• 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

Truth IS: Epstein Grime Primarily Belongs to the DEMS’ Grimy Clintons!

EPSTEIN IS CLINTON’S PROBLEM, NOT TRUMP’S

by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

The Democrats have tried to smear President Trump by association with Jeffrey Epstein, while ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express. It turns out that Trump actually threw Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago:

President Trump was asked about Epstein — a billionaire who rubbed shoulders with celebrities and world leaders — while speaking to reporters on Tuesday.

“I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago,” Trump said. “I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years. I wasn’t a fan. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you. I was not a fan of his.”

Dana Perino asked James Patterson, who wrote a book about Epstein, about the falling out to which Trump referred:

Score it as another swing and a miss for the Democrats.

No One, Even Heroes Like Martin Luther King, Are Perfect

How to Make Sense of the Shocking New MLK Documents

A new trove of FBI records has become yet another political weapon in our hyper-partisan age. That doesn’t mean we should ignore it.

What do you do when a great hero is alleged to have done something awful?

Politicians, historians, universities, artists and citizens in general have been grappling with this question for years. Renewed attention to racism and discrimination has prompted the reassessment of historical giants from Andrew Jackson to Woodrow WilsonWinston Churchill to Gandhi. Sexual harassment revelations have felled a forest of cultural, political and business bigshots. Tasteless jokes, dubious comments or ill-advised tweets have led to scores of people being fired from prominent positions.

Now Martin Luther King Jr. is in the spotlight. On Thursday, David J. Garrow, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of King—and the author of other acclaimed books on Roe v. Wade and Barack Obama—reported in the conservative British magazine Standpoint on explosive material that he found in recently published FBI documents. The article, based on FBI reports summarizing the bureau’s audio surveillance of King, makes for uncomfortable reading, to say the least.

The most shocking claim Garrow relates is that King was present in a hotel room when a friend of his, Baltimore pastor Logan Kearse, raped a woman who resisted participating in unspecified sexual acts. The FBI agent who surveilled the room asserted that King “looked on, laughed and offered advice.” Other allegations include that King’s philandering—long known to be extensive—was even more rampant than historians knew; that King took part in group sex; that King may have fathered a child with one of his mistresses; and—less pruriently—that King continued taking money from his onetime ally Stanley Levison, a Communist Party member, even after he was supposed to have broken off ties.

Right-wing media have pounced on the story, fairly delighting in the discomfort it poses to liberals, especially those who’ve been calling for the demotion of other eminences. “Martin Luther King Jr. Was Reportedly an Abuser Who Laughed at Rape,” blared The Daily Wire. “Is It Time to Tear His Monuments Down?” Meanwhile, liberal and mainstream media have so far seemed skittish about the topic—as Garrow discovered when he tried but failed to get several non-partisan U.S. publications to run it. (One paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reported on Garrow’s claims last week while also publishing a thorough account of its decision not to publish the original article itself.) News outlets usually pause before running salacious allegations against public figures, especially when they’re open to doubt—although in recent years that restraint has been eroding quickly. But with a long-dead historical figure, the hesitancy is more surprising. It’s easy to wonder if a desire to shield King’s reputation, or to avoid Twitter blowback, could be at work. Even discussions of history, it seems, are becoming ever more politically polarized.

***

Since the 1986 publication of Bearing the Cross, his account of King’s life from the Montgomery bus boycott until his assassination, Garrow has periodically written articles updating the story of the FBI’s surveillance of King—as he did, for example, in the Atlantic in 2002. These latest tidbits come from bureau reports and summaries that were recently published online under terms of the 1992 President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. Inside this new records dump, Garrow discovered, were a number of FBI documents that pertained to King. “Winnowing the new King items from amidst the Archive’s 54,602 web-links, many of which lead to multi-document PDFs that are hundreds of pages long,” Garrow noted in his new piece, “entailed weeks of painstaking work.”

The reports are full of erotic details and include revealing handwritten marginalia. But to the uninitiated, the written reports that Garrow cites are hard to interpret. They can’t be checked against the original surveillance tapes, which remain sealed, according to a judge’s order, until 2027. It’s hard to tell from a glance who precisely authored them, for what purpose they were drafted or what information they’re based on. It is Garrow’s decades of expertise in reviewing and analyzing FBI materials about King that gives these startling revelations their weight. Garrow has explained that while not all FBI claims are to be believed, these sorts of summaries of surveillance intercepts are unlikely to have been fabricated or manipulated.

And Garrow’s overall assessment is measured. Nowhere does he renounce the esteem for King that can be seen in his three important books on the minister’s life. Rather, he proposes that the possibility King tolerated or abetted a rape “poses so fundamental a challenge to his historical stature as to require the most complete and extensive historical review possible.” Garrow concludes with a call to preserve the recordings on which the FBI reports are based, so that we can learn more when they’re scheduled to be opened eight years from now.

Not everyone, however, has been so judicious in putting these FBI documents into context. Standpoint published a companion editorial to Garrow’s piece asserting that “the wiretaps reveal [King] to be the Harvey Weinstein of the civil rights movement.” That analogy is absurd. For one thing, King himself isn’t said to have assaulted women (although “offering advice”—whatever that might mean—to a friend committing a rape certainly comes close). For another, Garrow is relying on summaries, not the original wiretaps, and those summaries can’t be taken at face value. As we know in part from Garrow’s past research, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was obsessed with King. Notoriously, bureau agents tried to blackmail him into committing suicide by sending him a letter threatening to expose his affairs. Also, summaries aren’t recordings; it’s hard even to imagine how audio recordings could offer dispositive proof that a rape did or didn’t happen. This context thus weighs against any simple conclusion about the incident. The magazine’s overwrought editorial undermines Garrow’s patient work.

An equally untenable judgment, however, comes from the Washington Post’s “Retropolis” blog, which declares Garrow’s article to be “irresponsible.” The thrust of the article is to insinuate that the FBI reports aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, and so Garrow shouldn’t have published them. But while the Post piece quotes some respected historians (including friends of mine) rightly noting that the FBI documents may not be entirely reliable—not least because of Hoover’s vendetta against King—it avoids the obvious, if painful, corollary that they may well be accurate to a significant degree. We should at least allow the possibility that the accusations are true.

That’s why it’s a mistake to discount Garrow’s article wholesale. Any historian who came across a new cache of documents related to a longstanding area of research would feel compelled to explore it—and, if those materials shed new light on the subject, to publish them. When in 1990, Stanford University’s Clayborne Carson and other scholars at the King Papers Project found that King had committed plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation and other works, they felt obliged to divulge it—even though, as one editor on the project said, he suffered “many hours of lost sleep.” That the revelations in this case turned out to be scandalous warrants, as Garrow argues, intensified efforts to confirm or rebut their veracity. Bringing them to light, while acknowledging their uncertainty, is perfectly defensible.

***

Garrow’s disclosures are, in fact, important to incorporate into our historical knowledge. First, whether or not the allegations against King are true, they add weight to the widely held conclusion that Hoover’s FBI was a corrupt organization, in particular in its pursuit of King and the civil rights movement. The extent of their surveillance, even if originally motivated by legitimate concerns about Soviet influence (via Stanley Levison), seems in retrospect to be excessive.

Second, the piece strengthens the picture of the bureau as inordinately fixated on sex, whether out of the prurience of its director and agents or out of a misbegotten assumption that engaging in what the reports call “unnatural acts” (seemingly oral sex) somehow indicates “degeneracy and depravity.” Alas, this tendency to take private sexual behavior as an indicator of virtue remains all too prevalent today. Historians of sexuality will continue to consider FBI surveillance as a “site of contest,” as we academics like to say, over sexual behavior and norms.

Most important, the piece will surely prompt discussion of how to assimilate these allegations, should they be true, into our understanding of King. It’s worth remembering that we’ve discovered unflattering sides of King before. News of his philandering has been common knowledge since at least the 1975 Church Committee hearings into the dubious actions of the U.S. intelligence agencies. The 1989 memoir of King’s close associate Ralph Abernathy divulged that he spent the night before his assassination with a mistress. The following year saw the news about his plagiarism.

King’s greatness is such that he has weathered these disclosures. The rape charges are of course graver, but they don’t negate the historic achievements for which he has long been properly celebrated.

Even if the ugliest charges against King are bolstered by additional evidence, that doesn’t mean we should talk about renaming Martin Luther King Day, tearing down statues of him, or stripping him of his Nobel Prize. In recent years, we’ve had altogether too much wrecking-ball history—history that takes public or private flaws or failings as reason to cast extraordinary men and women out of our political or artistic pantheons. Historians know that even the most admirable figures from our past were flawed, mortal beings—bad parents or bad spouses, capable of violence or cruelty, beholden to sexist or racist ideas, venal or megalomaniac, dishonest or predatory. Awareness of these qualities doesn’t mean despising figures once held up as heroes. Rather, it gives us a more complete and nuanced picture of the people who shaped our world.

“It was Mr. King whose quest for black economic and social progress started this nation on the road to full integration—the most dynamic step forward in the status of the races since the Civil War. His courage in breaking down racial taboos and facing down opponents of integration, his unwavering insistence on a peaceful revolution, the elevating power of his message to the nation are beyond question.” So opined the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in 1990, days after the same paper brought King’s plagiarism to light. “We suspect Mr. King’s reputation will outlast the questions now being raised,” it concluded. That judgment—from a leading conservative opinion outlet of the day—seems far more sensible than the troll-like schadenfreude peppering right-wing media in the last few days. They are words we should bear in mind again today.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/how-to-make-sense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042

Alyssa Milano Demonstrates the She Human Animal Always Has the Power to be DITSY, When Needed!

SILLIEST PROTEST EVER?

by  John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

Actress Alyssa Milano recently tweeted that liberal women should go on a “sex strike” to protest anti-abortion laws that have been enacted in several states. Hilarity ensued. But model Emily Ratajkowski may have come up with an even dumber pro-abortion protest: she Instagramed a naked picture of herself. Click to enlarge:

I know little about Ms. Ratajkowski, but my impression is that it doesn’t take much to motivate her to undress publicly. Still, you may wonder: what does getting naked have to do with abortion? The answer is obvious: women’s bodies!

What is interesting about this model’s post, which has over two million likes, is how well it exemplifies liberal logic on the abortion issue. I have no idea what Ms. Ratajkowski’s educational attainments are, but what she wrote could have been penned by any of several million liberal, female college students. Which is likely where she got it.

This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape.

The “25 old white men” theme is ubiquitous. The anti-abortion bill passed Alabama’s Senate 25-6. All 25 who voted in favor of the measure were white men, although not many of them appear to be old. Four of the six who voted against the bill were also men. The bill passed Alabama’s House 74-3, with the legislation’s female sponsor and six other women voting in favor. The bill was signed into law by a female governor.

More basically, the idea that abortion is a male-sponsored imposition on “women’s bodies”–of course, those who are anti-abortion think they are protecting the bodies of unborn children, male and female–is a myth. Polls indicate that men are more likely to favor abortion than women. The demographic most enthusiastically in favor of abortion, for obvious reasons, is young single men.

Nor does race have anything to do with it. I haven’t seen any poll data recently, but I am pretty sure that African-Americans and Hispanics are both more likely to oppose abortion than whites.

These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce.

If you can make sense of this you are a better man than I am. Emily’s theory apparently is that old white men “in power” want to produce more criminals who will be caught, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned–why? because it “perpetuates the industrial prison complex.” That is one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories I have ever seen. A far more plausible hypothesis is that liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg favor abortion in order to prevent “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The states trying to ban abortion are the states that have the highest proportion of black women living there.

So that means abortion opponents are pro-African American and want blacks to be a bigger portion of the population. This is how many anti-abortion blacks see the issue.

This is about class and race and is a direct attack on the fundamental human rights women in the US deserve and are protected by under Roe v. Wade.

Liberals think that any time they mention class and race they are scoring points. Actually, the truth here is the opposite. It is hard to explain why anyone who doesn’t like blacks or poor people would want more of them to be born. (Unless, of course, they think the object of public policy is to increase the prison population. Which, by the way, is a racist supposition, isn’t it?) Anti-abortion advocates believe that unborn babies have a “fundamental human right” to life, which they vote to protect regardless of race or class.

I personally don’t favor legislation along the lines recently enacted in Alabama, but the more idiotic attacks I see from the left, the more willing I am to consider that Alabama’s legislature could be right.

 

 

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!

TODAY’S FASCIST  LEFTISTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD PREACH THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN-MADE CAUSED BY WESTERN WHITE MALES’ INVENTIONS  OVER THE PAST  CENTURIES.   BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN DONATED TO WORLD INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTION TO PROVE THE PROPAGANDA OR LOSE THEIR FORTUNES AND CAREERS.

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.

WE REALLY DON’T KNOW CLOUDS AT ALL

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
problem.”

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.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/we-really-dont-know-clouds-at-all.php

SORRY GALS, YOU WEREN’T BORN TO BE PERFECT!!!

SORRY FEMINAZI AMERICAN LEFTIES…..DESPITE YOUR TEACHINGS, SPEECHINGS,  AND WRITINGS in universities, schools, books, and newsprint,  YOU WERE NEVER BORN MADE PERFECT AS YOUR TRIBES AND NEWSPRINT  CLAIM YOU ARE!

I am a male.   My mother, grandmothers, aunts, great aunts, and sister were born  female,   NOT FEMINISTS!  Nor did any of them ever spread the teachings or participate in the  actions  anything feminazi  as we see blossoming at American universities and he  Democrat Party.

I was born during the early 1930s depression in America.   I was school raised during the  World War  in Europe and the Far East.   We boys played “touch” war games in our neighborhood empty lots with our war toys.   In the winter we’d build igloos and then  ‘bomb’ them with ice balls playing GIs defending the Aleutians.   We’d duel like warriors with sticks after we saw Tyrone Power and Maureen O’Hara  in their movie, “The Black Swan”.    Every school morning we’d pledge allegiance to our wonderful US of A.

We were training  by Nature’s instinct  to express that part of the human male animal drive to observe,  be curious and explore, to inquire and copy our male elders as a part of growing up.

We played war with building blocks, tinker toys, and sneak down to the Mississippi River to play Indians along the woodland shore.   In winter I played picture puzzles in the dining room with my Mother.     They had to be over 1500 pieces and pictures of beautiful gardens.   (I founded Masterpiece Landscaping, LTD here in Minnesota,  forty-four  years later and still work some this very Spring.)

My sister played dolls and paper dolls with her neighborhood girl friends and took accordion lessons.   She and her girl friends enjoyed hopscotch, playing jumping jacks on the sidewalk squares, reading books.  They wore dresses to school and answered their teachers as we boys did, “Yes, maam….No maam”.   No one in school, shops, home and  neighborhood  ever swore!   JudeoChristian adults ran the country.

During the war there was no crime running around neighborhoods.   The guys age 17 to 37 were all overseas fighting, dying  to win a  war that had to be won.  Americans attended church and synagogue then.    Unlike so many leftist Americans today, they weren’t fascists.   They were  Godfearing folks.

Until our America’s beginning of its  college feminazi movement in the late  1960s  to the empire it has created today, no one was dumb  enough even to think about positioning   female human animals of any weight, height or age into a bloody fox hole next to their male under attack by the enemy.    They  were programmed by their God of Life learnings  when under attack to scream for adult  help, not to pretend to be  male warriors on the kill.

Being a Godfearing  child of the War, I went into the Army after I got my first college degree in 1956.  (I wanted to know what I would do if I were shot at fighting for my country……stirred by Sir  Winston Churchill’s claim from experience,  that  “THE MOST EXHILARATING EXPERIENCE IN LIFE IS TO BE SHOT AT……AND TO  HAVE BEEN MISSED!”

THE HUMAN FEMALE ANIMAL IS NOT THE EQUAL OF THE HUMAN MALE ANIMAL…..YES, SHE IS OF SPECIAL  VALUE IN LIFE.  SHE IS THE BEARER AND MOTHER OF OUR HUMAN CHILDREN.  BUT, SHE IS NOT BORN AND PROGRAMMED TO BE A WARRIOR!

I came to love learning about history and mankind and our struggles absorbing Truth, God,  early in life mostly from my   old maid school teachers at public school and church  school on Sundays.  They all sold  roughly the same message;

“The more I’d learn the  closer to God I’d become!”

Sunday school taught me I was a child of our God.  Public school and puberty  taught me I was a child of my mom and dad.   In 1948 my pastor, as part of our learnings to become an Christian adult,  showed us Church teenagers  a film of chimpanzee living habits, food collecting,  nursing,  eating, attacking, defending territory, protecting, yet  being curious, and  exploring.  Occasionally, I felt I saw them “playing” like us boy  kids.

Then I discovered I had male drives and duties in life.  Gals had their female drives and duties which were somewhat different.   They were to become Mothers….to bear and raise  children to be kind, healthy,  civilized and Godfearing.   At  puberty when the boy entered manhood he would begin to enter his father’s world and learn  to make a living to protect and defend  family,  children, and country to continue the life of the species.

Soon after entering  this older world, I began viewing humans as human animals.  Wars I had learned about told me it was my human animal duty to be able to kill to defend my kin, my neighbors, my country.   Most crimes causing death within a culture are caused by the human male animal.  It’s in his DNA.   He must be trained to be a civilized human.  Therefore, he  must trained to seek and honor Truth!……..for the sake of the survival of the species.

For many centuries in the West, Near East, and the Far East the human female animal has been honored and protected within the various cultures and usually exceptionally esteemed for producing children to continue the existence of  the tribe, the country.

The family no longer exists with mothers raising children  as it did throughout the American neighborhoods when I was raised.   We are beginning to live in a leftist,  fascist feminazi challenged  USA where Truth yields to feelings in meaning.   Yes, some JudeoChristian Godfearing mothers  still   raise their children  at home, and not by nurseries, baby sitters, or government’s hired hands and lefty fascists at school!      Most fascism today,  arrives from today’s childless American feminists and feminazis…..especially the unhappy, foul mouthed university trained fascist varieties of feminists from Harvard and Yale to USC.

Today’s American feminists  at universities are no longer civil,  Godfearing, honest folk.  They are FEMINISTS!!……. a new kind of National Socialist superiority…. Their airs  even advertise they’ve been born PERFECT!  They learned so in school and college!  Listen to their feelings!  Some of these leftists are feelings’ forecasting “death to us all in twelve years” if we don’t support  feminazi leftist causes this next election, AD 2020!

The Truth of the matter is the human female animal is born to be  DITSY!  Two and two don’t necessarily make four if the shes aren’t  feeling so when  in her female feelings  mood.  HER NATURE’S  FEELINGS DETERMINE HER HUMAN MOOD AND DRIVE….NOT SEEKING, EXPOSING, BUILDING TRUTH AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE!

ABOVE ALL THE HUMAN FEMALE ANIMAL WANTS TO BE PROTECTED AND TAKEN CARE OF……COMMUNISM, FASCISM, ROYALTY, A FREE SOCIETY….IT DOESN’T PARTICULARLY MATTER….. usually just so the rule of government isn’t based on ability, honesty, freedom!  Yesterday’s male Democrat Party has become feminized into its present DITSY fascistic Hillary-Ocasio Cortez  stage.  Truth doesn’t matter because, as their feminists of all sexes complain ,  Satisfying Truth, Curiosity, and Occupation  is, indeed,  a male drive and dream.   “I”, she demands, “seek security and comfort.  Guys who keep inventing things make me insecure!”

GOD,  that is the GOD of Gods throughout ‘mankind the thinker’, has “always” been male.   That male  was  built and programmed to sire, to defend,  to be curious, to  feed, defend, invent, build and discover and protect his mate and family  for the survival of the species.

https://www.prageru.com/video/the-left-ruins-everything/

DEM FEMS TURN TO LYING IN THE FIRST AND LAST DEGREE INSTEAD OF PROBLEM SOLVING

Byron York: Yes, Trump is target of ‘presidential harassment’

President Trump often complains that he is the victim of “presidential harassment” — or, as he sometimes puts it, “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!”

“Presidential Harassment by ‘crazed’ Democrats at the highest level in the history of our Country,” Trump tweeted on March 3. “After more than two years of Presidential Harassment, the only things that have been proven is that Democrats and others broke the law,” he added later. “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! It should never be allowed to happen again!” he tweeted Feb. 7.

The president’s adversaries of course dismiss his protests as self-interested whining. But the fact is, Trump has a point. He is the target of an extraordinary combination, not just of federal law enforcement and congressional probes, but a long list of less-discussed but potentially consequential investigations by state and local prosecutors and regulators.

Together, it adds up to a pile-on of unprecedented proportions, by and large the work of blue-state Democrats who stand to gain politically if their investigations succeed in crippling the president.

Recently, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the agency that regulates the insurance business, issued what the New York Times called an “expansive subpoena” to Aon, the insurance broker for the president’s companies. The agency leaped into action after former Trump fixer Michael Cohen told the House that Trump had at some point inflated his assets to an insurance company. Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and faces serious questions about the truthfulness of his latest testimony, supplied no details.

None were needed. “The subpoena that was served on Aon contains no indication that the company or any of its employees engaged in misconduct,” the Times reported. “Nor does it specify any possible wrongdoing that is the focus of the inquiry by state regulators.” The subpoena demanded “a broad range of materials” related to Trump’s dealings with Aon going back a decade, the Times said.

Also in New York, the State Department of Taxation and Finance announced last October that it is investigating Trump’s taxes going back at least 20 years.

New York state officials have also filed suit against the Trump Foundation, which has agreed to dissolve as part of the investigation.

Speaking of state law enforcement, the recent New York Attorney General race was virtually a contest to see which candidate could vow to go after Trump the most aggressively. In her victory speech, new Attorney General Letitia James said of Trump, “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.”

Outside of New York, the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia are suing Trump, accusing him of violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Then, there is the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, based in Manhattan. Prosecutors there are said to be investigating the Trump Organization’s finances; the funding of the Trump inauguration; and the funding of the Trump SuperPAC Rebuilding America Now.

The SDNY investigations hold a large place in the hopes of Trump opponents who fear Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller might deliver an underwhelming report that does not make the case that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election or that he obstructed justice in the aftermath. Indeed, a number of observers believe the SDNY probes pose a more serious threat to Trump than Mueller.

Does there seem something odd about that? In a recent email exchange, I asked Andrew Coan, a University of Arizona law professor who is the author of the book Prosecuting the President, whether there is precedent for a U.S. Attorney’s office conducting a wide-ranging, open-ended investigation of a sitting president.

“The short answer is no,” Coan responded. “I am aware of no comparable prior investigation.”

The reason I asked was that it seems that the basis for the now-expired independent counsel law, and for special counsels that exist today, is that a president, when investigated, should be investigated in a specific way, and not in the normal course of business by federal prosecutors. Coan noted that a special counsel was appointed in Watergate on the rationale that “a U.S. Attorney could not be trusted to investigate the president who appointed him.” Today, by all accounts, Coan added, SDNY prosecutors have pursued their investigation aggressively, but the appointment of another special counsel from outside the Justice Department “would provide some additional assurance that this investigation is not being influenced by political pressure.”

By pressure, Coan meant pressure from the president. But in New York, there could also be the possibility of pressure created by the general atmosphere of resistance to a hated chief executive in a heavily Democratic state.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats have long viewed Trump’s tax returns, which he broke 40-year precedent by refusing to release, as a sort of Holy Grail of Trump investigations. “We have to have the truth,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said before the election. Now, the House Ways & Means Committee is reportedly preparing to demand the Treasury Department turn over the returns. The demand is based primarily on suspicion that Trump must have done something wrong with his taxes or he would have long ago released the returns. If Democrats get the returns, and that is not guaranteed given the expected legal fight, it’s likely they will start even more investigations.

Beyond that, there is the House Judiciary Committee’s recent decision to demand documents from 81 people associated with Trump, a request so wide-ranging that even some Democrats worry that their party’s investigators have overreached.

“The extensive scope could bolster claims by Trump and Republicans that congressional Democrats are seeking to undermine the president and cripple his 2020 reelection effort rather than conduct a disciplined, fact-finding inquiry,” the Washington Post reported. Yes, it could.

And all of that is apart from the Mueller probe and the Senate and House Trump-Russia investigations.

The point is, the scrutiny directed at the president from all sides, not oversight of his administration or even investigations into his election, so far exceeds anything in the past that it could well qualify as presidential harassment.

Democrats would no doubt respond that Trump is singularly corrupt, or that he brought it all on himself. He did not. What has happened is that Democrats, in Congress and in some key blue states, saw investigation as a way to weaken a president they never thought would be elected and want to ensure is not re-elected in 2020. And Trump, with the most extensive business history ever brought to the presidency, presented a lot of avenues of investigation. When he complains about harassment, he has a legitimate case to make.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-yes-trump-is-target-of-presidential-harassment

Sorry, Dem Fascists of College Programmed Variety….The Female Human Animal IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE EQUAL OF THE HUMAN MALE!

I, Glenn Herbert Ray,  was born in 1934….a depression child with an older sister.  I was school raised in World War time  by strict, well educated, God fearing, very American elderly old maid Christians, kindergarten through sixth grade…..40 kids per class.

I was born curious to a fault and dyslexic, a disorder neither invented nor understood until I was married with children.   My Mother was from  German background and loved my Dad more than anything in the world.   My dad, who loved his wife more than anything in the world, was a farm boy from Hope, North Dakota, whose father, Frank Ray,  left Cherryfield, Maine in 1876 at age 17.  His well-to-do  Maine family  practiced primogeniture, that is, the law that the first born male would receive the family’s wealth upon the death of the father.     My grandfather, Frank,  was the youngest of three boys.   He had bought homestead land somewhere west of Fargo,  North Dakota.  And so he left Maine alone on horseback.    I have a postcard with a picture of him standing next to his horse.  He had  sent it to his mother back in Maine from Chillicothe, Ohio on his way West.  “Mother, I am fine, Frank.”

Four years or so later, he met my grandmother-to-be, Anna Williams,  whose family was trekking with all of their kin and possessions to settle just west of the Sheyenne River, not far from Hope.   Their wagons got stuck while they were trying to cross the river.   It  happened Grandfather Frank and friends were meant to show up at the right time  to solve the problem.  He and Anna were married about three years later…and bore five children.   Two boys served in World War I.  Two younger boys   stayed home to farm.

I never met my Grandfather Ray.  He died of throat cancer in 1917.   His wife however, at 4’11” and 98 pounds, whom I dearly loved,   became ruling queen of all of our  Rays  until she died of a stroke in 1947 at age, 80.     Three of the four boys, one of them my dad,  were very close brothers.

My Mother’s kin were hard working farmers, builders,  and carpenters, some with German accents,  who had settled in the German “west side” of St. Paul.   These were churched folks of the German-Lutheran variety, as was my mom.   We all went to Church…..or else….but the “Or Else” was a joy for me and my curiosity drive.

I loved my old maid school teachers whether the church variety or those at school.   They were so dedicated, so  well educated.   Once, after school when I was in 3rd grade  in early fall,  I sneaked into the school milk room after school so in privacy I could  go to  my third grade teacher, Mrs. Lucille Jaeger, and ask her:

“Mrs. Jaeger.   How  did you get to learn so much?”    She showed me her own  National Geographics….the late 1920 to 1942 variety, filled with pictures of people at home and abroad, animals, maps with cutlines I could read without trouble.   “Stop by any time after school you want”, she told me….   And so I did until real winter arrived.

They governed student behavior making learning the high light throughout the day.  Every kid had a dad at work, and a mom at home.   I never heard a swear word of any kind until I was in public high school in Spring, 1947, my freshman year when a new boy in school, David Martin  rather loudly used the word “damn” as we boys were going outside for gym class.   Gym instructor, Mr. Colin Kelly apparently heard the word as well as I did.   David Martin disappeared from school for the rest of the week, as I recall.

Human males in my boyhood experience in the city where I lived, were expected to become men, fathers, workers,  problem solvers, protectors,  earners, knowledgeable, reliable, honest and Christian setting examples like my Dad.  Some had to go to War.  Fathers in our neighborhood worked six days a week.   Sunday was for Church and family.

Human females in my boyhood were exceptionally respected.   Moms set the rules of the day.    They were or were to be Mothers,  to be home in charge of  house, garden,   and children.   It was in the 1960s the Grave New World of public vulgarity and Godlessness  began to reek its stench.

Our American culture as been sliding  downhill  ever since the Reagan Age……except…..except maybe, ironically, almost unbelievably, UNTIL TODAY’S ARRIVAL OF A  NEW AMERICAN ERA OF SALVATION LED BY OUR PRESENT  PRESIDENT, DONALD J. TRUMP!

Are we conservatives good enough, wise enough, determined enough, tolerant enough, JudeoChristian enough, family oriented enough, and in love of Our America enough to back and guide the President to rally the country to save the nation from Socialism’s poisons and ditsies?