• 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

Dems Are Becoming Lefty Schiff Fascists….What’s the Anti-Trump GOP Wing Becoming?

What is the Purpose of the GOP?

By Richard Moss at American Thinker:


A year ago I was locked in a political race for the Republican nomination for Congress from Indiana’s 8th district.  I was running against then four-term incumbent, Larry Bucshon.  I had also run in the prior election cycle in 2016.  And I had run in 2014 against Mike Braun (now U.S. Senator for Indiana) for state representative (HR 63).

Among issues popular among conservatives, I also had what I thought was a compelling platform regarding the incumbent: Bucshon and his family had moved to Washington D.C.  I had hoped that this factor combined with his generally weak voting record could propel me to an upset victory, which is never easy against an incumbent.  I started early and ran hard.  I had raised money and traveled extensively throughout the 18 counties of Indiana’s 8th district, meeting and interacting with voters.

Despite a vigorous, hard-hitting campaign, we came up short –- actually worse than the prior election.  I had dropped from 35% to 26%.  I also observed that many in the 8th district county level GOP establishment were upset over my criticism of Bucshon for moving to D.C.  I contended, however, that a representative and his family must live, work, and attend schools in the area he represented.  In this era of an increasingly centralized federal government, far removed from its constituents, Bucshon’s decision to move to Washington exemplified a D.C.-centric mentality that defined perfectly what was wrong with our political system — and why I had run.

Having lost in three political campaigns, I can report that it is wonderful not to run for office.  The reasons for running in three separate campaigns, however, have not disappeared.  Our “one party” system in Washington remains profoundly corrupt and self-serving.  It consists of career politicians from both parties, special interests, donors, and lobbyists, all of whom agree on one thing: growing the size of government.

The Republican Party, in its budgeting and voting, is a left-of-center party; it is, as I often referred to it as, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.  With an increasingly Marxist Democratic Party, and no serious conservative opposition from “soft-progressive” Republicans, the trajectory of the nation is all to the left: more spending, more programs, more socialism, and ultimately more tyranny.

Rather than promote a constitutional, limited government agenda that would actually expand liberty and shrink the power of the federal government, the GOP, in effect, embraces the tenets and policies of the Democrats (other than occasional, meaningless rhetorical flourishes to the contrary).  Thus, there is no active force to thwart the mortgaging of the nation and future generations by politicians seeking short-term political gain.

Thanks to our federal government, for example, we have annual trillion-dollar deficits, a national debt approaching $22 trillion (larger than our GDP), and $200 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  The actuaries of Medicare and Social Security indicate both programs will be bankrupt in 2026 and 2035 respectively.  The Republican Party, allegedly a stronghold of fiscal prudence, is, in fact, handmaiden to profligacy and insolvency.

The GOP remains hapless on the issue of immigration.  It has done nothing to curtail and reform legal immigration to reflect the national interest (i.e. to make it meritocratic, limited, and diverse; to end chain migration, the “diversity” visa, birthright citizenship, and lawless “sanctuary cities,” among many critical issues); it has not secured the southern border nor prevented the influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, virtually all of whom are impoverished, uneducated, and unskilled, and who will burden our schools, hospitals, courts, and public systems.  Many of them are disease carriers, drug dealers, criminals, and terrorists.  Thanks to feckless Republicans, our immigration system has become a giant welfare magnet for the world, a threat to our sovereignty, the rule of law, and national security.

Utterly feeble on the cultural front, the Republican Party has meekly accepted the cultural Marxism of the left rather than push back against the nihilism and degradation of our popular and politically correct culture.  It has failed to promulgate a conservative “narrative” to confront the anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-American narrative foisted upon us by our cultural overlords.

Today’s Democrat Party, overtaken by the radical French Revolutionary Left, is not the Democratic party of your grandfather or father, of Truman or Kennedy.  This bunch, should they come to power, is preparing the ground for future gulags not unlike their Marxist predecessors of the 20th century.

In effect, the conservative movement lacks a political vehicle with which to enact its agenda, policies, and narrative, hence the nation is at the mercy of liberaldom.  Absent effective and principled resistance from a fighting Republican Party, the leftward tilt of the nation, its decline into socialism and bankruptcy, its fragmentation into tribalized, warring identity groups, and the continued breakdown of its culture, is unavoidable.  The Trump years, like the Reagan era, will represent temporary but minor respites in the downward spiral of the country.

We live in treacherous times and the fault lines dividing us may be insurmountable.  But conservatives must continue to uphold our priorities that the nation may return to its foundational principles and beliefs.  We must reassert the religious and cultural underpinnings of the country, the central role of the two-parent family, faith, and the Judeo-Christian tradition; we should foster an appreciation of our unique history and heritage, of liberty, individual rights, the rule of law, free markets, and the principles of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  We, the believers, must remain the vanguard defending Western and American civilization — with or without the Republican Party.

Dr. Moss is a practicing Ear Nose and Throat Surgeon, author, and columnist, residing in Jasper, IN.  He has written A Surgeon’s Odyssey and Matilda’s Triumph available on amazon.com.  Find more of his essays at richardmossmd.com.  Visit Richard Moss, M.D. on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.


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.



“Terrific”….Says the President about Baseball Star Curt Schilling’s Congress Effort!

Trump endorses a Curt Schilling bid for Congress in Arizona: ‘Terrific!’

Former MLB all-star and World Series MVP has said he is considering moving back to home state to run for a ‘blue’ seat;    ….Griffin Connoly at Roll Call:

Former Arizona Diamondbacks and Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling can count on the endorsement of President Donald Trump if he decides to run for Congress in Arizona.

The former Major League Baseball player turned conservative talk show host is weighing a congressional run in the Copper State, he told the Arizona Republic this week.

Trump took to Twitter on Tuesday to support that potential development, writing that Schilling was a “great pitcher and patriot” and that it is “terrific!” he is considering running in Arizona.

Donald J. Trump


Curt Schilling, a great pitcher and patriot, is considering a run for Congress in Arizona. Terrific! @foxandfriends

Schilling, who is listed as a Massachusetts resident, has long been one of Major League Baseball’s most politically active former players. In 2016 and 2017, he expressed interest in running to unseat Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts before ultimately backing out of the race. He actively campaigned for Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008 and supported President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004.

He endorsed Trump in 2016 and has vehemently defended the Trump administration as a commentator for the conservative media outlet Blaze TV.

Schilling first publicly speculated about a move to Arizona to run for Congress in 2020 this past Sunday in a radio interview with Armed American Radio’s Mark Walters.

“I haven’t said anything publicly, but I’m considering going back to Arizona and running for a congressional seat, one of the blue ones,” Schilling said. “It’s something that my wife and I have talked about, and she’s now becoming more and more pumped at the potential. Obviously, we’re still quite a few discussions away, but yeah, it’s something we’re absolutely considering.”

Democrats control five of Arizona’s nine congressional seats. Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates the 2020 races for the 1st and 2nd districts Likely Democratic and the races for the 3rd, 7th, and 9th districts Solid Democratic.

Before entering political commentary, Schilling was a top MLB analyst for ESPN. He won the World Series three times with the Diamondbacks, Red Sox and Philadelphia Phillies and was voted World Series MVP in 2001. He also played for the Baltimore Orioles and Houston Astros, compiling a 216-146 record and a 3.46 ERA over 20 big league seasons.

Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox

ESPN fired Schilling in 2016 after he shared an anti-transgender post on Facebook shortly after the state government in North Carolina passed a law that effectively allowed local governments to ban transgender people from using their preferred public bathrooms.

“I wasn’t fired for speaking my mind. I was fired for being a conservative,” Schilling told CNN at the time, noting that ESPN had not fired personality Jemele Hill for speaking out against Trump.


The Night I Fell in Love with Our Donald Trump to Become Our American President….8-6-15

A Star At Last Arrives at Attorney General Office!

AG Barr Will Review FBI’s Actions In 2016 Trump Probe

by John Sexton   at  HotAir:

Attorney General William Barr has put together a team which will look at decisions the FBI made in 2016 when it started an investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump. Barr confirmed the investigation during House testimony. From Bloomberg:

“I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016,” Barr told a House panel on Tuesday.

Barr’s inquiry is separate from a long-running investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general, said the person, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters. The FBI declined to comment. Barr said he expected the inspector general’s work to be completed by May or June…

“That’s great news he’s looking into how this whole thing started back in 2016,” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said Tuesday of Barr’s interest in the issue. “That’s something that has been really important to us. It’s what we’ve been calling for.”

Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox Business’ Neil Cavuto last month that he planned to investigate elements of the FBI investigation once the Mueller report was in the rear-view mirror:

Once we put the Mueller report to bed, once Barr comes to the committee and takes questions about his findings and his actions, and we get to see the Mueller report, consistent with law, then we are going to turn to finding out how this got off the rails.

I know Attorney General Barr. It’s not if he looks at what happened. It’s how he does. Does he do it internally? Does he appoint a special counsel? Mr. Horowitz is looking at the FISA abuse allegations. I will be looking at the FISA abuse.

I will be looking at the counterintelligence operation. Why did they not tell Trump if it truly was a counterintelligence operation? There will be a lot of inquiry as to how this all happened.

I’m well aware of what Democrats think of this investigation but it’s hard to keep calling it a distraction when the Mueller report is complete and the investigation into collusion is over. At least it should be over, but Democrats are doing their best to stretch out the narrative for as long as possible.

We learned earlier today from Barr’s testimony (which Allahpundit wrote about here) that several of the deep mysteries Democrats have been focused on recently really aren’t that mysterious. For one, Democrats will be seeing the redacted report within a week. For two, Mueller’s office was given a chance to review the so-called summary document and declined. For three, Barr had a heads up about which way the report would come down on the main issues which helps explain how he was able to review it within 48-hours and write a letter about it.

This is really just a game for Democrats at this point. The big question, about collusion, has been answered. But once they get the full report, it will be passed through the Rachel Maddow conspiracy filter to produce dozens of new questions and hundreds of new news stories promising further revelations to come. They can tease this out for months just as they have for the past two years, always promising a “Boom” that never comes. The game won’t end because it’s not tethered to any reality except one: The very real demand of the left-wing base for an endless stream of anti-Trump content. The base will keep playing that tune and Adam Schiff and Rachel Maddow will keep dancing to it on MSNBC.



Ben Shapiro Radiates America on “THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY”

Ben Shapiro Puts America on ‘The Right Side of History’

by  Richard Kirk  at  American Thinker:


The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great, by Ben Shapiro, Harper Collins, March 19, 2019 (277 pages, $27.99, Hardcover)

Why are things in America so good, and why are we throwing it all away?  Those are the two questions that Ben Shapiro, the staccato-laced intellectual pugilist, seeks to answer in his new book, The Right Side of History.  That things are actually amazingly good, at least materially, in the U.S. is demonstrated via statistics of which few Americans are aware.  For example, in 1900, ten percent of all infants in the country died before their first birthday, and one out every one hundred mothers died in childbirth.  Today, both infant mortality and death in childbirth are rare.  I might add that the average lifespan for American women increased from around 46 years in 1900 to over 80 today.  Beyond longevity, material prosperity has reached almost Messianic levels.

On the downside, however, Americans are more hostile toward each other than at any time since the Civil War — primarily divided along ideological lines.  In addition, a growing percentage of the population finds itself without any significant meaning in life, an existential void that promotes rapidly increasing drug addiction and suicide rates.  Concurrent with this spiritual deficit are incessant attacks on America’s traditional institutions in order to “fundamentally transform” the nation.  Thus, amid tremendous prosperity and freedom, we now see 24/7 vilification of the nation’s racist, sexist,  genocidal history conjoined with attempts to squelch any speech that challenges leftist demands for “social justice.”  In short, powerful media, academic, and political forces are in the process of destroying the very Constitutional principles and cultural institutions that made America great.

So what, exactly, made America great?  Shapiro says, correctly, in my view, the union of “Jerusalem and Athens,” by which he means the nation’s historically mediated incorporation of the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition alongside the reason-based natural law tradition exemplified in Plato and Aristotle.  The creative tension between these two poles produced in America, and less clearly in Europe, societies that embraced both individual freedom and communal goals, both transcendent purpose and the employment of reason to achieve morally sanctioned objectives.  In America, a broad devotion to basic moral and religious principles provided a foundation for the individual “pursuit of happiness” within various religious and community groups.

The philosophical and historical journey that led to this outcome constitutes the bulk of Shapiro’s book, material that may be a heavy lift for folks with little or no background in intellectual history.  That’s not to say the author dwells on minor or abstruse philosophical points — only that his brisk and insightful overview of important philosophical developments during the last 2,500 years necessarily presupposes a degree of familiarity on the reader’s part.  On the plus side, Shapiro’s  overview is narrowly focused on the issues he needs to illuminate: the embrace of faith and reason and the negative consequences of rejecting either or both of these two poles.

After more than a century of religious wars in Europe, a creative balance was tentatively achieved that included both the Greek rational tradition and the biblical heritage of Judaism and Christianity.  This fragile coalition was soon destroyed, most grotesquely in the French Revolution, whose rejection of faith and deification of human reason led to a bloodbath whose cruelty should be a clear demonstration of the depths of depravity to which human reason is liable when freed from any transcendent restraints.  (I recommend Ann Coulter’s chapters in Demonic for an impressive summary of this revolutionary barbarism.)

In America, however, the world’s first philosophically constructed Constitution was made the political foundation of a religiously diverse people overwhelmingly devoted to the broad moral and spiritual ideas derived from the Bible.  These ideas included the conviction that all people are created in God’s image and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.  America’s Lockean embrace of reason, faith, and limited government provided the dynamism that gave rise to the most productive and religiously conscientious culture (cf. Tocqueville) the world has ever known.

Shapiro’s final chapters depict the West’s and America’s descent into materialism, hedonism, and spiritual nihilism.  In Europe, the “death of God” proclaimed by Nietzsche and biologically sanctioned by Darwin created a vacuum that was filled by communism and fascism — ideologies that dismissed the individual and free inquiry for the sake of utopian futures.  In America Progressives also belittled the notion of individual liberty and a Constitution that limits government power, enthralled as they were with Hegelian concepts that touted collective goals.  Progressives thus gave birth to the eugenics movement promoted by Margaret Sanger, the dogma of a “living Constitution,” and a government no longer constrained by constitutional boundaries.

The deterioration of faith in America and the West also gave rise to a rationalism that views humans as animals, or even bits of matter, with no moral purpose.  Attempts to create one’s own personal morality within this godless universe, as with the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre,  have proven to be absurd, since morality is essentially a social concept and implies some penalty, either in this world or the next, for transgressions.  As if all these developments weren’t bad enough, today’s cultural Marxists are intent on bringing about a new society by overturning all existing institutions in the name of various victim groups.  Those institutions include the family, traditional religion, and any organization that can be viewed as supporting the white male capitalist establishment.  This phalanx of true believers pledges allegiance neither to reason nor to faith in God, but only to its own fantasies.  Thus, people can change their “gender” at will and others must agree that X and Y chromosomes mean nothing — or be punished for transphobic hate crimes.  Goodbye individual freedom, goodbye rationality, goodbye anything like the God of the Bible.

After offering detailed examples of America’s cultural and spiritual decline, Shapiro provides scant advice for rectifying the situation.  It’s certainly good to instill in one’s children an appreciation of the immense historical accomplishments of our country — accomplishments rigorously avoided by leftist academics.  It is also wise to convey to them your conviction that their lives are “guided by a higher meaning” and that “we are all brothers and sisters.”  But providing a familial remedy for a cultural disaster seems a counsel of despair.  In addition to pedagogical advice, some thoughts about the “academic and media” sources of disintegration would be in order, a few of which I offer in the closing chapter (“What Went Wrong”) of my own book, Moral Illiteracy.

No doubt, the young Shapiro will provide more extensive suggestions in the future for countering and reversing the destructive forces leading us toward a culture that neither fears God nor reveres reason.  For now, his work illuminating the historical and philosophical origins of America’s greatness and the sources of its impending doom is well worth perusing.



Precious American, President Trump IS OUR REPUBLICAN PARTY TODAY, not those Rove, Romney, Hillary HotAir Losers

Trump Is Driving Out Precious Republican Voters

by McElwee Etal  at  HotAir:

It has flown under the radar a bit, masked perhaps by the switch of millions of Barack Obama’s voters into Mr. Trump’s column, but in 2016 Mr. Trump did not receive support from a large segment of voters who pulled the lever for Mitt Romney in 2012. In fact, our data shows that 5 percent of Romney 2012 voters stayed home in 2016, while another 5 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton. These voters tended to be female, nonwhite, younger and more highly educated — the very voters Republicans feared would be alienated by a Trump victory when he was seeking the party’s nomination.

Most strikingly, one-third of 2012 Romney voters who were under 40 in 2016 did not vote for Mr. Trump, but rather stayed home, voted for Mrs. Clinton or voted for a third-party candidate. Among the under-40 Romney voters who supported Mr. Trump in 2016, 16 percent appear to have defected from the party to vote for a Democratic House candidate in 2018. Of course, we don’t know how they will vote in 2020, but what this means is that in the past two elections Republicans may have lost more than 40 percent of Romney voters born after 1976.





Thanks to Female Republicans, More Pro-Life Laws Are Being Enacted at the State Level

Article sent by Mark Waldeland:

One encouraging development for the pro-life movement is the significant increase in the number of pro-life laws being enacted at the state level. According to the Guttmacher Institute, between 1983 and 2010, the average number of pro-life state laws enacted annually was fewer than 15. Between 2011 and 2017, meanwhile, an average of 57 state-level pro-life laws were enacted each year, and between 2000 and 2019, the number of states that Guttmacher deemed “hostile” to abortion rights increased from four to 22.

The obvious reason for this increase is that Republicans have won majorities in state legislatures. In 1992, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature in only seven states; now, they control both chambers of the state legislatures in 30 states. Over the course of the past 40 years, both political parties have become increasingly polarized on the issue of abortion. As a result, when state legislatures flip from Democratic control to Republican control, it is much easier for pro-lifers to enact protective legislation.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy — entitled “Rewinding Roe: Understanding the Accelerated Adoption of State Level Restrictive Abortion Legislation 2008-2014” — highlights another important factor behind this recent surge in pro-life legislation. It found that states with a higher percentage of female lawmakers in the Republican legislative caucus enact a greater number of pro-life laws than other GOP-controlled legislatures.

RINO HOT AIR Guy Beefs about Self-Made Trump Rumor, But Trump’s 190 IQ Doesn’t! It Merely Goes into ACTION Too Fast Sometimes!

Many Think Trump’s A Self-Made Man. What Happens When You Tell Them Otherwise?

by MCDONALD ETAL  at HotAir:

As the figures below show, attitudes toward Trump may be polarized along party lines, but this information does have noticeable and statistically significant effects on evaluations of Trump’s character. For Democrats, who already see Trump as lacking empathy, this information makes them think of him as even less empathetic. But among Republicans, the information is even more damning, reducing perceptions of empathy by more than 10 percentage points.

On perceptions of business acumen, which are higher across both parties, the information regarding Fred Trump’s role in his son’s business success is equally important. Democrats reduce their perceptions of Trump as a good businessman by 6 points, while Republican perceptions decline by 9 points.

These effects may seem small, but the results demonstrate that this misperception was consequential. And among undecided voters or those on the fence, they could make a serious difference in the 2020 election.

(Note:  Trust truth, beware of rumor!!!   If you have followed anything truthful about Donald Trump’s personal  assets, you’d discover his IQ count is somewhere around 200…..far beyond the American President average.

His quickness of thought, deed, and action in problem solving is remarkable, almost unbelievable, and upon occasion may become a problem…   When it comes to a con-artist actor such as sinister but sweet-appearing, antiAmerican, Barack Obama, or high IQ brain of  White House past, such as Richard M. Nixon,  one might want to think deeply about where ones vote must go.

I never voted for the high IQ politicking  Richard M. Nixon.   I never complained about this until I discovered years later that child, Richard Nixon,  was raised fatherless in a California family so poverty stricken, his  brother died from starvation.

That loss in life is tough going, folks! Republican Mr. Nixon was not a bad person as are even  some Democrats these days who have become fascists for America. He never possessed much charm covered with comfort and  charity.   Neither was he ditsy like Nancy Pelosi and ilk.

Trump, the New York City dad, became financially secure to send his off spring to fancy schools…..Donald had to be transferred a time.  Donald was tops in about everything he ever entered to do.   He was a top athlete, as well as a brain……top enough to be offered a contract with the New York Yankees.

Young Trump declined….He preferred to work with his dad.   It was Donald who made the Trump empire it became.   Fascistic American can’t seem to handle that item of Truth……as well as many others about this remarkable 45th President of these United States.)