• 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

The Mouth of the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez World, but Where’s the Brain?

Five Reasons The Green New Deal Is Worse Than You Thought

by Steven Hayward  at HotAir:

AOC’s Green New Deal wants to reduce carbon emissions while phasing out the largest source of non-carbon energy we currently have—nuclear power. The level of whimsy here is matched only by the aspects of the plan that add universal healthcare, a job guarantee, and ending racism as essential parts of its environmentalist vision.

Why not add world peace and education reform while we’re at it?

The narrowness of the anti-nuclear attitude of the Green New Deal appears to be either willful or ignorant. One of the quiet revolutions taking place inside much of the environmental movement today is a reckoning with its opposition to nuclear power a generation ago. Many prominent environmentalists such as James Hansen now argue that nuclear power is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is no coincidence that the advanced nations with the lowest greenhouse gas emission rates are those with high amounts of nuclear energy, such as France and Sweden. (Kudos to those environmentalists who have publicly broken with the rigid orthodoxy of the past.)




Major media organizations are about to be sued for irresponsibly turning innocent Covington Catholic school boys into objects of national hatred. A lack of standards threatens to open the media to all kinds of legal liabilities.

By Mark Hemingway  at the Federalist:

While the outrage over the Covington high school kids in MAGA hats may have blown over online, the story is far from over. On February 1, an attorney retained by the family of Nicholas Sandmann, the 16-year-old who allegedly “smirked” at the Native American activist banging a drum in his face, released a video that succinctly explained the broader context of what happened. Suffice to say, the video is a damning indictment of how many media outlets and personalities led a social media-fueled outrage mob and wrongly rushed to smear Sandmann and his fellow students.

On Monday, Sandmann’s legal team told the Cincinnati Enquirer that more than 50 letters had been sent to various organizations and people that are likely to precede defamation and libel lawsuits. A host of elite media outlets received some of these letters, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Atlantic, TMZ, National Public Radio, The Guardian, and Conde Nast. A number of prominent reporters also received letters individually, such as Maggie Haberman, Chuck Todd, Savannah Guthrie, Erin Burnett, David Brooks, and Andrea Mitchell, among others.

Media organizations and reporters have traditionally been given extremely wide latitude by courts in the name of protecting free speech, so at first glance it may seem absurd to sue America’s biggest media organizations en masse for defamation and libel. But for those who have been paying attention, for decades now, courts have been trying to balance privacy concerns with rapidly evolving technology that allows for dissemination of information at a rate that far outpaces editorial judgment. Far from endorsing a maximalist vision of what journalists are allowed to get away with, relevant court decisions have trended toward winnowing the definition of what journalists are allowed to print.

Further, the people wronged by the media in the Covington case were not public figures who have to clear a high legal bar of proving actual malice. They were, in fact, children. Further, a majority of the public distrusts the media — and that distrust didn’t start in 2016, despite the media trying to define this distrust as a wholly Trump-related phenomenon.

To the extent that politicized charges of “fake news” do enter the picture, can anyone honestly say there isn’t good reason to suggest that elite media are overwhelmingly biased against certain political and religious viewpoints? The media response to public anger at the media thus far amounts to little more than a condescending chorus of complaints that half the country doesn’t know “the facts” and lacks the sophistication to appreciate the editorial worldview being foisted on them.

But that flippant dismissal could have painful consequences for the media, because media protections ultimately depend on a societal consensus that they are working in the public interest. Put another way, if you were a lawyer who had to represent CNN and The New York Times in the Covington case, how apprehensive would you be about defending the honor and integrity of the media before a Kentucky jury?

The incident with the Covington high school students could well prove to be a perfect storm that forever reshapes how we view media rights and responsibilities, as well as the consequences of social media mobs. At the bottom of the Covington case is a truth the media don’t want to confront: The greatest threat to First Amendment freedoms might be irresponsible journalists.

Eroding Consensus on Press Freedoms

You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2015, Tulane law professor Amy Gajda wrote “The First Amendment Bubble: How Privacy and Paparazzi Threaten a Free Press.” “In an age when news, entertainment, and new media outlets are constantly pushing the envelope of acceptable content, the consensus over press freedoms is eroding. The First Amendment Bubble examines how unbridled media are endangering the constitutional privileges journalists gained in the past century,” notes the book’s jacket copy.

For decades, judges have generally affirmed that individual privacy takes a back seat to the public’s right to know. But the growth of the Internet and the resulting market pressures on traditional journalism have made it ever harder to distinguish public from private, news from titillation, journalists from provocateurs. Is a television program that outs criminals or a website that posts salacious videos entitled to First Amendment protections based on newsworthiness? U.S. courts are increasingly inclined to answer no, demonstrating new resolve in protecting individuals from invasive media scrutiny and enforcing their own sense of the proper boundaries of news.

Indeed, journalists should be required to read Gajda’s book. If they did, they would probably be mortified to discover that skirting the fringes of libel and defamation has become standard operating procedure for their entire industry.

Ramping up in the 1990s, there was a litany of cases where courts ruled against media on privacy grounds. Some of these cases involve very sympathetic plaintiffs, and one might understand where, say, the distressed mother of a murder victim who did not want to be quoted might be shown deference over Chicago Tribune reporters, as happened in one case. On the other hand, courts also been more than willing to smack the press for violating the privacy rights of people whose behavior might court attention, such as swingers, psychics, women who flash their breasts in public, and men who appear on “To Catch a Predator.”

The simultaneous rise of the internet has caused media to stretch arguments for newsworthiness until they break. In the book, Gajda delves into plenty of legalities involving specific cases, but notes that the cases where newsworthiness has been regularly disputed by courts “can be grouped into five main categories, included here as an overview before a closer look at specific causes of action: (1) those in which the disputed information shows, to this author’s mind, clear newsworthiness; (2) relatedly, those involving information concerning public wrongs; (3) those that seem a response to push-the-envelope media; (4) those involving celebrities in some way; and (5) those involving nudity.”

Now think about how much content online, especially on social media, falls into one or more of those categories where the “newsworthiness” is far from clear. And it’s not like there haven’t been warning signs that juries are more than willing to put entire media organizations on blast.

Gajda spends a fair amount of her book discussing various controversies involving the website Gawker—again, the publication was called “Gawker” as if announcing it specialized in exactly the kind of content that courts found increasingly hard to justify. At the time “The First Amendment Bubble” was published, the lawsuit over their decision to publish Hulk Hogan’s sex tape, which was filmed without his knowledge, had yet to be resolved.

As we now know, a jury slapped Gawker with a fine so large the publication was shuttered. This should have been a warning shot across the bow for the media writ large. Instead, we’ve seen even the prestige media outlets that purport to have higher standards than the tabloid-esque Gawker ramp up the sensationalism, increase partisanship, and willingly bully ordinary people.

‘Actual Malice’

Here some political context behind modern libel law is in order. While the First Amendment generally provides very wide latitude for the press, the more proximate reason why there are so few libel lawsuits in modern America, as opposed to, say, the United Kingdom, is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This is the 1964 Supreme Court case that established the “actual malice” standard, which raised the bar for public figures looking to sue the media.

The case arose because hundreds of millions of lawsuits had been filed in the South seeking to silence out-of-state media outlets that were aggressively covering the civil rights movement, and it’s fair to say that libel and defamation lawsuits were being used to prevent media from shining a critical light on institutional racism.

More specifically, the “Sullivan” in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a Montgomery, Alabama public official suing The New York Times for running an ad that sought to raise funds for Martin Luther King Jr.’s legal defense and the civil rights movement. The ad was wrong in some particulars—King had only been arrested four times, not seven times as the Times ad alleged—but the general sentiment that King was being harassed was obviously correct.

Still, you can see where lawsuits such as this could portend big problems for the media. Politicians and public officials with access to the public coffers could bankroll lawsuits indefinitely in ways that could break many journalism outlets, or at least those that have fewer resources than The New York Times. So the Supreme Court made it so that public figures would have to clear a high bar to justify libel and defamation lawsuits—they couldn’t just file suit because a paper got minor details wrong, they had to prove the publication was reckless or had a personal or institutional vendetta. This helped establish a balance of power between the public officials and other powerful public figures the media is obligated to cover and hold accountable.

That balance of power mostly held for decades. But what no one foresaw, and perhaps should have, is that the media would eventually abandon the pretense of “objective journalism” and their role as a conduit for the people. Instead, the press is using the legal deference and protections afforded them as a shield to drive their political agenda on a very broad cross-section of ideas, none of which approach the moral clarity of racial injustice in Alabama in 1964. Instead of politicians and powerful public figures abusing their power to go after the media, we now have media going after them, and often without provocation.

And the media writ large is so zealously invested in their self-righteousness that they are no longer able to restrain themselves when even the lowliest of private citizens is seen as an impediment to them forcing political and cultural consensus on the country. That’s how we got much of the media establishment punching down on a teenager whose only crime was wearing a baseball cap supportive of a duly elected president.

In point of fact, the media figures and publications who led this two minutes’ hate are supposed to be people among us who set an example of restraint. They are professionally obligated and trained on how to reserve judgment and wait for the facts to emerge, but time and again they are proving incapable of doing that.

Further, 16-year-old Sandmann doesn’t begin to meet any reasonable definition of a “public figure,” so the basic protection against libel and defamation that so many in the media bank on doesn’t apply here. There’s a real chance that some media entities get taken to the cleaners in his lawsuit, and it’s hard to imagine what their defense will be.

Testing the Norms of Objectivity

Even with Sandmann’s lawsuit preceding, there might be a temptation for the media to dismiss this all as a bout of unfortunate hysteria. They will still feel secure going after Donald Trump and the other disagreeable public figures, content that they’re still protected by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This is probably also a big mistake, seeing as the broader standards of what constitutes “actual malice” are still significantly defined by cultural and political consensus. And that consensus is fraying, big time.

For one thing, the “actual malice” standard isn’t only defined by proving someone deliberately published falsehoods. It can also be a result of exhibiting a “reckless disregard for the truth.” The actual malice standard can also be established by circumstantial evidence. You don’t need a smoking gun where an editor or reporter admits he lied to hurt someone. With that in mind, let’s look at the reporting standards the media have embraced in recent years, as embodied by a couple of notable media screw-ups.

In December 2017, CNN reported that Donald Trump Jr. received an email giving him the hacked Democratic National Committee emails released by WikiLeaks before they were public. MSNBC and CBS “independently” confirmed the story. It was later revealed that the date on the email was wrong, and Donald Trump Jr. didn’t get the emails before they were public.

CNN eventually revealed they never saw the original email, and based on the very lawyerly and suspect denials issued, it appears that the anonymous sources who gave CNN the story, as well as confirming it to MSNBC and CBS, were Democratic partisans from the House intel committee. CNN did not discipline the reporters who botched the story. There was no formal retraction. Instead, CNN rewrote the story so it was an inane recounting of how Donald Trump Jr. got an email about a big news event.

Last month, BuzzFeed issued a bombshell report about the president suborning perjury from his lawyer, who is cooperating with the special counsel investigation into the president. After the report the special counsel’s office took the unusual step of denying the report. Of the two reporters on the story, only one claims to have seen documents supporting the report — and he has an extensive history of fabulism.

Now I went to journalism school, albeit over 20 years ago, and I was under the impression that it was highly unethical to publish anonymously sourced stories based entirely on the word of sources with obvious political axes to grind without seeing any corroborating evidence. I was also taught that the idea that you could accuse anyone of a felony, much less the president of the United States, without producing any supporting documentation to back your claims up was likely grounds to have an editor fire you on the spot. Now major media do these things almost on reflex.

These are just two of many, many examples of media malpractice since Trump took office where the “bombshell” report blows up in the journalists’ faces. Instead of reflecting on how they’re abandoning basic standards and making an unprecedented number of astonishing errors, there has been a raft of navel-gazing from media types about how Trump’s hyperbolic style and falsehoods essentially justify throwing caution to the wind and covering him as aggressively as possible.

Journalists haven’t been shy about acknowledging what’s happening. “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?” wrote New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg, a few months prior to Trump’s election. “Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century.” At this point, however, there’s a strong case to be made that the decision, in the words of The New York Times, to test “the norms of objectivity” has ultimately hurt their ability to hold Trump accountable.

Aside from further intensifying public distrust, the media’s defensiveness is shortsighted for a couple of important reasons. One is that when an industry is widely perceived not to be living up to its own ethical guidelines, it’s not hard to imagine courts and juries will start deciding that this behavior is, at a minimum, reckless.

There’s no guarantee the courts won’t look at all journalists’ egregious behavior and decide to readjust libel law in such a way that shifts the balance of power away from journalists and provides more deference to the government and public figures. Notably, such a shift was being hinted at long before the phrase “President Donald J. Trump” roiled newsrooms.

In 2014, Sullivan was already starting to look like little more than an “interesting cultural artifact,” observed Columbia law professor David Pozen:

‘There is still a tendency among members of the media to view the courts in somewhat romantic terms as natural allies and guardians against overreaching by the political branches,’ he says. ‘I’m not confident that remains a descriptively accurate view of the courts.’

‘Courts have pulled back on the reporter’s privilege, generally in the national security concept,’ adds Pozen. ‘It’s not at all clear that judges will be protective of journalists’ interests in light of the way judges have handled recent national-security-versus-open-government issues.’

The second is that the press won’t have Trump to kick around forever. When you look at the media problems of the Trump era—the errors all uniformly cut in one political direction, the over-reliance on compromised sources, the refusal to make basic corrections and retractions, the eagerness to grant anonymity to anyone airing damaging and wholly speculative claims, and so on—these are all existing problems that Trump merely accelerated. It appears that the entire journalism industry is establishing norms that could soon be defined as running afoul of libel law.

When CNN fired three journalists in 2017 for their handling of a story on Trump confidant Anthony Scaramucci—one of very few times where a major journalistic error covering the Trump administration met actual newsroom punishment—CNN doesn’t appear to have been motivated to action in order to protect their integrity. The network was staring down the barrel of a $100 million lawsuit as the result of the story.

The message the media should be receiving right now couldn’t be clearer: Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Never Tweet

The final ingredient cooking up this hellbroth is social media. The cultural toxicity of social media is coming to be generally acknowledged, and why media remain somewhat uniquely oblivious to how Twitter in particular is destroying their cr



Fascism Arising with the Ditsy Dems

MSNBC Host Slapped Down For Saying Conservative Criticism Over Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal Is A Right-Wing Obsession

by Matt Vespa at Townhall:

Perhaps the host just didn’t have enough coffee that day. Who knows? But last week Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Corte (D-NY) unveiled her Green New Deal. A far left economic prescription that will certainly end in the economic death of the U.S. It’s a massive government takeover of not just the economy, but also a gross intrusion into our private lives. It calls for the elimination of fossil fuels within a decade, the upgrading of all buildings to be more eco-friendly, and the destruction of cattle over their methane farts. No, that’s not a joke. It also called for job security for people who are unwilling or unable to work. Yeah, lazy people get subsided. This is la la land policy. It’s not realistic, but the ethos is progressivism after decades of maturation; George Will noted this in the past. All aspects of social life must be organized around the government.  And yes, the Ocasio-Cortez camp tried to say the job security for the lazy portion was a conservative lie. It wasn’t. Plenty of people took screenshots of her offices’ FAQ page before it was shut down (via Free Beacon):

The office of democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has deleted a supplemental document explaining how to implement her “Green New Deal” that called for a jobs guarantee even for those “unwilling to work” and the elimination of “farting cows” and airplanes.

Robert Hockett, a Cornell law professor and adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News on Friday and claimed Republicans doctored official documents that came directly from the congresswoman’s office.

Ocasio-Cortez’s 14-page resolution calls for the “economic transformation” of the United States through a “Green New Deal mobilization” that would phase the country off fossil fuels and nuclear energy in 10 years. Renewable energy accounts for just 17 percent of current electricity generation.

The deleted supplemental document explained the Green New Deal further, saying that the plan would “create economic prosperity” by planting “lots of trees.” But Ocasio-Cortez’s office was honest about the plans limitations to “fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes” in 10 years.



Texas Secretary Of State: As Many As 58,000 Non-Citizens Voted In Elections

The Texas Secretary of State sent an advisory to the state’s registrars today which announced that his office had identified evidence of thousands of non-citizens voting in the state between 1996 and 2018. From the Star-Telegram:

Texas Secretary of State David Whitley said a year-long evaluation found about 95,000 people described as “non-U.S. citizens” who are registered to vote in Texas. About 58,000 of them voted in Texas elections between 1996 and 2018, Whitley said.

Naturally, there are voter advocacy groups already claiming that voter fraud doesn’t happen and questioning the validity of the Secretary of State’s data:


Some civil rights officials weighed in Friday, acknowledging that the numbers are alarming. But they question whether the list includes duplications and factors in that about 50,000 Texas residents become naturalized citizens every year.

It’s not surprising that officials announced this news “using alarmist language that is clearly intended to advance a false political narrative to further restrict access to the ballot box,” said Beth Stevens, voting rights legal director with the Texas Civil Rights Project.

The Houston Chronicle has additional objections from the same group but the Secretary of State’s office says the data is accurate:

“There is no credible data that indicates illegal voting is happening in any significant numbers, and the Secretary’s statement does not change that fact,” said Beth Stevens, Voting Rights Legal Director with the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Stevens said she is concerned about how the state is identifying the suspected non-citizen voters.

The Secretary of State’s office insists the data is accurate and relies on documents that the voters themselves submitted to DPS when they were trying to obtain drivers licenses. Non-citizens are eligible to get a Texas drivers license, but they are not allowed to register to vote.

“It is important to note that we are not using information self-reported by the person regarding citizenship status; rather, we are using documents provided by the person to show they are lawfully present in the United States,” the state’s director of elections, Keith Ingram, wrote in a notice to registrars in all 254 counties in Texas.

I don’t have a problem with civil rights groups challenging the contents of this list. Voting is an important right and it makes sense to look carefully at the evidence before striking someone’s name from the rolls. That said, it’s a little hard to believe that all 58,000 names are a mistake of one kind or another and at this moment, Beth Stevens doesn’t have any proof that’s the case.

Also, it’s not as if the Texas Secretary of State makes this announcement and suddenly the names on his list are removed. The Secretary of State in Texas doesn’t have the power to remove anyone from the voter rolls, so that will be done by county-level registrars. Those officials will check the names and give each identified person 30 days to demonstrate proof of citizenship. Only if they fail to do that or don’t respond at all will they be removed from the rolls.

It seems to me what’s really at stake here is the presumption that large-scale voter fraud doesn’t happen. If Texas can substantiate even a fraction of this list it would change the dynamic of future conversations about non-citizen voting. We’ll have to wait and see if that happens.




Fox News is a foreign business enterprise.  It announces its ‘news’ as “Fair and Balanced”.  If you are an Australian who is not on the fascistic left, “Fair and Balanced” might appear to be a fair title. This Fox and its sister foreigner  FOX BUSINESS network are the only non-leftist national television centers providing “news”  in our coast-to-coast America.   Nearly the entire American education and communication industries today are in  solid  leftist-fascist feminist control.

And then, leading,  governing our American news, communications industries, are today’s Nancy Pelosi’s cult ‘buddies’, Charles Schumer, Carl Bernstein, Andrea Mitchell, Lanny Davis,  Bill Kristol, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN,  MSNBC, David Brooks, Jeff Greenfield, Stanley Greenberg,  Gerry Nadler, Mara Liasson, George Soros,  Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff, Dianne Feinstein, Chris Wallace, Howard Kurtz, Richard Blumenthal, plus yesteryear fascistic feminist friends,  Betty Freidan, Andrea Dworkin, and Gloria Steinem, and today’s  feminist-feminazi industries,  their university  and newsprint empires from coast to coast.

This past week this news industry, its friends, associates, feminists, and many of the fascistics  still living from the above listing,  more specifically the folks at  CNN,  sold their   “FAKE NEWS” by advertising throughout the nation’s television industry, the plight and suffering of, they reported,   a poor,  “innocent”, aged,   struggling, weakened  nonwhite homeless American man of the street,  was humiliated, ridiculed,  by a bunch of threatening white  Roman Catholic teenage hoodlums from Covington, Kentucky many wearing MAGA caps, caps associated with  Americans who dare to  support America’s conservative, JudeoChristian, God-fearing President, Donald J. Trump.

As it turns out this event became a PLOTTED attack upon America’s JudeoChristianity community, especially its Roman Catholics.  It appears it  was created by and  spread  by a  Soviet-like fascistic human animals at leftist television CNN.

In Truth, if any Americans are still interested in  Truth, this assault was an attack staged and reported to sell  fascistic left wing propaganda throughout  the daily  American news industry, including Fox.

These so-called reported  “evil, typical” Roman Catholic teens from Covington, Kentucky were visiting the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. that city  where  our nation’s fascistic Democrats  led by “Schumer and Pelosi” stir and lead countless fascistic falsehoods for the sake of winning elections…..where  Truth has no meaning.

CNN had reported that a MAGA hat wearer, a Roman Catholic 16 year old boy had assaulted, demeaned, insulted, intimidated a crippled, suffering, innocent American near the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

This big national American story began to appear on some news fronts throughout the country late last week.   Yet,  fascistics at CNN had made some quick adjustments to their previous  deceitful reporting selling their leftism.  Not a word was mentioned “Black Evil Israelites”.  Certain CNN reports on the matter began to disappear from a host of news stations last Thursday, I think it was……..and then, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, during  Friday’s CNN’s FASCISTIC NEWS for a FASCIST  AMERICA,  MOTHER TRUTH BEGAN TO REAPPEAR!

Few paid any attention yet to this MAJOR LEFTIST FASCISTIC CNN PLOT.

A poor, pathetic, troubled, colored fellow at the center of CNN’s television DECEIT, turned out to be a troubled pathetic colored fellow who lied, who sadly, as it turned out, was not a war hero, or sadly,  a hero of anything known from the past or present.  He was used by LEFTISTS at CNN….apparently organized…..and a setting enhanced by  thirty or forty foul mouthed leftist gangsters who likely created the event…..perhaps by CNN staff to advance its political power?

(By the way, the JudeoChristian primary tenet of  teaching is based upon seeking Truth,  to learn and detect  the differences  between  ETERNAL CLASSIC GOOD and CLASSIC EVIL’S  DECEIT and UNTRUTH.

ON THIS PAST SUNDAY, REGULAR FOX MORNING NEWS STAR, HOWARD KURTZ REVIEWED THE ABOVE CABAL.   He’s a charming Jewish fellow with a decidedly leftist background.  Starring as fellow commentators in this Kurtz  morning’s  show,  was old- timer, intelligent, civil, fast-talking quite leftist Jewish gal, Mara Liasson.   and some quite gentile conservative guy…..three folks, (two Jews and a gentile) reviewing, and  responding  of a last week   Washington assault upon the Roman Catholic teenagers, in particular upon a boy, Nicholas Sandmann who were standing in  place waiting for their group’s bus to pick them up.  Some students wore MakeAmerica Great Hats.

About 70% of today’s American voting Jews vote LEFT and have so throughout my adult lifetime.  I was born in 1934, by luck, raised, and schooled in a Jewish minority community in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Let’s imagine a group of Jewish teens were  visiting the Lincoln Memorial last week instead of  those Christian ones! Let’s say ten of the students were wearing Bernie Sanders caps instead of the MAGA ones.     Let us imagine they suffered the same lies, the same attacks,  threats,  intimidation,  vulgarities,  threatened by  the fascists circling around their bus stop.  Let us also  imagine these young Jewish kids and their school and religion had to endure the same CNN’s evil falsely   advertising,  smearing the Christian youths with racism, and  reporting this  fake news  on national American television from  coast to coast , selling the same lies falsely attacking a 16 year old boy as they did attack 16 year old Roman Catholic student, Nicholas Sandmann.

Would the same CNN, FOX, PBS, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC “news” institutions  have reported the Jewish event the same way  they did so readily attacking  ROMAN CATHOLICS AS THESE CNN AND OTHER LEFTISTS DID LAST WEEK?

How would our American Jewish communities react to an identical false CNN television  assault on their students these days?

What if 16 year old, Nicholas Sandmann were a “David Rosenberg” of Jewish Hebrew Center of New York City instead,  and their school and its students waiting for a bus in Washington, DC were equally threatened, abused, and falsely insulted throughout CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NBC, and ABC television and newsprint,  instead of Roman Catholic kids from Covington, Kentucky?

I know I would be furious!  Unlike today’s fascist left wing American public schools, my  JudeoChristian public school teachers and Protestant Church of  St. Paul, Minnesota 65 years ago taught me practicing honesty was an absolute requirement for the survival of any civilized society striving to maintain  basic freedoms for human existence.

Would Jewish Howard Kurtz, and Jewish Mara Liasson,  would America’s  Jewish leftist world  be so nonchalant, so casual, unbothered as those Fox folks covering  the incident   at Kurtz  time were on Sunday, yawning, as if nothing serious really happened.

Please do yourself and our American republic a favor….WAKE UP, CIVILIZED AMERICA! YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU TO SEEK AND DEFEND TRUTH MORE THAN EVER!!!  Today’s deceitful ditsy Dems and foreign oriented business tycoons  want to destroy it!





Fascist Dems Force Trump to Back Down on Stopping Dem’s ILLEGAL FOREIGNER INVASION PROGRAM

Hannity: Don’t Worry, Trump’s Going To Get The Wall Money

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

Sean Hannity  says:   C’mon. He’s the Pope of MAGA-ism. It’ll take a lot more than Trump caving on the wall for him to lose faith.

“Some of you say ‘he didn’t get any money for the wall,’” Hannity observed. “No he didn’t, but he’s going to.”

As Hannity acknowledged the national problems that emerged as a byproduct of the shutdown, he claimed that he heard of backchannel conversations among Democratic congresspeople, asking leadership to say yes to Trump’s offer to deal on DACA dreamers. The Fox host said those Democrats were instructed to remain silent in public, and that Trump can take the country back into a shutdown if Congress cannot make a deal on border security and immigration reform.

“The left wing media will say its a win,” Hannity said as he laid out his thoughts on what will happen once Trump declares a national emergency.

I’m sure he’s right that some Dems would eagerly agree to a “DREAM for wall” deal. It’s an obvious avenue of compromise and they’re not all Ocasio-Cortez radicals on abolishing ICE. Remember, no less than Steny Hoyer, Pelosi’s number two, said recently that there’s a place for barriers at the border. Pelosi’s weird view that building a wall would be “immoral” is a byproduct of trying to appease the left and needing to pretend that blocking Trump is about something grander than partisan spite. There may even be some amnesty shills who think a wall in exchange for DREAM is a deal worth doing. Wasn’t it … Luis Gutierrezwho offered just a year ago to help build the wall himself if Trump would compromise by protecting DREAMers?

Even the left has no specific objection to a wall. They object to it in principle because they favor open borders but there’s nothing about the wall per se that makes them more hostile to it than they are to, say, more funding for ICE. Stopping the wall has become a political fetish for them because building the wall has become one for Trump. They won an election, they’re feeling their oats, and their reward is getting to tell Trump to fark off. So, sure, while some Dems are ready to deal, Pelosi isn’t. The left isn’t. The many Democrats across the country who deeply despise Trump aren’t. And pro-compromise Democrats in Congress know that and are fearful of crossing them. So what does it matter if they want a deal? It’s like saying that most Republicans in Congress want comprehensive immigration reform. That would also be true and it’d also be a nonstarter because they know they’d get slaughtered in primaries if they followed through.

Hannity knows that, though. He knows Congress isn’t giving Trump funding for the wall over the next three weeks. And I’m sure he knows that even if Pelosi’s arm was twisted and Democrats put the wall on the table in exchange for DREAM, Trump would balk for fear of taking another beating from Coulterites. Which is why, if you listen to the audio at Mediaite from his show this afternoon (I can’t find an embeddable clip, sorry) you’ll find him talking up the idea of Trump declaring a national emergency and using Pentagon money for the wall. That’s the only way this can end with Trump saving face so that’s the only way this can end, period. I don’t know why we’re wasting three weeks to get there.



Fascism, Atheism, Feminism Rule Today’s Dim Dems Determined to Destroy the Republic

Today’s Democrats: Anti-Christian, Anti-Israel, Anti-God

by Trevor Thomas at American Thinker:


Anyone who considers himself a friend of God must have at least great pause when it comes to modern Democrats.  Seldom has a major American political party so distanced itself from the notion that, as President John Adams pointed out, “righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.”

This is what happens when “live your truth” is the prevailing moral position.  No one should be surprised that politicians who support the “right” to kill children in the womb, who championed the legal redefinition of marriage, and who now pretend we can no longer rely on science, or common sense, or even simply our eyes to tell us who is a male and who is a female, would display open animus against people whose faith tells them such positions are immoral, and who live according to the notion that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

If something is immoral, then perhaps it should be illegal.  If there is such a thing as absolute truth, then perhaps our laws should reflect that truth.  Democrats just can’t take the chance that such thinking will prevail.  Thus, unless Christians can manage to get themselves elected, our role in our government is increasingly imperiled.

This is especially true of Christians who wish to serve in the Judiciary.  Because liberals have long seen the courts as a “super-Legislature” that they can use to enact their perverse agenda, Brett Kavanaugh will be far from the last Christian conservative judge who will draw the ire of Democrats who wish to derail such nominations.

Before Justice Kavanaugh, there were Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett and her loud “dogma.”  Now we have “Sir” Brian C. Buescher of the Knights of Columbus.  Democrat senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono recently implied that Judge Buescher’s membership in the two million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic service organization makes him unfit for the federal courts.

What really troubled the Senate Democrats is the position of the Knights of Columbus on abortion and marriage.  Never mind that such positions are perfectly in line with centuries-old teachings of the Catholic Church and that disqualification on such grounds would bar from public service every Catholic who actually adheres to the Church’s teachings.  As Matthew Continetti rightly notes:

My concern is the anti-Catholic sentiment manifest in the Democratic Party.  Last March, Feinstein demanded to know if Michael Scudder, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, worked with his parish “to establish a residential crisis pregnancy center.”  Last May, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked Peter J. Phipps, now confirmed as a district court judge, about the Knights.  Last October, Feinstein, Harris, and three other Democrats wanted to know about the relationship between Fourth Circuit nominee Allison Jones Rushing and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that supports religious liberty.  Last November, Feinstein asked Third Circuit nominee Paul Matey, “If confirmed, will you recuse yourself from all cases in which the Knights of Columbus have taken a position?

Right-minded Catholics should thank God that Trump was elected.  As Rod Dreher reported, a “new Wikileaks dump from Clinton campaign chief John Podesta’s emails reveals that Podesta created a couple of activist groups for the sake of undermining the Catholic bishops and the Church’s authority.”  As Thomas Peters tweeted, “the head of Clinton’s campaign has been organizing to fracture a major religion.”  Or, as Dreher rightly noted:

[A]t the senior level of the Democratic Party’s brain trust, a Clinton political operative – a Catholic! – created front groups specifically to undermine the authority of the Catholic bishops, and to separate the bishops from the people, as well as to secretly undermine Catholic teaching to make it more friendly to the Democratic Party’s agenda.  Podesta ought to be excommunicated.

Continetti notes that Democrats have not limited their religious bigotry to Catholics:

Baptists and Episcopalians are also under scrutiny.  In June 2017, Bernie Sanders clashed with Russell Vought, now acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, over a blog post Vought had written regarding Islam that several Muslim groups considered Islamophobic.  “I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith,” Vought said.  By the end of the exchange, Sanders said, “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”

Democrats also opposed Mike Pompeo’s nomination as secretary of state because of how his Christian faith informs and impacts his politics. Pompeo – a Presbyterian – has served as a deacon, is open about his faith, and has also indicated that he actually believes what the Bible says about life, sex, and marriage.  In November 2017, Sheldon Whitehouse critically questioned federal district court nominee Trevor McFadden – an Anglican – over his church’s traditional teachings on marriage and the family.

Along with targeting Christians who believe what the Bible reveals on the significant moral issues of our time, modern Democrats have also targeted Jews and the nation of Israel.

As John Perazzo recently noted, the black left is littered with racists and anti-Semites.  These Jew-haters are not mere race pimps and publicity prostitutes à la Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but are also elected Democrats.  As Warren Henry revealed last year, “Democrats are fielding even more anti-Semitic candidates for Congress.”  They’re not just running, but winning.

As Henry points out, Michigan representative Rashida Tlaib – who profanely promised to impeach President Trump – “is representative of the Democratic Party’s gradual march beyond the embrace of candidates and officials who criticize Israeli policy or its current government to a much uglier place in politics.”  Like a growing number of Democrats in Congress, Tlaib supports a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along with the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement.

Henry also notes:

The founders and leaders of the BDS movement support a “one-state solution” that destroys Israel as Jewish state.  The movement is the intellectual descendant of the 1945 Arab boycott, which did not distinguish between Jews and Israel.  It is based on the premise that Israel is a racist apartheid state requiring the sort of action once taken against South Africa.

Marc Greendorfer recently revealed:

While BDS has risen in the United States, so has anti-Semitism.  Anti-Semitic incidents have spiked from a low point of 751 incidents in 2013 to nearly 2,000 in 2017.  It is no coincidence that the spread of a movement that demonizes Jews has had the same effect in the U.S. that similar campaigns had in the last 2,000 years.

The real agenda of BDS is the destruction of Israel.  Robert P. George of Princeton warns that leading Democrats will soon altogether turn on Israel.  The modern left hates Israel because the existence of a nation called Israel is among the greatest evidence that the God of the Bible is real.  They hate God, so they hate Israel.

This is also why the left hates Christianity.  Authentic Christianity points people to the truth.  As a California church recently declared, “Bruce Jenner is still a man.  Homosexuality is still a sin.  The culture may change, the Bible does not.”

The left’s deceit seems to know no bounds, thus we are left debating what was once almost universally accepted.  This is what results when a major political party is so often opposed to the truth.

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.