• 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

FakeNews FBI’s “Last Honest Man”, James Comey



by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

Byron York describes the fall of James Comey. Byron notes that Comey, who presents himself as the Last Honest Man, is now under investigation for possibly mishandling classified and confidential information in his apparently all-consuming desire to get Trump.

The view of Comey as the Last Honest Man was widely shared by mainstream media and among liberals after he faced down top representatives of the Bush administration in thatdramatic encounter at the hospital bed of then-Attorney General Ashcroft. And during the 1990s the view of Comey as a man of integrity, though not the last such man, was almost universal.

I’m not sure when Comey lost the plot, but I suspect the Ashcroft incident was a factor. The adulation he received from the media may have gone to his head.

I give Comey credit, though, for preventing the complete whitewashing of Hillary Clinton’s email-related misdeeds. If, as Andy McCarthy and others plausibly contend, the fix was in on the Hillary investigation from the moment President Obama opined that she was innocent, then Comey’s detailed public discussion of her case provided a huge public service.

Instead of walking away from the scandal unscathed, the result Obama and Loretta Lynch desired, Hillary’s misconduct was laid bare by the director of the FBI. He partially foiled his bosses, and did so knowingly, just as he foiled President Bush and would later partially foil President Trump.

Did Comey believe Hillary committed no crime? I don’t know. In my view, his argument that she was legally innocent is unpersuasive, but not frivolous. Comey might well have believed it, or at least managed to have half convinced himself of its validity.

But the key point is that he pulled rank on the partisan attorney general in order to inform the public that Hillary was skating on something like a technicality, not because she was innocent in any strong sense.

But for his enormous ego, fueled by the Ashcroft incident, I doubt Comey would have attempted this end-run. Thus, Comey’s status as a legend in his own mind served the public good, at least in this instance.



Venezuela and The Eternal Collapse of the Socialist State

“Socialism is that fascist  state of government in which all sexes of the population are uniformly programmed to be equally feminized to be taken care of by  circles of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, the New York Times, and Washington Post superiors.”  ghr


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

We have chronicled the accelerating destruction of Venezuela, once one of the world’s more prosperous countries, by socialism. The most recent news from that country is chilling:

* According to Gallup, Venezuela is now the least safe place the world, having tumbled below Afghanistan in the rankings. Only 17% of Venezuelans say they feel safe walking alone at night.

* Polio has re-emerged in Venezuela, 30 years after it was declared extinct there. The country’s health care system is verging on non-existent, as hospitals not only have run out of medicines, in some instances they don’t even have running water.

* Venezuela is said to have more proven oil reserves than any other country, but its socialist government can’t keep the petroleum flowing, as pretty much everyone who is competent enough to do so has left the country. As a result, Venezuela’s oil exports are heading toward zero.

* Having frustrated the creation of wealth, Venezuela’s socialists have done what they thought was the next best thing–they created a lot of currency. With an inflation rate now at 24,600%, that currency is essentially worthless. So scavenging for food in dumpsters is more profitable than working for useless bolivars.

* How can Venezuela’s socialist government possibly stay in power in the midst of such disaster? The headlines give us a clue: Accounts of brutal torture further isolate Venezuela.Also, Held Incommunicado for Tweeting in Venezuela.

Most American news outlets treat the fact that Venezuela has suffered under socialism for decades as a coincidence, but still–you would think that no news organization would try to sugar-coat the horrible reality of that country. But you would be wrong. One news outlet, Havana’s Prensa Latina, is carrying on as though the socialist paradise is just around the corner: Venezuela Investing More in Public Health.

The Venezuelan government is increasingly investing in the public health system with rehabilitating Integral Diagnostic Centers (CDI), opening 303 operating rooms and activating governmental pharmaceutical laboratories.

Despite the economic and financial blockade imposed by the U.S. government, the European Union and Washington regional allies, the Ministry of Health of Venezuela restored 38 of 48 CDI, Health Minister Luis Lopez said.

Prensa Latina is reporting from a galaxy far, far away. The galaxy where, any day now, when the wreckers and saboteurs have finally been exterminated, socialism will work.



Queer People Fail in Driving Cake Baker out of Business in the Name of Queer People! Where’s the NY Times Mob?

After Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the Constitution

by Jennifer Finney Boylan  at the New York Times:


The Supreme Court has ruled on the Masterpiece Cake case — and on the surface, it would appear to be a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. The justices ruled 7 to 2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the religious freedom of a baker, Jack Phillips, when it sanctioned him for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

In spite of this, the ruling is relatively narrow. “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

In other words, while Masterpiece is a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. people, the question of how to balance religious freedom with the rights of queer people remains unresolved, and will most likely continue to be explored and debated in the future, and by the Supreme Court not least.


And this, more than the case itself, is the greater loss for L.G.B.T.Q. people. We lose when our rights are considered debatable. Even if the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously against the baker, in fact, L.G.B.T.Q. Americans would still be considered second-class citizens in many aspects of civic life.

We can still be legally fired or denied housing in 28 states. More than 300 anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills have been introduced in the states in the past three years. In Oklahoma, gay and lesbian couples can be denied the ability to adopt children.

Masterpiece wouldn’t have changed any of that, just as Obergefell v. Hodges didn’t change any of that, just as rescinding the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy didn’t.

The only thing that will truly enshrine equal protection under the law for all Americans, including L.G.B.T.Q. people, is an amendment to the Constitution.

Call it the Dignity Amendment. The text might read: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.” It’s the brainchild of Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and chief executive of Glaad (where I served as co-chairwoman of the board of directors for four years).


The Dignity Amendment would guarantee that L.G.B.T.Q. Americans are treated like all other Americans. It would send the message that we are part of the fabric of this nation. It would guarantee that our rights as taxpayers and as participants in the civic life of the country cannot be abridged because of our private lives.

It would make it clear, once and for all, that the “We” in “We the people” includes everybody.

What would it not do? It would not turn you gay. It would not demand that bathrooms be coed. It would not elide the differences between men and women. It would not eliminate child support. It would not force states to pay for abortion.

If some of these fears sound familiar (if ridiculous), it’s because they’re among the canards that conservatives have inflicted upon us regarding the still-unratified Equal Rights Amendment over the past 40-plus years. And yet, in spite of this barrage of misinformation, the E.R.A. — once given up for dead after it stalled three states short of ratification in 1977 — has continued to make progress. Last year, Nevada ratified it. Last month, Illinois did the same. That leaves one more state to go — although the most recent time limit on the amendment expired in 1982. If the E.R.A. were to pass one more state, a legal showdown would ensue. (And not without good reason: The E.R.A. was unique in having a time limit imposed. The 27th Amendment, in fact, was passed after Michigan ratified it in 1992, over 200 years after James Madison proposed it.)

Those of us in L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy have watched with interest as the E.R.A., presumed dead, has been revivified by a changing culture. The #MeToo movement is part of it. The president is surely another. Critics can say that prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex is already settled law, addressed by, among other statutes, the 14th Amendment. But plenty of women look at Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump, and wonder, fairly enough, how we can be considered equals in this country when men like this hold sway over our lives.

L.G.B.T.Q. people would be helped by the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, to be sure, just as we would be helped by the passage of the Equality Act, a proposed addendum to the 1964 Civil Rights Act that provides explicit protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

But neither of these provides the kind of explicit and incontrovertible affirmation that the Dignity Amendment would enshrine. Some things demand the most dramatic and historic actions. I suggest that setting the humanity of L.G.B.T.Q. Americans into stone requires nothing less.

Americans look back on their short history sometimes with wonder and dismay. How is it possible that the authors of our Constitution, so brilliant in so many ways, were also capable of counting a black inhabitant of the country as only three-fifths of a person? Was it really just over 150 years ago that we fought a war on the question of slavery? Was it really less than 100 years ago that women got the right to vote?

I believe that future generations will look back at our reluctance to provide equal protection under the law for queer Americans with a similar sense of astonishment. It won’t take long, either; 20 percent of millennials, according to a Glaad study, identify as L.G.B.T.Q., and 63 percent consider themselves straight allies. The day is coming when to describe yourself as queer in this country will be considered just one more way to be an American. It will be unexceptional, just as it always ought to have been.

In the meantime, Masterpiece is a defeat — a qualified defeat, to be sure, and a defeat that may well be revisited. But a bigger defeat is having to have one’s rights as a citizen challenged, discussed and put forth for debate in the first place. This is not just a matter of dignity. It’s a matter of common sense. We turn to the Constitution for deliverance, and for justice.

Islams Fascistic Judge’s Invasions, AD 2018 Britain

The Suicide of Europe

by Ben Shapiro at realclearpolitics:

On Friday, the British police arrested Tommy Robinson, founder and former leader of the English Defence League, a far-right anti-Islam group. Robinson is a controversial character, to be sure, a sort of Milo Yiannopoulos lite. His chief focus is on the threat of radical Islam, which he believes threatens the integrity of the British system.

You don’t have to like Robinson. But whatever you think of him, his arrest is absurd by any measure. You see, Robinson was arrested for standing outside a court building and reporting on a trial involving the alleged grooming of young girls for sexual assault by radical Muslims.

Now, what would be illegal about that, you ask? It turns out that Robinson was given a suspended sentence last year for filming outside another court building, where a trial for alleged gang rape by radical Muslims was taking place. He wasn’t inside the courtroom. Nonetheless, the judge believed he was somehow biasing the jurors. According to the judge, Robinson was sentenced thanks to “pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting … that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial.”

This time, Robinson was again arrested for prejudicing a case, only he wasn’t inside the court building. He was outside. And the media were originally banned from reporting on his arrest so that his trial wouldn’t be biased. In other words, Britain has now effectively banned reporting that actually mentions the Islamic nature of criminal defendants for fear of stirring up bigotry — and has banned reporting on reporting on such defendants. It’s an infinite regress of suicidal political correctness.

But at least the Europeans have their priorities straight: While it’s perfectly legal to lock up a provocateur covering a trial involving Muslims, the European Union is now considering a ban on products like cotton buds, straws and other plastics for fear of marine litter. And just as importantly, it’s now perfectly legal to kill unborn children again in Ireland, where voters — with the help of a cheering press — decided to lift the ban on abortions until the 20th week, condemning thousands of children to death.

This is how the West dies: with a tut-tut, not with a bang. The same civilization that sees it as a fundamental right to kill a child in the womb thinks it is utterly out of bounds to film outside a trial involving the abuse of children, so long as the defendants are radical Muslims. The Europeans have elevated the right to not be offended above the right to life; they’ve elevated the right to not be offended above the right to free speech, all in the name of some utopian vision of a society without standards.

Discarding those standards was supposed to make Europeans more free; it was supposed to allow Europeans to feel more comfortable. But the sad truth is that no society exists without certain standards and Europe has a new standard: enforcement of its “tolerance” via jail sentence, combined with tolerance of multiculturalism that sees tolerance itself as a Trojan horse. The notion of individual rights sprang from European soil. Now they’re beginning to die there.


Tommy Robinson “Young Upstart”

Nearly the entire continent of Europe is being overwhelmed by an invasion of extremist Islamists devoted destroy whatever democracy still remains in the continent by using democratic institutions to intimidate and defeat the native populations, too frightened and complacent to defend themselves.   Politicians are either bought off, too frightened, or too ignorant to contend.

In the United Kingdom Tommy Robinson, a young ‘upstart’ from the laboring class has been rallying his troups to defend the nation from the invaders from  16th Century Islam.    Establishment England, both Labor and Conservative view him as trash in much the same way Establishment America, particularly the LEFT, but also some conservatives depict Sarah Palin.

The following article was printed February 17, 2011 at the Gates of Vienna:


EFI logo“Ten Questions” is a initiative launched by the Dutch Defence League and the Amsterdam Post. Periodically readers and members are given the opportunity to ask questions of certain people who are active in the front line against the Islamisation of their country or the threat of sharia law. This initiative was designed to give the people of Holland a better insight into these people or the organizations they represent.

The answers are published on several websites in Holland, Germany, and the rest of the world (ICLA, Amsterdam Post, Gates of Vienna). Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the first one, Tommy Robinson the second.

1. G. Deckzijl:

How big is the support for the EDL in the UK, and is anti-Islam resistance growing in the UK?

We’ve been holding demonstrations in cities all over England, and each time we manage to attract thousands of supporters. We’re doing well, but we’re still growing. We’ve got a new website, we’re making new alliances, we’re being taken more seriously by the press, and last week, just before the EDL returned to where it all began — my hometown of Luton — the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave a speech that echoed a number of the things that we’ve been saying. We started as a small band of people protesting against the treatment of the Royal Anglian Regiment by Muslim extremists, and now we’re looking at upwards of 75,000 supporters.

So resistance is definitely growing, but we’re still getting some unfounded criticisms. For instance, I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re simply ‘anti-Islam’ — we’re opposed to the terrible things that Islam has brought with it — the support for terrorism, the oppression of women, the intolerance of other religions and other lifestyles, the self-imposed isolation and rejection of the most basic British values. Islam’s got to be held accountable, it’s got to change — but above all else, it’s these things that we need to fight against.

Groups like ours are really only called ‘anti-Islam’ because people are either too scared to criticise Islam, or they don’t realise that there are many good reasons for these criticisms. People have been purposefully kept in the dark by the politicians, by the media, and by those who want to convince us that Islam is simply the religion of peace. Now we’re being told that critics of Islam are all ‘Islamophobes’ (as if we’re all suffering from some kind of mental disorder!) — our opponents really are getting desperate.

What we do believe in is freedom, democracy and individual rights. And we believe that British culture is pretty good at celebrating these things. If we’re to properly resist the threat posed by Islam then we’ve got to convince people that being ‘anti-Islam’ means not being afraid to make important criticisms — it doesn’t mean being ‘far right’, it doesn’t mean being an ‘extremist’ — it means recognising the problems and not being afraid to talk about them — it means doing your bit to defend your country and its ideals.

I’d judge our success by how willing people are to actually talk about Islam — how much they’re willing to challenge it. The more people realise that the media and the government have been covering up the problems, the more they’ll look to the EDL to help voice their concerns — and the more supporters we have, the easier it’ll be to make the politicians listen. Things are getting better, but there’s still a long way to go.

2. Ingrid, Wachters, Fummifan, Frans Groenendijk:

The EDL has had a lot of negative publicity in the press. They were associated with neo-Nazis and football hooligans, who are suspected of joining the EDL just to cause trouble and give the EDL a bad name. Is there any truth in it, and did the EDL succeed in distancing itself from Nazi sympathizers, and what does the EDL do to improve its reputation? For example: were you able to convince Maryam Namazie (onelawforall.org) of your distance from the BNP?

I don’t like that we’re constantly being asked to convince people that we’re not Nazis, hooligans, or members of the BNP. I’d prefer it if people looked at what we’re saying, and asked themselves whether it’s compatible with the views of any of those groups. Last week in Luton I made clear that we’re not at all interested in race, and that I’d rather stand with one proud black patriot that a thousand scumbag racists. Why would I say that if it wasn’t true? I don’t say one thing to journalists and another to our supporters — I’m very open about my views, and we’ve published a mission statement on our website, for anyone who’s still unclear.

Yes, people have tried to use the EDL to cause trouble — but we always deal with them swiftly. At our local meets, the division leaders are constantly working to educate new members as to what we’re all about, and to make sure that people aren’t joining up for the wrong reasons. We’ve also introduced stewards at our demonstrations to help identify and remove troublemakers.

We want to have an open membership policy — to let anyone join, whatever their background, whatever their political beliefs, whatever their skin colour, whatever their religion — so that means that it’s important that anyone wanting to join does understanding what we do and do not stand for. Back in the early days we were filmed burning a swastika — we thought we’d made it pretty clear then — both to our opponents, and to our potential supporters. The EDL is about opposition to a dangerous form of Islam, and the protection of our country. That’s it.

The people that still call us all those kinds of things (racists, fascists, etc) are actually the ones that are guilty of the sort of prejudice that they’re accusing us of. We don’t demand that every Muslim convince us that they’re not an extremist — so people shouldn’t make similar demands of us. Maryam Namazie is an Iranian Communist — but we don’t ask her to prove that she’s not some kind of dangerous Stalinist. So, I don’t know if we’ve managed to convince Maryam that we’re not connected to the BNP — she should be able to work it out for herself.

3. G. Deckzeijl, Veteraan:

Is it possible to stop this Jihad talk by hard cold facts? Why for example are the black Jihad flags not forbidden?

Facts are of course important, and we’re doing all we can to tell people things we feel they need to know, as well as encouraging them to find out about Islam for themselves. But it’s difficult to convince people of things when the media will immediately find a so-called ‘moderate Muslim’ who will tell everyone that we’ve just misunderstood the issue, that Islam is the religion of peace, and that it’s us who are being offensive.

We have plenty of facts, but the constant message from the media and the government is that we don’t understand them.

What this means is that although we hear about crimes where Islam has played a part almost every day, many people still refuse to accept that there is any connection at all. It’s almost as if it’s too obvious, that if the connection was real then the government would be doing something about it. People take the government’s silence to mean that there’s not really a problem — not that the government has no idea how to deal with it.

The black Jihad flags aren’t forbidden because so few people actually recognise what they are, and because so many people would happily pretend that there aren’t all these problems with Islam.

4. DSV:

In Europe, we see various counter jihad movements popping up: next to the EDL and its affiliates in other countries, there is SIOE, the Paris Manifesto movement, Geert Wilders planning to go international, political parties like Die Freiheit in Germany and a plethora of anti-Islam(ist) blogs.

Do you see any movement towards a pan-European umbrella organization, which would be strong enough to influence (or counter) national or European legislation, with respect to the ongoing Islamisation of Europe? Does the EDL work towards establishing such a movement? In relation to this: Which are the preferred partners of the EDL, both in Europe and elsewhere? Whose views do you most identify with?

We recognise that radical Islam is a global problem, but we’re mainly concerned with doing what we can in this country — as are the other defence leagues, and similar organisations, in their respective countries. The more successful we become, the more we’ll be able to help our foreign allies.

That said, we are proud to be members of the European Freedom Initiative (EFI), a group whose member organisations fight to preserve freedom of speech, and who oppose the spread of Islamism and Sharia law.

As for whose views we most identify with, that’s difficult, because it’s not like we’re a political party — there are lots of different views already within the EDL. As long as other groups believe in the values that we do — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, support for democracy, equal rights for women — and share our belief in the need to criticise and expose militant Islam, then they’re welcome to become part of our growing network.

Our friends in the EFI certainly share with us a number of key concerns and beliefs, and we look forward to working with them more in the future.

5. Veteraan DDL:

Is there going to be an umbrella organization for the different Defence Leagues that are forming?

It’s difficult to say exactly what’s going to happen in the future. We are seeing defence leagues, loosely based on the EDL model, cropping up all over the world. We’re proud to have inspired these people, but at the moment we don’t think there would be much point in creating any new umbrella organisation. We’re in regular contact with most of these groups, and we look forward to supporting each other’s efforts.

6. Frans Groenendijk:

What is your relation to UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and vice versa? The UKIP is not anti-Islam. Is the EDL planning to start a political party in the future?

We have no plans to become, or to found, a political party. But we cannot discount the possibility of having to adopt a more political stance if our politicians continue to fail the British public. We are working to defend principles that are more important that party politics. Radical Islam isn’t just a threat to certain types of political parties; it’s a threat to the whole system of liberal democracy, because it wants to replace our laws and our politics with Sharia Law.

That’s one of the reasons why we’re such a diverse organisation — we have supporters with all different kinds of political views (it’s also one of the reasons why it’s ridiculous to call us ‘far right’). We want to pressure all politicians of all parties to start addressing the issues, to stand up for freedom of speech, and to make clear that they will not ignore the threat posed by radical Islam.

At the end of the day, we’d only enter politics if we were forced to by inaction — if none of the political parties listened to us. But I believe that we have the momentum — the growing support — to make sure that they will.

We’ve received quiet words of support from all of the main political parties in the UK, but have yet to agree a constructive working relationship with any of them. We do not wish to be party political, but we are more than willing to cooperate with those with whom we find common ground (be they political parties or other organisations). We would hope that the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition would begin to take seriously our concerns, because a clear and consistent message from government that acknowledged the extent of the problems we face, and which demonstrated a sincere commitment to overcoming them, would do a lot to reassure the people of Britain.

David Cameron does seem to be making some positive steps — but he’s got a long way to go to prove that he’s really on our side.

7. G. Deckzeijl, Templar NL:

Is the EDL aware of the meaning and existence of Taqiyya and Tafsir? Do you think that a moderate Islam exists, or is that part of their strategy?

Yes, we’re aware of the terms. Taqiyya is lying to protect or advance Islam — it’s a common tactic of Muslim organisations that pretend to be interested in building bridges between communities, when they’re only really interested in looking after their own interests, or which want to hide their real intentions. We should also mention Kitman: the strategy of pretending to accept the laws and beliefs of your enemy, whilst all the while plotting against them and looking to undermine them — a strategy very familiar to those who would push for Sharia in the UK.

Tafsir is the study and interpretation of the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah by scholars of Islam. It’s something that has so-far failed to produce a convincing blueprint for peace between Islam and ‘the West’.

We don’t always think that it’s helpful to divide Muslims into ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals’. Whilst there is some truth to it, we’re talking about people — who are rarely simple. I think it’s better to say that what we call ‘radical Islam’ is far more influential and widespread than most people realise. In some towns and cities, even in Britain, it threatens to dominate the local Muslim population.

Obviously some radicals do realise that it’s a good idea to appear to be moderates (and we’ve seen reports from organisations like the Quilliam Foundation that show that many supposed moderate Muslim organisations are actually infested with dangerous radicals). But I don’t think you can take that as evidence that there aren’t plenty of decent Muslims who love this country and are genuinely ashamed that others hold such intolerant views.

However, there are many opinion poll results out there that suggest that these people may actually be a minority. Regardless of the exact numbers, I think it’s undeniable that radical Islam is far too influential a force in Britain — and serious questions need to be asked if we’re to work out how to deal with it. Why, for instance, does tafsir continue to help justify the actions of the radicals and extremists rather than supporting the growth of so-called ‘moderate Islam’?

8. rias politica:

What are the possibilities of achieving a formal prohibition of the Sharia courts in GB?

We believe that it would be possible to attempt legal challenges against judgements handed down by Sharia court, but ultimately our success would rest on the political will needed to combat these courts. Judges can only operate within the law, and subject to the common consensus — and I don’t think they’ve had enough run-ins with Sharia courts to consider them a serious threat as yet.

If we’re going to prevent things from getting that far, then we need to educate people about the role Sharia courts play in undermining our laws, perpetuating intolerant and oppressive behaviours, and helping to keep the Muslim population segregated from the rest of society. Only the government is in a position to outlaw Sharia courts, and that won’t happen until we’ve won a lot more arguments.

9. DutchViking, Templar:

Will the government ever wake up before it’s too late? Do you think that politicians in GB and Europe will come to their senses and listen to groups like the EDL, or will it have to come entirely from the people?

I think they’ll listen, even if they never admit that we played an important role in convincing them that something must be done. As I mentioned earlier, David Cameron’s said some things recently that do give us hope. But even though he’s started echoing what we’ve been saying, he’d never acknowledge that he’s responding to the pressure that we’ve been putting on him. Instead, he’ll pretend that we hold extreme views — that we’re part of the ‘far right’ — even if he does come round to agreeing with exactly what we’ve been saying.

There’s still a lot of resistance to criticism of Islam. There are still a lot of people that think we need things like ‘multiculturalism’ because we should still feel guilty about the British Empire — so they hate anyone who isn’t ashamed of this country. The more people reject that view — whether they support the EDL or not — the better position we’ll be in.

10. Nederlander:

How far is the EDL prepared to go in the fight against Islamisation?

We may need to change tactics at some point along the way, but we shall always remain peaceful — anything else would be counterproductive. We believe in the need to defend certain rights and freedoms from the threat posed by certain forms of Islam, and we’d never do anything to undermine those very same rights and freedoms.

Exactly what needs to be done to turn the tide of Islamisation depends largely on Islam itself — on its ability to reform, adapt and conform to Western culture, laws, politics and respect for human rights. Of course, it also depends on the willingness and strength of conviction of individual Muslims to be part of this process.

11th Bonus Question:

What can the people in The Netherlands and on the rest of the continent do to support you?

You should focus on what you can do in your own countries. We’d love to see you at our demonstrations, and would hope to lend you our support when we can. But what we’d really like to see would be you having your own successes, inspiring us to continue doing what we do, and setting an example of what can be achieved. In The Netherlands you have Geert Wilders — a politician unlike most of the others — who is committed seriously addressing the root cause of the problems of Islamic extremism. In The Netherlands you have the potential to achieve a great deal, and to be an example to the rest of the world. Best of luck to you all, and thank you!

Comment:   How refreshing  Tommy Robinson is to me.   I am used to hearing the American political world led by Marxist progagandist, Barack Hussein Obama, who says so many words so often in so many speeches that don’t amount to anything because nothing he says means today what it meant yesterday or an hour ago.
Tommy Robinsons caries  a core as a base for his beliefs.  As young as he is, he is actually an adult.   He has not taken eloqution lessons, thinking lessons, writing lessons, television appearance lessons, coiffure lessons and so on from advisors.   Tommy Robinson has the special advantage of knowing something he dearly believes in and can articulate it extremely well without fumbling, because of that wonderful core of belief.
Unlike the quicksand of so many American politicians, Mr. Robinson is a rock of Gibraltar.  I’m proud he is on my side.

Wikipedia on the English Defence League

Association with violence and anti-social behaviour

The English Defence League protest in Newcastle, England

“The group states that its aim is to demonstrate peacefully in English towns and cities,[14] but conflicts with Unite Against Fascism (UAF), local opposition and other opponents have led to street violence, anti-social behaviour and arrests. A proposed march in Luton in September 2009 was banned by the police, citing a threat to public safety.[74] There is normally heavy policing of these demonstrations, due to the likelihood of violence. The cost of policing these demonstrations has ranged from £300,000[45] to £1 million.[39] Journalists that have covered EDL marches have received death threats,[75] for instance journalist Jason N. Parkinson from The Guardian wrote about receiving a death threat by email from someone he described as an EDL organiser, as well as death threats sent to Marc Vallée, a fellow journalist.[76] The National Union of Journalists also released a statement about journalists who had been intimidated after covering EDL demonstrations.[75]

Four specialist national police units involved in policing hooliganism, extreme violence, and terrorism are investigating the EDL.[15] After their second demonstration in Birmingham Assistant Chief Constable Sharon Rowe of West Midlands Police: “Really, there was no intent to protest. I think they knew that the community was very much against them coming to the city, which…potentially would generate violence”.[33] Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that “There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence”.[77] During the Manchester city centre demonstration Mat Trewern, from BBC Radio Manchester reported that “At one point, earlier on, when it became extremely tense, members of the UAF tried to break the police line between the two groups” Greater Manchester Police confirmed a man, believed to be heading to the protest, had earlier been arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of distributing racially aggravated material.[78] One week later, at a Welsh Defence League demonstration, supporters burnt an anti-Nazi flag and made Nazi salutes.[79]

On January 2010 in Stoke-on-Trent, there was trouble as EDL members broke through police lines, four police officers were injured and police vehicles were damaged. The BBC’s Matt Cooke said there had been few problems with the Unite Against Fascism demonstration.[41]

In March 2010 in Bolton, 74 people were arrested in the demonstrations; at least 55 of the arrested were from the UAF and nine from the EDL.[44][46][47][80] Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism was arrested and charged with conspiracy to organise violent disorder,[81] Martin Smith, of Love Music Hate Racism and Dr Moran, joint secretary of Greater Manchester UAF were among those arrested on conspiracy charges.[82] Police said that UAF protesters were responsible for most of the trouble and that they had turned up intending to cause trouble saying “It is clear to me that a large number have attended with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable.”[83]

At their second Dudley protest, on 17 July 2010, there was widespread damage to local property, the local council estimated the bill to be over £500,000.[53] On 11 September 2010, police in Oldham received an advance call from the EDL. Around mid-day approximately 120 supporters had descended on the town. A separate mob of around 50 members attacked a police car with bottles. There were 8 arrests for public order offences.[59][60]

On 9 October 2010, a police officer and several civilians were injured during protests by the English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism in Leicester. A Sky News van was attacked by members of the English Defence League[84] who had earlier thrown fireworks, smokebombs and bricks at police[85] and smashed windows of the city’s International Arts Centre.[86] There were also clashes between EDL supporters and local black and asian youths as a group broke out of the EDL protest site at Humberstone Gate East and engaged with the locals. Riot police fought to maintain control over the sporadic fighting that ensued.[87] Thirteen people were arrested, one on suspicion of assaulting a police officer,[88]only one was from the city of Leicester[61] and the cost of policing the demonstration was put at £850,000.[89]

In February 2011, prior to an EDL march in Luton, national British newspapers ran headlines with expectations of violence.[90] The march, which was held on 5 February 2011, was concluded without major incident.[91]

Views and reactions

The British press describes the EDL as far-right.[92][93][94][95][96]

Nick Lowles, the editor of anti-racist magazine Searchlight says the EDL poses two risks. One is the formation of a street army prepared to travel around the country to fight and provide organisational support. The other is the group’s tactics of carrying placards and chanting in places that are potential flashpoints. Searchlight added that not every leader of the EDL is a fascist or hardcore racist.[15] Meanwhile, on the BBC’s sunday morning Andrew Marr show on December 13, 2010, Liberty director Shami Chakrabartidescribed the EDL as “modern day blackshirts”.[97] The creation of an EDL “Jewish division” in June 2010 was condemned by various different Jewish Groups.[98][99][100]

Jon Cruddas, writing in The Guardian, describes the EDL as “a dangerous cocktail of football hooligans, far-right activists and pub racists…a bigger threat than the BNP…providing a new white nationalist identity through which they can understand an increasingly complex and alienating world. In a similar way to how football hooligans once coalesced around support for Ulster loyalism and hatred of the IRA, the followers of the EDL genuinely believe they are “defending” their Britain against the threat of Islam. What makes the EDL much more dangerous is how it reflects a wider political and cultural war.”[101]

The EDL’s leaders say they are opposed to racism and say that the EDL it is “keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices”[citation needed]. Trevor Kelway, a spokesman for the EDL, has denied that the group is racist. He said he had taken over as spokesman because the previous spokesman was Islamophobic. “We would march alongside Muslims and Jews who are against militant Islam,” he said. “There were none on Saturday and an all-white group doesn’t look good. But they can join the EDL as long as they accept an English way of life. It is the people who threaten with bombs and violence and threaten and bomb our troops – they don’t belong here.”[10][102]


British Prime Minister David Cameron stated in the 2010 election campaign, “The EDL are terrible people, we would always keep these groups under review and if we needed to ban them, we would ban them or any groups which incite hatred.”[103] Former Home Office secretary Phil Woolas stated of the organisation’s tactics “This is a deliberate attempt by the EDL at division and provocation, to try and push young Muslims into the hands of extremists, in order to perpetuate the divide. It is dangerous.”[104] John Denham, the then UK Communities Secretary, has condemned the EDL, saying its tactics are similar to those of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, although he stressed that they did not present anything like the same “potency, organisation or threat”. He was commenting after clashes between different groups at a new London mosque, during a demo by the group Stop the Islamification of Europe. He singled out the EDL in particular: “If you look at the types of demonstrations they have organised, the language used and the targets chosen, it looks pretty clear that it’s a tactic designed to provoke, to get a response and create violence”.[105][106]

The leader of Dudley council, Anne Milward, stated after the second EDL demonstration in her city: “We are extremely saddened that Dudley has again been targeted by the English Defence League. Yet again this group of outside extremists have shown they are incapable of demonstrating peacefully and have brought public disorder and violence to our town.”[51]

Academic analysis

Matthew Goodwin an academic who specialises in the study of far-right extremism has argued that the press are more sympathetic to the Islamophobia of the EDL than they were to the anti-Semitism of the National Front in the 1970s:

The reason why the EDL’s adoption of Islamophobia is particularly significant is that unlike the 1970s, when the National Front was embracing antisemitism, there are now sections of the media and the British establishment that are relatively sympathetic towards Islamophobia. It is not difficult to look through the media and find quite hostile views towards Islam and Muslims. That is fundamentally different to the 1970s, when very few newspapers or politicians were endorsing the NF’s antisemitic message.[107]

International activities and support

American talk radio host Michael Savage became the first popular media figure to publicly announce support for the EDL, stating, “How does England take the Islamofascists spitting on their war dead, without letting the English Defence League wade into them with pipes and beer bottles, I’ll never understand”.[108] Erick Stakelbeck, a terrorism analyst and commentator for Pat Robertson‘s Christian Broadcasting Network, also expressed support for the EDL and compared it to the American Tea Party movement.[109]

The EDL is reported to be developing links with anti-islamic elements within the Tea Party movement, through individuals associated with the Ground Zero Mosquecontroversy.[110]

In October, 2010, Rabbi Nachum Shifren traveled to England to speak at a rally. In his speech, he called Muslims “dogs” and told the EDL that “History will be recorded that on this day, read by our children for eternity, one group lit the spark to liberate us from the oppressors of our two governments and the leftist, fifth column, quisling press, and that it was the EDL which started the liberation of England from evil.”[111]

Jewish Defense League has held a demonstration in support of the EDL,[112] the JDL saying that the two groups alliance will “take a stand against the forces of political Islam”. The Canadian Jewish congress has opposed the alliance. Please click here for a video of the EDL leader, Tommy Robinson:      

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSyw0tpVGN4Comment:   The above is how the Establishment Left in America describes how the Establishment LEFT in the UK views the English Defence League.  I no longer spend time in the United Kingdom, but I have spent almost a year of my life in that beautiful, once proud, once quite democratic nation until the arrivial of militant Islam.  

From the distance of my tiny office from London’s wars of modern English Succession, I believe that the present leader of the English Defence League, through his native intelligence, love for his England, and probably encouraged by the spark of success he has experienced leading this group of lower class language, has guided the League into a proud and honorable  Save England force against the disharmony that is inherent with aggressive Islam today.   There is NOTHING peaceful about this swarm of fanatics who use the mosque as the center of fascism which would have  made Hitler overwhelmed with jealousy.    Not only that but few in the three major Brit political parties can be trusted to defend the homeland when Arab money is so readily available.

Please Help the Freedom World Defeat the Online Fascists Who Disrupt Prager University America!

Help us fight back against online censorship and continue to reach more people with our ideas.

Please click below for Prager request for your help to stop the online fascism drive to ban conservative sharing of knowledge and decency:


Democrats on a Venezuela Program for Our America? Fascists are Fascists Regardless of Geography!


by John Hinderaker at  PowerLine:

An election is going on in Venezuela. In a country where there are no more pets and children join gangs to fight over dumpster refuse, while their parents battle for dead rats to eat for dinner, you would expect the incumbent party to lose a free election. But Nicolas Maduro will no doubt be re-elected, in part because the polls are being boycotted by most of his opponents. So Venezuela’s socialist catastrophe will most likely continue, for now. The Associated Press reports:

Sunday’s election has drawn broad criticism since some of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s most-popular rivals were barred from running, and several more were forced into exile.

There were a lot of other irregularities, too, but barring your rivals from running is a tried-and-true path to a second term.

Here in the U.S, the Democratic Party tried a subtler approach. It hired Fusion GPS to fabricate smears against Donald Trump, and then leaked those smears to news outlets that it controls (i.e., nearly all of them) and used the smears to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. The Democrats also conveyed the Fusion GPS fantasies to high-ranking office-holders like Harry Reid, who used them to attack candidate Trump. But reporters were squeamish about running with the Fusion GPS story, which few actually believed, and, to the Democrats’ dismay, Trump won the election.

So the Democrats went into overdrive. Shortly before President-Elect Trump’s inauguration, Obama’s CIA and FBI leaders “briefed” Trump on the Fusion GPS dossier, which Trump naturally knew was an absurd pack of lies. No matter: that “intelligence briefing,” leaked to the press, opened the floodgates, and Democratic Party news outlets promptly went public with the contents of the false dossier, in an effort to disable President-Elect Trump’s nascent administration.

At the moment, the Democrats’ relatively subtle approach doesn’t appear to be working very well. Next time, perhaps, they won’t take any chances, and will go full Maduro.