• 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

Fox News, Tell the Truth! Norm Coleman Beat Thief Franken in the 2008 MN Senate Contest!

ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS 20 EXTRA VOTES FOR FRANKEN

by Ann Coulter

“It’s bad enough that the Republican Party can’t prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with The New York Times’ favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can’t protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.

The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.

Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. In another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.

As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, “discovered” ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 — two days before the election.

Democratic election officials in the miracle-ballot county simply announced that the date stamp on their voting machine must have been broken. Don’t worry about it — they were sure those 100 votes for Franken were legit.

Next, another 400-odd statistically improbable “corrections” were made in other Democratic strongholds until — by the end of election week — Coleman’s lead had been whittled down to a mere 215 votes.

Since then, highly irregular counting methods have added to Franken’s total bit by bit, to the point that Coleman is now ahead by only 188 votes.

As long as Coleman maintains any lead at all, Republicans don’t seem to care that Coleman’s advantage is being shrunk by laughable ballot “discoveries” and different vote-count standards being applied from one precinct to the next — depending on which method of counting ballots is most advantageous to Franken.

Consider a few other chilling examples of Democrats thieving their way to victory over the years.

In 1974, Republican Louis Wyman won his race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, beating Democrat John Durkin by 355 votes. Durkin demanded a recount — which went back and forth by a handful of votes until the state’s Ballot Law Commission concluded that Wyman had indeed won by (at least) two votes.

Wyman was certified the winner by the New Hampshire secretary of state and was on his way to Washington when … the overwhelmingly Democratic U.S. Senate refused to seat Wyman.

Despite New Hampshire’s certification of Wyman as the winner of the election, this was the post-Watergate Senate, when Democrats could get away with anything — including a madcap prank known as “President Jimmy Carter.”

The U.S. Senate spent months examining disputed ballots from the New Hampshire election. Unable to come up with a method to declare the Democrat the winner that didn’t involve a guillotine, the U.S. Senate forced New Hampshire to hold another election.

It was a breathtaking abuse of power. New Hampshire had certified a winner of its Senate election, but it was a Republican, so the Democratic Senate simply ordered a new election.

Demoralized Republicans stayed away from the race and, this time, the Democrat won the re-vote.

Even more egregious was a 1984 congressional race in Indiana. On election night, the incumbent Democrat Frank McCloskey appeared to have won a razor-thin victory of 72 votes. But after a correction was made in one county, it turned out his Republican opponent, Richard McIntyre, had won by 34 votes.

Republican McIntyre was certified the winner — which is when the trouble usually starts. Again, a majority Democrat House refused to seat the certified winner in a close election. (I’m sure it was just a coincidence that the winner was a Republican.)

Consequently, Indiana performed yet another recount of the entire district, which again showed that Republican McIntyre was the winner — this time by 418 votes.

As The Washington Post reported at the time: There were “no allegations of fraud” in the recount and 90 percent of ballot disqualifications had been agreed to “by election commissions dominated by Democrats.” So, naturally, the House refused to seat the Republican even though he had received the most votes in the election, which in most jurisdictions would make him “the winner.”

This time, instead of ordering the district to hold another election, the Democratic House saved everyone a lot of trouble by simply declaring Democrat Frank McCloskey the winner. By exactly four votes, according to the House’s count.

Rounding out our stories of Democratic vote-theft is the infamous 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State. Eerily similar to the ongoing “recount” in Minnesota, the Republican won the race on election night, but ballots favoring the Democrat kept being “discovered” until the Democrat finally eked out a majority. At that point, the recount was immediately halted and the Democrat declared the victor.

You would have to go back to Reconstruction to find an election that was stolen by the Republicans this way, but it’s all in a day’s work for the Democrats. Win or lose, Democrats will steal any close election.

That’s why they were so testy about the 2000 Florida election. It was the one time in the last century Republicans wouldn’t let Democrats steal an election they lost by less than a thousand votes.

No matter how many times Democrats steal elections, Republicans keep thinking the next time will be different. Minnesota is famously clean! It’s not like those other states. It’s not different. It’s still the Democrats.”

Note:   Brett Baier didn’t get his Al Franken news straight this evening on Fox News.

Baier claimed Franken won his first Senate contest by beating  Senator Norm Coleman in 2008 by 312 votes.  THE WINNER OF THE ORIGINAL OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT AT THE END OF THE COUNTING WAS U.S. SENATOR NORM COLEMAN BY 725 votes.    There would be a mandatory recount, however….which would include illegal voting at jails, Iron Range and Duluth precincts with more Franken voters than voting citizens……enough corruption in the 8th Congressional district to make certain Obama’s 60th vote in the Senate would be assured.

In a number of elections including the year of the Franken fraud,   very, very, senior citizens in the seventh and eighth congressional districts would be bused to voting stations and the programmed “well intended” leftist bus driver would assist each individual to vote Democrat whether one wanted to or not.

Advertisements

From One Frenzy to the Next

by Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

“America is in another of its Salem moments. Frenzy is almost a living, breathing monster. It moves from host to host, fueled by rumor, gossip, and self-righteous furor.

The Greeks knew well of the transitory nature of these mass panics. They claimed such fits were inspired by the Maniae, the three daughters of Night who were the goddesses of insanity, madness, and crazed frenzy. We’ve seen all three of them in action throughout the past year.

Collusion Everywhere and Nowhere
For about six months, cable news shows, the internet, and the major newspapers ginned up the charge of “Russian collusion”—as a means of explaining the otherwise inexplicable and unacceptable defeat of Hillary Clinton by someone without either political or military experience.

Pundits and talking heads without evidence echoed each other with ever more preposterous charges. Voting machines supposedly had been rigged by a monstrous man who later had stooped to remove the Martin Luther King bust from the West Wing. We were also told that all good souls of the Electoral College clearly should have vitiated their constitutional duties and denied Trump the presidency.

We were lectured at the height of the collusion frenzy that Trump would be 1) impeached, 2) removed by the emoluments clause, 3) forced to resign under the 25th Amendment, or 4) simply quit in shame.

If not, how many ways could (or should) one kill Trump? Hanging? Decapitation? Dismemberment? Combustion? Shooting? Stabbing? Jet crash? As the madness grew, no obscenity from Stephen Colbert or physical threat from Robert DeNiro or Johnny Depp or Kathy Griffin or even Snoop Dogg seemed to suffice to express hatred of Trump.

The font of this 24/7 hysteria was the Clinton campaign’s purchase of a leaked smear job from an opposition research firm, which in turn had hired a disreputable former British intelligence agent, who had paid for concocted Russian slanders designed to disrupt an election. The Fusion GPS/Steele dossier was peddled to U.S. intelligence agencies, some of whom may have seen it as valuable political fodder and thus used it as an excuse to surveille members of the Trump campaign and in turn, unmask the names of American citizens and allow them to be leaked to the press. “Collusion” may turn out to have been sired, grown, and spread from a single, fake, and partisan document.

But now suddenly the hysteria is cooling. Robert Mueller’s own possible ethical conflicts of interests and increasingly bizarre agendas, the Clinton Uranium One scandals, the strange exemptions given the Clinton email debacle, and House Intelligence Committee investigations into unmasking and the origins of the Steele dossier dialed back the frenzy.

Sages in Helmets and Pads
The hysteria then moved on to the once dormant NFL “take a knee” protests, which were reignited by Trump’s public castigation of the players.

Soon the players’ incoherent messaging was passed off by the media as some sort of grassroots Rosa Parks civil rights movement. But as viewers turned their channels and stadia emptied, the hysterical outbursts began to cool.

Money, not the cause of winning hearts and minds to the cause of social justice, became the greater player and owner concern. It is hard to sustain outrage about NFL racism when twentysomething multimillionaires, in a league of over 75 percent African-Americans, insult the sources of their income by refusing to stand for the National Anthem—and belatedly come to realize that the logical trajectory of their supposed principled demonstrations is their own irrelevance and eventual impoverishment.

What cooled the NFL hysteria was the reality that the hyped story of “taking a knee” was morphing into the scarier narrative of less money, an absence of politically correct proportional representation among players, looming league downsizing, pampered athletes, traumatic brain injuries, and a public weariness with everything from ESPN to Colin Kaepernick. In other words, taking a knee reminded about 20 percent of NFL fans that there were already reasons enough to turn the channel. And so they did.

The Maniae then passed on to more new prey.

The Statue Busters
About the same time came the statue hysteria. America woke up one day and decided that century-old statues of Confederate generals or archetypical southern soldiers were proof of pernicious racism. So they had to be removed—by the dead of night and by the mob if necessary. Once these iconic impediments were gone, then social justice would be achieved, as if mute stones, not beating human hearts, explain deteriorating racial relations.

As the frenzy spread and the virtue signaling characteristically escalated, the sin of 2017 was no longer just the 156-year-old Confederate secession from the Union, but politically incorrect sin in general—a remark from Lincoln deemed racist, or the slaveholding of the Jefferson and Washington families, or indigenous peoples mistreated by Columbus. Apparently, the mob reasoned that the present generation alone could best judge the past by its own transitory standards of probity—while being exempt from future charges that it, too, will be culpable for all sorts of moral lapses and pathologies. A generation that cannot even walk in safety at night in many of its major cities or fears contracting Hepatitis A from city sidewalks does not have the pre-tech, material excuses of a Dickensian London.

The internet, cable-TV, and social media mob predictably soon tired with statue smashing and moved on. After all, when one’s negative traits alone define a person, and present morality supersedes time and space to become the arbiter of the past, then everyone stands condemned—progressives perhaps most of all. Was not the liberal saint Margaret Sanger a eugenicist racist? Was not Woodrow Wilson a segregationist reprobate? Was not Leland Stanford a white supremacist? Are the names of such progressive icons to be Trotskyized too from statues and universities on the principle that the worst of a man defines his totality—or are there suddenly to be found extenuating circumstances?

From Harvey to Everyone
The next collective furor arose over Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Sometime in October 2017, the progressive film titan was abruptly condemned as sick, evil, and unhinged—after 30 years of common knowledge that he routinely sought to use his power of hiring and firing to leverage or force sexual gratification.

Once Weinstein’s progressive armor was pierced and he was exposed as a groper, assaulter, and likely rapist, then dozens, perhaps hundreds of similar stories of powerful media and film men surfaced. Some were not only pronounced guilty of past consensual though asymmetrical sexual relationships but of abusive sexual acts and cruelty. Apparently, the mostly progressive male entertainment and media hierarchy had long equated the 1960s-era liberal legacy of “sexual freedom” with a blank check for their own sexual coercion and phallic exhibitionism. We all had assumed a continuity of Hollywood culture of updated Harry Cohns, but Hollywood’s preemptive moral finger-pointing at others apparently allowed their hypocrisies to stay in-house.

As the collective furor grew, the net widened. More stories, but from 10, 20, 30, and 40 years past, surfaced—calibrated to the current celebrity or perceived visibility of the perpetrator. The charges initially also ranged from horrific (and quite believable) allegations of rape and gross groping and assault to what used to be called male-power rudeness and bullying—and eventually including even the occasional crudity and stupidity that can accompany seduction.

Soon, we assumed that if our celebrities, journalists, and politicians were power-hungry sexists and worse, then all of American manhood must be, too. Everyday Joes, for now, were saved from belated and embarrassing post facto accounting only by their ordinary stations that made confessions of their sins of little collective interest.

As in the case of the other hysterias, such collective fits cool when they begin to snare the supposedly exempt—marque reporters, famous authors, prominent politicians—and morph well beyond the original and quite legitimate charges of sexual assault to include rude come-ons and callous, narcissistic and cruel behavior. But when married couples of 40 years begin to think back about whether they too were ever crude in their 20s and 30s or exploitive in their own courtship, then everyone is guilty, and thus no one is guilty and the hysteria subsides.

Who Polices the Police?
Hysterias are not the same as fantasies in that they usually start with some legitimacy.

The Russians always liked to interfere and gum up American elections. It is, after all, the credo of Vladimir Putin to be mostly against what America is mostly for. But as the Obama Administration warned in a dig at Donald Trump (shortly before the election, when it was sure that Hillary Clinton was to be its picked successor), such Russian attempts at election sabotage usually were irrelevant and largely impotent. Instead, what fed the furor was not collusion facts per se, but the idea of yet another post-election weapon to take Trump out before he could dismantle the Obama bureaucratic and executive-order legacy.

Certainly, it is bothersome that the racist and founder of the Ku Klux Klan, the brilliant but diabolical slave-trading Nathan Bedford Forrest, is still worshiped in bronze and stone. But the stone smashers lacked the education and ethics to differentiate individual Confederates like a Forrest from a Longstreet, and so smashed boldly on.

The distance from Lincoln to Lee narrows to almost nothing. Every mute statue becomes a sinner and fair game for the more authentic revolutionary to outdo the latest violent act.

Dozens, perhaps hundreds of women have had their entertainment careers ruined by choosing to fight off the crude assaults of the Weinsteins and their ilk, who sometimes gravitate to the top of entertainment and media, masking their depravity by claiming progressive exemptions and penances. But at this point in the frenzy, most Americans cannot keep up with whether a puffed up and arrogant Dustin Hoffman three decades ago was an uncouth potty mouth in his celebrity trailer as he sought to seduce vulnerable women. Most of the public had long assumed such creepy Hollywood behavior anyway.

What then causes often legitimate writs abruptly to explode into collective fits that end up either ensnaring the innocent or taking legitimate concerns beyond human reason? In our Jacobin frenzy, is it now still permitted to listen to folksy Shelby Foote in Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary, or to hear Joan Baez’s version of “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” or to read Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita? Have you or have you not ever read Death in Venice?

Human nature is prone to a herd mentality and the politics of excess. Groupthink offers a sense of belonging and reinforcement to most people. Democracies in particular in their radical egalitarian culture and exalted sense of self-righteousness are particularly prone to shared frenzies. In volatile democratic culture, today’s sensational scoop becomes passé by tomorrow.

Social media, smartphones, the internet, and cable news are accelerants—as we saw in the Duke Lacrosse and the Virginia fraternity cases. They do in minutes what used to take weeks, with the added fuel of anonymity. “Sources report” blare out TV journalists. Bloggers comment on rumors with their own fake names, photos, and handles, virtue signaling to each their own greater outrage. Chain email comes from pressure groups rather than from named individuals.

In all these hysterias and frenzies, caution and moderation become proof of complicity. Calls for quiet reflection and moments of calm to weigh evidence are seen as veritable confessions of guilt or aiding and abetting the crime. To demand respect for the spirit of due process is to offer proof of one’s own culpability. One day, actor Richard Dreyfuss is furious that Kevin Spacey allegedly groped his son right under his nose. The next, Richard Dreyfuss is outraged that he is accused of allegedly earlier doing something himself far worse to a similar young aspirant.

Hypocrisy and irony become endemic: the chargers of Russian collusion are the original colluders. The loud protesters who take a knee themselves became the targets of silent fan protests. The statue smashers can put up statues worse than what they tore down. The men who swear they are feminists do so because they are misogynists. The accuser is blamed for accusing, or for staying silent so long, or for exaggerating the ordeal; the silent non-accuser is assumed to have advanced a career through willful acquiescence. Who can sort out the crime, the collusion, the conspiracy?

History is full of such frenzies—the stasis on Corcyra, the Spanish Inquisition, the Committee of Public Safety, or the strange career of Joe McCarthy. They all can start over some legitimate grievance and all can quickly turn manic. And as we play each fit out, expect the madness to come full circle as it always does, when the spell wears off and 51 percent of people finally revolt at the very thought of tearing down Washington’s statue, or lumping together a criminal rapist with a loudmouthed sexist of 20 years past, or envisioning a multimillionaire spoiled, has-been quarterback as the next Jackie Robinson—or treating a fake-news smear document as if it were the New Testament.

https://amgreatness.com/2017/11/13/from-one-frenzy-to-the-next/

Fascists in Edina, Mn. Working Overtime

THE SHAME OF AMERICA’S PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

I wrote hereherehere (a video of a speech by me), here and here about the sad decline of the Edina, Minnesota public schools into hard-core leftism. Edina’s school district was once among the nation’s most respected, but its administrators have been content to see the district slide down to second or third tier status, because their sole priority is “racial equity,” which is code for a long list of left-wing hobby horses.

What happens when a public school district falls into the hands of race-obsessed leftists? For one thing, students think it’s cool to disrespect America’s veterans. Last Friday, Veterans’ Day, Edina High School held a ceremony to honor Edina’s vets. The high school kids assembled, and most of them behaved properly. But many did not. Some giggled and talked loudly, among themselves or on their cell phones, through the ceremony. Worse, a group of students made a deliberate show of disrespecting veterans–even during the playing of “Taps”–by lounging prominently on the floor in front of the crowd rather than standing. This was an anti-American political statement, as some of them later confirmed on Facebook and other social media.

Here is the video:

I grew up in South Dakota in the 1950s and 1960s, when such conduct would have been unthinkable. Today, it is not only thinkable, it is considered commendable in liberal school districts like Edina’s.

Over the weekend, the protesting students and their supporters made their political position clear, in social media posts like this one. Evidently spelling and punctuation have been de-emphasized in the Edina schools, as the focus has shifted to leftist politics:

And this one, which has now been taken down. For those who don’t follow such things, “THOT” means “that ho over there.”

YCC refers to the Young Conservatives Club at Edina High School. The YCC has long been abused by fellow students and by Edina teachers and administrators. This account came from one member of the organization, describing what happened on election day last November:

I walked into morning rehearsal for choir at 7:15 am and I proudly wore my shirt. As I took my seat I could see and feel eyes on me and people whispering. I kept my head up and was proud. Then I got to the cafeteria where I liked to meet my friends before school starts and in between classes. People were glaring at me, whispering, challenging me on my views, people called me racist to my face and over social media, and I experienced public humiliation.

During lunch the YCC had gathered for a group picture with our Trump shirts on. And by 6th hour, when all I wanted was to go home and lie in bed after a day of bullying, a staff member pulled me out of class. … The staff member pulled me out of class not to ask me about how my day was going or if I was emotionally okay, but his question for me was “I heard there were students in the YCC picture yelling ‘deportation!’ as the picture was taken. Is that true?” I assured him that, no that wasn’t true. But he kept asking as if he didn’t believe me.

Edina High School posts signs that say, “All are welcome here!” But what they really mean is, all are welcome except conservatives.

Apparently some members of the YCC posted on social media over the weekend, criticizing the students who went out of their way to show contempt for veterans. That prompted a video response from a group of fascists at the high school. The video has now been deleted, but it featured a single student on screen, wearing the familiar Guy Fawkes mask. He issued a series of threats against members of the Young Conservatives Club. Here is a screen shot of the now-deleted video, along with a transcript:

To get the full effect, you almost have to listen to the audio:

Audio Player

So Edina’s school administrators were confronted with a crisis: a number of students had behaved reprehensibly, showing disrespect for veterans and for America at a school assembly intended to honor veterans on Veterans Day. Beyond that, disgusting social media posts had attacked America and insulted non-leftist students. And a video threatened, specifically, members of the Young Conservatives Club.

Faced with this situation, what did Superintendent of Schools John Schultz do? He sent out a mealy-mouthed email that mostly defended the students who attacked America and disrespected veterans, because they were “peaceful.” Click to enlarge:

Superintendent Schultz says that the now-deleted fascist video “is certainly inflammatory and creepy.” But he finds no serious fault with it because “our investigation…in concert with [the Edina Police Department] has uncovered no credible or legal threat….” I have no idea what Superintendent Schultz means by “no credible or legal threat,” but the video was certainly threatening by any normal definition (e.g., “We will not stop until every tentacle of your evil monstrosity is sliced off at the nerve.”)

So now, as the dust settles, are the Edina schools cracking down on the fascist students who issued threats behind a mask, or the students who disavowed allegiance to America and referred to fellow students as “females on their periods,” “some bitches” and “that ho over there”?

Just kidding. Superintendent Schultz says that he appreciates the anti-American demonstrators because they protested “peacefully,” if contemptuously. Tonight, there are multiple reports that Edina High School is cracking down on conservative students because they dared to criticize the anti-American, anti-veteran display that took place on Friday. Suspensions have been reported, although these have not yet been confirmed. On the other hand, we have seen no reports of any actions being taken against the anti-American demonstrators or the fascists who posted the threatening video.

This is a developing situation, and we will report again when the facts are clearer. But what has already happened in the once-respected Edina school district shows how deeply the rot of leftism extends into American public education.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/the-shame-of-americas-public-high-schools.php

Who Will Pay the Price for Dems’ Obstructionism in the Senate?

WHAT WILL MITCH MCCONNELL DO ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS’ DISGRACEFUL SENATE BLOCKADE?

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Despite being in office for nearly a year, President Trump has been unable to staff his administration. In the early days, he was slow to make nominations–not surprisingly, given that he wasn’t surrounded by a cadre of former officials and government hangers-on. But that is no longer true. Now, the problem is that Senate Democrats are stalling Trump’s nominees. In one agency after another, they are carrying obstructionism to unprecedented lengths.

Take, for example, the Department of the Interior. Secretary Ryan Zinke has written a letterto Democrat Dick Durbin protesting the Democrats’ blockade of nominees to his department:

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says Senate Democrats are holding the department’s nominees “hostage” to a political agenda that includes opposition to his review of presidentially designated monuments.

In a sharply worded letter to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Zinke said it’s unfortunate that Democrats have placed holds on four Interior nominees, including the department’s top lawyer and budget chief.

The nominees “have nothing to do with this monument review, yet they have been forced to sit on the sidelines” for months, Zinke wrote Thursday. “As a former Navy SEAL, this is not the type of hostage situation I am accustomed to.”

But it is the hostage situation that is taking place all across the federal bureaucracy. The Democrats consider federal agencies to be their rightful property, and they have no intention of allowing a Republican president to exercise the constitutional powers of his office.

The specific issue here is the designation of “monuments” under federal law by the Obama administration, which the Trump administration wants to reduce in size.

President Donald Trump ordered the review this spring following complaints by congressional Republicans that previous presidents had misused a century-old law intended to protect federal lands, creating oversized monuments that hinder energy development, logging and other uses. Trump called some monument designations by his Democratic predecessors “massive land grabs.”

Zinke has recommended that Trump shrink four large monuments in the West, including the sprawling Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Let’s take, as an example, the Bears Ears “monument” in Utah. Barack Obama created the Bears Ears “monument” during the last days of his administration, on December 28, 2016, subsequent to President Trump’s election, by issuing an executive order under the Antiquities Act. Bears Ears comprises 1.35 million acres, or more than 2,000 square miles. That is one heck of a monument! It is nearly double the size of the State of Rhode Island. This map of southern Utah shows the Bears Ears “monument.”

The point of this alleged “monument” status is to block development. The Trump administration wants to undo the Obama administration’s orders, at least in part, by shrinking the size of the Western monuments to reasonable dimensions. That makes sense, and would be popular in the affected states. Elections have consequences, right?

Not anymore they don’t. The Democrats take the position that President Trump is not entitled to exercise the powers of his office. Here, as in many other instances, the Senate minority is holding nominees hostage to its demand that Obama administration policies not be changed. Barack Obama gets to be president forever, apparently.

This obstructionism is unprecedented in American history. The question is, what are Mitch McConnell and the other alleged leaders of the Republican majority going to do about it?

Like many others, I have just about come to the conclusion that Congressional Republicans are worthless. Time is running out for McConnell and his colleagues to show us that our votes and our financial support for Republicans haven’t been wasted. And please: don’t lecture us on the hallowed traditions of the Senate. Those traditions have been blasted to smithereens by the Democrats. This is a war, Senator McConnell, and if you are not interested in fighting it, then we need to find someone who is.”

Prager U……WHY NO ONE TRUSTS OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA

“Trust in the media is at an all-time low. But should it be? Why do fewer and fewer Americans trust the mainstream media. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, author of The Smear, explains.”

Please click  below for the program:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/why-no-one-trusts-mainstream-media

GOP in Danger of Losing the “Stupid Party” Title?

GOP is in serious danger of losing the title ‘Stupid Party’

by Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

‘I have gotten accustomed to, if not comfortable with, the GOP’s label as the “Stupid Party.”  After all, it gave us permission to ridicule the GOP establishment before Trump.  And besides, the alternative label worn by the Democrats is the “Evil Party,” and I’ll take stupid over evil any time.

With Donna Brazile ratting out her former comrades and scandal threatening to engulf the party, chaos reigns among the donks.  Amid the recriminations comes a moment of surpassing stupidity.  Yesterday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez actually refused to answer when asked on Meet the Press if he thinks all pickup truck drivers are racist (transcript):

CHUCK TODD:

I’m sure you’ve been familiar with the ad itself and the controversy around the ad. And the Republican party’s response, that it was basically, Democrats don’t like it when, you know, when Republicans stereotype. Aren’t you stereotyping? Are all pickup trucks–I drive a pickup truck. I mean, are all pickup truck drivers racist? That’s what the ad–do you understand why some people think the ad implies that?

TOM PEREZ:

Well, Chuck, let’s be clear about what’s happening in the race in Virginia and in all too many races, dog-whistle politics. Steve Bannon just endorsed Ed Gillespie in Virginia this morning. And throughout this campaign, Ed Gillespie has been fear mongering. He’s been doing the same thing Donald Trump did. That’s not fair. That’s not right. Virginia, under Ralph Northam’s leadership, under Justin Fairfax leadership, they’re looking for a way to unite people. And Ed Gillespie, throughout the campaign, has been dividing people. And when you, when you hit the bully back, and the bully starts crying, those are crocodile tears to me.

Pickup trucks account for over 15% of U.S. vehicle sales, and the Ford F-150 pickup has long been the most popular vehicle.  People who drive pickup trucks have lots of friends and family members.  Perez is actively driving these people away.  In their pickup trucks.  Volvo drivers elect few statewide majorities.

When you consider that the backup for Perez is Keith Ellison, I have to admit that the GOP’s hold on its title is shaky.

 

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

Democrats Oppose Trump’s Nominee to US Court of Appeals: TOO CATHOLIC!

AMY CONEY BARRETT NOT ATHEIST ENOUGH?

President Trump’s nominee to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has been confirmed by the Senate. The vote was along party lines and could prove incredibly problematic to Senate Democrats in purple and red states who are facing voters.

In September, Amy Coney Barrett faced questioning by Senate Democrats during her confirmation hearing that some are saying was possibly illegal. Several Democratic Senators verbally took issue with the Notre Dame law professor’s choice of religion – Catholicism.

Senator Dianne Feinstein challenged Barrett on a paper she wrote 20 years ago titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” The paper discussed judges with religious beliefs opposing the death penalty deal with those cases and how they can recuse themselves from those cases.

Even though Barrett’s paper read, “Judges cannot-nor should they try to align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge,” Feinstein condescendingly attacked Barrett’s religion as a reason against her confirmation. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said in response to the paper.

“I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges,” Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono said.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin took this anti-Catholic bias even further. The Illinois Senator asked Barrett if she is an “Orthodox Catholic.” Durbin, who tells voters he is Catholic, has been denied Communion for his support of abortion.

Senator Ben Sasse jumped into this line of questioning by asserting the line of questioning by these Democrat Senators was unconstitutional and violates the religious test clause.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FFreeBeacon%2Fvideos%2F1420429148006104%2F&show_text=0&width=560

This was not a fight the Democrats were ever going to win, but they still made the decision to attack Barrett’s Catholicism. This has opened a possible wound for Democrats in blue and purple states who are facing voters next year.

Sherrod Brown is one of those vulnerable Democratic Senators. He represents Ohio, which swung heavily to President Trump last year. He votes in lockstep with the left. Brown’s votes mimic Elizabeth Warren’s a whopping 95% of the time. This on its own won’t sit well with voters in this swing state who recently have been consistently voting for Republicans.

When contacted by phone for comment regarding the alleged violation of the religious test clause, Brown did not reply. A follow-up email to Brown staffers Rachel Petri and Charissee Ridgeway was not acknowledged. Coupling this information with Sherrod Brown’s vote against Amy Coney Barrett, it’s easy to hypothesize that Brown agrees with his colleagues that a devout Catholic does not belong on the court.

With over 17% of Ohioans identifying as Catholic, his objection to Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination could be used in micro-targeted campaigns directed at Catholics. This could be catastrophic for the two-term Senator and Democrats in similar positions.

Warren’s constituency is 45% Catholic. If played correctly, this could also be problematic to her 2018 re-election. But the blowback might not be as swift for her as Massachusetts voters tend to be more forgiving to leftists.

Democrats have a religious problem. Pandering to people of faith is going to prove even more burdensome to them after the perceived religious bigotry they threw at this Catholic during the nomination process. Voters supporting religious liberty might be the determining voices that send them packing.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/04/blowback-possible-senate-democrats-vote-nominee-claim-catholic/

Note:  Leftist Dianne Feinstein is Jewish.   Should Jews be banned as judges for being too Jewish?