• 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

Time to Repeal Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act!

Time to Repeal the Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act

by Selwyn Duke  at American Thinker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were actually something else: true.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, yeah – Democrat voters.

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

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

Advertisements

DEM Dick Durbin, Saboteur….Not the First Time

S***HOLE OR NO S***HOLE?

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine

Today on ABC’s This Week, Senator David Perdue, who was present, flatly denied that President Trump referred to any countries as “s***holes” during a meeting with a small group of legislators:

Republican Sen. David Perdue (Ga.) on Sunday said President Trump did not use the word “shithole” to refer to African nations, Haiti and El Salvador during a White House meeting with lawmakers.
***
“I’m telling you he did not use that word, George. And I’m telling you it’s a gross misrepresentation. How many times do you want me to say that?” Perdue said after host George Stephanopoulos pressed him for an answer.
***
“The gross misrepresentation was that language was used in there that was not used and also that the tone of that meeting was not contributory and not constructive,” the Georgia Republican said.

The Hill adds this, seeking to undercut Perdue’s denial:

The White House last week did not deny that Trump made the comment.

That, I think, is just wrong. President Trump tweeted:

Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said “take them out.” Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings – unfortunately, no trust.    

Paul made the most relevant point on Friday. Even if you assume Trump used the word that he and Senator Perdue deny, the villain in this story is Dick Durbin:

I don’t know whether President Trump called any countries “s***holes” yesterday. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if he disparaged certain countries, as is his wont, and he may well have done so profanely.

If he did, and if doing so hurt America, then Sen. Durbin and others in the room should have kept Trump’s statement to themselves. No patriotic American would hurt this country’s international standing just to embarrass the president or in the hope of gaining a little leverage in negotiations (which, I’m pretty sure, Durbin has failed to do).

But patriotism has never been Dick Durbin’s long suit.

This story is a good illustration of the bizarre times in which we live. Trump made a good point in a private meeting with a small number of legislators. He may have used profanity while doing so, but he wasn’t making a speech. His political enemy, Dick Durbin, then ran to the press to damage Trump by quoting–probably misquoting–his private comments. The press jumped on the story eagerly, assuming Durbin’s account was correct and happily damaging America’s interests, as Democrats and Democratic reporters smugly told us was happening. Lost in the shuffle was the fact that Trump is right about immigration–chain migration and the lottery are crazy and need to go, in favor of a merit-based system–and a large majority of Americans agree with him.

Years ago, some of the lawyers in my office had a series of cases around the country in which they were opposed by another Twin Cities law firm. The lawyers in that law firm were so dishonest, and so given to misrepresenting their conversations with my partners in various courts, that eventually my partners refused to have any telephone conversations with them unless a court reporter was on the line, and a transcript was prepared. President Trump is perhaps at the point where he should take similar measures to prevent Democrats (and perhaps some Republicans) from lying about his conversations with him.

Why Do Leftists Flunk Science?

Today’s American noisiest Leftists are collectively  overwhelmingly feminists, especially the angry ditsy male haters, mobish racist blacks, illegal immigrants, devoted fascists, anarchists, and anti- JudeoChristian Jews.

Most are feminized indoor people printing  their hate signs, organizing their  hates and dates to cause America trouble especially at the nation’s  schools, universities, and in the courts,  the streets and parks.

How Do Liberals Flunk Science? Let Us Count the Ways.

by Trevor Thomas  at American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/how_do_liberals_flunk_science_let_us_count_the_ways.html

The PIRANHA, MICHAEL WOLFF

Michael Wolff, From Local Media Scourge to National Newsmaker

by Michael M. Grynbaum  at the New York Times:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fascism of today’s American Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Never Forget the Night of the Fall of our American “Fascistics”

Have NeverTrumpers Awakened Yet?

Why the Remaining NeverTrumpers Should Apologize Now

“Public apologies are difficult for most people, but particularly for political pundits whose livelihoods and reputations depend on their being right at least some of the time (Paul Krugman excepted).

Such statements can be emotionally wounding, even humiliating.  But it isn’t my purpose to humiliate or, worse, to gloat — which is a repellent trait and almost always counterproductive.  No spiking the football here.

Nevertheless, it is time for the remaining NeverTrumpers to apologize for a reason far more important than self-castigation or merely to make things “right.”  Donald Trump — whose initial victory was a shock, even, ironically, to those of us who predicted it — has compounded that shock by being astoundingly successful in his first year, especially at the conclusion. (He’s a quick study, evidently.) More conservative goals have been achieved or put in motion in eleven months than in any time in recent, or even distant, memory. It’s an astonishing reversal for our country accompanied by the beginnings of an economic boom.

But that same success is causing, it’s becoming increasingly clear, an equally determined, even virulent, reaction from the left. At first they too thought Trump was an ineffectual blowhard who would shoot himself in the foot, ultimately redounding to their advantage.  Now that they have found that not to be the case, they are in a state of panic, fearing a defeat for their ideals that would set them back years, even decades. They cannot let this stand and are marshaling all their forces from the media to Hollywood to the academy, not to mention at least some of the investigative units of the FBI.

 

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/remaining-nevertrumpers-apologize-now/

Comment:   I have subscribed to the Weekly Standard for more than a decade.  It was/is  not an American conservative publication.  It was a snotty, arrogant, Easterner Bill Kristol publication who pontificated as a conservative rather than tolerating being one….at least one for America.

I confess I did suffer a Kristolosis dislike of Donald Trump until August 6, 2015, the evening of the first debate at the Fox empire when Kristol’s GOP was still plotting to rid the New Yorker from its offerings as its Presidential candidate in 2016.

After a round of softy questions and winks to the candidates, Megyn Kelly approached Candidate Trump with a GOP dagger to his heart with the question;  “You seem to have some troubles with women”, or something of that nature…..”You’ve called them fat pigs….”….and whatever at the same time FOX NEWS HAS ITS CAMERA FOCUSED DIRECTLY ON DONALD JOHN TRUMP’S PROFILE expecting to display a wilt in this “witness” to the 50,000,000 plus tv viewers.

“Is that the way you feel about all women?” Megyn pursued for the kill…….

With the large Fox audience in total silence, nearly all of them GOPers against anything and everything Donald J. Trump,  awaited a dying candidate’s response, and they got:

“No!  Only Rosie O’Donnell.”

The overwhelming anti-Trump Republican audience exploded with laughter, almost as much as I!

(Oh, the reality of his answer referring to Crooked Hillary’s kin “sister”.

I was aware of the Donald for thirty years of reading  front page articles about his successes and failures in New York’s big business world, that he adored his parents, had lost a brother to suicide from a drinking problem, that Our Donald was  outstanding in nearly anything he touched including baseball, and had become a television success with something to do with “You’re fired!”

I was aware of his first wife, Ivana’s  divorce rages in the newspapers   against Our Donald who was charged with  succumbed to certain  pleasures from other female sources.    I did know they were exceptionally close in family and in business, and had three children.

She was asking fifty million dollars for ‘damages’……and got it, if I remember correctly.

Our Donald would be interviewed on national television fairly often over a twenty or more year period.  Although  I was an outdoor guy,  owner of a local  landscape company then,  I used to teach Russian and Modern Problems to high schoolers for years.   I remember being attracted by his intelligence, focus, and his command of speech when responding to news  reporters.  My God, he was quick and  smooth explaining matter!  This guy loved is world of work as much as I did!

In my computer  hunt for more  info on Donald, I came across a letter to-the-editor in a July, 2015 Washington Post issue written by his ex-wife, Ivana.   The leftist Post apparently had already started smearing  him in countless ways as a candidate.

Ex-wife, Invana, was challenging the Post’s editor’s  vicious attack on him using words she had said  during divorce proceedings years ago.   She had good things to say about her Donald husband and confessed some of her accusations were ‘trumped’ up by  pain caused by the  divorce.   She wrote Donald was a wonderful father to their three children, among other warm comments.

Later in the month I caught a television interview with Our Donald, most likely by folks who already were serious about a Donald run for the White House.

PS….Months after Our Donald’s election, already  in the White House, Dennis Prager had invited David Horowitz to his radio show  to discuss his feelings about this new American President.   Dennis admitted he was a strong anti-Trumper until he was the only candidate left to defeat “CrookedHillary”…although may not have used that exact  description.   Dennis mentioned he was aware David was an early supporter, and an enthusiastic one, of Our Donald, and asked him what won him over.

David Horowitz, a person I have followed closely in the American political arena since the 1960s, long before his wonderful conversion to American conservatism, answered something like, “It was at the first Fox Television debate, when he referred to Rosie O’Donnell, displaying the guts, the devotion, the determination and honesty Our Donald possessed beyond his opponents.”