• 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

There’s No Truth to What Our DEM Fascists Tally, for FASCISTS DICTATE Their Own Contrived ‘TRUTH’

Opinion | How to Sell Your Soul to Donald Trump


There’s no way that Mike Pompeo actually venerates Donald Trump. I doubt he even likes the president much.

Pompeo graduated first in his class at West Point decades ago, a feat that suggests enormous reserves of discipline, a profound respect for tradition and a talent for self-effacement when the circumstances warrant it. Trump possesses none of those qualities.

Pompeo is an evangelical Christian, steeped in the very dictums that Trump has spent a lifetime mocking with both his words and his deeds. And Pompeo has long believed in the importance of American military intervention abroad, the kind of activist role that Trump railed against during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

In fact Pompeo, who was then a congressman from Kansas, supported Marco Rubio — and publicly praised him, while disparaging Trump, just before the state’s Republican caucus in March 2016. As Susan Glasser of The New Yorker recalled in an excellent recent profile of Pompeo, he sounded an alarm that Trump would be “an authoritarian president who ignored our Constitution.” He urged Republicans to come to their senses and resist the lure of the surging Trump campaign. “It’s time,” he said, “to turn down the lights on the circus.”

But the lights continued to burn bright, so Pompeo just put on a clown suit, put away his ethics and finagled a big role under the Big Top.

He had plenty of company in that transformation. It’s the wonder of the Trump era and one of the saddest, scariest themes of the impeachment inquiry so far: the teeming crowd of sellouts and suck-ups who eagerly traded principle for position and are in some cases doubling and tripling down on that transaction, to a point where it’s fair to ask if there was ever much principle to begin with.

[Get a more personal take on politics, newsmakers and more with Frank Bruni’s exclusive commentary every week. Sign up for his newsletter.]

I’m looking at you, Lindsey Graham, who somehow decided that Trump was the new John McCain, which is like deeming tripe the new tenderloin. Hell, I’m looking at most of the Republicans in the Senate. I’m not so much looking at Attorney General William Barr, odious as his behavior has been, because it’s clear in retrospect that he never made much of a pretense of rectitude, at least not in the context of Trump. He also wasn’t on record trashing Trump, not the way Pompeo and Graham and so many others who now dutifully echo him and gaze beatifically at him were. They must have broken necks from their moral whiplash. Barr’s neck supports that big head of his just fine.

Pompeo, who first signed on as Trump’s C.I.A. director and then flattered his way to secretary of state, is a paragon of these lackeys-come-lately, and he’s especially vivid proof of how easily and completely the lure of power can overwhelm any call to conscience.

He raised his hand for secretary of state after he’d seen his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, humiliated by Trump and fired by tweet. This was more than a year into Trump’s presidency, by which point the rationalizations of other supposedly serious conservatives who took top administration jobs no longer held water. It was clear that Trump wasn’t just a few artful nudges away from proper presidential bearing. He couldn’t be lifted up because he was too busy cruelly dragging everyone else down.

But Pompeo had a heady shot at a vaunted job that almost surely wasn’t going to come his way any other time. So he lunged for it, then demonstrated with his obsequiousness that doing good and doing right were never high on the agenda.

He wrote an op-ed article that essentially broke with his fellow Republicans to promote Trump’s view that Saudi Arabia’s butchery of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi shouldn’t give anyone pause. What are a few severed body parts among allies?

He recalled the ambassador to Ukraine just to please the president and his babbling Beelzebub, Rudy Giuliani. He listened mutely to that July 25 phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president, decided to ignore what he heard and then claimed — until a few days ago — that he was utterly in the dark about any pressure on Ukraine to kneecap Joe Biden.

Had he spoken up or pushed back, he would have risked ending up on the outside, among the swelling Trump administration diaspora. He preferred the inside, with its glossier trappings and cushier thrones. He and his wife were diplomatic royalty, jetting around the world. He could bear the ache of a tongue full of tooth marks. Better to be a wretched part of history than no part at all.

The tale sounds familiar because it is. It’s the story of Faust, who sold his soul for renown, then endured the ugliness of that deal. It’s also the story of too many of Trump’s Republican enablers to count. Sure, many of them decided to prop and pretty him up, a man whose unfitness for the Oval Office was never really in doubt, out of tribal loyalty, a force far too potent in American politics today. But some rushed to him because that’s where the riches were, at least metaphorically. That’s where the fame was.

And they weren’t simply burying the hatchet with a politician who hadn’t been their preferred candidate or whose positions differed from theirs only slightly. They were dismantling the chain saw that they’d wielded in the face of a fraud whose conduct, along with some of his proposals, was antithetical to who they claimed to be.

Few people remember anymore, but just years before she became the dark empress of “alternative facts,” Kellyanne Conway was a respected, reasonably mainstream, uncontroversial Republican pollster and strategist. Just months before she joined Team Trump, she correctly labeled him “vulgar,” said that he wasn’t presidential, called him a liar and demanded his tax returns. Then he offered her the lofty job of managing his presidential campaign — and all the television airtime that came with it — and she turned herself into a kowtowing cartoon. She’ll never be seen the same way again. Was the ride really worth it?

And what was Mick Mulvaney thinking when he agreed to be Trump’s third chief of staff, having witnessed the tortures of chiefs Nos. 1 and 2? Before Trump was elected, Mulvaney called him and Hillary Clinton “two of the most flawed human beings running for president in the history of the country,” and lest you think Trump was merely collateral damage in her disparagement, Mulvaney separately called Trump “a terrible human being.” Now he calls him boss. Amazing how revulsion crumbles when relevance is in the equation.

Graham was oddly and briefly honest about this in an interview with The Times’s Mark Leibovich, framing his kinship with Trump, whom he once called “the world’s biggest jackass,” as part of his career-long quest “to try to be relevant.” This quest now involves the insistence that Trump, rather than abusing the presidency to dig up imagined dirt on a political rival, is the victim of some setup.

You can hear Graham’s version as predictably loopy illogic from a senator up for re-election next year in the deep-red state of South Carolina, but it’s more than that. It’s the fee for being able to get the president on the phone, for being invited to play golf with him, for feeling the rush of access, for getting to crow about your perch at the epicenter of the action. He and Pompeo will have insider anecdotes to last the rest of their lives. They’ll need just as long to convince themselves that they didn’t overpay.



Leftism at Des Moines Register Disturbed….What a Shock!!

Cancel Culture Snaps Back, Reporter Feels The Bite From Social Media

A Des Moines Register reporter is finding out the hard way that cancel culture works both ways. If someone is reporting about another’s ugly tweets on Twitter from many years ago, that someone better check his own social media posts first.

SEE ALSO: Comey: On second thought, maybe Trump should be impeached

You may have seen Carson King on Fox and Friends last weekend. He turned a silly stunt at a college football game into a jaw-dropping act of charity. The 24-year-old King held up a sign asking for money to buy more Busch Light beer. It was funny. His gesture went viral after he was captured on camera. The college football game was seen by a large audience because it was a part of ESPN’s “College GameDay”. In case you are curious, the game was between the Iowa Hawkeyes and the Iowa State Cyclones.


The sign stunt happened on September 14. After it went viral, donations began pouring in. No one was more surprised than King. He got a lot of publicity and the story was told on FOX, which increased his donations. He told the audience that he was donating the money to the University of Iowa’s Stead Children’s Hospital. Venmo and Anheuser-Busch both pledged to match his donation. King appeared on Fox and Friends last weekend to announce he was almost at the $1 million mark. Busch Light cans were made with his picture on them. King was even promised a year’s supply of Busch Light from the company. Anheuser-Busch labeled King an Iowa Legend.

“Hey @CarsonKing2, we said we’d send you a year’s worth of Busch Light, but first we had to make sure the cans were fit for a King. Let us know where to send the truck. #IowaLegend,” Anheuser-Busch tweeted.

Carson King@CarsonKing2

Hey ! I just wanted everyone to know I’m listening to @CycloneFB from NYC! We’re st over 873,000.00 total contributions after @BuschBeer and @venmo.

View image on Twitter

The Des Moines Register picked up the story and published a piece on Carson King. Included in the piece were two tweets from when King was 16 years old. The tweets were racial. The tweets were uncovered during a “routine background check”, according to the newspaper.

The newspaper report, however, included a “routine background check” of King’s social media history. Register reporter Aaron Calvin came across two racist jokes that dated back to 2012 when King was a 16-year-old high school student, “one comparing black mothers to gorillas and another making light of black people killed in the Holocaust.”

He was 16 then and now he’s 24. A lot of maturity happens in those years. King clearly has turned out to be a good guy who shares his good fortune with those in need. When asked about the two tweets, King immediately apologized and expressed both embarrassment and remorse.

King was asked about the tweets and immediately expressed remorse.

“That’s not something that I’m proud of at all,” King told the Register on Tuesday.

He appeared on local TV stations to apologize and said, “I am embarrassed and stunned to reflect on what I thought was funny when I was 16 years old.”

Anheuser-Busch severed ties with King, though the company said they will honor the commitment to match his donation.

Readers were not pleased with the newspaper’s trashing of King with the tweets so some did a little investigating of their own. Guess what? The reporter had some less than stellar tweets from younger days, too. The Register’s Executive Editor Carol Hunter issued a lengthy response.

Des Moines Register


A statement from our editor:

View image on Twitter

Here’s the thing. This is where we are now as a culture. Reporters are eager to do a gotcha element even in the most feel-good kind of stories. Do we hold a 24 year old guy up for doing a good thing or do we trash him with mention of tweets from his years as a teenager. Teenagers say dumb things, that isn’t breaking news. There isn’t any indication that those two tweets represent his life now. The reporter and the newspaper went with the inclusion of the tweets as a gotcha, whether they admit it or not. Would the editor have issued such a tortured statement if readers hadn’t criticized the inclusion of the tweets? Of course not.

Justifiying the decision to include the tweets by saying the mention was way down deep into the article doesn’t matter. It was there. Readers read it. Also, stating the tweets weren’t the headline doesn’t make it right. The reporter points to the admission by King to the press before the piece was published as if it makes the paper’s decision ok.

“Should that material be included in the profile at all? The jokes were highly inappropriate and were public posts. Shouldn’t that be acknowledged to all the people who had donated money to King’s cause or were planning to do so?” Hunter wrote.

Hunter went on to defend the paper’s decision to include such information, noting that it was toward the bottom of the profile and not placed prominently at the top.

“The news conference was covered by local television stations, which first reported on the racist posts and King’s remorse. After those stories aired, Busch Light’s parent company announced it would honor its pledge to the children’s hospital but would sever future ties with King,” Hunter continued. “That happened before the Register published its profile of King, which was still in the editing process.”

King got out in front of it – he knows how this works. Cancel culture demands the person who offended someone be shunned, preferrably fired from a job. Also, the reporter’s timeline is in question. It looks as though Anheuser-Busch was told about the tweets before King went public.

Keith Murphy


Carson tells me he knew at 2:16PM that @BuschBeer was severing ties after tweets brought to its attention.

Busch Light Carson King T-shirt links, with proceeds to @UIchildrens, down by 5 PM.

Press conference didn’t even start until 7 PM. It was not why Busch ended relationship. https://twitter.com/DMRegister/status/1176705031468457985 

Des Moines Register


A statement from our editor:

View image on Twitter

Turnabout is fair play. It looks as though the Des Moines Register didn’t do such a thorough “background check” on their reporter as the reporter did on his subject. Calvin isn’t innocent here, either, if past tweets are the measure of a man.

In now-deleted tweets from 2010-2013, Calvin repeatedly used the N-word, and wrote posts attacking law enforcement like “f— all cops,” and in reaction to the legalization of gay marriage said he’s “totally going to marry a horse.”

Before locking his Twitter account, Calvin issued an apology for his own tweets.

“Hey just wanted to say that I have deleted previous tweets that have been inappropriate or insensitive. I apologize for not holding myself to the same standards as the Register holds others,” Calvin wrote.

The newspaper is now investigating Calvin. King, meanwhile, has been nothing but gracious in his reaction to the newspaper. He is taking the high road.

“The Des Moines Register has been nothing but kind in all of their coverage, and I appreciate the reporter pointing out the post to me,” King tweeted. “I want everyone to understand that this was my decision to publicly address the posts and apologize. I believe that is the right thing to do.”


Cancel culture snaps back, reporter feels the bite from social media

Fascist Dem’s Town Hall Trillion Dollar Plus Drive “to Cure” Climate Change!


by  John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

Last night the Democratic presidential candidates and CNN held a “town hall” on climate change. I saw somewhere that it was scheduled to last for seven hours. Is that possible? One wonders what ratings it got–even lower than CNN’s usual dismal totals, I suspect.

Of course, it probably took seven hours for the candidates to list all the things they intend to ban. Our friends at Grabien put together this helpful compendium:

In other words, say goodbye to freedom and prosperity. I wonder how many voters have any idea how radical the Democratic Party has become.

(Please click below for the  full article!  It is essential voting Americans recognize the loonies now in control of our fascist Democrat Party……these today’s vacuous experts, the wise leftist seers of tomorrow’s boiling  America in the boiling  Earth because of white man’s  discoveries, inventions and leadership.  There isn’t a brain among these Dems offering knowledge, truth, facts about Mother Earth’s history of global warming and cooling.  They rely on moods, noise, feelings, the stupid conglomeration of today’s  know nothings, graduates of the American universities,  now directing CNN, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times,  and Google goons and all the rest of these lefty fasistics who have such vile contempt against hard working Americans less arrogant than they are….Think, absorb, study the noise constantly emanating  from Vermont creep, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Communist lover who celebrated his marriage in USSR’s MOSCOW!)

Ban Everything!


Dems Fascism at Work in Pittsburgh

“This Is Insane”: Leftists Begin Blacklist In Pittsburgh To Get Trump-Supporters’ Businesses “Closed Down”

Debra Messing would be proud, eh? The effort to destroy the livelihoods of those who do not accept The Approved Groupthink has expanded outside of Hollywood all the way to Pittsburgh. Either oppose Donald Trump in 2020 or get run out of town on a rail, small business owners!

Local social media is abuzz over efforts in Pittsburgh to identify and boycott businesses owned by supporters of President Donald Trump.

“I think it’s important because people have a right to know where their money is going,” Pittsburgh blogger Brian Broome told KDKA political editor Jon Delano on Tuesday. …

“If there is a specific ideology that you don’t support, you are well within your rights not to hand that money to someone who supports that ideology,” says Broome. “Trump supporters have boycotted everything from Keurig to Nike, so I don’t know why, quote-unquote, the other side can’t decide not to give their money to businesses as well.”

Except that it’s not just a boycott, even by the terms of the now-suspended Facebook post. The boycotts that Broome cites are a withholding of personal custom, aimed at large corporations. This effort takes aim at small businesses, and it’s not to deprive the businesses of personal patronage. They want to chase these people out of business altogether:

The new website promises to include, “a database of Trump-supporter owned businesses in the Pittsburgh area, as well as tips for how to get those specific businesses closed down.”

That’s not a boycott. It’s a manifesto for street action against political opponents, no matter what the cost. Too bad about all the lost jobs, I suppose, but ya gotta crack a few eggs to make a socially acceptable omelette, people.

The local Republican Party chair has a word for this, or actually a few of them. Fascist, absurd, dangerous — take your pick, although Sam DeMarco probably should have stopped at those:

“They want to cost people their livelihoods just because you don’t agree with them politically?” asks Allegheny County councilman Sam DeMarco, who also chairs the county’s Republican Party.

“It’s not just absurd, but I believe it’s dangerous.” …

“Look at what they’re trying to do. People who they just don’t agree with, they want to take and punish. I absolutely believe this is a fascist behavior, and I totally reject it,” says the GOP chairman.

DeMarco’s parallel to the Nazis’ labeling of Jewish-owned businesses is over the top. That was a government-based effort, made even more clear with the Nuremberg Laws that followed shortly thereafter. However, it’s not anywhere near as benign as Broome would have it, either. This effort wants to destroy the livelihood of Americans over their political differences, rather than just having a debate over politics. That’s dangerous in its own way without tripping over Godwin’s Law to explain why.

Let’s give Hollywood conservative John O’Hurley the last word in explaining this phenomenon. O’Hurley is focused on Messing’s “lunacy” and its aim at purging Hollywood of conservative thought. “It underscores the fact that we aren’t receptive to a diversity of thought, which is the exact opposite of what you feel the liberal way would be,” O’Hurley says, “and I find that obscene.” It’s obscene in Pittsburgh, too.

“This is insane”: Leftists begin blacklist in Pittsburgh to get Trump-supporters’ businesses “closed down”

Leftist Habit of the Foul Mouth Speaks Big Truth Notwithstanding!


by  John Hinderaker of PowerLine:

James Kunstler runs a site called Clusterfuck Nation. [Warning: strong language to follow.] Kunstler is, or was, a liberal. But he isn’t crazy, and today the issue isn’t conservative vs. liberal, it is sane vs. insane. Kunstler is on the side of sanity, and his writing is entertaining and insightful.

If the Left were a person, it would be in a locked ward by now on twenty milligrams of haloperidol QID. But we gave up on mental hospitals decades ago. So, the Left is on the loose out there in streets, threatening to “stab motherfuckers in the heart” one moment and ululating against gun violence in the next. …

Pretty soon, America might have to start asking: what exactly is “progressive” about going insane? I think we’re getting close to answering that, and the answer is: nothing. The Left has managed to drain the meaning from the word “progressive.” We will not be able to take it seriously for generations to come (if there are any generations to come). The Left has applied every possible gimmick from the bad faith trick-bag to disable thinking in this republic generally, and the language that serves thinking. But its contorted maledictions are working mainly against itself as one preposterous idea after another bursts out of its collective pie-hole and into the blue-checked Twitter windows.

Speaking of “stabbing motherfuckers in the heart,” why are the “progressives” who moiled outside Senator Mitch McConnell’s house the other night not cooling their heels in a federal lock-up for threatening to assassinate a public official? That’s the usual procedure. How difficult would it be to locate them? Nobody has even asked — a peculiar development.

Twitter boss Jack Dorsey took the predictable “progressive” action of banning Senator McConnell’s election campaign account for posting a video of the very mob looking to “stab motherfuckers in the heart” outside his house. That should be good, at least, for a hearty lawsuit against Twitter that might raise the consciousness of the 23-year-old wokester myrmidons Jack Dorsey hired to pretend that their diligent bannings of non-woke Tweeters are the work of supposed “algorithms” — as well as Mr. Dorsey himself, the arrogant prick behind it all.

Any decent psychological detective can conclude why the Left, including especially the Democratic Party — formerly a pillar of our political system — has gone insane. Losing a national election two and half years ago traumatized the base. In the process, the party made the rueful discovery that it was devoid of reality-based political ideas. This prompted the adoption of reality-optional excuses for failure masquerading as political ideas: Russia did it! Trump was “Putin’s puppet.” That clinically paranoid meme, and the massive investigatory activity it provoked, ended in more failure, so profound that the party still can’t face it.

Kunstler is more optimistic than I am. He sees Deep State officials “about to be frog-marched into the grand juries any week now” on account of the Russia hoax. I don’t think we will be that lucky. But I do think that Americans are unlikely to vote into power a clinically insane party, as long as their votes are counted honestly.

A Righteous Saturday Night Rant

BIG Lie at Fox About Google NOT Censoring Conservative Speech…Needs to Call Dennis Prager!!?

Google VP Karan Bhatia: Google isn’t politically biased and doesn’t censor conservative speech

From the very beginning, Google has always been about one thing above all else: knowledge. Even as the company has grown and evolved, our mission has remained the same: to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

A core part of our mission is our work to provide access to high-quality information for everyone.

Over the last few years, though, there have been accusations that tech companies like Google are censoring conservative speech by injecting political bias into our products. As the head of Google’s government affairs team, I’ll be testifying on this topic before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday afternoon where I’ll be clear: Google’s products are not politically biased.


Indeed, we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account.

At Google, we aim to serve users everywhere. We want all people – regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or political leanings – to find our products useful. That requires, above all, that we earn and maintain their trust.

Our users overwhelmingly trust us to deliver the most helpful and reliable information out there. Distorting results for political purposes would be antithetical to our mission and contrary to our business interests.

In Google Search, our focus is to make the extensive and diverse range of information on the web accessible to people around the world.

Every day, our search engine handles billions of searches of hundreds of billions of webpages. To manage this volume, we rely on an algorithmic approach and implement rigorous user testing and evaluation before we make any changes to our algorithms.

These algorithms don’t detect political perspectives, much less use them in any way to determine how webpages are ranked. Objective third-party studies – including, most recently, a comprehensive year-long assessment of Google News results by The Economist – have found no evidence of ideological bias in either direction.

We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account.

While Google Search aims to index the web, our YouTube platform hosts content and strives to be a community where people can listen, share, connect and be successful. Here too we employ algorithms to help sort and recommend the millions of hours of video that users upload each day – again, political orientation does not factor into our ranking or recommendations.

We do have a responsibility to keep information that is detrimental to our users’ experience or to society off our platform. We post clear Community Guidelines that users must adhere to when posting content to YouTube, and we prohibit certain content from the platform, such as videos that incite violence on the basis of race or religion.

Such content, in my mind, is not conservative or liberal; it is not political speech; it is content that is dangerous to society and to our community of users. We see it as our right and our responsibility to remove it.

Operating at the scale we do, we’re bound to get criticism from both sides. And we do.

From time to time, for example, political advertising may violate our advertising guidelines – we’ve disallowed ads from both Democrats and Republicans.

From time to time, our Knowledge Panels in Search – which help you find quick facts when you search for information about topics like “Hillary Clinton” or “California Republican Party” – may reflect erroneous information from the web and need to be corrected.

We work hard to learn from our mistakes and constantly improve our products – but importantly, these mistakes have affected both parties and are not the product of bias.

We’re a company of more than 100,000 people increasingly stretched across 24 states in the U.S. and around the world, whose experiences reflect a broad range of backgrounds, religions and political affiliations.

Our employees’ diverse viewpoints are as broad as the 60 countries in which we operate, and we remain dedicated to creating the world’s best technology products that work equally well for everyone.

Ultimately, the growth of the Internet has fostered an unprecedented era of speech and the free flow of ideas.


I’m old enough to remember a time before the web, when our access to news was limited to a few TV channels and newspapers. Today, we have access to an astounding number of ideas, viewpoints and information.

I believe that the Internet and products like Search and YouTube have created opportunities for the expression of diverse political views and a more dynamic political discourse in America – for the benefit of everyone.



Democrats Haven’t Always Been Feminized Fascists

Do You Remember When Both Parties Sounded Patriotic?

By MICHAEL BROWN at the Stream:    (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

It wasn’t that long ago that both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates sounded proud to be Americans. That, broadly speaking, both parties sounded patriotic, deeply appreciative of our heritage. That is certainly not the case today.

One party is proud of America, the other ashamed. One party recognizes the serious errors of our past but sees a greatness beyond that. The other party sees us as defined by our errors and failings.

On Saturday, I tweeted, “Do you remember the day (not that long ago) when both the Democrats and Republicans sounded patriotic?”

In response, Raymond E. Grim commented, “This 4th of July I really saw the separation between the Rs and Ds on love of our country. The Rs talked about the greatness of our country. The Ds complained about President Trump and patriotism.”

And my colleague at Stream.org, John Zmirak, wrote, “Yep. The VENEER of patriotism was kept up under Obama, but only to allow him to ‘fundamentally transform’ the country. (Remember Michelle wasn’t proud of America till HE GOT ELECTED.)”

Cruz Calls Out Kaepernick Over Fredrick Douglass

It is not surprising that it was a Republican, Senator Ted Cruz, who exposed Colin Kaepernick’s selective quotations from Frederick Douglass, which Kaepernick posted on July 4th.

The former NFL quarterback wanted Americans to remember the perspective of Douglass, who famously said, “What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? This Fourth of July is yours, not mine” And, “There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.”

Sen. Cruz pointed out that this speech was delivered in 1852, more than a decade before the Civil War. That makes a big difference.

Cruz then cited some of the closing words of this important speech, which included: “Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably, work the downfall of slavery. ‘The arm of the Lord is not shortened,’ and the doom of slavery is certain.”

And, “I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from ‘the Declaration of Independence,’ the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.”

Ignoring the Note of Hope

It is this note of hope, of national pride, of confidence in the solid foundations of our country, that is so lacking in today’s Democratic party.

The Founding Fathers were bad men. (I can virtually guarantee you that the voting districts and educational institutions most upset with the Founders tilt heavily Democrat.)

Capitalism is evil. (Oh, if only we were a socialist country!)

Whiteness is shameful, especially when it is male whiteness. (And our country was founded by white men and is run by white men until this day.)

Yes, we have a lot of apologizing to do. In fact, we need to apologize simply for being ourselves. It’s embarrassing to be an American.

Illegal aliens are heroes, and we are morally obligated to support them and provide their health insurance. In contrast, secure borders are selfish and a strong military is hateful.

And on and on it goes, coming to a head on this 4th of July.

As John Nolte wrote, “Because Democrats and the media have to be —holes about absolutely everything America-related, rather than join President Trump in celebrating America on the Fourth, they — no joke — raged against the idea of celebrating the birth of our great nation in our nation’s capital.”

“No One Who Moves to America From Another Country Goes Back Home”

Interestingly, while taking a taxi from Manhattan to LaGuardia airport this past Tuesday, my driver, who came to the States from Pakistan in 1992, said to me, “No one who moves to America from another country goes back home.”

Obviously, this was not meant to be a scientifically accurate statement, but the overall sentiment is undeniably true.

America is the land of opportunity, incredibly so.

America is the “can do” country, where anything seems possible.

America is the desired destination of countless millions who would love to make our country their home.

America is the land of freedom. (When I asked on the radio this week, “What are some of the greatest strengths and weaknesses of our country?”, one of my staff members replied, “The fact that we can have this conversation openly is one of our greatest strengths.”)

Without a doubt, from a prophetic perspective, America has many serious needs and is guilty of many sins. Having written books referring to our sickly condition, I would be the last to dispute this assessment.

And it is part of the duty of gospel ministers to call us to repentance and change. Count me in for that, on virtually a daily basis.

But America is also an amazing country, a country with wonderful roots. And one would expect our political leaders to celebrate our heritage rather than denigrate it.

Even political pragmatism would suggest that you would have a better chance of rallying voters by cultivating a healthy sense of national pride rather than a crippling sense of national shame.

So, by all means, let’s recognize our ongoing problems and let’s address our very real shortcomings.

But let’s do so realizing that we really are privileged to live here in America, which was and is intended to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

May our political leaders take heed.


Do You Remember When Both Parties Sounded Patriotic?

Dems Show Off Fascistic Skills to Gain Control of the White House!

The seven funniest moments at the Democrats’ first debate

by Thomas Lifson  at  American Thinker:


Last night saw the expression “clown car” gain considerable justification as a description of the Democrats’ presidential field. It was “9 candidates with no shot at anything and the tenth, the first fake Native American candidate,” in Daniel Greenfield’s apt description of the farce.  But there were moments of hilarity that punctuated the tedium, so it was not a total loss for those who subjected themselves to the entire broadcast, a marathon competition in pandering to the hard-left activists that shout the loudest on Twitter.

I confess that my secret hope of Robert F. O’Rourke jumping on top of his podium like some Iowa coffee shop counter was dashed, but the humor content was, by the standards of American political theatre, fairly impressive from the standpoint of a conservative.

In descending order of laughter potential:

#7 Bill de Blasio goes full commie

This is humor of the grim humor genre, so it loses points in the hilarity competition, but gains them in the meaningfulness column. The Mayor of New York reflects a growing sentiment among Democrats with his implicit claim to spearhead the re-assignment of wealth from the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who want it. Bill and his crypto-commie associates know which hands are the wrong ones to have money. “There’s plenty of money… it’s just in the wrong hands”

#6 NBC declares us a bi-lingual country, with moderator asking first-ever Spanish Language question in a US presidential debate

More grim humor. Because Quebec is such a model of the utility of having two language groups hostile to each other (I am old enough to remember when Montreal was the largest city in Canada and the economic capital – a title it lost to Toronto starting the moment Francophone fanatics started kidnapping and killing official they regarded as Anglophone enemies), it was grimly funny (as in strange) to see a debate moderator pose a question in a language most viewers did not understand. This is such a good idea that I recommend MSNBC use Spanish for half of the minutes of each broadcast hour. It should do wonders for their ratings.


#5 Warmist fanatic Jay Inslee’s non-sequitur claim that the filibuster is flooding Miami Beach.

Hey, it’s Democrats, Jake. Don’t expect it to make sense.

#4 Robert F. O’Rourke randomly starts speaking Spanish with a Gringo accent (very appropriate for an Irish-American, but unhelpful in the pandering department)

#3 Cory Booker tells us, “‘We Don’t Talk Enough About Trans Americans, Especially African American Trans Americans’

On behalf of handicapped differently-abled African American trans Americans, I protest this appalling lack of consideration of a minority that is even more persecuted by an America which is so horribly unjust that nobody would ever want to violate our border. We need to spend several minutes every waking hour discussing their plight. Or else we are bad people.

#2 Julian Castro calls for taxpayer-funded abortions for biological males who are pretending to be women. Because it’s only “justice.”

The words need a little parsing because there may be some attempt to wiggle lout of this absurdity:

LESTER HOLT: Would your plan cover abortion, Mr. Secretary?”
CASTRO: “Yes, it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. (Cheering and Applause) And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion. More than that, everybody in this crowd and watching at home knows that in our country today, a person’s right to choose is under assault in places like Missouri, in Alabama, in Georgia. I would appoint judges to the federal bench that understand the precedent of Roe V. Wade and will respect it, and in addition to that make sure that we fight hard as we transition our health care system to one where everybody can get and exercise that right.”

A “trans female” is a biological male who wishes really, really hard he were a woman, and who goes to self-destructive ends (hormones or even genital mutilation) in order to make the masquerade slightly less ridiculous. For such a person to pretend to get pregnant, the services of an actual womb must be rented, along with an egg acquisition from a biological female.  Under such circumstances, accidental pregnancies are impossible, and any pretend pregnancy comes at considerable cost and effort on the part of more than one person.

#1 Pandering pre-emption: Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren’s reactions when Robert F. O’Rourke randomly switches to Spanish.

This one wins the crown because it is visual, and because it captures both the pandering nature of the event and the phoniness of all the virtue-signalers. Watching a fake Hispanic worry a fake Indian and pre-empt a fake public housing project resident with a fake friend named T-bone is just fakelicious and captures the essence of the Democratic Party in 2019, You already saw the video of the Gringo-accented Spanish, so this one just gets a screen, cropped for your viewing convenience.

(Grabien screen grab, croppepd)


Please view the above  clowns of Dem State control  more intimately by clicking below:


About Google’s Fascistic Left Political Tendencies Manipulating Truth!


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Project Veritas’s latest project is exposing the left-wing bias that pervades “big tech.” That such bias exists is no surprise, but documenting it–and, more important, its effects–is something else. Yesterday Veritas released a new video, about 25 minutes long, on Google. It consists of two parts: an interview with an unidentified Google employee whose voice is altered so that he sounds like Darth Vader, and footage secretly taped of a conversation with Jen Gennai, Google’s “Head of Responsible Innovation.”

So, does the evidence presented amount to a bombshell that finally confirms what many have long suspected about Google’s effort to steer America’s information ecosystem to the left? I would answer with a qualified Yes.

There are obvious gaps. We don’t know who the anonymous Google employee is. He sounds knowledgeable, and he has documents. The documents are suggestive, but not definitive. (No one writes a memo saying, “This is how we plan to help the Democrats win the next presidential election.”) As for Ms. Gennai, she obviously hates Trump and, as she says, loves Elizabeth Warren, notwithstanding Warren’s talk about breaking up Google. Gennai says a number of things that are suggestive, but never quite blurts out the words that put to rest any debate about Google’s push to the left.

Gennai regrets the result of the 2016 election and says that Google is preparing for 2020:

She says that the problem with breaking up Google is that smaller companies wouldn’t be able to “prevent the next Trump situation.” What situation is that? And how exactly does Google “deal with it”?

Gennai has been asked about the video. She says she was talking about “foreign interference” in elections:

In response to the video, Ms Gennai has insisted she was referring to “online foreign interference” playing a role in future elections.

But that doesn’t make a lot of sense. In 2016, the Russians allegedly “phished” the DNC’s email account. Google had nothing to do with that. The only other thing the Russians allegedly did was to buy a pathetic handful of Facebook ads–not even a drop of water in the ocean in terms of Facebook election ads. Again, though, this has nothing to do with Google. How would Russians, Chinese or others interfere in Google’s search algorithms? The idea is implausible, and that doesn’t seem to be what Gennai is talking about.

Gennai says that Congress and the President won’t “make things more fair,” so people expect Google to do it instead:

I think we all know what Google’s executives consider to be fair, but how can the company make up for the government’s failure to promote “fairness”? And who are the “people” who hold Google “accountable” to take on the government’s role? I don’t think they are talking about conservatives.

The anonymous Google employee talks about how the company adjusts search results, so that, for example, if you search “CEO” a considerable number of women turn up, regardless of the actual proportion of female CEOs in the economy. Google’s search results reflect not the world as it is, but the world as Google’s liberals would like it to be. This quote from a Google document seems pretty clear, and very damning:

Again, everyone knows what leftists mean by an “equitable state.”

This diagram of Google’s “News Ecosystem” is interesting but inconclusive. One would need to know, for example, what the company’s “editorial guidelines” are.

Putting it all together, the Project Veritas video tends to confirm that Google’s liberal executives use their dominant platform to advance leftist ideas and political outcomes. Some years ago, newspapers argued that it was true their reporters and editors were all liberals, but that didn’t affect their reporting–it was strictly objective! No one believes that anymore. Likewise, there is every reason to be skeptical about the claim that Google’s executives, and other Silicon Valley titans, are of course liberal, but it doesn’t influence their products.

What to do about the tech titans and their monopolies over various aspects of public discourse is a big issue. But I think we can all agree that identifying and documenting the problem is an indispensable starting point.

Here is the video; judge for yourself:

“Obama the Devious” Was In On Russiagate Corruption!


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

In his now-famous interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Trump was asked

whether he thought Barack Obama was in on Russiagate:

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump was asked, “You clearly believe there was a group of people working against you. Do you think President Obama was behind it?”

“I would say that he certainly must have known about it because it went very high up on the chain, but you’re going to find that out,” the President replied. “I’m not going to make that statement quite yet, but I would say President Obama had to know about it.”

What did President Obama know, and when did he know it? Those questions need to be asked by investigators both inside and outside of Congress. I think Trump’s surmise is correct, not only because the anti-Trump effort rose high up into the bureaucracy, but because Peter Strzok told his lover that “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”

We also shouldn’t forget Susan Rice’s weird memo to herself, written just minutes before Donald Trump’s inauguration ended the Obama administration. Given the timing, we can assume Rice thought the subject of the memo was important. The memo describes a meeting with President Obama, Joe Biden, James Comey and Sally Yates that occurred two weeks before the end of the Obama administration. Rice’s memo to herself includes this:

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

What information did Obama not want shared with the incoming administration, in violation of longstanding tradition? I wrote:

What were the secrets that Obama wanted to keep from the new administration? We can easily surmise that the fact that the Steele memo was paid for by the Democratic Party; that the FBI had to some degree collaborated with Steele; that the Clinton campaign had fed some of the fake news in the dossier to Steele; and that Comey’s FBI had used Steele’s fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didn’t want Michael Flynn and Donald Trump to know. Susan Rice, we can infer, was told to keep these secrets, and if anyone ever asked why she had failed to disclose them to Michael Flynn and others on Trump’s team, or even lied to those people, she would have the defense that President Obama ordered her to do it.

There are several reasons to believe that Barack Obama was up to his eyeballs in Russiagate. What did he know, and when did he know it? Possibly we will find out, one of these days.

One more thing: Joe Biden was at the meeting where Obama warned his minions not to tell the Trump administration the truth about the Russia scandal. People tend to assume that Slow Joe is a cipher who doesn’t have much to do with anything that happens, with good reason. But maybe in the course of the presidential campaign, someone will think to ask Biden what it was that Barack Obama was trying to keep secret from Donald Trump.