• 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

PBS Fascistics Cover Election Day, November 8, 2016

What’s Crooked Hillary up to These Days?

Hillary: Forget The 1950s. This Kavanaugh Character’s Taking Us Back To The 1850s.

by Allahpundit  at  HotAir:

He’s gonna put y’all back in chains, one might say.

A fine entry here for the SCOTUS chapter of “Sh*t Liberals Say” and a fine note on which to end the week via the Daily Caller, as it’s a preview of the hysteria to come and just a taste of the hysteria that’ll greet a true culture-warrior nominee like Barrett down the road. It’s also a reminder of why the left distrusts Hillary. A real progressive would have said that Kavanaugh’s taking us back to the 1750s.

Mitch McConnell expects our national journey back in time to begin in mid-September:

“The timetable typically, for recent Supreme Court Justices, if we stuck to that timetable, and I intend to, would give us an opportunity to get this new justice on the court by the 1st of October, and all of you may know that’s what’s called the October term,” McConnell told reporters back in his home state…

That largely comports with the timeline McConnell’s chief deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, earlier in the week, though he peppered his example also with Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The Texas Republican said Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could have his confirmation vote on the floor around September 13.

They should aim to hold the vote on September 11th and tempt Schumer and the rest of the hysterics to do a round of “second 9/11” press releases. That’d be another solid “Sh*t Liberals Say” item.

Kudos to Hillary, at least, for somehow avoiding lapsing into her fake southern accent while belching out the 1850s line. She don’t feel no ways tahhherrrd.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/13/hillary-forget-1950s-kavanaugh-characters-taking-us-back-1850s/

Cornell West, still THE MIND AND FACE OF FASCISTIC SOCIALISM.

Cornell West reeks fascistic socialism….and he’s no afraid to sell it at one university of another for decades.  Today’s American university is the place  nasty deceitful Americans can not only make a living, but can be pictorially advertised throughout the nation’s academic world from coast to coast.

Mouth counts for everything among today’s American LeftoNazis.  Please read the following a couple times at least to absorb the real measures  of their feelings. ghr

ACTUALLY, SOCIALISM DOES WORK

John Sexton embeds entertaining video of Tucker Carlson and Cornel West, and offers a good explanation of why socialism always fails, from the perspective of the vast majority. He focuses on a good question that Tucker asked West: If democratic socialism works, why doesn’t Venezuela have toilet paper? The video is embedded at the end of this post.

Of course West’s answers are lame–“real” socialism has never been tried, blah, blah, blah. You could infer from this that West is an idiot and, if he were arguing in good faith, that would be a fair assessment.

But I think the truth is worse. I think the leaders of the socialist movement are perfectly well aware that the inevitable result of socialism is tyranny and mass poverty. But for them, this isn’t a bug, it is a feature. In fact, it is the whole point. Socialism is now, and always has been, a pretext under which power-mad psychopaths seize power and terrorize their fellow humans.

Viewed with cold realism, socialism works very well for those who bring it about. It worked for Lenin and Stalin. It almost worked for Trotsky, but socialism is like “Game of Thrones”–it is a risky business. It didn’t work for the Old Bolsheviks for the same reason: they lost out to the more vicious and more power-crazed socialist, Stalin. It worked for Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria, although they, too, lost out after years of demented revels. It worked for Khruschev, Brezhnev and Andropov.

Socialism worked for Mao. It worked for Fidel Castro. It worked for Erich Honecker and Nicolae Ceaușescu, until the very end. It worked for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, again with sad ends that didn’t inflict anywhere near enough pain to negate the years of glory and power that went before. It worked for Hugo Chavez, who like Castro, parlayed socialism into a multi-billion dollar fortune, and it has worked so far for Nicolas Maduro. All of these psychopaths, and many others, got exactly what they wanted out of socialism. From their point of view, it is a successful ideology.

While the vast majority suffer under socialism, such suffering is by no means universal. Any number of commissars, Stasi informants, Cuban snitches, petty apparatchiks with dachas, etc., have parlayed their sadistic tendencies into good livings and what they want most, power over others. If you follow Twitter, or generally pay attention to the American Left, you see an army of would-be commissars who yearn for the day when they can accuse a neighbor of wrongthink and have him sent to an American Gulag. In the meantime, they settle for mob action, “doxxing,” and so on.

Socialism isn’t misguided, it is evil. Socialism isn’t a failure, any more than the Black Death was a failure. Sadly, it has worked all too well for more than a century.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/07/actually-socialism-does-work.php

Why Isn’t Obstructionist, Rod Rosenstein, Sent to Siberia?

Rosenstein threatened to ‘subpoena’ GOP-led committee in ‘chilling’ clash over records, emails show

by Catherine Herridge  at Fox:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to “subpoena” emails, phone records and other documents from lawmakers and staff on a Republican-led House committee during a tense meeting earlier this year, according to emails reviewed by Fox News documenting the encounter and reflecting what aides described as a “personal attack.”

The emails memorialized a January 2018 closed-door meeting involving senior FBI and Justice Department officials as well as members of the House Intelligence Committee. The account claimed Rosenstein threatened to turn the tables on the committee’s inquiries regarding the Russia probe.

“The DAG [Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] criticized the Committee for sending our requests in writing and was further critical of the Committee’s request to have DOJ/FBI do the same when responding,” the committee’s then-senior counsel for counterterrorism Kash Patel wrote to the House Office of General Counsel. “Going so far as to say that if the Committee likes being litigators, then ‘we [DOJ] too [are] litigators, and we will subpoena your records and your emails,’ referring to HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and Congress overall.”

A second House committee staffer at the meeting backed up Patel’s account, writing: “Let me just add that watching the Deputy Attorney General launch a sustained personal attack against a congressional staffer in retaliation for vigorous oversight was astonishing and disheartening. … Also, having the nation’s #1 (for these matters) law enforcement officer threaten to ‘subpoena your calls and emails’ was downright chilling.”

The committee staffer noted that Rosenstein’s comment could be interpreted as meaning the department would “vigorously defend a contempt action” — which might be expected. But the staffer continued, “I also read it as a not-so-veiled threat to unleash the full prosecutorial power of the state against us.”

Representatives with both the DOJ and FBI disputed the account in the emails.

“The FBI disagrees with a number of characterizations of the meeting as described in the excerpts of a staffer’s emails provided to us by Fox News,” the FBI said in a statement.

A DOJ official told Fox News that Rosenstein “never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal investigation.” The official said the department and bureau officials in the room “are all quite clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false,” adding that Rosenstein was responding to a threat of contempt.

‘[H]aving the nation’s #1 … law enforcement officer threaten to ‘subpoena your calls and emails’ was downright chilling.’

– House Intelligence Committee staffer, describing clash with Rod Rosenstein

“The Deputy Attorney General was making the point—after being threatened with contempt — that as an American citizen charged with the offense of contempt of Congress, he would have the right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant emails and text messages and calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that their allegations are false,” the official said. “That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and text messages, and he hopes they did so. (We have no process to obtain such records without congressional approval.)”

Further, the official said that when Rosenstein returns to the United States from a work trip, “he will request that the House General counsel conduct an internal investigation of these Congressional staffers’ conduct.”

Details of the January 2018 meeting first trickled out in the immediate aftermath. Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett tweeted in February on the purported subpoena threat.

But the emails, reviewed by Fox News, provide additional details about that encounter. A former Justice Department official said the account may help explain how the relationship between the DOJ and the Republican-led House committee has broken down in the months since.

“This is much worse than a deteriorating relationship – this is a massive breakdown in the system. A deputy attorney general does not make subpoena threats lightly. This is not the norm to say the least,” Tom Dupree, the former principal deputy assistant attorney general under the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News. “It’s hard to tell whether [Rosenstein] was sending a message to back off, or whether he was just trying to illustrate how invasive he considered the demands from Congress. But either way, it is a clear signal that the relationship is fractured, and it’s not clear how things will get repaired.”

The tense session over the boundaries of congressional oversight – and the Justice Department’s concern for protecting sources and methods – appears to have set the tone for a sustained records dispute as well as the latest confrontation over Chairman Devin Nunes’ request for information related to an alleged FBI confidential human source who was in contact with the Trump campaign.

A senior Justice Department official said Rosenstein and others have offered to meet Thursday with a group of House leaders known as the Gang of Eight. In a letter, Nunes, R-Calif. – whose staffers documented the Jan. 10 meeting – made clear he wants the records made available to all intelligence committee members and select staff two days earlier.

The Jan. 10 meeting came amid government surveillance abuse allegations, outstanding House subpoenas for Russia probe records and the looming threat of contempt. The Capitol Hill session pertained to a request for a sensitive document, according to the emails – and included Rosenstein, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd, then-FBI Assistant Director Greg Brower and FBI Director Christopher Wray, as well as Nunes and three committee staffers.

The emails reviewed by Fox News show at least two committee staffers memorialized their concerns about the deputy attorney general’s alleged statements, at the request of the Office of General Counsel.

“I know I’ve relayed the following to you over the phone, and per your suggestion reducing it to writing so there is at least some record of the event,” wrote Patel, who is now the committee’s national security adviser.

The two staffers were pressed on whether Rosenstein could justify the comments as “merely referring to how DOJ would vigorously defend any litigation that the committee might initiate?” — an apparent reference to Nunes’ threat to hold Rosenstein and Wray in contempt for not providing records.

“I took … it as the DAG’s clearly articulated course of action should the committee continue its investigation in the current manner, which he found unacceptable and improper. It was not in response to how they would defend litigation (ie contempt or the like),” Patel responded. “It was about leaks, source contact, and other alleged disclosures by the committee.”

Asked about the January meeting, Nunes provided a statement to Fox News noting they referred the incident to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office: “The Intelligence Committee considers staff concerns at the most serious level, especially those involving interactions with the executive branch. Based on the justified concerns expressed by our lead staff investigators, we referred this matter to the Speaker’s Office.”

Fox News provided extensive quotes from the emails and offered an opportunity to respond to all parties. The House Office of General Counsel declined to comment. A source close to the speaker said they “encouraged the Committee to work through the non-partisan DOJ Inspector General’s Office.”

A committee source said “going to DOJ IG is one of several steps under consideration.”

The DOJ official later said in an email that “no formal complaint was ever filed [with] the GC or IG.” The official also said that Rosenstein and Nunes “went to dinner with a mutual friend the night of this meeting and the chairman didn’t raise any concerns about the conversation at that dinner.”

Dupree, though, said the tensions between Congress and the Justice Department go well beyond the traditional oversight negotiations.

“Rarely, if ever, has it deterioriated to this point where you have what appears to be threats going back and forth between the two sides,” he said.

Fox News’ Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson contributed to this report. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/12/rosenstein-threatened-to-subpoena-gop-led-committee-in-chilling-clash-over-records-emails-show.html

Troubles with Lefty City’s Joy (Reid)

Joy Reid Created A ‘Toxic Work Environment,’ Threatened Violence Against Co-Host

We’ve covered the Joy Reid saga pretty extensively, from here blog comments to her bizarre hacking claims. You may recall that one of the claims made by the expert hired by Reid was that she couldn’t have written some of these homophobic old blog posts because she was too busy being a radio host. Today, her former co-host has spoken up and says Reid created a “toxic work environment,” which included threats of violence:

Andre Eggelletion, former lead host of the morning show with Reid, recently spoke out about her for the first time in more than a decade, saying Reid created “the most toxic work environment I’ve ever experienced” and threatened him with violence.

“It was a very unhealthy work environment because of her attitude. She attacked me on a constant basis while I was there. I was even once threatened with physical violence during a break with her,” he revealed to Fox News…

The threat came following a “dispute” over a news item that Reid opposed covering — despite Eggelletion being the show’s lead host.

“There was a dispute over it and I told her, ‘Go ahead and call the manager’,” Eggelletion said he told Reid, after she refused to cover the story suggested by him.

To which she allegedly replied, “If you ever speak to me like that again I’m coming over there and it’s gonna be me and you.”

As for the contents of her blog, Eggelletion believes she wrote the comments about gays:

“I do believe she’s not telling the truth about who that person [who wrote the blog posts] was. Maybe she has changed, but back then, that was one evil woman,” Eggelletion said…

The former lead host recalled one example in which Reid’s opinion on the radio show echoed her writings. “She did call Charlie Crist ‘Miss Charlie’ on the air,” he said.

The insinuations that Crist was gay was one of the very first items discovered on Reid’s blog which got her in trouble, at least this year:

 

Thread – 1/x Joy Reid’s homophobic blog posts were far worse than 1st reported.

They also had nothing to do with Republican hypocrisy on gay marriage. Joy also opposed gay marriage at the time. She gleefully accused people of being gay and posted a number of questionable things.

Since then many more examples have turned up, leading Reid to apologize again more recently. After Reid’s most recent apology, MSNBC put out another statement of support. Neither Reid’s statement nor MSNBC’s mentioned the whole hacking claim, but it seemed nothing in Reid’s past, at least nothing found on her blog, was going to be enough to make MSNBC let her go.

The question now is whether these new accusations, which come from a person who witnessed the incidents and was impacted by them, will be treated the same way as her blog comments. That may partly depend on whether or not Joy Reid has changed in her behavior toward colleagues. If she’s still making threats off-camera I suspect we might see a tape leak, like the one that humiliated socialist brawler Lawrence O’Donnell after he had a meltdown at his staff while taping (“Stop the hammering!”).

Even if Reid is a better employee than she used to be, it’s fair to ask how much credibility she has left at this point. Even if you set aside the past comments, there’s still the lying about the hacker that took place just last month. I guess if she was killing it in the ratings they’d put up with it but she’s really not, so how long will they keep backing her?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/07/joy-reid-homophobic-radio-show-days/

The Crimes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be Prosecuted?

IT SCANDAL SET TO EXPLODE — OR NOT

by Scott Johnson  at  PowerLine:

At the FOX News site Frank Miniter checks in on “the curious case of Imran Awan” in a column headlined “Democrats’ IT scandal set to explode with possible plea deal.” The Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak has broken story after story in the Awan case. Rosiak’s stories are archived here. We have followed it in many posts, most recently here and here.

As I have observed in several of those posts, former DNC chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz lies (and lies) at the heart of the story. Rosiak’s current story — “Sources: Wasserman Schultz screamed at House IT officials to kill hacking probe, intervened in Pakistani criminal matter” — displays her hypersensitivity to the case. In May 2017 she nervously threatenedCapitol Police for holding her laptop in connection with the case.

Awan and his wife have been charged with bank fraud unrelated to the apparent IT breaches of electronic data held by House Democrats. Miniter summarizes the wrongdoing in which the Awans have been implicated and reports that Awan and wife “now appear poised to strike a plea deal with the Department of Justice. A plea agreement hearing is set for July 3 before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington, Fox News reported Wednesday.”

A plea on the unrelated bank charges might involve an agreement to cooperate in the investigation of the data breaches. However, Miniter provides no facts to support the excitement he conveys in the column. We will have to keep an eye on the long awaited, frequently postponed plea hearing scheduled before the July 4 holiday.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/it-scandal-set-to-explode-or-not.php

Hillary’s Bill Stars Lying Again!

Finger-Wagging Bill: ‘I Do Not’ Owe Monica Lewinsky An Apology (Update: ‘Sleazy Obfuscation’)

Bill Clinton’s book tour with author James Patterson keeps getting interrupted by awkward questions which the former president appears ill-prepared to answer. The Today show spent about 10 minutes asking Clinton about the #MeToo movement. During the exchange, Clinton first said he had apologized to Monica Lewinsky and then said he hadn’t spoken to her and didn’t believe he owed her an apology.

“I asked if you’d ever apologized and you said you had,” NBC News’ Craig Melvin said.

“I have,” Clinton said adding, “I apologized to everybody in the world.”

“But you didn’t apologize to her,” Melvin asked.

“I haven’t talked to her,” Clinton said.

“Do you feel that you owe her an apology?” Melvin asked.

“No…I do…I, I do not…I have never talked to her, but I did say publicly on more than one occasion that I was sorry,” Clinton fumbled. “That’s very different,” Clinton added with a big grin. “The apology was public.”

“And you don’t think a private apology was owed?” Melvin asked.

At that point, James Patterson stepped in to defend the former president, “I think this thing has been—It’s 20 years ago. Come on. Let’s talk about JFK. Let’s talk about LBJ. Stop already.”

Clinton doesn’t appear to have an ounce of genuine remorse. He is grinning and wagging his finger throughout this interview. He brings up twice that two-thirds of Americans were with him after impeachment as if that proves he was right.

When Melvin first asked if he’d apologized to Lewinsky, Clinton replied, “I felt terrible then. And I came to grips with it.” He continued, “Nobody thinks that I got out of that for free. I left the White House 16 million dollars in debt. But you, typically, have ignored gaping facts in describing this and I bet you don’t even know them. This was litigated 20 years ago, two-thirds of the American people sided with me. They were not insensitive to that.

“I had a sexual harassment policy when I was governor in the 80s. I had two women chiefs of staff when I was governor. Women were overrepresented in the attorney general’s office in the 70s, for their percentage of the bar. I’ve had nothing but women leaders in my office since I left. You are giving one side and omitting facts.”

I’m not sure what facts Clinton thinks were omitted but I can think of one big fact that never got mentioned:

It’s an entirely fair question. CNN and other networks are happy to devote hours a day to Stormy Daniels but Juanita Broaddrick’s credible allegations of rape never come up. Bill Clinton can still go on a book tour without fear of being asked about the darkest chapter of his personal history. Why is that?

one big fact that never got mentioned:

Juanita Broaddrick@atensnut

WHY Doesn’t any reporter have the guts to ask about Bill Clinton about the sexual assaults and rape???….Monica was Consensual!!! https://twitter.com/todayshow/status/1003596488642125824 

It’s an entirely fair question. CNN and other networks are happy to devote hours a day to Stormy Daniels but Juanita Broaddrick’s credible allegations of rape never come up. Bill Clinton can still go on a book tour without fear of being asked about the darkest chapter of his personal history. Why is that?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/04/bill-clinton-not-owe-monica-lewinsky-apology/