• 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
  • Advertisements

Ben Shapiro Reviews Post Election Queen Hillary


Psycho Hillary Performs Psychotically in India….!!

Hillary Clinton in India: States I Won Are “Moving Forward,” “Own 2/3 Of America’s GDP”

by Tim Hains   at  realclearpolitics:


The Republican Party released this clip of Hillary Clinton talking about the 2016 election in India, accusing the Democrat of “dismissing America’s Heartland to a foreign audience.”

Clinton brags she won the coasts & places that are ‘moving forward.’

Speaking at 2018’s ‘India Today Conclave’ in Mumbai, Clinton said that voters who picked President Trump were “looking backwards,” while her supporters were fueled by “moving forward.”

“If you look at the map of the United States, there is all that red in the middle, places where Trump won,” she said. “What that map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that own two thirds of America’s Gross Domestic product. I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are, whatever that problem is, I am going to solve it.”

‘Fox and Friends’ host Brian Kilmeade said these comments were the “lowest of the low” from Hillary Clinton. “She gives a speech (probably paid quite well)… where it is not her fault, but America’s fault, because I guess we just didn’t pick the right person,” Kilmeade said on Tuesday morning. “The lowest low.”

“What do you think all those people in the world’s largest democracy (India) think of America now?” Kilmeade also said. “Hillary Clinton, the most famous woman in the country, comes in and destroys our country’s concept of democracy and freedom, in front of a democracy that looks to us for leadership.”

Hillary Clinton trashes America’s heartland, implying Trump’s supporters are “backwards”



Clinton Stench Still Flourishes


by Paul Mirengoff  at  PowerLine:

Remember Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat whose report on conversations at a London bar with George Papadopoulos is said to have triggered the FBI’s concern about links between the Trump campaign and Russia? The Hill reports that Downer was behind a big contribution to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann, Downer played a key role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS. He and Bill Clinton signed the memorandum of understanding that made it happen.

The Clinton Foundation won praise for helping fight AIDS in South Asia, say Solomon and Spann. However, it also drew criticism from auditors about “management weaknesses” and inadequate budget oversight.

With Downer’s involvement in the Russia story, Clinton friends and supporters now comprise 100 percent of the sources whose information prompted and fed the counter-intelligence investigation in its early days. Christopher Steele, who played the lead role, was paid by the Clinton campaign (through cut-outs). Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time friend and associate of the Clintons, funneled information to Christopher Steele through the State Department. And, of course, their information was processed at the FBI by ardent Clinton supporters like Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe.

To be clear, the connection between Downer and the Clintons doesn’t mean the information he provided about his conversation with Papadopoulos is false. The key bits of information reportedly were that Papadopoulos had meaningful contacts with well-connected Russians and that the Russian had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI regarding “the timing, extent and nature of his relationships and interactions with certain foreign nationals whom he understood to have close connections with senior Russian government officials.” It wouldn’t be surprising if Papadopoulous, over lots of drinks, bragged to Downer about Russia connections. It’s also quite possible that he told Downer the Russians had dirt on Clinton.

Still, the fact of Downer’s connections to the Clintons raises questions. One wonders how Downer and Papadopoulos came to have their conversation in the first place. Was it a chance meeting or a set-up?

And to what extent was Downer a reliable, impartial interpreter of exactly what Papadopoulos told him and the trustworthiness of what he said? To what extent, if any, did Downer’s relationship with the Clintons cause him to make more of drunken bar talk than he should have?

Members of Congress are complaining that the FBI did not disclose Downer’s connection to the Clintons in testimony to relevant committees. Rep. Jim Jordan says the non-disclosure underscores the need for a special counsel to investigate the FBI’s conduct regarding the Trump-Russia investigation:

The Clintons’ tentacles go everywhere. So that’s why it’s important. We continue to get new information every week, it seems, that sort of underscores the fact that the FBI hasn’t been square with us.

Whether or not one agrees with Jordan’s conclusion, his premise seems true. The Clinton’s tentacles are, indeed, far-reaching. That’s how a Russia collusion story that seemingly has nothing behind it has roiled America for more than a year.


Will Congress and the President Unite to Destroy America the Free?


by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine:

Until today, there were two main immigration reform proposals in the Senate. The first: a proposal by Sen. Grassley, and supported by the White House, to grant amnesty to nearly two million “Dreamers” while (a) allocating $25 billion for a wall and other security measures, (b) cutting way back on chain migration, and (c) ending the diversity lottery. The second: a proposal by Sens. Coons and McCain that would grant the amnesty to even more than two million illegal immigrants and allocate only $3 million towards border security.

Neither bill seemed to have any hope of gaining the 60 votes needed to pass it.

Today, a third proposal emerged. Something called the “Common Sense Caucus” — consisting of some liberal Democrats and some very squishy Republicans — came up with a proposal that grants amnesty for the nearly two million and authorizes $25 billion for southern border security construction projects, but over the course of the next decade, not now.

As for chain migration, the proposal, as I understand it, bars “Dreamers” from sponsoring their parents or enabling hem to receive temporary status. In addition, legal permanent residents would be unable to sponsor their unmarried adult children until they become citizens.

Needless to say, this doesn’t deal with what conservatives mean when they complain about chain migration.

Nor does it deal effectively with border security. If we need a wall — and we’ll need one more than ever after a mass grant of amnesty — construction over a ten year period won’t cut it.

And can we be confident that the $25 billion will actually be spent? I’m not. I assume at some time between now and 2028, open-borders Democrat will gain the political clout necessary to stop construction.

Furthermore, the diversity lottery isn’t addressed at all.

To make matters worse, the proposed legislation audaciously sets priorities for immigration enforcement. It prioritizes people convicted of crimes and those who pose a threat to national security. But when it comes to people only guilty of “unlawful presence,” it calls on immigration officers to focus on those who arrived after June 30, 2018.

Readers will note (though I wonder whether all of the Republican sponsors have) that June 30, 2018 is months away. Thus, this legislation invites aliens to enter the U.S. illegally for the next four months by effectively assuring them they won’t be removed.

In sum, this bill is a travesty.

But what about the politics of the proposal? Can it get 60 votes in the Senate? Can it pass the House? Would President Trump sign it?

Let’s start with the easy question. If the Senate passes this proposal, I’m pretty sure the House will too. Speaker Ryan would love to help enact amnesty legislation, and in the House the votes exist to do it — all House Democrats plus a sufficient number of pro-amnesty Republicans like Ryan.

What about the Senate? All Democrats can be expected to support the proposal (which should tell you all you need to know about its lack of merit). In addition, it has eight Republican sponsors — Sens. Susan Collins, Mike Rounds, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Lamar Alexander, and Johnny Isakson. If John McCain is able to show up for a vote, that would make nine. Only two more GOP votes would be needed.

Would President Trump veto the the bill? It’s clear from the statement the White House issued today that he opposes the approach the Common Sense Caucus proposal takes.

Would this translate into a veto? I think so, but can’t say for sure. I can say that if the Caucus legislation becomes law, it will only be a matter of time before even some of Trump’s ardent supporters conclude they have been sold out on his signature issue. The political consequences could be devastating.

I’m told that Mitch McConnell has filed for cloture on four immigration amendments: the Grassley-White House framework; Coons-McCain; the Common Sense Caucus travesty, and a bill by Sen. Toomey to curb sanctuary cities. Thus, all four measures could be voted on tomorrow or Friday.

Only the travesty has a chance to pass. That chance seems not inconsiderable.

It seems like a good idea to contact Republican Senators, especially those whose votes might get the travesty legislation to 60 — e.g., Thom Tillis (202-224-6342 or www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me). In addition, it might be worth contacting Senators like Mike Rounds (202-224-5842 or www.rounds.senate.gov/contact/email-mike) and asking them WTF.



Fox Exposes the Clintons in the Scandalous Series

by Peter Barry Chowka  at American Thinker:

The excellent 7-part Fox News documentary series Scandalous, covering the scandals of the Clintons through the 42nd president’s impeachment trial in 1999, continues tonight with the premiere of part 2, “A Woman Called Paula.” The hour-long program airs at 8 P.M. E.T./P.T. At 7 P.M., part 1, “Up Crooked Creek” about the Whitewater scandal, which originally aired last Sunday, will be reprised.

Fox hopes that Scandalous will be an ongoing series devoted to various political scandals in American history. The first 7 parts, devoted to the Clintons, total 280 minutes of content and go a long way towards helping to correct the largely sanitized and whitewashed record of Bill Clinton’s scandal-ridden career and presidency. Since he left office on January 20, 2001, the mainstream media, to my knowledge, has never attempted any serious appraisals of the underside of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s eight years in the White House and their earlier careers in Arkansas. The only exception was the PBS American Experience 2-part, 4-hour presidents’ series episode about Clinton which aired most recently in 2012. It covered Bill and Hillary’s entire career with only a minor focus on the scandals. Like most MSM appraisals of the Clintons, it reinforced the gauzy, airbrushed history of the 1990s, which witnessed the pumped up Internet dot com surge that helped to propel the temporary economic boomlet before the bubble started to burst in 2000, Bill Clinton’s last full year in office.

The universally positive mainstream media appraisals of Bill Clinton’s tenure as president — his 1999 impeachment trial notwithstanding — helped him to achieve a 66% approval rating when he left office in 2001 and strong approval ratings in subsequent years (until recently) as an ex-president.

Scandalous is off to a good start. Part 1 aired twice last Sunday and earned very strong ratings, with the show beating its competition on CNN and MSNBC in the Nielsen ratings by a wide margin in both total viewers (40+% more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in the 8 P.M. hour) and the age 25-54 demographic. CNN has also had good ratings luck with its documentaries in recent years, including multi-part series devoted to the decades of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. In my opinion, Fox News’ efforts with Scandalous represent a more serious and balanced appraisal of its subject than CNN’s hagiographic and one-sided take on recent decades, especially their excesses. (In reviewing CNN’s “The Nineties,” Salon — usually a friend of CNN — opined that the series was “empty nostalgia for a decade we should let die.”)

Part 2 of Scandalous, “A Woman Called Paula,” focuses on the Paula Jones affair, which was investigated by the Special Prosecutor appointed to look into the Clintons’ involvement in the corrupt Whitewater, Arkansas land deal while Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas. According to an article about the episode at Fox News’ Web site, “A Woman Called Paula”

follows Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against former President Bill Clinton and the high-stakes political drama that ensued.

Jones alleged that then-Arkansas Gov. Clinton propositioned her and exposed himself at a conference in Little Rock in 1991. He denied the allegation.

“She was a woman that really just wanted to have her good name cleared. All she wanted was an apology,” said Joseph Cammarata, who represented Jones.

When that didn’t happen, they filed a lawsuit, eventually reaching a $850,000 settlement with Clinton in 1999.

Although its critics on the left insist that Fox News, which they often refer to as “Faux News,” is anything but “fair and balanced” (its original motto), recent studies have concluded that its news coverage is in fact the most objective of the mainstream cable/satellite and broadcast media. Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, for example, in its analysis of media reporting on  President Trump’s first 100 days, found that the broadcast networks and cable television news channels’ coverage of Trump was 90+% negative. The sole exception was Fox News, whose reporting on President Trump was slightly more negative than positive (52 to 48%) and was therefore the closest of all media studied to being balanced.

Part 1 of Scandalous represented a serious effort to reconstruct past events, using archival video clips interspersed with new interviews with many of the principals in the story, some of them speaking on camera and on the record for the first time. Hopefully, the strong ratings so far for the series, like CNN’s success with its multi-part documentaries, will breathe new life into television documentaries which in the past were a mainstay of the broadcast networks but have all but disappeared in recent years, except for PBS.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  In addition to his writing, Peter has appeared as a guest commentator on NBC; PBS; the CBC; and, on January 4, 2018, the BBC.  For announcements and links to a wide selection of Peter’s published work, follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.




The Evil of the Elite Culture….THE NEUTRAL BOMB ELECTION by Victor Davis Hanson


Victor Davis Hanson….America’s GREATEST TEACHER of what IS LEFT OF TRUTH?