• 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

When will Americans Begin to Notice the Schiff Fascists Now Destroying Our American Dream to Seek and Honor TRUTH!

Where would we Americans be today without the devotion for truth and freedom exercised by honest Jewish folks such as John Hinderaker and Dennis Prager?

Our American Christian community, may God Bless Them, seems to have retreated into the Roman catacombs again  (for another 500 years?).   At least they still worship the importance of Truth over Evil when  80% of their voters went for  and elected Donald J. Trump to the American Presidency in 2016!!


What makes Evil in a live human animal? ……  THE ABSENCE OF TRUTH AND HUMAN DECENCY, something I learned at Church and in school, kindergarten to college and graduate school when America was still the AMERICAN DREAM!

It isn’t too hard to understand….UNLESS YOU ARE FASCISTS LIKE  ADAM SCHIFF,  NANCY PELOSI, JERRY NADLER,  CHARLES SCHUMER, RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, BERNIE SANDERS, ERIC SWALWELL, MAXINE WATERS, GEORGE SOROS, HOLLYWOOD, AND UNIVERSITIES and other mouths running today’s Fascistic Dem Party absent of traditional American values dreamed and honored.

Fox News is also among this crowd of evil, but probably not by design…., perhaps their STAR animals don’t know the evil they are  nursing when selling  Adam Schiff and crowd.   “Conservative” Fox advertises “fair and balanced”  news….and so,  sells  Schiff FASCIST disorders and lies  as equal to those honest traditional Republicans and Democrats who still honor and strive for Truth and honesty but are too gutless or too uneducated to know or remember how vitally important EXERCISING TRUTH IS IN A FREEDOM LOVING COUNTRY  LIKE AMERICA IN MY LIFETIME  STRUGGLED TO MAINTAIN WHEN IT VALUED THE GUIDE OF GODFEARING JUDEOCHRISTIANITY!

I have never met John Hinderaker, one of my heroes trying to save our traditional American values in our days of Schiff swamp.   He seems to be a very gentle gentleman when evaluating the fascist and fascistic horrors now overwhelming our dreams of America!   Such gentlemen are better than no gentlemen at all.

The human female animal prefers security over freedom.   Fascism whether German, Soviet, Maoist, or Schiff-style doesn’t really seem to matter as long as she feels ‘SECURE’.

Ban All the Red Hats?

A Note from Yesteryear: Christopher Hitchens vs. President Obama’s Residue!

The title of my  July 16, 2010 article was:  “Christopher Hitchens Stirs Thinking,  Laughter, and Debate, All of Which Eliminate Obama As A Participant”!

Much has happened to our America and the interesting English Mr. Hitchens died  of cancer  a year or two after the article.   Mr. Hitchen’s past illustrated an adult male of knowledge, thought, and entertainment.

Barack Hussein Obama was already President doing his Obama thing,  denigrating the nation he was supposed to lead.   The  Hitchens in the article below  seems to have been a man, a Brit,  of several  generations ago…….not a man of almost our time.    I wrote:

“Christopher Hitchens does  interest me.  I listen in to Hugh Hewitt only when Mark Steyn or Mr. Hitchens are radiating about something.   I have known of Mr. Hitchens for many, many years and was shocked when, some of those years ago, I found out that this man who loves to shock verbally and is very good at it,  shocked me when he supported   George W. Bush for the decision to move against Sadam Hussein.

Mr. Hitchens for years has been radiating against religion, especially Christianity.  Learning from  the following article about his Calvinist blood, I now can understand why.

I am fond of American Christianity with the exception of  a number of sects here or there, such as Jim Wallis’ Red Communist front American  Catholics he likes to parade around as saints.

I am not a believer in the Christian mythology, but I am taken by the beauty of the King James version of the Bible on which I was dutifully raised, and the classic lessons of the passages recorded in the ancient texts as translated into such  exquisitely beautiful language as in this great Shakespearean tome….no longer used by “modern” man.

I could never deny that I am a Christian nevertheless.  It is the religion of the country in which I was born and raised  and have lived for over 75 years.   It was the religion of my Church education and my public school education, of my country’s art until this age of stupidity and vulgarity of the past 50 years.  It was the religion of my country at war and at peace, on Sundays and on the special holidays…..the religion of the traditional Protestant plaintive but sweet  hymns which I have always loved so much.

“Shall We Gather at the River…..What a Friend We Have in Jesus…..Just As I Am…..One Day at a Time…..the Bach, the Handel, and the  American democracy its Christianity created. its early schools, its early universities, its Abraham Lincoln,  its Declarations leading to Independence, and the magnificent creation of the Federal Constitution…….so abused and twisted; contaminated   by the Obama Party of today.

I think I should like Christopher Hitchens though he sounds like a snot of the first order.   I believe our present American president is a snot also, but he has so little in truth to be snotty about.   He blabs so much circular nonsense, I am certain Barack has no clue what he had just said and in what order it was said, for he loves contradicting himself at almost every breath.  Chris Christie would call it his “escape hatch”……so Mr. Obama could never be caught saying a mistake.

Mr. Hitchens is ahead of me.  Mr. Obama is far behind me…….those behind me are the folks I worry about, especially when they command positions where they can cause so much damage to nearly everything and everyone they touch.

I found the following essay about Christopher Hitchens at The New Criterion site.   It is written by Christopher Caldwell which he entitles:   “Two Headed Hitchens”……”

Mr. Caldwell was taken by certain extremes in which Mr. Hitchens has positioned himself.   His introducation leads to what Caldwell calls the Hitchen change …….

” from a Trotskyite supporter of Third World liberation movements into the most eloquent journalistic defender of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. While many readers awakened to the elegance of his prose and the power of his arguments, others say they always knew him for a reactionary skunk. Hitchens’s ambiguity has its roots in the upheaval of the England into which he was born in 1949. It is impressive how clearly he sees that.

Hitchens notes that his family belongs to what Orwell called the “insecure and anxious layer of old England.” His mother, whose tragic end takes up much of the first part of the book, insisted the family scrimp to send him to public schools the family couldn’t afford. “If there is going to be an upper class in this country,” she said, “then Christopher is going to be in it.” So Hitchens was trained to join the elite of a culture that, “without my fully realizing it, was very rapidly passing away.” Victory in World War II and the retreat from Empire preoccupied his family. His father, whom he refers to as “the Commander,” was a career naval officer—stolid, yeoman-like, the son of stern Calvinists. Hitchens, whose personal motto is Zola’s Allons travailler! and who writes about 1,000 words a day, is in certain important respects the same kind of person the Commander was. He talks about word games as ways to build intellectual “muscle.” He writes that, as he developed political opinions, “I generally felt myself so much in sympathy with those who had resisted British rule that I thought it better for the Commander and myself to avoid the subject.” But both he and the Commander were at home with—and fascinated by—Empire. In a sense, Hitchens has lived the Commander’s life inside-out.

When one looks at the books that Hitchens says he devoured as a child—John Buchan, C. S. Forester, P. G. Wodehouse, and various teachers of “imperial and military values”—it is surprising that he did not start life as an outright Tory. I know Hitchens slightly, having co-edited a book with him. Having long admired his literary criticism, I found this childhood syllabus the least surprising thing in the memoir. What ought to have alerted leftists that he might not be long for their ranks is that his literary taste never changed. Some of his best essays are on Kipling. His clearest stylistic forebears are Chesterton, Belloc, and Waugh. There are few writers of whom this could be said on the New StatesmanThe Nation, or the other magazines where Hitchens made his name. How did he reconcile the divergence of his political and aesthetic tastes? Twice in this memoir, he opines that “it is always how people think that counts for much more than what they think.” This is a noble attitude—but it is a literary attitude, not a political one. The surprise, perhaps, is that he was drawn to polemics, rather than poetry or novel-writing, although Hitchens believes he lacked the “stuff” for that.

Of course, if he had tried and failed, we might not know it. It was at Oxford that Hitchens became a master of sprezzatura, the art of getting a lot done while appearing to be idling. He was a wit, a bon vivant, a guest at the tables of the snobbiest literary dons, a bisexual, and, as time went on, a formidable drinker. He and Bill Clinton (then a Rhodes scholar) had mutual acquaintances. Hitchens presents himself as distracted by protesting the Vietnam war, and describes the time as having been passed in a blur. “If you are going to sleep with Thatcher’s future ministers and toy with a future president’s lesbian girlfriend,” he writes, “you will not be able to savor it fully at the time and will have to content yourself with recollecting it in some kind of tranquility.” But he cannot have been that distracted. He received a “Kitchener scholarship,” named after the hero of Omdurman and reserved for the sons of naval officers. He used it go to Cuba.

To read Hitchens is to realize how wrong we are to use the words “honesty” and “integrity” as synonyms. Hitchens is honest in the sense that, as best we can tell, he says what he believes without fear. But on page after page, using one metaphor after another, he describes his personality as not whole, not integral. “I use the words ‘double life’ without any shame,” he writes towards the beginning of the book. Somewhat later he notes that he “was drawn to the Janus-faced mode of life” and had acquired “the protective habit of keeping two sets of books.” He notes near the end: “I have a meretricious, want-it-both-ways side.” He believes journalism was the perfect vocation for him, since it “allowed one to become a version of John Bunyan’s ‘Mr. Facing-Both-Ways.’”

Hitchens had a lot of adventures as a foreign correspondent. He met the terrorist Abu Nidal in Iraq in the 1970s. In Argentina, he read to the blind Borges, who in turn recited to him a poem by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, but disappointed Hitchens by professing his enthusiasm for the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet in neighboring Chile. (“He is a true gentleman,” Borges said. “He was recently kind enough to award me a literary prize.”) Just two years ago, Hitchens was beaten bloody by a gang of toughs for defacing a poster of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party that had a swastika on it.

Once settled in journalism, Hitchens had a hard time figuring out whether he was first a writer or a revolutionary. His approach to politics was itself Janus-faced. He credits the International Socialists, the Trotskyite tendency he joined, with being “in and yet not of the ‘Left’ as it was generally understood,” with belonging to the “revolution within the revolution.” A skeptical kind of Marxism led him to visit Poland in the very earliest days of the Solidarity movement and to make contact with Jacek Kuronï, Adam Michnik, and other leaders. Hitchens had a gift for doubt, and he came to suspect, on that first trip to Havana, that the citizens of Cuba didn’t particularly like their revolution. “Certainly when you have had your European features greeted by little showers of pebbles and dogshit and the taunt ‘Sovietico’ from the street urchins of Havana,” he writes, “you have been granted a glimpse or a hint of that very useful thing, an unscripted public opinion.”

Yet, the political engagements to which Hitchens devoted the bulk of his life are the least interesting things about him. Dissident leftists who saw through Stalinism seem to be the only people in the world who don’t realize that everyone else saw through Stalinism, too. Thus, Hitchens applauds Susan Sontag for urging opposition to Soviet repression in Poland in 1982. He notices in socialist Portugal after the fall of the dictatorship in 1974 that, “behind all the spontaneity and eroticism and generalized ‘festival of the oppressed’ merrymaking, a grim-faced Communist apparat was making preparations for an end to the revels and a serious seizure of the state.” Non-Trotskyites at the time would have considered this an empirical confirmation of common sense.

Hitchens soon began to dissent in a more profound way. Having written against the Argentine dictatorship, he was dismayed to see the alacrity with which his comrades rallied to it once Argentina attacked the British Falkland Islands in 1982, thus placing itself on the “anti-imperialist” side of the ledger. He backed Margaret Thatcher’s decision to send an expeditionary force to take the islands back. “The worst of ‘Thatcherism,’” he writes, “was the rodent slowly stirring in my viscera: the uneasy but unbanishable feeling that on some essential matters she might be right.”

If Hitchens’s impatience with the left was building, the left’s hospitality to him was being withdrawn, too. As the doctrine that “the personal is political” came into vogue, Hitchens registered not so much dissent as disgust: “At the instant I first heard this deadly expression, I knew as one does from the utterance of any sinister bullshit that it was—cliché is arguably forgivable here—very bad news. From now on, it would be enough to be a member of a sex or gender, or epidermal subdivision, or even erotic ‘preference,’ to qualify as a revolutionary.”

One could go further and say that this personal-is-political business is a cease-and-desist order for the irony that Hitchens prizes. Hitchens’s sense of humor, like his literary tastes, has always clashed with his politics. He is delighted by the poet Craig Raine’s idea “that there is a design flaw in the female form, and that the breasts and the buttocks really ought to be on the same side.” Rooting out utterances like these has, for almost a half-century now, been a considerably higher priority for the left than building any sort of socialism. That is what leftism is. In that light, Hitchens’s abandonment of the left was only a matter of time, and it is surprising how long it took. First they came for the Men’s Club, but I said nothing. Then, when they came for the comic novel …

Anti-clericalism of the sort that made his 2007 book God Is Not Great a bestseller is the only thing that still tethers him to what some would consider the left. He calls the Bosnian wars a “Christian destruction of the continent’s oldest Muslim population,” Martin Buber a “pious old hypocrite,” and settlers in the West Bank “Torah-based land thieves.” If this is liberalism, it is of a rather eighteenth-century, Voltairean kind.

Hitchens moved to the America in 1981, drawn by a romantic sense that “the United States [is] at once the most conservative and commercial and the most revolutionary society on Earth.” (A Janus-faced place for Janus-faced people.) It was there that he broke almost all his past alliances. His frequent arguments on behalf of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are too recent to need recapitulating here. He rehashes them at length—at excessive length for a memoir. They are still so hot in Hitchens’s mind that he is not so much reminiscing as settling scores with ex-allies.

Gore Vidal’s views on September 11 echoed those of “the most dismal, ignorant paranoids,” he writes, and the late Edward Said “could only condemn Islamism if it could somehow be blamed either on Israel or the United States or the West.” It is interesting to discover how close he was to Paul Wolfowitz in the run-up to the war, and there is an affecting chapter on the Daily family of Orange County, California, whose son Mark had volunteered to fight in Iraq and was killed near Mosul. Hitchens contacted the family when a friend sent him Daily’s obituary, including the passage: “Writings by author and columnist Christopher Hitchens on the moral case for war deeply influenced him.”

It is natural that something like that will occasion a good deal of moral self-examination on the part of someone who long professed to desire a Janus-faced existence. That is not the sort of effect one wants to have if one often speaks in a spirit of irony. And in this memoir the irony wanes by the page: “As the Iraq debate became more intense, it became suddenly obvious to me that I couldn’t any longer remain where I was on the political ‘spectrum.’” Nowhere in this book does Hitchens describe himself as a conservative. And yet who said this? “Multiculturalism and multiethnicity … is now one of the disguises for a uniculturalism, based on moral relativism and moral blackmail.” Or this? “I shall never understand how the keepers and trustees of the King James Version threw away such a treasure.” It was not the Commander.”

Comment:  Our American president is not capable of such thoughts.  He is a narrow man narrowly focussed to disrupt the country to his narrowest of visions.  He is a true believer Marxist with a bit of racism thrown in.  He is way too focussed on his pleasure with himself  to do much thinking outside his narrows…….

Mr. Obama, I believe, is a dangerous man.   Mr. Hitchens stirs thinking, laughter, and debate all of which would eliminate Mr. Obama as a participant.

As he did in his younger years, when without power standing in front of men who are ahead of him, Mr. Obama votes  “PRESENT!”

Conclusion:    Examine  today’s Pelosi and the moronic foul Squad rising from  today’s  Obamaling Democrat Party!    Pay attention to the twenty plus Barack Dems  presently spreading their leftist   stench of   political, social, and cultural war of  hate  and disorder in order to destroy present President Donald J. Trump’s remarkable administration !

This is the Democrat Party  President Barack Hussein Obama left, cultivated to fulfill  his dream to create for our America a  leftist fascistic future  and decay,  to become equal to his view of the struggles of  Earth’s third world!

IF TRUTH COULD BE TOLD: Scandal, Fascism, Corruption Reek Throughout the Schumer-Pelosi Leftist Empire!

The Media at Their Lowest

by R. Quinn Kennedy at American Thinker:


When Joe Biden claimed this week on The View (see it here) that the Obama administration “had not a whisper of scandal” during eight years in the White House, the audience cheered wildly.  And why wouldn’t it?  It’s a partisan crowd that overwhelmingly leans left.

Those of us on quite the other side of the aisle didn’t bother falling out of our chairs at such an absurd claim.  We know how the game is played: make sure that statements such as this from Democrats are played in front of a partisan audience on a biased show that isn’t about to challenge the assertion.

As a reminder for candidate Biden, let’s review a partial list of the dozens of scandals and all the corruption during the Obama administration:

  • IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(3) nonprofits
  • The $500-million Solyndra scam admitted to by secretary of energy Steven Chu
  • Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt for lying to Congress
  • Mass domestic spying by the NSA
  • Illegal DOJ investigations of journalists
  • Complete mismanagement of the war in Syria
  • Transferring $1.7 billion in cash to Iran
  • The Benghazi cover-up
  • Operation Fast & Furious
  • Secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play scam with foreign governments
  • Falsified Veterans Administration documents after patients died waiting to be seen

The above list could easily be three times as long.  It could specifically include Joe Biden, as vice president, pressuring Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor, who, at the time, was investigating illegal activity by his own son, Hunter Biden (which Ukraine On what other grounds would Joe Biden even care?

When presented with a list of these scandals, the Left scoffs and passes them off as right-wing conspiracy theories.  Yet every scandal and instance of corruption cited is amply documented.

How is it, then, that Joe Biden can make such a claim without being held accountable?  You and I know the answer.  It’s because shows like The View and the national mainstream media aren’t about to hold Biden or any other Democratic candidate accountable.  Rather, they want such falsehoods to resonate as believable.  (With inserted loud claps of approval to validate them.)

Unfortunately, we are at a point in our nation’s history where freedom of the press has reached its lowest point.  Not only do the national mainstream media immorally sweep such contradictory statements under the rug, but they are, as President Trump has stated, “an arm of the Democratic Party.”  Rather than being impartial in news-reporting, their narrative clearly promotes the Democratic Party’s agenda and is hypercritical of Republican Party policies and social stances.  Can any mainstream reporter deny this with a straight face?

The devious relationship between one party and its willing accomplices in the media has moved beyond the point of eye-rolls and shoulder-shrugs.  It has reached a tipping point for our nation.  Joseph Goebbels famously stated, “Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine.”  This has become the incestuous relationship the Left lustfully pursues with increasing reliability.  Through decades of permeation, the media have been given over to the Left, and for leftists, our society has become the herd of swine.

Not surprisingly, the playbook isn’t limited to the national mainstream media.  Media technology group AllSides published a report that Google News results lean heavily toward media outlets with a “left” bias.  The author of the study, John Gable, stated that the bias is a result of “most news outlets and most news consumption online being from a left perspective.”  The purveyors of Google News are well aware of this egregious bias, but because Google’s corporate culture sways heavily left, we can hardly expect the company to create an algorithm that provides a fair and balanced narrative.

Indoctrination of the masses by the Left used to come in the form of opinion pieces.  During the Reagan administration, White House network reporters certainly reported the news.  However, they steadily began introducing the technique of ending each report with strongly worded opposing viewpoints from critics of the administration.  Who were these unnamed critics?  The ones holding the microphone.

Thus began the stepped up infiltration of political views into national news.  Subsequently, what began as infiltration has become full-on partisanship.  The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and various other “news” outlets used to portray themselves as impartial.  Reading an opinion piece masquerading as a news story in a national news publication no longer seems brazen.  It has become the new normal.

On any number of subjects, building a wall between Mexico and the United States being a current topic of the day, there are literally dozens of video recordings of Democrats contradicting themselves from the position they took even a decade ago.  Joe Biden once pounded the pulpit demanding that we build a wall.  With Joe Biden as the Democratic frontrunner for U.S. president, you’ve seen that contradiction reported all over the national mainstream media, haven’t you?

Contrast that with anything and everything Donald Trump says.  The media are quick to pull any quote, any tweet out of context or bend it out of shape to promote the narrative that the president is an unhinged liar.  With very few exceptions, how can one not be entirely cynical of our news sources and online media?

Remember the Joe Biden interview on The View and the clapping throngs responding to his claim?  In a 2017 article by leftist Slate.com (find it here), the subtitle reads, “The Nazi propaganda machine exploited ordinary Germans by encouraging them to be co-producers of a false reality.”

Not a whisper of scandal, indeed.


R. Quinn Kennedy is a conservative activist and writer in Colorado.


Sneaky GOPers Gather Around Sleazy Elizabeth Warren’s Casino Gambling Project


by Paul Mirengoff  at  PowerLine:

I wrote here about how, in a reversal of position, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is backing an Indian gaming bill tied to special interests. The bill aims to circumvent legal obstacles currently thwarting the Mashpee Wampanoag’s attempts to establish a casino.

Warren used to be hostile to legalized gambling. As a candidate for the Senate in 2011, she strongly opposed successful efforts to expand casino-style gambling in Massachusetts. In 2014, she backed an unsuccessful ballot initiative to repeal the expansion on economic grounds.

Why the reversal? Two reasons, I suspect. First, she likely was swayed by the rich, high-power interests behind the Indian gaming legislation. Second, backing the legislation provides Warren with an opportunity to get on the good side of the Indian establishment, portions of which take of dim view of the Senator’s attempts to pass herself off as part Indian.

Here’s another question: Why are some House Republicans helping Warren’s gaming bill pass?

Michael Graham reports:

Last Wednesday the House Natural Resources Committee voted out H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act by a vote of 26-10, including three Republicans. And now the bill is being rushed to the full House for a vote possibly as soon as this Wednesday, reportedly with at least the acquiescence, if not the open support, of Republican leadership.

Republican acquiescence leaves observers scratching their heads, given the dubious nature of the casino project and its importance to Warren:

Progress on this bill, sometimes called the “Warren Casino Bill,” comes despite ongoing questions surrounding both the Mashpee tribe—whose leadership is currently embroiled in a financial scandal—and Genting Malaysia, the multinational gaming conglomerate that has already invested close to half a billion dollars in the project. Genting has also been linked to a political scandal in Malaysia that helped topple the government in Kuala Lumpur last year.

Republicans opposing the casino are asking why Congress would want to move forward on such a troubled project, particularly given its connections to infamous DC moneyman and lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

President Trump is among those who see the folly of backing Warren’s Casino Bill. Today, hetweeted:

Republicans shouldn’t vote for H.R. 312, a special interest casino Bill, backed by Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren. It is unfair and doesn’t treat Native Americans equally!

Michael Graham, who has been following this story far more closely than I have, declines to speculate as to the reasons why some Republicans, and apparently the GOP’s House leadership, are poised to help give Warren this victory. I won’t either, though the phrase “wheels within wheels” comes to mind.

Perhaps Trump’s tweet will cause the Republican leadership to take another look at the matter, and maybe try to halt the Warren Casino Bill express.


Trump intervenes as GOP looks to be giving Warren a win on Indian casino

No, Democrats Have Become Fascists Who Love Illegal Immigration!


by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

Do you think illegal immigration is a serious problem? If you are like 67 percent of likely voters, you do. If you think illegal immigration is a very serious problem, you have plenty of company–47 percent of voters.

Of course, if you are running for president as a Democrat, you don’t think illegal immigration is a problem at all. Eight percent of likely voters agree with you. Not only do none of the Democratic presidential candidates want to build the wall, some of them want to tear down barriers where they already exist. Open borders! Come one, come all!

How can the Democrats be so out of touch with voters on what most regard as a very important issue? I don’t know. Illegal immigration is different, too, from issues like reparations and the Green New Deal, which politicians will talk about during the Democratic primaries and then quietly forget about. They are serious when it comes to promoting illegal immigration.

Which is one of several reasons why I don’t think any Democrat now in the race, or likely to enter the race, can beat President Trump next year.



Eric Bolling: ‘Last Night I Came Face To Face With True Evil’

“Something awful happened to me last night,” Eric Bolling said on his Blaze TV show. He continued, “Last night I was sitting with some friends at the Trump hotel in DC. Among several others, Hayden Williams from Berkeley was at our table. I was chatting with Hayden…him telling the story about being walloped on campus by a thug just because he was wearing a MAGA hat. I barely noticed what was about to happen.”

“A guy who appeared to be talking on a cell phone walked by our table and turned toward us and said ‘Eric Bolling’s son killed himself because he was embarrassed by his dad.’”

Before describing what happened next, a little backstory. Bolling was a Fox News host until late 2017 when the Huffington Post published a story accusing him of sexual harassment. Bolling denied the allegations and sued the author of the story, but about a month later, he parted ways with Fox News. That was September 8, 2017. Later that evening, Bolling learned that his teenaged son, Eric Chase Bolling had died from an accidental overdose after taking a Xanax tablet laced with Fentanyl. He and his wife were both devastated by the news. Since then, Bolling has spoken repeatedly about the opioid crisis and been involved with public events trying to raise awareness about the danger it represents.

So after this passing person made his ugly comment, Bolling got up and followed him outside. He admits he was belligerent and angry. He yelled at the man and filmed the interaction. The man who’d made the comment just kept walking but soon Bolling was approached by a second man who was filming with his cell phone. In the video below you can tell Bolling is obviously distraught and keeps saying “My son is dead.” The 2nd man just kept filming with a smile on his face, like it was all a big joke.

If Bolling knows who the two men were, he doesn’t say but he’s certain the attack was prompted by politics. At the end of this segment, Bolling concludes, “It’s an evil world out there. I’ve been exposed to way too many hateful comments on social media and in the media, but last night I came face to face with true evil, over politics folks. Have we all lost our collective minds?”

“We’re all human beings here and some things are just off limits,” he added.

He’s absolutely right. There aren’t many hard and fast rules in politics that both sides observe but one of the few that does is this: Don’t bring the kids into it. And if that’s true in general it should be true 100 times over when you’re talking about a deceased child. No one should ever go there.

In the clip below Bolling has blurred the faces of the two men to avoid making them targets. That’s probably a good idea given how people are likely to feel about this but I hope these two do face some consequences in their personal lives. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Below that clip is a Fox News segment from 2017 about the death of Bolling’s son.



Cigarette Industry Replaced by POT PSYCHOSIS!!??

Study Appears To Link Heavy Pot Use To Psychosis

All through the debate over marijuana legalization, a consistent complaint raised by opponents of such plans (frequently coming from more conservative critics) has been the idea that the health risks associated with using pot have been downplayed or overlooked entirely. There’s competing research showing that smoking pot is probably less harmful than smoking tobacco, but it’s a nagging question that’s never been entirely resolved.

SEE ALSO: CNN: Support for impeaching Trump drops 12 points among Dems, at lowest level overall since last June

Now the opponents of legalization may have another bit of ammunition in their arsenal. The results of a nearly ten-year study conducted in Great Britain were released this week and they suggest that regular consumption of newer, more powerful strains of cannabis can result in significantly higher instances of psychosis among users. Of course, as with all such studies, the warnings come with a few caveats. (Associated Press)

Smoking high-potency marijuana every day could increase the chances of developing psychosis by nearly five times, according to the biggest-ever study to examine the impact of pot on psychotic disorder rates.

The research adds to previous studies that have found links between marijuana and mental health problems, but still does not definitively pinpoint marijuana as the cause.

Psychotic disorders — in which people lose touch with reality — are typically triggered by factors including genetics and the environment. But experts say the new study’s findings have implications for jurisdictions legalizing marijuana, warning they should consider the potential impact on their mental health services.

Some of the figures they’re quoting from the study certainly do sound alarming. We’re not talking about some statistically insignificant increase in incidents of psychosis. From a pool of more than 2,000 patients, incidents of initial onset of psychosis were anywhere from three to five times higher among regular pot users as compared to the control group who didn’t partake.

But the study’s authors also include enough caveats to keep the debate going in the future. First, they admit that psychosis is generally understood to involve environmental and genetic factors, so quantifying exactly how big of a role the marijuana use played in each case is tricky.

Even if we ignore those questions, the quality and amount of pot you’d have to be indulging in to generate the worst results is a bit off the charts. To get the fivefold increase in psychosis diagnoses, the patients would have to be ingesting some of the really high potency, designer pot that growers have been developing, containing vastly higher levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) than the stuff that was going around during the Summer of Love. (Or at least, so I’ve heard… [cough].) And even then, you’d have to be in the category of people who are “getting their smoke on” multiple times per day, seven days a week.

It sort of makes sense that you run a higher risk of problems from introducing any foreign agent into your system if you’re hitting it at Cheech and Chong levels as opposed to the person who only does it occasionally on the weekends. Another factor I didn’t see mentioned in the overview of the study results is whether they were including people who actually smoked marijuana as opposed to those using vaporizers, edibles or other forms of ingesting the drug. “Smoking” anything, including tobacco, involves bringing a lot more foreign substances into your system than just the specific drug you’re looking for, whether that’s THC or nicotine.

I don’t expect this one study to put the legalization issue to rest one way or the other. It’s just another interesting data point to keep in mind as we monitor the rollout of legalization laws around the country.




How is Drugged Up, Fatherless America Doing These Days?


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

On December 6, the New York Times headlined: “U.S. Murder Rate for 2018 Is on Track for a Big Drop.” The story was based on homicide statistics from 66 large cities. (The official FBI numbers for 2018 won’t come out until September 2019.)

The murder rate in the United States in 2018 is on track for the largest one-year drop in five years.
Murder rose 23 percent nationally between 2014 and 2016 before leveling off in 2017.

The Times can’t think what might have caused the homicide rate to rise rather dramatically during the last years of the Obama administration. It does provide this useful chart, with the homicide rate for 2018 based on 66-city data:

Note that the Y-axis starts at zero, which means that the U.S. has seen a wide variation in our murder rate over the past 50 years. In the 1960s, the murder rate (expressed in homicides per 100,000 population) rose rapidly. By the early 1970s it was around twice the previous level. The homicide rate dipped during the 1980s but remained high until the mid-1990s, and then began to decline sharply. That decline had something to do with the crackdown on crack cocaine. Maybe other factors were at work as well. I think the more widespread ownership of handguns and issuance of carry permits played a positive role.

The decline that began in the mid-1990s continued to the point that by 2014, the homicide rate was back where it had been before the social upheaval of the 1960s. But then something happened. In 2015, the homicide rate suddenly reversed its downward trend and spiked upward. In 2016 it jumped upward again. In those two years–2015 and 2016–there were 4,968 more murders than would have been the case if the 2014 rate had remained steady. (The delta is actually more than that, since population increased after 2014.) This table tells the story.

It should be noted that other violent crimes increased during the last two years of the Obama administration, as well. The incidence of forcible rape, like homicide, has been in long-term decline–down from a high of 42.8 per 100,000 in 1992 to 25.9 in 2013. It rose slowly for a couple of years, then took off like a shot in 2016, jumping suddenly from 28.4 per 100,000 to 40.9. Aggravated assault similarly spiked in 2015 and 2016, while property crimes in general continued their historic decline.

So what happened in 2015 and 2016 to cause the violent crime rate, including the homicide rate, to rise after decades of decline? I can’t think of any explanation other than the Black Lives Matter movement and the relentless attacks on law enforcement that it engendered, which were supported by the Obama administration. But what happened when Donald Trump took over in the White House? The homicide and violent crime rates began to fall again. If the New York Times’s projection is correct, the second year of the Trump administration saw a steeper decline in the homicide rate.

Again, what could possibly have caused this change? I can’t think of a plausible theory other than the Trump administration’s renewed support for law enforcement and the waning of the anti-police Black Lives Matter movement. Something happened beginning in 2017 that has saved thousands of lives. If it wasn’t the new administration in Washington, what was it?



Can Our America and Donald Defeat the Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie, and Pelosi Ditsy Fascist Crowd?

Why Never Trumpers Will Never Shut Up

by Kurt Schlichter  at Townhall:

There are not that many Never Trumpers anymore, though the media (and the remnant Never Trumpers) try to fool you into thinking so. The honest Never Trumpers, the ones who thought that this orange New York real estate developer with the succession of hot wives was not a real conservative and would betray us the first chance he got, have evolved. It turns out that Donald Trump is the most consistently and effectively conservative president since Reagan. The Never Trumpers who weren’t in on the scam noticed his track record of conservative success and morphed.

Some became actively pro-Trump. I fit in there, as the first chapter of my book Militant Normals describes. Now, I was anti-Trump, not Never Trump, since I was already Never Jeb! and Never Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit and you can only have so many nevers in your life. Trump earned my support with his consistent and remarkable conservative achievements, so he got it. I am now an advocate, highlighting his successes, much as I do as a lawyer for clients. There are plenty of folks ready to highlight his missteps, and I seek his success.

Others are still freaked out about his pugnacious, allegedly unseemly manner (which I and others consider a strong plus), and they became merely Trump Neutral. Many of them fret about his mean tweets and wish he had the quiet dignity that the rest of us associate with failures like George W. Bush – you know, the kind of Republicans Democrats love in retrospect. These are the folks who “call balls and strikes,” criticize him where they oppose him and support him (sometimes grudgingly) when he does something they like. Fair enough – you have to follow your principles, assuming you have any.

Which brings us to the cruise-shilling hacks of Conservative, Inc., who are still ticked off that this guy came along and threw a handful of sand into the gears of the grand donor grift they had been running for three decades.

The Fredocons needed someplace to go, the Michael Corleones of conservatism having kicked them out of the family following their betrayal. The Never Trumpers, who have now gathered on deck at whatever sad website The Bulwark is after having gathered on the deck of the recently-sunk Weekly Standard, crave attention. That’s why whoever Charlie Sykes is – he edits The Bulwark and tweets about how conservatives have disappointed him – decided to send a leftist abortion activist to CPAC as the site’s correspondent so she could give what-for to those icky pro-life people who are trying to stop the Democrat infanticide push. But hey, when some liberal billionaire is bankrolling your Trojan horse conservative outlet, you need to walk a fine line between trying to look enough like a horse to get inside the gates but still be enough like a donkey so your benefactor keeps writing you checks.

Now, the backlash these hacks received from the CPAC fiasco had the salutary effect of reuniting some alienated conservatives. Pretty much everyone in actual conservatism agreed; this was a garbage move by a garbage outfit dedicated to garbage outcomes and their own personal benefit. Sykes tried to play the victim, but no one was buying what these scammers were selling – as I put it on Twitter: “True Conservatism (TM) now means *squints* hiring a left-wing descendant of literal communists for your magazine and promoting her Marxist ramblings while having her troll pro-life events wearing your credentials. Ahoy. [cruise ship emoji x 20]” Too bad it took standing up together against killing babies to realize that the people at the various levels of sub-Never Trump skepticism have done so much more to unite us than divide us.

Today’s Never Trump is a tiny group of greedy misfits whose gravy train got derailed – they would put it “an elite group of select individuals of discerning taste” – but we actual conservatives do spend a lot of time on manhandling them. They cite that as evidence of their lasting influence, but it’s actually the result of two other factors. The first is human nature – people hate traitors. There’s a reason civil wars tend to be so much more brutal than other wars. It’s the sense of betrayal, and the actions of turncoats like Bill Kristol – whose tiresome Twitter feed is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from those of Senator Will Brown Side Piece and Senator Panders with Wolves – infuriate the very same people he shamelessly hustled for decades.

The other reason is that the Never Trumpers have a media presence utterly out of proportion to their dwindling numbers and influence. Why? Because they say exactly what the leftist media needs them to say. You know when you get a Never Trumper on your MSNBC or CNN show, he’s going to faithfully parrot the party line of Nickleback-channel cliché Joe Scarborough or noted particle physicist Don Lemon. When I defended Trump on CNN in 2015, Lemon cut my mic, and I’ve never been back on CNN since (though, hilariously they once called me begging to come on to discuss a big story because I was one of only a few in-the-know people without a non-disclosure agreement on the issue – I told them to pound sand). They want shills and hacks, and when you want shills and hacks, you get yourself a Never Trumper.

The problem is, for the uninformed in the CNN/MSNBC audience, including those stuck at the airport and forced against their will to watch, having these Never Trumpers on identified as “Republicans” or “conservatives” gives the impression that actual Republicans and/or conservatives agree with the liberal narrative. The fact is, the likes of Jeff Flake and Charlie Sykes speak for no one who isn’t already inclined to be a Lido Deck-dweller on the upcoming Bulwark cruise.

So, what is their endgame? Do they even have one, or are they going to just run out the grift until the latest billionaire sucker tires of setting fire to his money? They can’t believe that somewhere down the road, if they keep the fires of appeasement and defeat in the face of aggressive progressivism alive, we Normals are going to come to our senses and demand a return to the paradigm of losing like good gentlemen. Sean Trende had a terrific thread on this, especially when he points out that The Bulwark’sattack on the prosecution of the cultural issues that motivate the base more than the GOP establishment priority of sucking up to big business makes reconciliation difficult.

There can’t be a reconciliation, not on their terms. There is no path to an outcome where the representatives of the conservative base that supports Trump comes to its senses and shows up at Jeb! Bush’s compound, wailing “We were wrong! Save us!”

The Never Trumpers seem to have no answer to the Trump era except to pine for a return to a status quo that we simply won’t return to – one where the government is run by, and run for, the ruling class. The country must continue to evolve to incorporate Normal Americans’ interests, a process Trump began, or it may fall apart. I write about an America split apart into red and blue in my novels People’s RepublicIndian Country and Wildfire, and while my hypothetical future is action-packed and occasionally hilarious (at the expense of liberals), potential chaos is not a good thing. And the Never Trumpers are making it more likely.

Our course of action as actual conservatives is therefore clear. We need to pound the Never Trumpers into well-deserved irrelevance. And judging from their performance lately, we have an invaluable ally in our war on the Never Trumpers…the Never Trumpers themselves.

Why Does the Human Female Fashion to Fascism so Easily?

(with the arrival of our american feminazis!)


Her mate, THE HUMAN MALE ANIMAL  is born by GOD’S-GIVEN NATURE, to protect her and  THE HUMAN ANIMAL’S off spring to continue the life of the species!   He is programmed to sire, to  be  a killer when needed, a protector, a provider, a hunter, a  builder,  a dreamer driven to be curious, to seek wisdom to solve problems.   He must be “schooled” to do so!

The human female animal is the origin, the housing of the beginning and  continuation of the human species.   Her survival, security relies upon HIM.

BOTH ANIMALS ARE BORN FLAWED, IGNORANT, UNAWARE, FOOLISH, INDIVIDUAL, and yet INNOCENT AND GIFTED TO ENDURE THE PAIN AND JOY OF LIFE, the only life we have!….and it is wonderful if we animals make it so.

…..and along comes the giddy of the  feminazi ditsies of our modern American human day.   Their  arrival  is inevitable when human wisdom, and its learnings and goodness begin to disappear from the human drive,  returning to the endless days of the abyss of nothingness beyond the animal even the amoeba.