• 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

Pompeo Meets the Press in Singapore


Secretary Pompeo gave a press briefing on the status of negotiations with North Korea early this morning (our time). The video is below. His remarks anticipated the summit meeting tomorrow.

Pompeo devoted his prepared remarks (about five minutes) almost entirely to disputing a New York Times report that the United States lacks the technical expertise to verify North Korean denuclearization. I may be mistaken about this, but I think he’s referring to “The nine steps required to really disarm North Korea,” by William Broad, David Sanger and Troy Griggs in today’s paper.

Pompeo’s remarks alluded to negotiations preceding the summit tomorrow. They leave the possibility of failure open, but they seem to preface an agreement representing “a real success here.” As he says, “I’m optimistic that we will have a successful outcome” or words to that effect. He emphasizes verifiable denuclearization: “That’s what’s been missed before.”

The Orwellian Facebook, Google, Twitter, NY Times, and Washington Post…etc…

Orwell the Leftist

by Paul Gottfried    at  American Thinker

David Ramsay Steele, a libertarian activist, an author, and the editorial director of Open Court Publishing Company, has produced a truly extraordinary work on the English novelist and political critic George Orwell.  It’s not the case that there aren’t other studies of Orwell, whose two allegorical novels Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm are still widely read and whose strictures on totalitarian collectivism are well known, even if frequently ignored.  But the problem Steele addresses in Orwell, Your Orwell: A Worldview on the Slab is the stereotypical nature of biographical treatments of his subject.  Contrary to the overwhelming evidence that Steele adduces “that Orwell’s key positions were held by many on the Left and usually by the majority,” there is a veritable cottage industry for singing the praises of Orwell.  In these tributes Orwell is celebrated as a uniquely independent thinker and a “habitual dissident,” who just happened to be a socialist until his last day on Earth.

Steele correctly identifies this reading with a certain type of center-leftist, who considers himself a progressive but rejects totalitarian solutions.  Not surprisingly, neoconservative literature provides the same kind of reading of Orwell.  Indeed, Norman Podhoretz has just published an article in Harper’s, “If Orwell Were Alive Today,” (1983) claiming the English socialist as a precursor.  But the author whom Steele seems to be contending with directly or indirectly throughout his polemic is the late Christopher Hitchens.  Among his flowing tributes to Orwell, Hitchens in 2002 published a tome with Basic Books, Why Orwell Matters.  The appearance of that tribute may have contributed to Steele’s decision to write his revisionist work.  Like Hitchens, he believes that Orwell “matters.”  “Although Orwell was not an original thinker, and his ideas, broadly characterized, were all fairly standard for his time and social position, he had a superb gift for formulating these ideas sharply, so that their implications appeared fresh and startling.  These writings sparkle with polemical virtuosity; they throb with life.  They will make entertaining and enlightening reading for centuries to come.”

Where Steele clearly parts company with his fellow atheist and onetime companion on the socialist left is in Hitchens’s glorification of Orwell as an infallible defender of political morality and historical truth.  Steele observes that although Orwell was a “great writer,” his greatness “does not reside in his being right while others were wrong.”  “Orwell was sometimes wrong to the point of silliness where some of his contemporaries were right.  And Orwell never – not once – adopted a dangerously isolated position.”  Orwell’s writings, most memorably Nineteen Eighty-Four, are full of warnings about collectivism.  Further, the one permissible party in the tyrannical region of Oceania was Ingsoc (named for English Socialism).  Yet, as Steele notes, the man who wrote that grim warning against collectivism was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.  He continued to distinguish between “oligarchical collectivism” and “socialist collectivism,” assuming that the latter was superior to the former.  Moreover, like Marxists, he believed that the replacement of capitalism by socialism was historically inevitable and morally just.

When Nineteen Eighty-Four came out in post-World War II England, Orwell was still deploring the fact that the Labor Party, which was then in power, didn’t go far enough in nationalizing production and redistributing earnings.  Throughout the 1930s, as Steele demonstrates, he never deviated from the standard leftist politics of the time.  Orwell was against war with “fascism” when others on the left took that position, and he changed his mind when they did.  Although on the left, Orwell opposed Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union, but he did so without renouncing his attachment to other revolutionary socialist causes.  In 1937, he went to fight in the Spanish civil war with a Trotskyist Marxist organization, POUM (Partido Obrero Unificación Marxista), against the right-wing Nationalists.  The autobiographical work that came out of that experience in 1938, Homage to Catalonia, helped create a legend on the anti-Stalinist left that has remained operative until the present.  The supposed good guys, the anti-Stalinist left, lost that war to “fascism” because the Stalinist communists turned on them on orders from Moscow.

As the historian Stanley Payne has documented, it was the non-Soviet-controlled left that caused the right-wing insurgency after unleashing an orgy of murders and bombings directed against Catholics and the left’s political opposition.  Much of what the Muscovites did was aimed at limiting the destruction caused by anarchists and others on the Republican side.  Neither side in that struggle was tolerant or forgiving; both engaged in reckless killing throughout the bloody conflict, although the Nationalists did most of their slaughtering after they won the war.  The continued praise of the good “loyalists,” the non-Stalinists on the Republican side, has remained a mantra even among those who today style themselves “conservatives.”  That long-lived fiction makes an appearance on the closing pages of Homage to Catalonia.  There Orwell portentously asserts that the just cause had lost in Spain, but presumably this would not have happened if the Soviets had not undermined the true leftists engaged in the war against fascism.  In the first American edition, published in 1952, this legend is reinforced in Lionel Trilling’s iconic introduction.  Here, in what Trilling calls “one of the most important documents of our time,” we learn from an observer of supposedly impeccable judgment about how the communists betrayed “a defense of democracy from a fascist enemy.”  Among the charges that Trilling and Orwell both level against the communists in Spain is their decision to withhold military supplies from anarchist units.  Given the havoc wrought by those units, we may be permitted to congratulate the communists on that call.

There are two misjudgments in Steele’s otherwise magnificent study that warrant mention.  First, the author insists that the left in Orwell’s day was much more leftist than it is today, but the evidence he offers is limited.  Steele tells us that under the leadership of Hugh Gaitskell between 1951 and 1964, the Labor Party moved away from earlier plans to continue its program of nationalization.  Although under Tony Blair’s tenure as prime minister from 1997 until 2007 the Labor Party was far less socialist in the classical sense than it had been after the Second World War, the English left was more radically leftist in other ways.  It became interested in imposing political correctness at the price of traditional civil liberties, and it criminalized what it considered hate speech.  What has happened is not that the left has become less leftist since Orwell’s life.  Rather it has changed the manner in which it intends to restrict liberty.  It has also actively encouraged third-world immigration as a way of changing England culturally.

Steele also insists that Orwell decided against democracy when he opted for socialism.  But there is no reason to believe that socialist programs are “undemocratic” if a majority votes for those who favor such programs.  The steady expansion of suffrage and the creation of massive welfare states have occurred simultaneously in the West.  Like his libertarian heroes Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, Steele gives us a carefully massaged concept of democracy, which he identifies with the protection of private property.  What all these defenders of economic liberty are describing is the bourgeois liberal stage of Western political development before the advent of modern democracy.  Steele would have been on firmer ground if he used the phrase “traditional liberal freedoms” instead of “democracy” when he clearly meant the former.


Trouble in Europe?

Europe’s Vanishing Calm

 by Victor Davis Hanson  at realclearpolitics:

AVIGNON, France — The Rhone River Valley in southern France is a storybook marriage of high technology, traditional vineyards and ancestral villages. High-speed trains and well-designed toll roads crisscross majestic cathedrals, castles and chateaus.

Traveling in a Europe at peace these days evokes both historical and literary allusions. As with the infrastructure and engineering of the late Roman Empire right before its erosion, the Continent rests at its pinnacle of technological achievement.

There is a Roman Empire-like sameness throughout Europe in fashion, popular culture and government protocol — a welcome change from the deadly fault lines of 1914 and 1939.

Yet, as in the waning days of Rome, there is a growing uncertainly beneath the European calm.

The present generation has inherited the physical architecture and art of a once-great West — cathedrals, theaters and museums. But it seems to lack the confidence that it could ever create the conditions to match, much less exceed, such achievement.

The sense of depression in Europe reminds one of novelist J.R.R. Tolkien’s description of the mythical land of Gondor in his epic fantasy “The Lord of the Rings.” Gondor’s huge walls, vaunted traditions and rich history were testaments that it once served as bulwark of a humane Middle-earth.

But by the novel’s time, the people of Gondor had become militarily and spiritually enfeebled by self-doubt, decades of poor governance, depopulation and indifference, paradoxically brought on by wealth and affluence.

Europeans are similarly confused about both their past and present. They claim to be building a new democratic culture. But the governing elites of the European Union prefer fiats to plebiscites. They are terrified of popular protest movements. And they consider voters little more than members of reckless mobs that cannot be properly taught what is good for them.

Free speech is increasing problematic. It is more dangerous for a European citizen to publicly object to illegal immigration than for a foreigner to enter Europe illegally.

Elites preach the idea of open borders. But people on the street concede that they have no way of assimilating millions of immigrants from the Middle East into European culture. Most come illegally, en masse, and without the education or skills to integrate successfully.

Oddly, less wealthy Central and Eastern Europeans are more astutely skeptical of mass immigration than wealthier but less rational Western Europeans.

Europeans claim to believe in democratic redistribution, but apparently not on an international level. They are torn apart over a poorer Mediterranean Europe wishing to share in the lifestyles of their northern cousins without necessarily emulating the latter’s discipline and work ethic.

Germany wishes to be the good leader that can live down its past by virtue-signaling its tolerance. Yet Berlin does so in an overbearing, almost traditional Prussian fashion. It rams down the throat of its neighbors its politically correct policies on Middle Eastern immigration, mandatory green energy, virtual disarmament, mercantilist trade and financial bailouts. Rarely has such a socialist nation been so hyper-capitalist and chauvinist in piling up trade surpluses.

The world quietly assumes that the rich and huge European Union cannot and will not do much about unscrupulous Chinese trade practices, radical Islamic terrorism, or Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation.

Such problems are left to the more uncouth Americans. That unspoken dependency might explain why many Europeans quietly concede that the hated Donald Trump’s deterrent foreign policy and his economic growth protocols could prove in the long term a better deal for Europe than were the beloved Barack Obama’s lead-from-behind and redistributionist agendas.

The European Union’s sole reason to be is to avoid a repeat of the disastrous 20th century, in which many millions of Europeans were slaughtered in world wars, death camps and the great communist terror in Russia.

Yet paradoxically, the European reaction to the gory past often results in an extreme Western sybaritic lifestyle that in itself leads to decline.

European religion has been recalibrated into a secular and agnostic political correctness. Child-raising, if done, is often a matter of having one child in one’s late 30s. Buying a home and getting a job depend more on government ministries than on individual daring and initiative.

Yet the more credible European lesson from the last century’s catastrophes is that too few 20th-century European democracies stayed militarily vigilant. In the 1930s, too few of them felt confident enough in Western democratic values to confront existential dangers in their infancy like Hitler and Stalin.

Atheistic nihilism and a soulless modernism — not religious piety and a reverence for custom and tradition — fueled German and Italian fascism and Russian communism.

Contrary to politically correct dogma, Christianity, military deterrence, democracy and veneration of a unique past did not destroy Europe.

Instead, the culprit of European decline was the very absence of such ancient values — both then and now.



Getting to Know the Ultimate Left Better with Joseph Stalin in Control

Sent by California’s Lisa Rich

Hillary’s Bill Stars Lying Again!

Finger-Wagging Bill: ‘I Do Not’ Owe Monica Lewinsky An Apology (Update: ‘Sleazy Obfuscation’)

Bill Clinton’s book tour with author James Patterson keeps getting interrupted by awkward questions which the former president appears ill-prepared to answer. The Today show spent about 10 minutes asking Clinton about the #MeToo movement. During the exchange, Clinton first said he had apologized to Monica Lewinsky and then said he hadn’t spoken to her and didn’t believe he owed her an apology.

“I asked if you’d ever apologized and you said you had,” NBC News’ Craig Melvin said.

“I have,” Clinton said adding, “I apologized to everybody in the world.”

“But you didn’t apologize to her,” Melvin asked.

“I haven’t talked to her,” Clinton said.

“Do you feel that you owe her an apology?” Melvin asked.

“No…I do…I, I do not…I have never talked to her, but I did say publicly on more than one occasion that I was sorry,” Clinton fumbled. “That’s very different,” Clinton added with a big grin. “The apology was public.”

“And you don’t think a private apology was owed?” Melvin asked.

At that point, James Patterson stepped in to defend the former president, “I think this thing has been—It’s 20 years ago. Come on. Let’s talk about JFK. Let’s talk about LBJ. Stop already.”

Clinton doesn’t appear to have an ounce of genuine remorse. He is grinning and wagging his finger throughout this interview. He brings up twice that two-thirds of Americans were with him after impeachment as if that proves he was right.

When Melvin first asked if he’d apologized to Lewinsky, Clinton replied, “I felt terrible then. And I came to grips with it.” He continued, “Nobody thinks that I got out of that for free. I left the White House 16 million dollars in debt. But you, typically, have ignored gaping facts in describing this and I bet you don’t even know them. This was litigated 20 years ago, two-thirds of the American people sided with me. They were not insensitive to that.

“I had a sexual harassment policy when I was governor in the 80s. I had two women chiefs of staff when I was governor. Women were overrepresented in the attorney general’s office in the 70s, for their percentage of the bar. I’ve had nothing but women leaders in my office since I left. You are giving one side and omitting facts.”

I’m not sure what facts Clinton thinks were omitted but I can think of one big fact that never got mentioned:

It’s an entirely fair question. CNN and other networks are happy to devote hours a day to Stormy Daniels but Juanita Broaddrick’s credible allegations of rape never come up. Bill Clinton can still go on a book tour without fear of being asked about the darkest chapter of his personal history. Why is that?

one big fact that never got mentioned:

Juanita Broaddrick@atensnut

WHY Doesn’t any reporter have the guts to ask about Bill Clinton about the sexual assaults and rape???….Monica was Consensual!!! https://twitter.com/todayshow/status/1003596488642125824 

It’s an entirely fair question. CNN and other networks are happy to devote hours a day to Stormy Daniels but Juanita Broaddrick’s credible allegations of rape never come up. Bill Clinton can still go on a book tour without fear of being asked about the darkest chapter of his personal history. Why is that?


The War of 1812


(Note:  Andrew Jackson’s shocking victory at New Orleans actually occurred in 1815 after the War (of 1812) had officially ended.)ghr



by Pierre Rehov

“You can see why NBC News might want to smear the work of the Gatestone Institute (the dirty work I wrote about here yesterday). Gatestone has posted Pierre Rehov’s video Behind the Smoke Screen on Hamas’s Gaza production (below). From inside Gaza, Rehov reports the reality of the so called “peaceful demonstrations.” He invites viewers: “Watch Hamas hate speeches. See how they build their propaganda at the expense of brainwashed, deceived and manipulated unfortunate people. Understand why Israel has no choice but to protect itself using lethal force.” Like Richard Kemp’s Gatestone column “Smoke & mirrors” yesterday, Rehov’s video is more informative than the sum total of everything NBC News has on offer today.”

Please click below to view the program: