• 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

What Are The Childless Fascist Fems at the Nation up to These Days?

We Are Living Through the Moment When Women Unleash Decades of Pent-Up Anger

Let’s hope there’s no going back.

(Please continue reading more from the Nation below:”

https://www.thenation.com/article/we-are-living-through-the-moment-when-women-unleash-decades-of-pent-up-anger/

Advertisements

Time to Repeal Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act!

Time to Repeal the Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act

by Selwyn Duke  at American Thinker:

Question: If someone sells you on something with false advertising and it does the exact opposite of what was promised, are you not entitled to return the product and get a refund?  In fact, if the product caused you harm, should you not in addition be compensated for damages?

Consider that when Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was pushing the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 (S.500) on the Senate floor, he said, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

Actually, he was right.  We now absorb more than a million immigrants annually.

Kennedy next stated, “Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.”

The average yearly number of immigrants prior to ’65 was 250,000.  Even with Common Core math, that’s still less than one million-plus.

Kennedy also claimed, “Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”  His brother, Senator Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), chimed in, “In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States.”

Yet as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) wrote in 2015, “[i]n 1965, whites of European descent [constituted] 84 percent of the U.S. population, while [h]ispanics accounted for 4 percent and Asians for less than 1 percent.  Fifty years on, 62 percent of the U.S. population is white, 18 percent is [h]ispanic, and 6 percent is Asian.  By 2065, just 46 percent of the U.S. population will be white, the [h]ispanic share will rise to 24 percent, Asians will [constitute] 14 percent – and the country will be home to 78 million foreign[-]born, according to Pew projections.”

Kennedy again: “Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.  In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Since the 1965 act took effect, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World.  Moreover, the MPI tells us, “Compared to almost entirely European immigration under the national-origins system [prior to ’65], flows since 1965 have been more than half Latin American and one[] quarter Asian.”

Kennedy summed up, saying the charges he was refuting above were “highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact.  They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship.”

They were actually something else: true.

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a short statement containing more untruths than what the real Lyin’ Ted packed into his immigration bill defense.  It’s not just that he was wrong – it’s that the outcomes were the precise opposite of what he’d promised.  If Kennedy had been a doctor performing a medical procedure, he’d have been sued out of the business.  If he’d been an auto-manufacturer and his pet bill a car model, he’d have had to issue a recall.

So can we finally recall this horrible 1965 immigration act?  Note that even Kennedy tacitly admitted that the act’s ultimate outcomes are undesirable.  He didn’t say, “Flooding the country with one million people per year from economically deprived areas and radically changing the ethnic mix of the U.S. is great.  Let’s do it!”  He passionately claimed that those things wouldn’t happen.

By the way, Kennedy punctuated his prevaricative defense by saying that the charges against the immigration bill “breed hate of our heritage.”  Of course, the balkanization the immigration bill bred is part of the reason our heritage is now so hated.

Speaking of hatred, much is currently directed at President Trump because on Thursday he questioned why we have so much immigration from impoverished nations such as Haiti, as opposed to more newcomers from Norway.  Since this raised many leftists’ ire and with my being the reasonable man I am, I propose a compromise: no immigrants from the Third World or the Old World.  In other words, no immigration, period.

With a population 330 million strong, we have enough people.  With 95 million not in the labor force and robots taking over low-skilled jobs, we don’t need more workers.  With America being balkanized, we don’t need more diversity.  So what does today’s immigration provide?

Oh, yeah – Democrat voters.

Depending on the group, 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants vote Democrat after being naturalized.  Leftists don’t in principle love immigrants or immigration, but they do love electoral domination – and importing foreigners to achieve it suits them fine.

In fact, if 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants voted GOP, the Democrats would be clamoring to admit those reliably socialistic Norwegians.

FBI Fascist Mueller to SPY on Our Donald?

MUELLER LAYS A TRAP

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

“The Washington Post reports that Robert Mueller has told President Trump’s legal team that his office will likely seek an interview with the president. I doubt that Trump’s legal team is surprised. It always seemed inevitable that Mueller would want to interview Trump.

What should the president’s response be? I agree with Alan Dershowitz. He says: “I would never let the prosecution interview my client.”

There are two reasons why, in this context, allowing such an interview is a particularly bad idea. First, the client is Donald Trump. He is notorious for imprecision with words and for shooting from the hip. He is probably uncoachable as a witness. Representing him at a deposition or similar proceeding strikes me as a lawyer’s worst nightmare.

Second, the prosecution is Robert Mueller and his team of Trump-hating partisans. Their purpose in interviewing Trump won’t just be to gather the facts needed to wrap up their investigation. In my view, it will also be to induce Trump to make statements the prosecution can use to build a case that the president has lied to the prosecution.

Accordingly, Trump’s legal team should resist being questioned by Mueller’s team. There is precedent for such resistance. As the Post reminds us, Bill Clinton resisted being questioned by Ken Starr’s team, though eventually he was compelled to testify.

In the likely event of a dispute over whether Trump must testify, one issue will be whether the information prosecutors seek can be obtained through another means. In this case, Mueller likely will be cross-checking Trump’s version of events with the versions of others, such as James Comey. In a sense the information will have already been obtained via, say, Comey, Michael Flynn, or Jared Kushner. But in a practical sense, only Trump can provide Trump’s version of what happened.

As noted, though, I believe the purpose of the interview will be more to catch Trump in something Mueller’s team can characterize as a lie than to obtain Trump’s version of the facts. Hence the need to be especially wary….”

Bill Kristol….A Champion Judas of Today’s Democratic America

Follow the American  Brat our conservative  Judas Bill Kristol, as he bullies his noise entertaining the nations neofascists :

 

Why is the GOP Senate Abetting Fascist Schumer’s Sabotaging Trump’s DOJ Appointments?

SCHUMER SUCCEEDS IN OBSTRUCTING KEY DOJ NOMINEES

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

The Washington Post reports that “nearly a year into President Trump’s administration, the Justice Department lacks Senate-confirmed appointees in leadership posts running the national security, criminal, civil rights and other key divisions.” “The problem shows no sign of abating anytime soon,” the Post adds.

The Post is correct. Not only are key leadership posts vacant, but it now appears they will remain vacant until at least the Spring.

Moreover, this creates a serious problem. William Barr, a former Attorney General told the Post that “anyone who has worked in an administration knows how damaging it is” not to have key leadership positions filled.

As the Post’s Matt Zapotosky notes, Republicans control the Senate. So why are these nominations languishing?

The primary reason is obstruction by Senate Democrats. They have used procedural tactics to delay the confirmation of President Trump’s nominees. Chuck Schumer admitted as much to the Post, defending his obstruction by pointing to “substantive concerns,” as if Republicans had no substantive concerns with Obama nominees who were confirmed more swiftly.

Schumer says there is no department that needs more scrutiny than the DOJ. Arguably. But when a nominee who name the president put forward many months ago has received a hearing and a committee vote, the Democrats have had a full opportunity scrutinize him.

Yet, a number of such nominees apparently are months away from confirmation. Why? As I understand it, the reason is because Majority Leader McConnell agreed with Schumer that nominees who cleared committee, without Democratic support must be voted out of committee again — surely, a pointless exercise. Since Democrats declined to vote for most of President Trump’s key DOJ nominees when they were approved by he Senate Judiciary Committee, this means more delay.

Schumer told the Post “there is bipartisan opposition to many of the nominees due to the lack of independence that many of the nominees and appointees have demonstrated.” Rubbish. Most of these nominees cleared committee on a straight party line vote. These nominees are being held up not because of “bipartisan opposition,” but because Schumer has succeeded in stalling the process.

Meanwhile, Chai Feldblum, the main architect of President Obama’s radical LGBT policy, apparently is on the fast track to confirmation for a third term as EEOC commissioner. Naturally, she encountered no Democratic opposition and, I gather, no Republican on the Health Education, Labor & Pensions Committee has opposed her, either.

Thus, as I understand it, Feldblum’s nomination can proceed to the Senate floor without delay. Indeed, she is sufficiently confident about her prospects for prompt confirmation to have removed the obligatory picture of President Trump from her office.

It seems inconceivable that, with a Republican in the White House and a GOP majority in the Senate, a left-wing LBGT activist could be sailing towards confirmation as EEOC commissioner, while a host of Republican nominees to vital positions at the DOJ are cooling their heels, waiting to get through committee a second time with no full Senate vote in sight. Yet, that appears to be the situation.

Chuck Schumer is earning his pay. Senate Republicans, not so much.

The PIRANHA, MICHAEL WOLFF

Michael Wolff, From Local Media Scourge to National Newsmaker

by Michael M. Grynbaum  at the New York Times:

“Michael Wolff has, for years, been a prime piranha in the Manhattan media pond, using his caustic columns to tear into his lunchmates at Michael’s, the Midtown mogul canteen, and cutting a memorable figure at star-speckled dinner parties, clad in Charvet ties and shirts by the London haberdashery Browns.

His arsenic-laced prose was well known among powerful figures like Rupert Murdoch, whose life Mr. Wolff chronicled in a 2008 biography that left its subject displeased. But his nose for first-class gossip kept the machers circling.

Now, the Wolff formula has been applied to a far bigger canvas: presidential politics. It is proving to be his most successful provocation to date.

“Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” his insider account of the year he spent reporting from the West Wing, has drawn denunciations from the White House lectern, threatened the career of the Breitbart News leader Stephen K. Bannon and turned Mr. Wolff, an overnight sensation at age 64, into one of the world’s most famous journalists.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers threatened to sue Mr. Wolff’s publisher, Henry Holt, if it did not halt the book’s release and apologize for its contents — an extraordinary attempt by a sitting president to stifle critical coverage. Henry Holt responded by moving up the book’s release by four days. Mr. Wolff may be looking at his first No. 1 best seller.

 

Even for the brazenly confident Mr. Wolff, a status-mad needler with a habit of being ejected from expensive restaurants, this is a new level of notoriety. He is accustomed to angering the Manhattan power elite, not the leader of the free world. “It’s almost a natural evolution of Michael Wolff, that one day the president would be talking about him from the White House,” said Janice Min, the former editor of The Hollywood Reporter, where Mr. Wolff is a columnist.

His acidic portrayal of Mr. Trump as a president in over his head, disdained by aides who are astounded by his lack of fitness for the job, has dominated headlines and social media for days, along with his purportedly verbatim quotes from figures like Mr. Bannon and Mr. Murdoch dismissing Mr. Trump as a fool.

But Mr. Wolff has picked up as many foes as fans during his years as a slashing columnist — perhaps more, even — and critics have raised questions about the veracity of his reporting, saying that he has a history of being casual with his facts.

“Historically, one of the problems with Wolff’s omniscience is that while he may know all, he gets some of it wrong,” David Carr, the late New York Times media columnist, wrote in 2008, reviewing a Wolff book that, he pointed out, contained errors.

The excerpts from “Fire and Fury” that appeared this week have been raked over for mistakes. Mr. Wolff writes that CNN reported on Mr. Trump being accused of an exotic sexual practice with prostitutes in an intelligence dossier; in fact, BuzzFeed News reported those details. He also describes Mr. Trump as being unaware of the identity of John Boehner, the former Republican House speaker; in fact, the pair had golfed together long before Mr. Wolff began visiting the White House.

Other details have been disputed. Thomas Barrack Jr., a close Trump friend, denied that he said the president was “not only crazy, he’s stupid,” as Mr. Wolff reports. On Thursday, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said the book contained “mistake, after mistake, after mistake.”

Mr. Wolff, who declined to be interviewed for this article, stands by his reporting. And his publisher is apparently undaunted by the president’s threats. “We see ‘Fire and Fury’ as an extraordinary contribution to our national discourse, and are proceeding with the publication of the book,” Henry Holt said in a statement on Thursday.

Mr. Bannon has not disputed his quotes in the book, even as the material has damaged him politically and perhaps professionally: Several Republican politicians have distanced themselves from him, and one of his key financial backers, the hedge fund heiress Rebekah Mercer, a funder of Breitbart, said on Thursday that she did not support his statements.

Ms. Min wrote on Twitter that she attended a dinner party that Mr. Wolff describes in detail, including a verbatim conversation between Mr. Bannon and Roger Ailes, the now-deceased former chairman of Fox News.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, she added, “People sometimes don’t like what he says, but I think one of the things that’s unnerving about Michael is he’s loyal only to the story.” Of her own collaborations with Mr. Wolff, she added, “nobody ever disputed the facts that were included on a piece.”

Raised in the New Jersey suburbs, the son of an advertising executive (his father) and a newspaper reporter (his mother), Mr. Wolff entered journalism early, as a copy boy for The New York Times. (He would later skewer The Times, along with other mainstream news organizations, as stolid and biased.) He has been a columnist and a media executive, writing a memoir about his time running a failed internet start-up, and once trying to purchase New York magazine with partners including Harvey Weinstein.

His friends say he relishes a scrap. Ms. Min recalled him grinning broadly after a party, telling her, “Everywhere I turned was someone who hated me.”

Sometimes, the spotlight has found Mr. Wolff, who became a running character on gossip websites and the city’s tabloids. His personal life caused a minor scandal after a late-life divorce, amid a relationship with a writer about 30 years his junior. (He and the writer, Victoria Floethe, now have a 2-year-old daughter.)

Mr. Wolff also became friendly with Mr. Trump, making a cameo in a pilot that never aired for a Trump-branded reality-TV project, “Trump Town Girls,” which involved beauty contestants selling real estate. After the election, he secured Mr. Trump’s trust, in part, by relentlessly criticizing other reporters’ coverage of the president-elect.

Soon, Mr. Wolff was spending days at the Hay-Adams hotel in Washington, a block from the White House, where he was routinely spotted walking into the West Wing. He dined with Trump aides at the nearby Bombay Club. His book, he writes in an author’s note, is based on about 200 interviews, including at least one conversation with the president.

“Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue,” Mr. Wolff writes. “Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of this book.”

Graydon Carter, Mr. Wolff’s former editor at Vanity Fair, wrote in an email that he was not surprised Mr. Wolff “would write an entertaining book.”

“The mystery,” Mr. Carter added, “is why the White House allowed him in the door.”

The Fascism of today’s American Press

Fascism:  any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition.

Accordingly, name one relatively  well read American  news publication that doesn’t hammer President Donald J. Trump nearly every issue!

The overwhelming majority of national “news” from  newspapers in America today is sold by college-crippled  leftist  professionals from  three fascistic national  American   Obamaling loving,  Soviet-like ‘journals’…… The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

Nearly all of major American television sources from coast to coast  also sell only  college-crippled, Obamaling loving, fascistic Soviet-like,   one Party politics whether news telling or “humor” whether news or for laughs.

Nearly all of our America’s educational institutions have also  become fascistic screamers and atheist preachers “religiously” selling leftism, antiAmericanism,  projecting their anti-truths to destroy the truths of  present and past.   In addition they  sell the arrival of twenty million foreigners, nearly all unlearned,  unskilled, to vote whether legal or not, to secure one Party  fascistic control of our already weakened and poorly educated America already owned in their Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary California, Oregon, and Washington to be…. where the know-better Hillary  “Democrat” neoStalinists can dictate One Party  life at every  level “for the good of the country”.

Our courageous, bright, skilled problem solver, totally American, skilled  builder  President Donald J. Trump, has had to endure leftism’s   poison  and evil from  every Obamaling fascism’s corner in America, about 99% Democrat Party and 30 % Romney type Republican Party aristocrats who apparently  went to school or college to study  how they can best learn to hate honesty, forthrightness, courage,  and white males in four years or less.   Fasicism needs them!