• 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

Fascism Alive and Well in Canada


by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

“I’m late coming to the story about the graduate student instructor, Ms. Lindsay Shepherd, at Wilfred Laurier University in Canada, who ran afoul of the university’s political correctness police for the thoughtcrime of showing in class a short video of Prof. Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto, who objects to legislation requiring the use of the whole visible spectrum of self-generated gender pronouns.

A student (or students—the university won’t say if it was more than one) filed a complaint, which was all the tyrannical educrats at Laurier needed to dragoon Shepherd through a full-on 1984-style Orwellian inquisition by the—get this title—“manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support.” We might not have heard much more about this story, except that the resourceful Ms. Shepherd has the presence of mind to bring along a recorder and tape the hour-long inquisition. All hell has broken loose, and the university has “apologized.”

I put “apologized” in square quotes on purpose, because this only happened because the university’s intellectual corruption has been fully exposed for all to see. I’ve long had a hypothesis that universities want to conceal their craziness, and when an example of their intellectual corruption is exposed publicly (Ward Churchill at Boulder, Melissa Click at Missouri, etc), they run for the hills.

Below is the full 42 minutes of the inquisition of Ms. Shepherd. That’s more than you might want to listen to, but try the first 8 to 10 minutes. And if you don’t have time even for that, here are some key excerpts and delightful commentary from Raffi Grinburg at Heterodox Academy:

In the meeting, Shepherd asserted that she was neutrally presenting a topic (the legally mandated use of new gender pronouns) that is in the current public discourse.

Shepherd: [C]an you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away from this? Like, is that what the point of this is? Because to me, that is so against what a university is about. So against it. I was not taking sides. I was presenting both arguments.

But her supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, didn’t want her to remain neutral.

Shepherd: Like I said, it was in the spirit of debate.

Rambukkana: Okay, “in the spirit of the debate” is slightly different than “this is a problematic idea that we might want to unpack.”

Shepherd: But that’s taking sides.

Rambukkana: Yes.

One side of this debate has seemingly become academic orthodoxy, which precludes the possibility that students might question it and think critically about it. In the words of Orwell from 1984:

Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

Shepherd’s supervisors did not disclose any information about the complaint.

Shepherd: I have no concept of how many people complained, what their complaint was, you haven’t shown me the complaint.

Rambukkana: I understand that this is upsetting, but also confidentiality matters.

Shepherd: The number of people is confidential?

Rambukkana: Yes.

Even the policy violation was unclear.

Rambukkana: Do you understand how what happened was contrary to, sorry Adria, what was the policy?

Joel: Gendered and Sexual Violence.

Rambukkana: — Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy. Do you understand how —

Shepherd: Sorry, what did I violate in that policy.

Joel: Um, so, gender-based violence, transphobia, in that policy. Causing harm, um, to trans students by, uh, bringing their identity as invalid. Their pronouns as invalid — potentially invalid.

Shepherd: So I caused harm?

Joel: — which is, under the Ontario Human Rights Code a protected thing so something that Laurier holds as a value.

Shepherd: Ok, so by proxy me showing a YouTube video I’m transphobic and I caused harm and violence? So be it. I can’t do anything to control that.

These amorphous accusations are reminiscent of Kafka’s opening lines from The Trial:

Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.

At Laurier—and other universities—can teachers be disciplined for being anonymously accused of violating an undefinable policy? If so, this has chilling implications for teaching and learning. Teachers will have to guess at what policies might protect students’ sensibilities, and eye their classrooms with fear. Each student is a potential accuser, so teachers must plan their lectures with the most easily-offended student in mind, taking account of all topics that could cause offense. In fact, since 2015 we have been hearing many reports of teachers self-censoring, “teaching on tenterhooks,” and cutting potentially controversial materials from their syllabi.

Throughout the conversation, Shepherd continued to articulate the value of showing students conflicting ideas.

Shepherd: But when they leave the university they’re going to be exposed to these ideas, so I don’t see how I’m doing a disservice to the class by exposing them to ideas that are really out there.

The ideas are “really out there:” the clip Shepherd showed had recently aired on TV. But Rambukkana later explained that there are some perspectives for which a stance must be taken by the teacher. For example:

Rambukkana: This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler.

In a just world, this Nathan Rambukkana fellow would be fired, and forevermore employed only at Starbucks. I suspect you’ll find people just like him at most universities today…….”  AMEN!

Comment from ghr…..Today’s fascism in soul-less, feminized Canada is many laps ahead of our United States’ Obama thought and speech controls  regarding  Leftist devotions to feed its population with dictatorship chips.    I wonder if Royal Canada has come to ban the East German movie,  “THE LIVES OF OTHERS” to keep its population ignorant of its educational and political habits.

Get to know your fascist Canada better by following the reporting commentary of our American 2016 election night Presidential contest at CBC  below:



Murderer Sayfullo Saipov illustrates the suicidal absurdity of Obama’s American immigration Law

by Scott Johnson at PowerLine:


“Terrorist murderer Sayfullo Saipov illustrates the suicidal absurdity of American immigration law. He was taken into the United States from Uzbekistan through the monumental stupidity of the so-called “diversity visa lottery.” He brings diversity to the 50 shades of farce in the immigration law.

Mark Krikorian takes a deep dive into the diversity visa lottery here at NRO. Krikorian adds the poignant fact that Saipov’s first name is from the Arabic for “Sword of Allah.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It must have been a beautiful sword.

The diversity visa lottery is bad enough. Even worse is the family chain migration fostered by our immigration law. Saipov’s case appears to illustrate the absurdity of chain migration as well. You start with one refugee or other such immigrant on whom we are to lavish our compassion and before too long you have the whole village.

To borrow a trope from JFK, there are some who say that’s not the way it works. Let them come to Minneapolis.

At a cabinet meeting yesterday afternoon President Trump cited Saipov as a case in point. Our diverse man from ISIS may have been able to help as many as 23 family membersimmigrate to the United States as part of the first link in the chain that began with Saipov’s green card.”

It’s way past time to call a timeout while we right the system.


UZBEK Terrorist Entered US Through “Toss Up” Visa Program

Leftist Americans, Islamist fanatics,  Communists everywhere welcome “Odd Balls” into their midst as long as the “Odd Balls”  do as they are told….or taught.

Our American Democrat Leftists established that very concept when it featured America’s diversity visa program…..a program the American citizens know nothing about, don’t you think?  After all, leftist Democrats of today dream of an American society on the par with Mexico….where everyone is equally poor except for those Fascists who count!…..like those at our American socialist universities,  the core of today’s  Democrat Party and its fake news American media world and its censors, the ONE PARTY PEOPLE.


by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“ABC-7 in New York reports that Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, the truck driving, ISIS supporting terrorist who killed at least eight people in New York City today, came to the U.S. seven years ago from Uzbekistan under what is called the Diversity Visa Program. The program offers a lottery for people from countries with few immigrants in America.

The idea behind this program, which I became aware of only when Tom Cotton proposed to abolish it, is badly misguided. The U.S. isn’t Noah’s Ark. We don’t need immigrants from every country, and certainly not extra immigrants from Uzbekistan whose population is 80 percent Muslim, and thus is more likely than most countries to produce terrorists and future terrorists in the current environment.

According to Newsweek, an Uzbek citizen was arrested in Sweden in April when he ran a truck into a crowd in Stockholm and killed four people. He had expressed sympathy for the ISIS. Two Uzbeks and a Kazakh were arrested in Brooklyn in 2015 and charged with conspiring to support ISIS.

Following today’s attack, Newsweek ran an article called “Why young men from [Uzbekistan] keep threatening the U.S. and Europe.” An expert on Central Asia addressed the question — one that doesn’t seem terribly mysterious.

Frankly, I don’t care why. We should not have a program that brings extra Uzbeks to the U.S. in the name of “diversity” or for any other purpose.

Daniel Horowitz reports that 1.83 million green cards were issued to nationals of predominantly Muslim countries from 2001-2015, including almost 60,000 to Uzbeks. The dates are significant because they reflect post-9/11 immigration policy. After 9/11, we should have known better.

In addition to the 1.83 million green card holders, we let in roughly 155,000 foreign students every year from predominantly Muslim countries, according to Horowitz. In effect, we are asking for more domestic terrorism.

Meanwhile, as Horowitz observes, when the president proposes a modest moratorium on just a few of the countries – not even the primary drivers of our immigration from the Middle East – a single leftist district judge blocks the moratorium. The “resistors in robes” on the Ninth Circuit will surely back that judge, as they have in the past on this issue, and we will have to wait for the Supreme Court to uphold common sense and a decent regard for the power of the president with regard to who can enter the U.S.

Even thereafter, we can count on more obstruction from lower courts whenever the administration continues its efforts to protect America from an influx of terrorists and future terrorists.

Horowitz concludes:

Congress must clamp down on immigration, weaken the jurisdiction of lower courts to get involved in immigration cases, and further bolster Homeland Security efforts to identify the thousands of threats we already have in our country as a result of masochistic immigration policies.

If, as seems certain, congressional Democrats resist, they need to be called out. In this regard, it’s worth noting that the Diversity Visa Program, through which the terrorist who slayed New Yorkers today came to America, was formulated by New York’s own Chuck Schumer when he was in the House.

By contrast, President Trump and, as noted above, Sen. Tom Cotton have called for an end to the program…..”



Prager U. How the State Can Save America

Click above or here to watch this video

Washington is gigantic, corrupt, and unaccountable. Can this giant be cut down to size? Yes, but not by Congress. Only by we the people. It’s called a Convention of States, and it’s right there, in Article V of the Constitution. Jim DeMint, former senator from South Carolina, explains.

Warning from ghr:  I would not trust today’s American politicians, nor today’s voting Americans to retain our democratically oriented Federal Constitution.   The nation currently  lacks wisdom and knowledge.  Eighty per cent of the American black and feminist population know little or no American or world  history before ObamaRule.   Immigrants have arrived from crime ridden and/or fascist criminal nations without any Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, and John Adams to our today’s  nearly illiterate  collegiate America.

Mueller….The Bureaucratic Establishment’s Heinrich Himmler


“I believe any reasonable observer, if he considers the matter independently of whose ox is being gored, would agree that it is problematic to have a special counsel with a broad mandate to investigate, unbound by some of the normal constraints of a prosecutor, a campaign and a presidency. Reasonable observers will disagree about the extent of the danger, and about the countervailing value of having such a prosecutor in certain circumstances.

However, it seems undeniable that even a non-conflicted, non-partisan, non-abusive special counsel can severely hamper the ability of the president to perform the job the American people elected him to do. In an extreme case, such a prosecutor can destroy a presidency for no good reason.

That’s why, if we are to have a special counsel, we must be satisfied that he is non-conflicted, non-partisan, and non-abusive.

Does Robert Mueller satisfy all three of these criteria? Does he satisfy any of them?

Given his friendship and ties with James Comey, there is a good case that Mueller is conflicted. Comey is at the center of key aspects of the investigation — alleged collusion and, especially, alleged obstruction of justice. And it was Comey whose manipulation and leakingresulted, as intended, in the appointment of a special counsel.

Mueller has a reputation (deserved or not, I don’t know) for being non-partisan. But the same was true of Mueller’s friend and admirer James Comey. And we all understand that being a Republican is not inconsistent with hating Donald Trump.

It would, of course, be unfair to suggest on this basis alone that Mueller is anti-Trump. But if we examine the people Mueller has hired to work on this investigation, concerns of partisanship come to the fore. It is well-documented that Mueller has assembled a staff full of partisan Democrats, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s opponent in the very election that gave rise to the investigation.

If, as I believe, Mueller and his team fail the non-conficted and non-partisan tests, then he ought not have the power that has been invested in him. I should also note that when Mueller was given this power, it wasn’t known that he would staff up with anti-Trump Democrats; nor was the full extent of his conflict understood.

Accordingly, I think Mueller deserves to be sacked whether or not he acted abusively so far. Has he? I don’t know enough facts or enough about criminal prosecutions to answer.

I do know that leaking news of an impending grand jury indictment is abusive and, as I understand it, illegal. But I don’t know whether Mueller’s team is responsible for the leaking that has occurred so far, including this weekend’s leak that an indictment was about to come down.

Trey Gowdy, a Republican and former prosecutor, has encouraged Republicans to “give [Mueller] a chance to do his job.” He says, “the result will be known by the facts.”

I respect Gowdy, but there are problems with his statement. So far Mueller has had not just a chance, but free rein to do his job. We already know some of the results — (1) a free-wheeling investigation that appears to go well beyond the issue of Russian interference in the 2016 election and alleged collusion by the Trump campaign and (2) a staff full of partisan Democrats.

By the time Mueller and his team of anti-Trumpers reach their “result,” they may have severely impaired this presidency for no good reason.

What can be done to counter Mueller? The first step is to criticize his investigation. Trump did so this weekend in a series of tweets. Other Republicans went on the Sunday shows to raise questions about Team Mueller.

I doubt these efforts will be effective except, perhaps, for the purpose of laying the groundwork for measures that will actually block Mueller, if things come to that. These measures aren’t hard to identify, but discussing them is beyond the scope of this post……”

(Note by ghr:)  “Special counsel” is a witch hunter who has been reduced to,  unconstitutionally given,  the authority to attack, spy on  anyone, accuse anyone, everyone he/she choses for political purposes by merely hunting to see what accusation might work.

Our once honorable Democratic Party has left the world of democracy.   Biggest Businesses like Amazon, criminals……black racists, fanatic feminists of all colors, shapes, sexes, and sizes, legal and illegal immigrants, college instructors and  children  have gathered together to suck America to death from the single teat,  single party fascistic socialism.

Today’s American Schools are the Greatest of Contemporary Frauds

I live in modest Minnetonka, Minnesota.   Our school district is in next door Hopkins which once upon a time had a well earned fairly good reputation for organization, student control, and an average degree of providing knowledge.  It used to be a “barely” Republican community then…..in other words, average American.

Today it is quite Democrat, Democrat preaching, which means teaching knowledge is now banned……for the sake of becoming happy socialists thinking the same nothing.

My school district usually asks voters for more money about  every two years.   Expenses rise, programs get pricier, teachers get lazier making more money and teach the less  they know.   THE TEACHING OF KNOWLEDGE IN SCHOOL HAS ABOUT DISAPPEARED.   FEMINIZED FEELINGS ARE IN THE AIR.

Our school district bosses,  those who are supposed to be responsible for developing knowledgeable students, this year want more money to spend upon, and I quote from their ad sent to us tax payers  in their  Modern  “Leftese” Language:

“FLEXIBLE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS OPEN UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES”….(note, there is no mention of knowledge, learning history, learning language or science, learning anything.  An emphasis statement continues:  “I WANT TO INCREASE THE ENGAGEMENT OF MY ROOM TO 100 PERCENT, WITH A FLEXIBLE CLASSROOM, I AM GETTING MORE QUALITY WORK FROM ALL MY KIDS AND THE ENGAGEMENT IS MUCH HIGHER.”   (It wasn’t made clear where the “I” came from.)

This year these neoSoviet specialists are selling (“embracing”) in their language, “FLEXIBLE CLASSROOMS TO IMPROVE STUDENT OUTCOMES.  THE DISTRICT PLANS TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT TEACHERS WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN TRANSFORMING THEIR “CLASSROOMS”…..(quotes added for my emphasis)

and further this Hopkins School District update for massing more money for no learnings:  “I WANT TO INCREASE THE ENGAGEMENT OF MY ROOM TO 100 PERCENT, AND WITH A FLEXIBLE CLASSROOM, I AM GETTING MORE QUALITY WORK FROM ALL MY KIDS, AND THE ENGAGEMENT IS MUCH HIGHER”…….all this written in primitive female English where feelings, not knowledge overwhelm.   What do you think the language means?

It could come from the  four pictures of radiant color in the sales piece  showing youngsters lying on their belly with a book nearby, slouching on a bench, reading at a table, and another at a desk,  with a single  subtitle written for all:


The important matter here is the word “learning” reduced to how an immature human body behaves when positioned  in various physical posturings,   these modern Soviets tell us…..while certain they’ll get their money for poorer learning every year the teaching staff knows less and less and less knowledge.

I began my school experience in public school kindergarten  in St. Paul, Minnesota nearly 80 years ago.   Classrooms through eighth grade  were filled by between 35 and 40 students, with  36 sitting erect at fixed permanent desks 6 to each 6 rows.  Others sat at the movables brought in by the janitor when needed. It was wartime.

Males were in charge of the culture then.   Their discipline reigned supreme making it possible for these single women with no children, MAGNIFICENTLY LEARNED IN THEIR FIELDS, TAUGHT FROM KNOWLEDGE TO CONVEY KNOWLEDGE.

I loved them.  I loved being taught knowledge.  I was born curious, loved everything they taught, but I couldn’t read story books.   Encyclopedias,  newspapers were fine.   Their sentences were usually short and snappy.   It was wartime.  I could read all of the headlines, maps, and the  cut lines to pictures in the St. Paul  Sunday paper WAR picture  section beginning with battle of Midway.  I immediately fell in love with maps and began collecting them in every manner possible when I was eight.  (It turned out I was terribly dyslexic. It hadn’t been discovered yet.  These old maids picked on me whenever  reading stories arrived.   They’d poke their fore finger three inches from my nose while firmly averring:  “THERE ARE TWO REASONS, GLENN RAY, YOU MUST LEARN KNOWLEDGE!    ONE, IT WILL HELP YOU BECOME CLOSER TO GOD FOR GOD KNOW ALL THINGS….AND TWO, IT WILL HELP YOU MAKE A BETTER CHOICE WHEN YOU VOTE AT THE BALLOT BOX!

“God, and Country” meant something in school and country then.   These were the basics in my Sunday School teachings as well….usually taught by women, as well.

Today’s functionary educational con artists will sell you anything but knowledge.  They produce bored, uninspired, uninformed, unknowledgeable  kids at a time when  much knowledge is desperately required.

The Hopkins school cons are asking us Hopkins-Minnetonka tax payers to fund a new system of learning pending the position of student body with  furniture,  slouching,  lying, resting, perhaps sleeping or reading while picking ones nose, maybe even standing or walking around if such comes to ‘feeling’s.  BUT, FORGET LEARNING KNOWLEDGE…IT’S TOO MASCULINE AND WHITE FOR AMERICA!!!!

Ten percent of the voters will vote yes…..the know nothings will win anyway.  THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO!


A Major Cancer for Future Americans!!!!!