• 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

Democrat Money Bag, George Soros, Fascist? Obamaist?, or merely Communist?

Freedom-loving democrat Dinesh D’Souza analyzes Notorious Communist George Soros, American leftism’s major financier:

The ‘Anti-Fascist’ Fascist

Photo of Dinesh D

by   DINESH D’SOUZA

“The so-called “antifascist” movement in America today bears a strange resemblance to the very fascism it purports to combat. When we see masked Antifa protesters in black, carrying weapons, disrupting public events and blocking speakers from campus, this looks more like fascism than its opposite. The close relationship between self-styled antifascism and fascism itself can be seen in some little-known aspects of one of Antifa’s main financial sponsors, George Soros.

The Hungarian-born Soros became a billionaire through shrewd global investments and currency manipulation; his Quantum Fund is one of the world’s first private hedge funds. Soros is the main funder of some 200 leftist groups, including Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, and Black Lives Matter.

Soros also backs self-proclaimed antifascist groups—this year the Soros-backed group Alliance for Global Justice gave $50,000 to the militant thugs associated with the group Refuse Fascism.

Soros doesn’t merely fund activism; he also funds disruptive violence.  Essentially his costumed baton-wielding squadrons amount to a private army: he has created a militia of paid thugs similar to the Italian Blackshirts and the Nazi Brownshirts.  Soros’ strategy is to launch dozens, even hundreds, of groups and then see which ones deliver the goods.  Borrowing from the field of venture capitalism, my term for what Soros does is venture thuggery, operating through paid protesters.

The paid protester is something of a new phenomenon in American politics. In the 1960s we had protesters on the left, even violent ones, but they weren’t being rented out by the hour. Soros’ groups, by contrast, advertise for disrupters and looters. On one ad I saw on Craigslist, protesters are promised $15 an hour to cause trouble.  This way leftists can not only indulge their violent streaks in the fantasy they are fighting Hitler; they can also be paid for their Brownshirt thuggery.

It may seem crude, even insensitive, for me to use such language in talking about Soros, who is Jewish and who was after all a refugee from Nazism.  Soros loves to play the Nazi card, as when in the aftermath of 9/11 he flayed President Bush’s attorney general John Ashcroft for questioning the patriotism of its critics—a tactic that Soros likened to the Nazis.  “It reminded me of Germany under the Nazis,” Soros said.  “It was the kind of talk that Goebbels used to use to line the Germans up. I remember, I was thirteen or fourteen.  It was the same kind of propaganda.”

This reference to his youth makes the transcript of a 1998 CBS Sixty Minutes interview with Soros especially revealing.  Here is what Soros told interviewer Steve Kroft about those fateful days in Hitler’s Germany…..”  Please continue reading:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/the-anti-fascist-fascist/

Transgenders in the Military? Let Them Be Segregated!! Why Not Female-Only Battalions!

AN ATTACK BY TRUMP “ON THE WHOLE LGBT COMMUNITY”?

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“That’s how (minus the question mark) Steven Petrow, a gay Washington Post columnist, characterizes President Trump’s decision to reinstate the ban on transgender people in the military. This characterization tells us plenty about what’s wrong with leftist identity-politics.

The question of whether transgender people should serve in the military is first and foremost a decision about how best to defend America militarily. The purpose of our armed forces is not to promote or reject the LGBT agenda. Its purpose is not to serve as a model for tolerance of transgender and other LGBT people, or to afford them employment opportunities, or even to treat them fairly as individuals. The purpose of our armed forces is to defend the country from its enemies.

Does a ban on services by transgender people serve this purpose? I don’t know.

Petrow cites a 2016 Rand Corporation study, commissioned by the Pentagon, that led the Obama administration to lift the ban. That’s one important piece of evidence. However, it was pretty clear the direction in which Obama wanted to go, so I can’t help but wonder whether the results of the study were preordained. (For a discussion of the manipulation associated with Obama’s decision to ditch “don’t ask, don’t tell,” see this post I wrote in 2010).

Dan McLaughlin at NRO offers countervailing evidence. He cites a 2015 study by the National Center for Transgender Equality. It found:

Fifty three percent (53%) of [transgender] respondents aged 18 to 25 reported experiencing current serious psychological distress [compared to 10% of the general population] . . . Forty percent (40%) of respondents have attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6% in the U.S. population.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year, compared to 4% of the U.S. population, and 82% have had serious thoughts about killing themselves at some point in their life . . .

29% of respondents reported illicit drug use, marijuana consumption, and/or nonmedical prescription drug use in the past month, nearly three times the rate in the U.S. population (10%)

Military veteran and Bronze Star recipient David French, also at NRO, argues that the military is justified in making decisions based on group characteristics:

Do people with certain kinds of criminal backgrounds tend to be more trouble than they’re worth? They’re out. How about folks with medical conditions that have a tendency to flare up in the field. They’re out also.

It’s foolish to create a force that contains numbers of people who are disproportionately likely to have substantial problems. Increased injuries lead to manpower shortages in the field. Prolonged absences create training gaps. Physical weakness leads to poor performance.

It may well be true that military service is one way that transgender people can feel more accepted in society. Again, however, that’s not the purpose of the military.

French concludes:

The military has to make hard choices on the basis of odds, probabilities, and centuries of hard-earned experience. Our national existence – ultimately, our very civilization – depends on getting those answers right. And if there’s one thing that any person learns in war, “fairness” has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.

The battlefield is the most unjust place on earth.

Again, I don’t know what the correct answer is on transgender people serving in the military. But I submit that French’s mode of analysis is the correct one. Focusing on whether a ban amounts to “an attack on the LBGT community” is the wrong mode.”

Glenn Ray wonders if Paul Mirengoff was ever in military service.   I wonder if Paul Mirengoff recognizes there are tremendous differences between the human male and the human female animal (despite the lies, the deceit, the corruption of our nation’s feminized colleges and universities?

I am a child of the second world war.   War was the event of every day even on the home front.   We boys played war games at home.  We went to war movies.  Girls played paper dolls and jumped rope.   From early on I wondered whether I’d have the courage to expose myself to death to save my buddies when I ‘grew up’ .  Did I have that animal drive in me?  I was certain I did.  I would serve my country in any way I could.

One of the main reasons I entered the army was the hope I would have the opportunity to do so.   I can’t imagine an army with females running around pretending to be men.   How could they be trusted in a fox hole.  When would they break and scream which is their nature, an animal  message to the nearby human male they need help?

In those days when adults were adults, men men and women women, the human male was made well aware of his duties in life.   Why would anyone go to war relying on  Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, or Madame Hillary in ones fox hole?

 

 

Leftists, Anarchists Star at Their Hamburg Riots Against Civility

Day 3 Of G20 Protests: Looting, Burning, Vandalizing And Over 200 Police Injured

 

Please read the full article below:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/08/day-3-g20-protests-looting-burning-vandalizing/

KNOW THY NEIGHBOR: Follow the Fascists at CBC on American Election Night Last November 8, 2016.

For nearly twelve hours the leftists performed their fascism in unison at leftist  CBC  lying, smearing, ridiculing  Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump as ballots were counted indicating hour by hour the successful American businessman was not going to lose the election as they has expected.   CBC is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.   They spew news  quite Hillary-like, CNN-like, NBC-like and so on, but were more corrupt, dishonest,  and even nastier than MSNBC…..every animal of all sexes.

It is important to know thy neighbor.

 

 

Piers Morgan Review of CNN Greediness

Trump’s media enemies know that bashing him makes them big money but CNN’s greediness and desperation to get him has cost them dear

” ‘CNN, the most trusted name in news,’ bellows James Earl Jones morning, noon and night during the network’s 24/7 programming.

Well, not today it isn’t.

In arguably the most humiliating moment in its history, CNN just accepted resignations from three of its top journalists over a story they got horrendously wrong about President Trump and Russia.

It couldn’t have come at a worse time for CNN, or involved a worse kind of story.

Its war with Trump has escalated on an almost daily basis since he won the presidency.

He furiously brands CNN ‘Fake News’.

CNN, in turn, mocks and berates him at every turn and devotes huge resources toward trying to expose him.

It’s a toxic, abusive relationship that’s got so vicious and vengeful it threatens to imperil the very cornerstone of democracy, freedom of speech.

Now, CNN’s high moral ground has crumbled beneath it in spectacular style.

And it’s collapsed because all those involved forgot the golden rule of journalism: if it seems too good to be true, it probably IS too good to be true.

Last Thursday, CNN.com blasted out a new ‘bombshell’ exclusive about Trump and Russia.

It was the latest in a relentless barrage of similar Russia-related scoops by award-hungry mainstream media organisations desperately trying to prove Trump and/or his campaign team colluded with Russians, possibly as high up as Vladimir Putin, to fix the 2016 US Election.

Yet to date, there remains not a shred of hard evidence to nail the swirling maelstrom of rumours and scurrilous headlines.

Hence, no doubt, CNN’s wild over-excitement at finally getting a lead on what seemed like a possible game-changing piece of information.

It reported the Senate Intelligence Committee was investigating a potentially highly compromising link between Anthony Scaramucci, a prominent ally of Trump, and a $10 billion Russian investment fund…….” Please continue reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4643532/PIERS-MORGAN-CNN-s-greediness-Trump-cost-them.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

Prager’s WHY CONSERVATIVES STILL ATTACK TRUMP

Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

by Dennis Prager at Townhall:

“When people you know well, admire, and who share your values do something you strongly oppose, you have two options:

1) Cease admiring them or 2) try to understand them and change their minds.

In the case of my conservative friends who still snipe (or worse) at President Trump, I have rejected option one. The reason — beside the fact that I simply like many of them — is what I refer to as “moral bank accounts.”

Every time we do good, we make a deposit into our moral bank account. And every time we do something bad, we make a withdrawal. These conservatives have made so many deposits into their moral bank accounts that, in my view, their accounts all remain firmly in the black.

That means my only choice is option two. But to try to change their minds, I must first try to understand their thinking.

I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.

While they strongly differ with the left, they do not regard the left-right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

That is why, after vigorously opposing Trump’s candidacy during the Republican primaries, I vigorously supported him once he won the nomination. I believed then, as I do now, that America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president. With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

To my amazement, no anti-Trump conservative writer sees it that way. They all thought during the election, and still think, that while it would not have been a good thing if Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn’t have been a catastrophe either.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Many conservatives, including me, believe that it would have been close to over for America as America if the Republican candidate, who happened to be a flawed man named Donald Trump, had not won. Moreover, I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton.

In other words, I believe that Donald Trump may have saved the country. And that, in my book, covers a lot of sins — foolish tweets, included.

The Never-Trump conservative argument that Trump is not a conservative – one that I, too, made repeatedly during the Republican primaries – is not only no longer relevant, it is no longer true.

Had any Never-Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally, Assad, after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall; appoint a U.N. ambassador who regularly condemns the U.N. for its moral hypocrisy; restore the military budget; and work on lowering corporate tax rates, among other conservative achievements — that Never-Trump conservative would have been jumping for joy.

So, why aren’t anti-Trump conservatives jumping for joy?

I have come to believe that many conservatives possess what I once thought was a left-wing monopoly — a utopian streak. Trump is too far from their ideal leader to be able to support him.

There is also a cultural divide. Anti-Trump conservatives are a very refined group of people. Trump doesn’t talk like them. Moreover, the cultural milieu in which the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives live and/or work means that to support Trump is to render oneself contemptible at all elite dinner parties.

In addition, anti-Trump conservatives see themselves as highly moral people (which they often are) who are duty-bound not to compromise themselves by strongly supporting Trump, whom they largely view as morally defective.

Finally, these people are only human: After investing so much energy in opposing Trump’s election, and after predicting his nomination would lead to electoral disaster, it’s hard to for them to admit they were wrong. To see him fulfill many of his conservative election promises, again in defiance of predictions, is a bitter pill. But if they hang on to their Never-Trumpism and the president falls on his face, they can say they were right all along.

That means that only if he fails can their reputations be redeemed. And they, of course, know that.

But there is another way.

They can join the fight. They can accept an imperfect reality and acknowledge that we are in a civil war, and that Trump, with all his flaws, is our general. If this general is going to win, he needs the best fighters. But too many of them, some of the best minds of the conservative movement, are AWOL.

I beg them: Please report for duty.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/05/30/why-conservatives-still-attack-trump-n2332924

Are All Female Professors at Harvard Loony?

Well, yes, yes, very likely yes, especially those in the social sciences.   Yet, who would conduct the poll taking?  Think of the screams, the weeping, the swearing in leftism’s language, the fainting and spitting.

Yet these loonies keep conning their idiot students that there are no differences between the human female animal and the human male animal……a lie equal to any championed by German Nazism or Stalin’s Communism, particularly the latter due to the Soviet’s greater control over citizen breathing.

The human female animal, at least in the norm, isn’t particularly driven to seek or receive TRUTH.  It can happen upon occasion among the world’s left, but isn’t usually allowed to be breathed.  Here feelings usually overwhelm reality.

Conservative females are  far more aware of male-female differences, the animal and the cultural.    The majority of them are still married and have children.  Mothers of sons and daughters  of conservatives still respect Truth…..

Not so among Hillary feminists, especially the ones more butch….if truth in today’s America be allowed at university, in the press,  or in public where forced equality is, well, FORCED!

Mark Waldeland sent the following article from Witherspoon’s Public Discourse:Ted Cruz Is Right: The “International Community” Did Not Create the United States

Ted Cruz Is Right: The “International Community” Did Not Create the United States

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/06/19539/