• 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

SLANTS Win Their Case at Supreme Court, 8-0

I wonder if ditzie Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell asleep during the decision process.  I cannot imagine her, in her present state of mindlessness,  possessing enough consciousness to remember her own lefthoodedness on such matters.

How did the Democrat  lefty racists manage to battle the SLANTS folk all the way to the Supreme Court?   Are our courts are already that  perverted by the Left?  Well, appartently yes!

Editorial: Win for 1st Amendment

“An Asian-American rock group with an edgy name can now trademark that name thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck a blow for the First Amendment and against federal bureaucrats consumed by political correctness.

In an 8-0 ruling this week, the high court found that the “disparagement clause” used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark protection for the Oregon-based band The Slants is quite simply unconstitutional.

The band, of course, can call itself anything it wants, but without trademark protection couldn’t safeguard its rights for, say, T-shirts or other items after the patent office found the name offensive. They’ve been fighting this lunatic ruling since 2011…….”   Please read the entire article below regarding this Obama Era racist act:

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2017/06/editorial_win_for_1st_amendment

A Kind Review of International Communist Democrat, Obama Funder George Soros

The major of all funders of things Socialist-Communist Left in our America’s now fascistic Democrat Party, is Hungarian immigrant billionaire, George Soros.

Please read the following rather gentle, cuddly  account of well known communist George  Soros’   record devoted to    destroy  democracy in America:

George Soros on His Open Society

By Paul Austin Murphy

“There is something to sympathise with when it comes to George Soros’ position on what he calls “the open society”. However, judging him by his political deeds, there are many reasons to be sceptical. Therefore, in loyalty to the ad hominem fallacy, can his words can stand despite his deeds? Having said that, many of his words (though taken at different times) are also self-contradictory.

Soros’s understanding of Karl Popper — from whom he got the idea of an open society — seems to be broadly correct in its largely unspecified and vague details. (As primarily expressed in Popper’s well-known book The Open Society and its Enemies.) It is that Popperian vision which people can have some sympathy with; not Soros’s own ill-defined take on it.

Here’s George Soros on the — or his — open society. He says:

“An open society such as ours is based on the recognition that our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect. Nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. As the philosopher Karl Popper has shown, the ultimate truth is not attainable even in science. All theories are subject to testing and the process of replacing old theories with better ones never ends.”

No one can deny that “our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect”. It’s what the consequences of our accepting that are. It’s also the case that “nobody [not even George Soros] is in possession of the ultimate truth”. But so what? No one claimed otherwise outside of crazed fanatics and dictators.

In any case, what Soros says on the subject of open societies seems written into modern democracies regardless of the work of Karl Popper. It can even be said that Soros’s own version is vague; though it will still be anathema to any kind of totalitarian (whether Left or Right).

Why mention totalitarians? Because both Karl Popper and Soros experienced Nazi totalitarianism. Soros also experienced communist totalitarianism.

Soros (in his George Soros on Globalization and interviews) wrote:

“You know, I learned at a very early age that what kind of social system or political system prevails is very important. Not just for your well-being, but for your very survival. Because, you know, I could have been killed by the Nazis. I could have wasted my life under the Communists. So, that’s what led me to this idea of an open society. And that is the idea that is motivating me.”

The obvious point to make here is that Soros sees the open society in very personal terms. Perhaps that’s not a big deal. However, according to other people, and indeed Soros himself, his experiences with the Nazis were entirely positive.

Soros’s Politicised Open Societies

The interesting thing is, according to Soros, that the open society needn’t be instantiated by any particular political system. Not even exclusively by Western democracies. This is what Soros himself had to say (in 2003) on the matter:

“First, there is no single sustainable model for national success. Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it.”

There may not be a “single sustainable model for national success.” Nevertheless, it surely must be the case that we can rule out certain models — even many models.

All this makes me think that if Soros’s open society is so flexible (or so obscure), then surely it can’t be much of a productive (or substantive) political concept. If it isn’t instantiated by Western democracies, then how much meat can there be to his theory of an open society? (We’ll see in a second that Soros’s theorising about an open society is very different from his practice in politics itself.)

Soros’s defence of the open society includes believing that “it’s possible to be opposed to the policies without being unpatriotic”. In full:

“The people currently in charge have forgotten the first principle of an open society, namely that we may be wrong and that there has to be free discussion. That it’s possible to be opposed to the policies without being unpatriotic.”…….Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/george_soros_on_his_open_society.html

Universities to “Return” Beliefs to Aboriginal Basics?

IS IT THE NEW YORK TIMES, OR THE ONION?

“A friend sent me a link to this New York Times article, published on Monday, that is headlined “A College Built for Canadian Settlers Envisions an Indigenous Future.” It reads like a parody, but I have verified that the Times actually did publish it. It is about how universities across Canada are “indigenizing.” I will turn the floor over to my friend; the comments on the Times piece are his.

The college was built in the last century, modeled on the great American and British universities. It was imagined as a grand preserve of Western thought for the children of Canadian settlers, then flooding into the country’s youngest province in the prairies. …

Now, all that has changed. Universities across Canada are “indigenizing” — a new, elastic term that means everything from drawing more aboriginal students and faculty members onto campuses built largely for white settlers, to infusing those stodgy Western institutions with aboriginal belief systems and traditional knowledge.
***
Two smaller Canadian institutions introduced indigenous learning requirements for all undergraduates this past school year.

Hilarious! Yes, those “stodgy Western institutions” like Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Bologna, Harvard and Yale. Sure…let’s “infuse[e]” them with “aboriginal belief systems and traditional knowledge” whatever that is…..

Of course, this is a problem:

Aboriginal scholars say that colonial education philosophies and aboriginal theories of knowledge are incompatible.

Just laughable! I can’t wait to compare and contrast “aboriginal theories of knowledge” with Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein…for starters…and I can’t wait to see, to paraphrase a snide remark made in a not dissimilar context, who is the Dostoyevsky of the aboriginals? (Answer: Dostoyevsky is the Dostoyevsky of the aboriginals — a universal, non-tribal greatness accessible even to aboriginals, raising them up as he raised up his own cultural confreres. That is the greatness of those “stodgy” universities.)

I’m also looking forward to all aboriginal “theories of knowledge” concerning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, mathematics, architecture…who is the aboriginal Euclid, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Gauss, etc. ad infinitum.

This, however, has to be among the most fatuous, risible and utterly clueless remarks uttered by a university factotum, and there is plenty of recent competition:

Even Peter Stoicheff, the university’s president, recognizes the challenges.

Universities are so inherently white and Western, when you start to push against it, you realized how intractable a lot of that is,” Mr. Stoicheff said.

Everything is based on reading stuff,” he explained. “Everything is laid out in a hierarchical and linear fashion. Look at the aboriginal ways, from visual expression to the wampum belt, dances and oral storytelling. It’s not linear. Everything is based on the circle.”

“Universities are so inherently white and Western.” Well, duh! One of the great glories of our civilization, and one which the benighted of any tribe are invited to partake of!

This, however, IS right out of The Onion: “Everything is based on reading stuff.” Beyond belief.

Note, too, the New York Times using, intentionally and deliberately, left-wing terms of political correctness: “white settlers,” “colonial educational philosophies” and, of course “indigenous” and “aboriginal”. As the “woke” multi-cultural left well knows, “settler” is an especially loaded term. The anti-Israeli left uses it to describes Jews, and the ANC in South Africa to describe Dutch origin Afrikaners —- with the shared slogan, “one settler, one bullet”.

But you’ll never see the “woke” multicultural New York Times and its rabid left wing allies use the term to describe “refugees,” “migrants” or “undocumented workers” (“immigrants”), will you? So, the Canadians are “white settlers” but the waves of Asian and Muslims arriving are “immigrants.” OK. I wonder what they think of “aboriginal theories of knowledge.”

That was all from my friend. The Times article also says this:

Last year, the academic governing body agreed that all of the 17 colleges and schools, from dentistry to engineering, should include indigenous knowledge.

I am not sure what the Stone Age engineering of Native Americans can teach modern engineering students, but I know this for sure: when it comes to “indigenous” dentistry, count me out!”

Article by John Hinderaker at PowerLine.

WSJ: Anatomy of a Witch Hunt

Anatomy of a Witch Hunt

The Trump-Russia scare comes from the same playbook as fake cancer scares.

by Holman Jenkins   at the Wall Street Journal:

“Americans won’t be really good citizens until they read Timur Kuran and Cass Sunstein’s 1999 law review article about “availability cascades.”

Their launching point is the process by which we (i.e., human beings) decide to believe what others believe, and judge the truth of a proposition by how familiar it is. Such “availability cascades” drive government policy in good ways and bad, but usually bad. An example the authors analyze in detail is 1989’s fake “Alar” cancer scare that devastated U.S. apple growers.

Which brings us to today’s question: How did it become widely believed in the first half of 2017 that a U.S. president committed treason with Russia?

Consider what has passed for proof in the media. Tens of thousands of Americans have done business with Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not to mention before.

In 2009 President Obama made the first of his two trips to Russia with a gaggle of U.S. business leaders in tow.

Of these many thousands, four were associated with the Trump campaign, and now became evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.

Every president for 75 years has sought improved relations with Russia. That’s what those endless summits were about. Mr. Trump, in his typically bombastic way, also promoted improved relations with Russia. Now this was evidence of collusion.

Russian diplomats live in the U.S. and rub shoulders with countless Americans. Such shoulder-rubbing, if Trump associates were involved, now is proof of crime.

The Alar pesticide scare only took off when activists whom Messrs. Kuran and Sunstein label “availability entrepreneurs” peddled deceptive claims to a credulous “60 Minutes.” We would probably not be having this Russia discussion today if not for the so-called Trump dossier alleging improbable, lurid connections between Donald Trump and the Kremlin.

It had no provenance that anyone was bound to respect or rely upon. Its alleged author, a retired British agent named Christopher Steele, supposedly had Russian intelligence sources, but why would Russian intelligence blow the cover of their blackmail agent Mr. Trump whom they presumably so carefully and expensively cultivated? They wouldn’t.

Yet recall the litany of Rep. Adam Schiff, who declared in a House Intelligence Committee hearing: “Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence?”

His litany actually consisted of innocuous, incidental and routine Trump associations interspersed with claims from the Trump dossier to make the innocuous, incidental and routine seem nefarious.

Maybe Mr. Schiff is a cynic, or maybe Harvard Law sent him back into the world with the same skull full of mush with which he arrived. But ever since, every faulty or incomplete recollection of a meeting with a Russian has been promoted in the media as proof of treason by Trump associates.

The president’s obvious irritation with being called a traitor is proof that he is a traitor.

Whether the Russia incubus did more harm to Mr. Trump’s vote or Hillary’s vote during the election is impossible to know. But Mr. Trump won, so under the hindsight fallacy his victory is now proof that he conspired with Russia.

The term “availability bias” originated in the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, whose Nobel Prize-winning research gave birth to the field of behavioral economics.

Mr. Kahneman went on to write 2011’s indispensable “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” and I’m here to tell you that journalists especially pride themselves on their fast thinking—the kind that mistakes randomness for pattern, confuses correlation with causation, and gives excessive rein to emotional and cognitive biases.

Notice I don’t say reporters and editors are so dumb they can’t free themselves from such errors. I say that such errors are their stock in trade.

The original allegory of fast thinking, of course, is the old folklore tale, “the emperor’s new clothes.” In his 1922 book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann explained how journalists reduce complex, novel realities to off-the-shelf “stereotypes.”

Or as a colleague once said of Stalin, “[He] tries to force life into a ready-made framework. The more life resists . . . the more forcefully he mangles and breaks it.”

Come to think of it, that’s not a bad way of describing how the D.C. anthill has reacted to the unexpected, exotic, high-risk, possibly providential experiment of the Trump presidency.

We mean every descriptor. His very unsuitability, the mood of the American public that elected him, the obscure impasse of American politics that brought him to power—all these signs deserve more respect than they’re getting.

His Torquemadas don’t and can’t know whether our democracy, in the improbable Mr. Trump, found a lever to move us forward, but there’s something repugnant in their desire not to find out.”

Comment:   The above Wall Street Journal article is a foreign language to about 99.3% of today’s American “adults” under the age of 50.  Truth, words, places, people, actions have become foreign to their modern  leftist equalized fascistic Democrat Party propaganda to force upon America the most important right….to be equally ignorant and powerless to what today’s “Democrats” are cooking up for the nation’s future.

Democrats Developing a Fascism Similar to Socialist Revolutionaries Which Led to NAZI Germany, and SOVIET COMMUNIST RUSSIA

The ‘Resistance‘ Goes Live-Fire

The media seem blithely unaware that the anti-Trump “Resistance” has been accompanied by nonstop militaristic violence from liberals.

(This article was sent by Prager fan, Lisa Rich in California.  She did not wish to identify the author.)


“T
he explosion of violence against conservatives across the country is being intentionally ginned up by Democrats, reporters, TV hosts, late-night comedians and celebrities, who compete with one another to come up with the most vile epithets for Trump and his supporters.

They go right up to the line, trying not to cross it, by, for example, vamping with a realistic photo of a decapitated Trump or calling the president a “piece of s—” while hosting a show on CNN.

The media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they’re perfectly content to have their low-IQ shock troops pursue a bloody coup.

This week, one of the left’s foot soldiers gunned down Republican members of Congress and their staff while they were playing baseball in Virginia. Democratic Socialist James Hodgkinson was prevented from committing a mass murder only by the happenstance of a member of the Republican leadership being there, along with his 24-hour Capitol Police protection.

Remember when it was frightening for the losing party not to accept the results of an election? During the third debate, Trump refused to pre-emptively agree to the election results, saying he’d “look at it at the time.”

The media responded in their usual laid-back style:

A ‘HORRIFYING’ REPUDIATION OF DEMOCRACY — The Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2016

DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY — Daily News (New York), Oct. 20, 2016 DANGER TO DEMOCRACY — The Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 2016

ONE SCARY MOMENT; IT ALL BOILED DOWN TO … DEMOCRACY — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 21, 2016

“(Shock) spiked down the nation’s spinal column last night and today when the Republican nominee threatened that this little election thing you got there, this little democratic process you’ve got here, it’s nice, it’s fine, but he doesn’t necessarily plan on abiding by its decision when it comes to the presidency.” — Rachel Maddow, Oct. 20, 2016

“Trump’s answer on accepting the outcome of the vote is the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years.” — Bret Stephens, then-deputy editorial page editor at The Wall Street Journal

“I guess we’re all going to have to wait until Nov. 9 to find out if we still have a country — if Donald Trump is in the mood for a peaceful transfer of power. Or if he’s going to wipe his fat a– with the Constitution.” — CBS’s Stephen Colbert, Oct. 19, 2016

“It’s unprecedented for a nominee of a major party to themselves signal that they would not accept — you know, respect the results of an election. We’ve never had that happen before. … This really presents a potentially difficult problem for governing …” — MSNBC’S Joy Reid, Oct. 22, 2016

“This is very dangerous stuff … would seriously impair our functioning as a democracy. … This is about as serious as it gets in the United States.” — CNN’s Peter Beinart, Oct. 20, 2016

“Obviously, it’s despicable for him to pretend that there’s any chance that he would not accept the results of this election; it would be — in 240 years you’ve never had anybody do it. …” — CNN’s Van Jones, Oct. 20, 2016

Then Trump won, and these very same hysterics refused to accept the results of the election.

Recently, Hillary announced her steadfast opposition to the winning candidate using a military term, saying she’d joined the “Resistance.”

Imagine if Trump lost and then announced that he’d joined the “RESISTANCE.” He’d be accused of trying to activate right-wing militias. Every dyspeptic glance at an immigrant would be reported as fascistic violence.

But the media seem blithely unaware that the anti-Trump “Resistance” has been accompanied by nonstop militaristic violence from liberals.

When Trump ripped up our Constitution and jumped all over it by failing to concede the election three weeks in advance, CNN ran a segment on a single tweet from a random Trump supporter that mentioned the Second Amendment.

Carol Costello: “Still to come in the ‘Newsroom,’ some Trump supporters say they will refuse to accept a loss on Election Day, with one offering a threat of violence. We’ll talk about that next.”

In CNN’s most fevered dreams about a violent uprising of Trump supporters, they never could have conceived of the level of actual violence being perpetrated by Americans who refuse to accept Trump’s win. (See Hate Map.)

It began with Trump’s inauguration, when a leftist group plotted to pump a debilitating gas into one Trump inaugural ball, military families were assaulted upon leaving the Veterans’ Inaugural Ball, and attendees of other balls had water thrown on them.

Since then, masked, armed liberals around the country have formed military-style organizations to beat up conservatives. In liberal towns, the police are regularly ordered to stand down to allow the assaults to proceed unimpeded.

The media only declared a crisis when conservatives fought back, smashing the black-clad beta males. (“Battle for Berkeley!”)

There is more media coverage for conservatives’ “microaggressions” toward powerful minorities -– such as using the wrong pronoun — than there is for liberals’ physical attacks on conservatives, including macings, concussions and hospitalizations.

And now some nut Bernie Sanders-supporter confirms that it’s Republicans standing on a baseball field, before opening fire.

In the media’s strategic reporting of the attempted slaughter, we were quickly told that the mass shooter was white, male and had used a gun. We were even told his name. (Because it was not “Mohammed.”)

But the fact that Hodgkinson’s Facebook page featured a banner of Sanders and the words “Democratic Socialism explained in 3 words: ‘We the People’ Since 1776” apparently called for hours of meticulous fact-checking by our media.

Did reporters think they could keep that information from us forever?

The fake news insists that Trump’s White House is in “chaos.” No, the country is in chaos. But just like Kathy Griffin and her Trump decapitation performance art — the perpetrators turn around in doe-eyed innocence and blame Trump.”

Prager: What if a Trump supporter shot a Democrat Congressman?

If a Trump Supporter Had Shot a Democratic Congressman

by Dennis Prager  at realclearpolitics:

“What would have happened if a Trump supporter had shot a Democratic congressman and other Democratic Washington officials?

The answer is obvious.

The New York Times, the rest of the left-wing media and the Democratic Party would have made the shootings the dominant issue in American life. It is not possible to understand the left — and, therefore, the media and the current state of American life — without understanding how the left uses and relies on hysteria. Hysteria is to the left as oxygen is to biological life.

From the moment Donald Trump was elected president, America has been drowning in left-wing hysteria, all fomented by the media and the Democratic Party.

The charge of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is hysteria. The claim that the president engaged in obstruction of justice is hysteria. As I have pointed out, the charge of Trump’s election unleashing hate and anti-Semitism, which dominated American media for months, was hysteria.

If Democrats had been shot by a Trump supporter, all you would be hearing and reading about is how much hate the Trump election has unleashed in America, how his election is threatening our democracy and how he is unleashing fascism.

But it was a not a Trump supporter who attempted to murder a Democratic congressman, Capitol Police officers, a House GOP aide and a lobbyist; it was a Trump-hating leftist who attempted to murder a Republican congressman and other Republican officials. And, for that reason, what would have been the dominant issue in America today is already a nonissue. The shooting took place on Wednesday. On Friday, the only article about it on The New York Times front page was about the “harmony” engulfing Democrats and Republicans in the wake of the shooting. By Saturday, there was nothing about the shooting on the front page.

The “harmony” issue is worth noting. As sure as the sun rises in the east, had a Trump-supporting fanatic shot Democratic officials, the Democrats would not have said a word about the need for “harmony,” or the need to lower the temperature in American political discourse. On the contrary, they would have greatly raised the temperature of their already blistering rhetoric. They would have attributed the shooting entirely to Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric having permeated conservative and Republican America.

But it was a leftist who attempted to slaughter Republicans, so it was Republicans who had to respond. And they did so by calling for harmony and lowering the temperature of political differences.

In other words, Republicans reacted with complete conciliation, whereas, the Democrats and their media would have gone ballistic against the right.

Now, why is that?………”  Please read on:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/20/if_a_trump_supporter_had_shot_a_democratic_congressman_134235.html

The Democratic Party ISN’T Democratic Anymore. It’s Selling Fascistic Leftism, a Religion!

The Democrats’ Deadly Rhetoric

By Daniel John Sobieski  at American Thinker:

“As moving as the “Kumbaya” moments at the Congressional baseball game were on Thursday, we cannot and should not forget that it was a Bernie Sanders supporter, inspired by what Illinois Republican Congressman Rodney Davis called “political rhetorical terrorism,” that inspired the leftist loon who set out to assassinate Republicans practicing for the charity game.

Bernie Sanders rightly and correctly disavowed the crimes of a volunteer whose actions he could not envision or control. Yet he and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have spent the time since President Trump’s election yelling fire in the political theatre we call democracy, warning endlessly that people will die because of the Trump agenda, painting apocalyptic visions of planetary doom. With them claiming the Republican agenda is dooming the sick, the elderly, and the planet itself, was it so surprising that another liberal infused with the left’s messianic complex, would try to save us all by killing Republicans trying to implement Trump’s agenda?

There sat House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a pregame interview making nice and channeling Rodney King’s mantra of can’t we all just get along. As The Hill reported:

Republican and Democratic leaders stressed unity Thursday night as members of both parties gathered for the annual congressional baseball game a day after a gunman opened fire at a practice, injuring House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and three others.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appeared together in their first-ever joint interview on CNN, where they offered well wishes for Scalise, who remained in critical condition Thursday evening.”