• 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

The Dem’s Wave of Political Correct Fascism Now Sweeping Across America



by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

We live in a world that is almost too stupid for words. Here is the latest: the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Flyers have stopped playing Kate Smith’s iconic recording of “God Bless America.” Why? Because Smith recorded a couple of other songs, during the 1930s, that some liberals now consider objectionable. The Washington Post takes this idiocy seriously:

The voice of singer Kate Smith is rapidly disappearing from the world of professional sports. The New York Yankees reportedly confirmed Thursday that they were no longer playing Smith’s version of “God Bless America” during the seventh inning of home games, after the team learned of a Depression-era song she’d recorded that raised questions of possible racism. The Philadelphia Flyers followed suit Friday, distancing themselves from Smith by taking her famed rendition of “God Bless America” out of their playlist and covering a bronze statue of the singer near their arena as they investigate the matter.

Years ago, Kate Smith’s “God Bless America” was the Flyers’ good luck charm. Hence the statue of her, which has been weirdly covered:

The Yankees have been playing Smith’s “God Bless America” since 2001, but no longer. What’s the problem? Smith recorded a song in 1931 called “That’s Why Darkies Were Born.” Is that a racist song? Apparently not, since the Communist black activist Paul Robeson also recorded it. Here are the lyrics:

Someone had to pick the cotton
Someone had to plant the corn,
Someone had to slave and be able to sing
That’s why darkies were born.
Someone had to laugh at trouble
Though he was tired and worn,
Had to be contented with any old thing
That’s why darkies were born.

How racist can you get?

The whole controversy is, obviously, idiotic. Even if it were true that Kate Smith recorded a “racist” song by the standards of 80 years later–the other “questionable” song was part of a 1933 movie–that is an absurd reason to ban “God Bless America.” Who cares what other songs Smith sang?

The real objection, I think, is not to Kate Smith. It is to both God and America. Any time liberals can suppress references to either or both, they try to do so.




God Bless America? No, Please Don’t!



Note:  I, ghr, was almost eleven when World War II finally came to an end.  I couldn’t read books, but I could read newspaper articles, maps, cutlines, encyclopedias, National Geographics from 1920s to 1940, and any news items that covered the war or history.   I had two cousins from the  German part of my mother’s family in the Navy on the Japanese front.   Both survived the War.

During the war I heard Kate Smith’s “God Bless America” on radio every day as I recall.    Often at the movies on Sundays this Kate Smith  recording would be played before the main movie immediately after Wartime Movietone News had shown the slaughters at Guadalcanal in the Pacific and/or the boot of Italy.   Mother made certain I had a nickel available for the cause….The movie itself cost a dime….which  was only five cents short of a vital loaf of bread I used to buy at Mrs. Sandy’s Bakery in St. Paul’s Highland Village…..Certain foods, especially meats and  gasoline were heavily rationed.

My dad had bought a second hand 1941 Plymouth four door in September that year…replacing a 1936 four door Ford sedan with shades on the back side windows.  The Plymouth sat in the garage throughout the war.

No one was fat in those days.  The fattest person I ever saw during the war was Kate Smith when she sang our Nation’s song “God Bless America” prelude to the movie!



Do Dem Fascists Already Control Fact Checking in America?


 by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

To my knowledge, every purported fact checker in the United States is on the left–Snopes, PolitiFact, the Washington Post, the Associated Press. If there is a neutral or conservative fact checker operating–other than sites on the free internet like Power Line–I don’t know who it is.

Snopes is not a sophisticated operation. It has fallen for satires on many occasions, purporting to fact-check what are obviously jokes. In at least a couple of cases, Snopes has fallen for Babylon Bee parodies. This instance is interesting because Snopes has finally caught on to the fact that the Babylon Bee is a satire site, but “fact-checks” it anyway:

Did U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Repeatedly Guess ‘Free’ on TV Show ‘The Price is Right?’

Now, come on. Does Snopes seriously think that anyone saw the Bee’s story and believed that Ocasio-Cortez went on The Price Is Right (which apparently still exists, to my surprise) and guessed that EVERY SINGLE THING IS FREE? Yes. Snopes actually believes that, or pretends to, even though in fact, it got the joke:

In mid-April 2019, an image supposedly showing U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez guessing that the cost of an item was “free” during an appearance on the daytime television game show “The Price is Right” started circulating on social media:

This is not a genuine photograph of Ocasio-Cortez on the show. This image was created for a satirical article that was originally published by The Babylon Bee.

Really? No kidding? AOC wasn’t a contestant on The Price Is Right? And she didn’t think a new bedroom set was free? Who knew?

Snopes’s fear, apparently, is that some people who see the “Price Is Right” graphic on Facebook will take it seriously, even though it was created satirically by the Bee. In other words: Americans are too stupid to get the most blindingly obvious joke. And American politics turn largely on humorous memes that are propagated on Facebook.

Right. To be charitable, though, we probably should note that Snopes’s editors have repeatedly failed to understand the Babylon Bee’s humor. So perhaps it makes some kind of sense that Snopes sees satire, as reproduced in Facebook memes, as a threat to the republic. Or a threat to the Democratic Party, anyway.


Snopes: Fact-Checker of Jokes

McClatchy “Well Known For Publishing False Stories”, Being Sued For Publishing False Stories!


(Review the defamation pix and claim below….)

The only purpose of McClatchy’s story was to put Congressman Nunes’s name in a headline along with the words “yacht,” “cocaine,” “prostitutes” and “fundraiser.” In fact, he had nothing to do with the episode. Nunes is a limited partner in a limited partnership that owns a winery. The winery has a yacht, and donated an evening on board the yacht to a charitable auction. (No good deed goes unpunished.) The guy who bought the evening on the yacht at the charity auction apparently threw a party that included cocaine and prostitutes. Devin Nunes had no knowledge of it and nothing to do with it.

The whole story was a politically-inspired fraud. But McClatchy’s fake news spread widely in newspapers (“A new report links California Republican Congressman Devin Nunes to a lawsuit concerning a Napa winery’s San Francisco Bay cruise that allegedly featured prostitutes and cocaine”) and social media (“Devin Nunes just got caught up in a disgusting yacht, cocaine, prostitute scandal”).

The incident happened in 2015 and was reported then, but McClatchy’s Fresno Bee made a major story of it in 2018, apparently in hopes of defeating Nunes in his re-election bid.

There is much more in the Complaint. Among other things, the role of political operative Liz Mair (who says on Linked In: “What do I do for these clients? Anonymously smear their opposition on the internet”).

What are Nunes’s chances of winning? Close to zero, I assume. Under current defamation law, I think it is almost impossible for a public official to win a defamation case no matter how egregious the facts are. My hope is that Nunes’s case survives long enough to enable some discovery. It would be fun to look at the email traffic at McClatchy to see why they chose to resurrect the 2015 “yacht” story just in time for the 2018 election campaign, for example. And whether they acknowledged in writing that they targeted Nunes because his committee was investigating Obama administration misdeeds.

There is one other hope, I suppose: if President Trump gets another Supreme Court nomination, it is possible that the Court might revisit the constitutional straitjacket in which it has placed the common law of defamation. That would be a good thing, from which Devin Nunes might possibly benefit.


The Constant Lying Makes Our American Leftists Feminists and FASCISTS!

The Lies Leftists Tell about Hate Crimes

By William Sullivan  at  American Thinker:


When confronted with an immediate question in the wake of the news about Jussie Smollett having fabricated the hate crime he allegedly suffered, Cory Booker was calmly reserved with his comments, saying he would “withhold [judgment] until all the information actually comes out.”

It was certainly a curious response, because he initially had no such reservations or skepticism regarding Smollett’s farcical story about two MAGA-hatted white guys carrying bleach and a noose at 2 A.M. in sub-zero temperatures, waiting to violently remind any passing black guy that the streets of Chicago are somehow “MAGA country.”  But what’s even more curious is that Booker continued defending the predetermined narrative of white racism by saying that “we actually know, in this country, since 9/11, that the majority of terrorist attacks on our soil have been right-wing terrorist attacks, and the majority of them have been white supremacist attacks.”

Like you, I’d never before heard anyone refer to Jussie Smollett’s alleged attack as a “terrorist attack” until Cory Booker invoked those words.  Why did he?

What Cory Booker was referencing, and the “since 9/11” statement seems to be a dead giveaway, is likely the data collected in a well known study conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggesting that “right-wing” terrorist attacks occur more frequently than Islamic ones.

Though that study has its own issues, which I’ve highlighted before, comparing right-wing terrorism to Islamic terrorism is nothing more than a red herring in this case.  The narrative that Jussie Smollett’s hoax attack was meant to prove is that Trump’s presidency has led to a massive increase in white Americans committing hate crimes against minorities unlike anything we’ve seen in decades.

Hate crime data don’t actually support that narrative, however, and that’s likely why Cory Booker, when put on the spot, decided to cite an altogether unrelated study about terrorism.  The raw data on hate crimes, as compiled by the FBI, simply don’t suggest that white hate crimes are uniquely on the rise, despite the illusion being presented to the American people that they are.

In 2009, for example, the FBI statistics show that there were 2,724 “anti-black” hate crimes committed, 1,503 of which were committed at the hands of white offenders.  In 2017, which year contains the latest data provided by the FBI, that number decreased by roughly 13.5% to 2,358 at the hands of 1,241 white offenders.

Inversely, in 2009, anti-white hate crimes were at 652 and saw an increase to 844 in 2017 — nearly a 30% increase, which includes a 26% increase in anti-white hate crimes by black offenders.

This general point should be simple enough.  From the year after Obama’s election to the year after Trump’s election, the number of anti-black hate crimes decreased, while the number of anti-white hate crimes increased.

It’s important to note that all hate crime had dropped by 2014, but that year signified a stunning reversal of a declining trend going back to at least 2006.  In 2006, there were 9,080 total hate crimes tallied by the FBI.  In 2009, there were 7,789, and by 2014, there were 6,418.

Something happened at that moment, however, that reversed that trend across the board, in nearly every measurable category.

In 2015, there were 6,885 hate crimes recorded by the FBI.  In 2017, that number indeed spiked to 8,437.  But while there was an 11% increase in anti-black hate crimes recorded during that timeframe, it also coincided with a 15% increase in anti-white hate crimes.

Interestingly, between 2015 and 2017, there was only a 1% increase in known white offenders committing anti-black hate crimes, despite there being a clearly correlating ~13% increase in known black offenders committing anti-white hate crimes.

A significant driver of that curious discrepancy is that the number of offenses where the race was “unknown” in anti-black hate crime had jumped by ~33% between 2015 and 2017.

We like to look at these hate crime data and assume that these are proven or solved crimes we are talking about.  They are not.  According to the FBI methodology, “the term known offender does not imply that the suspect’s identity is known”; rather, it implies that “some aspect of the suspect was identified.”

In other words, if Jussie Smollett had not been caught fabricating his attack, the incident would have likely been recorded by the Chicago police and provided to the FBI as an anti-black hate crime at the hands of “known white offenders.”

How thin must the evidence of all these additional crimes be, we might ask, if the race of the offender is altogether “unknown”?

To say fabricated hate crimes can occur is a gross understatement, and to say hate crimes are far more often fabricated by individuals in minority demographics, where victimhood often amounts to social currency in the media, is just simple logic.

Andy Ngo has done the yeoman’s work of compiling a large list of recent hate crime hoaxes, all of which involve “victims” who fit neatly in the intersectional hierarchy of victimhood having fabricated a hate crime.  Rarely, if ever, is it the inverse of those circumstances.

If this many hate crime hoaxes can be identified, how many undetected hoaxes make it into FBI hate crime statistics?  A few hundred?  A thousand or more?  It’s impossible to know.

In short, hate crime data are incredibly unreliable, and they certainly present more animosity toward minorities than actually exists in America.  The only question is how much more.

Hate crime law is all ridiculous nonsense on its face.  Crimes are crimes, and hate crime laws arbitrarily suggest that some crimes are worse than others based upon the rationale leading to the crime rather than judgment based upon the severity of the crime itself.  Buried within these cited statistics above are examples of intimidation, vandalism, rape, arson, theft, assault, and murder.  The distinctions among those actual crimes should mean everything, but for mass consumption, they’re all just labeled “hate crimes,” with the supposed impetus of bigotry as the primary feature worthy of note.  These crimes are sculpted into broad, misleading statistics that leftists can use to signify that America is a hateful place where demographic minorities are unfairly targeted as victims of crimes.

And even with the benefit of their subjective data constructs and media support, leftists still cannot present an intelligent argument to defend their narrative, because their own data and reality completely destroy it.

So instead, you can just expect them to continue calling white people terrorists.



Greasy Fats Nadler in 1998 vs. Greasier New York Nadler Today

Nadler In 1998: Of Course You Can’t Release Grand-Jury Testimony In Prosecutor’s Report

Nothing is more consistent about partisan warfare in the Beltway than inconsistency. Today’s case in point comes from 1998 (and from Jeff Dunetz), when House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) objected to the idea that everything found by an independent prosecutor should get published for all to see. Nadler told Charlie Rosethat Ken Starr’s report might contain “all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” including “statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses.” Besides, Nadler argued at the time, releasing grand-jury material violated federal law.

NADLER: Well, we were just– the House was just reassembling today. We haven’t been in session for a month, so people were just arriving. I just got here in mid-afternoon, after having a series of meetings in New York. But we did get the report, which is now in the hands of the sergeant-at-arms under armed guard. It’s 36 boxes. We’re told it’s two copies, so it means 18 boxes per copy. There is, I gather, a 400- or 500-page report and the balance is appendices and supporting materials.

Now, Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. So, I assume what’s going to have to happen before anything else happens is that somebody — the staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority member — is going to have to go over this material, at least the 400 or 500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is, as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all. Now, the House Rules Committee will be meeting overnight, and I presume that we will vote tomorrow probably on a recommended rule as to how to handle the report.

Emphases mine. If that sounds familiar, it should; William Barr and others have made the same arguments about the contents of the special counsel report from Robert Mueller. On top of that, the Department of Justice has specific policies that prohibit the release of investigative material involving anyone who hasn’t been indicted. James Comey did that twice and got fired over it. That is why Trey Gowdy argued last week that the Mueller report shouldn’t be released in any significant form, public curiosity be damned. The executive summary should suffice for public consumption.

There’s a goose/gander argument here, at least at first blush. Starr ended up releasing a significant amount of material in his final report (which ended up being sold as a book), so one argument would be that to do otherwise now would be inconsistent. Also, as noted above, Comey did it to Hillary Clinton, although he got fired for it, too. Both of these are easily parried, however. In the latter case, the FBI and DoJ had been leaking like sieves in this investigation until Mueller took over the case and imposed an impressive amount of discipline on it. As for Starr, he operated under a different statute that didn’t require him to answer to the DoJ or follow its policies. And it was Starr’s investigation that motivated Congress to get rid of that earlier independent-prosecutor statute and replace it with the more accountable special counsel office to which Mueller got appointed in this case.

At any rate, don’t expect Nadler 2019 to be swayed by Nadler 1998, even if confronted by the latter, or any of those who still hold out hope of tripping up Donald Trump over Russiagate. They have rationalized away these objections long ago, as have Nadler’s House colleagues who are also leftovers from that period. The nature of 6(E) material hasn’t changed, but Nadler’s ambitions have. That’s all the consistency we can expect from Beltway veterans.



Obama’s Fascistic Tricks of His Trade to Be Exposed?

Why didn’t Obama do more to counter Russia’s interference in our election?


What Are Some American Leftist Fascists Up To These Days? Let’s Try ESPN’s Keith Olbermann!

Man Receives ‘Verbal Attacks’ After Keith Olbermann Tells Followers To Make ‘The Rest Of His Life A Living Hell’

A hunter in Mississipi received “verbal attacks” after being singled out by ESPN commentator Keith Olbermann on Twitter. Earlier today Olbermann freaked out over a minor story about a hunter shooting an unusual white turkey during turkey hunting season. Olbermann called for the author of the story to be fired and said of Hunter Waltman, the man who shot the turkey, “we should do our best to make sure the rest of his life is a living hell.” (h/t Caleb Hull)

That implied threat didn’t go over well with anyone, including Olbermann’s employer. Fox News reports ESPN has spoken to himabout the incident but there aren’t any additional details. Something must have happened though because Olbermann deleted the tweet and apologized:

Keith Olbermann


I am an opponent of trophy hunting and remain so, but nobody should feel threatened. This was anything but my intent, so I unreservedly apologize to Mr. Waltman for this tweet.

Needless to say, this is a lie. When someone encourages a million people to make your life a living hell, that’s a threat. And sure enough, Hunter Waltman says he received messages from people who hoped something bad would happen to him. From the Clarion-Ledger:

Waltman said he is receiving verbal attacks due to Olbermann’s actions. While no one directly threatened to harm him, some said they hope harm comes his way.

“I didn’t like the idea of that too much,” Waltman said. “I don’t think a lot of people would like to be called out on social media like that, especially (by someone) with so many followers.

“They text me all kinds of stuff. If he (Olbermann) hadn’t done that, none of this would have happened.”…

“To tell you the truth, it seemed like a threat to me,” Waltman said. “Make (my) life ‘a living hell?’ That seems like a threat to me. I’d be glad to see him fired. He went overboard.”

As always, I don’t support firing people for having bad opinions. But in this case, it’s actually Olbermann trying to get someone fired for an opinion (the author of the story). Also, as Waltman said, what Olbermann tweeted went well beyond expressing an opinion about hunting. He was trying to get a mob worked enough to generate some real-life misery for a complete stranger and he succeeded. That’s despicable and I hope ESPN’s talk with him made it clear he has used up his only pass.

Finally, the punchline of this story is that Olbermann himself once starred in a commercial selling turkey sandwiches for Boston Market. So apparently trophy hunting a turkey is cause for making someone’s life hell but getting paid to tell people to eat turkey sandwiches is just fine.