• 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

Con Artist Mueller to Offer Immunity to Another “Hillaryite”, Tony Podesta?

Tucker Carlson: Mueller’s Giving Immunity To Tony Podesta

According to Tucker Carlson, the special counsel investigation of nefarious Russian meddling in the 2016 election has just flipped a key witness in the biggest trial on their docket. And the person who got the immunity deal is … a member of the Trump campaign? A family insider? Don Jr’s personal aide’s cousin’s sister on her mother’s side? Nope — it’s longtime Clintonista Tony Podesta, whose brother John was both a victim of hacking in 2016 and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

If true, this isn’t going to do much to instill confidence in the non-political nature of Robert Mueller’s probe. But is it true?

Tucker Carlson announced that Robert Mueller offered Tony Podesta immunity to testify against Paul Manafort.

Tony Podesta, founder of the now-shuttered Podesta Group and brother to former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, has been offered immunity by special counsel Robert Mueller to testify against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, according to a report.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson announced on his show Thursday evening that two separate sources confirmed the offer.

“In other words, for a near identical crime, Bill and Hillary’s friend could escape and emerge completely unscathed while Paul Manafort may rot in jail. Only one of them made the mistake of chairing Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” Carlson said.

So far, this is the only reporting on an immunity deal for Podesta. It’s hardly the only reporting on Podesta’s connection to the Manafort case, however. He had to step down from his firm last October after it became apparent that Mueller had taken a keen interest in his work with Manafort. Podesta’s legal team threatened Carlson with legal action for discussing it, but that went nowhere as other media outlets picked up the story.

One can understand the interest Mueller might have in Podesta, and therefore the interest Podesta would have in saving his own skin:

Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta’s company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine’s image in the West.

The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort’s role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA. …

The ECMU was reportedly backed by the Party of Regions, the pro-Russian and oligarch-funded Ukrainian political party for which Manafort worked as a consultant, and which paid his firm millions. Viktor Yanukovych of the Party of Regions, a Manafort client, was president of Ukraine during the ECMU campaign, which ran from 2012 to 2014. He fled the country in 2014.

Neither firm registered under FARA for this work until far afterward, as the FARA law was widely ignored until Mueller saw it as a lever to press forward on his investigation. That came as a shock to the Beltway, enough so that Podesta’s firm disbanded after his resignation, and a flurry of updates ensued from K Street firms.

It’s entirely possible that Mueller could have offered Podesta immunity in order to nail Manafort. Prosecutors make those kinds of deals all the time. However, one cannot ignore the politics of this investigation, either. If Mueller’s cutting deals to let Clintonistas off the hook in order to get to Trump — the clear intent of prosecuting Manafort and Rick Gates — then Trump’s supporters will have a field day with this immunity offer. Mueller has to know this too, and so perhaps it could mean that there’s really nothing coming down the pike for Trump and other campaign figures.

That’s if Carlson got this one right. We’ll see.

Addendum: One point to note here on Carlson’s commentary. The case against Manafort was already well developed long before Manafort briefly served as Trump’s campaign chair. The DoJ for some reason never pressed the case, but they had it pretty well ready to go as early as 2014. Whatever “mistake” Manafort made, it wasn’t chairing Trump’s campaign.


Our President Trump’s Battle Against the Obama Fascistic Left

Walk a Mile in Trump’s Shoes

by Brian C. Joondeph  at American Thinker:

President Donald Trump is not a figure many feel empathetic toward.  Nearly half the country hates him.  Hate may be too mild a word.  They despise him and equate him with the worst of human history, Hitler and the Nazis.  They want him destroyed, literally and politically, along with his family.  This includes Democrats, the media, and many Republicans.

His resignation or impeachment wouldn’t be enough.  He needs to face treason charges and punishment at the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad, along with his family.  His supporters are guilty by association and must face similar justice.

But in To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch told Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”  This is the essence of empathy.  You can’t understand someone until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.

Let’s for a moment climb inside Donald Trump’s skin and walk around in it.

Trump was a successful businessman, a billionaire with properties, resorts, golf courses, and hotels around the world.  He owned a huge private jet, only a half-step down from the one he currently uses.  He has a beautiful wife and family; his children are smart and following in his business footsteps.  He hosted a wildly successful television show, was a household name and a darling of the media before he decided to run for president.

Yet he gave that up.  Why would he do that?  As a septuagenarian, did his ego demand one more even bigger prize?  Or, as some have speculated, was he approached by a group of patriots several years ago and told in no uncertain terms about the Deep State and America’s trajectory into the abyss?  Perhaps he was told that he was the only one who could run for president, have a chance of winning, then slow or stop America’s decline.

Did he, as a consummate patriot, take up the challenge?  Someday we may learn why he gave up a comfortable and successful life in exchange for years of scorn and derision.

In Hillary Clinton, he fought a political opponent who was challenging, not personally, but for what and whom she represented: the establishments of both parties, the donor classes, the media, Hollywood, academia, and the Clinton machine that has been active since her husband’s presidency two decades earlier.

He worked his butt off, campaigning around the clock.  From his tweets at 4 A.M. to his campaign rallies in multiple states in a single day, he worked harder than any candidate in recent memory.  His opponent did the opposite.  Sipping chardonnay and napping, she listened to her cheerleaders in the media, fawning over her every utterance, telling her repeatedly that she would win the election easily, and doing most of the campaigning for her.

Media coverage of Trump was and still is over 90 percent negative.  His own party worked against his election, the party he represented and brought victory to.  The big names in the GOP tried to undermine him – McCain, Romney, Bush, Ryan – all past presidents or candidates, the heavy hitters in the GOP, not to mention the Republican NeverTrump whiners.

Then there was the Deep State, the unelected and unaccountable three-letter agencies, conspiring and working against Donald Trump, not only as a candidate, but also as president.  They spied on his campaign, creating fictional dossiers used to justify FBI surveillance of Trump, his entire campaign staff, and his family.  It was a concerted effort by the leadership of these agencies to prevent his election, then “an insurance policy” to destroy his presidency as a Plan B.

Phony accusations or Russian collusion tainted his presidency, providing a cloud over his election, much like a successful athlete winning a medal or championship fair and square and against all odds, then having his victory tainted with the accusation of rigging or cheating.  How would such a winner react to claims that he didn’t really win?  Especially when he had worked so hard for victory and had so little help in the process.

The Russian collusion story taints Trump’s successful campaign and election.  The Mueller investigation and drumbeat from the media share the common refrain that Trump is an illegitimate president, that he cheated to win, conspiring with an enemy country.  This is the same country, ironically, that so many of Trump’s critics were in love with only a few years ago.

Trump has been working hard as president, accomplishing more in his first 500 days than any of his predecessors – tax cuts, a roaring economy, record unemployment, a reversal of 50 years of failed policy toward North Korea, strong judicial picks, and so on.  Does he get any credit from the media or his own party?  Hardly.  Instead, scorn and insults continue to rain down on his head.  Wouldn’t you be frustrated and bitter standing in his shoes?

Last is the Mueller indictment of 12 phantom Russians over supposedly hacking the DNC computers – computers the FBI did not even examine.  Indictments are simply accusations, not verdicts in a court of law, and were announced the last business day before Trump’s Russia summit.  What a coincidence of timing, painting Trump in a box where he has to either validate the Russian collusion narrative or question the veracity of the U.S. intelligence community.  Always the contrarian, he chose the latter option during his press conference with Putin.

Does Trump fully trust the intelligence services, the same ones that conspired to spy on his campaign and undermine his election, then tried to overturn his presidency?  All this is based on the nonsensical assertion that Russia hacked the election, an absurd concept that even the media’s savior Barack Obama said was impossible: “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.”

This is the same Intelligence Community that exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes proven but never investigated and indicted Donald Trump for crimes investigated ad nauseam but never proven.  The same Intelligence Community that told the world that Saddam had WMDs, dragging the U.S. and other countries into a costly and counterproductive war.

Put yourself in Trump’s shoes: a highly successful businessman, in the latter years of his life, taking on the Herculean task of running for and winning the U.S. presidency.  In victory he finds nothing but abuse, scorn, and betrayal, by friend and foe alike.  He is surrounded by landmines, his intelligence community plotting a path to make sure he steps on one landmine after another.  This is a journey few mortals would undertake or survive.

Is it any wonder he is pushing back against those trying to destroy him and his presidency, including the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all in the thick of seditious activity against the duly elected president?  He has few friends in Washington, D.C.; many who should have his back are eager to bury a knife in it instead.

The simplest explanations are often the best.  Walk a mile in Trump’s shoes, and his actions make all the sense in the world.  A guy chosen by ordinary people, trying to make America great again despite so much of America trying to stop and destroy him.  How would any rational person behave when standing in Trump’s shoes?

Marco Rubio, Tim Scott Sabotage Superb Conservative, Ryan Bounds


by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Despite their razor-thin numerical advantage over Democrats, Senate Republicans were able to put together a long and impressive winning streak in confirming President Trump’s court of appeals nominees. That winning streak came to an ignominious end today. Not because Sen. Susan Collins or Sen. Lisa Murkowski balked at a conservative nominee. But because Sens. Tim Scott and Marco Rubio ambushed a superb conservative.

Their victim, Ryan Bounds, is an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Oregon. He has served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff in the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department and as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

Bounds has extensive appellate court experience. He served in the Appellate Unit as a Special Assistant at the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office, briefing and arguing criminal appeals before the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals. He also briefed and argued cases in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits while serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy at the DOJ. In addition, he clerked on the court to which he was nominated — the Ninth Circuit

Bounds is a solid conservative. At Yale, he was vice president of the law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society. The judge for whom he clerked, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, is a leading conservative jurist. Bounds is just the kind of highly qualified conservative the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit needs.

So why did Scott and Rubio sink his nomination? They did so because Scott claimed he didn’t have enough information to vote “yes,” and Rubio said he would stand with his under-informed colleague. Lacking the votes needed to confirm, Majority Leader McConnell announced that the nomination was withdrawn (I’m told Bounds requested this).

Scott’s doubts about Bounds apparently are based on some of his writings as an undergraduate at Stanford. The young Bounds had snarky things* to say about multiculturalism, as conceived by “some of the more strident racial factions of the student body.”

Bounds made these comments 25 years (or so) ago. He has apologized for their tone.

Dinging a nominee based on such college writings is ridiculous. The Wall Street Journal’s editors put it mildly when they say, “these are flimsy and unfair grounds to defeat a nominee.”

What’s more, Bounds’ writings have been part of the debate over his nomination for months. In May, liberal Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to beat Bounds up with them.

If Scott had concerns about the writings, he should have spoken to Bounds about them or obtained more information well before the Senate was about to vote. But Scott apparently was asleep at the switch. Thus, months of effort to confirm this nominee have gone up in smoke — time that could have been used to confirm other nominees if Scott truly viewed Bounds’ ancient snark as a deal breaker.

What really gets me is that Scott and Rubio apparently voted for cloture — i.e., to end debate on Bounds and bring his nomination to a vote. As I understand it, once cloture is invoked, there must be a vote. Either that, or the nomination must be withdrawn.

Thus, there was no way to supply Scott with the information he claimed he needed. It was too late for that. McConnell had to fish or cut bait, and Scott wouldn’t let him fish — not successfully, at any rate.

This was a truly pathetic performance by the South Carolina Senator and his Florida colleague — one with potential adverse consequences for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

The Democrats’ main strategy for blocking Kavanaugh is to demand every piece of paper Kavanaugh has ever written as an adult and every paper he laid his hands on as the person in charge of paper flow at the Bush White House. This means millions of pages. The Dems will then demand months to review the documents. By the time they are all produced and reviewed, it will be 2019, and a new Senate will be in place. That’s the plan.

Republicans will counter that there is no need to review Kavanaugh’s old papers. They will say, quite rightly, that the Democrats are just stalling.

But now we have two conservative Republican Senators on record that the writings of a nominee when he was in college — not even in law school — can provide the basis for nixing the nominee.

The point isn’t lost on Sen. Schumer. His spokesman wasted no time declaring:

A lower-court nominee’s college writings are relevant, but a Supreme Court nominee’s White House writings aren’t? I don’t think so.

Ironically, Senators Collins, Murkowski, Flake, and Corker have all expressed skepticismabout the scope of the Democrats’ demands for Kavanaugh’s documents. Corker said that asking for all of Kavanaugh’s paperwork “feels dilatory to me.” Flake said that demanding all 1 million-plus pages seemed excessive and that the request “needs to be reasonable.”

But now Senators Scott and Rubio, both considered to the right of the four Senators mentioned above, have provided fuel for the obstructionist Democrats.

That plus sinking a well-qualified conservative nominee for a court that desperately needs some. It adds up to a very bad day’s work.

* You can read Bounds comments in this Washington Post article. Here is what I take to be the most relevant part of it:

In one of his Stanford articles, Bounds described a phenomenon he called “race-think,” in which “multiculturalistas” and ethnic minorities bonded together to form groups of “racial purity” that he claimed ended up creating more division.

“During my years in our Multicultural Garden of Eden,” he wrote, “I have often marveled at the odd strategies that some of the more strident racial factions of the student body employ in their attempts to ‘heighten consciousness,’ ‘build tolerance,’ ‘promote diversity’ and otherwise convince us to partake of that fruit which promises to open our eyes to a PC version of the knowledge of good and evil. I am mystified because these tactics seem always to contribute more to restricting consciousness, aggravating intolerance and pigeonholing cultural identities than many a Nazi bookburning.”

(Emphasis added)

The reference to Nazi bookburning is over-the-top and merited an apology. But does Scott seriously believe that a writing like this by a college student should bar the author from the judiciary decades later? Does Rubio?

I sure hope not.



Lefty Democrat Women Still Cling to Hillary for President….


We are aware that the human female animal is born ditsy.  Some, namely today’s leftwing Democrats and Socialists, remain ditsy for life, preferring feelings over knowledge and reality.    Here, in this hotair article below, is an example of how difficult it is for the human female animal to accept reality over feelings.

It is the human male who is genetically  programmed to  become  a problem solver…..to be curious,  to seek knowledge to know what’s around him,  to seek Truth,  facts,  to defend, protect, to build, to threaten, to deceive for greed, power……and be a killer if needed, driven, or flawed.

The human female animal is born to bear offspring for the survival of the species.   She  is not genetically driven or framed to build, problem solve, invent, be curious.   She has feelings to overwhelm and direct her.  She’s born, programmed to be ditsy, and be  driven by feelings while seeking security above all.  She’ll quit work when it’s time, not when the problem is solved.

The following article about Democrat women’s adoration, feelings, cravings for Hillary…..yes, that very same Crooked, devious Hillary, spoiled brat and mouth of Clinton fame!

Please read the following article about our famous Crooked Hillary and her women of today…..this  feminist moment, apparently, for 2020AD:


How Did Lefty Obama Handle His Russian Hackers?

Brazile, Rice, Obama Gave Russian Hackers Free Rein

by Daniel John Sobieski


The conveniently timed indictments of 12 more Russians by Deputy A.G. (or should we just face reality and ditch the word “deputy”?) Rosenstein, who will never see the inside of an American courtroom, probably includes the Russian who “hacked” into John Podesta’s email account secured with the password “password.”

Rosenstein was no doubt pleased with himself to announce that 12 Russian spies were caught – er, spying, on President Obama’s watch, by the way, but neglected to include one small detail in his announcement – namely, that DNC chair Donna Brazile and most of the Obama hierarchy let them do it.

As the Daily Caller reported:

Donna Brazile says in her new book the Democratic National Committee (DNC) went against professional advice and sat idly for a month while Russians stole data because primaries were still underway in a number of states.

“In May, when CrowdStrike recommended that we take down our system and rebuild it, the DNC told them to wait a month, because the state primaries for the presidential election were still underway, and the party and the staff needed to be at their computers to manage these efforts,” Brazile wrote in her new book, “Hacks.”

“For a whole month, CrowdStrike watched Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear operating.  Cozy Bear was the hacking force that had been in the DNC system for nearly a year.”

Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are cybersecurity firms that have reported ties with Russian hackers.  Both groups are blamed for the hacks on the DNC in 2016.  CrowdStrike is a private U.S. cybersecurity firm that oversaw the protection of the DNC’s servers.

The DNC never turned its servers over to the FBI, although it is not clear what Obama’s and Comey’s FBI would have done with them.  Instead, Brazile, et al. simply stood by while the Russians emptied the computer jar of its cookies.  Among stuff you couldn’t make up was election cheater Donna Brazile telling  Martha Raddatz, who got choked up over Trump’s victory,  on ABC’s This Week on Sunday that Russian hackers kept her and predecessor Debbie Wasserman Schultz so busy that the DNC barely had time to put its fingers on the scale to tip the nomination to Bernie Sanders while feeding Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance.  As ABC reported:

Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying to break into the organization’s computers “daily, hourly” until after the election – contradicting President Obama’s assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to “cut it out.”

“They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election.  They tried to hack into our system repeatedly,” Brazile told ABC’s Martha Raddatz in an exclusive interview on “This Week” Sunday[.] …

“We were attacked by a foreign adversary, and I think it’s the responsibility of the government to help individual citizens – as well as institutions, nonprofits, corporations – to protect us,” she said[.] …

“The emails were weaponized,” the Democratic chair said of the thousands of emails that were hacked from the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign staff and then released publicly.  “Donald Trump used this information in ways to also sow division. I was very disappointed in his repeated usage some of the stolen information.  He used it as if he received daily talking points.”

But they were your emails, Ms. Brazile.  They were Hillary Clinton’s emails, at least the ones that Hillary didn’t delete using BleachBit while under subpoena.  They were John Podesta’s emails.  They were evidence of your corruption and your lies to the American people.  The Russians didn’t write them.

Indeed, what the Democrats and Mueller’s team seem to be saying is that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election by hacking into the emails of John Podesta and the DNC to reveal how they were interfering in the 2016 elections.  And they forget how former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz tipped the scales for Hillary Clinton over a surging Bernie Sanders.  She interfered in the 2016 election in ways Vladimir Putin couldn’t even dream of and arguably changed at least the Democratic Party results and campaign timeline.

So what the Democrats accused the Russians of doing, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s DNC actively did.  And considering what we have found out about the Pakistanis, not the Russians, who were brought in to run the DNC’s I.T. operation, it makes sense why the DNC refused to turn over its servers to FBI forensic investigators.  What else were they trying to hide?

Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel of the Russia election interference probe presents an opportunity for the FBI to inspect the Democratic Party computers that U.S. intelligence concluded were penetrated by Kremlin-directed hackers, cybersecurity analysts say.

The Democratic National Committee did not allow the FBI to physically inspect its machines, including servers.  There is no public indication that any government agency has ever looked at the machines, prompting some former intelligence people to question the findings[.] …

After former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress that the DNC had refused his agency’s assistance, Mr. Trump sent out a tweet: “Why did Democratic National Committee turn down the DHS offer to protect against hacks (long prior to election).  It’s all a big Dem HOAX!”

Maybe not a hoax, but certainly a cover-up that included Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s curious relationship with Pakistani Imran Awan.

Awan was the top I.T. aide to Democratic rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  The FBI reportedly “seized smashed computer hard drives” from his home.  He was “arrested trying to flee to Pakistan after wiring almost $300,000 to the country,” according to the Daily Caller, which has owned the story because it does actual news reporting.

Here’s an amazing paragraph from the Caller: “Awan and members of his family received $4 million from the Democratic congressmen they were working for since 2010.  Wasserman Schultz has been especially uncooperative with the probe into her staffers and even threatened the Capitol Police chief for gathering evidence.  She refused to fire Awan until after he was arrested, even though Capitol Police had already revoked Awans’ [sic] access to the congressional IT system in February in relation to a major security breach.”  (Four million dollars, and you wonder where your tax dollars go.)

According to Brazile, Wasserman Schultz was unbelievably unconcerned about the hacking of the DNC:

On June 14 Debbie invited the Democratic Party officers to a conference call to alert us that a story about hacking the DNC that would be published in the Washington Post the following day.  That call was the first time we’d heard that there was a problem.  Debbie’s tone was so casual that I had not absorbed the details, nor even thought that it was much for us to be concerned about.  Her manner indicated that this hacking thing was something she had covered.  But had she? …

In June, Wasserman Schultz claimed that neither the FBI nor any other government agency contacted her about the hacking of the DNC’s computer networks.  The former DNC’s claim was rebuffed by former DHS head Jeh Johnson, who testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI reached out to help the DNC, but opted to reply [sic – rely?] on a private cybersecurity company for assistance.

Indifference to Russian meddling was rampant throughout an Obama administration that could have done something about it but didn’t.  Obama was certain that Hillary Clinton would win, so why ruffle Putin’s feathers unnecessarily, particularly after Obama had colluded with him to scuttle European missile defense as proof of his “flexibility”?

But it was more than indifference.  Marching orders were given not to conduct an investigation on Russian meddling on Obama’s watch.

And in June, left-leaning Mother Jones reported that President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, ordered officials to “stand down” as Russia allegedly attempted to meddle in the 2016 presidential election:

NSC officials were reportedly alarmed by Russia’s attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, including the hacking of Democratic National Committee officials’ emails, and those belonging to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Michael Daniel, an NSC official responsible for the Russia portfolio, told to [sic] the book’s authors of multiple plans to strike fear in Russian President Vladimir Putin with the aim of ending Russia’s election meddling.  These plans included surreptitiously releasing personal information about Putin’s family, which revealed corruption in Putin’s political party, and even crafting a large cybersecurity exercise as a public threat to Russia.

Daniel additionally told the authors that when Rice caught wind of his planning, she called him and berated him.

One day in late August, national security adviser Susan Rice called Daniel into her office and demanded he cease and desist from working on the cyber options he was developing.  “Don’t get ahead of us,” she warned him.  The White House was not prepared to endorse any of these ideas.  Daniel and his team in the White House cyber response group were given strict orders: “Stand down.”  She told Daniel to “knock it off,” he recalled.

Daniel testified before Congress on the Obama administration’s efforts to shut down any investigation into Russian hacking and meddling in the 2016 election cycle:

Michael Daniel confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice ordered him and his staff to “stand down” in 2016 in regard to Russian attempts to meddle in the 2016 election.

Daniel, special assistant to former President Barack Obama and White House cybersecurity coordinator, told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that quotes attributed to him in the book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, were an “accurate rendering of the conversation” he had with Rice and his staff.

Daniel’s staff reportedly responded to the order in “disbelief.”

So too do the American people, and so do sane analysts respond to the Rosenstein indictments and the Mueller investigation into collusion with the Russians.  If anybody was colluding with the Russians – and we haven’t even touched the Hillary-DNC financing of the dossier used to spy on Hillary’s political opponent – it was the likes of Donna Brazile, Susan Rice, and one Barack Hussein Obama.


Stupidity University of Mn Captures, “Sells” Lefty Stupid Gender Follies


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

The University of Minnesota has published in draft form a new “gender identity” policy. The Star Tribune headlines: “He, she or ze? Pronouns could pose trouble under University of Minnesota campus policy.”

Using the wrong pronoun could turn into a firing offense at the University of Minnesota.

The U is considering a new “gender identity” policy that would assure transgender men and women, as well as others, the right to use whatever pronoun they wish on campus — whether it’s he, she, “ze” or something else.

And everyone from professors to classmates would be expected to call them by the right words or risk potential disciplinary action, up to firing or expulsion.

Gender nazis love to get people fired.

The University offers a menu of gender identities and pronouns from which students can choose:

Personal Pronoun

• He/him/his

• None

• Prefer not to specify

• She/her/hers

• They/them/theirs

• Ze/Zir/Zirs

Gender identity

• Agender

• Enter your own

• Gender nonconforming

• Genderqueer

• Man

• Nonbinary

• Prefer not to specify

• Two spirit

• Woman

The purpose is to prevent the dreaded “misgendering.”

The pronoun rule is just one of the proposed changes in a draft U policy that, advocates say, would bar harassment and discrimination against transgender and “gender nonconforming” individuals. It’s designed, in part, to combat an indignity known as misgendering — when someone is called by a name or personal pronoun they no longer use.

Misgendering is when you see a woman and refer to her as “she.”

The new policy isn’t directed only at policing speech:

The pronoun rule isn’t the only potentially contentious issue in the proposed policy. Among other things, it would also give individuals the right to access men’s or women’s locker rooms, recreational activities and housing based on their self-identified gender, rather than their biology. Konstan said he’s heard concerns about how that might affect roommate assignments, for example.

When I was 18 or 19, I would have thought integrated showers were a great idea. No doubt the concept will be embraced by today’s undergraduates, but not for the reasons intended by the committee that is drafting the policy.

The University of Minnesota proposal is in draft form for comment, and may be revised before it is implemented. In any event, it typifies the craziness that is going on at academic institutions these days. This is one of several reasons why higher education has fallen into disrepute.



The Obama, Hillary, Bernie Advance of Fascist Leftwingism in America

Did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Save America?

by Steve McCann   at  American Thinker:

The citizenry of a nation that has experienced unprecedented peace, prosperity and global or regional hegemony over four or more generations are often lulled to sleep believing there will never be an end to their good fortune.   Inevitably these countries and empires have floundered and decayed as they gradually and unwittingly descended into societal, political and economic chaos invariably precipitated by their respective ruling classes.  Over the past fifty years, the United States has been adrift on this same calamitous course.   However, it appears that America may have been granted a reprieve through an event that could have been a long-term disaster potentially turning out to be its salvation.  That event was the presidency of Barack Obama and the ensuing hubris of his fellow-travelers in the American Left.

Over the past 55 years, regardless of any Republican in the White House or in charge of Congress, no one has been able to halt the incessant spread of left-wing radicalism in the nation’s institutions and culture as well as the exponential growth of government with its tentacles increasingly intertwined in the day-to-day lives of all Americans.   As long as the people remained largely disengaged the potential damage to society as a whole and to the financial health of the country was ignored by the vast majority of the population.

Since 2012 this indifference has begun to change as the reality of the nation’s future and the motives and tactics of those in the American Left has come into focus.  That reality has come to the fore as the result of the aggressive pursuit of extremist policies in the cultural and economic arenas by the Obama administration combined with the exposure of left-wing domination in the Democratic Party brought about by the unexpected and nearly successful candidacy of Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Nonetheless, had the Democratic Party hierarchy and Obama not been adamant in nominating the worst campaigner and most unlikeable presidential candidate in modern American history, Hillary Clinton, the stealth takeover of the nation would have continued apace.   It is almost certain that Donald Trump would have lost to a “moderate” Democrat who was more likeable and an aggressive campaigner.   Trump’s high negatives and the fact that he beat Hillary by an aggregate of only 70,000 votes in the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin reveals that Hillary was, in all likelihood, the only nominee he could defeat.

However, Obama and his minions in the Party were unwavering in their decision to actively support only Hillary Clinton and all her baggage, while viewing Bernie Sanders as a foil.   Buoyed by unquestioned belief in Obama’s fabricated popularity coupled with the assumption that the nation had accepted the basic tenets of their version of democratic-socialism, this cabal was so certain of victory that the prospect of Hillary losing to Trump or any Republican was inconceivable.

This overconfident mindset was the culmination of a unique set of events and circumstances beginning in the 1960’s, as the strategy of gradualism utilized during the first six decades of the Twentieth Century by the comparatively more moderate Progressives of that era was discarded in favor of more immediate and assertive tactics.

In the 1960’s the increasingly radicalized American Left began to aggressively infiltrate the mainstream media, the entertainment complex, the education establishment and government bureaucracies.  Due primarily to the fecklessness of the opposition party and ambivalence of the populace, by the early-1990’s the left succeeded in dominating these sectors of the American ruling establishment and the transformation of the culture and society commenced in earnest.

However, the strategic lynchpin of the overall strategy was the seizure of near absolute control of the Democratic Party while the indoctrination of a majority of the populace with anti-American and pro-socialist dogma continued apace.  Surprisingly, the goal of Democratic Party domination was achieved much sooner than anticipated.  With the election of an acolyte of left-wing indoctrination, Barack Obama, and the unabashed exploitation of his skin color and unspoken fealty to socialist/Marxist dogma, the left was in de facto control of the Democratic Party by 2012 and more emboldened in their determination to shut down speech and dissent while aggressively promoting radical cultural changes.

Nonetheless, the American Left has had less than thirty years and only one generation to fully indoctrinate with their failed and self-serving philosophy.  By the end of the Obama presidency 36% of the electorate still identified themselves as conservative (39% in 2000) while 25% self-identified as liberal (21% in 2000) and 34% as moderate (36% in 2000).  Additionally, 37% of those claiming to be moderate identified their views as leaning conservative while just 23% as leaning liberal. Thus, only 33% of Americans currently identify with or believe in current Progressive ideology despite 8 years of the Obama presidency and the left’s ongoing domination of the media, entertainment and education establishments.

While the timing may have been in place to have the first African-American elected President, the timing to turn the United States into a bastion of socialism was not.  The radicalization of the nation’s cultural and religious institutions by the left and the attempt to create a preponderant dependent class has not been in place long enough to change the essential character of a clear majority of the population.  However, Obama and the Democratic Party hierarchy chose to be oblivious to this reality and governed as if a majority of Americans were, in fact, sympathetic to their unique oligarchical iteration of socialism.

The Barack Obama presidency coupled with the overt left-wing take-over of the Democratic Party occurred too early in the history of the nation for the left to fully achieve their objectives.  While needing to do a better job of keeping their ideological bent in the shadows, Obama and his fellow-travelers should have been less obvious in their take-over of the Party and unquestioned support of an unelectable nominee in 2016 in order to control the Senate and the White House for at least another decade.

A decade which would have assured an irretrievably left-wing and all-powerful Judiciary, the near elimination of 1st, 2nd  and 4th  Amendment rights, a stagnant economy manipulated by the Progressives in Washington D.C., open borders in order to manipulate the composition of the voting citizenry, thus ensuring the left retained power in perpetuity, with religious and economic freedom limited to what the federal government bureaucrats declare as acceptable.

Fortunately for America, the conjoined hubris of the Democratic Party hierarchy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton combined with the socialist absolutism of Bernie Sanders, opened the door for the left to unabashedly come out of the closet during the 2016 campaign.  Thus, offering a clear and unambiguous contrast between the Republican and Democratic Parties and their nominees.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz were the only Republican presidential candidates out of a field of 14 to clearly and instinctively see the reality on the ground and the political opening obliviously provided by the Democrats.  By waging a scorched earth campaign strategy, Trump won not only the nomination but ultimately the Presidency.   The resultant dismay and disbelief of the Ruling Elites and the Democratic Party hierarchy further exposed the unhinged radicalism of the left.

Panic has set in on the American Left with Trump in the White House and the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, as the realization sets in that the likelihood of the Progressives achieving their overarching socialist utopian dream may well be gone with the wind.   However, the specter of not only losing their illusory political supremacy but to do so to someone they view as a reprobate in the White House has so inflamed their passion that their threadbare tactics of fear and intimidation have given way to an unhinged and unabashed public unveiling of their fascist tendencies and their unconstitutional and potentially violent methodology of transforming the United States.  Their ability to hoodwink a majority of the American people is now fully and inalterably compromised.

What these permanent adolescents and their megalomaniacal leadership fail to understand is that they, due to their hubris, obliviousness and single-mindedness, are responsible for the circumstances that eventuated with Donald Trump as President and the Republicans in control of Congress.  The opportunity to dramatically reverse the course the nation was previously sailing with the Progressives at the helm is now within the realm of possibility.

To the surprise of many skeptics, Donald Trump thus far has pursued a primarily conservative agenda with a few exceptions such as spending and his random bombastic governing style in domestic and foreign affairs.  However, the elimination of vast swaths of regulations, the appointment of constitutionalists to the Judiciary including the Supreme Court, as well as tax reform and immigration enforcement, are foundational pieces of this vital course correction.    Trump and the rest of the Republican Party and a majority of the citizenry must continue to seize the moment and maintain the momentum in the upcoming 2018 mid-term elections.  Thus, ensuring Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders exalted status in the pantheon of 21st Century American patriots that helped liberate the United States from the clutches of the American Left.