• 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

GO CANADA! Hello the Squad!

GO CANADA !          (from Bruce and Arlene:)


Well Said Mayor Dorval, Quebec mayor.


Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why.

“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada, its customs, its traditions, and its way of life, because that’s where they chose to immigrate.

“Muslims must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in CANADA

. “They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who, so generously, welcomed them.

“Muslims must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic. Canada accepted many immigrants before Muslims showed up (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).”

“Just like other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity or their culture . ” And, if Canada is a land of welcome, it’s not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian people as a whole .

“Finally,they must understand that in Canada with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.”

The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.

“For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Sharia.

“If you left  your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere. We will not let you drag Canada down to the level of those 57 countries.

“Ask yourself this question – just once: “Why is it better here in Canada than where you came from?”  “A canteen with pork on the menu is part of the answer.”

If you came to Canada with the idea that you will displace us with your prolific propagation and eventually take over the country, you should pack up and go back to the country you came from.  We have no room here for you and your ideology.

If you feel the same, forward it on.  If not, hit the delete, and prepare to be displaced.


Your Everyday Freedom is Not Free, your military has paid for it!        


The Fanatic Muslim Brotherhood!


by Scott Johnson   at  PowerLine:

Anyone seeking to understand the Muslim Brotherhood would benefit from exposure to Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower and Andrew McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad. Andy, incidentally, devotes two chapters to Minnesota. We’ve got the Brotherhood and we’ve got it bad.

I believe each of these books to be invaluable in its own way, but they require a commitment of time and effort. It wouldn’t be quite correct to say that the time spent is not inherently pleasurable, but the books aren’t fun. On the contrary.

Now comes Ami Horowitz to take us “Inside the Muslim Brotherhood” in the 18-minute video below. In this excellent video, Ami investigates the origins and the motivations of the Brotherhood. From the Middle East to Europe to the USA, Ami explores the organization’s radical agenda.

Quotable quote: “‘How closely is the Brotherhood working with the leftist and liberal organizations?’ Horowitz asks [American Brotherhood advocate Nidal Mohamed] Sakr. ‘They are my backers and they are my defenders in political circles,’ says Sakr.”


Inside the Muslim Brotherhood

Dem Minneapolis’ Star 2019 Dem, ILHAN OMAR!


by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

In the matter of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Ilhan Omar, my purpose in this series has been (1) to dig into the state campaign finance board investigative file made available to the media over two weeks ago, (2) to embarrass the Star Tribune into covering it, and (3) to attract the interest of others outside Minnesota to what appears to be a big story. In previous installments of this series I explored the investigative file while posting file documents themselves.

Today the Star Tribune finally gets around to the story in “New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s marriage history” (as the online headline has it) or “Omar’s past haunts her present” (as it appears on page A1 of today’s paper), by Patrick Coolican and Stephen Montemayor with the assistance of Eric Roper and Torey Van Oot. That’s four reporters to bring the story up to the point where Preya Samsundar left it nearly three years ago (see my City Journal column “The curious case of Ilhan Omar”).

We learned as a result of the campaign finance board investigation that Omar filed fraudulent tax returns in 2014 and 2015 with a man who was not her husband (Ahmed Hirsi) while she was married to another man (Ahmed Nur Said Elmi), if that marriage was legal. Omar seems to have treated the marriage to Elmi as a sham. Over what period of years did Omar file fraudulent returns? What is the story of her apparently phony marriage to Elmi?

Omar isn’t talking. Her family isn’t talking. They are buttoned up tighter than a Mafia clan. Omar refused to respond to the Star Tribune or to produce a single document that would answer any relevant question:

Sent a list of questions and a request to talk to her siblings and father, Omar declined to do so. Hirsi did not reply to multiple calls, texts and e-mails. Social media posts indicate Elmi is in Africa. He did not respond to multiple e-mails.

Omar’s reticence is consistent with near total silence she has maintained for three years amid questions raised through public records picked over by conservative opinion journalists intent on proving that she committed immigration fraud. Those attacks, she once tweeted, are the provenance of “fake journalists on bigoted blogs.”

Omar spokesman Jeremy Slevin issued a statement Friday asserting that the questions about her personal life are illegitimate:

“Since before she was elected to office, Ilhan has been the subject of conspiracy theories and false accusations about her personal life. Emboldened by a president who openly treats immigrants, refugees and Muslims as invaders, these attacks often stem from the presumption that Ilhan — like others who share those identities — is somehow illegitimate or not fully American.

“Ilhan has shared more than most public officials ever do about the details of her personal life — even when it is personally painful,” he continued. “Whether by colluding with right-wing outlets to go after Muslim elected officials or hounding family members, legitimate media outlets have a responsibility not to fan the flames of hate. Continuing to do so is not only demeaning to Ilhan, but to her entire family.”

This is where I came in.

There is a lot that is infuriatingly wrong with the Star Tribune story and I will not itemize it all here. I will only say the story is most ungenerous to me and to Preya Samsundar and especially to David Steinberg, who pursued the story in five investigative pieces before Omar’s election to Congress last year — here (August 8) and here (August 13) and here (October 23) and here (October 30) and here (November 5).

We have done the work that a real newspaper in Omar’s district should and would have been doing, though we appear in the Star Tribune story only as “conservative bloggers” or “conservative opinion journalists” or “conservative critics” or “conservative activists” or “conservative media websites” or (in the Star Tribune timeline) as “the conservative Power Line blog.” There seems to be a theme here.

Virtually everything in today’s Star Tribune story derives from the work of Preya Samsundar and David Steinberg. David Steinberg is an investigative reporter who has badly beaten the Star Tribune in the traditional work of journalism, though you would never know it from the Star Tribune story and the story hasn’t come close to catching up with the depth of Steinberg’s reporting. There is nevertheless progress of a kind here — Omar’s spokesman suggests that the Star Tribune is “colluding” with us.

As President Trump might say, there is no collusion, no collusion anywhere! The allegation of collusion is hilarious, but I infer from today’s Star Tribune story that Coolican and Montemayor are not entirely persuaded by Omar’s denials.

Quotable quote: “Over the years Elmi, who attended high school in St. Paul, has had occasional contact over the internet with other friends and acquaintances, including retired DFL activist and Minneapolis city worker Barb Lickness, who lived in the same downtown Minneapolis apartment building with Elmi around 2012, before he moved to London. She described him as ‘friendly in a soft way,’ and a neighbor who participated enthusiastically in the building’s social scene. She recalls that he was tall, dapper, and spoke with a pronounced British accent, indicative of a foreign upbringing. He never mentioned being married, Lickness said.”

FOR THE BACKGROUND TO THIS SERIES, see “From the mixed-up files of Rep. Ilhan Omar.”

UPDATE: David Steinberg comments on the Star Tribune story on a Twitter thread that begins with the tweet below. David’s current thread continues his intensely reported work on Omar, noting that Elmi appears to be working for Omar’s sister Sahra in Nairobi.

Islamist Fascists at CAIR Trouble-Making!

CAIR ‘Demands’ US Army War College Cancel My Lecture on Islamic History

by Raymond Ibrahim  at  American Thinker:


The “unindicted co-conspirator” Council on American-Muslim Relations (“CAIR”) and its Islamist allies are “outraged” because the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. has invited me to give a lecture on my recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

On May 28, CAIR’s Pennsylvania leadership — namely, Jacob Bender, Timothy Welbeck, Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu — sent a letter to USAWC commandant Gen. John Kem and provost Dr. James Breckenridge urging them to revoke “the decision of the US Army War College to invite Mr. Raymond Ibrahim to deliver the prestigious 50th Annual Lecture Series of the US Army War College.”

The reason CAIR cites to disinvite me is that “Raymond Ibrahim’s book …  advance[s] a simplistic, inaccurate and often prejudicial view of the long history of Muslim-West relations which we find deeply troubling.”

Much of this is covered in a Task Force report, which contains some responses from me, titled “Army War College under fire over historian’s upcoming lecture on ‘clash of civilizations’ between Islam and the West.”

As a reflection of the unprecedented (and ongoing) nature of this Islamist campaign against me, the Task Force notes (emphasis added), “The trend of disinviting speakers on controversial subjects has been on the rise at American universities in recent years, but this appears to be the first time that a speaker at U.S. military educational institution has been subject to such a campaign, according to a database maintained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.”

CAIR has since issued other screeds, including a Press Release and a petition that present me as a “notorious Islamophobe,” and — despite my being of Egyptian descent — a “white nationalist,” who, if allowed to speak, will cause “white nationalism, Islamophobia, and violence” against Muslims in America to break out.

In another article, I may parse through these hysterical allegations to expose the arsenal of verbal duplicity and second-rate sophistry groups like CAIR rely on in order to keep inconvenient truths suppressed.

For now, however, consider this: although my book is 352 pages and covers nearly fourteen centuries, certain epochs in great detail, not once does CAIR highlight a certain passage or excerpt to support its claim that the book “is based on poor research.”

The reason for this discrepancy is simple: although long hidden, the history I present in Sword and Scimitar is ironclad, verifiable, and beyond well documented; with about a thousand endnotes, my book is heavily based on primary sources, many of which are Muslim and from eyewitnesses.  This history makes abundantly clear that Islamic terrorism and “extremism” are intrinsic to Islam, and have been from its first contact with Western civilization in the seventh century.  Think of the atrocities committed by the Islamic State (ISIS) but on a much larger scale — and for over a millennium — bombarding every corner of Europe, and even America before it could elect its first president.

Put differently, the history presented in Sword and Scimitar proves everything that groups like CAIR are committed to suppressing.

Incidentally, whereas none of the CAIR activists petitioning the War College have any credentials in history, here is what actual historians and scholars in the fields of Muslim-Western history say concerning the book (many more can be read here):

  • “Raymond Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar is … first-rate military history and a product of solid scholarship and philological research.” ―Victor Davis Hanson, America’s leading military historian and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution
  • “[Sword and Scimitar is] a refreshingly honest account of Islamic expansion and Christian reaction that provides useful insights into today’s problems.  This is history as it should be done: allowing the past to inform and guide the present, rather than distorting the past to fit contemporary political ideologies.” ―Paul F. Crawford, professor of Crusades history, California University of Pennsylvania
  • “Ibrahim tells his story with extensive citations of primary sources[.] … Moreover, his method reveals the religious, political, and material motivations of the leading Christian and Muslim actors in this enduring conflict of visions that seem so very different from many modern western secular sensibilities.” ―James E. Lindsay, professor of Middle East history, Colorado State University
  • “An accessible and well-researched examination of extremely important but often neglected cultural phenomena and historical events that have impacted several civilizations up to the present day.” ―Darío Fernández-Morera, Professor of Spanish history, Northwestern University, and author of The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise
  • “[An] eye-opening introduction to a millennium of warfare between the Muslim and Christian worlds before the modern age.” ―Thomas Madden, professor of Crusades history and award-winning author of Istanbul, Venice, and Concise History of the Crusades

I do, however, give CAIR some credit: unlike many anti-Islamists in the West, CAIR knows how important it is to control the historical narrative between Islam and the West — a narrative that for decades has largely been in the keeping of their allies, meaning anti-Western, pro-Islamic leftist academics.

Because this pseudohistory has long presented Islam as a peaceful and progressive force throughout history — certainly in comparison to the West — all talk concerning modern-day Islamic terror and extremism has revolved around questions such as “What went wrong?” and “Why do they hate us?”

Unbeknownst to most, these supposedly all important questions that became so popular after September 11, 2001 are rooted to history: if the Islamic world was a tolerant and advanced force for centuries, as generations of Americans have been led to believe, then surely, its modern-day descent into radicalism and terrorism must be based on other factors — hence the nonstop claims that economics; education; politics; grievances; “lack of jobs,” to quote the Obama White House; etc. are the real reason.

Such logic is admittedly sound — but only if one subscribes to its first premise, that Islamic history is largely peaceful and tolerant.

But for those who become acquainted with Islam’s true history vis-à-vis the West — a history of virtually nonstop jihad and mind-boggling atrocities that make ISIS appear tame — there is no “What went wrong?” or “Why do they hate us?” to explain — only an unwavering, continuous line of violence and enmity, one that went on hiatus during the colonial era.

This is documented fact.

Hence CAIR’S unprecedented attack—one described as “the first time that a speaker at U.S. military educational institution has been subject to such a campaign.”  It knows that the first and long unquestioned — but ultimately false — premise of all Muslim apologetics is historical in nature and is doing all it can to keep that premise alive.

Time will tell if the U.S. Army War College will cave in to the demands of CAIR — a Muslim Brotherhood organization whose unsavorydeceptive, and even terrorist ties are well documented — or not.


Gopher Metropolitan Brains Spending Overtime in Gopherland USA!


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

At PJ Media, Larry Elder asks a good question: “Trump’s ‘Infrastructure’ Plan Versus Obama’s ‘Stimulus’: What’s the Difference?” Larry, whom I admire greatly, thinks the answer is “not much.” I disagree: Obama’s faux stimulus consisted largely of support for state governments so they could keep union employees on the payroll. Very little of the “stimulus” involved construction projects. Trump, at least, is actually talking about building, repairing and maintaining infrastructure.

But that still leaves an important question: There undoubtedly are significant infrastructure needs, and investments that should be made. On the other hand, many projects are uneconomic boondoggles. Can the Trump administration tell the difference?

We have a test case in my home state of Minnesota. The state’s liberals are addicted to light rail transit, which they see as a symbol of a sophisticated metropolitan area. Unfortunately, light rail is an obsolete technology that, in practice, fails every test. So far, the Twin Cities have two light rail lines. As explained in this report, the Twin Cities trains carry hardly any passengers, and actually make traffic congestion worse, not better, despite their extraordinary cost.

For years, the Metropolitan Council–an unelected body that is the most powerful regional agency in the U.S.–has been pushing for construction of a third line, called Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT). This line will not be any more successful than its predecessors. It will cost around $2 billion and will experience operating losses that will require endless subsidies, while contributing virtually nothing to the Twin Cities’ transportation system.

That being the case, why is it even being considered? For one reason only: the federal government has, for years, been talking about contributing more than $900 million to the project. Nine hundred million! How can we turn down that “free” money? Of course, that accounts for less than half of the project’s cost, and the feds will do nothing to cover operating losses and maintenance costs. Nevertheless, when $2 billion in checks may be written, there is plenty of political support for the project.

Happily, there is also plenty of opposition. The rail line, if built, will connect Minneapolis and Eden Prairie, a southwestern suburb, adjoining a freight line and passing through prosperous neighborhoods of Minneapolis and suburbs like St. Louis Park.

The Met Council is eager to begin construction on the project so as to make it a fait accompli. In the immediate future, it intends to cross the Rubicon by cutting down thousands of trees along the corridor where the hypothetical line may be built. The Star Tribune reports:

Later this month, builders will begin cutting down more than a thousand trees to make way for the $2 billion Southwest Light Rail Transit project, which will connect Minneapolis to Eden Prairie. The removal of trees and thicket on the trail — long the nexus of the controversy surrounding the Southwest rail project — would be a tangible sign that construction of the largest public works project in Minnesota history is moving forward.
The Kenilworth corridor, which divides Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles, is the most intensely used trail in Minneapolis’ park system given its compact size, with some 746,000 annual visits, according to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. …

In the coming weeks, the Kenilworth trail will be closed for three years to make way for Southwest rail construction. By 2023, some 220 light-rail trains will zip along the corridor and through a tunnel there every day, hemmed in by freight rail service and restored bike and pedestrian trails.

Those who live near the path of the proposed train line are up in arms about the impending deforestation. You can see why; this is what the area looks like:

If you know anything about Minneapolis politics, it won’t surprise you that most of those who are protesting the SWLRT line are Democrats. This poses a problem for Minnesota’s newly-elected, but already embattled, Governor Tim Walz. Walz, under intense pressure over his unpopular proposal for a 70% increase to the state’s gas tax, doesn’t need to be defending his DFL flank on behalf of a white elephant construction project. On the other hand, there are those $2 billion in checks to be written…

The Metropolitan Council intends to begin cutting down trees on Monday. So far, nothing has stood in its way. In a humorous sidelight, a few weeks ago the Council preemptively destroyed the habitat of a hive of protected “rusty patch bumble bees” in order to eliminate spring hatching of the bees. They simply mowed over the hive, notwithstanding that the Governor had already issued an order protecting the rusty patch bumble bee. So much for liberals as protectors of the environment!

Maybe Governor Walz will order his newly-appointed Metropolitan Council members to stand down until federal funding is actually assured. In any event, the eventual fate of the project will depend on whether the Trump administration understands that SWLRT is a boondoggle, not a sound infrastructure project. If federal funding goes away, the project will be dead. I suspect that there are many other projects around the country whose fate depends on whether Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and her staff know a boondoggle when they see one.

I don’t know whether Elaine Chao reads Power Line, but I hope so.


Note by Glenn:   Minneapolis used to be one of the most beautiful metropolitan communities in the GOOD OLD USA!   Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, even St. Paulites took pride of their home grounds, their schools, their neighborhoods, their special lakes and parklands.   It used to be a GOP world….

DFL St. Paul was reduced to the state’s political capital.  Its beauty was expressed in its Roman Catholic Churches and Cathedral.   No money was ever set aside for other matters.  It was a workers’ community.

Crime used to be in the movies, not in the Twin Cities.

That all began to  disappear about 25 years ago.   Except for downtown Sunday Viking football games in the fall, present light rail transit trains carry about twenty ‘customers’ a travel a day as it appears from those of us sitting in our autos and trucks awaiting for those lazy green lights permitting us countless numbers in vehicles waiting  to “go”.

Bureaucrats, especially government Dems have no understanding what “Beauty” in the city means.   What used to be in the Twins has much been destroyed even before the dreams of the Lefty Bureaucrats who keep busy ruining everything they plan to touch these decades.

Remember, these perpetual leftist Democrats who run our Twin Cities have to make room for Minnesota’s share of 3,000,000 illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border presently, the ones, if you remember,  led by Dem ditsy  Nancy Pelosi  encouraged to swamp our cities and our welfare to aid our American fascist future.


Murdering Christians Throughout the World Ignored in Leftist America

Media Silence Surrounds Muslim Massacre of Christians

Christians massacred Nigeria
Pius Utomi Ekpei / AFP / Getty Images

Political leaders and public figures were falling over themselves this weekend to condemn the mosque attacks in New Zealand, while dozens of Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in Nigeria to the sound of crickets.

The mosque attacks were indeed a horrific affair and worthy of universal condemnation. Presidents, prime ministers, royalty, and religious leaders rushed to extend their condolences to victims and their families — as well they should — while decrying the hate that purportedly motivated the shootings.

Without exception, the mainstream media gave top billing to the shootings, with newspapers carrying the story on their front pages and television news channels leading off their broadcasts with the story.

The bizarre aspect of the coverage was not, in fact, the attention paid to a heinous crime committed in New Zealand, but the absolute silence surrounding the simultaneous massacre of scores of Christians by Muslim militants in Africa.

As Breitbart News alone reported among major news outlets, Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror.

The New York Times did not place this story on the front page; in fact, they did not cover it at all. Apparently, when assessing “all the news that’s fit to print,” the massacre of African Christians did not measure up. The same can be said for the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Detroit Free Press, the LA Times, and every other major paper in the United States.

The news shows from the three major television channels did not mention the story, and nor did CNN or MSNBC.

There are several possible explanations for this remarkable silence, and none of them is good.

Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets. Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare.

A second motive for the media silence around the massacre of Christians in Nigeria may be geo-political and racial. New Zealand is a first-world country where such things are not supposed to happen, whereas many people still consider Africa to be a backwards place where brutal killings are par for the course.

Moreover, the slaughter of black Christians in Africa may not enkindle rage among westerners the way that the murder of white and brown Muslims in New Zealand would.

Finally, the story simply does not play to the political agenda that many mainstream media would like to advance. How much mileage can be gained from Muslims murdering Christians, when Christians in America are often seen as an obstacle to the “progress” desired by liberals? The left sees Christians in the United States as part of the problem and seeks to undermine their credibility and influence at every turn rather than emboldening them.

Anti-Christian bias has been rightly called “the last acceptable prejudice,” one that few bother condemning.

“No one much cares about offending Christians,” wrote the coalition of African-American pastors in an essay last Tuesday. “In fact, mocking, belittling, and blaspheming Christianity is becoming a bit of a trend in our culture. Anti-Christian bigotry truly is the last acceptable prejudice.”

“The hypocrisy on display is astounding,” the pastors continued. “Christianity is the dominant religion of our country. It is the foundation of our government and morality. And yet, Christians are treated as fair game for mockery and insult.”

Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group in the world, but the mainstream media routinely ignore this fact as if it were unimportant or uninteresting. As a result, many people do not even realize how widespread the persecution is or that 75 percent of the victims of religious persecution around the world are Christians.

Whatever the reason — or reasons — for the media silence surrounding the most recent massacres of Christians in Nigeria as well as numerous other such events, it should give right-thinking people pause.

By all means, the lethal shootings of dozens of Muslims in New Zealand is a massive story and merits extensive coverage. But it only stands to reason that similar coverage should be devoted to the slaughter of Christians.

For the moment, it serves as a poignant reminder that a double standard is at work when it comes to news coverage, and that it is Christians who inevitably draw the short straw.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter


Dem Minneapolis’ Contribution to Peace at Home and Abroad, Lady Omar!


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is, like al Qaeda and Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR masquerades as a civil rights organization, but is actually a supporter of terrorism, as was demonstrated in the Holy Land Foundation case, where CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator. CAIR is also viciously anti-Israel and anti-Semitic:

CAIR has a long record of anti-Israel activity. Its leadership has accused Israel of being a racist state engaged in genocide and Israel supporters in the U.S. of promoting “a culture of hostility towards Islam.” Its chapters partner with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State.
CAIR also advocates for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel as a challenge “against one of the greatest forms of injustice in our time – Apartheid.”
CAIR senior staff members have often promoted the anti-Semitic canard that an Israeli lobby controls the U.S. government. Executive Director Nihad Awad wrote in Arabic on his Twitter account on October 14, 2014 that the U.S. government would recognize the State of Palestine when “America, itself, is free from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.” …

Other CAIR leaders have openly compared Israelis to Nazis.
CAIR also helped establish and fund InFocus News, an Anaheim, California-based monthly that published anti-Semitic articles and cartoons, as well as content expressing support for terrorist groups.

Much more at the link, but you get the drift. Those bigoted views have been in the news lately because they are espoused by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. So it should be no surprise that on March 23, Omar will headline a fundraiser for CAIR’s Los Angeles branch:

CAIR-LA is honored to have Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as the featured speaker for the 4th Annual Valley Banquet.

No doubt Ms. Omar will receive an enthusiastic reception.

CAIR does not admit, of course, that it is a terrorist-supporting organization, and it downplays its relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. But its own self-descriptionexemplifies the whiny victim mentality that Ilhan Omar–for whom coming to America from a refugee camp in Kenya was better than winning the lottery–consistently displays:

CAIR was founded in 1994 in response to growing anti-Muslim discrimination and Islamophobia across the nation. At that time, American Muslims increasingly found themselves the innocent targets of prejudice and hate, and the need for an organization that could speak to the unique position of Muslims in America became apparent.

Ilhan Omar will fit right in at the CAIR banquet.



Remember: Omar Tlaib Has a Right to be Anti-Semitic in a FREE SOCIETY!

Omar, Tlaib, and anti-Semitism

By Steve Postal  at American Thinker:


Representatives Rashida Tlaib’s (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have in their first weeks in the House made their mark as the most blatantly anti-Semitic members of Congress in living memory.

Omar and Tlaib’s anti-Semitism is unquestionable. They have in recent weeks 1) peddled the anti-Semitic canard that Jews have dual loyalty to Israel 2) expressed support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, 3) alleged that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) bribes members of Congress,  4) Claimed that “Israel has hypnotized the world.”  Statements from Omar and Tlaib on Israel are not labeled anti-Semitic because they are coming from Muslims, as Omar alleges.  These statements are anti-Semitic because they are anti-Semitic.

Supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is Anti-Semitic

Both Omar and Tlaib have explicitly supported the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Omar has said: “I believe and support the BDS movement and have fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized.” Tlaib stated “I personally support the BDS movement.”

The BDS movement, as I previously stated, is in fact anti-Semitic as it applies a double standard to Israel, the only state for the Jews.  BDS activists, including cofounder Omar Barghouti, have frequently asserted that the intention of the BDS movement is not to force Israel to leave Judea and Samaria (commonly referred to as the “West Bank”) nor is it to promote a two-state solution, but to bring about the destruction of Israel itself.

Many of Omar and Tlaib’s coreligionists have called out BDS for the fraud that it is.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement, and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith, remarked that “no supporter… of the… BDS movement… that is anti-Israel and looks for the destruction of Israel” should have a seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  Jasser also called Omar’s worldview “incompatible with… [the worldview that] we would hope a congressperson should have,” and called Omar “grotesquely anti-Semitic.”

Asra Nomani, author of Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam, and cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement, flatly stated on Twitter that “Rashida Tlaib & Ilhan Omar parrot the anti-Israel hate of BDS, CAIR, Linda Sarsour, Qatar, Turkey, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas & use “Islamophobia” to cloak their hate.” [my emphasis]

Majid Nawaz, founder of Quilliam, a think tank devoted to fighting Islamism, rejects the BDS movement as resting on a “lazy analogy” that compares Israel to apartheid South Africa,.  More broadly, Nawaz sees the “constant… signaling out of Israel as a delegitimate [sic] state… [as] distract[ing]… from very real genocidal problems… in Syria and Iraq with ISIS.”

Bassem Eid, the current chairman of the Center for Near East Policy Research, also opposes the BDS movement, and has received death threats from fellow Arabs for holding such a view. He calls boycotting Jewish businesses in Judea and Samaria in particular “genocide for the Palestinian economy,” and notes that Palestinians lose their jobs as a result of boycotting the settlements.

Other Muslim reformers that have spoken out against BDS include Raheel Raza (president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow and author of Their Jihad, Not My Jihad!), Tarek Fatah (author of The Jew is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism), Tahir Gora (founder of the Muslim Committee against Antisemitism and the Progressive Muslim Worldwide Network), and Stephen Suleyman Schwartz (Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism).

Saying that Jews Have Dual Allegiance to Israel is Anti-Semitic

Omar and Tlaib are also guilty of furthering the anti-Semitic belief that Jews possess dual loyalty to Israel.  In response to Republican Senators supporting an anti-BDS bill, Tlaib stated on Twitter that “they forgot what country they represent.”  Many took this quote to be a thinly veiled accusation that Jews have dual loyalty to Israel.  Omar, as shown above, echoed that nonsense more explicitly. Following discussion of her “Jewish colleagues,” Omar stated that “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”  When Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) admonished her for this on Twitter, Omar actually dug in by repeating the dual loyalty claim:

Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that!

Such dual allegiance beliefs are anti-Semitic.  According to Ben Shapiro:

Suggesting that Jewish Americans are pushing for “allegiance” to a foreign country, or that American supporters of Israel are doing so, is a vicious conspiracy theory and a vile smear. Jewish Americans by and large support Israel not out of “allegiance” to Israel but because Israel protects victimized Jews all over the world, represents the sole liberal democracy in the Middle East, and provides valuable strategic partnership to the United States. But according to Omar and other anti-Semites, the only reason for American Jews to support Israel is because they are part of a secret club, disloyal to the United States and loyal only to the ethnic tribe.

Omar’s statement would also likely fall into what the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) considers as anti-Semitic statements. ADL conducted a worldwide survey, the ADL Global 100: An Index of Anti-Semitism, where it attempted to quantify anti-Semitic attitudes worldwide.  It defined an anti-Semite as someone who agreed to at least 6 out of 11 phrases in the affirmative.  Such phrases included: “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country/the countries they live in.” Omar and Tlaib’s statements fit this bill.

Omar’s Additional Statements are also Anti-Semitic

Omar has made additional statements that fall in line with anti-Semitic thinking, if benchmarked against some of the other phrases that the Anti-Defamation League stated was indicative of anti-Semitism:

  • “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” Omar’s now-deleted statement on Twitter, in which she accuses AIPAC of bribing members of Congress, mirrors the phrase “Jews have too much control over the United States government.”
  • “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”  Omar’s statement on Twitter, also deleted, mirrors the phrase “Jews have too much control over global affairs.”

Omar would like us to think that people accuse her and Tlaib of harboring anti-Semitic beliefs because the accusers are intolerant of Muslims.  But as demonstrated by statements of her coreligionists, this is a smokescreen.  The statements the congresswomen have issued on Israel are patently anti-Semitic. Omar’s claim of victimhood is merely a Trojan horse to inject anti-Semitism into mainstream political discourse.  Democrats and Republicans alike must act swiftly to ensure that such bigotry does not take root in the halls of Congress.

Representatives Rashida Tlaib’s (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have in their first weeks in the House made their mark as the most blatantly anti-Semitic members of Congress in living memory.

Omar and Tlaib’s anti-Semitism is unquestionable. They have in recent weeks 1) peddled the anti-Semitic canard that Jews have dual loyalty to Israel 2) expressed support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, 3) alleged that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) bribes members of Congress,  4) Claimed that “Israel has hypnotized the world.”  Statements from Omar and Tlaib on Israel are not labeled anti-Semitic because they are coming from Muslims, as Omar alleges.  These statements are anti-Semitic because they are anti-Semitic.






The BBC has the second largest budget of any UK-based broadcaster with an operating expenditure of £4.722 billion in 2013/14[93] compared with £6.471 billion for British Sky Broadcasting in 2013/14[94] and £1.843 billion for ITV in the calendar year 2013.[95]


The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £147 per year per household since April 2017. Such a licence is required to legally receive broadcast television across the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. No licence is required to own a television used for other means, or for sound only radio sets (though a separate licence for these was also required for non-TV households until 1971). The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law. A discount is available for households with only black-and-white television sets. A 50% discount is also offered to people who are registered blind or severely visually impaired,[96]and the licence is completely free for any household containing anyone aged 75 or over. As a result of the UK Government’s recent spending review, an agreement has been reached between the government and the corporation in which the current licence fee will remain frozen at the current level until the Royal Charter is renewed at the beginning of 2017.[97]

The BBC pursues its licence fee collection and enforcement under the trading name “TV Licensing”. The revenue is collected privately by Capita, an outside agency, and is paid into the central government Consolidated Fund, a process defined in the Communications Act 2003. Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation. Additional revenues are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions to compensate for subsidised licences for eligible over-75-year-olds.

The licence fee is classified as a tax,[98] and its evasion is a criminal offence. Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee has been the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority.[99] Thus, the BBC is a major prosecuting authority in England and Wales and an investigating authority in the UK as a whole. The BBC carries out surveillance (mostly using subcontractors) on properties (under the auspices of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and may conduct searches of a property using a search warrant.[100] According to the BBC, “more than 204,000 people in the UK were caught watching TV without a licence during the first six months of 2012.”[101] Licence fee evasion makes up around one-tenth of all cases prosecuted in magistrates’ courts.[102]

Income from commercial enterprises and from overseas sales of its catalogue of programmes has substantially increased over recent years,[103] with BBC Worldwide contributing some £145 million to the BBC’s core public service business.

According to the BBC’s 2013/14 Annual Report, its total income was £5 billion (£5.066 billion),[104] which can be broken down as follows:

  • £3.726 billion in licence fees collected from householders;
  • £1.023 billion from the BBC’s commercial businesses;
  • £244.6 million from government grants, of which £238.5 million is from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the BBC World Service;
  • £72.1 million from other income, such as rental collections and royalties from overseas broadcasts of programming.[104]

The licence fee has, however, attracted criticism. It has been argued that in an age of multi-stream, multi-channel availability, an obligation to pay a licence fee is no longer appropriate. The BBC’s use of private sector company Capita Group to send letters to premises not paying the licence fee has been criticised, especially as there have been cases where such letters have been sent to premises which are up to date with their payments, or do not require a TV licence.[105]

The BBC uses advertising campaigns to inform customers of the requirement to pay the licence fee. Past campaigns have been criticised by Conservative MP Boris Johnson and former MP Ann Widdecombe for having a threatening nature and language used to scare evaders into paying.[106][107] Audio clips and television broadcasts are used to inform listeners of the BBC’s comprehensive database.[108] There are a number of pressure groups campaigning on the issue of the licence fee.[109]

The majority of the BBC’s commercial output comes from its commercial arm BBC Worldwide who sell programmes abroad and exploit key brands for merchandise. Of their 2012/13 sales, 27% were centred on the five key “superbrands” of Doctor WhoTop GearStrictly Come Dancing (known as Dancing with the Stars internationally), the BBC’s archive of natural history programming (collected under the umbrella of BBC Earth) and the (now sold) travel guide brand Lonely Planet.[110]

Comment:  I have followed the collapse of English freedoms as a hobby very closely since the end of World War II.   I became  a devoted fan of Winston Churchill and his adages before the end of the war.   My favorite governs my memory:

“The most exhilarating moment in life is to be shot at, AND………….to have been missed!”

I spent about ten months of my life during the 1990s  snooping around England and Scotland to absorb the beauty of their  grounds and landscape gardens…..and  discovered the beginning of the disappearance of common worker British citizens being replaced by the Middle East labor,  wealth and ‘culture’, not too dissimilar  to the financial and cultural  collapse of our American midwestern labor towns caused by Democrat President, William Jefferson Clinton’s touch of the pen causing NAFTA!

The most beautiful of all  English languages I have ever heard  spoken over the past 80 years use to be uttered by one and all  members, educators, and learners in and from  the Brit upper classes and their BBC.

Surely, today, the ugliest, most repulsive of any noises made by uttered  language  anywhere in the world  cannot   surpass  the “homespun”   nasal screeches rising from the mouths of the Peoples’ programmed lefty snots!



Mark Steyn on the Clash of Cultures, 21st Century


Danes, Davos and Denial

by Mark Steyn  at Jewish World Review:

A quarter-century ago this summer, Samuel Huntington published the first version of what would become his book The Clash of Civilizations. I’ve quoted it many times over the years, not least its passages on what Huntington called “Islam’s bloody borders”. The man himself has been dead a decade now, and so on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his famous thesis it falls to Francis Fukuyama, Huntington’s former pupil and author of The End of History, to do the honors:

Since Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations has been contrasted with my own End of History in countless introductory International Relations classes over the past two decades, I might as well begin by tackling at the outset the issue of how we’re doing vis-à-vis one another. At the moment, it looks like Huntington is winning.

That’s big of him, all things considered. Fukuyama has attempted to modify his thesis over the years but it doesn’t get any sounder: He argued a book or two back that democratic societies were all trying to “get to Denmark”, but, if you’ve actually set foot in Denmark recently, you might be inclined to think that the challenge for Danes is to figure out a way to get back to Denmark. Elsewhere in Scandinavia, it’s easier to imagine Sweden getting to Sudan than Sudan getting to Sweden. Huntington discerned a lot of this, as Fukuyama concedes:

Huntington was very prescient in his depiction of “Davos Man,” the cosmopolitan creature unmoored from strong attachments to any particular place, loyal primarily to his own self-interest. Davos Man has now become the target of populist rage, as the elites who constructed our globalized world are pilloried for being out of touch with the concerns of the working class. Huntington also foresaw the rise of immigration as one of the chief issues driving populism and the fears that mass migration has stoked about cultural change. Indeed, Carlos Lozada of the Washington Post has labeled Huntington as a prophet of the Trump era.

“The fears that mass migration has stoked about cultural change” is a coy way of sidling up to the way I put it in America Alone – that culture trumps economics. Pakistanis came to Yorkshire because the mills needed workers. The mills closed anyway, but the workers stayed, and built their mosques and madrassahs. Today, as I mentioned on Tucker’s show a few weeks back, automation (and predictions that it will eliminate 30 per cent of all jobs) ends any economic rationale for mass immigration. That leaves little else to justify it except virtue-signaling. Which is more than enough, judging by the hysteria that greets anybody who seriously questions demographically transformative immigration policies. Fukuyama isn’t quite ready to concede the cultural point to Huntington, and attempts instead to sidestep it:

Identity is a much broader and more flexible concept with which to understand contemporary politics rather than religiously based culture or civilizations. Identity is the modern concept that arises out of the belief that one has a hidden inner self whose dignity is at best being ignored or at worst being disparaged by the surrounding society. Identity politics revolves around demands not for materials goods or resources, but for recognition of the dignity of one’s ethnicity, religion, nation, or even one’s unique characteristics as an individual…

Many of the young European Muslims who left the countries of their birth to fight for the Islamic State in Syria were trapped between two cultures, the traditional one defined by the piety of their parents, and the secular Western one in which they were brought up… Seeing the same phenomena through an identity lens rather than through the lens of religiously based culture better conforms to today’s realities… [In America] there was the constant emergence of new identities: not just gays and lesbians, but transgender and intersex people.

He has half a point here. Yes, many young western Muslims, the children and grandchildren of comparatively assimilated immigrants, choose a global Islamic “identity” for themselves. Likewise, many secular westerners choose one of the exciting and ever multiplying array of sexual “identities”. But it seems to me that both these phenomena are at least partly responses to the assault we have waged on our own culture and civilization this past half-century. Who wants to identify with a culture that reviles its own past, that blames itself for everything, that demolishes its statuary and denounces its greatest figures and insists that, while multiculturalism posits the equal value of all cultures, if you have to pick a villain pick the culture that built the modern world? In the void of modern western identity, people look elsewhere: Some find the new one-size-fits-all Islam, others find “intersexuality”.

In the end, however, one of these is real, and the other isn’t. And in those societies where the one buts up against the other (Denmark, say) the one that is real will one day steamroller the other. Samuel Huntington grasped the obvious; Francis Fukuyama is still trying to tap-dance around it.

Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0918/steyn090918.php3#4HbZpEesZzscTfT5.99