• 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

President Trump: Future Belongs to PATRIOTS, NOT GLOBALISTS!!

President Trump’s Speech to the United Nations,  September 24, 2019

Trump says future belongs to “patriots,” not “globalists,” in U.N. General Assembly speech

President Trump’s third address to the United Nations General Assembly was an unmistakably nationalist one, with the president reiterating the theme of his foreign policy doctrine, that all nations should be looking inward and considering their own interests first.

In a sober, scripted speech Tuesday, he focused more on criticizing other nations that he believes treat the U.S. unfairly than on uniting nations around principles of democracy and humanity.

The president hit on each of his favorite themes — unfair trade, imbalanced defense spending, illegal immigration, and socialism — reading from the teleprompter in a somewhat subdued manner.

“The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots,” Mr. Trump said in one of the defining quotes of his more than 30-minute speech.

He singled out Iran for criticism, saying that the country deserves a government that cares about jobs for its people and for decreasing poverty. Mr. Trump said that after four decades of failure, it’s time for Iran’s leaders to stop threatening other countries and build up their own country.

But he followed up his critique with words of peace, stating that the U.S. is ready to embrace friendship with those who seek it, and it “has never believed in permanent enemies.”

“America knows that while anyone can make war, only the most courageous can seek peace,” he said.

His address came amid heightened instability in the Middle East, following the recent attack on Saudi oil facilities that the U.S. believes was carried out by Iran.

Mr. Trump also listed his complaints against China, including its “massive market barriers,” product dumping practices and forced technology transfers. He railed against the World Trade Organization for failing to compel China to liberalize its economy and called for “drastic change” to the international trade system. The second-largest economy in the world, he said, should not be allowed to declare itself a developing country at the expense of others.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-un-speech-future-belongs-to-patriots-not-globalists-united-nations-general-assembly-today/

The Shanksville Side of 9/11

The holy ground of Flight 93, one of 9/11’s enduring mysteries

We will never forget the lives lost on September 11th at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on United Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. USA TODAY

Though we do not know their full story, we know their sacrifice.

SHANKSVILLE, Pa. — As horrific as the 9/11 attacks were, they would have been even worse if not for a heroic group of everyday airline passengers whose remains rest here amid a common field of wildflowers and hemlock groves.

Eighteen years ago on Wednesday, radical Islamic terrorists, trained in Afghanistan as part of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network, hijacked four commercial jetliners and aimed them at the emblems of America’s financial and military might.

Two destroyed the twin towers of Manhattan’s World Trade Center. The third smashed into the Pentagon. And the fourth — United Airlines Flight 93 — crashed, upside down, at 563 miles per hour outside this small town, just 20 minutes flying time from the nation’s capital.

Lingering questions

What was the ultimate target of Flight 93? That remains one of the enduring mysteries of 9/11.

The authoritative 9/11 Commission report notes that the hijackers had turned the navigation to guide the Boeing 757 toward Washington. But the report is inconclusive about the final destination: The objective of Ziad Jarrah, the pilot among the hijackers, “was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House.”

Have we learned more since the report was issued?

“There is no new evidence so far as I am aware,” Chris Kojm, who served as the commission’s deputy director, tells me in an email. “Bin Laden wanted the hijackers to hit the White House. (Ringleader) Mohamed Atta was focused on the Capitol because it is an easy target to find. We really don’t know what Ziad Jarrah and Flight 93 planned to hit.”

In either case, the decision of the unarmed Flight 93 passengers to fight back against their hijackers spared many lives and prevented the even greater blow to America’s psyche that smashing a center of U.S. government would have brought.

To anyone who lived through 9/11, the story of Flight 93 is familiar. But a whole new generation has been born since 2001. The Flight 93 National Memorial serves as both a moving history lesson and a reminder of a time when America was more unified.

The memorial that enshrines the sacrifice of 40 people

The first thing you notice about the 2,200-acre site is how quiet it is. Four days before the 18th anniversary, gentle breezes turn the wind turbines in the distance. The mostly clear sky is reminiscent of the deep blue one on 9/11.

“You’re on holy ground. It’s goose bumps every time,” says Maryann Brett of nearby Johnstown, Pennsylvania, as she stands on the observation platform, looking out at the crash site and memorial plaza. “This is peaceful. … You can’t be divided when you are here.”

An exhibit inside the visitors’ center relates the story of Flight 93. It tells how the flight took off 25 minutes late because of air traffic delays in Newark, New Jersey. How the four hijackers, seated in first class, took control at 9:28 a.m. over eastern Ohio. How passengers used Airfones to contact loved ones and learned of the other attacks. How, in one heartbreaking recording, a passenger left the code to her safe on an answering machine. How an Airfone operator heard passenger Todd Beamer, who worked for Oracle, tell his fellow flyers, “Are you ready? OK. Let’s roll.”

And how, after a desperate struggle, at 10:03 a.m. Flight 93 came down, killing all 33 passengers and seven crew members.

“They made the ultimate sacrifice to help us,” says Craig Sutherly, a first-time visitor from Ada, Ohio, as he stands in front on the Wall of Names. Nearby, a 17-ton sandstone boulder marks the site of impact.

Here in the Laurel Highlands, politics and partisan bickering seem far away. You can’t help but wonder what might have been if not for the courageous actions of the Americans aboard Flight 93. You can’t help but yearn for the sense of unity that fleetingly brought the nation together after the 9/11 attacks.

And you can’t help but regret that it takes a devastating tragedy to overcome what separates us.

Bill Sternberg is the editor of the editorial page. Follow him on Twitter: @bsternbe

“Their Muscles Remind Us of Rambo!”

A French soldier’s view of US soldiers in Afghanistan

by  Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

 

A reader who, in this day of blacklists, must remain anonymous, sends this observation about our soldiers in Afghanistan:

It’s not unusual for the French to comment on anything American and normally in the negative.  What is rare is a Frenchman saying something positive about Americans; in this case heaping praise on our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Blogger and veteran Wes O’Donnell has translated an editorial in a French newspaper from a French soldier serving with a prestigious U.S. infantry battalion.  I recommend reading the whole thing.  Here are some excerpts:

US soldiers are in top physical shape compared to the French, and it appears much better in infantry tactics.  The soldier notes:

Heavily built, fed at the earliest age with Gatorade, proteins, and creatine — they are all heads and shoulders taller than us and their muscles remind us of Rambo.  Our frames are amusingly skinny to them — we are wimps, even the strongest of us — and because of that they often mistake us [the French] for Afghans. [snip] Even if some of them are a bit on the heavy side, all of them provide us everyday with lessons in infantry know-how.  Beyond the wearing of a combat kit that never seems to discomfort them (helmet strap, helmet, combat goggles, rifles etc.) the long hours of watch at the outpost never seem to annoy them in the slightest.


U.S. Soldiers depart Forward Operating Base Baylough, Afghanistan.
Photo credit: US Army.

In combat, US soldiers go on the offense in every encounter with the enemy in contrast to soldiers of other nations who have been taught to first defend and await orders:

And combat? If you have seen Rambo you have seen it all — always coming to the rescue when one of our teams gets in trouble, and always in the shortest delay. That is one of their tricks: they switch from T-shirt and sandals to combat ready in three minutes. Arriving in contact with the enemy, the way they fight is simple and disconcerting: they just charge! They disembark and assault in stride, they bomb first and ask questions later — which cuts any pussyfooting short.

And finally:

To those who bestow us with the honor of sharing their combat outposts and who everyday give proof of their military excellence, to those who pay the daily tribute of America’s army’s deployment on Afghan soil, to those we owned this article, ourselves hoping that we will always remain worthy of them and to always continue hearing them say that we are all the same band of brothers.

Maybe the socialist candidates for president should be given a copy of this editorial, but they likely wouldn’t read it, and if they did, they wouldn’t acknowledge our brave warriors in the field.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/a_french_soldiers_view_of_us_soldiers_in_afghanistan.html

Civil Note from Chaotic UK Regarding the Brexit Mess!

There will still be an election in the UK, and Brexit will still happen

I feel I have to lay these things out for overseas audiences, because a casual glance at the headlines might give you the impression that the United Kingdom is in the throes of some terrible crisis. The New York Times and the Washington Post, in particular, now run hilarious articles on an almost daily basis about how dreadful everything suddenly is “because of Brexit.”

Yes, there is a crisis in Parliament, but, outside Westminster, things are ticking along very nicely. In the three years since the referendum, Britain has attracted more foreign investment than any country in the world except China. Our stock exchange is surging. There are more EU nationals working in the U.K. than ever, belying the Times’ idiotic claims of a faltering economy, let alone rising xenophobia.

What of the shenanigans at Westminster? Well, one thing that I can state definitively is that they are not a “Brexit crisis.” Brexit, as you must have noticed, has not happened. What we are seeing is the opposite of a Brexit crisis, an “un-Brexit crisis,” a crisis caused by the refusal of MPs to do what they promised to do when they last stood for election.

As I write, the opposition parties are seeking to overturn the referendum result. They don’t exactly phrase it like that, of course. Instead, they say that they don’t want to leave without a deal. But they know perfectly well that if you rule out a “no-deal Brexit,” you rule out Brexit itself. If “no-deal” is off the table, then all Brussels has to do to keep Britain in the European Union is continue to offer intolerable terms.

On Wednesday afternoon, MPs passed a motion obliging the government to seek as many extensions as the EU wanted. Boris Johnson, the prime minister, responded by calling for a general election. Whereupon Labour, which has been demanding an immediate poll for two years, suddenly went cold on the idea. Under legislation passed in 2010, two-thirds of MPs must agree to an early dissolution of Parliament. On Wednesday evening, Labour and the other opposition parties, looking at the opinion polls, voted against such a dissolution.

Yes, you read that correctly. The parties that have spent the past month accusing Johnson of mounting some sort of coup just voted to prevent him from subjecting his tenure to a national vote.

The House of Commons has thus put itself in a ridiculous position. Pro-EU MPs have voted to keep in office a government they have calculatedly undermined. They have done so for the sole purpose of overturning a referendum result which they had previously promised to uphold. That, my friends, is our political crisis in a nutshell.

Now the good news. Voters are not idiots. They can see what is going on. Sooner or later, probably sooner, there will have to be a general election. The Conservatives have, in effect, deselected 21 of their MPs, including several former ministers, for voting with Labour to prevent Brexit. Although that purge has horrified commentators, most of whom are in awe of the Europhile grandees, it is a necessary prelude to an election campaign that will turn on Brexit. The Tories could hardly fight an election promising to leave the EU while several of their candidates refused to accept that policy. Though the pundits are fainting like affronted matrons, voters appreciate Johnson’s strength of purpose.

In the meantime, the loss of those 21 votes has deprived the government of its majority, making an election before the end of the year almost inevitable.

No one can say how it will turn out, obviously, though the betting markets and the money markets are both predicting a Conservative majority. Such a majority would at last allow Britain to square up to the EU without being undermined.

When British MPs defy public opinion, they often quote Edmund Burke’s 1774 speech to the voters of Bristol, in which he explained that he was their representative, not their delegate. The MPs rarely go on to mention that Bristol booted Burke out at the next election.

My guess is that something similar will happen when polling day comes. Even many remain voters balk at the idea of dragging the argument out any further. I’m going to stick my neck out here: Boris is going to win.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/there-will-still-be-an-election-in-the-uk-and-brexit-will-still-happen

Hero Ben Stein Prays for President Trump, A True Hero!

Why I Pray For Trump, A True Hero

by  Ben Stein   at  HotAir:

I should tell you that I pray for Trump because he believes in America. He wants an America that is true to its founding ideals of liberty and free enterprise. I also pray for him because he’s been the victim of the most consistent, slimiest hate campaign since Abraham Lincoln. He hasn’t done anything seriously wrong and yet the media powers treat him as if he were John Wilkes Booth. I don’t like his tariff fights with China but what can we do? They’ve been robbing us blind in terms of technology for decades now. For the Chinese, a brilliant and proud people and at least the equal of any people on this earth, there is no stopping point between now and them ruling the earth.

That’s what Trump’s struggle is about: to stop the world from becoming a vast Chinese empire. I don’t blame the Chinese for their ambitions. They were treated very badly all over the world for generations. But now, like a spring that has been compressed for too long, they are springing back madly.

They have their own problems: they are doing deficit spending on a titanic scale and it cannot last. They have restive minorities like the Uighurs and others. They will eventually spend themselves into big trouble. But in the meantime, they cause trouble in their very large orbit. Trump understands this and wants to stop them and get them to work cooperatively with us and the rest of the big countries. Would Kamala Harris get it? Would Bernie? Would Cory?

Why I pray for Trump, a true hero

Today in American History

Where Lincoln Stood on Slavery

by Carl M. Cannon at realclearpolitics:
August 22, 2019

Seven years ago today, as the presidential election contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney entered the home stretch, Vice President Joe Biden spoke at three events in Detroit. Biden was in the news that week because of an intemperate assertion that Republicans desired to put African Americans “back in chains.”

Such rhetorical excess is a hallmark of our time, especially when Democrats discuss race, but Biden’s infelicity put me in mind of a time a century and a half earlier when a Republican president was publicly challenged within his own party to do more to free human beings who were literally in chains.

The unsolicited advice to Abraham Lincoln came in the form of an open letter in a newspaper published by Horace Greeley. Although remembered today mostly for a phrase he didn’t utter (“Go west, young man”), in his own time Greeley was known as an ardent social reformer, journalist, and politician. He came relatively late to the cause of abolition, but once he did, Greeley was all-in. Even as Lincoln pushed reluctant Union Gen. George B. McClellan to press the fight against the Confederates, Lincoln was hearing it from his other flank. Greeley’s New York Tribune published an editorial headlined “Prayer of Twenty Millions,” in which Lincoln was told that many of those who had voted for him in the 1860 election were now “sorely disappointed and deeply pained” by the president’s presumed moderation toward the Southern states then in rebellion.

Three days later, on this date in 1862, Lincoln gave his answer.

 * * *

Unbeknownst to Horace Greeley, Lincoln had been considering decisive action on the question of Southern slavery in the summer of 1862. The president had discussed it with his Cabinet and drafted a version of a sweeping executive order. But Lincoln believed it was best delivered from a position of strength. In the commander-in-chief’s mind, this meant issuing it after a military victory by Union troops. For this reason, Lincoln didn’t want to tip his hand entirely; neither did he want the Tribune’s editorial sitting out there unanswered. And on Aug. 22, 1862 — 157 years ago today — he formulated his reply.

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave,” Lincoln wrote to Greeley, “I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

This statement has been used by 20th century revisionists of various stripes to assert that Lincoln wasn’t all that committed to the cause of ending slavery. This criticism is not only wrong, it’s wrong in every respect. Abraham Lincoln had made his name in politics by speaking against slavery; the nascent political party he had joined was created to end it. Even as he wrote to Greeley, he was commanding a huge military force suffering frightful losses, a force called “Mr. Lincoln’s Army,” whose infantrymen marched off to war singing “John Brown’s Body,” later to be known as “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

In fact, Lincoln tipped his hand even in the Greeley letter, with his concluding statement: “I intend no modification,” he wrote, “of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

The “oft-expressed” observation was no exaggeration. Lincoln had forcefully denounced slavery before the Civil War and continued to do so throughout its duration. And he did so in ways that helped Americans see the cosmic issue at stake, which was whether all the Founders’ talk about freedom really meant anything at all.

In an Oct. 4, 1854 speech in Springfield, Ill., Lincoln had expressed it this way: “We were proclaiming ourselves political hypocrites before the world, by fostering human slavery and proclaiming ourselves at the same time, the sole friends of human freedom.”

In an 1855 letter to his friend Joshua Speed, Lincoln amplified on this theme in more caustic language. “Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid,” he wrote. “As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal except Negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Three years later, Lincoln gave his famous “house divided” speech at the Illinois state Republican convention that nominated him for a Senate campaign.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” Lincoln said. on that occasion. “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or the other.”

In his December 1862 State of the Union message to Congress, President Lincoln portrayed the intertwined goals of ending slavery and preserving the Union as one and the same. “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free,” he asserted. “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of Earth.”

At Gettysburg, Lincoln referred to the “unfinished work” of the Union dead as “a new birth of freedom” that validated not just the hopes of enslaved Americans, but the soaring principles of America’s founding.

In an 1864 letter to a friend from Kentucky, a newspaperman named Albert G. Hodges, Lincoln wrote, “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.” A month before he died, in a speech to the 140th Indiana Regiment, Lincoln said simply, “Whenever [I] hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

Lincoln’s actions, of course, spoke loudest of all. The military success he was awaiting on this date in 1862 came three weeks later at Antietam Creek. The cost was frightful: 2,100 Union soldiers killed, and another 9,500 wounded. The result was really a military stalemate, not a Union victory. But the Confederate losses were nearly as high, and the Battle of Antietam drove Robert E. Lee out of Maryland and back to Virginia. Less than two weeks later, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/22/where_lincoln_stood_on_slavery_141074.html

Proud to be an AMERICAN Again!!

ON TRUMP’S EXCELLENT SPEECH

by  John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

Paul has noted the comments that President Trump made on the weekend’s two mass shootings this morning. His post embeds a video of the president’s speech, which is 10 minutes long. I recommend that you watch it. It was thoughtful, measured, and, in my opinion, struck all the right notes.

It consisted in large part of denunciations of the murderers and sympathy for their victims. Beyond that, Trump’s comments were notable in several ways.

First, Trump attacked white supremacism without noting that socialism, the doctrine of the Ohio murderer, was equally fatal in this case. That was probably sound from a political standpoint, and perhaps manifests the president’s conviction that the Democrats will get nowhere by trying to tie him to the El Paso murderer.

Second, the president expressed determination to do something about mass shootings. He said that on this issue, as elsewhere, America will “win.” It is easy to be skeptical about this promise; as I wrote in May, the United States does not have an unusual number of mass shootings on a per capita basis. We rank 56th in the world in that regard, far behind countries like Norway, Switzerland, Finland and Russia. Mass murders are so rare that it is easy to be cynical about our ability to do much about them, even though we have cut the overall homicide rate in half. Still, it was bracing to hear the president express confidence that the problem can successfully be addressed.

Third, Trump called for capital punishment for mass hate-murderers. This isn’t going to happen, but it puts liberals in a box. Most people think death is the appropriate punishment for mass murderers like the El Paso and Dayton shooters. Liberals don’t agree, but they have a hard time explaining to the average voter their reticence when it comes to punishing the actual murderer, as opposed to people who disagree with them politically.

Fourth, Trump did not take the easy way out by endorsing more useless gun control measures. Rather, he came out in favor of the one thing that actually might make a difference: so-called “red flag” laws. Such legislation has, I believe, been enacted in a few states and introduced in others. The basic idea is that if you think someone is mentally ill and dangerous and therefore should not possess firearms, you can go to court on an expedited basis, potentially without notice to the “dangerous” person, and obtain an order that 1) bars that person from possessing firearms, and 2) directs police officers to go to his residence and confiscate any firearms they find there.

It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a procedure of this sort might actually work. Mass shooters are pretty much all as nutty as fruitcakes. In most cases, it is obvious to everyone who encounters them that they are crazy and might be dangerous. Sometimes (like the Parkland murderer) they advertise their intent to commit mass murder on social media. So in some cases, a “red flag” process might actually work.

On the other hand, the potential for abuse is equally obvious. How many ex-wives would take advantage of the opportunity to turn in their ex-husbands as potentially dangerous? How can an allegedly deranged person receive due process sufficient to prevent gross miscarriage of justice? And what are the consequences of sending police officers to someone’s home to confiscate his firearms, perhaps in circumstances where he has no notice of what is going on? The sometimes-disastrous history of the no-knock raid comes to mind.

Personally, I am open to the idea of “red flag” legislation if the details can be worked out. I don’t think such laws would do a lot of good, but they might do some, unlike stupid bans of arbitrarily-defined firearms or firearm accessories.

But there is a broader issue here: the United States does not have a mental health care system. Decades ago, we emptied our mental hospitals in a fit of “liberation” driven by silly movies like One Few Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and King of Hearts. At the time, it was a triumph of liberalism, but I haven’t heard liberals taking credit for it lately.

Today, involuntary commitment borders on the impossible. (This is why “universal background checks” are useless. Hardly anyone has been involuntarily committed or adjudged mentally incompetent, so hardly anyone other than convicted felons, who don’t try to buy guns legally, is on the government’s prohibited list.) Crazy people are remitted to the care of their families, who can’t possibly cope with them. Just ask poor Nancy Lanza. From there, they often wind up on the streets, where our real mental health professionals–police officers–are stuck with dealing with them. If they commit enough felonies, they will finally be sentenced to prison, where, if they are lucky, they will be diverted to a prison-associated mental hospital. That is how it goes in our liberated 21st century.

“Red flag” laws may be a good idea, but it would be better if dangerously crazy people could be hospitalized and cared for, not just deprived, temporarily, of firearms. Who knows? Maybe liberals have gotten over their romantic infatuation with mental illness, and might be willing to collaborate on a rational mental health care system. It isn’t likely, but we can hope.

 

On Trump’s Excellent Speech

Will Minnesota Re-elect President Trump in 2020?

WILL ILHAN OMAR RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP?

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

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

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Ilhan Omar Re-Elect President Trump?

GO CANADA! Hello the Squad!

GO CANADA !          (from Bruce and Arlene:)

 

Well Said Mayor Dorval, Quebec mayor.
“PUT SOME PORK ON YOUR FORK”

A commercial promoting pork says: “PUT SOME PORK ON YOUR FORK” The MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CAFETERIA MENU AND EXPLAINS WHY:

Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why.

“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada, its customs, its traditions, and its way of life, because that’s where they chose to immigrate.

“Muslims must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in CANADA

. “They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who, so generously, welcomed them.

“Muslims must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic. Canada accepted many immigrants before Muslims showed up (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).”

“Just like other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity or their culture . ” And, if Canada is a land of welcome, it’s not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian people as a whole .

“Finally,they must understand that in Canada with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.”

The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.

“For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Sharia.

“If you left  your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere. We will not let you drag Canada down to the level of those 57 countries.

“Ask yourself this question – just once: “Why is it better here in Canada than where you came from?”  “A canteen with pork on the menu is part of the answer.”

If you came to Canada with the idea that you will displace us with your prolific propagation and eventually take over the country, you should pack up and go back to the country you came from.  We have no room here for you and your ideology.

If you feel the same, forward it on.  If not, hit the delete, and prepare to be displaced.

 

Your Everyday Freedom is Not Free, your military has paid for it!        

 

Top Diplomat Trump Goes to Work

Trump scores big at this year’s G20

by Brett Velicovich  at Fox news:

President Trump is a natural-born diplomat – and his stellar performance at this year’s G20 summit proves it.

While the Democrats were dealing with the fallout from the political circus they put on during their first round of presidential primary debates in Florida, the president spent the weekend working with foreign leaders to solve some of the most important geopolitical challenges facing America.

At the beginning of the summit, President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss possible resolutions to the ongoing security predicaments in Iran, Venezuela, and Syria. Russia is at odds with America’s approach to all three of those countries, providing moral and material support to brutal dictators whom the U.S. wants to see ousted, and the president’s conversation with Putin was an important step toward reducing those tensions.

TRUMP: MEETING WITH XI ‘WENT BETTER THAN EXPECTED’

Trump also held talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India – a vital discussion that focused on improving bilateral trade relations between the world’s wealthiest, most powerful democracy and the world’s most populous democracy.

Predictably, the liberal media were quick to attack Donald Trump’s actions, accusing him of cozying up to hostile leaders.

More importantly, Donald Trump arranged an impromptu meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, becoming the first U.S. president to cross into the hermit kingdom. The meeting wasn’t just symbolic, either – both countries agreed to resume the denuclearization talks that stalled when Trump walked out of the most recent summit in response to North Korea’s demands for sanctions relief.

Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping produced a similar result – the president noted that the talks “went better than expected” after China recently reneged on previous commitments. Although some had feared that the talks would stall, he confirmed that U.S. diplomats will “start where they left off with China” as the two sides resume bilateral negotiations in pursuit of a historic trade deal.

Predictably, the liberal media were quick to attack Donald Trump’s actions, accusing him of cozying up to hostile leaders.

CNN’s Jim Acosta, for instance, asked if the president was “afraid of offending” the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman, when he declined to comment about the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The Washington Post also criticized President Trump for meeting with U.S. adversaries, publishing an article with the headline, “Trump appears more at ease with strongmen than democratic leaders at G-20 summit.”

What the biased press fail to understand is that this president is not a warmonger like so many of his recent predecessors. He doesn’t want America to become a militant crusader against every autocrat on the planet, and that means occasionally having to hold dialogues with foreign leaders we might find distasteful.

Donald Trump’s foreign policy vision is crystal clear – American interests must come first. Washington should not sacrifice those interests for the sake of “liberating” foreign populations or telling them how to draft their constitutions. Nor should it reject cooperation with foreign governments just because they don’t share all of America’s values. After all, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wasn’t above working with the totalitarian Soviet Union to defeat the forces of fascism in World War II.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Crucially, President Trump also understands that peace is a product of diplomacy and that it’s impossible to improve America’s relations with hostile powers without talking to them first. That’s precisely why the president takes every opportunity to hold discussions with foreign leaders, a practice that has already opened the door to important negotiations with countries such as North Korea, Russia, and China.

In contrast to his detractors, who refuse to believe that America has anything to gain from engaging in diplomacy with our adversaries, Donald Trump is determined to pursue every avenue available for ensuring peace and prosperity for the American people. That’s what the art of diplomacy is all about.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY BRETT VELIOCOVICH

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/brett-velicovich-trump-scores-big-at-this-years-g20