• 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

Islams Fascistic Judge’s Invasions, AD 2018 Britain

The Suicide of Europe

by Ben Shapiro at realclearpolitics:

On Friday, the British police arrested Tommy Robinson, founder and former leader of the English Defence League, a far-right anti-Islam group. Robinson is a controversial character, to be sure, a sort of Milo Yiannopoulos lite. His chief focus is on the threat of radical Islam, which he believes threatens the integrity of the British system.

You don’t have to like Robinson. But whatever you think of him, his arrest is absurd by any measure. You see, Robinson was arrested for standing outside a court building and reporting on a trial involving the alleged grooming of young girls for sexual assault by radical Muslims.

Now, what would be illegal about that, you ask? It turns out that Robinson was given a suspended sentence last year for filming outside another court building, where a trial for alleged gang rape by radical Muslims was taking place. He wasn’t inside the courtroom. Nonetheless, the judge believed he was somehow biasing the jurors. According to the judge, Robinson was sentenced thanks to “pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting … that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial.”

This time, Robinson was again arrested for prejudicing a case, only he wasn’t inside the court building. He was outside. And the media were originally banned from reporting on his arrest so that his trial wouldn’t be biased. In other words, Britain has now effectively banned reporting that actually mentions the Islamic nature of criminal defendants for fear of stirring up bigotry — and has banned reporting on reporting on such defendants. It’s an infinite regress of suicidal political correctness.

But at least the Europeans have their priorities straight: While it’s perfectly legal to lock up a provocateur covering a trial involving Muslims, the European Union is now considering a ban on products like cotton buds, straws and other plastics for fear of marine litter. And just as importantly, it’s now perfectly legal to kill unborn children again in Ireland, where voters — with the help of a cheering press — decided to lift the ban on abortions until the 20th week, condemning thousands of children to death.

This is how the West dies: with a tut-tut, not with a bang. The same civilization that sees it as a fundamental right to kill a child in the womb thinks it is utterly out of bounds to film outside a trial involving the abuse of children, so long as the defendants are radical Muslims. The Europeans have elevated the right to not be offended above the right to life; they’ve elevated the right to not be offended above the right to free speech, all in the name of some utopian vision of a society without standards.

Discarding those standards was supposed to make Europeans more free; it was supposed to allow Europeans to feel more comfortable. But the sad truth is that no society exists without certain standards and Europe has a new standard: enforcement of its “tolerance” via jail sentence, combined with tolerance of multiculturalism that sees tolerance itself as a Trojan horse. The notion of individual rights sprang from European soil. Now they’re beginning to die there.


The Tommy Robinson Phenomenon and The Death of Britain


“Tommy Robinson is the reason for existence among the English anti-fa/leftist “politically correct” crowds. Fiyaz Mughal and TellMAMAUK wouldn’t be able to justify themselves as strongly, without Tommy Robinson being there to serve as the antagonist. The Roadrunner for the Coyote. Keep in mind in that Looney Tunes program that there never really was an end point to that series. Of course, they stopped production of episodes at some point. But when it comes to the plot of this endless pursuit the Coyote was vying for, it never arrived.

There’s a lot to unpack when it comes to Tommy Robinson, and he’ll pop up throughout this essay. But when it comes to understanding the fundamental core of his story, there are two must-see pieces of content. His Oxford speech and the interview Brittany Pettibone did with him. Like peanut butter and jelly, these two videos mesh perfectly together to give the full picture. In the former, Tommy Robinson talks about his political motivations and background. The latter, we see how the UK government and police responded to his activism against Islam.



Dershowitz: Why Does the Media Encourage Hamas to Attack Israel?

by Alan Dershowitz at Washington Examiner:


If this were the first time that Hamas deliberately provoked Israel into self-defense actions that resulted in the unintended deaths of Gaza civilians, the media could be excused for playing into the hands of Hamas.

The most recent Hamas provocations — having 40,000 Gazans try to tear down the border fence and enter Israel with Molotov cocktails and other improvised weapons — are part of a repeated Hamas tactic that I have called the “dead baby strategy.” The goal of Hamas is to have Israel kill as many Gazans as possible so that the headlines always begin, and often end, with the body count. Hamas deliberately sends women and children to the front line, while their own fighters hide behind these human shields.

Hamas leaders have long acknowledged this tactic. Fathi Hammad, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated as far back as 2008, “For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy, ‘We desire death like you desire life.’”

Hamas used this tactic to provoke two wars with Israel in which their fighters fired rockets from civilian areas, including hospitals, schools, and mosques. When Israel responded, it tried its best to avoid civilian casualties, dropping warning leaflets, calling residents of potential targets and dropping nonlethal noise bombs on the roofs of houses that were being used to launch rockets and store explosives. Inevitably, some civilians were killed, and the media blamed Israel for these deaths, despite the precautions it had taken.

The same was true when Hamas built terror tunnels used to kidnap Israeli civilians. The entrances to these tunnels were in civilian areas as well, including mosques and schools. Using their own civilians as human shields, while targeting Israeli civilians, is a double war crime. Yet, the media generally focuses on the reaction of Israel to these war crimes, rather than the war crimes of Hamas.

The cruel reality is that every time Israel accidentally kills a Gaza civilian, Israel loses. And every time Israel kills a Gaza civilian, Hamas wins. Israelis grieve every civilian death its army accidentally causes. Hamas benefits from every death Israel accidentally causes. That is why it encourages its women and children to become martyrs.

Calling this the “dead baby strategy” may seem cruel because it is cruel. But don’t blame the messenger for accurately describing this tactic. Blame those who cynically use it. Blame the media for playing into the hands of those who use it by reporting only the body count and not the deliberate Hamas tactic that leads to one-sided body counts.

It is true that Gaza is in a desperate situation and that it is wounded. But the wound itself is self-inflicted. When Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, removing every single soldier and settler, the territory could have become the Singapore on the Mediterranean Sea. It is a beautiful area with a large seacoast. It received infusions of cash and other help from Europe. Israel left behind agricultural equipment and hot houses.

But instead of using these resources to feed, house, and educate its citizens, Hamas built rockets, terror tunnels, and Molotov cocktails. It threw dissenters off the roof and murdered members of the Palestinian Authority who were willing to recognize Israel and negotiate with it. Hamas rejects the two-state solution or any solution that leaves Israel intact. The only solution for it is violence, and the events at the fence these past days are a manifestation of that violence.

Would any country in the world allow 40,000 people, sworn to its destruction, to knock down a border fence and attack its citizens living peacefully near the border? Of course not. Could Israel have done more to reduce casualties among those trying to breach the border fence? I don’t know, and neither do the legions of armchair generals who are criticizing Israel for the steps it took to prevent a catastrophe among the residents of Kibbutzim and towns that are proximate to the border fence.

One thing is crystal clear: Hamas will continue to use the ”dead baby strategy” as long as the media continues to report the deaths in the manner in which it has reported them in recent weeks. Many in the media are complicit in these deaths because their one-sided reporting encourages Hamas to send innocent women and children to the front line. Perhaps Israel could do a better job of defending its civilians but it is certain that the media can do a better job of accurately reporting the Hamas strategy that results in so many innocent deaths.

There is a marvelous cartoon that illustrates the difference between Hamas and Israel. It shows an Israeli soldier standing in front of a stroller with a baby in it, shielding the baby. Then it shows a Hamas terrorist standing behind a stroller with the baby in it, using the baby to shield him. This cartoon better illustrates the reality that is occurring at the Gaza fence than most of the “objective” reporting by the media.



Why Do Some Christian Groups Dance with the Devil in Islam?

How the Church Is Being Undermined from Within

by Janet Levy at American Thinker:

“In 2006, at the University of Regensburg in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI gave a historic speech on faith and reason that included reflections on Islamic ideology.  Quoting a medieval scholar who condemned conversion by force, or jihad, Benedict characterized Allah as transcendental and above rationality.  The quote called Muhammad’s new ideas “things only evil and inhuman.”

Not surprisingly, the pope received death threats afterward and was called the “pig servant of the cross” and other derogatory epithets.  Muslims protested in the streets worldwide and demanded an apology.  Five churches were firebombed in the West Bank and Gaza, an Italian nun was shot dead in Somalia, a priest was beheaded in Iraq, and two Christians were stabbed and killed in Baghdad.  Many feared that even more violence would erupt.  Following the carnage and intense pressure, Pope Benedict yielded to the Islamists and capitulated.

Since that time, the Vatican’s agenda has been to reach an accommodation with Islam, to resist any condemnation of jihadist ideology, to promote the “progressive enculturation of Islam in Europe,” and to “engage in interreligious dialogue.”  The pope went so far in his apologia as to meet with Muslim diplomats and ambassadors, including Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (M.B.).  This occurred despite widespread persecution and attacks against Christians in Muslim countries by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist groups, and at a time in which Christianity is being extirpated from the region.

One year after Pope Benedict’s address, in what appeared to be a gesture of reconciliation, a group of Muslim scholars and clerics invited Christians to come together to endorse the document, “A Common Word Between Us and You,” an open letter to Christian leaders emphasizing similarities between the two faiths.  Initially, 300 Christian leaders across the world approved “Common Word” and received the document with enthusiasm.

response prepared by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture extended “our own Christian hand in return so that together with all other human beings we may live in peace and justice as we seek to love G‑d and our neighbors.”  The Christian letter of response apologized for the past – the Crusades (in reality an effort to regain conquered Christian land) and the present-day “excesses” of the “war on terror.”  It also identified Muhammad as a prophet and went on to ask forgiveness for sinning against the worldwide Muslim community.  The letter continued with a validation of the common ground between the two faiths cited by “A Common Word Between Us and You,” specifically “love of G‑d” and “love of neighbor” and agreed these similarities to “be the basis of all interfaith dialogue between us” for the sake of peace in this world and “our eternal souls.”

In their book, The Common Word: The Undermining of the Church, Sam Solomon, a Muslim apostate, devout Christian, and scholar of Islam, and Elias Al Maqdisi, an expert on Islamic teachings, expose the true meaning and spirit of “Common Word.”  They contend that the message is “accept Islam or face the consequences,” rather than a paean of “unity” or the “oneness” of G‑d.  Noteworthy is that the document lacked any apology for Islamic invasions and conquests or invitations to build churches in Islamic lands.

The authors point out that, despite the seeming message of peace in the document, sharia law mandates that Muslims are not allowed to enter into peace agreements with non-Muslims or forgo their obligation to perform jihad.  They also state that whereas Judaism and Christianity teach, “love of one’s neighbor as one’s self,” Islam teaches followers to have enmity toward Jews and Christians as set forth in the Islamic doctrine of Al Wala Wa al Baraa, or Loyalty and Enmity.  Mainstream Islam advocates the separation of Muslims from non-Muslims, who are viewed as “unclean.”  Quran 58:22 states that devout Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”

Further quotations from the Quran cited by the authors include Quran 60:4, which proclaims, “Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – until you believe in Allah alone.”  In fact, the first sura or chapter of the Quran, Al Fatiha or “Opening,” recited at each prayer time for a total of 17 times daily, is a call to follow the “straight path” of Islam and not to follow the path “of those who have evoked Allah’s anger,” or the Jews, and those who have gone “astray,” or the Christians.

As for the “loyalty” part of Al Wala Wa al Baraa, Muslims are obligated to befriend and aid fellow believers, the authors note.  Therefore, “love” is doctrinally permitted only toward fellow Muslims.  Also problematic is the doctrine of taqiyya, which requires Muslims to lie to and deceive infidels, implying that hostility is ever present despite the pretense of “coming together.”  Central to Islamic ideology is that the Quran is the last of the holy books to be revealed and abrogates everything that came before it, as proclaimed in the Shahada or the Muslim prayer of affirmation: “There is no G‑d but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.”

Solomon and Maqdisi sum up the “Common Word” as part and parcel of the “civilizational jihad” and an expedient attempt to make Islam look peaceful with elements in common with Christianity.

With the appointment of Pope Francis in 2013, the Church intensified its portrayal of Islam as “a religion of peace” as well as its dissembling about the motivating ideology of jihad terrorism.  An Islamist leader even thanked Francis for defending Islam against accusations of violence.  The pope has warned that limits exist to freedom of expression and, in blatant denial of Muslim terrorism, claims instead that all religions have their violent individuals.  Rather than serving as a defender of Christianity, he has enabled and abetted the persecution of Christians.

Disturbingly, some top evangelical Christian leaders in America have spurred the encroachment of Islam and thereby failed to warn their congregants about the threat they face from Islamic ideology.  One example, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, which averages 20,000 weekly attendees, spoke at the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of North America Annual Convention in 2009 alongside unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attack Siraj Wahhaj, Hezb’allah supporter Maher Hathout, and violent jihad advocate Esam Omeish.  Warren, a major promoter of interfaith unity, proclaimed, “We need to work together.”  In addition to legitimating a Muslim Brotherhood entity by his presence, he was a signatory to “‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” supporting the contention that Muslims and Christian serve the same G‑d.  Warren later issued a denial: “Christians have a fundamentally different view of G‑d than Muslims.  We worship Jesus as G‑d.  Muslims don’t.  Our G‑d is Jesus, not Allah.”

Pastor Bob Roberts of Northwood Church in Texas, another mega-church, has hosted an interfaith forum, the Global Faith Forum, where Muslim Brotherhood operatives have been invited to speak.  Roberts has been associated with Mohamed Magid, the imam of the sharia-supremacist ADAMS mosque and former president of the Islamic Society of North America, found to be associated with Hamas in a federal trial in 2008.  Additionally, he has collaborated with Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, an anti-Israel cleric who openly states on his website that Christians are going to hell and authorized the killing of Americans in Iraq with a fatwa issued in 2004.

Earlier this year, 400 faith leaders met in Washington at the National Prayer Breakfast to forge ties between Muslims and Christians in which M.B. operative Mohamed Magid and Bin Bayyah participated. It is unconscionable that this convocation was not perceived as it actually was: a threat to national security by those who wish to destroy Western civilization and force sharia submission.

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, these Christian leaders are complicit in the drive to mainstream Islam worldwide.  They are placing Christians, already imperiled throughout the world, at great risk by reaching out to practitioners of an extremist ideology that seeks to convert or annihilate anyone who refuses to accept its supremacy.  As Solomon and Al Maqdisi point out in their book, Christians are being deceived about the true intent of Muslims who hold enmity and no love at all toward anyone not a fellow Muslim.”



Gurus at PBS Explain Their Shock of Trump Victory, 11-8-2016

The Sentinel Issue, Iran, and ObamaTime Incompetence, and/or Evil


(The above article was sent by Lisa Rich in California.)

Minnesota’s Own Fascist Islamist, Keith Ellison, is Vice Chair of the DNC


by Scott Johnson at PowerLine

Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison is now the Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He’s not some inconsequential backbencher from flyover land. He embodies the alliance of radical Islam and the Democratic Party. He signifies.

We’ve been covering him since he secured the DFL nomination to succeed 14-term incumbent Martin Sabo in the spring of 2006. For public purposes since then Ellison has denounced and disassociated himself from Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. To do so, Ellison has repeatedly suppressed and lied about his long involvement with the Nation of Islam.

Over the years Ellison operated under names including Keith E. Hakim, Keith X Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad — the last as a self-identified member of the cult. For some reason, Ellison’s hometown newspaper hasn’t done much to expose Ellison’s imposture. As sources ranging from, well, Power Line and the Weekly Standard to Mother Jones have delivered the goods on Ellison’s association with the Nation of Islam, the Star Tribune has been content to remain mostly on the sidelines.

Now comes Jeryl Bier in today’s Wall Street Journal. He recalls some of Ellison’s public denunciations of Farrakhan. I have much more along this line in “Louis Farrakhan’s first congressman” (2006) and “The Ellison elision” (2014). I even got some onto the opinion page of the Star Tribune in the column “Ellison remembers to forget” (also 2014). I took a personal look back, most recently, in “The trouble with Keith Ellison” (2016).

In his Wall Street Journal column today Bier reports (behind the Journal’s paywall) that in September 2013, however, Ellison and Farrakhan had a reunion of sorts:

The occasion was a visit by Iran’s newly elected President Hassan Rouhani to the United Nations. Mr. Rouhani invited Muslim leaders from around the U.S. to dinner after addressing the U.N. General Assembly. Contemporaneous news reports placed Mr. Farrakhan at the dinner. Unreported by mainstream outlets was the presence of Mr. Ellison, along with Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York and Andre Carson of Indiana. (All three are Democrats; Messrs. Ellison and Carson are Muslim.)

The Nation of Islam website documents the event, noting that Mr. Rouhani “hosted the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Muslim leaders from different Islamic communities and members of the U.S. Congress at a private meeting . . . at the One UN Hotel in Manhattan Sept. 24, 2013 across the street from the UN headquarters.” The Final Call, a Nation of Islam publication, added that “ Keith Ellison of Minnesota . . . participated in the dialogue” after dinner and includes photos of Messrs. Farrakhan and Ellison at the tables. The Michigan-based Islamic House of Wisdom also reported on the meeting, with additional photos.

According to Mr. Farrakhan, the 2013 meeting was not the last time he and Mr. Ellison were together. After Mr. Ellison renewed his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan in 2016, Mr. Farrakhan stated in an interview that Reps. Ellison and Carson had visited him in his Washington hotel suite the preceding summer.

When Mr. Ellison sought the DNC position, he received support from many Jewish leaders and prominent politicians. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dismissed concerns rather glibly: “I’m not worried about the Israel stuff.”

For some reason, no one wants to talk about it: “The press secretaries for Messrs. Ellison, Carson and Schumer did not answer emails seeking comment. Mr. Meeks’s press secretary said his boss had no response.”