• 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

Today’s Fascistic Dem Party’s War Against Good and Decent Folk

There’s Much for Conservatives to Like in Brett Kavanaugh

(Both articles sent by Mark Waldeland.)
. . . the Left is already lining up for the cultural war over Kavanaugh, and he is more than prepared to acquit himself against their slings and arrows. His opinions on religious liberties and sexual privacy are well within the realm of mainstream conservativism. Indeed, as I’ve written, when he dissented on the highly novel issue of whether the federal government had an obligation to facilitate the abortion of an illegal-immigrant teenager detained at the border, Kavanaugh emphasized that the government “has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion” and that the Court should uphold “reasonable regulations” even when applying Supreme Court jurisprudence.
 
 

Don’t Worry, Conservatives — Everybody You Like Loves This Guy

Brett Kavanaugh is a fine pick for the Supreme Court.

Yes, Amy Coney Barrett might have triggered a clarifying culture war Ragnarök. Yes, at 53, if confirmed, Kavanaugh will probably be on the Court until “only” the 2040s.

Yes, some Democrats will point to Kavanaugh’s work with Ken Starr and his role in investigating the suicide of Vince Foster and attempt to demonize him with those long-ago tawdry chapters of presidential history. Yes, Kavanaugh is “establishment” in the sense that he worked on the Florida recount and in the Bush White House. Yes, twelve years on the D.C. Circuit Court mean he has a lot of rulings, and modern young progressive activists will attempt to pick out whichever ones seem surprising and paint him as some sort of cross between Torquemada and Pontius Pilate.

Please continue reading below:

Our Donald’s Press Conference at Chequers….

DONALD TRUMP AND THERESA MAY MEET THE PRESS

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Earlier today, President Trump and Prime Minister May held a joint press conference at Chequers. This transcript comes from the British Embassy, and appears to be sanitized in that it doesn’t include Trump’s exchange with CNN’s Jim Acosta:

 

 

 

After criticizing CNN, Pres. Trump declines to take a question from a CNN reporter at joint presser with Theresa May. “CNN is fake news. I don’t take questions from CNN.”

Pres. Trump then called on a Fox News reporter: “Let’s go to a real network.” https://abcn.ws/2ukHjgl 

Acosta and his network have made war on President Trump, and I don’t know why he shouldn’t respond in kind. Trump brings clarity to the battle between the Democratic Party media and the rest of America.

The whole press conference is interesting, but I want to highlight some of the exchanges on Russia. President Trump will meet with Vladimir Putin on Monday.

What three or four things to you hope to achieve in your meeting with Putin?

Donald Trump: We go into the meeting with Putin following the tremendous NATO meeting. It was testy at the beginning, but then everyone agreed to come together and the U.K. fully adhered to it. We left that meeting more unified and wealthier as a group than ever before. So we go in strong.

We will talk about a number of things: Ukraine, Syria, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation. We are massively modernizing and fixing and buying and it’s just a devastating technology. It is a very bad policy. We have no choice. We are massively big and they are very big and I’ll be talking about nuclear proliferation. I will absolutely bring up ‘meddling.‘ Hopefully we will have a very good relationship with Russia, China and other countries.

As Steve noted here, proliferation is a longstanding concern of Trump’s. He is right about NATO being wealthier than ever, as his tough talk at the NATO summit produced billions in additional commitments.

You spent the week criticizing NATO allies and taking on PM May – are you giving Putin the upper hand by challenging alliances?

Donald Trump: That’s such dishonest reporting from NBC, which is possibly worse than CNN. We have left NATO with more money, more unity and more spirit than it has possibly ever had. We had people who weren’t paying their bills or following commitments. When you look at what we’ve done in terms of Russia, I bet they’re saying ‘I wish Trump wasn’t the victor in that election.’ We have been extremely tough on Russia, including when the PM called after a horrible thing happened here. She asked if I’d do something and we expelled 60 people — Germany did three. The fake news doesn’t want to talk about it. We have been very strong on Russia. If I had a relationship with Russia or with China it would be good. If we get along with countries, that’s a good thing.

Classic Trump: he is right that his administration has been “extremely tough on Russia,” which the fake news “doesn’t want to talk about.” At the same time, he wants good relations with all countries, including Russia and China.

Putin will see the headlines?

Donald Trump: The headline he sees isn’t what happened in the morning, but in the afternoon when we came together as one. Thirty-four billion dollars more was raised since I became president of NATO.

Right.

Some people have suggested relations between the US and Russia are at their lowest point since the cold war – how can relations improve if Putin continues to occupy Crimea?

Donald Trump: I think I would have a very good relationship with Putin if we spend time together. After watching the rigged witch-hunt yesterday, I think it really hurts our country and our relationship with Russia. I hope we can have a good relationship with Russia.

Trump is right again. The “rigged witch-hunt”–a fair description–makes it harder for the administration to conduct a normal foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. Do the Democrats care? Of course not.

Even if it occupies another country?

Donald Trump: President Obama failed very badly with Crimea — I wouldn’t have done that. He took it over during the Obama administration. We’ll have to see what happens … I’m not bad at doing things. Let’s see what happens. This was an Obama disaster. If I were president, he would not have taken over.

How do you fix it?

Donald Trump: We’ll see what happens. If I knew, I wouldn’t tell you, because it would put us at a disadvantage. Crimea was another bad hand, like North Korea, but we’re doing very well there. We will look at it just as we’ve looked at other disasters we’ve taken over.

Again, classic Trump. He is right about Obama. Whether he can do much with the Crimea “disaster” remains to be seen, but most of us have learned not to bet against him.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/07/donald-trump-and-theresa-may-meet-the-press.php

Democrats Demand Open Borders

IMMIGRATION: A LOSER FOR THE DEMOCRATS

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

Yesterday the Democrats organized pro-illegal immigration rallies across the country. The demonstrations were putatively addressed to the separation of illegal immigrant families at the border–never mind that President Trump has already issued an executive order addressing that issue–but the real agenda was open borders, i.e., no national sovereignty. Come one, come all.

This was most plainly expressed by the “Abolish ICE” theme that permeated the demonstrations:

I think everyone understands that “abolish ICE” means no enforcement of immigration laws. The Democrats obviously think they can make hay with the immigration issue, but I don’t understand why. Granted, it will fire up elements of their base. But it motivates the Republican base, and especially Trump voters, too. But the more fundamental point is that, broadly speaking, the Democrats’ positions on immigration are unpopular.

This Harvard-Harris poll that was released on Thursday is, I think, typical:

Although American voters are sympathetic to immigrant families being separated at the border, they demand stronger border security and immigration enforcement. Voters do not believe that families ought to be separated when they cross illegally (88%), and they support the Trump administration’s late policy reversal, allowing families to stay together (71%), even if it was done unilaterally through an executive order.

A majority of voters want immigration reform (73%) and secure borders (76%). Voters also want stricter enforcement of immigration laws (70%). Voters support prosecuting immigrants who cross the border illegally (53%) and sending these immigrants home (64%). A majority (55%) also stand against so-called “catch and release” policies.

So 76% want secure borders, and 70% want stricter enforcement of immigration laws–the opposite of “abolish ICE.” These are overwhelming majorities. I frankly cannot understand why the Democrats want to make unpopular positions on an important issue the centerpiece of the midterm elections. All I can say is, I hope they keep it up.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/07/immigration-a-loser-for-the-democrats.php

The American Fascist War Against ICE

ICE at Bay: Siege at Portland Continues as Copycat Insurrections Spread Nationwide

by Peter Barry Chowka  at American Thinker:

Thursday June 28 marks day 12 in the radical left wing and anarchist occupation and blockade of ICE headquarters in Portland, Oregon, organized by a group called Occupy ICE PDX. The direct action to shut down operations of the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement and investigative agency began with a small group of demonstrators on June 17. Within two days, scores of radicals, including families with children, had set up a sprawling tent city on the sidewalks and streets surrounding the building, effectively shutting it down. By week’s end, hundreds of “comrades” had been lured by social media to join the campaign, as it served to inspire similar provocative illegal actions around the country. According to Willamette Week, “The Portland  occupation, the first nationwide, is an attempt to disrupt President Donald Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy that has treated refugees seeking asylum as criminals and separated small children from their parents.”

National mainstream television and cable news coverage of these developments in Portland has continued to be largely nonexistent. The fact that the movement has gone nationwide has also been ignored. Several Internet political publications, including American Thinker on June 25, have reported on the story, as have a few major newspapers. In contrast, the radical ragtag “Occupy Movement” demonstrations in the fall of 2011 grabbed major media coverage including on TV from the outset of the first one, Occupy Wall Street. It’s plausible that the widespread coverage of obnoxious and potentially criminal actions that have been taken place, and their potential impact to harm Democrat candidates in the fall, have discouraged the MSM from reporting on the equally obnoxious radical encampments in Portland and other cities.

Part of the Occupy Portland ICE tent city Photo: Daniel Stindt, Occupy ICE

The groups behind the Portland and allied anti-ICE actions include Antifa, DSA (Democrat Socialists of America), Direct Action, and various anarchists, socialists, and communist fellow travelers. The official Occupy I.C.E. PDX Twitter account makes the group’s agenda clear: “We won’t leave until I.C.E is out of Portland and is abolished!” and “ICE = GESTAPO.” The radical left wing Democrat mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, is in sync with the occupiers and has ordered Portland police to stand down and not enforce the laws against such actions. Other Portland political leaders are even more dedicated to kowtowing to the occupiers and shutting down ICE in the city. According to a Washington Post article reprinted at SFGate:

City Councilmember Chloe Eudaly said at a meeting Wednesday [June 27] that her office is looking into the possibility of revoking ICE’s lease at the Portland building. Margaux Weeke, a spokeswoman for Eudaly, said the office is looking into options for removing ICE: “We are definitely very supportive of the occupy movement. We’re doing our very best to support everything that they’re doing.”

Among the “dozens of cities nationwide” where groups of radicals have occupied or blocked ICE buildings are San Diego, Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. Demonstrators to date have had some success in shutting down ICE operations. For example, as Al Jazeera reported in an article on June 27:

On Monday [June 25], #OccupyICENYC forced the agency to temporarily cancel a series of immigration hearings, with officials citing a need to ‘ensure the safety of ICE employees, the court, the public and detainees,’ according to local media.

Source: Occupy ICE NYC Twitter

In recent days, prominent national Democrats have started to echo the Occupy ICE street radicals’ demands to shut down ICE. Support for this ultimatum to in effect nullify the law is quickly becoming an article of faith for Democrat candidates running for office this year and some presidential wannabes with their eyes set on challenging President Trump in 2020. High profile Dems jumping on the abolish ICE bandwagon include 2020 presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris (CA), New York Gubernatorial candidate, Sex and the City actress, and lesbian activist Cynthia Nixon, and a number of current Representatives and at least 15 candidates for the House, including the surprise winner of New York’s 14th Congressional District Democrat primary. That new rising star of the left,  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, was a member of the DSA who was working as a bartender seven months ago. According to the Washington Post, Ocasio-Cortez “made ‘abolish ICE’ a centerpiece of her campaign, with bilingual ‘Abolish ICE/Elimina Ice’ posters appearing in shop windows across Queens and the Bronx.” On Monday, Representative Mark Pocan, a Democrat from Wisconsin, introduced legislation in the House of Representatives that would abolish the agency.

ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Department of Homeland Security that was a result of legislation passed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. ICE’s 2018 budget is $7.6 billion and it employs over 20,000 people. ICE is responsible for much more than enforcing immigration laws. The agency “executes its mission through the enforcement of more than 400 federal statutes, focusing on preventing terrorism, immigration enforcement and combating transnational crime.” ICE also “maintains attachés at major U.S. diplomatic missions overseas.”

The recent clarion call to shut down ICE altogether is part of a larger agenda by this latest incarnation of the seven year-old Occupy movement and its wide variety of radical adherents. More broadly, the movement is also “demanding” the closure of prisons and the opening of borders. In other words, stick a dagger in the heart of law enforcement by freeing convicted criminals from jails and prisons and give up trying to keep illegal aliens out of the country because these policies – law and order and borders – are “racist.”

The Portland ICE HQ occupation has grown in numbers (more than 90 tents and hundreds of participants as of June 25) and has hardened its encampment with barricades made of wooden pallets, heavy tarps, and other material. Overnight last Monday, a small number of Federal officers managed to sneak into the building as the protesters were asleep. They started removing banners the demonstrators had attached to the building’s exterior and the next day began passing out fliers warning the tent city occupiers that they would be subject to arrest. As of late Wednesday June 27, no arrests had been made and no one had been evicted from the sprawling and ever expanding tent city.

A look inside Portland occupy ICE camps Source: Portland Oregonian

The warnings seemed to only harden the resolve of the occupiers. When a few federal officers were spotted in the area on June 27, an occupier tweeted “Homeland [DHS] chuds are here, SEND FUC–NG BODIES NOW #OccupyICEPDX.” According to Urban Dictionary, CHUD “is the acronym for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller. This term is regarded as the WORST possible insult you can dish out on the social media circles today.” According to an article on June 27 in The Oregonian, Occupy ICE Portland leaders have promised that, if arrests are made and the encampment is shut down:

“People are going to do whatever it takes,” Jacob Bureros, an organizer of the Occupy ICE PDX movement, said Tuesday. “If they arrest us on federal property, we’ll shut the roads down. You can’t stop us. They’re going to find out that this city has more resolve than they do.”

On June 26, Williamette Week described how occupation leaders have already arranged with the city’s legions of public defenders, who normally represent illegal aliens, to vigorously defend anyone arrested at Portland’s ICE HQ.

Local Portland mainstream media – print, online, TV, and radio – are reporting daily on the occupation. The coverage is generally positive, as befits a city that might as well be named The People’s Republic of Portland. Local left wing “community” radio station KBOO-FM has been broadcasting live from the encampment.

The most common question people ask about this situation is a variation of “How long will this be allowed to go on?”

Source: Occupy ICE NYC Twitter

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  He is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  Follow Peter on Twitter at @pchowka.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/ice_at_bay_siege_at_portland_continues_as_copycat_insurrections_spread_nationwide.html

Supreme Court Backs President Trump’s “Travel Ban”

TRAVEL BAN VINDICATED

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

The Supreme Court vindicated President Trump’s final iteration of his so-called “travel ban” order in Trump v. Hawaii this morning. The ruling was 5-4. Although the plaintiffs prevailed in the lower courts, the Supreme Court’s rational wing was unimpressed by the arguments ginned up to frustrate Trump’s executive order. The ruling left Trump free to be Trump and interred the Court’s 1944 Korematsu decision upholding Japanese internment by the Roosevelt administration to boot.

It also reminds me again to thank the Senate Republicans who toughed it out to leave the appointment of the successor to Justice Scalia to the winner of the 2016 election. Thanks especially to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. They took a lot of abuse from the media in an early preview of the hysteria we have endured since Trump improbably won.

President Trump’s statement on the Supreme Court ruling seems perfectly reasonable to me:

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States. In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country.

This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens. Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will not put an end to “the hysterical commentary from the media and and Democratic politicians[.]” The hysteria continues.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/travel-ban-vindicated.php

TIME TO FIRE SESSIONS AND END RUSSIAGATE

Trump’s New Campaign Manager: It’s Time To Fire Sessions And End Russiagate

At times like this, when I’m tempted to feel bad for Sessions, I remind myself that he did more than any other Republican incumbent to open the door to Trumpmania by endorsing POTUS over Cruz in the 2016 primaries. And then, like sunshine breaking through on a cloudy day, the temptation passes.

SEE ALSO: Gowdy: Why didn’t Comey try to get a special counsel appointed in the Hillary probe instead of deciding everything himself?

He’ll be gone from the DOJ within a year and out of politics when he could have stayed in the Senate and held his seat until he’s 100. That’s his payback.

As for Parscale, he should probably stay focused on not getting indicted. Although I suppose POTUS ending Russiagate would be one way to ensure that:

Brad Parscale

@parscale

Time to fire Sessions

End the Mueller investigation

You can’t obstruct something that was phony against you

The IG report gives @realDonaldTrump the truth to end it all.

I haven’t heard something that incendiary about Russiagate from a Trump confidante since whenever Rudy Giuliani’s last interview was. What makes Parscale’s tweet interesting is that it’s hard to imagine him sending it without clearing it with POTUS first, knowing how much attention it would get. In which case, what’s Trump’s and Parscale’s game here? Jonah Goldberg wonders if maybe it’s a shiny object designed to distract the press, however briefly, from their child separation coverage.

I don’t know. There’s a cynical case to be made that Parscale’s right, that if Trump’s planning to drop the axe on Sessions and especially Mueller, it’s better done sooner than later. That’s because there’s a potential expiration date on treating Peter Strzok as the Mark Fuhrman of the Russiagate probe. That expiration date is the day the IG issues his report on that investigation. If — if — Michael Horowitz determines that there’s no evidence that Strzok’s political biases led him to behave corruptly in assisting Mueller, the case for declaring the whole matter hopelessly tainted by illicit partisan motives becomes harder to make to the public. Better to seize on the damning revelation about Strzok’s texts in the Emailgate report and shut down the whole thing now, before Horowitz does any more reporting on Strzok. If his Russiagate report ends up clearing Strzok, well, too late. Water under the bridge. The probe’s already over at that point.

I don’t think Trump would do that at this point, though. There’s too much at stake. His numbers are improving, he’s notched a political win with North Korea, he’s got the trade war he always wanted. Firing Sessions would be a big deal but wouldn’t derail his presidency. Firing Mueller might. Firing Mueller and wading into official DOJ business to end an investigation into him and his associates definitely would.

Parscale’s probably just blowing smoke. Which has been known to happen among Trump cronies, even on the most sensitive matters:

President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani said on Monday that he was actually just bluffing last week when he called for Justice Department leaders to suspend special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation within 24 hours.

“I didn’t think it would,” Giuliani told POLITICO with a laugh when asked about the Mueller inquiry’s still being very much an active investigation. “But I still think it should be.”…

“That’s what I’m supposed to do,” Giuliani explained on Monday. “What am I supposed to say? That they should investigate him forever? Sorry, I’m not a sucker.”

Maybe Parscale did something behind the scenes to displease Trump and this is his way of getting back in his good graces. Tweeting “fire Sessions” is MAGAworld’s equivalent of sending someone a dozen roses.

Speaking of which, let me blow your mind with this scenario. Sessions either gets fired or resigns before the end of the year, then turns around and declares he intends to challenge Doug Jones for his old Senate seat in 2020. Question: Does he win the GOP primary? Does it matter if his time at the DOJ ends with a resignation rather than a firing? Normally it’d be a no-brainer. Of course a well-known pol like Sessions would win his seat easily in a red state like Alabama, all else being equal. But not everything is equal this time. Trump hates him for failing to “protect” him from Russiagate and has made no secret of it. He’d want to punish Sessions for his “disloyalty,” which might mean recruiting a primary challenger for his Senate bid. We know from hard experience that Trump’s word isn’t law in Senate primaries in Alabama (otherwise Luther Strange would still be a senator rather than Jones) but so much animosity has been steered towards Sessions by Trump Nation, with Parscale’s tweet just the latest example, that it’s hard to imagine him winning votes from the president’s supporters. It’s an open question to me if he could win — especially if he ended up being fired by Trump.

Political junkies should start thinking about this. It’s a cinch that Sessions will leave the DOJ before 2020, as the president can’t remain at war with his AG indefinitely, and he’d obviously be a formidable challenger to the Democrat currently holding his seat. What happens if he runs?

 

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/19/trumps-new-campaign-manager-time-fire-sessions-end-russiagate/

The War of 1812

 

(Note:  Andrew Jackson’s shocking victory at New Orleans actually occurred in 1815 after the War (of 1812) had officially ended.)ghr