• 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

Obama’s Communist CIA Man Brennan’s 2016 Spy Scandal

The human male is born a killer…..the human female born ditsy.  In the ideal of most modern societies,  they are to become civilized,  educated,  “human”, problem solving, raising children for the continuation of the species and cherish honesty!

And then there are today’s Democrats and the Obama’s evil, sleazy COMMUNIST  John Brennans of the world stirring their webs of destruction!  (There can be no good without evil, folks!)

And then there is Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal……an angel of the goodness and truth  gifted in exposing reality in today’s “Journal” and its fellow world of fake news dumping  on America-loving President, Donald J. Trump!   She writes in today’s Journal Opinion Page THE TRUTH of the year!


The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship.  Last week it was
Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he describes as “horrible” and “disgusting”.  This week it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.

But the man who deserves a belated bit of scrutiny is former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan.  He’s accused President Trump of “venality, moral turpitude and political corruption,”  and berated GOP investigations of the FBI.  This week he claimed on Twitter that Mr. Trump’s press conference in Helsinki was “nothing short of treasonous.”  This is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.

That’s what Mr. Brennan is – a partisan – and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more concerning than the FBI’s.  Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules, breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers.  Yet it seems far likelier that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some partisan plot.  No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan.  Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama adviser.  And the record shows he went on to use his position – as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world – to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job).

Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation.  At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contracts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.”  The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI.  This information, , he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.”  My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump – which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative.  Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack.  Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally.  Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it.  He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation.  Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view;  the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin – he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful  not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics.  So what to do?     He called Harry Reed.  In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump with the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia.  (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)

But the truth was irrelevant.  On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public.  “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory.  Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

The Reid letter marked the first official blase of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open.  Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI.  On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline:  “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.”  Voila.  Not only was the collusion narrative  out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating………”

THERE IS MORE ABOUT CIA, FBI, HILLARY, and DEMOCRAT PARTY CORRUPTION attached to the article….This collusion of  crooked Democrat Party Obamalings reeks odors from the world of Hitler’s Nazis and Stalin’s Communists…..WILL TRUTH CONQUER IN THE END/


(Better one than none!)  ghr

For reader information:   Kimberley

Communist John Brennan, Head of Obama’s CIA, Dumps on Trump!

Brennan: Trump-Putin Presser Nothing Short Of “Treasonous,” “There Will Be Consequences For Him”

by Ian Schwartz  at  realclearpolitics:



Obama’s CIA Man, Communist Party Guy, John Brennan, Attacks President Trump


 As so often happens, President Trump’s critics are so crazy that one feels compelled   to take his side. Thus, former Communist and CIA Director John Brennan tweeted   earlier today:

“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of “high crime and misdemeanors.”

It was nothing short of treasonous.  Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.

Republican Patriots:  Where are you??”   John O. Brennan


This is   simply  insane. Other Democrats, not going as far as Brennan, say that Trump “gave away the store,” or made inappropriate concessions to President Putin. But there is no evidence that Trump gave anything away in his meeting with Putin, or made any concessions. Putin certainly didn’t suggest that he did, for example with respect to Crimea, about which Democrats expressed concern in advance of the meeting:

The posture of President Trump on Crimea is well known and he stands firmly by it, he continues to maintain that it was illegal to annex it. We – our viewpoint is different.

Through the first part of the press conference, when President Putin and President Trump gave their opening remarks, it was pretty much like all such press conferences following meetings between heads of rival states. We had a productive conversation; there are many areas where we disagree; we need to cooperate on certain issues like Islamic terrorism; we are looking for ways to have a more constructive relationship. Such statements border on the ritualistic.

It was when the two presidents took questions from reporters that things went South. As Paul says, criticism has justifiably focused on two points. First, Trump assigned blame for bad relations between the U.S. and Russia equally to both countries, while seeming to imply that if anything, his predecessors in the White House might merit particular condemnation.

Trump was wrong, but it is ironic that Democrats take offense at this–Trump isn’t sufficiently patriotic!–when for decades, the Democrats’ position, first held by the left wing of the party and finally by the party as a whole, was that the U.S. was primarily to blame for the Cold War. The Russians were merely acting reasonably in response to aggressive threats from America! Where is Noam Chomsky when we need him?

Moreover, Trump’s suggestion of moral equivalence, while clearly wrong, was not as offensive as President Obama’s apology tour, when he blamed strained relations between the U.S. and Islamic countries on American “arrogance.” Democrats universally defended Obama at the time.

The second focus of criticism is Trump’s refusal to place the blame for phishing the Democratic National Committee’s email system (and unsuccessfully trying to phish the Republicans’ system) on Russia. In his opening statement, he said that he pressed the issue vigorously:

During today’s meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections.

I felt this was a message best delivered in person. I spent a great deal of time talking about it and President Putin may very well want to address it and very strongly, because he feels very strongly about it and he has an interesting idea.

The interesting idea being, apparently, that someone else did it.

However, when questioned by reporters, Trump, instead of responding as a head of state, took the role of an aggrieved party in a political conspiracy. He expressed agnosticism as to whether it really was the Russians who obtained and disseminated the DNC emails that showed the primary process was rigged in Hillary Clinton’s favor. He went off on a riff about about non-existent collusion, the electoral college margin, the DNC’s refusal to turn its email server over to the FBI–he is right about this, of course–and Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails.

In pursuing these themes, Trump was venting his own personal rage–entirely appropriate rage, in my view–against the Democrats who are trying to destroy his administration and are happy to sacrifice American interests in the process. But the role of a head of state is not to vent personal grievances, but to advance the interests of his country.

I don’t think Trump did anything wrong in meeting with Putin, nor do I think he negotiated in an inappropriate way or gave anything away. I think his desire to meet with Putin one on one and try to develop a constructive relationship was entirely reasonable; in fact, George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton did exactly the same thing. If Putin and Trump had waved goodbye to the assembled reporters after delivering their assessments of the day’s meetings, there would have been no news stories.

Instead, President Trump couldn’t resist going off-script and airing his personal grievances in answering reporters’ questions. It was a failure of judgment and discipline. I am not certain that the Russians were behind the DNC phishing, either. But this was not the time or place for the president to express lack of confidence in the CIA, notwithstanding the fact that that agency was corrupted, politicized and weaponized by Barack Obama.

Most often, Trump goads his enemies into saying and doing stupid things. Here, unfortunately, it was the Democrats who got under Trump’s skin and caused him to turn a diplomatic event, which by its nature should be boring, into a personal vendetta. The fact that the Democrats then responded far more crazily won’t change the reality that this was, as far as I can recall, the president’s first diplomatic failure.



Stupidity University of Mn Captures, “Sells” Lefty Stupid Gender Follies


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

The University of Minnesota has published in draft form a new “gender identity” policy. The Star Tribune headlines: “He, she or ze? Pronouns could pose trouble under University of Minnesota campus policy.”

Using the wrong pronoun could turn into a firing offense at the University of Minnesota.

The U is considering a new “gender identity” policy that would assure transgender men and women, as well as others, the right to use whatever pronoun they wish on campus — whether it’s he, she, “ze” or something else.

And everyone from professors to classmates would be expected to call them by the right words or risk potential disciplinary action, up to firing or expulsion.

Gender nazis love to get people fired.

The University offers a menu of gender identities and pronouns from which students can choose:

Personal Pronoun

• He/him/his

• None

• Prefer not to specify

• She/her/hers

• They/them/theirs

• Ze/Zir/Zirs

Gender identity

• Agender

• Enter your own

• Gender nonconforming

• Genderqueer

• Man

• Nonbinary

• Prefer not to specify

• Two spirit

• Woman

The purpose is to prevent the dreaded “misgendering.”

The pronoun rule is just one of the proposed changes in a draft U policy that, advocates say, would bar harassment and discrimination against transgender and “gender nonconforming” individuals. It’s designed, in part, to combat an indignity known as misgendering — when someone is called by a name or personal pronoun they no longer use.

Misgendering is when you see a woman and refer to her as “she.”

The new policy isn’t directed only at policing speech:

The pronoun rule isn’t the only potentially contentious issue in the proposed policy. Among other things, it would also give individuals the right to access men’s or women’s locker rooms, recreational activities and housing based on their self-identified gender, rather than their biology. Konstan said he’s heard concerns about how that might affect roommate assignments, for example.

When I was 18 or 19, I would have thought integrated showers were a great idea. No doubt the concept will be embraced by today’s undergraduates, but not for the reasons intended by the committee that is drafting the policy.

The University of Minnesota proposal is in draft form for comment, and may be revised before it is implemented. In any event, it typifies the craziness that is going on at academic institutions these days. This is one of several reasons why higher education has fallen into disrepute.



Will Jews of the “Fascist Left”, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, Charles Schumer et alia, Ban Roman Catholics from the Supreme Court?


by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

I perked up at bit last night during Brett Kavanaugh’s remarks at the White House when he said, “I am part of the vibrant Catholic community in DC.” This may have been a deliberate shout out to the social conservatives who are disappointed that the nomination didn’t go to Amy Coney Barrett, whom Sen. Dianne Feinstein slurred with her infamous comment that “The dogma lives loudly with in you.”

But maybe this comment was also Feinstein bait? In any case, we can expect Feinstein to reprise her role as an inquisitor in the Judiciary Committee hearings for Kavanaugh for the simple reason that she faces a serious challenge from her left in the November election from State Senator Kevin de Leon, who finished second in California’s “jungle primary” last month. De Leon is young and charismatic, and enjoys the enthusiastic support of the Bernie Bros and other surging leftist parts of the Democratic coalition in California. Feinstein, at age 85, is hardly a fresh face for Democrats, and has long been the moderate California Democrat in the Senate. It is not at all unthinkable that de Leon could beat her, so she will be wanting to shore up her left flank this fall. Kavanaugh’s invocation of his Catholic ties might be a way of saying, “Bring it on!” Kavanaugh’s dogma won’t get run over by Feinstein’s bad karma.

Meanwhile, who is de Leon? Good question. The Sacramento Bee looked into his background back in 2014, with some curious results:

The untold story of how Kevin Leon became Kevin de León

By Christopher Cadelago

The name on his birth certificate isn’t Kevin de León.

That’s how the Los Angeles Democrat identified himself more than two years ago when he was sworn in as the 47th president pro tem of the California Senate, the first Latino to hold the position in more than a century. On his birth certificate and voter rolls, however, the 50-year-old politician is Kevin Alexander Leon.

While he’s spent more than a decade climbing the ranks of California politics, rising to become state government’s second-most influential elected official, how KAL became KDL, as he’s known at the Capitol, is a tale he’s resisted telling the public. When he discussed his upbringing, he offered a simple account of growing up with a single mom who came to the U.S. from Mexico. . .

Adding two letters “was never a stretch,” de León said, because ‘de’ means ‘of’ in Spanish. Though he’s used the name – with an accent – for the last 30 years, de León never changed it on legal documents.“Everything that I sign is ‘de León.’ (It) always will be de León,” he said.

Sounds like we have another Gary Hartpence on our hands.



(Is that where today’s Bernie Sanders’  Democrat Party has come to in AD 2018?  …..a fascist assassination of everything Catholic?

Will this and other Prager supporting  sites be censored, smeared  by Leftist Google for asking such questions?

Has our once blessed America  already become  so thoroughly corrupted by the the leftist fascists at the  New York Times and Washington Post, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, AND CBS, and half of Fox News that an American as decent as Brett Kavanaugh be crucified?

My God, this Democrat section of America stinks with their classic EVIL and the mobs they have created and plotted at our schools and universities with their feminist, communist, Marxist, fascist, racist  Democrat Party deceit and bravado !

Sadly, by glenn h. ray!)


Cornell West reeks fascistic socialism….and he’s no afraid to sell it at one university of another for decades.  Today’s American university is the place  nasty deceitful Americans can not only make a living, but can be pictorially advertised throughout the nation’s academic world from coast to coast.

Mouth counts for everything among today’s American LeftoNazis.  Please read the following a couple times at least to absorb the real measures  of their feelings. ghr


John Sexton embeds entertaining video of Tucker Carlson and Cornel West, and offers a good explanation of why socialism always fails, from the perspective of the vast majority. He focuses on a good question that Tucker asked West: If democratic socialism works, why doesn’t Venezuela have toilet paper? The video is embedded at the end of this post.

Of course West’s answers are lame–“real” socialism has never been tried, blah, blah, blah. You could infer from this that West is an idiot and, if he were arguing in good faith, that would be a fair assessment.

But I think the truth is worse. I think the leaders of the socialist movement are perfectly well aware that the inevitable result of socialism is tyranny and mass poverty. But for them, this isn’t a bug, it is a feature. In fact, it is the whole point. Socialism is now, and always has been, a pretext under which power-mad psychopaths seize power and terrorize their fellow humans.

Viewed with cold realism, socialism works very well for those who bring it about. It worked for Lenin and Stalin. It almost worked for Trotsky, but socialism is like “Game of Thrones”–it is a risky business. It didn’t work for the Old Bolsheviks for the same reason: they lost out to the more vicious and more power-crazed socialist, Stalin. It worked for Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria, although they, too, lost out after years of demented revels. It worked for Khruschev, Brezhnev and Andropov.

Socialism worked for Mao. It worked for Fidel Castro. It worked for Erich Honecker and Nicolae Ceaușescu, until the very end. It worked for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, again with sad ends that didn’t inflict anywhere near enough pain to negate the years of glory and power that went before. It worked for Hugo Chavez, who like Castro, parlayed socialism into a multi-billion dollar fortune, and it has worked so far for Nicolas Maduro. All of these psychopaths, and many others, got exactly what they wanted out of socialism. From their point of view, it is a successful ideology.

While the vast majority suffer under socialism, such suffering is by no means universal. Any number of commissars, Stasi informants, Cuban snitches, petty apparatchiks with dachas, etc., have parlayed their sadistic tendencies into good livings and what they want most, power over others. If you follow Twitter, or generally pay attention to the American Left, you see an army of would-be commissars who yearn for the day when they can accuse a neighbor of wrongthink and have him sent to an American Gulag. In the meantime, they settle for mob action, “doxxing,” and so on.

Socialism isn’t misguided, it is evil. Socialism isn’t a failure, any more than the Black Death was a failure. Sadly, it has worked all too well for more than a century.


Why Know-Nothings Enjoy Knowing Nothing at College

Why Aren’t College Students Learning Anything?

by Brad Polumbo at National Review:

Professors don’t challenge them enough, nor do they challenge themselves.

When I paid my last college-tuition bill, I grimaced as thousands of dollars disappeared from my bank account. Like many students, I tell myself that my education will pay off in the long run — but I might not actually be getting my money’s worth.

In his book Academically Adrift, sociologist Richard Arum of New York University reports that 45 percent of undergraduate students show little advancement in their ability to think critically, reason, or write well after their first two years of college — basically, half of students learn almost nothing in three essential areas. As a current student, I think I know why our higher-education system is failing.

Some of these left-leaning professors adopt a liberal attitude toward classroom rigor as well, if we judge them by the workload demanded in their courses. In one survey, 50 percent of students reported that they did not take any courses requiring 20 or more pages of writing during the previous semester, and while this may include some science- or math-focused students, it’s clear that many others aren’t getting the rigorous liberal-arts education they signed up for. One in three students escape an average semester without taking a class requiring even 40 pages of reading a week. It’s obvious why students aren’t developing these skills — educators aren’t forcing us to practice them.

But students can’t put all the blame for our failed education on others. A large part of the problem lies on our own shoulders, because my generation’s attitude toward our own education is all but abysmal. Students are paying thousands of dollars to take their classes but often aren’t even showing up. USA Today reports that students miss an average of 240 classes over their four years at college, and 25 percent of students compile attendance records so poor that they essentially miss a year of their education.

To me, that statistic comes as no surprise. After the first week of the semester, many of my classes are half empty. Sometimes I’ll even see students for the first time at a final exam. Studies show that class attendance is the best predictor of college GPA — so if students are struggling to learn, maybe they should try showing up.

After the first week of the semester, many of my classes are half empty. Sometimes I’ll even see students for the first time at a final exam.

Even when students are in class, they’re not always present. Walk into the typical college classroom and you’ll see a room full of students clicking away on their laptops. Step toward the back and you’ll notice that half of them are scrolling through Facebook or checking Twitter, and others are just using their laptop screen to hide their phone. Technology is a great tool, but the death of pen and paper may actually spell doom for classroom productivity. A survey from the research firm Survata found that students do sometimes use their phones for school-related work, but that 54 percent of students text friends in class and 52 percent browse social media during lectures. The Internet is often a blessing — but when it comes to classroom learning, it’s a curse.

Much learning happens outside of the classroom, but too many students are abdicating their role in self-education. According to Forbes, 45 percent of students “don’t enjoy reading serious books and articles, and [they] only do it when [they] have to.” A shocking 40 percent of students said that “books have never gotten me very excited.” Classroom assignments aside, a generation with no use for the library can’t complain when they leave school without the reading and writing skills we’ll need in the workplace.

College is supposed to be a time for exploration and fun, but some students are taking it too far, and their education is suffering as a result. According to a study from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse, 60 percent of students drink alcohol regularly, and two in three of those students binge-drink. Some degree of drinking on campus is inevitable, but right now it’s so extreme that one in four students suffer academic consequences because their drinking leads to missed deadlines, failed exams, and class absences. If my generation wants to start seeing more results from our education, we may need to rethink these habits.


Our system of higher education is in disarray, and it’s failing everyone involved. Some serious reforms are needed. It’s time to consider policy-based solutions, such as laws protecting free speech and open debate on campus, guarantees of academic freedom for conservative (and liberal) professors, grade deflation and increased classroom rigor, and student-loan reform. But some of the necessary change must come from my generation itself. We need to take our own education more seriously — especially in terms of attendance and work ethic.

Things can’t continue the way they are. Too many students are burying themselves in debt to attend expensive colleges, but they’re failing to develop basic skills. We can’t expect students to survive life after graduation if they’re leaving campus worse off than when they arrived.