• 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

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.


PBS Fascistics Cover Election Day, November 8, 2016

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.




Cornell West reeks fascistic socialism….and he’s no afraid to sell it at one university of another for decades.  Today’s American university is the place  nasty deceitful Americans can not only make a living, but can be pictorially advertised throughout the nation’s academic world from coast to coast.

Mouth counts for everything among today’s American LeftoNazis.  Please read the following a couple times at least to absorb the real measures  of their feelings. ghr


John Sexton embeds entertaining video of Tucker Carlson and Cornel West, and offers a good explanation of why socialism always fails, from the perspective of the vast majority. He focuses on a good question that Tucker asked West: If democratic socialism works, why doesn’t Venezuela have toilet paper? The video is embedded at the end of this post.

Of course West’s answers are lame–“real” socialism has never been tried, blah, blah, blah. You could infer from this that West is an idiot and, if he were arguing in good faith, that would be a fair assessment.

But I think the truth is worse. I think the leaders of the socialist movement are perfectly well aware that the inevitable result of socialism is tyranny and mass poverty. But for them, this isn’t a bug, it is a feature. In fact, it is the whole point. Socialism is now, and always has been, a pretext under which power-mad psychopaths seize power and terrorize their fellow humans.

Viewed with cold realism, socialism works very well for those who bring it about. It worked for Lenin and Stalin. It almost worked for Trotsky, but socialism is like “Game of Thrones”–it is a risky business. It didn’t work for the Old Bolsheviks for the same reason: they lost out to the more vicious and more power-crazed socialist, Stalin. It worked for Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria, although they, too, lost out after years of demented revels. It worked for Khruschev, Brezhnev and Andropov.

Socialism worked for Mao. It worked for Fidel Castro. It worked for Erich Honecker and Nicolae Ceaușescu, until the very end. It worked for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, again with sad ends that didn’t inflict anywhere near enough pain to negate the years of glory and power that went before. It worked for Hugo Chavez, who like Castro, parlayed socialism into a multi-billion dollar fortune, and it has worked so far for Nicolas Maduro. All of these psychopaths, and many others, got exactly what they wanted out of socialism. From their point of view, it is a successful ideology.

While the vast majority suffer under socialism, such suffering is by no means universal. Any number of commissars, Stasi informants, Cuban snitches, petty apparatchiks with dachas, etc., have parlayed their sadistic tendencies into good livings and what they want most, power over others. If you follow Twitter, or generally pay attention to the American Left, you see an army of would-be commissars who yearn for the day when they can accuse a neighbor of wrongthink and have him sent to an American Gulag. In the meantime, they settle for mob action, “doxxing,” and so on.

Socialism isn’t misguided, it is evil. Socialism isn’t a failure, any more than the Black Death was a failure. Sadly, it has worked all too well for more than a century.


Jeremiah Wright’s Obama Destroyed the Democratic Party

Victor Davis Hanson: Never Trumpers Told Us Trump Would Be Liberal, He Wasn’t; No Alternative Agenda

Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution is interviewed by FOX News’ Tucker Carlson on the lack of agenda from the left and how the anti-Trump faction was wrong about him.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Barack Obama got elected twice but he was an ungodly disaster for the Democratic party. They lost the supermajority, they lost the Senate, they lost the House, they lost 1,000 local state and local offices, they’re going to lose the Supreme Court. And they can’t come to grips with the fact that they control popular cultural — sports, universities, the media — but that turns into this type of street theater you referenced. It doesn’t transfer into actual political power and they’re very frustrated.

The Never Trumpers told us that Trump would be a moderate or a liberal. He wasn’t. The Heritage Foundation said he was more conservative in his first 2 years than Ronald Reagan. The left said he was going to implode or that the Mueller investigation, or impeachment, or the emoluments clause, or they were going to sue under the 25th Amendment. None of that happened. So Trump is almost 50% approval rating.

And the final thing is there’s no alternative agenda. We don’t know what your speaker, your guest, what do they feel about taxes? Do they want more government? More regulation? Less? Is the Iran deal good or bad? We don’t hear any of that. Instead, they fixate on somebody like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, kind of an obscure 28-year-old who won an election with 20% turnout and suddenly that’s a metaphor for a brave new world. So it’s a frustration that they don’t translate their cultural influence into raw political power.

Please click below for Tucker Carlson’s interview with Victor Davis Hanson regarding the arrival of Conservative Donald J. Trump to the White House:



New York Times Big Shots Suggest Civil War Against Trump Court Choice


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Remember the good old days when the Left pretended to worry about “eliminationist rhetoric”? Now, they don’t even pretend to worry about a Bernie Sanders volunteer trying to murder Republican Congressmen.

Yesterday’s New York Times editorial on the judiciary illustrates how far around the bend the Democratic Party has gone:

With Republicans controlling the Senate and the judicial filibuster dead, the Democrats’ odds of denying President Trump a second Supreme Court appointment are slim. Barring some unforeseen development, the president will lock in a 5-to-4 conservative majority, shifting the court solidly to the right for a generation.

This is all the more reason for Democrats and progressives to take a page from “The Godfather” and go to the mattresses on this issue.

“Going to the mattresses” means starting a gang war. Despite the editorialists’ reference to The Godfather, one assumes they mean the phrase as a metaphor. But a metaphor for what? Given the current frequency of violence and threats of violence against Republicans, it would be reassuring if the Times would make it clear that the paper isn’t actually calling for Republicans to be murdered.

[T]his is the moment for Democrats to drive home to voters the crucial role that the judiciary plays in shaping this nation, and why the courts should be a key voting concern in Every. Single. Election.
As hyperpartisanship, gridlock and a general abdication of responsibility have rendered Congress increasingly dysfunctional, the judiciary is taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas ranging from immigration to guns to ballot access to worker rights.

The Times really doesn’t seem to understand that the federal judiciary is not supposed to play a “crucial role in shaping this nation,” or to “tak[e] an ever-greater hand in policy areas….” That is the Democrats’ vision of the role of the judiciary, but not the Republicans’, or the Constitution’s.

[E]ven if Senate Democrats pull out all the stops, the political reality is that Republicans have been far more effective than Democrats at galvanizing their base around the judiciary.

Well, yeah. That is because conservative justices just decide cases, while liberal justices seek to play a “crucial role in shaping this nation” by “taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas,” always by tilting to the left. No wonder Republican voters are more up in arms about the judiciary than Democrats!

The New York Times has become a fount of intemperate rhetoric. Do you remember any conservative newspaper talking about Barack Obama this way? True, there are hardly any conservative newspapers, but still:

Even conservatives turned off by Mr. Trump’s sexual creepiness could be rallied around the prospect of claiming that [Scalia’s] seat.
Long after Mr. Trump is nothing but a toxic memory, the federal judiciary — from the Supreme Court on down — will bear the smear of his fingerprints.

Perhaps the politest thing we can say about the New York Times editorialists is that they talk like people who have lost the argument.



Islamic Controlled Britain to Abuse President Trump Throughout His Visit Next Week

The present semi-police state governing Britain and ruling London these days evolve from the Islamic population and capitalists  now in power.  The freedom-loving Brits, the Tommy Robinsons,  are thrown into prison these days  to insure Islamic peace and prosperity throughout  the “Isles”.  The English have disappeared from the planet.

Today’s Democrat Party, the Obama wing, is transforming America as their Barack announced he would do so that November in 2008 of his presidential victory by opening American borders to invaders,  racists,  fascists, and the innocents to overcome American America as Islamists have overcome British Britain with their Khans…..

It’s good for business in the world scheme!  To Hell and/or  Prison to the Tommy Robinsons of these nations!  ghr

London Mayor Permits Trump Blimp To Soar Over City During Upcoming Visit

It’s no secret that London Mayor Sadiq Khan isn’t a fan of President Donald Trump. To help send that message as Trump arrives in town, Khan has signed off on a permit for protesters to fly a blimp of a diapered Trump holding an iPhone. The in-your-face gesture will be carried out over Parliament Square Garden as Trump visits next week.

Readers may remember that Mayor Khan has a history of declaring Trump is not welcome in London. Back in November 2017, Khan asked U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May to cancel any plans of a visitwith Trump after he shared some British anti-Islam videos. Then in January 2018, Trump canceled plans to attend the opening of a new U.S. embassy in London and the mayor claimed that Londoners had made it clear that Trump is not welcome there. Then in April 2018, Mayor Khan announced that Trump will visit London in July so Londoners should “show their liberal values” and “voice their freedom of speech”:

Trump is set to visit the U.K. in July, it was announced on Thursday. He had previously canceled a trip to Britain over concerns in Washington that his visit would prompt protests.

“If he comes to London, President Trump will experience an open and diverse city that has always chosen unity over division and hope over fear,” Khan tweeted Thursday. “He will also no doubt see that Londoners hold their liberal values of freedom of speech very dear.”

Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, approved the flying of the blimpbut it will first also need permission from the Metropolitan police and the National Air Traffic Service.

On Thursday, a spokesman for Mayor Sadiq Khan confirmed to The Washington Post that his office had granted permission for the blimp to take off, saying in an email that Khan “supports the right to peaceful protest and understands that this can take many different forms.”

The spokesman added that the activists flying the blimp “will also need to receive the necessary approvals from the Metropolitan Police and National Air Traffic Service in order for it to fly.”

The activists behind the blimp stunt have named it ‘Trump Baby’ – not exactly a creative name. They describe themselves as anti-fascist art activists. They have raised more than $20,000 online via crowdfunding and over 10,000 people have signed a petition asking for permission to fly the blimp. The activists describe the blimp as a “six-meter high orange, inflatable baby with a malevolent face and tiny hands” according to the Washington Post article.