• 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
  • Advertisements

The Leftist-Feminist Drive to Celebrate Insanity as Standard in The American Public School

“Transgender Wrestler” Booed After Winning Another Girls’ Tournament

by Jazz Shaw   at  HotAir:

Those of you who have been following our coverage here over the past year or more are probably already familiar with Mack Beggs, the female high school wrestler who “identifies” as a male but has been wrestling in the girls’ division. She won the state championship last year, and on Saturday repeated the feat, concluding an undefeated season. Some in the audience at the match were clearly not pleased. (Star-Telegram)

Mack Beggs has captured his second straight state wrestling title.

And once again his state gold medal ceremony included a mix of cheers and jeers from the crowd.

On Saturday at the Berry Center in Cypress, Texas, the transgender male wrestler capped a perfect 36-0 season by claiming his second straight UIL girls Class 6A state title in the 110-pound weight class by decision, 15-3, against Chelsea Sanchez of Katy Morton Ranch High School.

The video from the event is available at the Star-Telegram link above.



Female Plus Feminist = Feminazi


IF TRUTH COULD BE TOLD, Homo sapiens’, the male animal, was, is born, developed  by Nature’s God to be a killer when needed to perpetuate his species’ existence.  He, not she, was blessed, cursed by his genetic material  to defend and provide for himself, his mate, his offspring, his clan, his nation for the survival of the species.

He was Nature’s God animal  born  to wonder, be curious, a thinker, to problem solve, to explore, to build,  defend  and protect his space for his mate and offspring.

To solve problems the Human Male seeks TRUTH!

Homo sapiens, the female animal, was born to  physically smaller, weaker,  to be protected, in order to carry and deliver offspring, and therefore  the survival of the animal species.

She was not an animal born by  body or drive to be  a killer  beyond, if needed,  defending her own offspring.   She was born ditsy, clever, sly,  driven by feelings, to catch, control, seduce her mate to continue  life for herself,  her offspring.

She is NOT driven to seek TRUTH!   As an animal her feelings dominate Truth to achieve satisfaction!    Tough Truth is a guy genetics problem to solve….NOT female, by NATURE’S GOD!

Two plus two to a human female animal doesn’t necessarily equal four….especially when in the mood when feelings dictate uber alles, when she becomes upset, challenged, insecure,  deceptive, when she becomes a fascist, a leftist, a today’s American Democrat…..or today’s despicable misuse of children!   In all GOD-oriented  religions throughout  history known to today’s human animal,  THE GOD OF GODS IS, WAS, MALE!    Have you ever wondered why?

The human male, not the human female, is genetically driven to seek and identify Truth to overcome  Feelings for the survival of the species,  programmed by Nature’s God.

What happens when a number of human female animals “feel” superior, “act” superior”,  reeking their “superior”  feelings over Truth?   What are the consequences?   ghr.

Please read the article below written by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:


Do Hillary women ever tolerate reality or Truth?


Feminized Loony American Public Schools

My, how feminized our United States of America has become since the Reagan years.  How feminized the American human male animal has become since the Reagan years.  One wonders what they are drinking.

Perhaps Planned Parenthood is adding (at tax payer expense)  something poisonous  in the American drinking water   that is creating a Ditsy Single sex, Ditsy single thinking, Obamaling single feminized  national tribe!?

Uncle Sam’s Leftists have resurrected a  Pocahontas who may be running national  politics soon, but this 2018 ‘she’  has not yet agreed to a DNA sample to zap her deceit, but no matter….Feelings, Deception, NOT TRUTH, is the drive  that sends  this feminized animal’s “New Age”  sex into action in the Obama-Cinton Era…..to:

Cleanse America  of all its yesterdays!   Emote fruitfully! aggressively!   Burn  every human male written book!  Destroy  the  truck, auto, ship, and air and rocket   machine industry male creations he invented,   all   matter caused by today’s  and  yesterday’s human male  problem-solving, causing thinking, seeking, measuring, discovering Truth   by  male homo-sapiens seeking knowledge, solving mystery,  their writings, recordings from countless cultures and languages throughout our World struggling to survive!!!




Human Females are Born to be Ditsy! Problem Solving, Therefore, Is Usually Foreign to the Sex!

Believe All Women’ at Your Peril

by David Solway  at  American Thinker:


We’ve heard it all before: “start by believing.”  “Believe  survivors.”  At a recent panel discussion at the Ottawa City Hall, where my wife, Janice Fiamengo, was one of three featured participants, the subject of #MeToo and “Believe All Women” came up during the Q&A.  (See 1:35:34 to 1:38:27 of the embedded YouTube video below.)  An audience member claimed that it behooved us in most cases to give credence to women bringing forth their stories of sexual abuse.  The young woman was skeptical of the court process as a way of resolving issues of sexual violence in women’s favor and contended that we need “non-criminal” forms of restorative justice, some form of “healing or accountability.”

Janice and her co-panelists, authors Paul Nathanson and David Shackleton, quickly put paid to that notion.  Non-legal judgments via social media and public shaming could be as onerous and punitive as legal sentencing, turning men who had not been proven guilty into social lepers and bankrupts.  The legal system may be flawed, but, as Shackleton remarked, it is the best we have and is theoretically capable of improvement.

In fact, an argument against #MeToo and the concomitant pursuit of non-legal incrimination is often put forward by the subtler variety of feminists, such as Josephine Mathias in the National Post and Bari Weiss in the New York Times, but for a completely different reason.  They maintain that false allegations in the public sphere, such as the Duke Lacrosse and Rolling Stone moments, may discredit the “Believe All Women” movement; in the words of Weiss, such fictions “will tear down all accusers as false prophets.”  It is not the harm to innocent men that concerns Weiss, but the damage to female credibility.  The movement must be maintained.

Here I would indicate that, contrary to the young questioner who distrusted the cumbersome apparatus of the courts, which lead only to “re-victimization,” as well as Shackleton’s faith in a self-corrective justice system, court judgments in our SJW era tend to favor women – and when they don’t, the cry goes up for a quasi-legal system based on the “preponderance of evidence” rather than the “presumption of innocence” model – that is, on whatever narrative the judge or adjudicator tends to believe as more persuasive, evidence be damned.  After all, women who lie or collude are only victims too troubled to get their stories straight.

In any event, whether utterly oblivious of the need for reasonable assessment and sober judgment before taking action, as in the example of the young woman in the Q&A session, or arguing against public dissemination of false reports, as the more sophisticated feminists hold, the problem remains. A deep emotional commitment to a cause, scanting the imperative to seek evidence before judgment or refusing to recognize that abuse comes in many forms, including women who trivialize their complaints or are complicit in unsavory acts in order to further their careers, is, to put it bluntly, immoral.  What we are observing is an ideological compulsion that militates against reason and fairness.

A case in point: Andrea Dworkin, one of the stoutest pillars of radical feminist theory, claimed in her autobiographical writings that she had been abused and raped from the age of nine and continuing for decades.  As Dworkin assured us in her book Intercourse, “[v]iolation is a synonym for intercourse”; again, in Our Blood, that “[u]nder patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”  It’s a bridge too far for most sensible people.  Even feminist former columnist for The Globe and Mail Leah McLaren dismisses her stories as “full of inconsistencies and logical gaps.”  No wonder Dworkin, who said, “There is always one problem for a woman: being believed,” is herself unbelievable.  Her voluminous deposition is a form of abusing her readers with mainly self-indulgent fables.

Of course, belief in such matters should depend on the search for credible evidence and the objective assessment of facts, but such an approach has been blithely discarded by another radical feminist and collaborator, Catherine MacKinnon.  In Feminism Unmodified, she wrote: “Our critique of the objective standpoint as male is a critique of science as a specifically male approach to knowledge.  With it, we reject male criteria for verification” (emphasis mine).  It follows that truth deriving from objective analysis is a male conspiracy meant to subjugate women.  Ergo, women must be believed regardless of evidence, the rule of law, and objective verification, since these are merely patriarchal strategies to enforce the masculine will.

The nonsense brachiates with every passing day, wherever we might look.  In a recent profile for Canada’s elite left-wing rag The Walrus, Canada’s minister of foreign affairs Chrystia Freeland declared: “I’m a woman.  I’m a wife.  I’m a mother.  One hundred years ago, I would’ve been beaten by my husband.  That’s what happened to pretty much all women.”  Judging from her photo, I suspect that Freeland is not 100 years old, but then, I suppose we must give her the benefit of the doubt.  She is a high-ranking government apparatchik who must know what she is talking about.

Naturally, feminists will point to statistics showing that men predominate in cases of domestic violence.  The category of domestic violence has been a boon for feminists, who argue that IPV (intimate partner violence) is almost entirely one-sided, with women the vast majority of victims.  But I know of many innocent men falsely accused by their partners, who have lost everything, including the right to visit their children, and of others who decide to plea-bargain rather than spend years in court.  Plea-bargaining obviously swells the number of ostensibly violent men, a welcome datum for the feminist thesis.  I have an acquaintance who, insisting on his integrity, refused the plea offer, resulting in a five-year ongoing trauma that has rendered him penniless and now, with a criminal record, effectively unemployable.  His life is ruined.

Additionally, many studies have argued that “gender symmetry” in instances of domestic violence actually exists and that “battered husband syndrome” is a fact of life.  Erin Pizzey, founder of the first women’s shelter in the U.K., discovered to her surprise that over 60%of the women admitted to the center were no less violence-prone than their male partners.  The issue is clearly vexed.

As David Horowitz writes in RealClear Politics, “In the hysterical atmosphere created by the #MeToo movement – a by-product of the Women’s March and the ‘movement’ that produced it – mere accusations become tantamount to guilt with chilling results, and ominous implications for a country built on due process, and the defense of individual rights.”  If, he continues, “elites believe that the core truth of our society is a system of interlocking and oppressive power structures based around immutable characteristics like race or sex or sexual orientation, then sooner rather than later, this will be reflected in our culture at large.”  And the culture will suffer for it.

The “Believe All Women” meme is now rooted in our manifold hierarchies of oppression.  It will continue to do untold harm to both men and women unless we can return to the approximate sanity of the past, before the absurdly named “Twitter” feeds, the duplicitous and unaccountable intimacy of Facebook, and the Fake News Media came to substitute for investigative justice.



Mark Zuckerberg’s Vast Left Wing Plot To Secure One Party Fascism

Obama Pressures Facebook to Censor News; Zuckerberg Complies and Crushes Trump on Facebook

by Karin McQuillan at American Thinker:

Facebook has caved to Democrat political pressure and is censoring newsfeeds on users’ pages, as Mark Zuckerberg explains, for their own good.  The progressives at Facebook have gone nuclear.

We built Facebook to help people stay connected and bring us closer together with the people that matter to us. That’s why we’ve always put friends and family at the core of the experience. Research shows that strengthening our relationships improves our well-being and happiness.  But recently we’ve gotten feedback from our community that public content — posts from businesses, brands and media — is crowding out the personal moments that lead us to connect more with each other.

Cutting through the Orwellian talk of connecting us together and ‘feedback from our community,’ this is an entirely political story.  After Donald Trump’s election, Zuckerberg came under tremendous pressure to use Facebook for the Democrats’ Resistance.  All the bludgeons were brought out – Russian bots, fake news, that Facebook handed an unearned victory to Trump.  And the greatest of all, the threat of government regulation.

At first Zuckerberg resisted the Resistance, but then he caved suddenly, following a personal intervention by Obama.

The results of Obama’s intervention are in:

Engagement on Donald Trump’s Facebook posts has dropped by approximately 45 percent since the platform introduced a new algorithm change, following a year of pressure from left-wing employees and the mainstream media for “allowing” the President to win the 2016 general election.

The most interesting aspect of the progressives’ victory has received almost no press.  It was Barack Hussein Obama himself who knuckled Zuckerberg, in a ‘chance’ encounter at an anti-poverty gathering of the glitterati, in Peru.   Obama openly told Zuckerberg he had to do something about the next presidential race.

The Washington Post reported last fall:

Nine days after Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg dismissed as “crazy” the idea that fake news on his company’s social network played a key role in the U.S. election, President Barack Obama pulled the youthful tech billionaire aside and delivered what he hoped would be a wake-up call.

For months leading up to the vote, Obama and his top aides quietly agonized over how to respond to Russia’s brazen intervention on behalf of the Donald Trump campaign without making matters worse. …Now huddled in a private room on the sidelines of a meeting of world leaders in Lima, Peru, two months before Trump’s inauguration, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously, although Facebook representatives say the president did not single out Russia specifically. Unless Facebook and the government did more to address the threat, Obama warned, it would only get worse in the next presidential race. (snip)

The conversation on Nov. 19 was a flashpoint in a tumultuous year in which Zuckerberg came to recognize the magnitude of a new threat — a coordinated assault on a U.S. election by a shadowy foreign force that exploited the social network he created.

Until Obama’s intervention, Facebook corporate policy was rock solid.  Zuckerberg’s entire business model was that Facebook is a platform, not a content provider.  The company has always claimed they have no responsibility for content.   The Jewish Press begged Zuckerberg to block Islamic Facebook pages teaching how to make ‘lone wolf’ knife attacks fatal.   Zuckerberg refused.  Not his problem.

In the past, Facebook often bowed to PC pressure from the feminist, gay and Islamic communities.  Pamela Geller got fed up with being blocked and sued.  A gun range owner was blocked after the Orlando shooting for offering free self-defense classes to LGBT.  Pro-life crowdfunding a movie on Roe v. Wade was blocked, as were dozens of conservativeCatholic websites.  But these forays into censorship of conservatives were isolated, and often reversed with claims they had been done by mistake.

That was before the Obama White House had to cover its tracks of spying on the Trump campaign and newly elected President Trump.

At first, Zuckerberg was impervious to the hysteria that fake news and Russian bots on Facebook had thrown the election to Trump.  He knew it was nonsense, because he’s a numbers and data guy, and the reach of Russian accounts was pitiful.

Russian interference generated 129 real-world events that drew 340,000 Facebook users.  If we look at the number of mobile active Facebook users for December 2016, we see that there were 1.74 billion.  Thus, the Russians commandeered 0.000195402% of the Facebook users for that one month.

You could argue that the election was thrown in a few key states, where targeted fake news confused voters.  From the Washington Examiner:

Looking at key states, the total spent on ads targeting Wisconsin was $1,979, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr. Ad spending in Michigan was $823. In Pennsylvania, it was $300.  That is not the stuff of rigging elections.

As for Russian content that appeared on newsfeeds:

“This equals about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content,” Facebook executive Colin Stretch said in prepared testimony before the Senate last November.

From wired.com:

…at a conference two days after the election, Zuckerberg argued that … “The idea that fake news on Facebook—of which, you know, it’s a very small amount of the content—influenced the election in any way, I think, is a pretty crazy idea,” he said….he likes to form his opinions from data. And in this case he wasn’t without it.

Zuckerberg was correct.  The idea that fake news on Facebook helped elect Trump is crazy.

Donald Trump needed Russian help to be effective on Facebook?  That’s crazy.  The idea that Trump betrayed his country for help on social media is crazy.  And the idea that the scale of the Russian effort on Facebook had any impact is crazy.

But telling the truth in Obama’s progressive America is not allowed.

Zuckerberg’s comments did not go over well, even inside Facebook. They seemed clueless and self-absorbed. “What he said was incredibly damaging,” a former executive told WIRED. “We had to really flip him on that. We realized that if we didn’t, the company was going to start heading down this pariah path that Uber was on.”

Zuckerberg was soon disabused of the notion that he could data check whether fake news threw the election.  Nice little company you have there.

 “After the election, because Trump won, the media put a ton of attention on fake news and just started hammering us. People started panicking and getting afraid that regulation was coming. …and we decided to figure out how we could put together our own packaged program that shows how seriously we take the future of news.”

It took Facebook a long time to figure out how to control fake news.

Censorship at Facebook is no longer a bug.  It is a feature.  President Trump’s clicks are down 45%.



Gun -Control and Fascism Alive and Well at CNN….A Major Battle Between the Sexes?

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

(Article sent by Lisa Rich in California.)

Please Click below for the above titled National Review article after you have read the following commentary regarding a reality in today’s America:

“Government gun control is foreign, non existent in a  learned, freedom-oriented, masculine led God-fearing society.    Such societies abhor fascists and fascism from the deceitful America’s Obama and  Hillary-ilk  to and through the  Sovietized, Nazified, Maoist dictatorships of yesteryear, the single such Party Animal Farm love to admire.

Is the perpetual war between freedom and fascism a battle between the human sexes?

The human male animal is born a natural killer programmed to protect the protect, defend his neighborhoods of the the animal species,  Homo sapiens.   This  male animal is born curious, a problem solver, a seeker of Truth, a builder, inventor, defender of his mate and their offspring he provides for and the community he protects by the laws of Nature.

The human female is born to bear and mother her offspring of the species so vital to continue the animal’s existence.   She is born ditsy,  dependent, sensitive, clever, romantic, a nurturer, dreamer, but vulnerable, incurious, devious,  neither a builder, inventor,  nor much of a defender with the exception of  protecting her offspring or offspring very close to her.

Sorry,  you  Obama, Hillary American feminized neofascists……males, not females by Nature, SEEK TRUTH rather than conspiracy  to satisfy his  God-given animal duties to protect, build and serve human females for the continuation of our human species.

These feminized fascists of all sexes, colors, shapes, and sizes, learn their political indoctrination to “own power over all”  at school, university, from the press and television news.   They have NO GOD TO WORSHIP besides themselves and their Obama or Hillary and own the  FBI gang of devious Mueller, Comey,  and the Obama obedient, devious, criminal Attorney Generals,  Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

SUCH  GODLESS FASCISTS  WORSHIP THEMSELVES AS MAO STUDENTS “CHOSEN BY THE PARTY”   TO  DICTATE THE LIVES AND THOUGHTS OF  THE UNTERMENCHEN   MASSES  OF UNWORTHY  FLOCK who might still remember being curious, inventive, gather knowledge rather than propaganda,  and  to breathe and think free to remember and seek Truth! ”







Wondering Which States Americans Hate to Live In? Ask U-Haul.

by Gary Gindler  at American Thinker:

Americans are dynamic people.  World statistics on the number of cars per capita show that America is in first place among the “big” countries and inthird place among all countries, behind the dwarfs of San Marino and Monaco.

Where do Americans drive other than to work, shopping, and perhaps to school?  Americans move, and move quite often.  They relocate to neighboring cities and distant states.  By and large, the U.S. looks like a big monolithic country.  In fact, the U.S. is a federal republic of independent states, each with many laws, many customs, and a unique political climate.

Does the changing political climate affect population migration between states?  Of course, it does, but how?  What if we were to express the movement of intra-American migration, not in words, but in the language of numbers?  A convenient measure of internal migration could be the U-Haul Index.

U-Haul is a truck rental company used by many Americans who relocate.  The rented trucks must be driven by U-Haul customers themselves, and payment is charged one way only.  That is, after unloading, it is not necessary to return the vehicle to the starting point.  If necessary, the U-Haul company will take care of it.  Then the prices for transportation from point A to point B will be the same as from point B to point A, but only if the average number of customers is the same at both points A and B.

If the number of orders for trucks at both destinations is the same, then U-Haul has no problems.

If the number of orders is not the same, then U-Haul must hire drivers to relocate the empty trucks, and then pay to transport these drivers back.  In this case, the prices for traffic will not be symmetrical – renting trucks to a popular point A from an unpopular point B will entail higher costs.

Here are some examples (all data is taken from the U-Haul website; prices are for March 1, 2018, for a favorite 20-foot van.)

Renting a truck from New York to Orlando costs $2,214 and back $1,557 (the difference is $657, a 42% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from New York to Dallas costs $2,442 and back $1,962 (the difference is $480, a 24% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from San Francisco to Orlando costs $3,308 and back $1,988 (the difference is $1,510, an 84% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from San Francisco to Dallas costs $3,206 and back $1,128 (the difference is $2,078, a 184% surcharge.)

For comparison, renting the same truck from New York to San Francisco costs $3,409, and back $3,058 (the difference is $351, a surcharge of 11%).

What causes people to leave San Francisco and New York and to make a move to Dallas and Orlando?

San Francisco is in the state of California, and New York City in the state of New York.  Both states for decades have been bastions of left-wing politicians – former Democrats, and now socialists and communists.

Dallas is in Texas, and Orlando is in Florida.  Both states for decades have been bastions of right-wing politicians – Republicans and conservatives.

Perhaps the question should be posed differently: what forces people to leave those states where the government is pursuing a left socialist policy and move to states where the government is pursuing a pragmatic right-wing policy?

The example above shows that in the move from one corner of the American socialist paradise, San Francisco, to another, New York, a small difference in prices exists.  But, most likely, this asymmetry is because the climate in San Francisco is more pleasant than in New York.

Regardless of the political views of those Americans who leave Democrat states for Republican states, Democrat states will be the losers.  After all, most American migrants simply repeat the path of many talented people who left the socialist paradise known as the Soviet Union.

Democrats are losing their electorate and therefore are forced to pursue a policy of “open borders.”  Moreover, the inclusion of socialism into the capitalist economy leads to severe imbalances that Democrats prefer to compensate by the injection of illegal aliens into the U.S. economy.  Democrats see their last hope in the legalization of illegal aliens.

The socialists pursue a single goal: to legalize the participation of illegal aliens in elections.  The mayor of New York, communist Bill de Blasio, openly supports the idea that 500,000 illegal aliens residing in New York City should receive the right to vote at least in local elections.  The governor of California, socialist Jerry Brown, has already implemented that law.  Starting April 1, 2018, all residents of California, including illegal aliens, will automatically be added to voting rolls while renewing their driver’s licenses.

The U-Haul Index shows that Americans categorically do not like such policies.  Americans take part in federal elections every two years, but in between elections, they vote, too – with their feet.  More precisely, with trucks.