• 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

Fascistic Dems Plotted Russia Against Trump from the Beginning of His Presidency

Trump Was Always the Target of the Russia Investigation

The IG report confirms it.Donald Trump was always the target.

The point of the Russia investigation was to make a case against Donald Trump. Preferably, the case would drive him from office. At a minimum, it would render him unelectable by the 2020 stretch run. The kind of case was less important than the objective: criminal prosecution or impeachment. In accordance with the collusion narrative, the latter would mean trying to show that Trump was compromised by the Kremlin.

That is the astonishing takeaway from Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on former FBI director James Comey’s handling of his memos.

In truth, it’s not that astonishing. It happens to be the theory of my new book, Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. Obviously, if a book can show that Donald Trump was in the FBI’s crosshairs all along, that fact had to have been knowable for some time.

Still, if you’re going to write a book about a mind-blowing theory, it is gratifying to have that theory confirmed — notwithstanding how alarming it may be for the state of our republic.

The IG report confirms it.

It is an offhanded confirmation. The burden of the IG report is not to break news about the true purpose of the Trump-Russia investigation. It is to assess former director Comey’s conduct in generating, maintaining, and disseminating information in the memos he made about most of his interactions with President Trump. On that score, the IG report is scathing.

I’m going to put that to the side, along with the former director’s regrettable decision to go Baghdad Bob on Twitter just as the report was released. There’s already been enough misdirection.

Regardless of why IG Horowitz came to address the objectives of the Russia investigation, address them he did. The upshot of that was nailed by Byron York in his Washington Examiner report.

What we learn is that Comey and his top FBI advisers prepared extensively for the then-director’s January 6, 2017, briefing of then-president-elect Trump. The detailed preparation owed to the fact that the FBI regarded the session at Trump Tower in New York not as a mere briefing but as anevidence-gathering opportunity. That’s because they were investigating Trump, which they hoped to continue doing when he took office . . . which called for putting him at ease . . . which meant telling him that they were not investigating him.

The plan on January 6 (i.e., the day after director Comey met with President Obama about next steps in the Russia investigation) was for Comey to hit the president-elect with a Steele-dossier allegation: the salacious and unverified claim that Trump had cavorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel in 2013, and been covertly recorded doing so by Russian intelligence.

That’s not a briefing. It is Criminal Investigations 101: Get the suspect talking so a comfort level is established, then zing him with something that will rock his world. Thus confronted, a suspect will often blurt out either an implicit admission of guilt or a false exculpatory statement. Either one is a home run for the investigator.

And make no mistake: Comey was the investigator. The zing was elaborately planned, and so was the post-mortem. A bureau car equipped with a secure computer would be at the ready. While Trump’s words were still ringing in Comey’s ears, the then-director would begin typing out the then-president-elect’s reaction to the ambush — his responsive statements, his reasoning if he had tried to justify himself, his demeanor.

The investigator wants to get all of that in his report. That way, the suspect is locked in. As a practical matter, once you have given a version of events, making up a new story when you are later charged and informed about the prosecution’s evidence is not an option. Innocent people do not have multiple versions of events; they have one story: the truth. Only guilty people lie. That’s why, for the investigator, a false exculpatory statement is as good as a true confession. That’s why the ambush works so well.

There’s a caveat, of course. The ambush strategy works well if the suspect is guilty. When a suspect makes exculpatory statements that the investigator cannot disprove, then the investigator has no case.

When we look again at Comey’s memo of that first meeting with President-elect Trump, we see how this played out: Comey’s zinger, Trump’s exculpatory responses. We find the highly experienced investigator elaborating on the operation of his suspect’s mind:

I said, the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013. He interjected, “there were no prostitutes; there were never prostitutes.” He then said something about him being the kind of guy who didn’t need to “go there” and laughed (which I understood to be communicating that he didn’t need to pay for sex). He said “2013” to himself, as if trying to remember that period of time, but didn’t add anything. He said he always assumed that hotel rooms he stayed in when he travels are wired in some way.

If you understand what Comey was doing, the memo is not very subtle. The implication is that the “golden showers” incident may well have happened (meaning: Yes, Putin may have Trump over a barrel, just like Chris Steele says!). The president-elect was adamant only that prostitutes were not involved, not that an escapade of this kind was inconceivable. The then-director made sure to include Trump’s thinking aloud about the year of the alleged incident, 2013. Translation: Most normal people would be able immediately to say, “This never happened”; but for Trump, kinky exploits must be so routine that his first impulse was to sort out the time frame.

That is to say: If the FBI’s investigation turned up some corroboration for Steele’s pee-tape story, Comey would now be in a position to provide helpful testimony about Trump’s statements and state of mind. The memo itself might even be admissible in court as evidence for the prosecution.

“Recollection recorded” — remember that one? That was the tell.

In June 2017, when the existence of former director Comey’s memos first emerged, he was asked why he’d made them. He explained, “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president” (emphasis added). I observed at the time that, as an old prosecutor, that got my antennae pinging. To non-attorneys, this was just gobbledygook. But as any trial lawyer can tell you, “recollection recorded” is not an idle phrase. It is a term of art in the Federal Rules of Evidence (specifically, Rule 803(5), “Recorded Recollection”).

Most out-of-court statements (e.g., a news story about an event) are inadmissible as hearsay. But under some circumstances, “recollection recorded” is an exception to the hearsay rule. To qualify, the recollection must be recorded (such as in a memo) at the time an incident was fresh in the witness’s memory, so that it accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge. That’s why — if you’re not only an FBI official but a seasoned trial lawyer, such as Jim Comey — you’d want to write it down contemporaneously or immediately after the relevant event. Perhaps in a car speeding to a meeting with fellow investigators to report back to them about the investigation you’ve just done, despite telling your prime suspect, the incoming president, that you are not investigating him.

Thanks to the IG report, we now know more of the gory details. But as I’ve tried to show in Ball of Collusion, the underlying truth has been discernible for a long time. The Obama administration launched an investigation in which the target was Donald Trump and the objective was short-circuiting his presidency.



Have Today’s Fascist Democrats Forgotten Our Civil War South Rebels Were DEMOCRATS?


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

We wrote here about the New York Times’s “1619 project,” which attempts to sell the idea that America was founded on slavery, and that slavery is pretty much the only important thing that has ever happened here, even 154 years after its abolition. All with a view toward helping a Democrat win the presidency in 2020, I take it.

Other press outlets have fallen into line, praising the Times and calling for slavery to be the only aspect of American history that is discussed by anyone, ever. (Those are my words, not theirs, but I think the characterization is essentially accurate.) See, for example, this Washington Post piece, as reprinted in the Star Tribune.

Some are alarmed at this attack on American history. It is reprehensible, of course, but the Times is recognized as a partisan rag by everyone–including those who love it for that reason–and I doubt anything the Times might do could swing 100 votes in the next election.

You can use a Lexis/Nexis search to find out how often certain terms occur in Times stories. Steve Sailer traces “America’s rapidly growing slavery crisis,” citing tweets by Zach Goldberg:

Gosh. What could have happened in 2016 to cause slavery to resume the importance that it had in the 1850s?

One can only imagine how these numbers will shoot up in 2019 and succeeding years, as America’s slavery crisis deepens.


The Growing Slavery Crisis

(Commentary:   In our today’s America, “education” has become a leftist Democrat propaganda industry  throughout countless grade school, high school and college with rare exceptions, mostly geographic.    Feminism for all sexes is usually doctrine  added to  the more guru-style American “educational” seances especially in our larger  cities and along our coasts.)

Fascistic Democrats Welcoming Open Immigration Hurts Our American Black Workers!

Illegal Immigration Hurts Black Workers Most

by Spencer P. Morrison  at  American Thinker:


Official estimates suggest that over 1 million people will illegally migrate into America in 2019.  The Democrats welcome them with open arms — they have even offered to give them “free” healthcare.

In doing so they betray their most stalwart voters: black Americans.  How?  Illegal migrants compete directly with black Americans for jobs, causing unemployment and decreasing wages.

Before discussing the economic impact of illegal immigration, how many aliens live in America?

At the Hot Gates

Pew Research suggests that some 11.1 million illegals reside within our borders.  Although this falls in line with figures from the Department of Homeland Security, many believe the true figure is much higher.  Why?  Two reasons.

First, the “official” figures do not include the children of illegal immigrants who were born in America — so called “anchor babies.”  Although they are natural-born citizens, these individuals are only here because of their parent’s criminal activity.

Can Americans blame anchor babies for their parent’s actions?  No.  But there is no denying that the addition of 6.5 million additional children is a burden on America’s welfare state — especially since their parents contributed nothing towards its creation, and little towards its maintenance.

Second, the official aggregate figures suspiciously plateau in 2007.  The explanation is that after 2008 the number of migrants fell and deportations rose to an equilibrium point.  However, there is little evidence that migration rates fell, and the reason deportations increased is because the Obama administration simply changed the definition of “deportation” to inflate the numbers.

If the official figures are flawed, then just how many illegal aliens reside in America?

A relatively recent study conducted by Dr. Mohammad Fazel Zarandi of the Yale School of Management estimates that some 22.8 million illegal immigrants live in America.  This figure draws upon more recent data and a variety of (often-ignored) sources.  It is probably the most accurate estimate.

Regardless which estimate is used, the impact of illegal immigration is magnified because alien populations are heavily concentrated in a number of specific states and cities.  For example, California alone is home to nearly one-in-four illegal migrants, and the majority of these live in the Greater Los Angeles area.  Meanwhile, cities like St. Louis and states like North Dakota have very few illegal aliens.

These millions of illegal workers distort America’s labor market, and disproportionately harm black Americans.

Into the Octagon

In 2008 Vernon Briggs, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  He stated matter-of-factly that there was “little doubt” that black Americans are the “major loser” in the immigration equation.  Briggs explains: “Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs” between aliens and black Americans.

Basically, illegal migrants generally work low-wage jobs — the very jobs black Americans tend to work.  Likewise, both aliens and blacks tend to reside in major cities.  Taken together, this means that migrants and black Americans compete directly for the same jobs, which reduces wages and employment opportunities.

Unfortunately, black Americans fare worse in this head-to-head struggle because illegal aliens often work under-the-table for less than minimum wage and forgo expensive employer-provided healthcare plans.  They undercut the labor-market’s mandated floor and pull the rug out from under American workers.

These findings are backed up by decades of studies.  For example, a 1995 study conducted by Augustine Kposowa found that when compared to white Americans, “non-whites appear to lose jobs to immigrants and their earnings are more depressed by immigrants.”  These non-whites mostly include black and Hispanic Americans.

Likewise, a 1998 study of the New York area by David Howell and Elizabeth Mueller of the New School for Social Research found that a 10 percent increase in the immigrant share of any given occupation reduced wages of the black men working in that occupation by five percentage points. Furthermore, the relationship held across a wide range of jobs. Basically, more immigration meant lower wages for black Americans.

I have cited these older papers not because nothing newer exists — the work of Harvard University’s George Borjas is a good starting place — but to show that economists have known about this for decades.  And yet, the Democrats have done nothing to save their most loyal voters from the ravages of illegal migration.



Fascistic Washington Post Support for Fascist ANTIFA Violence!


by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine:

Here is the opening paragraph of the Washington Post’s account of a rally by a group called Proud Boys protesting the exclusion of some activists from social media:

Hundreds of D.C. police officers descended on the area around Washington’s Freedom Plaza on Saturday, preventing antifascists from clashing with right-wing demonstrators during dueling rallies near the White House.

Who were these “antifascists”?

Police on bicycles and on foot quickly broke up skirmishes and prevented black-clad, hooded leftist antifascists, known as antifa, from erecting barricades in streets with toppled newspaper boxes and chairs.

(Emphasis added)

What is the Post’s basis for telling its readers that Antifa, thugs who go around beating up people whose views they disagree with, is antifascist? It’s probably the fact that the Post also disagrees with the views of those whom these leftist thugs beat up.

It’s true that Antifa claims to be antifascist. But surely the Post, chock full of crack, truth-seeking journalists, isn’t taking Antifa’s word for it.

Donald Trump says he’s making America great again. The Post doesn’t parrot that claim. Why does it parrot the claim of hooded goons that they are antifascist? Again, it’s probably because the Post thinks Antifa, if not exactly on its side, is at least the enemy of its enemies.

It took four Post reporters — Peter Hermann, Peter Jamison, Hannah Natanson, and Clarence Williams — to crank out this pedestrian story, which runs only a little over two dozen paragraphs. Which of these ace reporters decided to buy Antifa’s marketing of itself as an antifascist organization? Maybe it was a collective decision. Or maybe they simply followed an editorial decision made by the Post’s brass.

Speaking of marketing, it’s shocking that a newspaper that markets itself through the slogan “democracy dies in darkness” applies a heroic description to a gang whose criminal behavior constitutes a head-on threat to free speech and, therefore, democracy.

Shocking, but not surprising, given that the newspaper in question is the Washington Post.

More on the Left’s Foreigner Invasion of America to Secure Its Fascist State!


…in tonight’s debate, President Trump has been tweeting about Australia’s policies with regard to illegal immigration. Australia has published a series of brochures intended to discourage attempts at illegal entry, like this one:

At some point, it would be nice to say that the U.S. government has “introduced the toughest border protection measures ever,” but it is hard to say how that might come about.

Meanwhile, it would be great if we could enact Canada’s immigration laws. Failing that, I would happily settle for Mexico’s. Or at a minimum, we should enforce our own. Currently, the U.S. is suffering from a double whammy: we have inadequate immigration laws, but the laws we have are not being enforced, due to massive lawlessness by American liberals. We have a long way to go before we can approach the rational approach to immigration that is taken by Australia, Canada, Mexico, and many other countries. We can start by reinvigorating the rule of law.

Article by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine!

Crooked Hillary’s Dirt moves Christopher Steele into pre-FISA Confession….

Steele’s stunning pre-FISA confession: Informant needed to air Trump dirt before election

by John Solomon  at  The Hill:

If ever there were an admission that taints the FBI’s secret warrant to surveil Donald Trump’s campaign, it sat buried for more than 2 1/2 years in the files of a high-ranking State Department official.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s written account of her Oct. 11, 2016, meeting with FBI informant Christopher Steele shows the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded British intelligence operative admitted that his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline.

And that confession occurred 10 days before the FBI used Steele’s now-discredited dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s ties to Russia.

Steele’s client “is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8,” the date of the 2016 election, Kavalec wrote in a typed summary of her meeting with Steele and Tatyana Duran, a colleague from Steele’s Orbis Security firm. The memos were unearthed a few days ago through open-records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United.

Kavalec’s notes do not appear to have been provided to the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe, according to former Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). “They tried to hide a lot of documents from us during our investigation, and it usually turns out there’s a reason for it,” Nunes told me. Senate and House Judiciary investigators told me they did not know about them, even though they investigated Steele’s behavior in 2017-18.

One member of Congress transmitted the memos this week to the Department of Justice’s inspector general, fearing its investigation of FISA abuses may not have had access to them.

Nonetheless, the FBI is doing its best to keep much of Kavalec’s information secret by retroactively claiming it is classified, even though it was originally marked unclassified in 2016.

The apparent effort to hide Kavalec’s notes from her contact with Steele has persisted for some time.

State officials acknowledged a year ago they received a copy of the Steele dossier in July 2016, and got a more detailed briefing in October 2016 and referred the information to the FBI.

But what was discussed was not revealed. Sources told me more than a year ago that Kavalec had the most important (and memorialized) interaction with Steele before the FISA warrant was issued, but FBI and State officials refused to discuss it, or even confirm it.

The encounter, and Kavalec’s memos, were forced into public view through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation by Citizens United. Yet, all but a few lines have been redacted after the fact. Officials are citing as the reason national security, in the name of the FBI and a half-century-old intelligence law.

David Bossie, head of Citizens United and an informal Trump adviser, said the documents suggest there was an illegal effort to “frame” the future president with bogus Russia collusion allegations. “This new information proves why the attorney general must conduct a thorough investigation of the investigators,” he said.

Sources tell me there also are handwritten notes from the meeting, with information about Steele’s political ties, that have not been given to Congress. “There’s a connection to Hillary Clinton in the notes,” said one source who has seen them.

Perhaps those will come to light soon.

The mere three sentences that the FBI allowed State to release, unredacted, show that Kavalec sent an email two days after her encounter with Steele, alerting others.

“You may already have this information but wanted to pass it on just in case,” Kavalec wrote in the lone sentence the FBI and State released from that email. The names of the recipients, the subject line and the attachments are blacked out.

Interestingly, one legal justification cited for redacting the Oct. 13, 2016, email is the National Security Act of 1947, which can be used to shield communications involving the CIA or the White House National Security Council.

The three sentences visible in her memo show that U.S. officials had good reason to suspect Steele’s client and motive in alleging Trump-Russia collusion because they were election-related and facilitated by the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS founder, Glenn Simpson.

“Orbis undertook the investigation into the Russia/Trump connection at the behest of an institution he declined to identify that had been hacked,” Kavalec wrote.

At the time, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was the highest-profile victim of election-year hacking.

“The institution approached them based on the recommendation of Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch (specialists in economic crime, formerly of the WSJ) and is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8,” Kavalec wrote. “Orbis undertook the investigation in June of 2016.” Steele’s firm Orbis was a subcontractor to Fusion GPS, and WSJ refers to The Wall Street Journal.

Everything else in the memo was redacted. The FOIA notes contain this explanation for the redactions: “Classified by FBI on 4/25/2019 — Class: SECRET.”

In other words, the FBI under Director Christopher Wray classified the document as “secret” just a few days ago. To add injury to insult, the FBI added this hopeful note: “Declassify on 12/31/2041.” That would be 25 years after the 2016 election.

Despite the heavy redactions, Kavalec’s notes have momentous consequence.

For the first time, we have written proof the U.S. government knew well before the FBI secured the FISA warrant that Steele had a political motive and Election Day deadline to make his dossier public.

And we know that information was transmitted before the Carter Page FISA warrant to one or more people whose job is so sensitive that their identity had to be protected. That means there is little chance the FBI didn’t know about Steele’s political client, or the Election Day deadline, before requesting the FISA warrant.

Documents and testimony from Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, show he told the FBI in August 2016 that Steele was “desperate” to defeat Trump and his work had something to do with Clinton’s campaign.

Kavalec’s notes make clear the DNC was a likely client and the election was Steele’s deadline to smear Trump.

Likewise, there is little chance the FBI didn’t know that Steele, then a bureau informant, had broken protocol and gone to the State Department in an effort to make the Trump dirt public.

That makes the FBI’s failure to disclose to the FISA judges the information about Steele’s political bias and motive all the more stunning. And it makes the agents’ use of his unverified dossier to support the warrant all the more shameful.

Kavalec’s notes shed light on another mystery from the text messages between the FBI’s Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which first revealed the politically-biased nature of the Trump collusion probe.

Strzok, the lead FBI agent on the case, and Page, a lawyer working for the FBI deputy director, repeatedly messaged each other in October 2016 about efforts to pressure and speed the review of the FISA warrant.

For instance, on Oct. 11, 2016, Strzok texted Page that he was “fighting with Stu for this FISA,” an apparent reference to then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stu Evans in DOJ’s national security division.

A few days later, on Oct. 14, Strzok emailed Page he needed some “hurry the F up pressure” to get the FISA approved.

If the evidence is good and the FISA request solid, why did the FBI need to apply pressure?

The real reason may be the FBI was trying to keep a lid on the political origins, motives and Election Day deadline of its star informant Steele.

And that would be the ultimate abuse of the FBI’s FISA powers.


The Dem’s Red Era of Fascistic Socialism Has Arrived as Feminism..

Socialism or Communism: Call It What You Will

by Jeffrey Folks  at  American Thinker:


For decades, Bernie Sanders has proclaimed that he is a socialist, but is he a communist?

A common definition of communism is a system in which all means of production are owned, and all workers employed, by the state.  A familiar definition of socialism is a system in which all means of production are owned or regulated by the state and all workers, therefore, employed or regulated by the state.  Except for the qualification of “owned or regulated,” there is no difference between socialism and communism.  Some might view socialism as “communism lite,” but there is nothing “lite” about the government takeover of all major industries that Bernie and other leading Democrats advocate.

The Left has already socialized America’s educational system, with SAT scores declining since their peak in 1964 and declining markedly since 2006.  From what was traditionally local schools governed by local school boards, the American system of education became increasingly regulated by the federal government beginning in the 1960s as stipulations on curricula, standards, and treatment of race and sex were attached to the explosive rise in federal funding of education.  By shifting funding away from state and local sources, the federal government was able to gain control of nearly every aspect of public education.

At the center of the socialist movement is the demand for health care “as a right” with Medicare for All as the solution.  Medicare for All is a disarmingly neutral phrase, but it masks a plan for the elimination, and outlawing, of private health insurance.  This would mean government control of the entire process of treatment, including office visits, hospitalization, emergency care, and drug delivery.  With Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare already “serving” 116.5 million patients, this process is well underway, but a complete takeover would transform expectations about standards and timeliness of care.  Imagine calling HHS to schedule a heart bypass operation and finding yourself on an endless menu runaround.  That’s the reality of Medicare for All.

The financial crisis of 2008 made possible a vast expansion in federal control of the financial sector, along with the automotive and housing sectors.  Financial firms were forced to accept “bailouts” to which stringent conditions were attached.  Many of those conditions are still in place, and radicals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocate the renewal of affordable housing policies such as loan quotas for low-income and illegal alien borrowers — the same behavior that caused the financial crisis to begin with.

Another major sector of the economy ripe for picking, as socialists see it, is energy.  The Green New Deal has nothing to do with saving the Earth and everything to do with government takeover of the energy sector.  Obama attempted this takeover via EPA, Fish and Wildlife, Interior, and other agency regulation that shut down leasing of mineral rights on federal lands and on vast areas of private lands.  Now radical Democrats want a more direct takeover of the energy sector by mandating the elimination of fossil fuels by 2030.  Under this plan, government would be empowered to dictate exactly what sources of energy every American would be permitted to employ, and in what amounts.  Supporters have not considered the fact that the Green New Deal would eliminate most sources of electricity, along with nearly all cars, trucks, trains, and planes now in operation.  Apparently, they’re smitten with the idea of a bicycle utopia straight out of Amsterdam.  Most Americans will find it difficult to cycle to work.

It’s not surprising that flashy politicians like Ocasio-Cortez, or seemingly attractive ones like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, can attract Millennial voters.  “Free everything” and a sympathetic view of those struggling in the economy go a long way toward earning votes.  Those were the same enticements employed by communists and fascists in the past.  Hugo Chávez began as a populist who promised a better life for the masses.  Today there is little food in Venezuela for those masses.

With the election of Democrats across the board in 2020, America would become a fully socialist country, not at all different from all socialist and communist countries of the past or present.  Socialism means not just control of the economy; it means the annulment of all our freedoms.  This includes revocation of the Second Amendment; universal government-funded abortion; elimination of religion from the public sphere; expansion of “hate speech” laws and other forms of censorship; use of the IRS, the FBI, and other agencies to suppress political opposition; expansion of the EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and other environmental agencies to control land use and restrict property rights; confiscation of wealth via taxation at 70% and more; and other assaults on the freedoms we enjoy.

Is there any substantive difference between this scenario and communism as it existed in the Soviet Union, communist Cuba, and “socialist” Venezuela?

This being the case, why not label Bernie’s socialism for what it is?  What Democrats have in mind in 2020 — all of them, from Bernie to Beto, with Kamala, Cory, and Biden in between — is closer to Maduro’s Venezuela than it is to the democratic capitalism that Americans have enjoyed in the past.  It is not a benign form of government “helping,” as leftists like to portray it — “you didn’t build that, government built it for you,” so why do you oppose even more government “help”?  What Norbert Michel and others have called “smiley-faced socialism” is not smiley when an armed federal agent comes to your door, demanding a handover of your assets or your land, or the re-education of your children.  The difference between socialism and communism is actually just a matter of semantics.

Smiley-faced socialism is just as oppressive as communism, and it inevitably becomes less smiley-faced.  Like Bernie and the rest in 2020, Obama promised free health care with total choice.  What he delivered was little choice, high cost, and “mandates” forcing everyone to purchase health insurance.  Under communism, there are far more mandates, but they are not at all different from what Obama delivered with the Affordable Care Act.  Orders are issued, and they are followed, and they are enforced by armed federal agents.

If the American people choose a Democrat for president and a Democrat Congress in 2020, we will become a socialist nation.  Perhaps the American people are tired of making the effort required by capitalism.  Perhaps they are tired of arguing with the Left over issues such as health care and “free” education.  Perhaps they want to just give in and let the socialists have their way.  If they do so, it will enslave our nation for the next hundred years.

The truth is that socialism does not deliver equality but only poverty and oppression.  “Democratic” socialism soon becomes less than democratic, and its economy offers only rationing for the poor and special privileges for the political class.  “Medicare for All” would deliver not “Medicare” as we know it, but a degraded version of Medicare — and all would have to accept it, including seniors who had previously benefited from at least some access to health care.

What Democrats have in mind in 2020 is not smiley-faced socialism; it is hardcore collectivism enforced by armed government agents.  Twenty twenty will be a critical election because it will reveal the direction Americans really want to take.

I do not want to live in a socialist or communist nation, but I do not intend to leave.  I only hope Trump will be re-elected and that he will continue to defend our liberties and our free-market system.  Otherwise, the future will be difficult for all of us.

s and our free-market system.  Otherwise, the future will be difficult for all of us.


Trump Makes a Change “At the Border!”

If Trump critics think DHS resignation will change his mind on the border, think again

by James Jay Carafano   at Fox News:

Securing the border is a critical mission. It was never something to be complacent about, and the situation there has demonstrably deteriorated.

So, it’s not surprising that the president decided to change leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. When Trump doesn’t get results, he shakes things up. That’s always been his way.

Kirstjen Nielsen is a tough woman who took on a tough job. She faithfully served her president and the nation.


I worked with Kirstjen for decades as part of the community of scholars and practitioners who advocated for effective homeland security policies. We served together on the presidential transition team. Kirstjen gave the administration two years of dedicated service, working in a variety of roles. Every day she put the nation and the mission first. The president could not have asked for a more loyal and dedicated supporter.

Her critics on the right and left are off base. Those who want to intimate that she was soft on the president’s “get tough” approach to border security and immigration enforcement are just wrong.  On the other side, those who attack her being too tough are in denial about the problems her department must deal with.

What are some of those problems?  For starters, there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. Every day, innocent children are placed at risk. Every day, families endure unspeakable hardships.

The hypocrisy is maddening. The crisis at the border could be quickly brought under control if Congress would take the necessary and common sense steps.

But don’t blame the secretary or the president. Blame activists who are organizing and encouraging caravans and bogus asylum-seekers to rush the border. Blame multi-billion-dollar criminal cartels that exploit human trafficking. Blame ineffective leaders in Congress who deny a crisis exists—even as illegal immigration soars and conditions deteriorate.

Some of Kirstjen’s critics are little more than enablers—perpetuating policies that have encouraged what amounts to a modern-day trail of tears—all because they see this human misery as a lever that can be used in their ongoing, partisan political battle with the president.

The hypocrisy is maddening. The crisis at the border could be quickly brought under control if Congress would take these necessary and common sense steps: fund the wall; provide adequate resources for detention; speed up asylum claims processing, and close the legal loopholes that allow activists and criminals to encourage flooding America with unprecedented numbers of illegal immigrants.

But Trump’s political opponents will have none of that. Instead, they call for amnesties and open borders, which will only open the floodgates wider.

The real loser here is not Kirstjen. She can be proud of her service to the American people and the president. It is not Trump, who will relentlessly pursue protecting the nation. Those who will lose the most are American citizens. They will have to bear the cost of providing social services to millions of illegal immigrants.

Absent congressional willingness to fix the immigration system, the president has few options other than to do whatever he can to secure the border. Trump is not one to stand by and not try every possible legal option to get the job done—and that includes shaking up the team. On Team Trump, no one is more important than the mission. The president rightfully thanked the secretary for her service. Now the challenge is to impress on new leaders the need to keep at it.

Perhaps the strongest message here is for the president’s detractors. If they think he will ever back off in pursuit of securing the border and fixing a broken immigration system they are wrong. His latest action is just another reminder of that.


Ignorance, Corruption, and The Fascist Sale of Global Warming

Fascists, whether our today’s neoDemocrat Party,  Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Mao China, rely on the ignorance they preach, threaten,  create and control over their populations.  For the human female animal if left alone to her animal self, TRUTH HAS NO MEANING!  Security does above all matter!

The college age human female is the easiest among the human species to abandon seeking Truth.  She is primarily a creature of feelings.  Not born a curious animal, she demands, seeks security uber alles for her protection and  safety for her “off spring”…..the primary purpose for her existence upon this Earth.

In our America today, she goes to school and college  to become  a superior  abnormal, a feminist  fascist programmed with feelings  to join a Revolution ala Bernie Sanders, Gloria Steinem, or bodies leftier.

Remember that solving problems is not a primary, secondary, or tertiary  human female animal drive  in life.   SECURITY IS!

Yet, Global Warming Alarm today is  a wild hysteria played by human boys at universities, the United Nations, and government centers  throughout the world selling terror to rule the world into a single fascist state where the human male can RULE and DICTATE!

We live in an America today where feminist  leftist ignorance seems to be replacing the historical male drive to expose the unknown in its educational and news world!


IF WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT OUR EARTH’S PAST WERE TAUGHT TO AMERICAN STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS  RATHER THAN SOLD THE GLOBAL COOLING LIE   BY AMERICAN PRESIDENT LOSER  AL GORE,  TRUTH ABOUT OUR EARTH’S CLIMATE PAST WOULD EXPOSE PERHAPS THE GREATEST FINANCIAL CORRUPTION IN WORLD HISTORY!     Only twelve thousand or so years ago, the Duluth Minnesota area was under about 500 feet of glacial ice.   Al Gore’s disciples and schools  don’t mention that.  Nor do they teach much about dinosaurs, the big ones, were running around  North and South Dakotas for millions of years until about 65,000,000 years ago.


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Global warming hysteria is not based on observation–the Earth’s atmosphere is not warming significantly–but, rather, on computer models. Of course, a computer model will do more or less what its designer tells it to, and the fact that the alarmists’ models do not predict global temperatures accurately has somehow failed to dent the religious faith of those who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

The Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was highlights the critical importance of clouds, and our utter ignorance of how they work:

On her web site, Judith Curry bring up a translated interview with Bjorn Stevens of the Hamburg Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. He brings up many of the problems with the Climate Establishment, such as:

* Global warming forecasts are still surprisingly inaccurate.

* “Climate sensitivity” [is largely unknown].

* “Back in the 1970s, it was determined using primitive computer models. The researchers
came to the conclusion that their value is likely somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.

* “This result has not changed until today, about 40 years later. And that’s exactly the

The failure to advance knowledge over 40 years is despite enormous increases in computational power of computers and tens of billions spent on “climate science.”

The difficulties he and his fellow researchers face can be summed up in one word: clouds. The mountains of water vapor slowly moving across the sky are the bane of all climate researchers.

First of all, it is the enormous diversity of its manifestations that makes clouds so unpredictable. Each of these types of clouds has a different effect on the climate. And above all: they have a strong effect.

Simulating natural processes in the computer is always particularly sensitive when small causes produce great effects. For no other factor in the climatic events, this is as true as for the clouds. If the fractional coverage of low-level clouds fell by only four percentage points, it would suddenly be two degrees warmer worldwide. The overall temperature effect, which was considered just acceptable in the Paris Agreement, is thus caused by four percentage points of clouds – no wonder that binding predictions are not easy to make.

In addition, the formation of clouds depends heavily on the local conditions. But even the most modern climate models, which indeed map the entire planet, are still blind to such small-scale processes.

It would be ridiculous to base economic policies on models that can’t predict atmospheric temperatures, and don’t even attempt to take into account such critically important factors as cloud formation.


The Dems’ Fascistic War Against Truth and America Has Already Begun!

Trump’s Presidency Triggered a Wave of Fake Hate Crimes

by  Frank Hawkins  at  American Thinker:

Jussie Smollett’s fake hate crime blaming Trump supporters has now been exposed as a hate crime of its own. And, as it turns out, we’ve seen this movie before. Too many times. Frankly, it’s getting tiresome. And it’s high time the gullible leftist media begins to show some skepticism when these types of incidents are reported.

Leaks and statements from the Chicago Police Department make it clear the attention-seeking leftist black actor, who happens to be gay, tried to persuade the public that he was the victim of a Trump inspired hate crime. His claim turned to farce when it was exposed that the so-called white MAGA hat wearing attackers were Nigerian born friends of his leading one wag to claim this was the first time Nigerians had fallen for an American scam.

The pattern is clear. In an ongoing effort to discredit President Trump and white conservative males, the bizarro left loves to fabricate stories that portray themselves as victims of hate. It’s a shameful practice that borders on mental illness.

The pattern became noticeable during Trump’s run 2016 run for the presidency. It was so bad the Daily Caller labeled 2016 as “The Year of The Hoax Hate Crime.” An example:

“Three black women at the University of Albany earned media coverage from liberal outlets like CNN in February when they claimed a white mob followed them onto a bus, hurling racial slurs and later attacking them. The alleged attack even caught the attention of Hillary Clinton, who sent a personal tweet stating “There’s no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus.” There’s just one problem: the students made the whole thing up.”

But things really got going after Trump’s election. Here’s just a sampling.

The day after the election, Eleesha Long, a student at Bowling Green University in Ohio said white males wearing Trump shirts threw rocks at her and hurled racial slurs. The alleged incident sparked rage on the campus and the university hosted a town hall. Guess what? Long also made it all up. Investigators said her text messages allegedly revealed her frustration with friends and family who were Trump supporters.

Later that month, University of Michigan student Halley Bass told police that a Trump supporter attacked her by scratching her face. She said she was targeted for wearing a pin in support of Brexit. As her story fell apart, she admitted to scratching herself.

In Chicago in November, Taylor Volk, a bisexual student at North Park University, said she received hateful pro-Trump, anti-gay messages. “This is a countrywide epidemic all of a sudden,” she said.  Speaking of epidemics, investigators determined that she fabricated the story.

Also in 2016, a Muslim student at the University of Michigan claimed a white man who threatened to burn her hijab attacked her. CAIR claimed the attack was “just the latest anti-Muslim incident reported since the election of Donald Trump as president.” It was a lie, of course. A similar incident happened in New York City, after Baruch College student Yasmin Seweid claimed three drunken white men yelled “Donald Trump!” and anti-Islam slurs at her on the subway and tried to grab her hijab. Police announced that Seweid invented the story to get out of trouble with her family after drinking with her friends and breaking her curfew. She has been charged with filing a false report.

But the hoax hate crimes didn’t end in 2016.

In April 2017, Curtis Flournoy set an immigrant-owned business in Charlotte on fire leaving a note saying, “Our newly elected president Donald Trump is our nation builder for white America. You all know that, we want our country back on the right track. We need to get rid of Muslims, Indians and all immigrants. Specially (sic), we don’t want business run by refugees and immigrant any more (sic). When cameras showed the perpetrator was black, some leftwing websites went to far as to claim that it was a white Trump supporter in disguise. Flournoy was arrested by police for hate crime and arson.

In Kansas in November 2017, Riley County police said a man admitted he painted racist slurs on his own car.  I wonder what it cost him to repaint the car?

In the fall of 2018, a note was left at a Kansas State apartment that read “beware n***ers live here. Knock at your own risk.” The so-called victim admitted to police that the person (sex unidentified) did it him/herself. In fact this was the second time this person had fabricated a hate incident in two years. It’s interesting that the police did not reveal the sex or the race of the liar.

Who remembers when Trump was blamed for the spate of death threats to Jewish community centers across the US in the summer of 2017? Juan Thompson, a serial liar who worked for The Intercept as a reporter, was convicted of hoax threats and other offenses. He authored a 5,000-word account in which he described a racist smear campaign by the Intercept against him. He wrote that the outlet saw him only as “the token Negro whisperer.” He even claimed a white ex-girlfriend threatened to kill President Trump. It was another lie.

In November 2017 near Kansas State University, a black man’s car was vandalized with racist messages. Classes were cancelled and students held demonstrations. The FBI even opened a civil rights investigation into a possible hate crime. Eventually, Dauntarius Williams admitted to police that he did it to himself.  By the way, that hoax came on the heels of a string of incidents at the school. Earlier in October, an anti-gay slur was found outside the university student union. In September, white supremacist fliers had been found on campus. And in May, a noose was found hanging from a campus tree. Anyone recognize the pattern?

Right after Trump’s election, the Southern Poverty Law Center stoked panic when it claimed a pro-gay Episcopal church in Indiana was vandalized with “Heil Trump”, a swastika and an anti-gay slur. Turns out, it was the gay organ player who did it.

In November last year, days after the Pittsburgh massacre, Trump supporters were blamed for Nazi vandalism at a Brooklyn synagogue and fires in a Jewish community center. Police revealed the perpetrator was a gay black man who had worked with city council on an initiative to fight hate crimes. James Polite was busted a day after he allegedly wrote “Kill All Jews,” in the stairwell of historic Union Temple in Prospect Heights. Polite had also recently set a string of fires — including in the closet of Yeshiva Beth Hillel of Williamsburg, and smaller blazes in the trash outside three other nearby Jewish institutions. You just can’t make it up.

This is just a small sampling of the hoax crimes blaming Trump, Jews and white conservatives that have been properly investigated and reported since 2016. These examples don’t mean that all hate crimes against minorities are hoaxes. But it certainly means that all such incidents need to be investigated before the anti-Trump media wildly thrashes around taking the incidents at face value and giving them credibility. Enough is enough. Time to close this movie theater.

Frank Hawkins is a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, Associated Press foreign correspondent, international businessman, senior newspaper company executive, founder and owner of several marketing companies, and published novelist.  He currently lives in retirement in North Carolina.