• 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

Monty Python Time in Loony Lefty Minneapolis

TROUBLE IN DYSTOPIA, CONT’D

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and “American Indian leaders” met yesterday with denizens of the open air drug den cum encampment on Hiawatha Avenue at Cedar just outside downtown Minneapolis. The Star Tribune reports that the meeting was “hastily called in response to complaints of harassment and intimidation of humanitarian aid workers at the large homeless camp in south Minneapolis.” Also in attendance was the harassment/intimidation crew from Natives Against Heroin.

We’ve got trouble right here in river city. The trouble is attributable in part to idiotic municipal authorities and to the culture of lawlessness they have abetted.

In this installment of the saga, we have the mayor begging for good behavior. We have Indian leaders from four reservations sitting at a large round table “with the smell of burnt sage” in the air. At least we think it was sage.

Convicted drug dealer/burglar/thief and American Indian Movement cofounder Clyde Bellecourt was in attendance. The Star Tribune reports that he “shared decades of experience advocating for American Indian rights.” The Star Tribune omits any mention of Bellecourt’s criminal history or his possible role in the murder of American Indian Movement member Anna Mae Aquash in 1975. See Mike Mosedale’s City Pages story “Bury My Heart” (more here).

The meeting did not go down as the mayor must have hoped. The Star Tribune has done its best to put a smily face on the drug den ever since it initiated coverage of the encampment, yet it gives up here: “Discord permeated the gathering and emotions ran high, despite a few positive moments.”

Despite the burning of sage to dispel the negativity. And despite the group of women who “raised their voices in prayer to calm the room” whenever discussions became too “combative,” as the Star Tribune puts it.

The Star Tribune story concludes on a philosophical note:

A point of contention was whether Indians who are homeless should receive priority, being allowed to move into the large heated tents and receive other services before non-Indians.

Some argued that the ethnicity of those getting help wasn’t important.

Others, like White Earth Nation member Dawn LaRoque, said she hoped Indians would receive aid first. LaRoque also brought up safety at the navigation center, including whether people will still be able to use drugs there.

Frey said residents wouldn’t be tested for drugs upon admittance, but that they couldn’t do drugs on site.

A new idea emerged from discussions: creating a space where people could share disagreements in front of a neutral third party. Frey said it was an excellent idea.

Sam Strong, tribal secretary of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, said the camp had already spurred change simply by forcing officials to address homelessness head-on.

“There’s hope in that facility that we have over there,” Strong said. “When has anybody ever done anything for homeless people?”

In this installment of the saga we have elements of comedy begging for satire. Sam Strong’s concluding question awaits its Monty Python moment.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/trouble-in-dystopia-contd.php

Robert Mueller: So Evil, so Ugly, so Repulsive, so Nazi in His Office, so “Handsome is as Handsome Does!”

—The Perversion of the American Federal Judicial System—by Cjack

1) It is time for the nation to be reminded of Robert “Muleface” Mueller’s prosecution of four innocent men in Boston, MA. The evil Mueller fabricated a criminal case against four innocent men, based on the lies of one of his own crooked FBI agents working with Mueller’s informant Whitey Bolger—a murdering Boston crime boss recently assassinated in prison after evading justice for over sixteen years. Two of the four innocent men prosecuted by Mueller died in prison before they were all exonerated. The accused men successfully sued the government and were awarded a substantial judgement but not their release.

2) Mueller and Comey wrongfully accused Steven Hatfill for the anthrax attacks that killed five people in Washington in 2001. Mueller developed his case against Hatfill based on drug-sniffing dogs who took a liking to Hatfill’s petting. Mueller and Comey wrecked the man’s life that was later found innocent and was awarded a $5.2 million legal settlement.

3) Previously In 1996 Mueller had wrongfully accused Richard Jewel, a security guard, of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Hasty to secure a conviction, “Muleface” Mueller and his elongated ‘Inspector Clouseau’—the egotistic, lying, dufus—exFBI man James Comey, affirmed to the press that Mr. Jewel was the bomber. Yikes!

4) And now, after two years, the flopping “Muleface” Mueller and, again, his crooked ex-FBI director— (the American “Pink Panther”) —James Comey, have fabricated a colossal lie to unseat our duly elected President, Mr. Donald J Trump; an American patriot!…“Muleface” Mueller is really the hitman in charge of the conspiracy to overthrow the President on the bogus charge of colluding with Russia to deny the crooked Hillary Clinton the White House. In reality Mueller is as crooked as Hillary who has committed flagrant criminal acts against the laws of our nation. So to extricate himself and his partners in crime, “Muleface” Mueller cleverly enlisted a gang of unethical lawyers led by the infamous Andrew Weissmann of Enron fame; all to cover up the bad deeds committed by Mueller, Obama, James Comey, James Brennan, James Clapper, and other high government officials of Obama’s administration.

Note: To the list of the aforementioned miscreants we must add the un-American George Soros, who has been pulling Obama’s strings behind the curtains. Soros is not wanted in Russia, Hungary, Albania and other European countries for criminally interfering in their political affairs, the same reason we should revoke his naturalized American citizenship and deport from our country.

Mueller is the hitman, appointed by the perverse Deputy Attorney General of the US Rod Rosenstein, to overthrow the government of the United States. These damned fools have gone too far. And, we, the American people, must hang ’em high!

Cjack…Sentinel on the Gulf…December 9, 2018.

Ten Important Questions for James Comey “Trial”

Byron York: Ten questions for James Comey’s Upcoming “Trial”

by Byron York  at Washington Examiner:

Members of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees will question former FBI Director James Comey Friday morning. After much wrangling, the interview will take place behind closed doors. Comey wanted it to be public, but lawmakers, unwilling to cut up their questioning into five-minute slices for a public setting, insisted on a private session. The House won. But both sides agreed that a transcript of the interview will be released quickly, perhaps as quickly as 24 hours after the meeting.

Republicans were divided about whether to interview Comey at all. He has testified many times, written a book, and publicly discussed his tenure in office at great length. Some Republicans preferred to bring in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has been resisting an appearance on Capitol Hill. “It’s been nine weeks since the press reported that Rod Rosenstein was contemplating wearing a wire to record the president and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told me recently, “and we’re spending time bringing in Comey for the 15th time?”

Nevertheless, Comey is coming in. Some Republicans want to ask him more about the Hillary Clinton case, but even some of them acknowledge that the case is over and done with. Others want to focus on the Trump-Russia affair. That includes a lot of material. There will, for example, undoubtedly be some questions about the Trump dossier, the origins of which Republicans have done extensive work to expose.

But one particularly useful area of questioning would be the case of Michael Flynn, the short-term Trump national security adviser who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI and who this week received a no-jail sentencing recommendation from Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller. Comey spoke privately to Congress about the Flynn case on a few occasions in 2017. But so far, all the public knows about those statements are a few snippets of testimony included in a House Intelligence Committee report and a few others from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. If Comey were questioned about it in some detail Friday, and if the transcript of that conversation were released, then the pblic might finally learn more about the case. With that in mind, here are ten questions for Comey on the subject of Michael Flynn:

1. Did you read the wiretap transcripts of conversations between Flynn and then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak? If not, were they described to you or synopsized for you by other government officials?

2. Did you read the so-called 302 report written by the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017? If not, was it described to you or synopsized for you by other government officials?

3. Did you ever discuss the Flynn interview with the agents? In any event, what, precisely, did the agents report on the question of whether or not Flynn was truthful in the interview?

4. Did the agents believe Flynn tried to deceive them?

5. If the agents did not believe Flynn was lying, how did they — or you — reconcile the differences between what Flynn said in the FBI interview and what he said in the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations?

6. Did Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency with a deep knowledge of surveillance practices, at any time in the interview acknowledge or refer to the fact that his conversations with Kislyak were recorded by U.S. intelligence? Did he ever acknowledge that the transcripts of his conversations were available to FBI officials?

7. What other evidence did the FBI have that Flynn lied to the agents?

8. Did you believe, a week after the interview, that Flynn would be indicted for lying to the FBI? Did you believe, by early May 2017, before you were fired, that Flynn would be indicted for lying to the FBI?

9. When did you learn that Flynn would be charged and had pleaded guilty? What was your reaction?

10. Other than the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, are you aware of any other instances in which Flynn took part in any activities as part of a conspiracy with Russia to fix the 2016 election? If so, what were they?

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-ten-questions-for-james-comey

Will GOP EVER Expose Crooked Hillary’s Russian Plot and Obama’s FBI & DOJ Crimes?

House Republicans Ask Trump to Declassify ‘Damning’ Obama DOJ Emails

 

A long classified email chain from October 2016 reveals that a large group of Obama Justice Department officials — including James Comey — was aware that there was highly misleading information in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign, John Solomon of The Hill reported Wednesday.

According to Solomon’s sources, the documents “may provide the most damning evidence to date” of potential FISA abuses.

The emails show that some in the intelligence community — possibly the NSA — had problems with the quality of the intelligence in the Steele dossier, which was used to obtain the surveillance warrant.

The emails also reveal that the officials knew that British spy Christopher Steele had talked to Yahoo News about his findings, as some on the email chain had expressed concerns about that.

Steele was hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS (funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC) to put together a (now discredited) dossier on candidate Donald Trump.

In January 2018, Senator Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referred Steele to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation after he and Senator Lindsey Graham identified potential false statements Steele had made to the FBI.

According to the senators, the evidence suggested that either “Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media (a violation of 18 USC 1001) — or the FBI misrepresented Steele’s statements.”

To secure the FISA warrant, the FBI used the Yahoo News story (based on Steele’s sketchy dossier) as independent corroboration for the dossier. It was a classic case of circular intelligence reporting, a fraudulent method of “confirming intelligence.”

“If the FBI knew of his media contacts and the concerns about the reliability of his dossier before seeking the warrant, it would constitute a serious breach of FISA regulations and the trust that the FISA court places in the FBI,” said Solomon.

“That’s because the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent,” he explained.

The FBI fired Steele on Nov. 1, 2016, because of his unauthorized contacts with the news media, but only after they’d used his dirty dossier to secure the warrant.

… the FBI withheld from the American public and Congress, until months later, that Steele had been paid to find his dirt on Trump by a firm doing political opposition research for the Democratic Party and for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and that Steele himself harbored hatred for Trump.

Right before Thanksgiving, House Republicans quietly added the damning email chain to the list of documents they’d like President Trump to declassify. According to The Hill, the DOJ kept the information from the majority of members of Congress for more than two years.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/house-republicans-ask-trump-to-declassify-damning-obama-doj-emails/

Our Dem Fascistic Friends at PBS Review Their “Trump Collusion” with Russians

America’s Illegal Immigrant Criminals One Way to St. Helena?

THE DANES HAVE HAD IT WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Here in America, we can’t seem to deport even the most vicious of criminals–not so they will stay deported, anyway. In Denmark, the Telegraph reports, people are fed up. I don’t think the article is available online to non-subscribers, so I will quote it:

Foreign criminals awaiting deportation from Denmark will be banished to a deserted island, the government has announced.

Rejected asylum seekers who have committed crimes will be detained at a facility on Lindholm, an uninhabited, seven-hectare island in the province of Vordingborg, one and a half miles from the mainland.

It will also house foreigners who do not have permission to stay but cannot be deported for legal reasons, such as stateless people and those from countries which do not have a readmission agreement with Denmark.

The Danes seem to have taken an interest in their own self-preservation, unlike so many Americans:

A spokesman for the party said, “Foreign criminals have no reason to be in Denmark.

“Until we can get rid of them, we will move them to Lindholm, where they will be obliged to stay at the new deportation center at night. There will be police there around the clock.”

Left-wing Danes have responded with a variant on the “This is not who we are” plaint of American leftists:

“The green government I want to lead would never force people on to a deserted island,” said Uffe Elbaek, a prime ministerial candidate and leader of the Alternative party.

“Inhuman politics are creating a completely different Denmark from the Denmark I love.”

The idea has appeal, but here in the U.S., we are going to need a bigger island.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/the-danes-have-had-it-with-illegal-immigrant-criminals.php

Will Fascist UC Berkeley EVER Allow Conservatives Rights on Campus?

UC Berkeley must pay $70K and change policies to guarantee free speech for conservative speakers

by Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

.

The campaign of the American left to silence conservatives on campus sustained a massive defeat yesterday, as the University of California, Berkeley reached a legal settlement (text here) to a lawsuit brought against it following cancelation of a speech by Ann Coulter.  The co-sponsor of that speech (along with Berkeley College Republicans), Young America’s Foundation (YAF) jubilantly announced, in an article by Spencer Brown:

Following more than a year of hard-fought litigation in the hostile Ninth Circuit, Young America’s Foundation secured victory for free speech against the University of California, Berkeley.  Through YAF’s lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreement executed over the weekend, UC Berkeley agreed to the following terms set by Young America’s Foundation:

1) Pay Young America’s Foundation $70,000.

2) Rescind the unconstitutional “high-profile speaker policy.”

3) Rescind the viewpoint-discriminatory security fee policy.

4) Abolish its heckler’s veto – protestors will no longer be able to shut down conservative expression.

This landmark victory for free expression means UC Berkeley can no longer wantonly treat conservative students as second-class members of its community while ignoring the guaranteed protections of the First Amendment.

No longer can UC Berkeley place a 3:00 p.m. curfew on conservative speech.  No longer can UC Berkeley ban advertisements for Young America’s Foundation-sponsored campus lectures.  And no longer can UC Berkeley relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving leftist speakers access to preferred locations.

Further, the policy that allowed Berkeley administrators to charge conservative students $20,000 for security to host Ben Shapiro – an amount three times greater than the fee charged to leftist students to host liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor – is gone.  YAF and UC Berkeley agreed to a fee schedule that treats all students equally.  Unless students are handling money or serving alcohol at an event, the security fee will be zero.


Sather Gate, University of California, Berkeley (photo credit: Picryl).  Sproul Paza, beyond the gate, has been the scene of many riots since 1964, including the one that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech.

The lawsuit was handled by the Dhillon Law Group, founded by superstar civil rights lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, who also represents James Damore, the Google engineer fired for posting a memo questioning progressive orthodoxy on sex.  She issued a press release stating:

This landmark settlement means that all students at UC Berkeley now have the exciting opportunity to hear a variety of viewpoints on campus without the artificial tax of security fees selectively imposed on disfavored speech[.]

As is customary in such settlements, U.C. Berkeley and the other named defendants deny the allegations while agreeing to change policies and pay up $70,000, which presumably will be applied to the plaintiffs’ legal fees.

The Daily Californian student newspaper features the statement of the University:

“Given that this outcome is all but indistinguishable from what a courtroom victory would have looked like, we see this as the least expensive path to successful resolution of this lawsuit,” Mogulof said in the statement.  “While we regret the time, effort and resources that have been expended successfully defending the constitutionality of UC Berkeley’s event policy, this settlement means the campus will not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in unrecoverable defense costs to prove that UC Berkeley has never discriminated on the basis of viewpoint.”

There is huge irony in this case in that in 1954, the University of California, Berkeley was convulsed with student demonstrations in the so-called Free Speech Movement that kicked off years of student unrest.  At that time, the left demanded free speech, only to reverse itself half a century later following its hegemony on campuses and demand the silencing of dissident voices questioning its shibboleths.  With elite academia captured by the left, universities have largely betrayed their mission of open inquiry and sided with the silencers.

This settlement represents a reversal of course – at least at the campus that has played the leading role in the left’s assault on civil rights.

The campaign of the American left to silence conservatives on campus sustained a massive defeat yesterday, as the University of California, Berkeley reached a legal settlement (text here) to a lawsuit brought against it following cancelation of a speech by Ann Coulter.  The co-sponsor of that speech (along with Berkeley College Republicans), Young America’s Foundation (YAF) jubilantly announced, in an article by Spencer Brown:

Following more than a year of hard-fought litigation in the hostile Ninth Circuit, Young America’s Foundation secured victory for free speech against the University of California, Berkeley.  Through YAF’s lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreement executed over the weekend, UC Berkeley agreed to the following terms set by Young America’s Foundation:

1) Pay Young America’s Foundation $70,000.

2) Rescind the unconstitutional “high-profile speaker policy.”

3) Rescind the viewpoint-discriminatory security fee policy.

4) Abolish its heckler’s veto – protestors will no longer be able to shut down conservative expression.

This landmark victory for free expression means UC Berkeley can no longer wantonly treat conservative students as second-class members of its community while ignoring the guaranteed protections of the First Amendment.

No longer can UC Berkeley place a 3:00 p.m. curfew on conservative speech.  No longer can UC Berkeley ban advertisements for Young America’s Foundation-sponsored campus lectures.  And no longer can UC Berkeley relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving leftist speakers access to preferred locations.

Further, the policy that allowed Berkeley administrators to charge conservative students $20,000 for security to host Ben Shapiro – an amount three times greater than the fee charged to leftist students to host liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor – is gone.  YAF and UC Berkeley agreed to a fee schedule that treats all students equally.  Unless students are handling money or serving alcohol at an event, the security fee will be zero.


Sather Gate, University of California, Berkeley (photo credit: Picryl).  Sproul Paza, beyond the gate, has been the scene of many riots since 1964, including the one that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech.

The lawsuit was handled by the Dhillon Law Group, founded by superstar civil rights lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, who also represents James Damore, the Google engineer fired for posting a memo questioning progressive orthodoxy on sex.  She issued a press release stating:

This landmark settlement means that all students at UC Berkeley now have the exciting opportunity to hear a variety of viewpoints on campus without the artificial tax of security fees selectively imposed on disfavored speech[.]

As is customary in such settlements, U.C. Berkeley and the other named defendants deny the allegations while agreeing to change policies and pay up $70,000, which presumably will be applied to the plaintiffs’ legal fees.

The Daily Californian student newspaper features the statement of the University:

“Given that this outcome is all but indistinguishable from what a courtroom victory would have looked like, we see this as the least expensive path to successful resolution of this lawsuit,” Mogulof said in the statement.  “While we regret the time, effort and resources that have been expended successfully defending the constitutionality of UC Berkeley’s event policy, this settlement means the campus will not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in unrecoverable defense costs to prove that UC Berkeley has never discriminated on the basis of viewpoint.”

There is huge irony in this case in that in 1954, the University of California, Berkeley was convulsed with student demonstrations in the so-called Free Speech Movement that kicked off years of student unrest.  At that time, the left demanded free speech, only to reverse itself half a century later following its hegemony on campuses and demand the silencing of dissident voices questioning its shibboleths.  With elite academia captured by the left, universities have largely betrayed their mission of open inquiry and sided with the silencers.

This settlement represents a reversal of course – at least at the campus that has played the leading role in the left’s assault on civil rights.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/uc_berkeley_must_pay_70k_and_change_policies_to_guarantee_free_speech_for_conservative_speakers.html#ixzz5Ykg8Qm9W
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/uc_berkeley_must_pay_70k_and_change_policies_to_guarantee_free_speech_for_conservative_speakers.html