• 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

Evil Dem Racists Continue Their Poisonings

THE POISONOUS LIE OF RACIST POLICING

by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine:

It isn’t fun to keep addressing claims that policing in America is racist. But the left keeps peddling this lie, and Democratic presidential candidates have joined in, so I feel the need to keep countering it.

Fortunately, Heather Mac Donald does the heavy lifting. I just have to link to her articles and do a little summarizing.

Heather’s latest is called “Why ‘policing is racist’ is such a poisonous lie.” She informs us:

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesz demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer.

That’s a reality so obvious even a rational leftist should grasp it. Unfortunately, rational leftists are in short supply.

Once crime rates are taken into account, the study cited above shows that if there is any bias in police shootings, it is against white civilians. Certainly, there is no bias against blacks.

According to Heather, earlier studies have also disproved the claim of racial bias by white officers in police shooting. Yet, the Black Lives Matter lie to the contrary won’t die. Instead, it has gained support from the likes of Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and especially the God-awful Beto O’Rourke, who claims that police shoot blacks “solely based on the color of their skin.”

Actually, there is a growing problem in policing, but not the one BLM and the Democratic Party are asserting. The real problem is a lowering of the quality of police officers due to the left’s insistence that departments lower standards to achieve racial balance. Heather explains:

Departments [have] been deemphasizing written exams or eliminating requirements that recruits have a clean criminal record. . .The Baltimore Police Department changed its qualifying exam to such an extent that the director of legal instruction in the Baltimore Police Academy complained in 2018 that rookie officers were being let out onto the street with little understanding of the law.

[Joe] Biden’s plan would require police hiring to “mirror the racial diversity” of the community as a precondition of federal funding. This effort to increase minority representation won’t reduce racial disparities in shootings, concludes the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, since white officers aren’t responsible for those disparities; black crime rates are.

Moreover, lowered hiring standards risk bad police work and corruption. A 2015 Justice Department study of the Philadelphia Police Department found that black officers were 67 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect; Hispanic officers were 145 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect. Whether lowered hiring standards are responsible for those disparities wasn’t addressed.

It seems likely that lower standards are responsible. The alternative explanation — that black and Hispanic officers with qualifications and test scores comparable to white officers are screwing up in disproportionate numbers — seems unlikely and possibly racist.

In any event, the “policing is racist” claim is poisonous, indeed. As Heather concludes:

It exacerbates anti-cop tensions in minority communities and makes cops less willing to engage in the proactive policing that can save lives. Last month, viral videos of pedestrians in Harlem, The Bronx and Brooklyn pouring water on passive NYPD officers showed that anti-police hostility in the inner city remains at dangerous levels.

The anti-cop narrative deflects attention away from the real criminal-justice problem, which is high rates of black-on-black victimization. Blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of non-Hispanic whites, overwhelmingly killed not by cops, not by whites, but by other blacks.

Democratic candidates should get their facts straight and address that issue. Until they do, their talk of racial justice will ring hollow.

The poisonous lie of racist policing

Fascistic Hollywood Readies Soviet Kin Movie Encouraging Murder of Republican “DEPLORABLES”!

ON THE HUNT, TRUMP GETS RESULTS [UPDATED]

by  John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

I wrote here about the bizarre movie The Hunt, in which liberal elites hunt and murder red state “deplorables.” Sort of a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the left. The film was to be released next month, even though advertising was pulled after the El Paso and Dayton shootings. But that was before President Trump weighed in on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Liberal Hollywood is Racist at the highest level, and with great Anger and Hate! They like to call themselves “Elite,” but they are not Elite. In fact, it is often the people that they so strongly oppose that are actually the Elite. The movie coming out is made in order….

65.7K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Liberal Hollywood is Racist at the highest level, and with great Anger and Hate! They like to call themselves “Elite,” but they are not Elite. In fact, it is often the people that they so strongly oppose that are actually the Elite. The movie coming out is made in order….

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….to inflame and cause chaos. They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!

53.5K people are talking about this

That was enough, apparently, to cause Universal Studios to wilt:

A controversial soon-to-be released movie trashed by President Trump on Twitter Friday has been canceled entirely, Universal Studios announced Saturday.
***
The backlash forced the studio to change its plans.

“We stand by our filmmakers and will continue to distribute films in partnership with bold and visionary creators, like those associated with this satirical social thriller,” the studio said in a statement to The Hill. “But we understand that now is not the right time to release this film.”

I will go out on a limb and guess that Universal executives shelved the movie because of Trump’s suggestion that film violence contributes to real violence, for which Hollywood liberals “then try to blame others.” The executives, I suspect, didn’t want to do anything that might compromise the Democrats’ ability to blame President Trump.

STEVE (maybe) dissents: Without actually seeing the movie, it is hard to know whether withdrawing the film isn’t a blunder. If it is true that the hunters are the bad guys—with an EU connection!!—and the hunted “deplorables” the good guys who win revenge in the end, then maybe this movie would have been slightly pro-Trump. It wouldn’t be the first time that a film or TV show made by liberals backfired on them. One thinks of All in the Family, where Norman Lear’s intention totally flopped, or Joss Whedon’s Firefly series and Serenity film. Although Wheedon is a big leftist, his TV show and movie are hugely popular with libertarians and conservatives generally.

It could be that Universal decided to shelve the movie because they figured out that they had blundered and might actually help Trump.

JOHN responds: I’ve wondered about that, too. Whatever would possess a group of liberals to make a film that shows liberals as the ultimate villains, hunting down and murdering innocent conservatives? It’s a puzzle. In any event, I don’t think it matters who made the film or which side gets a worse portrayal. I think it is totally inappropriate to make or release a film that depicts liberal and conservative Americans slaughtering one another. And calling it a “satire,” as Universal insistently does, doesn’t help. So I am glad Trump got the film killed, if that is what happened, or alternatively that Universal thought better of it, even if the company’s motives were political.

 

On The Hunt, Trump Gets Results [Updated]

What Are Our Today’s Rising Big Business Dem Fascists Really Up To?

THE LEFT’S EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE

by  John Hinderaker   at  PowerLine:

A reader points out this article by a liberal in the Atlantic. It is titled “The Left Needs a Language Potent Enough to Counter Trump.” The writer, George Packer, is mostly intent on denouncing President Trump’s “dangerously populist” speech. As usual, the author goes off on Nazi, Hitler, and fascist tropes without acknowledging that the reason why the things Trump says are “populist” is that they make sense to most people, based on their experiences and observations. That part of the article is too foolish and boring to be worthy of comment.

But when the writer moves on to a topic he understands better, the shortcomings of his fellow leftists, he makes some good points–points that are especially noteworthy because they come from inside the leftists’ closed world:

“[T]he language of the contemporary left is anti-populist. Its vocabulary, much of it taken from academia, is the opposite of accessible—it has to be decoded and learned. Terms such as centered, marginalized, intersectional, non-binary, and Eurocentric gender discipline separate outsiders from insiders—that’s part of their intent, as is the insistence on declaring one’s personal pronouns and showing an ability to use them accordingly. Even common words like ally and privilege acquire a resonance that takes them out of the realm of ordinary usage, because the point of this discourse is to create a sense of special virtue. The language of the left also demands continuous refreshing and can change literally overnight: A writer is told that the phrase born male is no longer okay to use and has to be replaced with assigned male at birthMany of these changes happen by ambush—suddenly and irrevocably, with no visible trail of discussion and decision, and with quick condemnation of holdouts—which gives them a powerful mystique.

The language of the left creates a hierarchy of those who get it and those who don’t. Mastering the vocabulary is a way of signaling entry into a select world of the knowing and the just. The system is closed—there’s an internal logic that can be accepted or rejected but isn’t open to argument or question. In this sense, though much of the language of the left has academic origins, its use in the public square is almost religious.

Italics in the original, bold added. “Almost religious” understates the case, but the author sums up quite well the bizarre world of public discourse in which we find ourselves. I think that Democratic Party politicians are lucky that most people pay no attention to the strange things they say.

 

The Left’s Exclusionary Language

Conrad Black: Trump continues to beat a media determined to bring him down

The traditional media, whose Trump-hating excrescences are inflicted on Canadian readers and viewers have, to their towering chagrin, almost no influence in the U.S.

by Conrad Black at  National Post:

The Globe and Mail’s commentators on political events in Washington have, like the rest of the Canadian media, completely missed the story. So have most of the American media, which the Canadian media witlessly parrot, but Trump ran against the American media and won. He demonstrated that they were complicit in all the economic and strategic blunders of the George W. Bush and Obama years: the Great Recession, the endless Mideast wars and humanitarian disasters, 20 million illegal and unskilled immigrants and a flat-lined “new normal” economy. GDP growth per capita declined from 4.5 per cent in the Reagan years to one per cent under Obama. This president ran against every part of the political establishment of both parties including especially the national media, whom he has rendered almost irrelevant by using social media and dominating the talk-radio circuit. The traditional media, whose Trump-hating excrescences are inflicted on Canadian readers and viewers have, to their towering chagrin, almost no influence in the U.S. Trump has outmanoeuvred them. Most of the American national media is now an embittered, rabid, unclothed emperor, but their Canadian analogues spout their bilious nonsense anyway.

Illustrative of the Globe and Mail’s purblind leadership of our thoroughly misinformed country was Sarah Kendzior’s piece late last month, where she wrote of President Trump’s son and son-in-law as “apparently complicit in foreign interference in a U.S. election,” referred to Lt.-Gen. Michael Flynn simply as a “criminal,” and accused the U.S. attorney general, William Barr, of “misleading” the public with “a deceitful summary” of the findings of the Mueller report about Russian interference in the 2016 election. She blamed Mueller and his team for not exploring “Trump’s possible involvement with organized crime … and shady finances … He did not want to indict anyone, even when their offences were blatant.” She grimly concluded that all this “could mean that Americans lose their own free will in the years to come.” All of this is just nonsense; an exhaustive investigation found no proof that anyone in Trump’s inner circle colluded with the Russians or any foreigners. Flynn was mouse-trapped without counsel. There was no obstruction. Trump handed over all documents requested, allowed all staff and collaborators to give sworn evidence, never invoked executive privilege and never interfered in any way with the investigation, as Mueller affirmed, under oath at the House judiciary committee.

All of this is just nonsense; an exhaustive investigation found no proof that anyone in Trump’s inner circle colluded with the Russians or any foreigners

The outrages that did occur were that senior elements of the CIA and FBI co-operated with the Clinton campaign before the election and after, to publicize the spurious Steele dossier, a pastiche of lies and defamations ultimately funded by Hillary Clinton’s camp. The Justice department’s highest officials then used the same dossier as part of the basis for applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (FISA), to authorize espionage against the Trump campaign and transition team. The justice and intelligence apparatus of the U.S. was unconstitutionally politicized, the closest the United States has ever come to a presidential election rigged or undone by unlawful official interference. When all else failed, the canard of Russian collusion was dredged up, and although as FBI agent Peter Strzok acknowledged to his FBI girlfriend by text (he said he felt “concern there’s no there there”), this farce was kept going for two years in the hope that Trump would blow up and fire Mueller, as Nixon did Archibald Cox in 1973, so some sort of obstruction charge could be cobbled together to force an impeachment trial.
It was a formidable bit of skulduggery. There has never been the slightest credible suggestion of any connection between Trump and organized crime, and the Internal Revenue Service has audited him constantly for decades and has never gone beyond contested reassessments. The only shade occurs where he has exercised his absolute constitutional right not to release his tax returns to the public. He also happens to be the only president in history who has made billions of dollars.

The Kendzior piece was a mere sorbet for the treatment of the Washington scene by my cordial acquaintance of 40 years, Lawrence Martin, in the Globe and Mail this week. He stays clear of the Russian collusion nonsense, presumably recognizing that it was a fraud, and focuses on the vagaries of Trump’s personality. There is room for pause on some of Trump’s stylistic eccentricities. But he did not call all Baltimore “disgusting (and) rodent-infested,” only the district of Congressman Elijah Cummings after Cummings shouted outrageously at the acting Homeland Security secretary in a congressional hearing. He did say four congresswomen should go back where they came from after they (Ms.’s Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Omar and Tlaib) had variously described life in the U.S. as “garbage,” trivialized the 9/11 atrocities, spewed out anti-Semitic screeds, compared southern border detention centres to Nazi death camps, and other such exalted apercus. The fact that two of them were Muslim, one Puerto Rican and one African-American (as is Elijah Cummings), had nothing to do with it. Trump would have said something similar if all of them and all of the 20 million unskilled people who have entered the country illegally were Caucasian Presbyterians.

There has never been the slightest credible suggestion of any connection between Trump and organized crime

Poor Lawrence denounced Trump for stock market losses — averages have risen almost 50 per cent since his election — and debunked in advance Trump’s thoughtful reaction to the terrible shootings in El Paso and Dayton, and ridiculed Trump’s denunciation of white nationalism. There is no evidence that Trump has ever had racial or religious prejudices. This is the latest refuge of those who spent the past three years trying to portray him as a Russian dupe. Lawrence never understood why Americans preferred Ronald Reagan to the hapless Jimmy Carter, and although he has a better grasp of U.S. history than most journalists, he has never understood any of the Trump story. To wish to have a border is not to hate foreigners. For 50 years Democrats have wanted the Latin vote and Republican employers have wanted their cheap labour. It is a cynical bipartisan outrage as these poor people have flooded in, overloading the social services and schools and police and keeping working-class incomes down. Trump will continue to admit a million immigrants legally, but will stop this invasion of undocumented people who cannot be easily absorbed. All he seeks is to emulate the Canadian system of merit-based immigration.

The post-Reagan bipartisan consensus of soft-left passivity and decline, as the Bushes and Clintons passed the great offices back and forth, is over. (For 32 years, 1981-2013, a Bush or Clinton was president, vice-president, or secretary of state.) The United States is now in a political contest between the Democratic atomizers who inflame and pander to every conceivable group of aggrieved people, and the Trump movement that rallies everyone to the flag through full employment, reducing the taxes of 83 per cent of taxpayers, ending illegal immigration, being cautious over unproved claims about climate change while protecting the environment, reviving the promotion of nuclear non-proliferation, where predecessors and allies had surrendered to Iran and North Korea, and in finally standing up to China, where even the Democrats and all China’s neighbours except Russia and North Korea support Trump. Why doesn’t anyone in the media of this country, except in the National Post, get it?

Lawrence Martin despairs that the American public isn’t reacting correctly; he does not notice that in that slender ribbon of America between Pittsburgh and Phoenix, Boise and Miami, and Milwaukee and Houston, where most Americans reside, they are reacting appropriately: to false charges of treason, bigotry, and corruption in office, whatever they think of Trump’s voluminous personality.

 

Conrad Black: Trump continues to beat a media determined to bring him down

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!

The Soviet Bernie Sanders Americans Should Know!

Bernie Sanders Plagiarizes Stalin With ‘Economic Bill Of Rights’

These six “rights,” which define Sanders’ platform, are indistinguishable from the rights identified in the 1936 Soviet Constitution, which is also known as the Stalin Constitution. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-15/bernie-plagiarizes-stalin-economic-bill-rights

P.S.   Bernie Sanders celebrated his wedding in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1988!

by George Will:  https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/12/george-will/george-will-reminds-readers-about-bernie-sanders-u/

Article sent by Mark Waldeland.

IS MINNESOTA STILL A LOONY LEFTY PAUL WELLSTONE STATE!

WILL ILHAN OMAR RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP?

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

President Trump tweeted yesterday that Ilhan Omar will help him to carry Minnesota in 2020:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

In 2016 I almost won Minnesota. In 2020, because of America hating anti-Semite Rep. Omar, & the fact that Minnesota is having its best economic year ever, I will win the State! “We are going to be a nightmare to the President,” she say. No, AOC Plus 3 are a Nightmare for America!

Other pundits echo that claim, like Stewart Lawrence at The Federalist:

Thanks to the success of Trump’s policies and other fortuitous developments, several other blue-trending states are certain to be in play in 2020.

Of these, none is more important than Minnesota.
***
Trump, with his own brand of populism, nearly captured the state in 2016. He carried 78 of the state’s 87 counties, double the number carried by President Barack Obama in 2012. Overall, the margin between Trump and Hillary Clinton was a mere 1.5 percent — just 44,000 votes — the weakest Democratic tilt in decades.

That is true, and it is also true that Trump has been paying attention to Minnesota. Lawrence thinks Omar will help Trump in 2020:

Add to this the growing controversy over newly elected in-state Rep. Ilhan Omar, who is widely viewed as anti-Semitic and extremist, and the Democrats are confronting a major crisis of credibility with Minnesota’s electorate.

There is no sign of any such “crisis of credibility.” And this is delusional:

Trump’s growing popularity with Minnesotans was apparent in 2018 when the two candidates he endorsed and campaigned for easily won their races.

2018 was a disaster for Minnesota Republicans. It is true that the GOP scored pickups in the rural 1st and 8th Congressional Districts. But, consistent with national trends, the suburbs swung massively to the Democrats. A Democrat was easily elected governor (along with a full slate of Democratic constitutional officers, including the radical Keith Ellison), and two strong GOP incumbents in the Twin Cities suburbs went down to defeat, while the Democrats took the Minnesota House away from the prior GOP majority. Most local observers attribute the Republicans’ disastrous performance to revulsion against Donald Trump in the Twin Cities suburbs, especially among women. I think that is probably the correct diagnosis. My own organization’s polling finds that President Trump is not as popular in Minnesota today as he was in 2016.

This does not bode well for Trump in 2020, obviously.

But what about the suggestion that Ilhan Omar’s radicalism and tangled personal history will significantly benefit President Trump, as well as other Republicans? This CBS News pollperhaps sheds some light.

Starting with the most basic data, this poll finds President Trump with 36% favorable and 51% unfavorable ratings, which–to be fair–is quite a bit below most polling these days. So the sample skews left. The same survey finds Ilhan Omar polling slightly worse–19% favorable and 36% unfavorable. Quite a few have never heard of her, while others are neutral.

But if we focus on Trump’s attacks on Omar and the other Squad members, the numbers are rather grim. Seventy percent say they are aware of the tweets and surrounding controversy. Of those, 40% agree with what Trump said and 59% disagree. Further, 55% “dislike” Trump’s tweets.

Other results are even worse. The Democrats’ claim that criticizing “Congresswomen of color” must be racist is winning. Forty-eight percent say Trump’s tweets were racist, while only 34% say they were not racist. Similarly, 33% say the president’s tweets were pro-American, while 45% say Trump’s tweets were un-American. By 42% to 38%, respondents approve of the House of Representatives denouncing Trump’s tweets as racist. There is more at the link, but you get the drift.

Minnesota voters no doubt are considerably more aware of Ilhan Omar than voters nationally. It is likely that more of them understand how radical and how dishonest she is. On the other hand, Minnesota voters are well to the left of the nation generally, and a lot of them voted for Omar, who won election overwhelmingly. And, as we saw last year, there is a great deal of hostility toward President Trump, not only in the inner cities but increasingly in the suburbs.

So I see no reason to think that Ilhan Omar’s problems will lead to President Trump carrying Minnesota in 2020. On the contrary, it seems that the Democrats’ attacks on the president as a “racist” have gotten a great deal of traction, despite their being entirely unfounded.

 

Will Ilhan Omar Re-Elect President Trump?