• 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

Aussie Foreigners at Fox Join Forces with Fascistic Mouthed Jim Acosta?!!

One America News Chief: We’re Standing With Trump Against Jim Acosta, Not With CNN Like Fox News Is

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

We love you more, Mr. President. It’s a sensible pitch as OAN grasps for ways to cut into the Fox behemoth’s market share. But Fox’s decision to stand with Acosta is sensible too. If in fact Trump wins in court and gains the power to exclude particular reporters from White House events, liberals will want the next Democratic president to make use of that power too. And we all know who the prime target will be, and it won’t be OAN. Fox was targeted years ago for exclusion from interviews with the Obama administration, as Ed noted a few days ago; only because CNN and other networks hung with them in objecting did Team O finally relent. Siding with CNN again now is Fox’s way of taking out a little insurance just in case President Kamala Harris decides that FNC is too evil or whatever to be allowed into her briefings. They’re scratching Acosta’s back today so that CNN will scratch theirs tomorrow.

No doubt Herring has also been paying attention to the fact that Fox has put a little daylight between itself and the president lately. Emphasis on “a little.”

But the network has made several moves in recent weeks to distance itself. Fox News was quick to condemn the two hosts for appearing to campaign with Trump, especially after Hannity had pledged to not take the stage with the president.

“FOX News does not condone any talent participating in campaign events,” a Fox News spokesperson said in a statement at the time. “This was an unfortunate distraction and has been addressed.”

And earlier this month, Fox News pulled an immigration ad put out by the White House, which other networks had labeled as racist. Nonetheless, the network’s coverage of immigration still tended to align with Trump’s interests — Fox News devoted significant air time to a caravan of migrants heading through Mexico in hopes of seeking asylum in the U.S.

If I know my president, he’ll be delighted at an opportunity to play Fox off of OAN and vice versa for more flattering coverage from both. Supposedly he used to enjoy watching underlings at the Trump Organization vie with each other for dominance; the same dynamic played out for awhile during the 2016 campaign when Corey Lewandowski and his loyalists battled Paul Manafort and his team for control of the Trump train. Now Trump has OAN seizing the Acosta dust-up to declare itself the one true Trump News Network. POTUS will probably reward them with some sort of extended interview, or much more frequent interviews, if only to remind Fox that he’s capable of singlehandedly elevating OAN as a serious rival to them if they wander too far off the reservation. If you think primetime on FNC is pro-Trump now, check back this spring and see what it looks like.

Speaking of which, this can’t be true, can it? Since when does Trump show contempt for his biggest sycophants?


Any President should, must have the right to ban from his news gatherings  obnoxious, rude,  insulting, lying, Hitlerian, fascistic mouthies like Jim Acosta who spend energy and precious time selling falsehoods TO THEIR FELLOW FASCISTS as news to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC and the Rinos at Fox News to smear the President.



As A Stump for Evil, Eric Swalwell of California Sells His Leftist Poison

Rep. Eric Swalwell: Trump Brought In “Assassin” Whitaker To Kill Mueller Investigation

Note:  Adam Schiff is an habitual, nearly totally dishonest piece of human noise from “New” Fascist California, fulfilling the fascistic Dems drive to establish its first leftist autocracy American dictatorship state in our nation.
Naive, simple-minded Eric Stallwell seems to be one of Schiff’s fascistic students .  CNN is one of their television leftist news study outlets.   Click below for a video of the following display of words:


BLITZER: You saw this very strong article, the incoming chairman, we expect, Adam Schiff, of the Intelligence Committee, he just wrote it, posted in “The Washington Post.” “Matthew Whitaker, we’re watching you.” Very strong words.

You’ve got a strong tweet that you posted today, as well. Let me read it to our viewers: “The days of presidential immunity are OVER.” Over, all caps. “Gone. No more free passes to cash in on the — on access to Oval Office. No more colluding with Russia, and we’ll see if you’re a tax cheat. America is putting a balance of power on your abuses of power. Welcome to democracy.”

So tell us exactly what you mean by that, including your reference to a balance of power.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D), CALIFORNIA: And first, Wolf, happy Veterans Day to our veterans out there.

That was a response to the president’s tweet, blaming a dip in the stock market today on what he calls presidential harassment. And what he may be viewing as harassment is probably a response to the two years of immunity that he’s been receiving and what he now sees is going to be oversight.

And while we’re going to prioritize, you know, the economy and lifting up, you know, wages and protecting health care, we’re also no longer going to let the president get away with, you know, easing sanctions on Chinese companies while he gets a $500 million loan from the Chinese and a Trump Tower project. We’re not going to allow the president to just, you know, kill this Russia investigation by hiring an assassin like Matt Whitaker to come in and take it out —

BLITZER: When you say assassin, what do you mean?

SWALWELL: Yes, well, he — Whitaker was hired because of his views on the investigation, those views. He’s prejudged the investigation. Vox has reported that the president and Whitaker have been plotting, essentially, to have Whitaker come in and wind down the investigation.

If that had happened on Monday, you know, last Monday before the election, we would be powerless. But the voters want a check on these abuses of power. We’re not powerless any more.

BLITZER: So how are you going to divide up between what your Judiciary Committee is going to do in going after the president and the Intelligence Committee?

SWALWELL: Well, we’re not going to chase every ball that the president throws. We’re going to prioritize what matters to our democracy and people in their everyday lives. And so first we want to make sure that no one is above the law. And so seek to protect Bob Mueller, by insisting that we have protect Mueller legislation.

BLITZER: But you need Republicans, too.

SWALWELL: Well, the Republicans have not been able to get a budget passed in the last two years with their own votes, despite controlling the House and the Senate. So if they want Democratic votes, we’re saying they’re going to need to ensure that the Mueller investigation —

BLITZER: So is that an absolute? You’re not going to vote for must-pass legislation to keep the government open unless you have that kind of inclusion?

SWALWELL: Again, they control government. So if they can sort it amongst themselves, they can pass it. But if they want Democrats at the table to work with them, we think that the rule of law is paramount in our country and we’re going to insist on that.

BLITZER: It’s interesting. We spotted mike Michael Cohen, the president’s former lawyer and fixer — he spent a decade working closely with Donald Trump. He’s been in Washington today; he’s just left. We’ve got some video of him arriving at Union Station here in Washington. Here he’s departing in late afternoon.

We don’t know what he was doing here. But his criminal defense attorney was with him, and we know that it follows that big explosive story in the “Wall Street Journal” the other day about the president’s — President Trump’s involvement in hush-money payments to two women. What’s your understanding?

SWALWELL: I hope he’s coming clean. There’s reporting that he’s been talking to the special counsel. The special counsel has had a number of witnesses before the grand jury. It looks like they’re moving toward, you know, more progress in indictments.

But Mr. Cohen knows more beyond just campaign finance violations. I was a part of the interview of Mr. Cohen. He was negotiating with the Trump Tower property to go into Moscow during the primary when Russian-Americans who were connected to Vladimir Putin were offering to connect Putin and Trump. And they even said, “If we do this right, we can engineer this and elect our boy as president.”

So there’s a lot of concerns about, you know, what Donald Trump knew about those offers while the Russians were interfering.

BLITZER: And I just want to be precise. We spotted Michael Cohen here in Washington today for several hours with his criminal defense attorney.

We also noticed that there were eight of Robert Mueller’s attorneys working on this federal holiday, Veterans Day, today. We don’t know what Michael Cohen was doing. We can surmise; we can guess.

SWALWELL: Could have been at the mall. Just picking up —

BLITZER: I suspect — I don’t suspect he was at the mall. If he would have been, maybe would have come with his family, as opposed to his lawyer. But do you believe that the hush-money payments are potentially impeachable offenses?

SWALWELL: I think what they show, Wolf, are that these guys are shadowy operators, and it gives us reason to look at what they were doing with respect to the Russians, what they were doing with respect to the Saudi Arabians and deals that we suspect were being conducted at the time.

You know, I think we have to be careful that we don’t, you know, go too far on what is an impeachable offense. And that whatever we investigate, you know, that we have impenetrable evidence and we seek to have bipartisan support. Because we don’t want to be as reckless with the truth as the president is.

BLITZER: You expect indictments this week?

SWALWELL: I think, because of the number of people Bob Mueller has interviewed and that he took a pause for the midterm elections and now we’re a week after the midterms, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

BLITZER: And you say you want bipartisan support. Bipartisan support to protect Robert Mueller right now. Do you see that happening?

SWALWELL: I’ve seen it already in the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation to protect Bob Mueller. Mitch McConnell absolutely refuses to bring it to a vote. I hope, if we can pass that in the House, it will build momentum over there in the Senate.


Of Course Patriots are Nationalists, NOT Saboteurs!

Trump’s a Nationalist. That’s What All Presidents Should Be!

By Frank Hawkins at American Thinker


Thomas Friedman is a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner with a distinguished career as columnist, reporter, author and TV host. I have admired him and his work for as long as he has been visible. I’ve never met him but our careers overlapped in London and we both spent time in Beirut.

Recently he wrote a column called, “George Washington for President.” The subtitle was, “Patriots put love of their own people first, while nationalists put hate for other people first.”  This came right after President Trump proclaimed himself to be a nationalist.

Friedman really teed off on the president, calling him a disturbed man whose job description – to be a healer of the country in times of great national hurt and to pull us together to do big hard things that can only be done together – conflicts with his political strategy, which is to divide us and mobilize his base with anger and fear.



With that, my admiration for Friedman took a deep dive. I had to ask myself: is this the comment of a rational or even sane person?  Here’s my problem with Mr. Friedman. He managed to avoid the real situation and in fact spun diametrically away from the real story of Donald Trump and those who would destroy him.

Oh, Friedman also said, “Our country is in danger.”  Well, at least we agree on that sound bite.

In recent times, trying to play the role of healer and unifier has been a weakness for Republicans, such as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. They and others, including  Reagan and even McCain, tried to various degrees to act as healers and unifiers. But the other side had no intention of letting them get away with that.

These Republican presidents and candidates let themselves be turned into punching bags taking the crap thrown at them while trying to be perceived as “presidential” by remaining above it all.  Remember, “Bush lied, people died!”?  Remember the full pass McCain and Romney both gave Obama on so many critical issues including his relationships with Frank Marshall Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, George Soros, Sayed Hassan AlQazwini and others?

Now, the liberals and progressives are outraged that President Trump refuses to play traditional Republican, that is, refuses to play patsy. Their heads have been exploding over it. Listen to the late night talk show crowd, left wing Hollywood types, the pussy hat crowd, crazy Democrat politicians, Antifa mobs and other radical groups funded by George Soros. Tell me Tom, who is really blasting away with anger and fear?

And since November of 2016, it’s been going on non-stop day and night on a daily basis.  And then there’s the media itself, the big three broadcast networks, CNN and MSNBC. On these networks, Trump has been called a “white supremacist,” a “Nazi,” a “virus,” “unfit to be human,” a “bigot” and other lovely terms. Tom, talk about dividing the country! Hint: It ain’t Trump.

This is what Friedman is not discussing or dealing with.  The abuse and hatred aimed at Trump, starting the moment of his inauguration, has been unprecedented.   It explains perfectly why the role of healer has not only been not possible, but not appropriate.

It’s the same reason Israel has not been able to make peace with the Muslim Arabs. Much of the other side doesn’t want peace except 100% on their terms.

We are in a low-grade civil war.  These are the people who intimidated and basically destroyed the reputation and presidency of George W. Bush (who, regardless of what you thought of his politics was one of the most decent men to ever be president). He was totally disrespected and made to look weak. It set the stage for Obama.

This is why we love Trump. He is our Netanyahu. Yes, it’s a terrible time. The opportunity for healing at present is minimal. If Trump doesn’t fight to protect America from these people, our country will irreversibly slip into socialism or worse and will be totally taken over by the Antifa thugs, the leftist academics who have already shut down free speech in our universities, the progressives who are demanding open borders, the left wing media that has become a cheering squad for the Democrat Party, the Democrat election fraud ballot stuffers,  anti-Semites, and the likes of Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Keith Ellison, Linda Sarsour, Louis Farrakhan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and the rest of them. Somehow Friedman didn’t get around to mentioning all of this. Maybe there wasn’t enough space.

The Trump now infamous press conference last Wednesday with Jim Acosta was highly revealing. For those who didn’t watch it, all you probably know about it is that Trump got into a shouting match with the great grandstander CNN reporter Jim Acosta, who was subsequently barred from the White House. That sucked all the oxygen out of the story. So of course what Trump really said was ignored.

But did Friedman or any of Trump’s detractors pay any attention to Trump’s important comments?  The President made a number of conciliatory statements during the press conference that any fair person would say were attempts at unifying the country.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  And I give her a lot of credit.  She works very hard, and she’s worked long and hard.  I give her a great deal of credit for what she’s done and what she’s accomplished. Hopefully, we can all work together next year to continue delivering for the American people, including on economic growth, infrastructure, trade, lowering the cost of prescription drugs.  These are some of things that the Democrats do want to work on, and I really believe we’ll be able to do that.  I think we’re going to have a lot of reason to do it.”

Trump went on to say,

“I really think, and I really respected what Nancy said last night about bipartisanship and getting together and uniting.  She used the word “uniting” and she used the word the bipartisanship statement, which is so important because that’s what we should be doing.”

And then this,

“Now is the time for members of both parties to join together, put partisanship aside, and keep the American economic miracle going strong.  It is a miracle.  We’re doing so well.  And I’ve said it at a lot of rallies.  Some of you have probably heard it so much you don’t want to hear it again.  But when people come to my office — presidents, prime ministers — they all congratulate me, almost the first thing, on what we’ve done economically.  Because it is really amazing.”

I haven’t been able to comb through all of the reporting on the press conference, but my guess is none of the MSM headlined or even reported this huge olive branch that Trump threw out. Certainly CNN didn’t. The event was overshadowed by Acosta and another reporter who tried to bait the President with a white nationalist comment. Trump aggressively and appropriately pushed back.

 “Hi, Mr. President.  Yamiche Alcindor with PBS NewsHour.  On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist.  Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists.  Now people are also saying . . . .

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know why you’d say that.  That’s such a racist question.

Q:   There are some people that say that now the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric.  What do you make of that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I don’t believe that . . . . . Why do I have my highest poll numbers ever with African Americans?  . . . That’s such a racist question.”

Trump was understandably insulted by the question and said so. This is what people like this woman and Friedman refuse to understand about Trump. In fact, they don’t want to understand him. They hate him so badly, they can’t do their jobs. Or, in some cases, hate has become their job.

I believe Trump tends to see Americans as just Americans regardless of sex, color, gender or any other inherited characteristic. He doesn’t play the identity politics game that the left thrives on. Friedman quoted Charles de Gaulle as saying, Nationalists put hate for other people first.” Trump’s answer: “I love my country.”

That’s what they don’t want to hear. That’s the Trump message they want to bury. Yes, there are white nationalists. Our country also has more than its share of communists, socialists, progressives and anarchists. But just as all left-wingers don’t fit into those categories,  it’s unfair and outrageous to stick Trump and other nationalists with the label of white nationalist.

For America, Trump is the right man for the times we are in. He’s a fighter and a brawler. He has been belligerent and rude and, at times, even over the top. But any fair-minded person can see this is what Trump has been faced with from the beginning. Trump is both a patriot and a nationalist who puts America and Americans first. He clearly loves our country and wants to see it succeed.. That’s been apparent in all the interviews he has given over the years. But he will not be bullied by these people. That’s what Friedman doesn’t seem to comprehend or want to talk about.

Frank Hawkins is a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, Associated Press foreign correspondent, international businessman, senior newspaper company executive, founder and owner of several marketing companies and published novelist.  He currently lives in retirement in North Carolina.


Note:  In TRUTH,  Tom Friedman is a spoiled, greedy, bigoted  lefty Jewish climber guy from St. Louis Park , Minnesota seeking popularity, a drive of serious popular consequence in our nation’s leftist bondings!   THAT IS A TRUTH IN THIS MATTER!   Yet, lefty fascists will not allow this TRUTH to be told, because  Friedman’s UNTRUTHS, in this case about the President are good for lefty political souls, if they have any souls, which are needed to gain total  control over the nation’s abilities to communicate Truth to its public….an old fascistic  Soviet Communist trick!  (I’ve been there folks….twice, speaking Russian all the time.)

It is likely by uttering the above truths,  fascistic lefty Google will make this article disappear…..and eventually of us JudeoChristian conservative writers and readers too,  if you know anything about the censor googles of life past!  ghr

Lefty Fascistics at CNN to Sue White House for Withdrawing Obnoxious Lefty Fascist Acosta’s Pass

Sam Donaldson claims CNN suing over White House pass for Acosta

by Thomas Lifson  at Amerian Thinker:

According to Sam Donaldson (video below) CNN is preparing  a lawsuit over the denial of a White House “hard pass” to Jim Acosta. Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday, the former ABC News correspondent claimed that he had been asked to prepare an affidavit for the suit, and had done so. Donaldson added (via the Washington Examiner):

“I hope I’m not mistaken, but it’s my understanding that CNN and Acosta have sued, that there will be a court hearing on Tuesday on this very matter that we’ve been discussing,” Donaldson said.

Remarkably, the host of the program, a CNN employee with the media beat, denied knowing of the lawsuit:

Host Brian Stelter replied that he was not aware of such a case.

And CNN denied that a suit had been filed, but not asking for an affidavit (or other preparations):

 A CNN spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that a lawsuit has not been filed yet. “No decisions have been made. We have reached out to the White House and gotten no response,” the spokesperson said.

On the surface, a lawsuit contesting the decision to permit or deny a press pass seems silly, as there is no constitutional right to have a press pass. But we live in an era in which certain federal judges see their function as being the all-powerful second-guesser of executive branch authority, substituting their own judgment for that of the office-holders, including the president. But Donaldson sees it differently, arrogantly concluding his segment by saying:

….the president does not understand a lot of things about our Constitution, but I expect and I believe the courts will instruct him.

Watch below. Donaldson’s interview begins at 2 minutes 20 seconds:


According to Sam Donaldson (video below) CNN is preparing  a lawsuit over the denial of a White House “hard pass” to Jim Acosta. Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday, the former ABC News correspondent claimed that he had been asked to prepare an affidavit for the suit, and had done so. Donaldson added (via the Washington Examiner):

“I hope I’m not mistaken, but it’s my understanding that CNN and Acosta have sued, that there will be a court hearing on Tuesday on this very matter that we’ve been discussing,” Donaldson said.

Remarkably, the host of the program, a CNN employee with the media beat, denied knowing of the lawsuit:

Host Brian Stelter replied that he was not aware of such a case.

And CNN denied that a suit had been filed, but not asking for an affidavit (or other preparations):

A CNN spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that a lawsuit has not been filed yet. “No decisions have been made. We have reached out to the White House and gotten no response,” the spokesperson said.

On the surface, a lawsuit contesting the decision to permit or deny a press pass seems silly, as there is no constitutional right to have a press pass. But we live in an era in which certain federal judges see their function as being the all-powerful second-guesser of executive branch authority, substituting their own judgment for that of the office-holders, including the president. But Donaldson sees it differently, arrogantly concluding his segment by saying:

….the president does not understand a lot of things about our Constitution, but I expect and I believe the courts will instruct him.

Watch below. Donaldson’s interview begins at 2 minutes 20 seconds:



New York’s Senator “Sillybrand” Attempts Thinking about A Presidential Run in 2020!

We certainly all most know there are more ditsy chicks in Congress than ever before.   The human female animal is born ditsy.   They used to be devoted to bearing children, their primary function to secure a future for the species.

Today, she goes to college where she learns how to weep, think, and strike leftishly as a New Woman must to spread her noise.   To Hell with family.  She has Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Pocahantas as her primary mentors as goddesses.

Leftist emotion is her primary tenet,  security  her primary comfort, jealousy her primary foil…..and then there is this “Sillybrand” Gillibrand of New York:

Feelings, not problem solving, run the feminist show, yesterday, today, and likely forever!

Gillibrand Two Weeks Ago: I Will Serve My Full Senate Term. Gillibrand Today: I’m Thinking About A Presidential Run.

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

I know Jazz has written about this (more than once, actually) but I can’t get over it. The sheer pettiness of the lie flabbergasts me. Gillibrand, October 25:

SEE ALSO: Did San Francisco pass a tax to raise money for the homeless? The answer is yes and also maybe

She won by 33 points. Eighteen days later:

I’m wrestling with my own anti-Gillibrand bias in trying to decide how much to fault her for this. Does it bug me so much because I already didn’t like her, seeing her as an unusually cynical, weaselly politician even by Washington standards, or does it bug me because it really is an unusually brazen lie even by the usual “I’m not running for president” standards? It’s not like she’s the first pol to have a change of heart about running for the White House. The day after he was elected to the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama all but ruled out running for president in 2008. He reconsidered. Voters forgave him. They know how this game is played.

In Gillibrand’s case, though, the question is this: Why even bother to play? If she were running in a purple state, with a two-point lead, admitting to presidential ambitions during a Senate debate might have been enough to sink her. Swing voters would calculate that they were better off with the candidate whom they knew would hold the office for all six years; a bald-faced lie about serving out a full term would at least be understandable under those circumstances, if not honorable. But Gillibrand was always going to win in deep-blue New York, and win big. Other 2020 hopefuls in the same position were candid about their ambitions: When Bernie Sanders was asked last month if he’d serve his full six years if reelected to the Senate, he declined to promise to do so.

“Right now, my focus is on the year 2018, but if you’re asking me to make an absolute pledge as to whether I’ll be running for president or not, I’m not going to make that pledge. The simple truth is I have not made that decision. But I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I may not run. I may. But on the other hand, I may not,” he said at a forum Monday night in Vermont.

He won by 40 points. There’s no need to lie when you’re headed for a landslide. Voters are big boys and girls about these things. And the weirdest part with Gillibrand is that her intentions haven’t been a secret. She’s been positioning to run for president for a year at least. As noted in the first clip, she didn’t spend money on her Senate race this year because she obviously has another purpose for her war chest in mind. So why didn’t she just give the Bernie answer at the debate? “I’m not thinking about 2020, I’m thinking about what New Yorkers need right now,” yadda yadda. Her promise to serve her full term made news precisely because it was such an obvious lie, which makes it a form of political malpractice, however minor. Takeaway: Gillibrand will lie straight to your face, even when you both know she’s lying, even when she doesn’t need to. You can’t trust her. If the previous 40 illustrations of that weren’t enough to convince you, maybe the 41st will.

I think she’ll end up keeping her promise. With 32 candidates for Democrats to choose from, it’s unimaginable that she won’t get trounced in the primaries.

Compiled a list of the at least 32 potential and/or likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. This is going to be a full-on three ring circus


Thank you President Trump for the Peace Now Occurring in the Korean Peninsula

By The Way, The Koreas Just Dismantled 22 Guard Posts On The DMZ

by Jazz Shaw at HotAir:

I realize everyone has a lot on their plate with domestic news in the wake of the midterms, particularly since the counting isn’t even over yet. But there have been some important developments abroad which are worth keeping an eye on. One of these popped up this weekend with an announcement from South Korea that they’ve reached one of the early milestones in their tentative rapprochement with the North. Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un have revealed that each side has “disarmed” and essentially abandoned eleven of the guard posts along the DMZ. This has some observers urging caution on the part of the South, but it still represents progresses toward peace. (Associated Press)

The North and South Korean militaries completed withdrawing troops and firearms from 22 front-line guard posts on Saturday as they continue to implement a wide-ranging agreement reached in September to reduce tensions across the world’s most fortified border, a South Korean Defense Ministry official said.

South Korea says the military agreement is an important trust-building step that would help stabilize peace and advance reconciliation between the rivals…

South Korea reportedly has about 60 guard posts — bunker-like concrete structures surrounded with layers of barbed-wire fences and manned by soldiers equipped with machine guns — stretched across the ironically named Demilitarized Zone.

The need for caution here is obvious. The problem with grand, sweeping gestures of peace when they aren’t being met with equal moves from the other side of the table is that you can wind up presenting an opening to someone who may, someday soon, once again be your enemy. Progress toward denuclearization of the North has essentially stalled since their last meeting with our Secretary of State. And Kim’s talk of reducing his conventional weapons along the border hasn’t materialized in any substantial way either.

By opening up a hole in the border, assuming they’re clearing all the mines out along that stretch, the North has a much easier path to invade if they decide to completely go back on their word. This certainly buys a lot of goodwill for Moon Jae-in in the eyes of the North, but history shows us that their gratitude can be short-lived and entirely reversible when it suits Dear Leader’s best interests.

Still, some progress is better than none, I suppose. And we haven’t given too much up to Kim Jong-un yet to the point where he should be tempted to walk away from the table. If the North and the South can somehow find peace, then we may have accomplished something remarkable, even if we haven’t entirely rid the Korean Peninsula of nukes yet.




by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:


On élection night, it appeared that the GOP had picked up three Senate seats. Now, two of them may be in doubt.

In Florida, there didn’t seem to be any question on November 6. Senator Bill Nelson conceded that he had lost to Governor Rick Scott, while Andrew Gillum likewise conceded to Ron DeSantis. But then the national Democratic Party swung into action. Election officials in Broward County and Palm Beach County began ignoring Florida election laws and, in the case of Palm Beach, a court order. And Nelson and Gillum have withdrawn their concessions.

Mollie Hemingway has the best summary I’ve seen of what has been going on:

Florida voters elected Republican Ron DeSantis as governor and Republican Rick Scott as senator on election night. Both were announced as winners and their opponents conceded defeat. But then Democratic lawyer Marc Elias announced that Democrats would be going for a recount and would win the Senate seat.
To make sure that votes aren’t being invented or destroyed to effect an outcome, one of the first priorities of any election supervisor is to announce how many ballots are in possession and how many remain to be counted. To fail to do this, as the Broward County and Palm Beach County Supervisors had, is to open themselves up to the accusation of massive vote fraud.

Citizens can not have confidence that ballots are not being destroyed, or created, when supervisors fail to immediately announce how many ballots are on hand.

Florida law also requires that vote-by-mail and absentee ballots are accounted for within 30 minutes of polls closing. While the other 65 counties in Florida had no problem following this state law, the supervisors of Broward County and Palm Beach County refused to follow that law.

Florida law also requires that the Department of State be given reports every 45 minutes until results are completely filed. Palm Beach County has refused to do this.

Senator Marco Rubio has been Paul Revere, calling attention to the blatantly illegal actions by Democratic Party election supervisors.

Rubio reminded Americans that Broward County’s supervisor had a history of election problems, including illegally destroying ballots, secretly opening mail-in ballots, sending voters too many ballot pages, and leaving a constitutional question off the ballot.

The latest revelation is Snipes’ admission that her office accidentally mingled approximately 20 illegal votes with 205 provisional ballots. The illegal votes cannot now be identified.

Hemingway notes that news coverage has been supportive of the scofflaw Democratic election officials, repeatedly asserting that Republicans are criticizing them “without evidence,” notwithstanding that the illegal actions by Broward and Palm Beach officials are indisputable.

Our media completely believe without evidence that Donald Trump engaged in a 30-year conspiracy with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, but have complete confidence in an election supervisor who earlier this year was found by Florida courts to have illegally hidden and destroyed ballots.

That’s the bad news. The good news, Charles Cooke argues, is that the Democrats have little or no chance to reverse the verdict of the voters.

There is much more at the link, but the bottom line is that those totals are not very close, and it would take something truly extraordinary to reverse De Santis’s and Scott’s wins.

The situation in Arizona is quite different. I am not aware of any controversy about Arizona’s process, and a knowledgeable reader says the large number of still-uncounted ballots is not unusual:

Sinema very likely won. The vast number of ballots uncounted at the end of election day is commonplace in Arizona.

In 2012, Jeff Flake led by 5% on election day, but so many ballots were counted later that his ultimate victory margin was only 3%.

I think that when more ballots are counted from pro-McSally tranches, Sinema’s current lead will shrink by only about 5,000 votes. Leaving most of her current lead intact.

So Sinema has a greater than 90% chance of winning.

I am afraid that is correct. This is what I don’t understand: Arizona’s solidly conservative governor, Doug Ducey, was re-elected with a 323,000-vote margin, 57%-43%. This means that hundreds of thousands of Arizonans who voted for Ducey must have crossed over to vote for the hippy-dippy leftist who hates Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema. How is this possible?