• 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

No Alcohol President Trump Blamed for Americans Drinking More Reports Washington Post

WaPo Columnist Blames Trump For Americans Drinking More

by Jazz Shaw  at  HotAir:

Donald Trump is responsible for all manner of things, particularly if you ask anyone at MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times or the Washington Post. He’s caused unrest around the world using nothing more than tweets, sparked riots in the streets and I’m pretty sure at least a couple of people have blamed him for global warming. But perhaps his greatest trick of all has been to increase the rates of alcohol consumption in America. Or at least that’s the opinion of WaPo columnist Kathleen Parker.

SEE ALSO: Joe Biden accuses Trump of “trashing American values”

Amid hurricanes, a vanished journalist, the recent Supreme Court hearings, midterms and “mobs,” it is little wonder that Americans are drinking more than ever.

Factually, this is so. More than 70 percent of Americans imbibe each year, and about 40 percent drink excessively, according to two separate studies last year. A comparison to 2014 data showed a 10 percent increase in the number of heavy drinkers.

I mention these sotted stats for context. Lately, at least from my perch on the porch, the evening cocktail has become less an aperitif than a medicinal slug made necessary by the alternative of ripping off my face. To bear witness to These Times In Which We Live is to go insane, join a cult or pour your favorite poison.

Parker goes on from there to cite a number of horrible things about the world today, spending most of her time talking about Kanye West’s recent appearance in the Oval Office. All of this is supposedly to blame for a rise in American drinking habits.

RECOMMENDED

Let’s put the snark aside and say that this is true. If so, Trump can chalk that up as one more win. I mean, somebody has to keep the alcohol industry afloat, right? There are a lot of jobs riding on the successful sales of beer, wine and liquor. One study last year found that the beer industry alone accounted for more than 2.2 million jobs and more than $350 billion in economic output. That works out to 1.9 % of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. The wine and liquor industries provide a similar boost.

What I find odd here is that the booze business needed any sort of a bump. Traditionally, the liquor industry has been seen as one of the most recession-proof business channels in the country, perhaps second only to the Mafia. When times are good, people drink to celebrate. When times are hard, they drink to console themselves. Or at least that’s how it’s traditionally been perceived.

So is Parker onto something? Is Trump actually driving people to drink? I’ll wait until martini time this afternoon to decide, but if he is I say good for him. And now he’s got somebody on the Supreme Court who really likes beer, so we should be in good shape from here on out.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/13/wapo-columnist-blames-trump-americans-dinking/

Letter of Faith from Ronald Reagan to His Dying Father Discovered

President Ronald Reagan as well as film actor, Ronald Reagan was born and raised during a Godfearing JudeoChristian  America,  the  nation its male founders designed it  to be.

How else would a peoples value and defend righteousness and all of its relatives?

How would a family, a neighborhood, towns people, or city folk every produce offspring willingly able to learn and practice right from wrong?  discern knowledge from stupidity and deceit, freedom from enslavement, achieve equal opportunity, peace and harmony, truth from fiction and deception or ignorance…..a woman from a harpy, a man from an ape, and these days a problem solving Republican from a fascistic Democrat ?

Please read the following Washington Post, often a harpy institution for writing, report on a lost letter from JudeoChristian Ronald Reagan to his dying father.

Article sent by Mark Waldeland:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-lost-letter-from-ronald-reagan-to-his-dying-father-in-law-shows-the-presidents-faith/2018/09/14/5aaab8c0-b140-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html

A Biblical Note From Mark Waldeland

Hope for Late Bloomers: It’s never too late to start walking with God.
“Enoch walked with God during one of the darkest times in human history. And if Enoch was able to live a godly life at a time like that, then we can live godly lives as well.”
Please read on below:

John Hinderaker Offers An Important Ramirez Message!

RAMIREZ ON THE SUPREME COURT

Michael Ramirez is America’s foremost editorial cartoonist. More important, he is a warrior in the fight for freedom. On top of that, he is amazingly prolific. Some of Michael’s most recent cartoons deal with the Democrats’ disgraceful smearing of Judge Kavanaugh. Click to enlarge:

This is Michael’s latest, which I love:

Memo to Mitch McConnell: let’s make it happen!

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/ramirez-on-the-supreme-court.php

Truth Troubled Blasey Ford Forgot to Tell

Blasey Ford’s Curious Omission

by Selwyn Duke at American Thinker:

 

There was something curiously missing from Christine Blasey Ford’s Thursday Senate testimony, something quite relevant to her basic claims. Consider the following segment from her testimony about the alleged (circa) 1982 sexual assault by SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

Both Brett and Mark [Judge] were drunkenly laughing during the attack… During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Now please read the corresponding segment from her original letter, sent months ago to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.):

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge… At one point when Judge jumped onto the bed, the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.

After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.

What jumps out at you? “[T]he two scrapped with each other.” “Scrapped.”

I related this aspect of Ford’s story to a woman close to me at a Saturday affair and asked, “What does that tell you?”

She responded, “That they weren’t that interested in her.”

Now, don’t misunderstand me. The incident Ford describes would be sexual misconduct and surely morally wrong. But assuming it happened — and let’s for argument’s sake say that Ford was assaulted by a boy (whether Kavanaugh or someone else) in the manner she describes — it’s quite understandable why she omitted mention of the “scrapping” from her Senate testimony.

It severely weakens her case.

Question: Would a boy intent upon raping a girl begin “scrapping” with a friend in the midst of passionate attack?

Were I to take Ford’s Senate testimony at face value, I’d have to say that, yes, probability dictates it very well could have been an attempted rape. But reading her original letter, I’d say that the incident sounds like something else: drunken high-school hijinks where two guys did, admittedly, cross a serious line — but not one on whose far side lies rape. That’s how significant the “scrapping” omission is.

To reiterate, the boys’ alleged actions would be wrong regardless. The point, however, is that there’s a lot of moral real estate between inappropriate, alcohol-fueled, sexually aggressive physicality and the heinous crime of rape.

Based on Ford’s original letter, a very logical interpretation of the alleged incident is that it did in fact involve drunken horseplay gone wrong. Note that boys are very physical (which is why they wrestle with each other so much); even more so when they’re inebriated. So the boys in question, inhibitions released by booze, slip into testosterone-goofing mode. This is evidenced by their hysterical laughter. One of them then gets inappropriately physical with Ford before they get physical with each other — they were getting physical, period.

The only difference is that since Ford was a girl and teen boys have sky-high libidos, the drunken horseplay with her assumed a sexual tone.

Of course, again, this is just an interpretation. But it’s one strongly suggested by the boys’ laughing and scrapping.

Ford and her handlers surely agree, too, more or less. Why else would they have omitted mention of the scrapping from the Senate testimony? After all, the professor doesn’t remember much from that allegedly known incident in that unknown house in that unknown neighborhood in that uncertain year. But that the boys “scrapped” is something that, her original letter informs, she did recall.

It’s entirely implausible that the omission could have been a mere oversight. Remember that Ford’s testimony was written out, and she, her lawyer and perhaps even some handlers undoubtedly scoured it with a fine-tooth comb. They wanted to maximize its impact and ensure she didn’t perjure herself. The only reasonable explanation is that they purposely, tactically omitted part of the story.

There would only be a strong case that Kavanaugh (again, assuming it happened and he was the perpetrator) was attempting rape if the scrapping were the result of white-knight intervention by Judge. But Ford never even implied that this was a possibility. Rather, she painted a horseplay scenario, where Judge twice jumped on the bed, with the second leap resulting in a toppling of all three.

Of course, Ford could also claim that, on second thought, she wasn’t sure if the boys actually did scrap. But then we’d have to ask: If she imagined that, what else did she imagine?

Ford’s Senate omission was strikingly significant, and Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both the professor and Kavanaugh, should have asked about it. After all, attempting to commit the heinous crime of rape, even as an older minor, would certainly reflect damningly upon a person’s character. But it would be completely unfair to epitomize a man’s whole life based on one incident of lewd, aggressive, drunken high-school horseplay.

So Christine Ford didn’t reveal anything new in her Thursday testimony — except, perhaps, in what she failed to say.

Contact Selwyn Dukefollow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

There was something curiously missing from Christine Blasey Ford’s Thursday Senate testimony, something quite relevant to her basic claims. Consider the following segment from her testimony about the alleged (circa) 1982 sexual assault by SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

Both Brett and Mark [Judge] were drunkenly laughing during the attack… During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Now please read the corresponding segment from her original letter, sent months ago to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.):

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge… At one point when Judge jumped onto the bed, the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.

After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.

What jumps out at you? “[T]he two scrapped with each other.” “Scrapped.”

I related this aspect of Ford’s story to a woman close to me at a Saturday affair and asked, “What does that tell you?”

She responded, “That they weren’t that interested in her.”

Now, don’t misunderstand me. The incident Ford describes would be sexual misconduct and surely morally wrong. But assuming it happened — and let’s for argument’s sake say that Ford was assaulted by a boy (whether Kavanaugh or someone else) in the manner she describes — it’s quite understandable why she omitted mention of the “scrapping” from her Senate testimony.

It severely weakens her case.

Question: Would a boy intent upon raping a girl begin “scrapping” with a friend in the midst of passionate attack?

Were I to take Ford’s Senate testimony at face value, I’d have to say that, yes, probability dictates it very well could have been an attempted rape. But reading her original letter, I’d say that the incident sounds like something else: drunken high-school hijinks where two guys did, admittedly, cross a serious line — but not one on whose far side lies rape. That’s how significant the “scrapping” omission is.

To reiterate, the boys’ alleged actions would be wrong regardless. The point, however, is that there’s a lot of moral real estate between inappropriate, alcohol-fueled, sexually aggressive physicality and the heinous crime of rape.

Based on Ford’s original letter, a very logical interpretation of the alleged incident is that it did in fact involve drunken horseplay gone wrong. Note that boys are very physical (which is why they wrestle with each other so much); even more so when they’re inebriated. So the boys in question, inhibitions released by booze, slip into testosterone-goofing mode. This is evidenced by their hysterical laughter. One of them then gets inappropriately physical with Ford before they get physical with each other — they were getting physical, period.

The only difference is that since Ford was a girl and teen boys have sky-high libidos, the drunken horseplay with her assumed a sexual tone.

Of course, again, this is just an interpretation. But it’s one strongly suggested by the boys’ laughing and scrapping.

Ford and her handlers surely agree, too, more or less. Why else would they have omitted mention of the scrapping from the Senate testimony? After all, the professor doesn’t remember much from that allegedly known incident in that unknown house in that unknown neighborhood in that uncertain year. But that the boys “scrapped” is something that, her original letter informs, she did recall.

It’s entirely implausible that the omission could have been a mere oversight. Remember that Ford’s testimony was written out, and she, her lawyer and perhaps even some handlers undoubtedly scoured it with a fine-tooth comb. They wanted to maximize its impact and ensure she didn’t perjure herself. The only reasonable explanation is that they purposely, tactically omitted part of the story.

There would only be a strong case that Kavanaugh (again, assuming it happened and he was the perpetrator) was attempting rape if the scrapping were the result of white-knight intervention by Judge. But Ford never even implied that this was a possibility. Rather, she painted a horseplay scenario, where Judge twice jumped on the bed, with the second leap resulting in a toppling of all three.

Of course, Ford could also claim that, on second thought, she wasn’t sure if the boys actually did scrap. But then we’d have to ask: If she imagined that, what else did she imagine?

Ford’s Senate omission was strikingly significant, and Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both the professor and Kavanaugh, should have asked about it. After all, attempting to commit the heinous crime of rape, even as an older minor, would certainly reflect damningly upon a person’s character. But it would be completely unfair to epitomize a man’s whole life based on one incident of lewd, aggressive, drunken high-school horseplay.

So Christine Ford didn’t reveal anything new in her Thursday testimony — except, perhaps, in what she failed to say.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/blasey_fords_curious_omission.html

Thank God America Has Met Dennis Prager!!

I FIRST  MET DENNIS PRAGER PERSONALLY  AT THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR ABOUT TWELVE YEARS AGO!!

Learning has been my drug of favor and flavor since I was in first grade public school in 1939.  It is an absolute Truth!   In those days families had real Mothers….those ladies, real ladies, who ran the house and managed the neighborhoods while fathers worked from 48 hours every week….and families, most anyway, went together to Church on Sundays…every one of the Sundays!

Before Church Service where I attended from four years old to ten, Mother sent me to Sunday School where Bible learnings were distributed by  wonderfully gifted and learned  old maid public school teachers.   “Learning”  the Bible would help me be good “in thought and deed”  in the face of God and Country along with the 10 Commandments!….was the general theme.  American mothers were well educated in those times.   They barely exist today…Most are rarely home!

I wrote the following article below on August 30, 2010.   A reader at this site had noted it.   I never much liked the Minnesota State Fair…ever.  But I was lured those five or six or more years when Dennis Prager “lectured” Dennis Prager style at his Dennis Prager booth….I was a public high school teacher of “Modern Problems” and Russian here in the Twin Cities my first years of ‘adult’ labor, begun  fifty eight years ago….a year or five before the beginning of  fascist and sex riots-revolution which laid seed to the disappearance of teaching knowledge ‘breeding’ the empty-headed noise makers rioting, destroying for fun so popular in our pathetic Leftist America today especially in Congress and the Press.

I met Our Dennis on radio in late October, 2004.   A close friend of mine, wise and a gifted portrait artist, had discovered him a month or two earlier on some strange radio network while working on his paintings.

Most American ‘adult’ Jews making noise in American politics this past decade or four were, are obnoxious arrogant lefties, often dishonest Democrats making name and money starring on television and in news editorials and reports.  Alan Dershowitz, then worshiper of fascistic ACLU gods starred with  much mouth on television for decades was particularly arrogant.

Dennis Prager, a conservative Jew!  I was raised in a Jewish minority urban community, attended such populated  schools all the way into college.  They almost all were wealthy and  serious students….But, I had never met a conservative Jew who admitted  so  in public!  Since that first Prager lesson broadcast in 2004, I have spent more hours listening to Our Dennis on radio than watching television programs other than news.

DENNIS PRAGER VISITS THE PATRIOT BOOTH AT THE MINNESOTA STATE FAIR (August 30, 2010)

“I went to the Minnesota State Fair today.   Not for the long walks, or the ferris wheel, or chocolate covered hot dogs…..but to see Dennis Prager return to the Fair after a two-year hiatus.

Welcome back, Dennis!

I had trouble finding the Patriot location, for it has been moved to a location where the audience area is even smaller that in years past.  Nevertheless, the area was packed with fans.

If State Republican officials  had any brains….and I believe most of them have occasional impulses which suggest occasional activity, (but I can’t be sure)  they would secure funding for the Patriot to have a location where 40-50 people could sit for three hours as Dennis does his Dennis thing.

In addition this punditless organization  should invite Dennis to present his basic Prager University curriculum to state conservative candidates to broaden and deepen their understandings of the battle America presently is suffering with the Obama Marxism invasion into American politics.  Then there might become stronger, more confident candidates motivated by  Prager’s better America  messages which would elect more conservatives to  build for America’s better future.

As it was today, about that number of people lingered around for a half-hour or more being replaced by about the same number throughout  Dennis’ three-hour  radio program.  Most stood.

The best of the many important Dennis messages of the day was Dennis’ review of the  mass media, meaning LEFTWING reporting, in otherwords America’s city papers, news agencies, and television “news” programs, coverage of the Glenn Beck event at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC over the weekend.

“Race” was the theme common to nearly all of these sources.   And the race was a bad one…WHITE.  The reportings emphasized uniformly as if written by a single person, that the 200,000 or so crowd was overwhelmingly, or predominantly white.

To the Lefties  any group where conservatives congregate is a racist crowd doing racist things…….and are to be thought of as criminals and troublemakers worthy of nothing but disgust and dismissal…….and to some, of arrest.

And Dennis is so right in reminding the public, Americans learn this hate and bigotry in college.   The American university, including the system here in our state,  teaches a lesson to be memorized and forever remembered,  that society is to be judged by its gender, class, and racial mix.  If it isn’t at least 1-1-1 equal female, equal pay, and equally black, it is an uncivilized society and must be reformed.    Ideally their Marxist paradise should be a society dominated by females, union workers, and blacks because that is the heart of the Democrat gang of victimhoods.

Dennis mentioned that there are a number of crowds which are overwhelmingly white, that these lefty mainstream reporters seem to miss in their race count judgments.

Al Franken’s  political booth not far from the Patriot booth had whites only  attending (only three of them……and they were definitely white).  Would the press note that as a staple in their racism agenda?

Never.  Al  isn’t a conservative!  (Thank God!)

What about the Minnesota Orchestra presenting  Beethoven’s Fifth Piano Concerto?  Its audiences are overwhelmingly white…..does the Strib ever refer  to the all white crowd in attendance as a slur to the event and those attending?  Would the New York Times?

I contend that racism is a fundamental tenet of the present Democrat Party dogma.   It makes these Marxists and Liberals  feel good…..and thus they  do their harm to America.

Dennis Prager is a great teacher.   Perhaps the greatest teacher  clarifying America’s values wars, and the history and nature of these conflicts.

America’s best thinkers and writers today are conservative.  It is a good time to be an American when Dennis Prager is on your side.”

The New York Times’ pet racist and sexist, Sarah Jeong.

Teaching Good Little Girls to Hate and to Fear

by Christopher Chantrill  at American Thinker:

 

Golly, just when we deplorables had finished digesting the incomparable Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, along comes another tasty dish: the New York Times’ pet racist and sexist, Sarah Jeong.

AOC’s claim to fame is a B.A. at Boston University, which explains everything.  So I wondered about Korean-born Sarah Jeong.  Sure enough, says La Wik:

She attended the University of California Berkeley and Harvard Law School, where she was editor of Harvard Journal of Law & Gender.

Dear God.  Of course, Jeong is an anti-white racist and an anti-male sexist, for that is what she was carefully taught by her lefty teachers and administrators.

By the way, could we clear up the vile misdirection by Oscar Hammerstein II in South Pacific, sung by Lt. Cable?

You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

No!  Oscar, baby, you know better!  You are writing rubbish, the self-conceit of liberals, circa 1949.  Earth to lyricists: you have to be carefully taught not to hate and to fear.  Teaching humans to hate and to fear is the easiest thing in the world!  Here’s the Guardian (H/T Jonah Goldberg):

[W]hile some individuals have “predispositions” towards intolerance, these predispositions require an external stimulus to be transformed into actions.  Or, as another scholar puts it: “It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group.”

Well, bless my buttons!  You mean to say that all it takes is to press a button, and lefties immediately go into a group hate and start to defend their identity in-group?  Gag me with a spoon!  I never would have thunk it.

In his piece, Jonah also gently raises the question that the Steve Sailers of the world have been ventilating for a while.  When whites become self-consciously white, then the liberal race game is not going to be fun anymore, because of the button on white people’s foreheads.

Okay.  End of fun-and-games, beginning of Serious Philosophy.

When you set up a worldview that unifies, or, as we say, totalizes politics and secular religion, that proposes to use the force of government to create the perfect world, then you set up a double Us and Them dynamic.  First of all, politics is the technique of dividing people into two warring groups: Our Group, the good guys, and the Other Group, the bad guys.  Taken to the limit, we are talking about civil war.  Second, religion is the technique of assembling a community of people around a specific notion of God and a perfect world.  The religious community is the good guys, and the rest of the world are heretics and unbelievers.  Taken to the limit, we are talking about auto-da-fé and Reigns of Terror.

In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers declared that there should be a separation between politics and religion, between State and Church.  I wonder why, Alexandria and Sarah!  Do you have an idea?  Did your gender studies teachers get into this, I wonder?

I will tell you, ladies.  Our Founding Fathers knew what a tangled web was weaved when they mixed politics and religion in the Thirty Years War.

So along came the lefties in the 19th century, rich kids like Marx and Engels, and said: I know, let’s have a class war, Capitalists vs. Workers!  Yay, Workers!

So, in the 20th century, we had WWII, the religious war to end all religious wars: Democracy vs. Fascism.  You would think the wise heads would have tired of combining government and secular religion.

But no!

And so today, all over the U.S., Good Little Girls are being taught to hate and to fear.  Good Little Girls like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sarah Jeong.  Because racism.

As everybody knows, the key thing about racism is power.  If you have power, you can be a racist.  If you don’t have power, then you can’t be a racist.

But if Candace Owens can be suspended for a racist tweet exactly echoing Sarah Jeong’s tweet, except for substituting “Jewish” or “black” for “white,” and Sarah Jeong to this very day does not get suspended, and Sarah Jeong works for the New York Times and Candace Owens does not, then who has the power?  And who is the racist?

Perhaps our intersectional friends can do a little intersectional analysis on this for us.

But I warn you, you lefty professors and diversity administrators.  One day, the Good Little Girls will wake up and realize that You Lied.  I don’t think things have changed much since 1697, when playwright William Congreve opined that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/teaching_good_little_girls_to_hate_and_to_fear.html