• 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

Don’t Forget the Fascist Voices of the American “News” TV Snots

Leftist John Oliver Plays Pundit….Venezuela’s in Trouble, but it ISN’T FASCISTIC SOCIALISM!

John Oliver Explains Venezuela: Things Are Terrible But Don’t Blame Socialism

John Oliver devoted most of his show this weekend to talking about the terrible situation in Venezuela, a situation that has been terrible to varying degrees for at least three years now. In the 20 minute segment, Oliver does a fairly good job of explaining what has happened to the country over the past decade and includes plenty of embarrassing clips of former socialist strongman Hugo Chavez and his successor, not-so-strongman Nicholas Maduro.

Oliver covers the country’s rampant hyperinflation and the subsequent “Maduro diet.” He describes Maduro’s quasi-legal political moves including stacking the Supreme Court with supporters, creating a new National Assembly, and sending opposition political figures to prison.

There’s just one glaring problem with Oliver’s report: He says socialism isn’t the problem. In fact, he opens the whole segment by mocking conservative media coverage of Venezuela. “If you follow conservative media at all, you will see it frequently painted as the inevitable, dire consequences of a socialist government,” he says. He then cuts to a clip of someone on InfoWars doing a fairly dumb woman-on-the-street interview. That’s the kind of cheap cop-out I would expect from John Oliver. It’s about as fair as criticizing John Oliver and then offering readers a clip of some left-wing campus imbecile in glasses. But I’m not going to do that. I’m just going to point out that John Oliver’s take on socialism not being the real problem in Venezuela is complete and utter garbage.

Oliver says, “This is not just a story about socialism. There are plenty of socialist countries that look nothing like Venezuela. It’s a story about epic mismanagement.” Well, yes and no. It’s certainly a story of mismanagement but that mismanagement has a specific character that Oliver doesn’t seem very interested in describing. Here’s how Forbes described Chavez’ management of PDVSA:

He fired about half of the workforce of the national oil company, PDVSA, during an oil strike in 2003, including the vast majority of top executives and technical staff. He forcefully renegotiated joint-ventures and operational contracts with foreign companies and partially nationalized them. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips withdrew from the country as a result. Thereafter, no relevant new oil projects have been completed. He also expropriated some service companies. In addition, Chavez drove PDVSA to run into significant debt, and transformed it, de facto, into a social and development ministry. Consequently, investment in oil development and production declined, even during the oil price boom.

So Chavez didn’t just fire people, he “expropriated” companies to put the government control of them. A bias for competence at producing oil was replaced with a political bias, i.e. people loyal to the socialist revolution were installed to manage things. Meanwhile, most of the money coming in was spent on heavily subsidized products for the poor. The government giveaway was the stuff Bernie Sanders’ dreams are made of. A large percentage of the money the oil company generated was spent discounting the cost of gasoline to make it the lowest price found anywhere in the world. A gallon of gas was just 9 cents in Venezuela in 2012.

All of this socialism seemed like a great idea for a while and was embraced by celebrities here in the U.S. as a model for other nations. And then the price of oil collapsed and the nation’s one valuable product suddenly couldn’t support everyone who had been told they deserved lots of steeply discounted gas and consumer goods.

Was this a case of mismanagement? Yes, absolutely. But what John Oliver never really delves into here is why the mismanagement happened and why, once things became unsustainable, the government couldn’t simply make some common sense market reforms to address it. The answer to all of those why questions is “socialism.”

Socialism is why Venezuela responded to the drop in oil prices with a fresh round of expropriations and price controls instead of cutting back on subsidies. It’s why the government maintained the absurd exchange rates on currency that no longer made any sense as black market exchange rates at the border began to skyrocket. It’s why Maduro refused to even admit there was a problem and instead claimed he was the victim of a U.S. led economic conspiracy to destroy the country. It’s why he lost the service of many international airlines because they refused to be paid at his absurd exchange rate.

Socialism is why a large portion of the population, who had become accustomed to getting a lot of free or heavily subsidized stuff, went along with all of this. They had been told for years that the freebies were the benefits of socialism. Neither Chavez nor Maduro wanted to explain to them that the free ride had come to an end (at least temporarily) because of international market forces that don’t follow the rules of the glorious revolution.

Socialism is at least indirectly responsible for the behavior of the autocratic regime. Because if they weren’t going to tell people the revolution was a failure, they didn’t want anyone else telling them either. That’s how you wind up with major opposition figures like Leopoldo López in a military prison on trumped-up charges. It’s how you wind up with major opposition figures told they can’t even run for office. It’s how you end up with people protesting the government in a secret prison.

The need to preserve the socialist revolution is also why you have roving gangs of socialist die-hards on motorcycles (the colectivos) who take the fight to preserve socialism into the streets and crack heads if necessary. In a word, socialism is the reason the country’s leaders doubled down on a situation that was clearly unsustainable in the long run and then backed up that double-down with force. For socialism to survive, the enemies of socialism have to be ignored or made to pay a price.

Venezuela isn’t a case of random mismanagement with no other significant characteristics. It’s a case of mismanagement driven by an impulse to preserve a socialist success story that has devolved into a miserable failure. Again, this John Oliver clip isn’t the worst thing I’ve seen or read on this topic. He does hit a lot of the highlights (and lowlights) but he’s avoiding the one thing that drove all of this mismanagement to such an extreme, probably because that would be awkward for a millionaire socialist to explain.


Don’t Forget CBC’s American Fascists Explaining Trump’s Capturing Ohio that November 8, 2016!

Zero Respect for Devious, Evil, that FBI Bob Mueller!!


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Other than seeing occasional headlines, I have spent less than one minute following the Paul Manafort criminal trial. I imagine the overwhelming majority of Americans would say the same. Here’s why:

1) I don’t care about Paul Manafort. I had never heard of him before his brief association with the Trump campaign.

2) Manafort is charged, in essence, with tax evasion. He may well have dodged taxes. If so, he is not alone, and it is of no interest to me.

3) The charges against Manafort have nothing to do with Donald Trump or the 2016 election. So, why is he being persecuted by Bob Mueller? I really don’t know. Does Mueller have a roving commission to destroy the lives of anyone who had the misfortune to support President Trump’s campaign or work in his administration? Seemingly so. If Manafort is Exhibit A, General Michael Flynn is Exhibit B.

4) I have zero respect for Bob Mueller. The judge who is presiding over the Manafort trial seems to agree.

5) Most people who aren’t crazy–these days, that is a significant qualification–seem to have figured out that the Mueller “investigation” is a bust. The Zogby poll finds that, by a 52% to 30% margin, Americans think it is time for Mueller to wrap up his probe. Asking the question a little differently, Rasmussen finds that 39% of voters think Mueller’s investigation “should be closed,” while 50% disagree.

6) Personally, I don’t want Mueller to close up shop until he has undergone the humiliation of losing to the Russian entity that, to Mueller’s chagrin, showed up in court to defend the criminal charges against it. No, wait! Mueller responded. That wasn’t an indictment, it was a press release! I don’t actually have any evidence!

7) Pathetic.



What the Trump administration gets very wrong about free speech


(CNN)“A generation of sanctimonious, sensitive, supercilious snowflakes.” That’s howAttorney General Jeff Sessions described college students in late July.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department is diving into the roiling waters of campus free speech controversies, mounting legal challenges to alleged infringements on speech by public universities, including the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley. But one of the core premises of the administration’s intervention — that the attacks on speech are primarily directed at conservatives — is called into question by a data analysis from Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project that finds that infringements on free speech are just as likely to come from the right as the left.
Of the more than 5,000 college campuses in the United States, the Georgetown study logged only about 60 incidents of suppressed speech since 2016. In analyzing each one, they found limited evidence that conservatives are being targeted unfairly. Most incidents where conservative speech got interrupted or silenced involved the same high-profile voices, in contrast with the incidents from the left covered by the study, who were speakers and scholars with lower profiles. The researchers note that their work is preliminary and not comprehensive, but their findings do suggest that the state of free speech on campus is far more complicated than Sessions and others of similar mind might have us believe.
Georgetown, with funding from the Knight Foundation, built an online tool to analyze these incidents. The Knight Foundation also recently released a report showing that students strongly support the First Amendment.
Campuses have sometimes lapsed in protecting free speech, and the administration is right to stand up for open expression. But Jeff Sessions’ approach to the campus speech debate — which has thus far been one-sided and even insulting — risks fueling the very intolerance that he aims to counter.
Sessions’ latest salvo in the speech wars came in his July address to conservative high school students attending a conference convened by conservative right-wing nonprofit Turning Point USA. He pinpointed what he called a series of campus free speech threats, including policies confining protests to narrow “free speech zones,” speech codes delineating what can and can’t be said and unruly demonstrations that drown out speakers. He also expressed alarm over mandated warnings about sensitive material in course curricula, catalogues of microagressions and enforced “safe spaces.” Sessions opined that, in an effort to make students feel comfortable, some campuses veer too far toward infantilization. Spotlighting the most extreme examples — campus “cry closets” and lounges with play-doh and coloring books — Sessions ridiculed what he characterized as the spectacle of universities aiming to “equip”students to handle tough rhetoric and uncomfortable ideas.
He cataloged a series of prominent instances of wrongful interference with speech, including a Black Lives Matter disruption of an ACLU event at William and Mary in October 2017, violent demonstrations against theorist Charles Murray at Middlebury that March, and a protest against a Jewish group at Brown the previous year. Sessions rightly asserted that “the First Amendment is not a partisan issue. Constitutional rights are for all Americans — not just those in one party or faction.”
But, despite the bipartisan bromides, Sessions has made it clear that the administration’s prime concern is safeguarding space for conservative ideas and viewpoints on campus from an assault by what he has dubbed the “hard left.” During the July speech Sessions goaded the right-leaning students, citing “elements in our society today who want to stop you and silence you. … They want you to feel outnumbered … to get discouraged … to quit.”
The truth is, in the wider society, conservatives are hardly silenced; they enjoy a great deal of political power, with control over all three branches of government. But Sessions has a fair point that many college campuses skew liberal, and some don’t pay enough attention to ensuring that conservative perspectives can be aired without fear of reprisal.
What Sessions left out is that liberal and left-wing speakers are often targeted as well. As the new Georgetown study, based on analysis of more than 90 recent incidents, points out, there is “strong reason to believe that this widespread perception (that most campus speech attacks originate from the left and target conservative speech) is not entirely accurate.” Sessions might have mentioned Fresno State University Professor Randa Jarrar, who was put under investigation this spring after comments critical of First Lady Barbara Bush, or Princeton Professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, who canceled speaking engagements when she was threatened over her criticisms of President Donald Trump.
Perhaps the most egregious omission was any mention of free-speech-chilling actions by the event’s hosts, Turning Point USA. Turning Point publishes a “Professor Watchlist” naming hundreds of academics for alleged offenses, including op-eds and course material judged too liberal. The American Association of University Professors has criticized the watchlist as a tool of intimidation.
Sessions is off base when he mocks students as “snowflakes.” Most of the examples of campus speech controversies Sessions touched on — for example, Black Lives Matter and Murray’s use of race to explain IQ differentials — center on issues of race. Student activists drawing attention to policing abuses, discrimination in higher education and other forms of racial injustice have sometimes overstepped, veering into misguided calls to suppress speech activists deemed offensive. But their core purpose — to demand a more equal and inclusive learning environment — is one that the Justice Department should ratify rather than ridicule.
Over the last two years, the Anti-Defamation League has documented a threefold spike in white supremacist incidents on campuses, including an allegedly racially-motivated murder at the University of Maryland that is being prosecuted as a hate crime.
The most notorious incident was the white supremacist march at the University of Virginia the night before the deadly rally in Charlottesville. Sessions’ boss, President Donald Trump, later tried to defend the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who took part, saying there was “blame on both sides.”
While talk of campuses as “safe spaces” might once have been dismissed as a misguided quest for psychological comfort, the rise of hateful gestures on campus raises genuine concerns of physical safety.
Amid these rising instances of the use of racial epithets, display of swastikas and nooses hung in trees, students are rightly demanding that their universities do more to provide a safe, equal learning environment for all. Rather than belittling such efforts, Sessions’ Justice Department should promote constructive measures — such as facilitated dialogues across ideological lines, peaceful counterspeech, and stronger reporting mechanisms for hate crimes — that address hatred without impairing free speech.
While the Justice Department has set forth some legitimate concerns, an ideologically lopsided approach risks compounding an already precarious appreciation of free speech among college students. Some student advocates of racial justice evince a sense of alienation when it comes to First Amendment rights, having witnessed them being invoked mainly in relation to speech that they consider offensive. In his dismissiveness, Sessions surrenders the chance to persuade skeptical students that the First Amendment is a critical tool in their quest for social justice, one they should embrace and defend.
Follow CNN Opinion

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

As a rising generation comes to grips with tensions over free speech, it is essential that they not come to view the defense of the First Amendment as a right-wing weapon being used to strip protections that foster an open and equal learning environment. If the administration’s leading national voice on campus free speech treats the debate as yet another ideological sparring ground, it should not come as a surprise if students come to view the defense of free speech with suspicion. As Sessions pointed out, the First Amendment is not a partisan cause. No one, including Jeff Sessions, should try to make it one.


Joy From Obama Era America!


by John Hinderaker   at  PowerLine:

The Associated Press has a relatively anodyne story, given the sensational facts:

The father of a missing Georgia boy was training children at a New Mexico compound to commit school shootings, prosecutors said in court documents obtained Wednesday.

The documents say Siraj Ibn Wahhaj was conducting weapons training with assault rifles at the compound near the Colorado border where 11 hungry children were found in filthy conditions.

Siraj Ibn Wahhaj. Huh. No reference to Islam or Muslims in the AP story. No surprise there. To learn more, we have to go to other sources, like the Daily Caller:

The son of a prominent Brooklyn-based imam was training children at a New Mexico compound to commit schools shootings, prosecutors said in court documents released Wednesday.

Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 39, was training 11 children at a compound north of Taos, New Mexico, according to The Associated Press. Authorities raided the compound Friday and arrested Wahhaj, two of his siblings and two other men during a search for Wahhaj’s son, who had been abducted from Georgia late in 2017.
Residents in Amalia, New Mexico, near the Colorado border, had complained for months about the squalid conditions of the makeshift compound before Friday’s raid, according to news reports. Authorities recovered multiple firearms as well as an AR-15.
Wahhaj’s father, also named Siraj, is a controversial cleric with close ties to Muslim rights groups like the Islamic Circle of North American, the Muslim American Society and the Center for American Islamic Relations. The elder Wahhaj was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case. He was a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “Blind Sheikh.”

A character witness for the Blind Sheikh–what a wonderful concept! The son evidently is following in the father’s Islamist footsteps, trying to murder as many Americans as possible. Let’s just hope that President Trump can re-orient the federal government away from the Obama administration’s promotion of pro-terrorist organizations like CAIR, and toward self-preservation.



Comment:   Only in the Obama America!!

Remember? “Donald Trump Will NOT BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!” the pundits and gurus announced!