• 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


VIDEO – Song Gone Viral: ‘I Think My Dog’s a Democrat!’

Country singer-songwriter Bryan Lewis has composed a catchy tune poking fun at the Democrat Party, and the video of his performance of the ditty—together with a guest appearance by his dog—has gone viral on social media.

….article  by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.

(Note from ghr:   My son, Christian R.E. Ray sent this following “incorrigible” and “irredeemable” piece of music and culture of several months ago during the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign to “Make America Great Again”.

Somehow, evil spirits must have blown in from the nearest Clinton Democrat Party Headquarters causing an error in our communications system directing its precious message to disappear into the bowls of modern American communications, my personal computer system without further contact with the free world…..any world, for that matter.   Better Late Than Never!    Enjoy the comforts from becoming Free Again,  At Last, Free Again!)


Obama, the Destroyer of Small Business

Obamacare the Destroyer: How It Has Hurt Small Business

by Andrew Solomon  at American Thinker:

“We, the small business owners, are the last truly repressed minorities in America today.  We used to be the engine of the economy, representing the bulk of new jobs created as well as solidly retained, in some cases lasting a person’s entire life, working for just one single employer.

Much has been said regarding Obamacare’s individual mandate – its stiff penalties that increase overtime, the stratospheric rise in premiums and deductibles – but there has been little coverage of how it has negatively impacted workplaces across the country from a business owner’s POV.

Most businesses – not all – already provided insurance to their seasoned full-time staff.  It wouldn’t seem that outlandish, therefore, to force them to do what was already being done.  This is not true.  The business always had the option of stopping coverage or modifying it if the need arose due to slipping sales.

Forcing a private entity, in this case a business, is never morally appropriate.  Number one: it is private.  Its owners have inherent sovereign freedoms.  Obama didn’t seem to care about individual freedoms.  Force, the act of prying into the life of another, dictating terms by fiat under penalty of threat and violence, was morally acceptable to this man, who had never felt the heat of having to cut a single payroll or come up with a quarterly tax to the feds or the state.

But that isn’t the reason for this article.  Individuals also were subjugated by Obama in the same way to buy insurance, pay a tax, or refuse both and go to jail.

What the media never explained to people, as they never do about employers, were all the regulations that sent small businesses spinning into chaos who now had to buy expensive tracking software and monitor all their employees or face huge fines.

First, we had to deal with the 9.5% “affordability” penalty, whereby an employee could never be forced to pay more than 9.5% of his gross earnings to health care costs.  That was revised slightly higher to 9.6% this fiscal year.  What it did was force employers to track an employee’s wage every month to see if his earnings exceeded that artificial benchmark.  It left us scrambling constantly, discussing rate increase with our brokers as well as allocated hours to make sure we didn’t screw it up.  The vigilance of such regulations was hugely demanding of our time…..”   Please read on:

TRUMP: From Mogul Buffoon to a Great President?

I believe the title of this article below written by Roger L. Simon at PJMedia.   I am an old, old man.  It is highly likely I shall not  see the product  of this  prophecy, but the guy in question,  President to be, Donald J. Trump, is making a great start with the selection of both Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon.

It was August 6, 2015 at the Fox Republican presidential candidate show I awakened to a thought that this Donald Trump might be far more than an alleged  showman on television and braggart about real estate  and women.   I was aware of his financial ups and downs and knew he was a New Yorker fathered by a millionaire.

I also knew he didn’t drink….and wasn’t Mormon, folks I admire.   His older brother was an alcoholic and had escaped its sufferings by committing suicide.   (That tragedy  did and still does, move me!)

I have worked for a living.   I still work, outdoors.  I was married once.   I have three grown up kids…..One, my only daughter is  a successful Manhattan feminist, a  Hillary  New Yorker with  all the pluses and the obnoxious active in that insular neck of the American woods.    She’s bright, talented, into the ‘arts’, but  has  never studied any science, knows little history,   is certain her dad is a deplorable, a primate.   I am, of course, but she doesn’t know much about the origins of and differences within  the species, homo sapiens.  (I adore her anyway!  That is the way it is with flesh and blood.)

Fox Guard Dog, Megyn Kelly, ever devoted to increasing her viewership, aggressively approached  Candidate Trump that August 6, 2015 political show of top GOP candidates, as a feminist cobra would, prepared to strike  and dig her  fangs deep into our Donald neck while he was off guard.

She thought she had him. She wanted to know Mr. Trump’s view on women…..and recited a list of words nasty about the sex he was alleged to have pronounced.    To that point all of the candidates on stage had been fed sugar and candy….but butch Megyn went for her grand slam knock down  at first swing.

“Is that how you feel  about women?”

“No”, the male responded.  “Only Rosie O’Donnell!”……followed by a loud and extended roar of laughter.

(This guy, Trump, is serious.  He’s not afraid to tell it like it is.  I have to get to know him better.)

Being a former high school teacher of Russian and Modern Problems, back when public schools were civilized, I knew I had to do some research on Donald J. Trump.

I found he was a very, very successful business man, had five children and into his third marriage.    I was already  aware of his contentious divorce by his first wife, and learned he had 4 very intelligent, well educated, well brought up, civilized, unspoiled adult children and one youngster by his present wife still attending primary school.    During his news making moments of years ago, this Trump appeared to be many steps beyond arrogant, and seemed to have a brain that caused the problem.

I had to know more about him.  He seemed to me kidlike, one who loved life, not quite knowing who he was, but admired his abilities….of which he had many, including  guts and charm with the vulgar not too far away when angry.   Yet, he had built an empire around the globe….and no American president had ever managed that.

Mr. Trump was definitely NOT A POLITICIAN.   He was too fluid with thought and speech.

I loved it.   He was not a programmed zombie.   He felt.   He fought.  He spoke far more than NEWSPEAK.   He reminded me of so many students I had once taught….back before the REVOLUTION OF THE VULGAR of the 1960s and 1970s, before the era of drugs, open sex, riots, revolution and crime, when they were still children of God, civil,  normal,  healthy Americans, and likable and taught to seek TRUTH.

By late October a year ago, I was convinced Donald J. Trump was, not a greedy, sneaky, ego-driven businessman  seeking the American Presidency.   He simply was a carbon copy of me,  but of  billionaire  status…..HE, WHO  LOVED HIS COUNTRY AND WAS TERRIFIED ABOUT THE DAMAGE  THE FASCIST LEFTISTS, LED BY GENTEEL COMMUNIST-EDUCATED, AMERICA CRITIC, “BLACK RACIST” COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, NOW  PRESIDENT  BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA of the Jermiah Wright HATE AMERICA church,  THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PRESS AND EDUCATION WORLD HAD ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED!

I do believe  many  millions of  the American JudeoChristian community must have felt the same angst…..the same horror, that  these Leftist Democrats, fed by Barack Hussein Obama, now  led by fascist feminist, the crooked Hillary Roddham Clinton would complete the collapse of traditional American freedom.

Pray for a  long and alive Donald Trump incumbency.   Our America needs a lot of fresh air to lead  us out of these stinking leftist swamps from the Atlantic to the Pacific.   Let MEN BECOME MEN AND WOMEN BECOME WOMEN AGAIN at our nation’s universities.



Trump Speech about Flint’s American muddy water and poverty too True to be Censored!

Perhaps the most memorable speech of these last 50 years of American decline was uttered by Donald J. Trump at a Detroit church led by a  black feminist preacher.

The preacher put an end to Mr. Trump’s “politicking shortly” after his unforgetable words describing our American decline at home and abroad over the  decades following President Bill Clinton’s arrogant  NAFTA treaty  to send American industry  outside America’s borders.

Information for colleged Americans ages under 40, Flint is in Michigan….and so is Detroit.  This small area of America  used to be the center of America’s great automobile industries, the home where Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, and American Motors were assembled.

Do listen to or read below  Donald Trump’s eulogy to the death of this American Detroit area past and its contributions to the  freer, more God-fearing  America of yesterday.

“It used to be cars were made in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico,” he said. “Now the cars are made in Mexico, and you can’t drink the water in Flint. That’s not good.”….

“We shouldn’t allow it to happen,” he said. “They’ll make their cars, they’ll employ thousands and thousands of people not from this country and they’ll sell the cars right through our border. No tax, no nothing, and we’ll have nothing but more unemployment in Flint and in Michigan. It’s horrible.”

The feminist ‘minister’ cut short Mr. Trump’s comments, considering them ‘political’ in nature…..

By the nature of the moment these few words by American presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump….will be forever remembered despite the censorship afforded the speaker  by a person whose race and its current  poverty, violence,  and ignorance has been a product of fifty years of black plantation suzerainty to our nation’s racist and sexist-based Democrat Party.

Correction regarding the ‘feminist’ minister:   Dennis Prager referred to this event during his today’s radio show.  He correctly lauded the church’s minister for her non-partisan political position, pointing out she, later in the program, requested the same courtesy from a leftist in the  congregation shouting his leftism.   I missed hearing this equal request when reviewing the video.   I apologize to the fair-minded Reverend.

Wasn’t Our Donald beautiful in his courtesy apologizing to the Reverend!!!…..an important part of his personality our Dennis Prager failed to notice earlier in the political  race.   God Bless You, Dennis!  Not too bad for such a popular American as you becoming  another one of us basket deplorables!


It’s the Same Donald Trump Who Loves His Country, but Better Organized

Ross Kaminsky of the American Spectator has written the following paragraphs below this commentary  with the title “Where Has This Trump Been?”

This Trump has been the same American Donald Trump all along since announcing his candidacy for the US presidency last summer…..as a noted  and very successful American citizen worried about the Obama-Hillary befouled condition of his country…a REAL AMERICAN profoundly worried about the terrible condition of our Obama country TODAY and horrified by the likelihood  corrupt, criminal, crook, the cold, the sleazy snake, Feminist Hillary might follow that most antiAmerican ever to sit in the Oval Office, foreigner Barrack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Trump, never a programmed politician, needed a bit of verbal and content  practice to present  policy together with his humor, honesty, determination, with order and command as if he were building another Trump Tower, but  informing the American public  step by step of the nature and purpose of his  reconstruction plan  to MAKE  AMERICA GREAT AGAIN so all could be clearly  understood by the voting public.

Donald J. Trump is a very, very winsome and intelligent successful business American, if one bothers to think and judge a candidate beyond a political party  establishment’s  habits  and dictate, when that  American political party is presenting the totally dishonorable Hillary Roddham Clinton as their candidate  to replace  once freedom-loving America with its  single party dictatorship union of feminazis, black racists, illegal immigrants, internationalist, greenies, druggies, sociopaths, socialists and communists  .

Please read the following American Spectator article by Ross Kaminsky about the Donald so many of us love and trust to be our America’s 45th President, the only candidate with the abilities to make American great again:

Where Has THIS Trump Been?

Bribing Blacks to Vote Democrat

How is that Investment Going, America?

         *  *  *

TANF and Federal Welfare

 by Michael Tanner and Tad DeHaven


The tragedy of government welfare programs is not just wasted taxpayer money but wasted lives. The effects of welfare in encouraging the break-up of low-income families have been extensively documented. The primary way that those with low incomes can advance in the market economy is to get married, stay married, and work—but welfare programs have created incentives to do the opposite.

The number of single-parent families has risen dramatically since the 1960s. The most important reason for the rise in single-parent families is births to unmarried women. In 1965, less than 8 percent of all births were out of wedlock. Today the figure is 39 percent.22

The policy concern about the increase in out-of-wedlock births is not a question of private morality. The concern is that out-of-wedlock childbearing remains overwhelmingly concentrated at the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Having a child out of wedlock at an early age for someone without career skills can mean a lifetime of poverty.

Of more than 20 major studies of the issue, more than three-quarters show a significant link between welfare benefit levels and out-of-wedlock childbearing.23 Higher benefit levels mean higher out-of-wedlock births. Children living with single mothers are seven times more likely to be poor than those living with two parents.24

Welfare removes some of the negative economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births, and thus encourages more such births. More than 20 percent of single-mothers start on welfare because they have an out-of-wedlock birth,25 and 75 percent of government aid to children through means-tested programs like TANF goes to single-parent families.26Moreover, once on welfare, single mothers find it difficult to get off, and they tend to stay on welfare for longer periods than other recipients.27

Focusing solely on the out-of-wedlock birthrate may actually understate the problem. In the past, women who gave birth out of wedlock frequently married the fathers of their children after the birth. As many as 85 percent of unwed mothers, in the 1950s, ultimately married the fathers of their children.28 Therefore, while technically born out of wedlock, the children were still likely to grow up in intact two-parent families.

However, the increasing availability and value of welfare have made such marriages less attractive for unwed mothers. If the father is unskilled and has poor employment prospects, a welfare check may seem a preferable alternative. Studies indicate that young mothers and pregnant women are less likely to marry the fathers of their children in states with higher welfare benefits.29 Nonetheless, 70 percent of poor single mothers would no longer be in poverty if they married their children’s father.30

Welfare is also likely to entrap the next generation as well. The attitudes and habits that lead to welfare dependency are transmitted the same way as other parent-to-child pathologies, such as alcoholism and child abuse. Although it is true that the majority of children raised on welfare will not receive welfare themselves, the rate of welfare dependence for children raised on it is far higher than for their non-welfare counterparts.

Children raised on welfare are likely to have lower incomes as adults than children not raised on welfare. The more welfare received by a child’s family, the lower that child’s earnings as an adult tend to be, even holding constant such other factors as race, family structure, and education.31 According to one study, nearly 20 percent of daughters from families that were “highly dependent” on welfare became “highly dependent” themselves, whereas only 3 percent of daughters from non-welfare households became “highly dependent” on welfare.32

Disincentives to Work

The choice of welfare over work is often a rational decision based on economic incentives. Empirical studies confirm that welfare is a disincentive for work. For example, an analysis of interstate variation in labor force participation by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Robert Lawson found that such participation declined as welfare benefits increased.33 Similarly, Robert Moffitt of Brown University found that the work effort of welfare recipients was reduced by as much as 30 percent.34

Such studies may understate the work disincentive of welfare because they consider only a small portion of the total package of federal and state welfare benefits. Benefits available to people in the welfare system that are not available to the working poor create an incentive to go on welfare and remain in the program once enrolled.35 For example, one study shows that education and training programs available under TANF may induce people to go on welfare.36

Perhaps most troubling of all is the psychological attitude toward work that can develop among those on welfare. Studies have found that the poor on welfare do not have a strong sense that they need to take charge of their own lives or find work to become self-sufficient.37 Indeed, they often have a feeling that the government has an obligation to provide for them.

Of course, these psychological effects are also true for other government subsidy recipients, including farmers, the elderly, and businesses that are hooked on federal hand-outs of one sort or another. Farmers that are major subsidy recipients, for example, are less likely to make tough decisions to cut costs or diversify their income sources because they know they will be bailed out if market conditions sour on them. It is not healthy for any group in society to depend on government welfare for their long-term survival, whether they are farmers or poor inner-city families.

Relationship to Crime Levels

Children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.38 As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births, it thus also contributes to higher levels of criminal activity.

A Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) report concluded that “the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today.”39 The NAACP’s conclusion is confirmed by additional academic research. For example, research by M. Anne Hill and June O’Neill shows that a 50-percent increase in welfare and food stamp benefits led to a 117-percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.40

Barbara Whitehead noted in an article in the Atlantic Monthly:

The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation’s mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family breakup as the most important source of rising rates of crime.41

Welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young men in society. As author George Gilder noted, “The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family.”42 Marriage and family have long been considered civilizing influences on young men. Whether or not causation can be proven, it is true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior than are other men.43

Replacing Welfare with Private Charity

The 1996 welfare reforms were a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done. The next step should be to transfer full responsibility for funding and administering welfare programs to the states. The states would have freedom to innovate with their low-income programs and would have strong incentives to reduce taxpayer costs and maximize work incentives.

The ultimate reform goal, however, should be to eliminate the entire system of low-income welfare for individuals who are able to work. That means eliminating not just TANF but also food stamps, subsidized housing, and other programs. Individuals unwilling to support themselves through the job market would have to rely on the support of family, church, community, or private charity.

What would happen to the poor if welfare were eliminated? Without the negative incentives created by the welfare state, fewer people would be poor. There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty. Studies suggest that women do make rational decisions about whether to have children, and thus a reduction in welfare benefits would reduce the likelihood of their becoming pregnant or having children out of wedlock.44

In addition, some poor women who had children out of wedlock would put the children up for adoption. The government should encourage that by eliminating the present regulatory and bureaucratic barriers to adoption. Other unmarried women who gave birth would not be able to afford to live independently and they would have to live with their families or boyfriends. Some would choose to marry the fathers of their children.

Despite the positive social effects of ending government welfare, there will still be many people who make mistakes and find themselves in tough situations. Americans are an enormously generous people, and there is a vast amount of private charitable support available, especially for people truly in need.

Private charity is superior to government welfare for many reasons. Private charities are able to individualize their approaches to the circumstances of poor people. By contrast, government programs are usually designed in a one-size-fits-all manner that treats all recipients alike. Most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients.

The eligibility requirements for government welfare programs are arbitrary and cannot be changed to fit individual circumstances. Consequently, some people in genuine need do not receive assistance, while benefits often go to people who do not really need them. Surveys of people with low incomes generally indicate a higher level of satisfaction with private charities than with government welfare agencies.45

Private charities also have a better record of actually delivering aid to recipients because they do not have as much administrative overhead, inefficiency, and waste as government programs. A lot of the money spent on federal and state social welfare programs never reaches recipients because it is consumed by fraud and bureaucracy.

Audits of TANF spending by the Health and Human Services’ Inspector General have found huge levels of “improper payments,” meaning errors, abuse, and fraud. In 2005, the state of New York had an improper TANF payment rate of 28 percent and Michigan had an improper payment rate of 40 percent.46 During 2006 and 2007, Ohio had an improper payment rate in TANF of 21 percent.47 There are similar high levels of waste in other states.48

Another advantage of private charity is that aid is much more likely to be targeted to short-term emergency assistance, not long-term dependency. Private charity provides a safety net, not a way of life. Moreover, private charities may demand that the poor change their behavior in exchange for assistance, such as stopping drug abuse, looking for a job, or avoiding pregnancy. Private charities are more likely than government programs to offer counseling and one-on-one follow-up, rather than simply providing a check.

In sum, private charities typically require a different attitude on the part of recipients. They are required to consider the aid they receive not as an entitlement, but as a gift carrying reciprocal obligations. At the same time, private charities require that donors become directly involved in monitoring program performance.

Those who oppose replacing government welfare with private charity often argue that there will not be enough charitable giving to make up for the loss of government benefits. However, that assumes that private charity would simply recreate existing government programs. But the advantage of private and decentralized charity is that less expensive and more innovative ways of helping smaller groups of truly needy people would be developed.

If large amounts of aid continue to be needed, there is every reason to believe that charitable giving in the nation would increase in the absence of government welfare. In every area of society and the economy, we have seen that government expansion tends to “crowd out” private voluntary activities. So, in reverse, when the government shrinks, private activities would fill in the gaps.

A number of studies have demonstrated such a government crowd-out effect in low-income assistance.49 Charitable giving declined dramatically during the 1970s, as the Great Society programs of the 1960s were expanding. The decline in giving leveled out in the 1980s as welfare spending began to level out and the public was deluged with news stories about supposed cutbacks in federal programs. Then, after the passage of welfare reform in 1996, there was a large spike in private giving.50 Studies have also shown that when particular charities start receiving government funds, there is a decrease in private donations to those charities.51

Americans are the most generous people on earth, contributing more than $300 billion a year to organized private charities. In addition, they volunteer more than 8 billion hours a year to charitable activities, with an estimated value of about $158 billion.52 Americans donate countless dollars and countless efforts toward providing informal help to families, neighbors, and others in need. There is every reason to believe that the elimination of government welfare would bring a very positive response both from recipients of government welfare and from Americans wanting to help those who are truly in need.

Bill Clinton up to NO Good Visiting Loretta Lynch


by J. Christian Adams   at PJMedia:

“Whenever Bill Clinton gets on a plane to meet a woman, he’s usually up to no good.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said her impromptu tarmac summit at Phoenix Sky Harbor was a purely social affair. Golf and grandchildren were on the agenda, she said — and not how a home-brew server crammed with classified information ended up in Bill’s basement.

However, the attorney general normally doesn’t meet with family members of a target in an active FBI criminal investigation.

Hillary is just that — a target in an FBI criminal investigation.

But you’d never know that listening to Attorney General Lynch. She borrowed the narrative of the Hillary campaign when she described the FBI criminal investigation as a “security inquiry.”

Downplaying the FBI criminal investigation is a deliberate communications strategy of the Clinton campaign. It’s a very bad sign that the person who must approve any grand jury referral has adopted Hillary’s dishonest language.”

Please continue the reading about the same old Bill: