• 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

The Fascism of today’s American Press

Fascism:  any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition.

Accordingly, name one relatively  well read American  news publication that doesn’t hammer President Donald J. Trump nearly every issue!

The overwhelming majority of national “news” from  newspapers in America today is sold by college-crippled  leftist  professionals from  three fascistic national  American   Obamaling loving,  Soviet-like ‘journals’…… The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

Nearly all of major American television sources from coast to coast  also sell only  college-crippled, Obamaling loving, fascistic Soviet-like,   one Party politics whether news telling or “humor” whether news or for laughs.

Nearly all of our America’s educational institutions have also  become fascistic screamers and atheist preachers “religiously” selling leftism, antiAmericanism,  projecting their anti-truths to destroy the truths of  present and past.   In addition they  sell the arrival of twenty million foreigners, nearly all unlearned,  unskilled, to vote whether legal or not, to secure one Party  fascistic control of our already weakened and poorly educated America already owned in their Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary California, Oregon, and Washington to be…. where the know-better Hillary  “Democrat” neoStalinists can dictate One Party  life at every  level “for the good of the country”.

Our courageous, bright, skilled problem solver, totally American, skilled  builder  President Donald J. Trump, has had to endure leftism’s   poison  and evil from  every Obamaling fascism’s corner in America, about 99% Democrat Party and 30 % Romney type Republican Party aristocrats who apparently  went to school or college to study  how they can best learn to hate honesty, forthrightness, courage,  and white males in four years or less.   Fasicism needs them!

 

Advertisements

Hillary’s Deplorables! Get to Know America’s FASCISTIC “Democrat” Party BETTER!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

“Wikipedia”     It first should be note that despite its leftists’ claims, Wikipedia is a left wing propaganda “station” from “stark” to mild, from landslide to swamp.

Why?      Wikipedia is an indoor class,  a remote  Hillary class of our America….a very narrow minded, inexperienced,  and school programmed  bunch of   fanatics who disparage humans who “aren’t up to knowing  “Hillary” stuff and snuff.   In today’s Wikiepedia America this stuff and snuff  appear in all sorts of costumes, shapes, colors, sexes, and Godless sizes selling Fascism, Marxism, Leftism, Atheism, Communism, and Feminism of all shapes and sizes, sexes and colors at school, university, on television and throughout your daily newspaper often conveying  Washington Post, Los Angeles,  and New York Times fake news.

Please read the Wikileaks report below regarding the “Hillary” review of those of us who dare to offend Hillary’s deplorable elites….

Hillary Speaks from Wikileaks:

“But the “other” basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

— Hillary Clinton, [9]

also from Wikileaks:

Basket of deplorables” is a phrase from a 2016 presidential election campaign speech delivered by Democraticnominee Hillary Clinton on September 9, 2016, at a campaign fundraising event, which Clinton used to describe a faction of supporters of her general election opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump. Clinton later said that she “regrets saying half [of Trump’s supporters]”, and the Trump campaign repeatedly used the phrase against her during and after the 2016 presidential election. Many Trump supporters adopted the “Deplorable” moniker for themselves. After Clinton’s loss, some journalists and political analysts questioned whether or not the speech played a role in the election’s outcome; Clinton herself wrote in her book What Happened that it was one of the factors for her loss.

Background[edit]

Throughout her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton expressed her concerns regarding Donald Trump and his supporters. The New York Times and CNN cited Clinton’s earlier articulation of similar ideas to the phrase in her August 25, 2016 campaign speech at a rally in Reno, Nevada.[1][2] In that speech, Clinton had criticized Trump’s campaign for using “racist lies” and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence, claiming that Trump was “taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party”.[2][3] Clinton also criticized Trump for choosing Steve Bannon as his chief executive officer, especially given Bannon’s role as the executive chair of the conservative news website, Breitbart News.[4] Clinton read various headlines from the site including: “Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?”, and “Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage.”[5] On that same day, Clinton posted a video on Twitter depicting white supremacists supporting Donald Trump. Within the video is a CNNinterview wherein Trump initially declined to disavow white nationalist David Duke.[4]

During campaign fundraisers in August 2016, Clinton reportedly explained her divide and conquer approach to courting Republican voters by putting Trump supporters into two “baskets”: everyday Republicans whom she would target, and the alt-right crowd.[6] During a September 8, 2016 interview on Israel’s Channel 2, Clinton said: “You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he’s going to restore an America that no longer exists.”[7]

At an LGBT campaign fundraising event in New York City on September 9, Clinton gave a speech and said the following:[8]

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent; don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, “Well, he’s done this time.” We are living in a volatile political environment.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables(Laughter/applause)Right? (Laughter/applause) They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the “other” basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

— Hillary Clinton, [9]

Troubles at the Fascistic Washington Post

PANIC AT THE WASHINGTON POST

by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine:

“The Washington Post is worried. The lead headline in today’s paper edition reads: “Mueller criticism grows to a clamor — FBI Conspiracy Claim Takes Hold — Driven by activists, GOP lawmakers, Trump tweets.”

Turnabout is fair play. Last year around this time, an honest newspaper could easily have written: “Trump criticism grows to a clamor — Russia Collusion Takes Hold — Driven by activists, Democratic lawmakers, leaks.”

A year ago, an honest newspaper could not have written that the Trump collusion criticism was driven by the FBI. The facts supporting such a headline were not known. Now we have good reason to suspect that the FBI was, in fact, advancing the collusion claim.

The FBI reportedly offered money to Christoper Steele to continue his work on the anti-Trump dossier (in testimony before Congress Rod Rosenstein refused to say whether the FBI paid or offered to pay for the dossier). The FBI may well have used information in the dossier to secure approval of surveillance efforts from the FISA court.

The FBI also helped push the dossier into the public’s consciousness. Its general counsel, James Baker, reportedly told reporter David Corn about the dossier, thus enabling Corn to write about it just before the election. And FBI director Comey briefed president-elect Trump on the dossier, which led to publication of its contents by BuzzFeed.

We also know about the quest of Peter Strzok, a high-level FBI man, for an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.

But let’s return to the Washington Post’s story about growing criticism of Mueller. The three distressed Post writers are less than fully open when it comes to informing readers what — other than activists, GOP lawmakers, and Trump tweets — is causing criticism of Mueller to grow to a clamor.

They acknowledge that it has something to do with Strzok’s role as Mueller’s former top investigator. However, they do their best to make Strzok seem innocuous.

The story introduces him by noting that he called Trump an “idiot” and predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the election in a landslide — statements that don’t distinguish him from tens of thousands of government employees and millions of other Americans. They also quote a former colleague of Strzok who says:

To think Pete could not do his job objectively shows no understanding of the organization. We have Democrats, we have Republicans, we have conservatives and liberals. . . . Having personal views doesn’t prevent us from independently following the facts.

The problem with peddling this happy narrative is that it ignores Strzok’s anti-Trump zeal, his obvious desire to impress his mistress, and his damning statement about the need for an “insurance policy” against Trump becoming president. The Post, in fact, never mentions that statement.

The Post also manages to ignore the hyper-partisan nature of Mueller’s staff, even excluding Strzok, whom he reassigned. There is a passing reference to Andrew Weissmann’s gushing note to Sally Yates praising her for her resistance to Trump, but no discussion of the ideologically one-sided composition of Team Mueller — a marked contrast to Ken Starr’s balanced staff.

Even with that diverse staff, Starr was successfully portrayed as spearheading a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It’s not surprising that as more and more evidence emerges of bias within Mueller’s team, criticism mounts and takes hold.

Mueller himself is a Republican. But he is also a friend of James Comey, another fact the Post ignores. The steady stream of evidence of Comey’s anti-Trump animus and manipulative conduct has contributed to declining faith in Mueller.

And then, there’s the fact that Mueller appears to have come up empty so far on “collusion” by Trump. A prosecutor investigating a president is bound to lose credibility if, after an extended period of time, he neither produces evidence against the president nor exonerates him of the set of crimes that supposedly underlie the investigation.

A prosecutor who cannot credibly be accused of bias — either personal or within his team — buys himself time and patience from the public. Mueller is not that prosecutor.

In sum, the Post’s account of how Mueller lost the “near-universal support” he enjoyed earlier is shallow.

The Post’s story is significant, nonetheless. Clearly, the Post is concerned that, as it states, the growing criticism of Mueller “threatens to shadow his investigation’s eventual findings.”

It does, indeed. A recent Harvard poll found that 54 percent of voters believe that “as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey,” Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Meanwhile, only 35 percent believe that evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia has been found.

I’m sure Mueller believes his own press-clippings, but the public no longer does. The press, it seems, is beginning to realize this.”

Is today’s Human Female Animal Allergic to Governments Based on the Essentials for Democracy?

………”that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Those beautiful words and their sentiment were advanced by a human male, referring to  the human males of a Judeo-Christian culture based upon the age-old understandings of human life expressing the genetic duties of this God-fearing animal….a) the female bears the child….and b) the male protects and provides for his family.

We now live, however,  in an America revolutionized by fascist female human animals of the leftist state preaching and learning at university and school that there are no differences between human male and human female.

The human male is by Nature, and/or Nature’s God,  born to  father, born to kill,   to protect his kin, driven to explore, to build, to be curious, to investigate,  to solve problems, discover Truth,  to invent, to ‘compose’, to lead.  He must learn to adjust to the pressures of  the cultural  changes he causes from his discoveries.

The human female is, by Nature, the bearer of offspring….She  emotes,  seeks security, comfort, peace and order…… over Truth!

Today, the American university and college have been overrun by feminists who disdain motherhood, who instead preach power as in  WOMAN power, her 21st century gift to human kind.

Today’s leftist male fascists in our American universities   have maneuvered  these feminists to join their war against the traditional freedom-loving, inventive  human male,   against Truth and its Nature…..He for power…..she for greater security, comfort, and power…..and the feel she is as male as anyone else.

And then, there comes along a Donald John Trump to upset the Obama-Democrat Party  apple cart selling leftist single sex and its power for America’s future.

The entire American communications industry is in a feminist tizzy about Our Donald, the human male.   How dare he speak, write, lead, or even twitter as a real American male ready to problem solve, restore Truth in word and education to resurrect America, the free the Beautiful rather than build that Obama prison of forced equality!

Or will the feminists find their way to one-party,  “Democrat”  feminazism ala Animal Farm?

 

 

Democrat Conspiracy at FBI and “Justice Department” to Destroy Donald, Redeem Crooked Hillary?

Gregg Jarrett: Did the FBI and the Justice Department, plot to clear Hillary Clinton, bring down Trump?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.

 Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the “deep state,” a popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.

However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and dangerous.

Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert electoral democracy itself in our country.

As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.

And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy.

The Plans

The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.

Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.

“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.

Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.

But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.

And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.

More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.

No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.

But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

The Texts

The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome.”

At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her nomination and stating: “She just has to win now.”

One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial smoking gun.

Page: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).

Strzok:  “Thanks. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels .…”

It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to “protect” the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.

Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey’s view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard.

This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material, substituting “extremely careless” for “gross negligence.”

As I explained in an earlier column, this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.

Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton’s server supported the “inference” that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.

This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings.

Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved?  After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.

If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency.

Strzok:  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.…”

The reference to “Andy” is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton’s emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton.

What was the “insurance policy” discussed in Andy’s office? Was it the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates?  Or was it the anti-Trump “dossier” that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.

The Dossier

The “dossier” was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Comey called it “salacious and unverified.”

Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer, which sounds like an implicit “yes.”

Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.

The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.

Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr. Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation of Russia’s role in the election, but he did not.

Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton’s campaign to spy on her opponent or his campaign.

Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers, which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.

This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.

If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be prosecuted.

The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has lost credibility and the public’s trust.

It is very much like a trout in the spoiled milk.

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/15/gregg-jarrett-did-fbi-and-justice-department-plot-to-clear-hillary-clinton-bring-down-trump.html

Clown Charlie Shumer in Action!

Hilarious: Watch Chuck Schumer complain nobody paying attention to his anti-tax reform rant on Senate floor

by Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

“I must confess that I find New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, annoying at best to listen to.  He finds it difficult to speak without a tone of condescension in his voice and characteristically assumes a stance of moral, as well as intellectual, superiority to those who dare to disagree.  In other words, a singularly repellant man, whose election and re-election by the voters of New York State remain a mystery to me.  Who could stand to vote for such an obnoxious man?  Evidently, New Yorkers see his behavior as normal and acceptable.

But yesterday, on the Senate floor, we saw evidence that his colleagues among the Solons share at least some of my aversion to listening to Schumer being his snide and obnoxious self.  His anti-tax reform bill rant last night was so crushingly ignored that he complained multiple times that nobody was listening to him.

NBC News (!) tweeted out a 24-second excerpt from his Senate speech that included a demand that the presiding officer of the Senate (Jeff Flake at that particular moment) restore order (“Can we have order, Mr. President?”), meaning stopping the side conversations.  He added even more plaintively, “We believe you’re messing up America. You could pay attention for a couple of minutes.”

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/12/hilarious_watch_chuck_schumer_complain_nobody_paying_attention_to_his_antitax_reform_rant_on_senate_floor.html

Democrat Leftist Star, Hilary Rosen Accuses Coat for being AntiSemitic

CNN IS CRAZY, BACON EDITION

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Lord knows we don’t undertake to point out and rebut every instance of left-wing media insanity. There are only four of us, and only 24 hours in a day. And it is pointless to chase every rabbit that crosses our path. But at least once or twice a day, it is appropriate to note that the Left has gone stark, raving mad.

Today’s exhibit is Hilary Rosen, Democratic Party insider and CNN political commentator. Rosen is best remembered as the DNC shill who, during the 2012 presidential campaign, told us that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life–an Obama theme that blew up in her face like an exploding cigar.

Yesterday, Rosen went to a basketball game between Georgetown and Syracuse and noticed a kid wearing a coat with a bacon pattern. For some inexplicable reason, she jumped to the conclusion that the bacon outfit was an anti-Semitic slur. I have no idea why she thought this, as most people like bacon for obvious reasons. And if she wanted to go down that road for some reason, why wouldn’t it be an anti-Muslim slur?

She tweeted this:

 

“Bigots lose”? So, are the Georgetown players and coaches bigots now? Was Rosen drunk? That is the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

It turns out that the Georgetown student with the bacon suit is named Michael Bakan:

The student in the suit, junior Michael Bakan, told The Daily Caller he was shocked when friends started sending him screenshots of the tweet. He explained that the suit was a joke about his last name, which is pronounced “bacon.”

“At first I thought it was a joke,” Bakan said of Rosen’s accusation. “The real way [my last name] is pronounced is bacon, and that was the impetus behind the costume. I’ve worn it to three games now.”

I take it the bacon suit guy is in the middle near the bottom of the photo. Syracuse won the game, and Rosen added this tweet:

For American liberals, the wheels are coming off. Over and over, the Left has been exposed as the home of lunatics. What is remarkable is that media organizations like CNN, the Washington Post and MSNBC continue to employ crazies like Hilary Rosen.

PAUL ADDS: So the guy’s very name is anti-Semitic. The bigot.

This cannot stand. Arrest him immediately.