• 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

America’s Standard Leftist Jews Demand Trump “Dumps” Netanyahu!

Two largest organizations of America rabbis call on Trump to pressure Netanyahu to abandon his election pledges

The Conservative and Reform rabbinical leadership along with affiliated lay groups and tepid pro-Israel groups have revealed their elitist contempt for democracy and their disdain for Zionism by appealing to President Trump to force Prime Minister Netanyahu to break his electoral pledges.  They did this in a letter sent to a Jewish publication, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, on Friday, April 12.  In that letter, they called on our president to stop Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from extending sovereignty over Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Why not ask President Trump to do what they really want: overthrow the Israeli government and install a secular leftist government?  Because that is what they want.  They don’t care about democracy or rule of law if Israelis dare not to want what they think Israelis should want.  The rabbis, ironically enough, are trying to declare U.S. sovereignty over Israel.  They are acting as if Israel were a vassal state of the U.S.

These American rabbis and those allied with their thinking refuse to pay any attention to what the Israelis have found out while waiting patiently for decades while the Palestinian Arabs keep repaying their every peace effort with ever increasing terrorism.  The Arab leadership will not agree to “live side by side in peace and security” with the Jewish state.

At this point, most Israelis are no longer prepared to live in limbo.  They have already rejected what these American rabbis demand they accept.  On April 9, the Israeli electorate gave a loud, resounding “no” to parties whose vision for Israel these Americans endorse, giving them the lowest election support ever.  Not surprisingly, these American interlopers are not listening to what Israelis want at all.

Perhaps what is most galling is that the rabbis’ outrageous April 12 letter oversteps their authority to speak for even American Jews within their respective denominations.  They are not interpreting Jewish law, their alleged area of expertise, but are acting as Democratic Party partisans with its allegiance to the shibboleth that two states for two peoples will bring peace.

After Netanyahu pledged to extend sovereignty to all Israelis living in the disputed areas that are the heartland of biblical Israel, the Israeli public applauded that pledge.  Israelis gave Netanyahu the highest proportion of the vote that he has ever received in any election.

What’s downright laughable is that these unelected American rabbis are now willing to prostrate themselves before President Trump, whom they daily defame, calling on him to impose their preferences on an electorate that has rejected them as a threat to their survival.  These arrogant, insulated rabbis have not learned from thousands of rockets fired from Gaza or the tens of thousands of missiles on the Lebanon border or the decades of stabbing, shooting, ramming attacks on Jews in Judea and Samaria.  But Israelis have.

These letter-writing hypocrites hide behind protestations of love for Israel and then condition that love on doing it my way or the highway.  They threaten that the American Jewish community will not support Israel if it does not do what they want.  How dare they?

We witness with sorrow the power of Rep. Ilhan Omar and her cohort in the cowing of the four Jewish Democratic representatives who cravenly echoed the rabbis’ calumny.  Not one of them had the courage to demand that Rep. Omar be removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee despite her outrages against American Jews and against Israel.  Now they dare to tell Netanyahu to ignore the will of his people and kowtow to them, as they kowtow to their freshman colleague.  Reps. Engel, Lowey, Deutch and Schneider — have you no shame?

Perhaps they all — the representatives, the rabbis, and their cheerleaders — fear that they may soon be turned away by what the Democratic Party is becoming.  Appeasement, however, is unlikely to win them a delay in excommunication.  And since the real religion of their declining congregations is whatever is this year’s Democratic Party platform, they now attempt to hoist this outrageous letter as a “Jewish” position.

Let us be clear: the rabbis have no authority to speak for American Jews in the political arena.  They have disgraced themselves by doing so.

We are hopeful  that President Trump won’t be swayed by these leftist Democrats in clerical clothing.

The authors are chairmen, JewsChooseTrump.org

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook




Countless billions of American dollars have been spent in the past twenty years supporting  the con-artist Al Gore political campaign that the Earth is dramatically heating up, and that this heating up is, will be a killer to all human kind, and that the white man is responsible for this coming disaster unless you and your government support  the cause financially and politically by  supporting Democrats and Fascists throughout the World.

Yet there is NO evidence whatsoever that white man’s inventions have any significant effect upon global warming whatsoever BEYOND THE POLITICAL.

It’s all a racket!?!   …. Al Gore, a con-artist of the Ages?!!   YES, ACCORDING TO WHAT MANKIND DOES KNOW ABOUT OUR EARTH’S PAST.

Twelve thousand years ago most of my Minnesota was a thousand or more feet under ice for several thousand years.   Yet, 65,000,000 years ago the Dakota plains to the West of us in Minnesota were populated by dinosaurs, jungles, and ferns hundreds of feet tall.

You, dear adult readers, should have been taught such reality when you were in school….but your teachers were poorly educated…..and have much slouched now selling fascism to your children.

Craig Rucker has been stalwart for years in his efforts challenging the Al Gore corrupt financial and political world selling GLOBAL WARMING!

He wrote the other day:


The global warming campaign would have more credibility if its proponents weren’t constantly getting caught in the lie.

They spin the facts and the media let’s them get away with it.  Sadly for team warming, there are still plenty of us out there who won’t let bogus claims go unchallenged.  If the science was actually settled, why distort the news?

Case in point, check out the excellent article Dr. Jay Lehr posted at CFACT.orgdebunking (yet again) the spurious claim that 97% of scientists all agree that no global warming claim, no matter how wild, dare ever be challenged.

Many articles have been written to refute this claim but they all dig into the statistical weeds. Common sense alone should set you straight. If the reader wishes he or she could read the original paper by Naomi Oreskes that started it all in Science Magazine in December of 2004. Be aware you might die laughing…

Simple proof of this erroneous talking point is provided by the Global Warming Petition Project at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2015. They obtained signatures on a Declaration from 31,478 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D.s that stated they did not believe man kind had a significant impact on his climate. The declaration included the words: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human releases of carbon dioxide methane or other greenhouse gases are causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”

They made all the names available in a paper back book.It is rather doubtful that these people all comprise the 3% of non believers.

Check out Dr. Lehr’s full account.

Science works on objective reality, not consensus.

Especially not a phony consensus.

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker

Leftist GOOGLE Zaps Conservative Heritage Foundation President from Its Advisory Council!

Why Did Google Oust Heritage Foundation’s President From New AI Board?

A new advisory council on Artificial Intelligence (AI) was formed earlier this year at Google. The mission of the board was to advise the tech giant in responsible AI development. Sounds innocuous enough, right? One might even say it’s a worthy exercise from such a powerful force. Then, just like that, the whole thing got political.

Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, was invited to join Google’s new advisory board. She did. Then, by all accounts that have since emerged, the protests by liberal activists began almost immediately after the names of the board members were announced. Her crime is that she holds traditional conservative views and is unapologetic about that. In other words, she embodies the political philosophy one would expect from the president of the Heritage Foundation. To the rabid left, though, this makes her an enemy of the LGBTQ community, among other groups, like the open borders crowd.

Earlier this year, Google invited James to join an artificial intelligence advisory council that would exchange views to help guide Google’s policies in this area. No sooner was this announced that some Google employees circulated a petition demanding that the Mountain View, California tech giant remove her from the post.

The petition was eventually signed by some 2,500 people, not just at Google, but at dozens of universities in the United States and Canada and woke companies such as Lyft and Vox Media. The company gave in to the mob last week and disbanded the council.

The name of the petition distributed by Google employees was “Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate”. The original story was reported by Breitbart and is only now beginning to bubble up. I first noticed a bit of the story on social media a few days ago. The more that emerges, the more infuriating the story becomes.

Multiple Google employees in the thread also engaged in outright smears against the Heritage Foundation. Google employees accused the think-tank of transphobia, homophobia, and “extremism,” of viewing LGBT people as “sub-human,” questioning their “humanity,” and supporting “exterminationist” views.

“Would we even consider having a virulent anti­-Semite on the advisory board? How about an avowed racist or white supremacist?” asked one Google employee. “This seems like a double standard where anti­-LGTBQ positions are tolerated more than other extreme discriminatory views.”

“You don’t need racists, white supremacists, exterminationists on the board to know their stances. you can just talk to their targets” insisted another.

“It’s so upsetting that some of our leaders overlooked such hateful positions as Kay Cole James and the Heritage Foundation have articulated and regularly advocate for,” complained another Google employee.

The comments from the Google crowd continued on, even equating “rhetorical violence” to actual physical violence. You get the picture. Rather than push back and tamp down the critics by insisting that their original inclination to include a conservative viewpoint on the board was good and right, Google caved. Not only did the company oust Mrs. James from the board but Google then simply disbanded the advisory board. How’s that for the ultimate cowardly move? The woke set is so delicate that one conservative voice is just too much to handle.

Here’s the thing though. Mrs. James is a 69-year-old African-American woman with a resume that is the envy of any objective observer. She is a Christian, a scholar, and a civil rights activist. She’s on the wrong side of the arguments of the left, so she must be punished. If the LGBTQ community and Mrs. James’ opinions about it was a real concern, though, why didn’t the petitioners notice that her son is openly gay and she has a strong relationship with his LGBTQ community? They adore her. Instead, Google caved and allowed mob rule to take over. There were even calls for the firing of a Google employee who was bold enough to argue against the mob on Mrs. James’ behalf. One employee, a researcher who attended tech symposiums at the White House during the Obama administration called James “an outspoken bigot.” (Breitbart)

At least one of the Google employees who smeared the Heritage Foundation and its president is a prominent A.I researcher who has attended tech symposiums at the Obama White House. Meredith Wittaker, co-founder of NYU’s A.I. Now Institute and head of two projects at Google, the Open Research Group and the Measurement Lab, is revealed as one of the most vitriolic opponents of conservative involvement in Google A.I.

In the thread, Whittaker describes Kay Coles James, a black conservative who leads one of the most influential think-tanks in D.C., as an “outspoken bigot” who supports policies that “dehumanize and marginalize.”

In a different leaked discussion thread, Whittaker attacked the idea of viewpoint diversity (the idea that it’s valuable to tolerate and include a variety of ideological and political viewpoints) as “dangerous.”

So much for women supporting women. This is just another example of that expression only applying to the left.

As to the accusation of being a bigot, if that was a slam against James for some sort of racist agenda, that slur falls flat, too. She is the founder of The Gloucester Institute, which trains and mentors college-age African-Americans. She has served on many commissions and boards, has several honorary diplomas including “Doctor of Laws from Pepperdine University, the University of Virginia’s Publius Award for Public Service, and the Spirit of Democracy Award for Public Policy Leadership from the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation,” as described on the Heritage Foundation’s website. As I wrote above, her resume is extensive and impressive.

I’m struck by the fact that this is the second story this week I’ve focused on that involves personal attacks on conservative black women by mostly liberal white men. Mrs. James has been working at the helm of Heritage Foundation with little public recognition. Now, thanks to the intolerance of the left, her profile is elevated and that is a good thing for the conservative movement. She is an excellent role model for those considering a conservative alternative to failing liberal policies.

Mrs. James’ Twitter feed was used in the campaign to smear her at Google. Her critics claim her tweets promoted hate and intolerance. The critics then did exactly what they accused her of doing. As her op-ed in the Washington Post pointed out, an opportunity was lost for an alternative viewpoint to be heard. It was just two short weeks between the announcement of the board members and the disbandment of the board.

I was deeply disappointed to see such a promising idea abandoned, but the episode was about much more than just one company’s response to intolerance from the self-appointed guardians of tolerance.

It was symptomatic of where America is heading. Whether in the streets or online, angry mobs that heckle and threaten are not trying to change hearts and win minds. They’re trying to impose their will through intimidation. In too many corners of American life, there is no longer room for disagreement and civil discourse. Instead, it’s agree or be destroyed.

My fellow advisory-council members have now been deprived of the opportunity to question me about what they might see as the contradiction of my policy views and my absolute unconditional acceptance of every member of the human family. They may not have agreed with me, but they would have understood me better — and I, them. With that, we would have had the opportunity to work together to make better public policy on an exceedingly critical issue.

I believe there are many opportunities for a civil discussion of religious values and how they conflict with other values. Some on the left are willing to engage in such an open-minded debate. But too often those on the left are turning into the very thing they say they despise, using hate and stereotyping to try to silence anyone they regard as an enemy. The public square is becoming so poisonous that good liberals and good conservatives must be wary of coming together to discuss ideas and seek solutions.

She’s right. The left is intolerant and unwilling to listen to differing points of view. I’ll end this with Mrs. James’ Twitter thread of what happened to her. She is a woman to be admired, not dehumanized.


Why did Google oust Heritage Foundation’s president from new AI board?

Milquetoasts Roberts and Kavanaugh Cuddling With the Dem Gals on the Supreme Court?


by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

“Conservatives’ takeover of Supreme Court stalled by John Roberts-Brett Kavanaugh bromance.” That’s the headline of a story in USA Today. The author explains:

Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, have voted in tandem on nearly every case that’s come before them since Kavanaugh joined the court in October. They’ve been more likely to side with the court’s liberal justices than its other conservatives.

The two justices, both alumni of the same District of Columbia-based federal appeals court, have split publicly only once in 25 official decisions. Their partnership has extended, though less reliably, to orders the court has issued on abortion funding, immigration and the death penalty in the six months since Kavanaugh’s bitter Senate confirmation battle ended in a 50-48 vote.

I discussed the Roberts-Kavanaugh alliance in connection with the Court’s unwillingness to hear cases regarding Planned Parenthood and, at least so far, to hear key cases regarding the rights of gays and transgender individuals. The three solidly conservative Justices — Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch — all have voted to hear these cases, but it takes the vote of a fourth Justice to make this happen.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh have held out.

What is Kavanaugh’s up to? USA Today says that, having been accused of a 1980s sexual assault during his confirmation process, he “may just be laying low.”

The “laying low” theory is supported by rumors that Kavanaugh has been telling friends and associates that he intends to do just that for a year, given the controversy that surrounded his confirmation. Perhaps USA Today has heard the same rumors.

But although Kavanaugh is probably saying this, the “laying low” for a year theory isn’t fully persuasive. First, Kavanaugh is surely intelligent enough to realize that laying low for a year isn’t going to make his confirmation any less controversial or cause those who are convinced he’s evil to have a change of heart. (It’s also not clear why Kavanaugh would care about this. He has his lifetime appointment).

Second, at this point the controversial LGBT cases he and the Chief Justice keep ducking wouldn’t be heard this Term if the Court granted certiorari. Instead, they would be heard next Term, after the year of “laying low” has expired.

It looks to me like Kavanaugh may lay low for a good while — long enough to become very comfortable doing so.

Meanwhile, we seem to be stuck with a milquetoast Supreme Court. As USA Today puts it:

The chief justice and the newest justice together have provided ballast for a court in transition. Following Kavanaugh’s replacement of retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Roberts has become the court’s swing vote, and Kavanaugh often appears to be his wingman.

“Ballast for a court in transition” is not what President Trump promised conservatives.

Ironically, during the presidential debates, Trump savaged Ted Cruz for supporting John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court. The attack was unfair. Cruz had wanted Michael Luttig, for whom he clerked, to get the nomination that went to Roberts. Once Roberts was nominated, Cruz supported him, and there was no apparent reason not to. Roberts had always been a solid conservative. His decision upholding Obamacare was seven years in the future. He was not milquetoast in the interim.

By contrast, Kavanaugh had already written an opinion upholding Obamacare, and on grounds similar to the ones Roberts would later embrace, when Trump nominated him. Nor was Kavanaugh on the list of potential Supreme Court nominees Trump campaigned on.

Yet Trump nominated him anyway. As a result it looks like Trump is batting .500 on Supreme Court Justices. That’s the traditional Republican success rate, but it’s not good enough.

Perhaps we’ll see a better, more reliably version of Kavanaugh as time goes on. That’s not usually how it works, however. It usually works the other way around.


A Roberts-Kavanaugh bromance?

McClatchy “Well Known For Publishing False Stories”, Being Sued For Publishing False Stories!


(Review the defamation pix and claim below….)

The only purpose of McClatchy’s story was to put Congressman Nunes’s name in a headline along with the words “yacht,” “cocaine,” “prostitutes” and “fundraiser.” In fact, he had nothing to do with the episode. Nunes is a limited partner in a limited partnership that owns a winery. The winery has a yacht, and donated an evening on board the yacht to a charitable auction. (No good deed goes unpunished.) The guy who bought the evening on the yacht at the charity auction apparently threw a party that included cocaine and prostitutes. Devin Nunes had no knowledge of it and nothing to do with it.

The whole story was a politically-inspired fraud. But McClatchy’s fake news spread widely in newspapers (“A new report links California Republican Congressman Devin Nunes to a lawsuit concerning a Napa winery’s San Francisco Bay cruise that allegedly featured prostitutes and cocaine”) and social media (“Devin Nunes just got caught up in a disgusting yacht, cocaine, prostitute scandal”).

The incident happened in 2015 and was reported then, but McClatchy’s Fresno Bee made a major story of it in 2018, apparently in hopes of defeating Nunes in his re-election bid.

There is much more in the Complaint. Among other things, the role of political operative Liz Mair (who says on Linked In: “What do I do for these clients? Anonymously smear their opposition on the internet”).

What are Nunes’s chances of winning? Close to zero, I assume. Under current defamation law, I think it is almost impossible for a public official to win a defamation case no matter how egregious the facts are. My hope is that Nunes’s case survives long enough to enable some discovery. It would be fun to look at the email traffic at McClatchy to see why they chose to resurrect the 2015 “yacht” story just in time for the 2018 election campaign, for example. And whether they acknowledged in writing that they targeted Nunes because his committee was investigating Obama administration misdeeds.

There is one other hope, I suppose: if President Trump gets another Supreme Court nomination, it is possible that the Court might revisit the constitutional straitjacket in which it has placed the common law of defamation. That would be a good thing, from which Devin Nunes might possibly benefit.


Trump Makes a Change “At the Border!”

If Trump critics think DHS resignation will change his mind on the border, think again

by James Jay Carafano   at Fox News:

Securing the border is a critical mission. It was never something to be complacent about, and the situation there has demonstrably deteriorated.

So, it’s not surprising that the president decided to change leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. When Trump doesn’t get results, he shakes things up. That’s always been his way.

Kirstjen Nielsen is a tough woman who took on a tough job. She faithfully served her president and the nation.


I worked with Kirstjen for decades as part of the community of scholars and practitioners who advocated for effective homeland security policies. We served together on the presidential transition team. Kirstjen gave the administration two years of dedicated service, working in a variety of roles. Every day she put the nation and the mission first. The president could not have asked for a more loyal and dedicated supporter.

Her critics on the right and left are off base. Those who want to intimate that she was soft on the president’s “get tough” approach to border security and immigration enforcement are just wrong.  On the other side, those who attack her being too tough are in denial about the problems her department must deal with.

What are some of those problems?  For starters, there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. Every day, innocent children are placed at risk. Every day, families endure unspeakable hardships.

The hypocrisy is maddening. The crisis at the border could be quickly brought under control if Congress would take the necessary and common sense steps.

But don’t blame the secretary or the president. Blame activists who are organizing and encouraging caravans and bogus asylum-seekers to rush the border. Blame multi-billion-dollar criminal cartels that exploit human trafficking. Blame ineffective leaders in Congress who deny a crisis exists—even as illegal immigration soars and conditions deteriorate.

Some of Kirstjen’s critics are little more than enablers—perpetuating policies that have encouraged what amounts to a modern-day trail of tears—all because they see this human misery as a lever that can be used in their ongoing, partisan political battle with the president.

The hypocrisy is maddening. The crisis at the border could be quickly brought under control if Congress would take these necessary and common sense steps: fund the wall; provide adequate resources for detention; speed up asylum claims processing, and close the legal loopholes that allow activists and criminals to encourage flooding America with unprecedented numbers of illegal immigrants.

But Trump’s political opponents will have none of that. Instead, they call for amnesties and open borders, which will only open the floodgates wider.

The real loser here is not Kirstjen. She can be proud of her service to the American people and the president. It is not Trump, who will relentlessly pursue protecting the nation. Those who will lose the most are American citizens. They will have to bear the cost of providing social services to millions of illegal immigrants.

Absent congressional willingness to fix the immigration system, the president has few options other than to do whatever he can to secure the border. Trump is not one to stand by and not try every possible legal option to get the job done—and that includes shaking up the team. On Team Trump, no one is more important than the mission. The president rightfully thanked the secretary for her service. Now the challenge is to impress on new leaders the need to keep at it.

Perhaps the strongest message here is for the president’s detractors. If they think he will ever back off in pursuit of securing the border and fixing a broken immigration system they are wrong. His latest action is just another reminder of that.




by Glenn H. Ray, a Minnesota public school teacher, 1960-1971

Some time in 1970 ‘research’ articles began to appear on the front pages of the Minneapolis Tribune, the city’s morning paper.    They were titled:   “THINK YOUNG”.   The name attached to them was a local reporter new-name, Molly Ivins.

She had been given permission by the City’s School Administration to interview students at West Senior High School, a venerated old building in the city’s wealthy Lake of the Isles area called Kenwood…..a rich but dogmatically Liberal area whether Democrat or Republican.   My wife and I lived there as an economic exception.   The Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools lived there also,  barely a block from our house.   He had bought his home from U.S. Senator Walter Mondale.   (We  afforded the neighborhood  from savings we had collected over the years, and  because we bought  before house values in Kenwood began to sky rocket…..as our luck would have it.   Our first born arrived late 1965.)

Sometime later that year Mr. M who in 1967  was made principal at  Edison High School where I taught,  by now  in my sixth year,  sent out a notice to all teachers of social studies, about ten of us in all.    He notified us that the assistant Superintendent of Schools, Mr. V,   who preceded Mr M as Edison’s principal,  directed Mr.M to make our senior social studies classes open to interviews by (the same)  Molly Ivins of the Minneapolis Tribune for her front page column, “THINK YOUNG”.    The students were to be selected by Ms. Ivins  at random from a list of  names of students assigned to our classses.

I was a regular subscriber to the Tribune in those days.   I had read every one of Ms. Ivins “Think Young” columns on its front pages.    Each and every column  included a statistical ‘result’ of the  17 year olds’  sexual habits based on her interviews held in some dark schoolroom far  away from parental scrutiny but  authorized by the city;’s public school administration.   Leading lefties of the day, especially those   rioting at the University of Minnesota  joined the drugged and vulgars opposing    the Vietnam War business,  all gave raving reviews for Molly Ivins’  ‘innovative’ work.

The Minneapolis Tribune seeking modernity, basked in the newly found  light beaming  from  these Leftwing war protests  and the  venom  spewing  from its  femininazi fanatics.

In other pages of this same Minneapolis Tribune were full page  articles covering  a noted female of college fame who demanded  the music composed by Ludwig von Beethoven  be banned from the public ear  because its rhythms and beats were a sexual assault upon women.   His music, in this feminazi’s words, was  raping her.

I also knew the name Molly Ivins from these  antiwar rioters.     She was as ugly and vulgar as ugly and vulgar could be even by the standards of the feminist movement era.   I added that  along with her Tribune  prurience in teenage sex.    If  I wouldn’t have allowed a Church figure  to conduct such interviews during my students’ class time, why would I allow this Ivins  to see them in isolation?      And, they were indeed my students during the hours  students were assigned to me to teach or otherwise be responsible for.

I had learned tenacity as a teacher at Edison by then.    I had been elected by my fellow teachers, ‘Charirman of the Faculty Council’.    Since my arrival at  the school I had nagged my fellow teachers  that they were serfs in the world of education, and didn’t deserve even the thin pay that they were getting.   They were professional cowards, I taunted.   Big on the noise when no administrator was in sight, but melted into childlike obedience  when one approached  nearby.

It was in this same year, 1970 when the Minneapolis teachers broke Minnesota state law and went out on strike.    I became a speaker and writer of letters defending the action.    I was never more proud of my fellow teachers, both male and female.

During this time I got a call from the city’s evening paper’s prep sports reporter, Joe Kaplan.    The official School Board and Administration Line during and before the strike  was that the Minneapolis Schools were the equal of any and all public schools in the area in facilities and educational offerings.     This was an absolute lie, and Joe Kaplan knew it .    Since I coached the boys’ tennis team, he asked me about our tennis budget and how it compared to the suburban high schools  around  Minneapolis.    I happened to have the figures at hand.  I was at the time vice present of the State High School Tennis Coaches Association.    Our budget at Edison was still at $90 for the entire tennis season.     Nearly all of the schools in the suburbs started at  $2,000 and some went up from there.   Furthermore, they owned their own tennis courts.   City schools had none but could use the public city courts for an hour or two  after school hours.

Joe cited my comments in  his column in the next day’s issue.   He wrote it as I told him accurately and sympathetically.   Later in the evening I got a call at home  from Mr. V, the principal of Edison High School during my first three years, the guy who approved  my tenure.    “Did you read this evening’s Joe Kaplan article?……Did he report what you said to him accurately?”    He may have asked yet another question or two along similar lines….I answered yes to each question and added that  I thought Joe wrote a terrific article….which he did, but I think  I said it to irritate  Mr. V.   It is what he said next that turned out to be important:

“I am going to get you.   Some day I’m going to really  get you and don’t you forget it.!”

I passed it off as management-labor tensions during a very emotional  strike, an illegal one to boot.    It was Easter vacation time plus two weeks or so on the picket lines…..and in the speech halls, if I remember correctely.    Compromise was made and we teachers  went back to school officially without tenure,  but in agreement between  the Teachers’ Union and the Minneapolis School District, everyone’s tenure would be honored…….

Well, everyone’s tenure but for  one teacher…..guess who got the ‘honor’?

I cannot remember if the Molly Ivins issue came before or after the strike, but I am thinking it followed the strike.   One was not connected in any way with the other as far as I knew.

I wasn’t angry when I entered Mr. M’s office. to inform him I wasn’t going to release anyone in my class for the Ivins’ interviews.     He said he was expecting me to protest   the previous week and wondered what delayed me.   His question flowed smoothly into  my answer, “Because I have no intention to allow any  students out of my class to visit with Ms. Ivins.

Mr. M paled.   His head dropped onto his hands.   “You can’t do that, Glenn.”

“Oh, yes I can.       I wouldn’t let a clergyman take kids willy-nilly  from my  classroom  for private interviews.

What do you think you’re going to look like to the parents when they read that  you allowed your   students to be interviewed in your school by this foul mouthed frump  cozying  up to their sons and daughters to get them to describe how and with whom they have sex?    How dare ‘they’ dump this on us! (I was referring to the downtown administration brass.)    Don’t you even think  of asking me to join in.   I am not going to  have my students  participate.”

“I have no choice.!”  this good man exclaimed…..and this principal was such a good guy.   I  often felt bad being an adversary of his, but not this time.  He wasn’t a real confident Principal  with these, his ‘superiors’.     He craved for peace at his school at a time when peace in schools was becoming  impossible.

“How do the other social studies teachers feel about  the  Ivins’  interviews?

“None of them like it, but they won’t object.

“How many student  hours altogether are  the interviews  supposed to take?”

“Each interview is to run about a half an hour.   Ivins  wants  eight to ten  students picked at random from each senior social studies class.”    That meant about twenty five hours minimum  of student time   would be taken from my classroom.    And here is what   I advised and did so  forcefully:

“Here is what you say to those people:  ‘I’m getting a little static from some of my social studies teachers on the Ivins’ interviews.   You’re going to have to give me more time to persuade them.”

And then one of those far too infrequent moments in life when one  actually does come up with a  verbal  ‘coup de grace’ when needed, I said, “Tell the administration  that we teachers will have  to get parental permission first.   Sex is such a delicate, personal topic for an interview with a stranger!”    And I truly meant it as a threat.

It was the avenue out of the issue.   It  made Mr. M’s day as well as my own.  We knew we had a  winner.    By the next day the downtown  ‘authorities’  told Mr. M, they would delay the interviews.    About a week later, he received  an incidental notice that the interviews had been cancelled.   No reason was given.   He always gave me the idea he liked  me being around.   I felt I was helping him as a colleague.     Schools would be better places for learning  if teachers weren’t treated  like serfs.  Unlike Mr. V.,  Mr. M never treated me like a serf.

The following is an article written by Dave Mona, once a Tribune colleague of Molly Ivins written in 2007 shortly after her death:

“Molly Ivins Teaches Us New Words

She was totally unlike any new hire in recent memory. When The Minneapolis Tribune hired someone from “outside the market,” it was a good bet they were talking about Fargo, Des Moines or Madison.

Molly was from Texas and you couldn’t miss her.

She was loud. She didn’t sound like anyone else in the newsroom and she was tall. If she were a basketball player, which legend said she was, she would have been a power forward.

Molly taught us all how to swear.

She was good at it, and she knew words we’d never heard before.

It was difficult for Molly to complete a sentence without swearing. Her favorite word was “sumbitch,” which we learned could be either good or bad. For instance: “That dumb sumbitch was so stupid he could dive off the dock and not find water.” Or, “…you had to admire the way that sumbitch could put words together.”

For much of her brief tenure with The Tribune, she was assigned to the police beat. They clearly didn’t know what to make of her, but legend had it that they named a pet pig “Molly” in her honor.

There was little factual support for stories about Molly. She became a bit of an instant legend.

Stu Baird, the genial City Editor, once claimed that he had gotten a complaint from the police that her language was too salty. He never offered any proof, but there was little reason to doubt it.

After graduating from Smith College, getting a Master’s in Journalism from Columbia University and spending a year in France, she joined the Tribune in the fall of the year, arriving from Texas without an overcoat.

A few weeks later she entered the newsroom in a floor-length reddish orange maxi coat which nicely matched her red hair. As she walked slowly through the newsroom, Frank Premack shouted, “My, God, it looks like a bad paint job on the Foshay Tower!”

Molly’s response to one of the most senior members of the newsroom staff was that he perform an impossible anatomical feat upon himself.

There were a lot of rumors about Molly. She once admitted to shoving Linda Johnson (the President’s daughter) into a lake at summer camp.

When Molly left the Tribune she wrote a magazine article called “The Minneapolis Tribune Is a Stone Wall Drag.” It chronicled her three years at the paper and the reasons so many people left. Today, many of us still have copies of that story, and we were saddened in January 2007 to learn of her death at age 62 from an aggressive form of breast cancer.

Her columns were carried in more than 400 newspapers, and her numerous obituaries carried a number of her better quotes.

She loved to attack Texas politicians and once wrote of one, “If his IQ slips any lower we’ll have to water him twice a day.”

While covering emerging politicians in Texas she began to refer to President George W. Bush alternately as “Shrub” or “Dubya.” Upon his election as President she referred to him as President Billy Bob Forehead.

To Ivins, Arnold Schwarzenegger was “a condom filled with walnuts.”

Writing about Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair, she referred to his character as “weaker than bus station chili.”

Molly was one of the great characters to grace this region, and she left us far too soon.”