• 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

Dem Feminazis Are Making Their Move to Destroy Our American Republic

The Green New Fascist Deal

by  Mark Musser   at  American Thinker:

 

The “Green New Deal” is a fascist utopian plan written by environmentalist lawyers that is purportedly designed to tackle the global warming apocalypse which capitalism, particularly of the American kind drunk on fossil fuels, has precipitated through economic recklessness and colonial racism. CO2, a trace gas measured in parts per million, is the primary culprit of a semi-apocalyptic global warming crisis that can only be averted through an all-wise cadre of Democratic green lawyers. That such utopianism, political legalism, and apocalypticism is presented as hard science demonstrates the general madness of the present time that is largely rooted in the Social Darwinian scientism of the 1800s, wherein German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was peddling a racist political biology together with strong ecological values that he characterized as Monism — which speaks of a monistic oneness or holism with nature along totalitarian lines that modern science was supposedly offering the constituents of the Second Reich. While Haeckel coined the term “ecology” in 1866, he mixed racial eugenics with his environmentalism. Today, environmentalism proffers anti-humanism, population control, ecological totalitarianism, and indigenous multicultural tribal racism that “The New Green Deal” is chock full of.

Austrian Nazi forester Guenther Schwab (1904-2006) was one of the most successful original popularizers of apocalyptic environmentalism in the 1950s and 60s, which included the CO2 global warming scare. Thanks to the great success of Schwab’s writings, real green Nazis like Werner Haverbeck, August Haussleiter, and Werner Vogel, among others, helped him lay the foundations for the German Green Party in the late 1970s. Yet, it was German researcher Hermann Flohn (1912-97) who took the global warming theory that had been bandied around by earlier European researchers and gave it teeth to increasingly bite its way into the main storyline of the West as the 20th century drew to a close. Flohn is considered to be one of the most critically important climate scientists of the 20th century, whose research merited a number of prestigious awards.

Flohn’s very German odyssey actually began in 1941, when he published an article on global warming titled, “The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor” during the dizzying heights of Nazi rule. The Dust Bowl years of the 1930s on the American plains was an exceptionally warm period that prompted environmental discussion among many Nazis at the time, who deemed such an ecological disaster as a symptom of diseased industrial capitalism which had ruined the soil. While Flohn was not a Nazi Party member, he received his doctorate in 1934 and began work for the German Meteorological Service at a time when National Socialism was attempting to bring into line German universities within its ideological purview. Later, Flohn became the Luftwaffe’s chief meteorologist under green Nazi Hermann Goering’s watch. The great irony is that the global warming of the 1930s came to an abrupt halt (which lasted until 1975) just in time for the 1941 invasion of Russia when the Wehrmacht essentially froze to death just outside the gates of Moscow.

During the war, it stands to good reason that Flohn’s high atmospheric weather research would have not only placed him in close proximity with high-altitude Nazi human experiments, but probably also would have put him in regular contact with Werner von Braun and his SS rocket boys. After the war, Flohn continued to ratchet up the CO2 global warming scare as more dangerous than even nuclear energy. Such connections seem to suggest that the global warming apocalypse may have been originally introduced in a targeted way into American research labs through Operation Paperclip, when SS Nazi and German scientists were imported into the United States to help Uncle Sam build rockets to compete in the Cold War. The SS was the greenest arm of the swastika.

Even as early as 1935, Nazi Germany was the greenest regime on the planet. Their ecological projects worked hand in hand with their wild Social Darwinian biological programs connected to eugenics and scientific racial hygiene. Cleaning up the blood also included cleaning up the environment. Indeed, Nazi biologist Ernst Lehman defined fascism accordingly, “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole… This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”

Out of such a Nazi holistic nature-based worldview came a number of environmental laws that preceded their more overt racial laws. In 1933, the Nazis passed a strict animal rights law. In 1934 they passed a hunting law.  Along similar lines, the Nazis also introduced sustainable forestry practices, and essentially became the very originators of what is today called sustainable development that included a great concern for recycling. Even the Four-Year Nazi war plan was to be guided by sustainable development concerns. In 1935, the Nazis passed the totalitarian Reich Nature Protection Act which opened the door to ecological regulation over private property.

That same year, American deep ecologist Aldo Leopold visited Nazi Germany to witness their strong emphasis upon green programs they had just put in place. While Leopold had some criticism of the Nazi efforts, he was very complimentary as he said they were not just talking about environmental problems, but actually doing something. Leopold also dragged home the “Never cry wolf” cult to America as Nazi Germany was the first country in the world to protect wolves. In other words, the western bridge between postmodern socialism/fascism and environmentalism originally rooted in the early German green movement of the 1800s was built by National Socialism in the 1930s, long before Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

With no small irony, the present strong relationship that currently exists between modern environmentalism and left-wing labor unions was essentially born in Nazi Germany. In June of 1933, green Nazis Rudolf Hess and Walther Schoenichen absorbed many of the environmental groups of the Weimar Republic under Werner Haverbeck’sFolk-Race National Character and Landscape Bund that was a subdivision of the German Labor Front. The German Labor Front thus adopted the greens into their political organization. Nazi architect Albert Speer was proud of his environmental accomplishments as the green builder of the Third Reich who was also another leader of the German Labor Front.

After the war, while biding his time in Spandau prison, Hess often discussed the problems of the free market economy with Speer. Speer had worked under Hess as they were both essentially in charge of Nazi public works projects. Speer noted that Hess loved to critique American capitalism which he called liberal democracy as a form of sickness, “Again and again he comes to me with examples of overconsumption in the United States. He happily notes reports of misguided investments in the market economy, collects examples of land speculation, criminality, bad posture in children and health damage caused by canned foods.”

Hess even came up with a cockamamie sustainable development plan he shared with his fellow Nazi prisoners in 1951. Since highway lamps were being placed above roadways, Hess thought it would be unnecessary for cars to turn their headlights on at the same time. Energy could thus be saved by turning off the headlights when highway lamps were burning. Speer remarked, “This would save current he maintains, and the erection and maintenance of the floodlights could easily be financed out of the money thus saved. I object that the car’s generators would be running anyhow, to supply the current to the spark plugs. He dismisses that; the generator could shut off automatically as soon as the battery was charged. Thus, energy would be stored, fuel saved, and this saving could be spent on financing the illumination of highways.” Such a madness certainly presages the anti-car renewable energy sentiments that have become one of the trademarks of the modern green movement — that is also playing no small role in the Green New Deal as well. In short, to characterize the Green New Deal as fascist is no metaphor.

Mark Musser is a part-time missionary, pastor, author, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington in the summers but spends most of his time on the mission field in the former Soviet Union. He is currently a doctoral candidate at Corban University in Salem, Oregon, and is a contributing Writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Ecology provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/the_new_green_fascist_deal.html

Note:   Today’s American  Dem feminazi feminists don’t give a damn about freedom.  FREE MEN DO!  These  Fems, especially those who refuse children, by their Nature without God,   love mouth over brain to make them feel good and make noise.  Enter the ditsy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez crowd.    They   demand blab, comfort, and security over TRUTH and FREEDOM.   They don’t invent, protect,  problem solve, seek or care about Truth.   Richer fems like Hillary  want maids, demand maids of all sexes shapes and sizes to handle her affairs, fair and foul.

 

Fascistic Dems Led By Ditsy Pelosi Face Trouble in River City?

A BATTLE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SHOULD RELISH

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Yesterday, John noted that the escalating Democratic attacks on Catholicism are, in part, an attempt to prepare the battlefield for the day when Justice Ginsburg dies or is unable to continue on the Supreme Court. In that event, said John, President Trump will likely nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg, and Democrats will make Barrett’s religious faith the basis for attacking her nomination.

To which I say, bring it on.

Judge Barrett is the mother of seven children. Two of them were adopted from Haiti. Her youngest biological child has special needs. She is a remarkable and very sympathetic women.

In addition, she is a first rate legal mind. Barrett graduated summa cum laude from the Notre Dame Law School, where she was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. She then clerked for our friend Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.

As a law professor at Notre Dame, Barrett was twice named “distinguished professor of the year.” She continues to teach law as a sitting judge.

Do the Democrats really want to got after someone this sympathetic and this distinguished because she believes in the tenets of the Catholic faith? The answer seems to be yes. After all, they did it when Barrett’s nomination to the court of appeals was before the Senate.

But the Supreme Court is different. The public pays virtually no attention to battles over appeals court nominees. By contrast, as we saw with Brett Kavanaugh, fights over Supreme Court nominees rivet the nation.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that Judge Barrett is nominated to the Supreme Court in mid 2020, as the presidential race is heating up. Let’s hypothesize further that Senate Democrats try once again to savage Barrett because, as Sen. Feinstein once put it, Catholic dogma “lives loudly within” her.

How would serious, believing Catholic voters take this? Probably not well.

For this reason and because of her stellar qualifications, I’d be delighted to see President Trump nominate Judge Barrett for the Supreme Court if the opportunity arises. I’m a little less confident than John that Trump would nominate her. She interviewed with Trump for the last vacancy. According to the rumor mill, for whatever that might be worth, the interview didn’t go that well.

But if the Democrats are prepping the battlefield for a fight over Judge Barrett’s religious beliefs, it’s because (as John suggested) they can’t help themselves, not because they are thinking clearly about strategy.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/a-battle-the-trump-administration-should-relish.php

Dem Pollster Man, Nate Silver, Features Seventeen Dems to Battle 2020 Presidential Contest’s Big Dems

How 17 Long-Shot Presidential Contenders Could Build A Winning Coalition

by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight:

It might seem obvious that having a wide-open field, as Democrats have for their 2020 presidential nomination, would make it easier for a relatively obscure candidate to surge to the top of the polls. But I’m not actually sure that’s true. Democrats might not have an “inevitable” frontrunner — the role that Hillary Clinton played in 2016 or Al Gore did in 2000. But that very lack of heavyweights has encouraged pretty much every plausible middleweight to join the field, or at least to seriously consider doing so. Take the top 10 or so candidates, who are a fairly diverse lot in terms of race, gender and age — pretty much every major Democratic constituency is spoken for by at least one of the contenders. After all, it was the lack of competition that helped Bernie Sanders gain ground in 2016; he was the only game in town other than Clinton.1

So as I cover some of the remaining candidates in this, the third and final installment of our “five corners” series on the Democratic field, you’re going to detect a hint of skepticism about most of their chances. (The “five corners” refers to what we claim are the the five major constituencies within the Democratic Party: Party Loyalists, The Left, Millennials and Friends, Black voters and Hispanic voters2; our thesis is that a politician must build a coalition consisting of at least three of these five groups to win the primary.) It’s not that some of them couldn’t hold their own if thrust into the spotlight against one or two other opponents. Instead, it’s that most of them will never get the opportunity to square off against the big names because the middleweights will monopolize most of the money, staff talent and media attention. Rather than pretend to be totally comprehensive, in fact, I’m instead going to list a few broad typologies of candidates that weren’t well-represented in the previous installments of this series.

This type of candidate has been popular in the minds of journalists ever since Gary Hart’s failed presidential bids in 1984 and 1988 — but it never seems to gain much momentum among actual Democratic voters. In this scenario, a Western governor or senator (e.g. Hart, Bruce Babbitt or Bill Richardson) runs on a platform that mixes environmentalism, slightly libertarianish views on other issues (legal weed but moderate taxes?) and a vague promise to shake things up and bring an outsider’s view to Washington.

This platform makes a lot of sense in the Mountain West, but I’m not sure how well it translates elsewhere in the country. In theory, the environmental focus should have some appeal among millennials. (That particularly holds for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who would heavily focus on climate change in his campaign as a means of differentiating himself.) And Party Loyalists might get behind an outsider if they were convinced that it would help beat President Trump, but “let’s bring in an outsider to shake things up” was one of the rationales that Trump himself used to get elected, so it doesn’t make for as good a contrast in 2020 as it might ordinarily. The Left isn’t likely to be on board with the Great Western Hope platform, which tends to be moderate on fiscal policy. And while the states of the Mountain West have quite a few Hispanic voters, they don’t have a lot of black ones. It’s not that Inslee or former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper aren’t “serious” candidates — being a multi-term governor of medium-sized state is traditionally a good credential — but it’s also not clear where the demand for their candidacies would come from.

You might say something similar about the various mayors that are considering a presidential bid.What niche are the mayors hoping to fill, and are there actually any voters there?

Maybe in “The West Wing,” a hands-on problem solver from Anytown, USA, would make the perfect antidote to a Trumpian president. In the real world, Democrats think the country is in crisis under Trump, and there are a lot of candidates who have more experience dealing with national problems.

But Eric Garcetti and Bill de Blasio, the current mayors of Los Angeles and New York, respectively, have at least had to build complicated coalitions in big, complicated cities — and so they would probably be more viable than the mayors from smaller cities. De Blasio cruised to an easy re-election in New York in 2017 on the basis of support from black, Hispanic and leftist white voters, a coalition that could also be viable in the presidential primary. (De Blasio hasn’t taken concrete steps toward a 2020 bid, but he also hasn’t ruled one out.) Garcetti, who has what he describes as “Mexican-American-Jewish-Italian” ancestry, could find support for his bid among Hispanic voters.

Bloomberg might belong in a different group, as someone who’s not just a former mayor but also fits into the entrepreneur/celebrity/rich person category below and has some of the baggage that comes with that. And unlike de Blasio, Bloomberg wasn’t especially popular with nonwhite voters in New York.

This is a group of candidates I’m quite bullish about, by contrast — especially Stacey Abrams, if she runs. In defeating longtime incumbent Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th Congressional District last year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who is too young to run for president until next cycle) built a coalition of Hispanics, The Left and millennials. Not that everyone necessarily has Ocasio-Cortez’s political acumen, but the potency of this coalition seems rather obvious, in retrospect. Since The Left tends to be pretty white on its own, a Hispanic, black or Asian left-progressive candidate has more potential to build a broader coalition. And millennials, who are sympathetic to left-wing policy positions but also care a lot about diversity, might prefer a Latina or a black woman to an older white man.

In fact, it’s not clear why, other than for reasons having to do with her race and gender, Abrams isn’t getting more buzz as a potential candidate than Beto O’Rourke. (It’s true that Abrams might have designs on Georgia’s 2020 Senate race instead of the presidency; it’s also true that there wasn’t a “Draft Abrams” movement in the same way that influential Democrats almost immediately called on O’Rourke to run for president after his loss to Ted Cruz.) Both performed quite well relative to how Democrats usually do in their states, with Abrams losing to Brian Kemp by 1.4 percentage points in the Georgia governor’s race and O’Rourke losing to Cruz by 2.6 points in Texas’s Senate race. (Andrew Gillum, who barely lost Florida’s governor’s race, can’t make this claim, since Florida is much more purple than either Georgia or Texas.) Both became huge national stories. And both are lacking in the kind experience that traditionally sets the stage for a presidential run. It’s not that I’m down on O’Rourke’s chances; the opposite, really (see Part 2 of this series). But if O’Rourke can build a winning coalition from millennials, Hispanics and Party Loyalists, Abrams (or possibly Gillum) could create one from black voters, millennials and The Left.

I’m not going to spend too much on this category because, in practice, both New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe are likely to have a lot of problems if they want to ascend to the presidential stage. Party nominations are not just about building coalitions but also creating consensus, and McAuliffe and Cuomo have probably picked one too many fights with liberals and spent too much time critiquing liberal policy proposals to be tolerable to a large enough share of Democrats to win the nomination. Of the two, Cuomo would probably be the more viable as he’s shifted toward his left recently, although he’d still have a lot of work to do to repair his relationship with progressives.

Were it not for their abrasive approaches, the Cuomo and McAuliffe coalitions might be a bit more viable than you might assume. In particular, those coalitions consist of minority voters plus relatively moderate Party Loyalists. Cuomo assembled a similar coalition last September and soundly defeated the more liberal Cynthia Nixon in the Democratic primary for governor before being elected to a third gubernatorial term in November thanks to a landslide 84-14 margin among nonwhite voters.

What about the various billionaires considering a presidential run? Count me as skeptical that a CEO title will impress Democrats. Money has never been terribly predictive of success in the primaries (see e.g. Steve Forbes or Jeb Bush) — and candidates such as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire who last week decided that he wouldn’t run for president, have fared notably poorly in early surveys of Democrats. And that makes sense, because it’s not really clear what sort of Democratic voter they’re supposed to be appealing to. The Left is likely to regard the billionaires suspiciously, at best. Nor are rich white men who have never run for office before liable to have a lot of initial success in appealing to black or Hispanic voters. Finally, their timing is poor given that the president is Trump and that the last thing most Democrats will want is another billionaire with no political experience.

Want a billionaire whose chances I’d take seriously? How about Oprah. One three-pronged coalition we haven’t discussed yet is one consisting of Black voters, Hispanic voters and Millennials and Friends; a nonwhite celebrity who was able to engage voters that didn’t ordinarily participate in primaries3 could potentially win on that basis.

Finally, there are a few people running for president who don’t have anything resembling the traditional credentials for doing so, but who at least have pitches that are a little different than what voters will be hearing elsewhere. Tulsi Gabbard, the four-term representative from Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District, was one of Sanders’s early endorsers last cycle, but she also has a heterodox set of positions, such as her frequent defenses of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and her former opposition to gay rights, that won’t win her fans among any of the traditional Democratic constituencies.

Richard Ojeda, a crew-cut Army veteran and former West Virginia legislator who says he voted for Trump in 2016 and looks the part of a (stereotypical) Trump voter, is presenting what’s essentially a left-wing set of economic policies in a very different package than voters would normally to get that message from. I’m not quite sure how the pitch would go over if, say, Ojeda makes it to a debate stage, which might never happen because the Democratic National Committee and the networks might consider him too obscure. But it’s worth bearing in mind that The Left is the whitest and most male of the Democratic constituencies, so a candidate who intentionally plays into that identity might not be the best one to build bridges to the rest of the party.

Then there’s John Delaney, who decided not to run for re-election to Congress so he could run for president instead — and in fact has already been running for president for well more than a year. He’s preaching a message of bipartisanship, which could win him plaudits from the pundits on the Sunday morning shows, but which it’s not clear that many actual Democrats are looking for. Instead, more Democrats are willing to identify as “liberal” than had been in the past and fewer say they want a candidate who compromises.


That’s all for now! As I mentioned in the first installment of this series, some things we’ve written here are surely going to seem laughably wrong in retrospect. It wouldn’t necessarily have been obvious at this point four years ago that Clinton would do so well with black voters, for example (a group she lost badly to Barack Obama in 2008), or that Sanders would become such a phenomenon among millennials. Fundamentally, however, the U.S. has “big tent” parties, consisting of groups that may not have all that much in common with one another. And so, the nomination process is a coalition-building process. Candidates such as Sanders and Joe Biden, who poll well among one or two groups, may lead in the polls initially. But ultimately the candidate who wins the nomination will be the one who can best bridge the divides between the different constituencies within the party.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-17-long-shot-presidential-contenders-could-build-a-winning-coalition/

I: The Disappearing American Human Female…..Looking Back to THE WAR!

I was born in 1934.   I was born to be very, very visual, gifted with  a great memory, but crippled when it came to reading novels.    This meant I was very accomplished in some worlds of learning, but school life could be very bleak when it came to reading novels and taking standard tests.   It turned out I had, what was called in those days, a photographic memory.

At age 84, I can still see and remember the names of my classroom teachers until I entered college.

I had no clue I was in scholastic trouble until college.   The only course I ever failed was Geomorphology, a requirement needed to secure  my first ‘major’ study, Geography.   Outside of Climatology, of the 40 quarter credits required to major in the field, I earned straight A in each course at a time when undergraduates were weeded out of the “Social-Liberal Arts ” school 40% per year.

I was poorly disciplined yet in those days.  I wasn’t certain I knew what school discipline meant.  I did the best I could as I was told.    I was born  exceedingly gifted and  crippled by curiosity.   Nearly all of my pre-college public school teachers were old maids, gifted with knowledge and experience teaching in their fields, in a male adult environment where no student  was allowed to misbehave…..(except occasionally  when substitute teachers would show up.)

I couldn’t run then.   I was seriously crippled by asthma until college.  Later in life, I discovered my life with  dyslexia….well after it had been “invented”, however.   I own well over 1,000 books and have snooped through them all….especially readers of the American nineteenth century.   The only book I have ever read cover to cover…..and have repeated doing so, is George Orwell’s “1984”.

I was well raised JudeoChristian and am “God-fearing” to this day….although unchurched.   The most moving religious ceremonies I have ever experienced were Russian Orthodox….especially that 1990 October Sunday in Kiev when the Soviet Red authorities there opened services at  St. Nicholas “Cathedral” that day when  I became one of thousands upon thousands of locals  who joined the inspiring  hours of ceremony  that  morning.

In all,  curiosity sent me collecting around 700 quarter credits of college  in my life time….yet, only one graduate degree….. “Soviet Studies” where all classes were given and to be spoken only  in Russian.   (Bwillo chudno!!)   The study allowed me transport and time to  speak Russian in  the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, almost as if I lived there,  on two occasions, in August, 1966 and in October, 1990.

They needed the American dollar!

I was born, raised, and still live in Minnesota’s Twin Cities.   Almost a year of my life was spent in Europe, mostly in Great Britain,  throughout the 1990s absorbing the arts of  landscape gardening.

It was about a half century ago when civilized America slipped into the drug world of sex, crime, ignorance, feminism,  and leftism…..about 1968 in our Twin Cities…… when learnings, jobs, American Christianity, Truth seeking, family life, and womanhood  were all still allowed, practiced, and honored….and the door to racial freedom was to be, at last,  opened!

I taught Russian at the University of Minnesota High School from 1960 to 1967…..and Social Studies and Russian at a working class Minneapolis High School until Spring, 1971.  I had been in the US Army 1957 and 1958.  (I was a child of WWII who religiously and closely followed the war and its pictures and maps from the Battle of Midway  that June of 1942 to the very end, August 15, 1945!  I wanted to know  what I would do if shot at!….as my cousins were!   Our neighborhoods everywhere were still safe in 1956.

I had earned my first Bachelor’s degree that year….and wasn’t sure what to do with it.

I had Winston Churchill’s quote always on my mind from the war…….”The most exhilarating moment in life is to be shot at……………and have been missed”.   Prime Minister Churchill was speaking from experience.

Women were still women then, that August well up to 1960….Christian, mothers, God-fearing, neighborhood ruling, family tending,  raising children, keeping  the home front together during the war.  Neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Landmark had lost their son early in the war in the Pacific.  My dad was in his 40s then, and we lived in St. Paul.  He joined the Air Raid force in our part of the city and was on active duty from Spring 1942 until the following winter.    Twice a week he and his force would walk up and down his team’s blocks to make sure every light in every house was out until siren count at about 9:30 or so.

Our family, actually mostly I, as it turned out, wound up starting  in May of 1942,  in charge of planting and maintaining our neighborhood’s VICTORY GARDEN.   The city would plow up the soil of the empty lots across the alley from us for free if we would agree to plant and care for  vegetables there for the war effort.  We could keep half of the crop for our own family use, but share the remaining half with our neighbors.

That is where I learned my love for plant life……a drug that has stayed with me to this very wintery winter day.

During that first year of the war, our neighborhood folk crowded together  at our local grade school gymnasium twice each month on Monday’s at 7PM to sing patriotic songs for a couple of hours and sign up for war duties such as mothers being taught how to bandage their children if the enemy ever reached ‘our shores’.   I enjoyed the stardom I received when my Mother shared me with other mothers  bandaged up…..

Every house on our block and the block east of ours, had Mothers and children  but one, where grand parents lived whose daughter brought her two boys to the neighborhood from Cedar Rapids, Iowa each summer season for years.

Every Spring and Fall until after the War was over,  our neighborhood would picnic in the lot where we raised our vegetables from egg plant to sweet corn, tomatoes to okra, green beans,  squash, onions,  sprouts, lettuce, rutabaga, white potatoes, and more….the world I   at age 8 to 11 was the primary seeder, weeder, harvester, and insect killer.

I loved it all.   I played war games while pinching potato beetles by dive bombing them as if they were Stukas or Zeros off of the potato leaves and sticking them into a can of  car grease.

Even in our safe Minnesota urban neighborhood women were working overtime in some way to aid our nation’s war effort.   But, they were MOTHERS FIRST AND FOREMOST!   They raised their children to be God fearing, to behave, be polite,  caring for others…..or else!    I never heard a curse word of any kind until I heard the word damn used when I was a freshman at St. Paul’s Central High School the spring of 1949.  A new kid to the school that Spring, Dave Martin, uttered it while we 9th graders were quietly going outside for recess one day.   He was made to disappear from school for one week for his error.

There was no television in our Twin Cities until 1947.   Our first set was an 11 inch black and white screened Philco.   Colored television wasn’t yet on the market for several years yet.  Neighbors were still neighbors then…  moms were moms talking to each other, helping each other, sharing with each other,  laughing with each other.   Moms stayed at home and were real moms, teaching, preaching, playing, gardening,  sewing, decorating, respected.   I didn’t know “crime” in action until a junior in high school when two boys in my school were caught shooting bbs at autos one evening along Snelling Avenue and St. Claire.  They were sent to detention for a couple of months.

My Mother did work part time at my dad’s drug store from 1947 to the mid 1950s.   Mrs. Merrill across the street was a working nurse half time  throughout and after the war.  No other Mother on the block worked even when I entered the army in January, 1957.

Butches hadn’t been invented yet, certainly not in the public arena.   No one on the block had been divorced, either.   No one had a reputation of being ugly or beating up anyone.  Only Tommy Joyce’s dad was known to “drink” from time to time.   However, “Spiral Staircase”  was a big hit at our neighborhood movie house in 1947 or 1948.  I sneaked out to see it one 7PM  just before rain fell and thunder clapped arrogantly  anxious to see what adults were complaining about.   I learned far more than I wanted to learn about what some adult guys might be up to…..and added my sweat to the rain and thunder as I ran home to sweet home.

 

 

 

Fox Aussie Rinos Ridicule Trump over Acosta Stink ?

Trump on Acosta Ruling: “People Have To Behave”

 

President Trump commented Friday on a judicial ruling ordering the White House to reinstate the press pass for CNN’s Jim Acosta. The judge did not rule on the underlying case, but he granted CNN’s request for a temporary restraining order on Fifth Amendment grounds. During a bill signing the president said his staff is working on a set of rules journalists will have to follow in the White House.

“People have to behave,” Trump said on the Acosta ruling. “We’re writing up rules and regulations…If they don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we’ll end up back in court and we’ll win. But more importantly, we’ll just leave, and then you won’t be very happy.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/11/16/trump_on_acosta_ruling_people_have_to_behave.html

Aussie Foreigners at Fox Join Forces with Fascistic Mouthed Jim Acosta?!!

One America News Chief: We’re Standing With Trump Against Jim Acosta, Not With CNN Like Fox News Is

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

We love you more, Mr. President. It’s a sensible pitch as OAN grasps for ways to cut into the Fox behemoth’s market share. But Fox’s decision to stand with Acosta is sensible too. If in fact Trump wins in court and gains the power to exclude particular reporters from White House events, liberals will want the next Democratic president to make use of that power too. And we all know who the prime target will be, and it won’t be OAN. Fox was targeted years ago for exclusion from interviews with the Obama administration, as Ed noted a few days ago; only because CNN and other networks hung with them in objecting did Team O finally relent. Siding with CNN again now is Fox’s way of taking out a little insurance just in case President Kamala Harris decides that FNC is too evil or whatever to be allowed into her briefings. They’re scratching Acosta’s back today so that CNN will scratch theirs tomorrow.

No doubt Herring has also been paying attention to the fact that Fox has put a little daylight between itself and the president lately. Emphasis on “a little.”

But the network has made several moves in recent weeks to distance itself. Fox News was quick to condemn the two hosts for appearing to campaign with Trump, especially after Hannity had pledged to not take the stage with the president.

“FOX News does not condone any talent participating in campaign events,” a Fox News spokesperson said in a statement at the time. “This was an unfortunate distraction and has been addressed.”

And earlier this month, Fox News pulled an immigration ad put out by the White House, which other networks had labeled as racist. Nonetheless, the network’s coverage of immigration still tended to align with Trump’s interests — Fox News devoted significant air time to a caravan of migrants heading through Mexico in hopes of seeking asylum in the U.S.

If I know my president, he’ll be delighted at an opportunity to play Fox off of OAN and vice versa for more flattering coverage from both. Supposedly he used to enjoy watching underlings at the Trump Organization vie with each other for dominance; the same dynamic played out for awhile during the 2016 campaign when Corey Lewandowski and his loyalists battled Paul Manafort and his team for control of the Trump train. Now Trump has OAN seizing the Acosta dust-up to declare itself the one true Trump News Network. POTUS will probably reward them with some sort of extended interview, or much more frequent interviews, if only to remind Fox that he’s capable of singlehandedly elevating OAN as a serious rival to them if they wander too far off the reservation. If you think primetime on FNC is pro-Trump now, check back this spring and see what it looks like.

Speaking of which, this can’t be true, can it? Since when does Trump show contempt for his biggest sycophants?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/11/15/one-america-news-chief-standing-trump-jim-acosta-not-cnn-like-fox-news/

Any President should, must have the right to ban from his news gatherings  obnoxious, rude,  insulting, lying, Hitlerian, fascistic mouthies like Jim Acosta who spend energy and precious time selling falsehoods TO THEIR FELLOW FASCISTS as news to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC and the Rinos at Fox News to smear the President.

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES WHITE HOUSE MUST RETURN PRESS PASS TO   OBNOXIOUS, ARROGANT, FOUL, FASCIST-BEHAVING, PSYCHO CASE  JIM ACOSTA  FOR NOW!     Please read the  article below for the reason….

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/11/16/federal-judge-rules-white-house-must-reinstate-jim-acostas-press-pass-now/

Fascistic James Acosta and His Fellow Travelers of Today’s Leftist Fake News Press “Star” at Press Conference

A COUNTRY GONE HALF-MAD

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

These days it seems that half of our country has gone mad. Many Democrats, perhaps because of disappointment over yesterday’s election results, are behaving in a manner that can fairly be described as crazy. Exhibit A is today’s presidential press conference, where reporters representing the Democratic Party lost their cool entirely. Their rudeness and presumption were extraordinary. CNN’s Jim Acosta was the worst offender, but by no means the only one. It is hard to believe that this is how allegedly professional reporters conduct themselves:

Exhibit B is Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who will become Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Riding the train from New York to Washington, Nadler couldn’t restrain himself while talking on the telephone:

Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., revealed plans for House Democrats to investigate and impeach Justice Brett Kavanaugh for alleged perjury and investigate and impeach President Donald Trump for alleged treasonous collusion with Russia.

Somehow I don’t think that is what the voters are looking for. Details at the link.

Exhibit C is sheer comedy: Joy Behar, political pundit on “The View,” explaining to a Democratic Party consultant that Republicans made gains in the Senate because of gerrymandering. You can’t make this stuff up:

Tom Elliott@tomselliott

Here’s the clip of Joy Behar thinking Dems lost Senate seats because of gerrymandering

 

That interview was one place among many where Democrats have peddled the concept of a national “popular vote” in House and Senate elections. This is a wholly irrelevant concept with no constitutional or logical standing, but expect to hear more about it from the Democrats. Basically, they are trying to undermine the legitimacy not only of the Senate, but of our entire constitutional federal structure. I have no idea what the end game of that effort is supposed to be. Perhaps there isn’t one; perhaps we are just observing people who have been driven mad.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/a-country-gone-half-mad.php

Note:  At last the rude, mouthy, bully show-off fascistic James Acosta has lost his credentials to return to the President’s Press Conference until further notice!

THREE CHEERS FOR CIVILITY!   Thank you, President Trump!  ghr