant lead among black voters in 2019 might similarly fade.

There is a Democratic campaign, however, that offers Biden a measure of reassurance. In 1984, former Democratic vice president Walter Mondale seemed to be facing nothing but calm seas and fair winds. Mondale proclaimed the campaign “the sweetest primary in history.” On the day of the New Hampshire primary, eight days after he won the Iowa caucuses by a 3-to-1 margin, the New York Times reported that “Walter F. Mondale now holds the most commanding lead ever recorded this early in a presidential nomination campaign by a nonincumbent.”

The next day’s the Times reported that Colorado Senator Gary Hart had beaten Mondale in New Hampshire by 10 points—a win that upended the race completely and put Hart on a path to win a series of primaries. Still, by the time it was over, Mondale was saved by black voters in Alabama and Georgia, by big-city Democrats in Illinois and New York, and by questions about the “unknown” Hart.

Then again, in November 1984, Mondale lost 49 states to the incumbent Republican president, so perhaps Biden shouldn’t take too much comfort from this history.

What about Bernie?

As for Bernie Sanders, his surprising strength in 2016 might be mitigated by the precedent of a similar candidate from 2004. By late 2003, the insurgent campaign of his fellow Vermonter, Howard Dean, had turned the internet into a cash machine of astonishing and unprecedented proportions, fueled by the anger of progressive Democrats at what they perceived as a timid and centrist party in Washington that wasn’t responding to the grassroots anxiety over the unilateralist Republican in the White House.

Just in the third quarter of 2003, Dean raised $15 million, almost all of it in small donations. His anti-Iraq War message had won him a significant lead in the polls. At year’s end, CNN reported that Dean was polling twice as high as his nearest rivals. Both of the Democratic contenders from 2000—Al Gore and Bill Bradley—endorsed him.

John Kerry’s more mainstream campaign, meanwhile, had become a joke. In November, Jon Stewart mocked the Kerry campaign on “The Daily Show” and highlighted the departure of key staff members. Then the calendar flipped to the election year of 2004, and a combination of fears over Dean’s electability and a Democratic electorate unsure of the risk of an unknown candidate caused Dean’s support to collapse in what his top campaign aide Joe Trippi calls “a flight to safety.” The former Vermont governor finished third in Iowa and was plummeting in New Hampshire even before his caucus-night “scream.” A few weeks later, he was out of the race.

The Rise of the Rest

The rest of the field—from rising contenders like Pete Buttigieg to candidates like Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke and Elizabeth Warren who were deemed to be struggling after promising debuts—can take heart that primary campaigns are so volatile that they sometimes shift, quite literally, overnight. In March 1976, former California Governor Ronald Reagan had lost five consecutive primaries, and was virtually out of money. His aides were beginning to reach out to the campaign of President Gerald Ford to discuss the details of Reagan’s withdrawal. But in North Carolina, Reagan was propelled to victory by the field army of Senator Jesse Helms and the impact of a half-hour televised speech that denounced Ford’s foreign policy. Reagan then ran off a string of primary wins, leading to an intense, contested convention in Kansas City, where he fell just a few dozen delegates short of unseating an incumbent president in his party’s primaries.

Reagan faced a similar, if more abbreviated, challenge four years later. After Reagan lost the Iowa caucuses, prominent NBC analyst Tom Pettit said, “I would like to suggest that Ronald Reagan is politically dead.” Six weeks later, Reagan’s landslide win in New Hampshire put him on the road to the nomination and the White House.

History’s lesson is not that front-runners are always doomed to fail like Muskie or Dean or Giuliani, but that at some point they will have to survive a serious competitor. For Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, the worst days were in 1999. Bill Bradley, the former New Jersey senator, was out-raising Gore and leading him in some New Hampshire polls. The sitting vice president was jettisoning longtime political aides and moving his headquarters. But once the voting started, Gore won every contest. That same year, Governor George W. Bush’s coronation was disrupted when John McCain beat him by a record margin in New Hampshire. But starting in South Carolina, the consensus choice of the GOP establishment prevailed over the heretic. In 2011 and 2012, Mitt Romney was often displaced as the front-runner in polls by a series of rivals, including “9-9-9” tax-plan candidate Herman Cain and, more plausibly, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. But once Romney dispatched Gingrich in Florida, the contest was over. Hillary Clinton in 2016 did not expect Bernie Sanders to match her bankroll, or to prove a persistent rival, but he did, though by the end she was the clear winner in total votes cast and delegates won.

Unless Trump Changed Everything

But even that time-tested observation—that every front-runner must surmount an existential challenge to his or her candidacy—has now failed the test of time. In 2016, Donald Trump, a candidate with no political experience and no measurable support from his party’s establishment, never trailed in the polls and was never seriously threatened during his campaign for the nomination. Based on the lessons of history, Trump’s inevitable fall was confidently predicted by journalists and insiders, even as he racked up primary victories and delegates. The day former Florida Governor Jeb Bush withdrew from the race, on February 19, 2016, his brother George W. was telling a New York audience that he did not believe Trump would win the nomination.

Every winning candidate’s journey to the nomination is serpentine, and their stories are so varied that, depending on what contest you look at, there are enough different paths to provide encouragement to just about any candidate. Will voters choose familiarity, as they did in 1984 and as Biden may hope they will do again? Or will they go for a Reagan-like insurgent who represents a rising ideological wing of the party, like Sanders? Can Harris or Booker draw large portions of black voters by doing well in an early contest, as Obama did in 2008? Will a candidate now struggling and basically given up for dead (Kirsten Gillibrand?) come out on top, as Kerry did in 2004 and McCain did in 2008? Or what if the past offers no guidance whatsoever, as was the case in 2016?

The answer to each of these questions is: We don’t know, and we won’t know for quite a while. The adage that “if you want to hear God laugh, make a plan” has a corollary: If you want to hear God start wheezing and crying and struggling to breathe, make a prediction a year in advance. And when it comes to presidential primaries, you could sometimes have generated a divine belly laugh just by trying to project a day into the future.



America’s Leftist Undocumented Alien Invasion

Illegal immigration, by the numbers: Visa violators and border crossers

Illegal immigration, by the numbers: Visa violators and border crossers
© Getty

No one knows exactly how many undocumented aliens are in the United States, or from where they come. Most estimates range wildly, from 10 million to 22 million.

What we do know, from various studies and estimates, is that Central Americans illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are not the only source of our problem.

Undocumented aliens come here from all over the world — and visa overstays are as great a problem as those illegal border crossings shown nightly on TV and debated endlessly in Congress.

The inherent difficulty in calculating the numbers is that undocumented aliens usually avoid drawing attention to their status, to avoid being deported.

In February 2018, the Center for Migration Studies estimated 10.8 million undocumented aliens living here in 2016. Last December, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated 12 million undocumented aliens as of January 2015. On June 3, Pew Research Center put the number 10.7 million in 2016.

None of these estimates seems reliable. They are based on Census Bureau data: The number of legal immigrants in the country was subtracted from the number of census participants who acknowledged they were not born in the U.S.

Yet, Census information is self-reported by survey participants with no independent verification. There’s no way of knowing if a significant percentage of the undocumented alien population participated. And it is utterly unrealistic to expect undocumented aliens to admit their status in surveys conducted by the federal government.

Professors from MIT and Yale, using more sophisticated methodology, estimated in September 2018 that 22.1 million undocumented aliens are in the U.S. Their estimate is based on operational data such as border apprehensions, deportations, visa overstays and demographic figures, as well as mortality and emigration rates. They evaluated the data with a mathematical model that estimates and tracks population inflows and outflows.

Yet, some of these factors are not wholly reliable. For instance, the professors acknowledged concern about the accuracy of apprehension data: “We don’t know the number of people who cross the border successfully — we only know when people get caught trying.”

The visa overstay numbers they used may not be accurate, either.

An “overstay” is a non-immigrant visitor who was admitted for a specified time but remained longer without permission. Most overstay data pertains to non-immigrant visitors who came here through the Visa Waiver Program, which allows eligible aliens from 38 countries to enter the United States as non-immigrant visitors without going through the visa process.

Although the Visa Waiver Program was established in 1986 and entries began in 1988, overstay records were not available until 2016. Moreover, entry and exit data is only collected at air- and seaports; it is not collected at land ports.

The DHS Fiscal Year 2018 Entry/Exit Overstay Report” indicates 666,582 suspected overstay “events” in fiscal 2018. That includes 68,593 students or exchange visitors and other categories of non-immigrants who entered with visas.

The term “event” refers to the number of “expected departures,” not to the number of actual aliens who were expected to depart — and the Center for Immigration Studies claims this makes the overstay rates deceptively low.

To explain, using DHS methodology: If 10 non-immigrant visitors enter the U.S. three times each in a year, that would result in a total of 30 “expected departures.” If they all leave as required, but an additional visitor makes only one visit and overstays, the overstay rate would be 1 in 31 entries, or about 3 percent. Yet, if the overstay rate were calculated by counting people, the rate would be 1 in 11, or about 9 percent.

According to the Center for Migration Studies, the number of known overstays significantly exceeded illegal border crossings from 2010 to 2017.

Where are they from?

The following table from the DHS “2017 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics” provides data on the regions apprehended aliens come from. It includes Border Patrol apprehensions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) administrative arrests.

alien apprehensions by region

A breakdown of which countries they are from can be found on page 92 of the Yearbook.

While migrants apprehended at the Southwest border once predominantly came from Mexico, most now come from the “Northern Triangle” — El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

CBP statistics indicate illegal border crossing apprehensions have risen dramatically along the Southwest border — from 51,008 in October 2018, to 132,887 in May 2019.

Reducing the numbers

Deporting those who have just made an illegal entry does not reduce the population of undocumented aliens. It just prevents it from getting larger.

To reduce that population, illegal residents would have to be removed from the interior of the country — and the immigration court backlog crisis severely limits such removals. So, too, does the difficulty of identifying and finding illegal residents, the limited numbers of ICE officers who could be assigned to that task, and the notoriously limited cooperation provided by some state and local governments, among many factors.

The “Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report” shows how many aliens were removed from the interior of the country between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2018. It reports that the number rose steadily — from 65,332 in 2016, to 81,603 in 2017 and 95,360 in 2018.

Still, each of those figures is but a fraction of the millions estimated to be living here illegally — and they only serve to underscore the magnitude of the immigration crisis we face.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him on Twitter @NolanR1

Feelings, NOT TRUTH, Feverishly Govern the Human Female Animal’s Mind!

Truth has seldom been a powerful drive in the feminized  human female animal’s primary drive in life.   FEELINGS UBER ALLES keep interfering with her abilities to recognize Truth.  Unlike the human male animal, she isn’t born driven to problem solve.

Nearly all  of our American feminist loud mouths are Democrats from Nancy Pelosi of the US Senate to our  today’s typical  public school teacher from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The accumulation of knowledge is a human male drive, whether BC 1000 or AD 2019.  “HE” IS THE BORN PROTECTOR OF HUMAN SPECIES SURVIVAL, not the she!!  He is born with a killer instinct his “cultural” life dictates.   She, NOT HE, is born to bear the offspring for the duration  of the species.  He is born curious,  driven to be the provider, builder, and the  protector.

“She” used to be a RESPECTED MOTHER….EVEN IN MY LIFE TIME.   In our good old USA today,  generally her career dictates her mode and mood.   Homemaking has disappeared.   In AD USA 2019 one can even correctly claim HOME has been disappearing.   With the exception of a few of  today’s devoted JudeoChristians, those few who are allowed to  home teach there own children,  America’s married females of age aren’t home caring for their offspring.   They work for a living five days a week instead.

Marriage in America isn’t what it used to be before our American “animal revolution of the  1960s”. Nor are its neighborhoods,  atheism, lefty schools, newsprint and television.

Today’s America has become the land of Dem  “Ditsy Queens”, leftists in today’s Democrat Party where TRUTH no longer has any meaning and the human  male disappearing.

Please read the following article by Michael Barone


Using the Big Lie to Delegitimize Election Results

by Michael Barone  at realclearpolitics:

The Big Lie is back in style. Wikipedia tells us that the term was invented by Adolf Hitler to describe what others did — though he was the biggest liar of all. “The broad masses of a nation,” he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie.”

No one on the political scene in this country or any democratic nation is a monster comparable to Hitler. But some have resorted to the Big Lie in their attempts to override clear decisions of the people, at the risk of delegitimizing the nation’s democracy.

Exhibit A: the claims that Democrats Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum “won” last fall’s elections for governor in Georgia and Florida. Actually, both of them lost by a 50-49 percent margin.

Abrams admits this but insists, “so many people were disenfranchised and disengaged … that I feel comfortable now saying, ‘I won.'” Presidential candidate Kamala Harris told the Detroit NAACP, “without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia. Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida.”

(Please continue reading below to know today’s America better:)



The Disappearance of the Human Family in Our Once Good Old Godfearing USA

Motherhood in our America began to disappear  in the 1960s.  Feminists and/ or the financial struggles of the American human family of the period began pushing her out of  house and motherhood.  American feminists of all shapes, sexes, and sizes insisted she was in every way the equal of or superior to the human male animal.   Only human male bigotry and bullishness  have forced the poor dears throughout the millennia to be Mothers.  Sex is sexy.  Motherhood is tough, demanding, and can seem lonely and boring.  Nor does it bring big money to the family unit    She American female went off to college to become stars  in  leftism, butchism, mouthy and arrogance….but still remain ditsy.

There the  American female leftist was taught  butchism, its art and delusion that she, the superior sex she has been programmed she is,  at last, has been made  free from domestic slavery created  by  evil masculinity for the past 4,000,000 years of human development.

She’s in the army or has a job  and owns the government now!  Her Motherhood lasts about a week until she goes back to her occupation.   Since she is made equal or superior to any male, why have a husband?

And goodbye to  the American family, with the exception of those wonderful Christian American mothers who still stay home to  mother providing warmth, soul, knowledge, and strength to  their children,  now  on its Godless, leftist  road to destruction.

Please read the following:


Do Fascists, Feminists, and Feminazis Ever Grow Up When They Demand to be TAKEN CARE OF BY THE STATE!!??

Living in Leftlandia

by Deana Chadwell   at  American Thinker:


As children we passed the time pretending to be grownups. We were doctors or cowboys or ballerinas or truck drivers. We built forts and made-up languages. We played school. We imagined our way through grand adventures –- and then, little by little, we turned into adults. Even those who actually became doctors and cowboys faced the reality of those challenging professions. Or we didn’t, and took up voting Democrat, ranting around in marches, and running for office instead.

It’s hard not to notice how little growing up those on the left have actually accomplished. They live in La-la Land, in Leftlandia, saturated in fantasies filled with pots of gold at the ends of LGBT rainbows. They never touch down. Just look at the fairytale multiverse they swoop around in:

  1. Leftlandians actually believe that the world’s climate is something they can control, that man is so much greater than the God Who created the world that humans can use so much toilet paper, or so much gasoline that they can undo creation. They also believe that using fossil fuels to generate electricity with which to run our cars is somehow more environmentally sensible than just using the fossil fuels directly. When someone points out the damage –- both human and environmental –- done by building all those lithium batteries, the Leftlandians just cover their eyes and holler La-La-La-La.
  2. In their unicorn-inhabited world they can pass laws forbidding plastic straws and shampoo bottles and assume that this terrible sacrifice will clean the oceans of the trash dumped into it by billions of people in the third world.
  3. They actually believe they can impose tax hikes on the wealthy and on corporations and said entities will just sit and take it. It doesn’t occur to the left that anyone smart enough to get rich in the first place will be smart enough to hide their money offshore, or move their business to a less onerous tax environment. Remember the little girl in your neighborhood who always wanted to boss everyone around and how mad she’d get when no one would obey her?  That’s the left.  “I’m the boss!”
  4. They continue to pretend that Marxism is a useful worldview.  Evidence, preserved in gruesome history (and the current starvation of the Venezuelan and North Korean people) notwithstanding, they insist on the efficacy of the destruction of capitalism. And they do this while eating food produced by businessmen-farmers, driving cars manufactured by corporations, and wearing clothes created by designer-entrepreneurs.  They fail to see the contradiction. Bernie Sanders, the consummate socialist, just declared that, “If you write a bestselling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” evidently unaware of the about-face he had just committed.
  5. They believe they can tell doctors that they now work for the state and can only earn a state-approved salary. It never occurs to them that many of our doctors will just quit being doctors. Free healthcare is a delicious fable, but not if there is no healthcare to be found at any price.  It’s not a magic bean.
  6. They believe they can pretend to be a gender other than what they were born with and that if they can browbeat the rest of us into playing their game, that it will be true. They even believe they can make up new genders no one’s ever heard of before. They might as well imagine themselves to be unicorns as far as reality is concerned, but they’re not concerned with reality. It’s all play-acting.
  7. They believe that they can fake their way into college, go there and spend four years sitting in classes like “Vegan Studies,” smoking dope and drinking beer at frat parties, then walk into the real world and get rich. They think they can do this with college loan debt in six figures and no practical skills. And they think that their plan to soak the rich won’t apply to them.
  8. In Leftlandia, folks are comfortable with declaring women’s rights with half their words and supporting Islam, with its wife-beating, woman-hating, girl-mutilating way of life, with the other.  They don’t find it weird that Linda Sarsour, outspoken proponent of Sharia law, should be leading a women’s rally.
  9. They do have trolls and goblins in their world, but they aren’t real. Leftists are afraid of Christians, but not of Muslims — who clearly state they want to kill us all. They are scared of Jews, and white people and men. They evidently see infants as dangerous as well since they seem so comfortable about killing them.
  10. They believe, all evidence to the contrary, that humans are all basically good — not including Christians, Jews, white people, and men. Therefore any failings they’re faced with are the fault of “society” or, in other words, the aforementioned groups –- and the NRA. Can’t forget that. As a corollary, they believe that war and crime can be erased by everyone “just getting along, “ which somehow doesn’t mean that they have to be kind to Christians, Jews, white people or men – especially men who belong to the NRA.
  11. They are staunch defenders of license (not liberty), but even more staunch believers in equality, for which they are willing to ditch freedom –- especially freedom of speech. Speech is dangerous and can pop their balloons, so that’s got to go.
  12. Speaking of language, in their postmodern, deconstructionist, intersectional world, words aren’t important. They can mean whatever a leftist wants them to mean. A white nationalist used to be a neo-Nazi skinhead, but now it refers to conservatives in general. A racist used to a person who based his opinion of people on the color of their skin. Now it means anyone who would write an essay like this. Words are bludgeons and no good leftist has any reverence for the sacred contract of language. In their fairytale world no actual truth exists and no moral code either, so there is no needs for honesty.
  13. They believe that the color of their skin matters. They believe their country of origin is important and should be worn like a battle scar.
  14. Which brings up another whole facet of their narrative –- they pretend that they aren’t really individuals, that they are nothing more than cogs in whatever gear they think they’ve been “oppressed” into. I suppose this saves the trouble of actually having to take responsibility for their own lives, but it also makes them slaves and they don’t seem to notice. They also think they can right the wrongs done to one group of long-dead people by taking from modern-day people who had nothing to do with the original transgression.
  15. And they believe they can’t lose. The Trump win in 2016 cracked the magical snow-globe they live in and now the emptiness of the Mueller report has dealt it another terrible blow. Not to worry, though. The fantasy must go on. They are sure that if they yell, “Collusion!” loud enough, Trump will dissolve into a flurry of fairy dust and be gone.

The problem with all this is that it’s impossible to talk to people who live in such a place. They don’t speak the language of truth, of practicality, of reality. They’re still pretending, living in a world where the government is Rumpelstiltskin, endlessly spinning gold out of flax. How can we work to solve problems when all we have to work with are petulant children who are still waiting on their fairy godmother to bring them a dress for the ball?



“Bernie Sanders An Old Stalinist If There Ever Was One!”


by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

The Spring issue of the Claremont Review of Books has not yet gone to press, but it will feature an interview with the incomparable Norman Podhoretz that has been posted online here for subscribers and circulated by the editors in samizdat. The interview is great. Rush Limbaugh flagged it in a segment posted here. Mr. Ace plucked some juicy morsels in a post here at Ace of Spades. The CRB’s idea in posting the interview is, of course, to entice recalcitrant readers to give up $19.95 and subscribe. Here is NP on the ascendant left in the Democratic Party:

Well, some of them say they’re pro-socialism, but most of them don’t know what they’re talking about. They ought to visit a British hospital or a Canadian hospital once in a while to see what Medicare for All comes down to. They don’t know what they’re for.

I mean, the interesting thing about this whole leftist movement that started in the ’60s is how different it is from the Left of the ’30s. The Left of the ’30s had a positive alternative in mind—what they thought was positive—namely, the Soviet Union. So America was bad; Soviet Union, good. Turn America into the Soviet Union and everything is fine.

The Left of the ’60s knew that the Soviet Union was flawed because its crimes that had been exposed, so they never had a well-defined alternative. One day it was Castro, the next day Mao, the next day Zimbabwe, I mean, they kept shifting—as long as it wasn’t America. Their real passion was to destroy America and the assumption was that anything that came out of those ruins would be better than the existing evil. That was the mentality—there was never an alternative and there still isn’t.

So Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned in the Soviet Union—I mean, I don’t know him personally, but I have relatives who resemble him; I know him in my bones—and he’s an old Stalinist if there ever was one. Things have gone so haywire, he was able to revive the totally discredited idea of socialism, and others were so ignorant that they picked it up.

As for attitudes toward America, I believe that Howard Zinn’s relentlessly anti-American People’s History of the United States sells something like 200,000 copies a year, and it’s a main text for the study of American History in the high schools and in kindergarten. So, we have miseducated a whole generation, two generations by now, about almost everything.