• 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

The Crooked Hillary Hysterical Lefty Women Love So Much

Cheryl Strayed: Someday, a ‘Nasty’ Woman Like Hillary Clinton Will Win

The following “article” below my commentary, appeared at the leftist journal, TIME……..written by  Cheryl Strayed:
(Introductory comment:   For the sake of the survival of the human  species, the human male animal  is programmed by birth to be a killer and a sexual predator.  It is the culture of the human family into which he is born that will determine the degree and form of civilization he will enter to be melded to  perform and defend his natural  characteristics….to be profoundly visual and curious, to build, to discover, to imagine, to  invent, to hunt, to explore,  to mate and protect  his offspring, his species and realm, to guide his male offspring into manhood,  and in the ideal, to achieve something lasting, meaningful within the larger community to which he is attached.
The human female is born ditsy,   sensitive, emotional, rich with  feelings, yet wily.   It is SHE who  bears and nurses the  offspring, the foundation of  the family, so vital for the future of the community, the tribe, the nation, indeed,  the species itself.
Generally, she, as Cheryl Strayed demonstrates below,   emotes feelings over seeking Truth.
 Cheryl Strayed is the author of the number one New York Times best-seller Wild, among other books:

“My kids didn’t have school the day after Donald Trump won the presidential election and eventually, near noon, they came into my room to see what was wrong with me. Perhaps they’d come to me at their father’s prompting. Perhaps they’d heard me weeping. They’d never seen me this way before. Inconsolable.

“Hillary didn’t lose!” I insisted, as they sat on the bed around me, even as Hillary’s voice drifted into the room — her concession speech, on the radio downstairs, my husband shouting up, “Honey, you should come listen to this!”

I would not listen. I would never listen. The sound of Hillary Clintonconceding to Donald Trump is what compelled me to rise at last, if only to shut my bedroom door.

“It can’t be true,” I said to my kids, back in my bed encampment. “It can’t be. It can’t!”

“I know,” said my daughter with real sorrow in her voice.

“Is Trump going to ruin our lives?” asked my son, with real worry. Hillary Clinton wasn’t, to them, a distant and unknown figure. They’d met her six months before, when I’d been invited to introduce her at an event in San Francisco. We’d flown there from Portland for the occasion. My husband and kids and I got to hang out with Hillary in a room backstage before the event began. When my son asked Hillary what she thought of Donald Trump, she didn’t answer. She turned the question around and instead asked him what he thought of Donald Trump.

“I think he’s very disrespectful,” he said. “I agree with you about that,” she replied.

His disrespect was the reason I’d repeatedly assured my children in the months leading up to the election that Donald Trump could not win. He slandered Muslims and immigrants and those of Mexican heritage. He referred to women as pigs and dogs. He repeatedly criticized the grieving parents of a young soldier who’d been killed in the line of duty. He mocked a disabled man in front of cameras and denied having done so. He failed to disavow the white supremacists who campaigned for him. He cheated those he’d employed out of money. He bragged about not paying his taxes. He laughed when his supporters threatened journalists with violence. He said he could grab women “by the pussy” if he felt like it because he was a “star.” He did and said so many horrible things I couldn’t any longer keep a list in my head.

He had no shame. He had no grace. He had no dignity. He had no moral code. Never mind whether you were conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, with the evidence mounting by the day, it seemed apparent to me — and many — that Trump was characterologically unfit for the office. Countless members of his own party, both prominent and not, abandoned him in droves. They announced they could not vote for a man who had so little respect — for others, for the bounds of decorum, for the rule of law, for the office of the presidency, for the fundamental principles of American democracy itself. Many of them didn’t much care for Hillary or her political views, but they loathed Trump so deeply, they’d vote for her instead. Newspapers that had never in their history endorsed a Democratic candidate for president did. Among the few who endorsed Trump, one was The Crusader, the official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan.

Week by week through the late summer and autumn, my certainty that he could not win deepened. I knew the American electorate was divided politically, but I also knew something else: for all our flaws, we were not a people who’d choose a man to be our president who was so plainly, so essentially, so completely, a disrespectful brute.

I was wrong.

The fact of my wrongness felt like a blunt-force blow. I wasn’t naive. I’d long known there were misogynists and racists and people who voted against their own economic interests. I knew that some people voted out of their fear and rage and ignorance, but I didn’t know how deep and wide it was in America until November 9, 2016. I believed we, as a people, were better than we turned out to be.

On that day after the election, after I finally pulled myself out of bed, I walked around in a state of numb shock. My numbness was interrupted only by two extremes of emotion: more jags of crying — this cant be true! — and an ever-heightening state of outrage — she won by nearly three million votes!

In this manic zombie/teary/rager dream state, I somehow managed to go to the grocery store, where I managed to figure out what to make for dinner and then, at home, made it. All through this managing, a memory kept floating into my mind of a conversation I’d had with my maternal grandfather when I was eleven or so and I’d asked him who he planned to vote for in a political race in his city of Huntsville, Alabama — for what office, I do not recall. We were in the car, him at the wheel, me in the front passenger seat. Moments before I asked my question, we’d driven past a campaign sign that caught my eye because emblazoned on it was the name of a woman, a fairly rare occurrence in 1979.

My grandfather replied he hadn’t yet decided who he’d be voting for but he knew for certain it would not be the woman. When I asked why, he told me it was because women were not qualified to lead and therefore should not hold elected office. He did not say this unkindly. He didn’t become defensive or angry when I vehemently disagreed with him. He only chuckled and explained I’d someday understand that there are certain things men are better at than women, and making important decisions was one of them.

I admired my grandfather and I loved him, too. He was a good man in that way men get to be thought of as good even though they do not believe in the basic human rights of women and girls. Around the time that he told me he would not be voting for the woman because she was a woman, he’d also observed over lunch one day what a shame it was that I was the one who’d “gotten the brains” among my siblings and my brother (according to him) had not. Why was it a shame? Because my alleged brains would only be “wasted” on me since I was a girl.

But of course it wasn’t only my grandfather who thought this way. By the time I argued with him in the front seat of the car about the political race in his town, by the time I was told my intelligence was a useless asset, I was well aware that he was not alone in his opinion that women were inherently inferior to men. I knew that in arguing with him, I was arguing with the entire culture — one that had told me what I could not and should not and would not be because I was a girl.

I get asked a lot in interviews when I first became a feminist and why, and though my answer has remained the same since the election, the way I feel about it has changed. I’ve been a feminist since my earliest understanding that what it means to be female is to be limited by society in ways that males are not. And though I’ve never been under the illusion that sexism had vanished, before Trump was elected there was a history-lesson element to the stories I told of my first consciousness about what it meant to be female in America, a quality that had made the sexism I experienced as a girl seem antiquated and nearly extinct. The message was: This is the way it used to be! Isn’t that amazing? In witnessing the presidential race and Trump’s eventual win, I’ve concluded that I had it wrong. This isn’t how it used to be. It is the way it is. It amazes me still.

Perhaps that’s the reason I felt Hillary’s loss on a physical level — like someone had actually delivered a blow to my body — and perhaps, too, it’s the reason that long-ago conversation with my grandfather came circling repeatedly into my mind the day after the election. Hillary Clinton’s victory would’ve in some measure healed the lifelong wounds that patriarchy has made on my heart. When people accused me of “voting with my vagina,” I laughed. I was proud to do it. President Hillary Clinton would’ve been repudiation, finally, of all those people who’d said women were not fit to lead (or vote or be doctors or write great books or . . . well, you fill in the blank). Her defeat was personal to me. This election wasn’t simply a political contest. It was a referendum on how much America still hates women.

I never have listened to her concession speech and I probably never will. I didn’t watch because I’ve already seen it: the woman who works fifty times harder than the man who got the job. It isn’t a story I don’t know. I’ve heard she was strong and dignified and inspiring. I’ve heard she rose to the humiliating occasion with astounding grace. None of that surprises me. Hillary Clinton grew up in the world I grew up in, only in one that was even harder for girls and women because she’s a generation older. She — like so many whose very humanity has been questioned because of race or sexuality or gender identity or physical ability — has had to make her way forward steeped in a culture that usually told her no. One that said: We willpunish you if you try and we will applaud when you fail. And did.

In San Francisco, when I was introducing Hillary before a thousand or so people six months before the election, the line that got the biggest applause was this: “Hillary Clinton made the world ready for Hillary Clinton.” It was the line she thanked me for specifically when she walked onstage and we embraced while the audience went wild. “No one has ever said that about me,” she said into my ear. “Thank you.”

What I meant when I said that Hillary Clinton had made the world ready for Hillary Clinton is that I recognized her as a woman who had whacked the weeds to blaze her own trail, who had always stood up again after she was told to sit down, who had persisted, and persisted, and persisted, nevertheless. What I meant is that a woman like this was finally going to win.

Someday she will.”


Commentary II:   GOD FORBID! ghr


Leftist and GOP Hacks Unite to Avoid Trumpland’s Return to the People’s Democracy?

by George Neumayr  at The American Spectator:





Some guy at the American Thinker seems to want to know as well?   If you too are an American Thinker, THINK ABOUT WHATEVER HAPPENED TO REAL HUMAN MUSIC?


Sore Loser Hillary Says It’s Time to Dump the Electoral College…..(any one surprised?)

This Hillary Clinton, this  modern American feminist is not noted for  wisdom.   She prefers to be the   sexist, the noisy, mouthful, bossy, leftist Democrat she is.  She loves to be interviewed, to  appear on television to prove her transformation into the limelight despite her forever refusals  to seek truth in order to solve problems.  She prefers the blab, the ‘feel’ of  the  voice that  exposes and expresses her words.

Hillary Roddham Clinton is ‘ugely’ popular among American feminist voters.   She had primed herself to become the first feminist American President of all time.

But something happened on her way  to own the White House last November….She met Our Donald!     She lost the election!…..but  didn’t lose California, now days a leftist sanctuary state attempting to secede as a state to become a one party leftist dictatorship  relying on five million “illegal” immigrants  ‘hired’ from across our America’s  southern border to secure its status to send GOP white people out of California  packing forever and a day.

Hillary did disappear from noise making following her  loss, the loss  caused by other people…… apparently   to rediscover her cruder, tougher self by becoming a national  adviser to all American sexists, young and old for a rerun in AD2020.

I intentionally chose CNN for the source of the following Hillary…..that  Hillary,  all America’s Hillary  assuring this  America how to ‘improve’ itself culturally and politically by scrapping the nation’s Electoral College.   By 2020 sanctuary state California with its present fascist left management she relies on so ‘religiously’, should be able to collect ten more illegal immigrants to secure Hillary forever in the White House…..(After all, who were those stupid white males who passed the 22nd Federal Constitutional Amendment squeezing, forcing  America’s gift to the world, Hillary,  to serve only two terms as President added to the two terms she served in the White House from January, 1993 to January, 2001.

Please read our  leftism’s CNN article below about Hillary’s desire, recommendation  to scrap the Electoral College:


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


“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:



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


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: