• 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

Prager University’s WHY TRUMP WON IN 2016

Since American Women Work Rather Than Rear Children, Our USA IS NOT FAMILY ANYMORE!


by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

The Democratic Party has come out against the rule of law and in favor of illegal immigration. Opposing open borders, Democrats say, is immoral. OK, fine–where are the tens of millions of people who would like to move here from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and so on going to go? Liberals imagine them inhabiting places where they don’t live. Flyoverland.

I have a good friend and frequent email correspondent who has been on this issue for quite a while. This comes from one missive written several years ago, but there have been others to the same effect. These numbers frame the issue:

Without the immigration increase from 1965 to the present, total population today [2015] would be what it was in 1990: 250 million, rather than 320 million. [The Pew Foundation’s] projection, based on current trends, is for a population of 441 million in 50 years.

This has to be extremely conservative: it is a compound growth rate of only 5/8 of 1%. The actual population growth rate over the past 25 years has been 1%, overwhelmingly, as the Report shows, from immigration. If the growth rate over the next 50 years is midway between these two rates, about 7/8 of 1%, then the population impact is that much greater, to a total of 500 million! If the growth rate simply matches the immigration driven growth rate of the recent past, population in 2065 would be 535 million. And this assumes no Gang of Eight immigration “reform” which would essentially double current levels of immigration. Add another 50 million, more or less.

At a minimum, over my children’s lifetime, the immigration celebrationists are planning on adding a minimum of 120 million in increased population — the entire population of the United States in 1920! More likely, the increase is in the vicinity of 180 million, the entire population of the United States just before the disastrous 1965 Act!!

So where will all these many millions of people go? My friend had a suggestion:

Where do they suppose we are going to put the equivalent of the entire population of the U.S. as of 1960 between now and 2065? Next to where they live? In the Hamptons, perhaps? Or Marin County, California? Maybe the pristine little New England towns in the suburbs of Boston? Montgomery County, MD? Westchester County, anyone? How about Martha’s Vineyard or Hyannisport? Plenty of room!

Actually, Madeline Albright smugly pointed out that from her airplane window, flying coast to coast, she could see that there was lots of room — in the Midwest! Plenty of space for another 150 million or so, right there!

Hey!…isn’t that where you live?!!!

Indeed. Today, President Trump echoed my friend’s suggestion that illegal immigrants should be located where the liberals who want millions of them live:

Donald J. Trump


Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only….

Heh. Did that make the Democrats happy? Of course not! They reacted with fury to the idea that the many millions of illegal immigrants–illegal voters, one might say–whom they want to import into the U.S. might actually live near them. But isn’t that precisely what a sanctuary city is for?

Democrats were, naturally, outraged. This is, as people used to say, a teachable moment.

Where to Put Illegal Immigrants

Goodness Still Exists in America

The Life of Sean

by David F. Watson on Down Syndrome & the Lives That Matter   (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

As I watch my eleven-year-old son, Sean, make movies on his iPad, I worry about the future. In this era in which many have taken it upon themselves to insist loudly and publicly that their lives matter, many also insist that lives like Sean’s do not. Last March, the Washington Post published an article by Ruth Marcus entitled “I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome. Women need that right.” As a thought experiment, replace the words “with Down syndrome” with terms for other categories of people. Substitute a particular racial group, gender category, or sexual orientation. The hue and cry over such an article would rattle the heavens. Western culture has developed a normally unspoken hierarchy of humanity, and people with diminished intellectual capacities are on the low end of it.

One might object that categories of race, gender, and sexual orientation do not carry with them the familial and social burdens that people with Down syndrome do. This assumes that “burden” is an appropriate criterion for abortion, an assumption I reject. For the sake of argument, however, let’s grant the validity of this position for a moment. At what point, then, do we decide that the level of “burden” justifies the elimination of an entire category of people?

If you would prefer a closer analogy than that of race, gender, or sexual orientation, replace “Down syndrome” in the headline with another genetic condition, like a predisposition to obesity. “I would’ve aborted a fetus with a genetic propensity to become obese. Women need that right.” Think of the strain that obese people place on our healthcare system. If we could only eliminate such people before they were born. . . . Or how about: “I would have aborted a fetus with a genetic predisposition toward depression.” Or “alcoholism.” Or “Alzheimer’s.” Or “autism.” It is now possible to administer a highly accurate prenatal test for Down syndrome. No doubt the medical community will in time develop tests for other conditions as well. Imagine the headlines our children will read twenty years from now.

To its credit, the Post did publish an opposing opinion by George Will called “The real Down syndrome problem: Accepting genocide.” Will defines genocide as “the deliberate, systematic attempt to erase a category of people.” Consider also the eugenic character of efforts to eradicate people with Down syndrome. We are witnessing a concerted attempt to eliminate an entire category of people precisely because these people bear genetic characteristics considered undesirable. This has, by and large, already happened in Iceland, and it is happening in other parts of Western Europe and the United States. People with Down syndrome are depicted as inflicting a burden on both their families and the wider society. Therefore, this line of thought goes, their elimination makes life easier for all of us. One wonders which group of undesirables will next bear the unfortunate label of “burden.”

Conferring Value on Lives

Do not miss the significance of an article making the case for eugenics appearing in the Washington Post. It is now entirely acceptable to depict people like Sean as superfluous both to families and to society. These people are commonly understood to matter less than other people. Let’s be clear about what is happening here: the devaluing of a certain category of people because of a disability. That is the very definition of ableism. To suggest, then, that it is appropriate to eliminate this category of people in the womb is nothing less than to advocate eugenics. Why is this not considered hate speech? In a world where college students have to run to their safe spaces when a tenured professor opts not to use their preferred pronouns, how is it acceptable to advocate ableist, eugenic policies in an established forum such as the Washington Post?

The reason is that, culturally speaking, we determine the value of certain categories of people by the effectiveness of those who advocate on their behalf. In Western culture, the church has lost a great deal of its once-pervasive influence. Some people—many, in fact—insist that this is a good thing. We have finally thrown off the puritanical shackles of Christianity and entered into a new era of individual freedom. This, however, is a lie. We are no freer than we were before. We have simply decided to serve different masters.

We have entered into an era in which we have to insist that various categories of lives actually matter. The Black Lives Matter movement has given rise to other advocacy groups. We are now reminded that blue lives, brown lives, and gay lives matter. In response to these various slogans, some people have begun to insist that “all lives matter.” But do they? The emergence of these advocacy movements suggests that any widespread cultural notion that human life is intrinsically valuable has vanished. We now establish the value of lives through the will to power. Nietzschean voluntarism has replaced philosophical and theological notions of the intrinsic value of human life.

In this world, people with Down syndrome are at a significant disadvantage. Because they normally experience diminished intellectual capacity compared to “typical” people, it is very difficult for them to enter into the arenas of advocacy and public discourse. The will to power is not within their grasp. We might expect their parents to advocate on their behalf, and some do, but the abortion rate of children with Down syndrome indicates that their parents are often the very ones from whom they need protection.

The Need for Clarity

I am not surprised to see the rise of ethical voluntarism in secular cultures. It is a logical outworking of the epistemic consequence of sin. Under the influence of original sin, people replace the values disclosed to us through divine revelation with values they believe serve their own interests. What frightens me, however, is seeing these values penetrate the church. They have established innumerable outposts within mainline Protestantism, and they are increasingly infiltrating Western Evangelicalism.

I spend considerable time in various communities of the Protestant world: mainline, Evangelical, charismatic, and African-American. When faced with complex ethical issues, Protestants stand at a significant disadvantage relative to Roman Catholics. We tend to make ethical decisions based upon emotivism, biblicism, or some combination of the two. What many Protestant traditions lack is a well-thought-out body of doctrinal and ethical resources rooted in Scripture, but drawing out its implications in disciplined and systematic ways that can help to shape the life of the church. We need more than feelings about the value of life and Scripture passages that support our feelings.

We need more than the writings of theologians and ethicists whose work remains peripheral to the church’s decision-making processes. We need real doctrinal clarity that can give rise to ethical clarity. In the case of the lives of people with Down syndrome, we need theological anthropology. Without clear, reasoned teaching from the church, many of our congregants will simply adopt the values of the dominant culture in which they live.

Reinders’s Insights

One of the finest pieces of theology I have ever read is Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics, by Hans S. Reinders (-Eerdmans, 2008). This work is not simply an outstanding example of the theology of disability, but it could also serve as a model for many other areas of theological inquiry. In the book, Reinders takes up the matter of “profound disability,” by which he means a “state of mental development that has not gone beyond a toddler’s stage of development” (48). Reinders asserts that “being created in God’s image indicates a unique relationship” and that “this relationship is affirmed extrinsically by the triune God. . . . From a Christian point of view, all of this is to say that the human being exists truthfully in God’s friendship, regardless of his or her abilities and disabilities” (313).

When we become friends with people with profound disabilities, we are acting in agreement with God’s friendship with them. In the process, we ourselves are changed. We learn about what it means to be truly human. People with profound disabilities teach us about our own -friendship with God. They show us that “being accepted by God does not depend on our goodness” (320). They show us that, as we age and lose some of the capacities in which we have been taught to take so much pride, our value as human beings is not diminished. In other words, Reinders constructs a theological vantage point from which it is impossible to distinguish differences in value among people with various levels of abilities.

Put differently, in Reinders’s schema, the value of human life is not based on what a person can accomplish on the one hand, or on how much of a “burden” he or she may be on the other. The value of human life is based in God’s love. When we come into agreement with God’s love, we will understand the value of all human life, regardless of disability or any other category we wish to consider. The church must continue to insist that human life has value that is independent of an individual’s ability and power. We must resist the lure of voluntarism. We must be ever vigilant to make sure that our own values are not simply the values of the wider culture with Christian window dressing.

Picking Up Our Game

Particularly among Protestants, this means that we need to pick up our game. We need to take more seriously the theological teaching office of the church, and to help our congregants understand why each human life matters. The people in our churches don’t simply need to know that one human life matters as much as any other; they also need to know why this is the case. If we do not intentionally shape them intellectually and ethically, someone else will.

In her Post article, Ruth Marcus provides us with a moment of exquisite irony when she describes legal efforts to prevent eugenic selection against people with Down syndrome with this comparison: “In an argument worthy of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. . . .” Marcus evokes the specter of a fictitious dystopia for women when she herself is contributing to a real-life dystopia for people with Down syndrome.

Indeed, as I watch Sean make movies on his iPad, I worry about the future. I worry about his future, not because of his level of ability, but because of the voices of those who will say that his life matters less than others’. I pray that the Body of Christ will stand up for him, and those like him, in a world that sees them as burdens rather than gifts.

David F. Watson serves as Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. His most recent book is Scripture and the Life of God: Why the Bible Matters Today More Than Ever (Seedbed, 2017), and he blogs at http://www.davidfwatson.me. David and his wife, Harriet, have two children, Luke and Sean.



Democracy Man Wins Supreme Court Seat in Wisconsin!

Major Upset: Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate Shocks Liberals With Surprise Victory

by Guy Benson  at  Townhall:

It was a statewide race that only the nerdiest of political nerds were following at the national level, but suffice it to say that we’d be hearing a lot about it if the expected outcome had come to pass.  By way of background, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has been decidedly conservative for years, but when a liberal justice won a resounding 12-point victory last fall (Badger State voters choose Supreme Court members in nominally “non-partisan” elections), the Left immediately set it sights on the 2019 contest.  If a left-leaning candidate had defeated another right-leaning jurist — as was widely anticipated by political experts — liberals believed they’d have a very real shot at wresting ideological control of the state’s high court in 2020.  But a funny thing happened on the way to that liberal judicial renaissance.  Voters intervened:

Molly Beck


Brian Hagedorn declares victory in tight Wisconsin Supreme Court race that has both campaigns bracing for a recount https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/04/02/wisconsin-supreme-court-judge-election-lisa-neubauer-vs-brian-hagedorn/3345051002/  via ⁦@patrickdmarley⁩ and me

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates locked in tight battle with both campaigns bracing for a recount

Judge Brian Hagedorn held a narrow lead Tuesday in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court, according to unofficial tallies

Appeals Judge Brian Hagedorn held a narrow lead early Wednesday in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court, according to unofficial tallies that were so close both sides were bracing for a recount.  In an early morning tweet and statement to supporters, Hagedorn claimed victory. “The people of Wisconsin have spoken and our margin of victory is insurmountable,”the statement read…Hagedorn led fellow Appeals Judge Lisa Neubauer 50.2% to 49.8% with nearly all of Tuesday’s votes unofficially counted — at a margin that allows a recount.  A win by Hagedorn would defy the predictions of prominent groups that typically back conservative judicial candidates but counted him out and wouldn’t spend on his behalf during the race.

Hagedorn, the conservative, was seen as such a long-shot underdog that some deep-pocketed conservative groups decided not to spend money in the race, resulting in a large disparity that favored the left-wing message machine. But a concerted push by grassroots activists, and an eleventh-hour blitz by former Governor Scott Walker, helped secure what appears to be a major upset.  Conservative groups closed the race with an ad reminding voters of the Kavanaugh fight, while liberal organizations (like Eric Holder’s) tried to tie their opponent to President Trump.  Also, you night think that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss would’ve helped Democrats internalize the lesson that, contra their own talking points and hilarious posturing, money does not necessarily “buy” elections. This outcome should reinforce that reality:

The Nicer World in Our America

‘So Much Evil Mommy, Those Poor Babies’

by Michael Brown  at  the Stream:      (Article sent by Mark Waldeland:

To the surprise (and consternation) of Hollywood, Unplanned opened to more than $6 million in box office receipts, finishing number 5 in the nation. And it did this while opening in fewer than 1,100 theaters nationwide.

More importantly, this powerful, pro-life movie that exposes the evil of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry is making a powerful impact on its viewers. This could truly be a major game-changer in the days ahead.

Despite Opposition, Unplanned Doubled Expectations

Not that the left didn’t try hard to stop the film from getting out of the gate, let alone succeeding.

Lead actress Ashley Bratcher was warned that she was “probably gonna be blacklisted” by Hollywood if she took the role.

The Hollywood Reporter notes that, “Lifetime, Hallmark Channel, HGTV and several other cable networks” rejected advertising for the movie.

And still, despite all this opposition (and more) the movie brought in more than $6 million in the first weekend, more than doubling prior estimates.

I’ve heard of theaters that dropped the movie before its release, only to reinstate it after protests.

Then there was the ridiculous R-rating the movie was saddled with, without possible justification.

And over the weekend, Twitter temporarily suspended the movie’s account, only to restore it a few hours later after a storm of protests. (Can anyone tell me any possible rationale, other than sheer, anti-life bigotry, for shutting down this account?) Then, once the account was restored, more than 100,000 followers realized they were no longer listed on the account. This is beyond suspicious.

Still, despite all this opposition (and more) the movie brought in more than $6 million in the first weekend, more than doubling prior estimates.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

It’s also quite revealing that, on Rotten Tomatoes, critics (15 so far) have given Unplanned a rating of 53, while viewers (1,996 at present) have given it a score of 94. Right now, that makes Unplanned the highest viewer-rated movie of all new releases, way ahead of Dumbo and Captain Marvel, both of which have viewer ratings of 60. It’s even doing better than How to Train Your Dragon, at 88.

The Testimonies of Viewers

But these ratings only tell you so much. It’s the testimonies of the viewers which are so powerful.

One man posted this on my Facebook page: “I had tears throughout the movie. Got to my car and really broke down. Thank you God that you are allowing people to see your side of this issue.”

A woman wrote: “I cried through so much of this movie. I don’t understand how people can continue to justify the killing of the unborn. I walked out of this movie with the conviction to get involved in crisis pregnancy assistance ASAP.”

Another said this: “I couldn’t stop crying and at one point wanted to wail and pray. I had to force myself to get it together.”

And another: “Within the first ten minutes I was sobbing as was the lady sitting beside me. I know what happens with an abortion but seeing it was powerful. If I weren’t already pro-life I would be after watching this movie.”

A mother posted this: “I took my 16 year old and she was greatly impacted. She had no strong opinion on abortion until she saw this movie. I’m taking my 11 year old to see it next.”

And one viewer commented, “I was overcome by the strong message of grace and forgiveness.”

One viewer after another described the powerful impact of Unplanned, with many feeling the need to get involved in the pro-life movement now.

“So Much Evil, Mommy”

But the comment that moved me most was this one, from another mother who went with her daughter. Her own story is compelling as well. Read this and weep:

“Wow what a movie! I went to see it with my 11yrs old daughter Bella. I was reluctant at first to take her, I prayed about it and got the green light from The Holy Spirit. Yet there were scenes where she covered her eyes, she was glad she saw it too. At the end she hugged me so tight, started crying uncontrollably and said ‘So much evil mommy, those poor babies. Everyone needs to see this movie.’

“She is also one of those babies who got saved by prayer. I was one of those women who had an appointment to murder my baby when I was 12weeks with her, but cancel the appointment hours prior doing ‘the procedure’ at a clinic here in Houston…”

May God have mercy on our nation. May He turn the tide in our country. May He act on behalf of more than 60 million slain in the womb.

And so we pray, “So much evil, Lord! These poor babies! Help us to do our part to awaken the conscience of the nation. We beseech You, Father, to change hearts and minds. It’s time!”

Joe Biden Sabotages His Presidential Campaign for 2020 with Classic Biden Stupidity

Biden apologizes for ‘white man’s culture’

Former vice president Joe Biden went in full pander mode on Tuesday night, telling his audience he regretted the impact of “white man’s culture” and said it must change.

Biden made the remarks while apologizing for his role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing in 1991, where Anita Hill accused the justice of sexual harassment.

The former vice president and potential 2020 Democratic candidate said Hill, who is black, should not have been forced to face a panel of “a bunch of white guys” about her sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas.

“To this day I regret I couldn’t come up with a way to give her the kind of hearing she deserved,” he said Tuesday night, echoing comments he delivered last fall amid debates about sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation process.  “I wish I could have done something.”

Social media exploded at that comment, with several commentators pointing out that Biden was the chairman of the committee at the time:

Hill’s allegations were believed by some, but when several other female staffers for Thomas stepped forward saying he never laid a hand on them or harassed them, the matter was left hanging, and Thomas was confirmed.

Biden blamed “white culture” for violence against women:

Biden called on Americans to “change the culture” that dates back centuries and allows pervasive violence against women.  “It’s an English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture.  It’s got to change,” he said.

The former vice president also repeatedly denounced violence against women during his remarks, which spanned more than a half-hour.  It’s a topic he knows well.  As a senator from Delaware, he introduced the Violence Against Women Act in 1990.

“No man has a right to lay a hand on a woman, no matter what she’s wearing, she does, who she is, unless it’s in self-defense.  Never,” he said Tuesday.

This is one of the silliest things Biden has ever said.  White man’s culture “allows” pervasive violence against women?  First of all, what the hell is “white culture” anyway?  If Biden means our English judicial system, what exactly does he want to change?  Trial by jury?  Should a defendant be guilty until proven innocent?

Few cultures “allow” violence against women, and “white culture” isn’t one of them.  Biden is right that it’s never appropriate to hit a woman for any reason, just as it’s inappropriate for a woman to hit a man — a far more common occurrence than most groups advocating to stop violence against women ever acknowledge.

But what makes Biden’s apology for white culture so ridiculous is his call for “change” — as if culture changes because of an election or demonstration, or by “heightening awareness.”  “Culture” is always changing, the result of tens of millions of individual decisions made by human beings in their daily lives.  To believe that this process can be controlled simply by announcing change is worse than delusional; it’s nuts.

No doubt, Biden impressed the racialists who hate whites as much as white supremacists hate blacks.  But he may have damaged his standing with white working-class voters who have no intention of apologizing to anyone about anything, much less “white culture.”  Biden is the Democrats’ “Great White Hope” to win those voters back in Midwest battleground states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

He’s certainly not helping his cause any.



A note from ghr regarding  today’s fascistic Feminazi Leftists  who own the teachings at  today’s American schools:

Former Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, is one of the many, many  Democrat  candidates for the 2020 Presidency election.    Likable, but  often  loony  Biden, is a former Senator from tiny Delaware who recently, as above,  speaks  as if he is a  black racist in order to secure the black voter.

Over 600,000 white American men died in our American “War Between the States, 1860-1865 to put an end to the war and slavery……The vast  majority of black slaves in the rebelling states of America were  sold to white Americans below the Mason-Dixon line by AFRICAN BLACK MUSLIMS WHO COLLECTED THEIR ‘CHATTEL’  FROM CENTRAL AFRICA for over a century.

Over 200,000 white Southerners killed in that war defending their Confederate States of America had no slaves of any color, shape, sex, or size.  They fought because their “Country”, their “State”, was invaded by ‘foreign’  troops.

Nearly  all of the men fighting in the war were believing and practicing Christians.

Joe Biden is NOT a today’s American leftist, fascist, feminist practicing Democrat competing to occupy the White House in 2021 like his Dem competitors are.   He’s been too much of a light weight all those the 40 years which made him popular.   He only had Delaware to conquer most of his competition time.

He is too flaky, too ditsy, too unfascistic and undisciplined  a con artist to overcome the Democrat Party’s nastier candidates fighting to become leader of  the fascistic “ticket” this coming 2020.

Do Corrupters at the New Yorker Arise From the Water They Drink, From Fascist Democrats They Love, or the University They Attended?

I have never met the folks at PowerLine.   I know them only from what I read from their site.  I have read from their site  for almost a couple decades.   John Hinderaker is my favorite among the PowerLine crowd.  He’s Jewish.  He’s honest.  He’s a conservative American.  Most Jews in America today are leftists.  Here in Minnesota they’ve been Democrats all of my life.   I was raised in a Jewish part of town.

Today the more fascistic leftist ones carouse around New York and Los Angeles and/or work for Democrats, feminists, and  at university, the television and  newspaper world, the entertainment industry, or the George Soros world where big, big  money is.   (But, no one in our United States is supposed to, allowed to  expose that Truth……No matter how truthful this paragraph is, it is verbotten to be expressed in the America I know and live in, and has been all of my life.

Yet, the greatest Americans teaching American  to  Americans today  are American JEWS! They’re folks who happen to have risen from sectarian dogmas of the past or survived  the last century being  too busy like the rest of our families of those days, living and dying through the Depression and War of our  lifetime.

These courageous Americans of today’s conservative saviors SAVING AMERICA begin  with  Dennis Prager, David Horowitz,  John Hinderaker and kind on the broad front…..(and my good friend, Marion Levy) , who have managed to survive the singe of  hate  displayed from  their arrogant, intolerant, fascistic-leftist kinfolk throughout the country and in their  neighborhoods in Minneapolis!

Keep up your good American work, Powerline folks!  Freedom and Truth need to survive!