• 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

Ditsy Klobuchar Joins Her “Fellow” Ditsies to Socialize a Soviet America


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

As expected, Senator Amy Klobuchar announced this afternoon that she is running for president. Why not? Everyone else is. Scott has written about Klobuchar a number of times, most recently here.

Klobuchar made her announcement in snow-covered Minneapolis. Predictably, she described herself as the candidate of everyone:

“I am running for every parent who wants a better world for their kids. I’m running for every student who wants a good education,” Klobuchar said. “For every senior who wants affordable prescription drugs. For every worker, farmer, dreamer and builder. I am running for every American. I am running for you.”

Somehow, though, I’ve got a sneaking suspicion she isn’t running for me.

Klobuchar’s all-things-to-all-people approach has served her well in Minnesota. She is good at constituent service and gets quite a bit of support from the business community. In the Senate, she has focused mostly on uncontroversial small-ball–product safety and the like–and she is personally pleasant toward local conservatives. I don’t know her well, but she is cordial when I run into her, as, most recently, when I testified before the Joint Economic Committee, of which she is a member. Coincidentally, her husband worked for me quite a few years ago. I get along fine with him, too.

I make these personal observations because they are an important part of Klobuchar’s political persona. Her voting record is just as bad as any other Senate Democrat’s, but her leftism comes in a moderate package. If she can fool a lot of Minnesota businessmen, she likely can appeal to relatively moderate Democratic primary voters, too.

Klobuchar’s bland image obscures the same vaulting ambition that characterizes almost any serious presidential candidate. (A friend who has been active in DFL politics for decades describes Klobuchar as the most ambitious Minnesota Democrat since Walter Mondale.) And also, apparently, a considerable amount of rage. Lately, she has been in the news because of longstanding reports of her abusive treatment of staff. Whether voters will care remains to be seen.

The obvious question is whether Klobuchar will be one of the finalists when the 20-odd Democratic presidential wannabes sort themselves out. It is way too early to tell, of course, but I think she may be. Openly leftist candidates, of which there are many, will split the crazy-Democrat vote. While most primary voters will fall into that category, there is room for someone (maybe a couple of someones) closer to the center. It is easy to imagine that when the primary season approaches a climax, whoever becomes the chief “moderate” candidate will face off against three or four uncompromising leftists. That moderate, or faux-moderate, candidate could well be Amy Klobuchar. Neither her drive, nor her discipline, nor her political skills should be underestimated.

I would not be shocked if, when the dust settles, Amy Klobuchar is the Democrats’ choice to face off against President Trump. But first, she will have to show that she can get traction in a Democratic electorate that is more or less crazed.



From  whom, indeed, does this Soviet ditsy chick get her idea I possess any of her IN ME?  I am not a “Soviet”.   I believe, as do most Americans outside of our DITSY world, we are supposed to become   civilized  human beings born with a responsibility  to grow into an adulthood where WE   MAKE ADULT, TRUTHFUL LIVES AND DECISIONS ABOUT OURSELVES, OUR  FAMILIES,  AND OUR GOVERNORS.



The Green New Deal…..The Return of Soviet Socialism to Mother Earth!!!?

The Green New Deal isn’t just un-American, it’s also completely bonkers.
by David Harsanyi

Note: Ocasio-Cortez’s office has taken down their page describing the Green New Deal.

A number of Democratic Party presidential hopefuls — including Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julián Castro, and Beto O’Rourke, for starters — have already endorsed or expressed support for the “Green New Deal” (GND). Today, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey dropped details about her plan.

It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal costs are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing but trifling projects compared to a plan that overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure us that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

  • Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.
  • Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy generation so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.
  • Eliminate 99 percent of cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains that run on fossil fuels will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?
  • A government-guaranteed job. The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.
  • Free education for life. GND promises free college or trade schools for every American.
  • A salubrious diet. The GND promises the government will provide “healthy food” to every American (because there are no beans or lettuce in your local supermarket, I guess).
  • A house. The GND promises that the government will provide, “safe, affordable, adequate housing” for every American citizen. I call dibs on an affordable Adams Morgan townhouse. Thank you, Ocasio-Cortez.
  • Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.
  • Bonus insanity: Ban meat. Ocasio-Cortez admits that we can’t get zero emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The only way to get rid of farting cows is to get rid of beef.

The GND uses the word “massive” to explain the size “investments” (formerly known as “taxes”) 13 times. How will we pay for this plan? “The same way we did the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailouts and extend quantitative easing,” say Markey and Cortez, who earned her degree in economics at an institution of higher learning that should be immediately decertified. The plan itself seems to insinuate that billionaires can pay for the whole thing. Of course, best case scenario, it is estimated that instituting a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent would raise a little more than $700 billion over that decade. She does not explain how we’re going to raise the other 20 bazillion dollars it will cost to tear down modernity.

Cortez and Markey claim that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal. I’m not sure where that number is derived. But ask them again when government agents come to take out their water heater.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.



Why Trump’s War on Socialism Is More Necessary Than Ever

by Roger L. Simon:

People looking for food residues in the garbage in Caracas, Venezuela, on 23 November 2017. (Photo by Alvaro Fuente/NurPhoto/Sipa via AP Images)

Donald Trump, announcing a major theme of his 2020 campaign, declared war on socialism during his SOTU Tuesday night:

We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom — and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair. Here in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.

You would think, given the situation in the aforementioned country, socialism would be in disrepute, but no. In the United States, at least, it appears to be more popular than ever.

Witness the glum expressions on the faces of so many Democrats–nearly all of them–when Trump made his statement.

Bernie Sanders looked as if he had swallowed the bowl along with the goldfish. No doubt he would assure us that socialism can be “democratic.” But is that true? Is it just an accident that the three greatest mass murderers of all time — Hitler (17-10 million), Stalin (40-62 million), and Mao (45-75 million) —  all began with socialist ideologies? No non-socialist has even come close.

Is the excuse that we can escape the allure of so-called scientific socialism and the consequent drift to communism?

Not so fast. No less than Alexander Solzhenitsyn told the BBC: “For us in Russia, communism is a dead dog, while, for many people in the West, it is still a living lion.” Reason: we haven’t experienced it yet. They have, as have the Eastern European countries who are more resistant to communism these days.

Socialism is something that plays better in the classroom than it does in real life. In real life, state power tends to expand almost biologically and pretty soon you have communism or something close, if not with all those bodies, then like Venezuela with everybody leaving.

Socialism is great for elites, not so for the sainted (actually impoverished) proletariat. Castro died a billionaire. Nicaragua’s Ortega is said to be worth a cool fifty million. And so on. Maybe that accounts for the sour expressions on the Democrats’ faces. They didn’t want to be deprived of all that loot.

More seriously, the reason Trump’s outspoken opposition to socialism is so timely, more necessary than ever in our country, is the classroom mentioned above. While few were noticing, our educational system — from the earliest years through college — has been turning, indeed has turned for the most part, into a virtual indoctrination program for socialism.

Note from ghr:    In August, 1966 and October, 1990 I traveled to the fascistic Communist people’s poverty-stricken  dictatorship called the Soviet Union.       I was a teacher of Russian in a Minneapolis high school during the first ‘business’ travel, and was one of the  translators for an Anoka, Minnesota Protestant Church group which  had gathered Christian funding to aid  victims of the Chernobyl ‘nuclear’ disaster which had killed countless of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands.   In such mature fascistic socialist nations TRUTH did not exist at  governmental and social levels. One had to guess what the STATE’s truth of the hour, day, week, month, year might be or you might disappear from your neighborhood never to be seen again,
THE SOVIET  POLICE STATE measured and determined all news, all construction, all industries, all communications all incomes, all no incomes, all buildings and roads, all  right and wrong systems according to STATE Control…..where our today U.S. socialists,  Bernie Sanders and the ditsy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,  might graduate into  Soviet Socialist party power clans.
In USSR 1966 nearly every decision involving  citizen life was made by the state….members of Soviet Socialist (Communist) dictatorship.   Of course only  Communist Party members and their offspring would have the treats of Communist (Trade and Comfort) in the country…..cars, dachas, housing, rather remindful of the ditzies of all sexes now ‘graduating’ spoiled and fascist  from our American colleges coast to coast…..and perhaps why Bernie and Alexandria are so giddy about selling their own Soviet “dreams”.
When I returned in 1990 the dictatorship indulged freer conversations.  Soviets still ran the show, their police still looked like they lived in gunny sack, the nation seemed just as economically poor, but the police were not as savage nor at all as noticeable on the streets……and…
ONE COULD SENSE SOME KIND OF REBELLION WAS IN THE AIR.  (In fact there was a mild, but impressive uprising one morning and throughout the  day where I was staying in a hotel in Kiev.  I was morning; I was  shaving in my hotel room on the twelfth floor or so…..SUDDENLY,  Five, perhaps ten thousand people had taken to the streets near  my hotel, announcing their advance to surround the Ukraine Communist Party headquarters by blowing their thousands of  whistles…..I raced as fast as I could down the stairs…all twelve floors of them.   Although the hotel was opened for foreigners only two weeks ago, the elevators stopped  working a few days ago.
That evening and evenings of the rest of the week, in the plaza areas adjacent to my hotel, rain or moon, THOUSANDS of peaceful resistors to  Socialist Party DICTATORSHIP  gathered from dusk to dawn, all in reverent  silence while one ‘victim’ of Socialist Dictatorship at a time, would pay homage to her son, her father, her uncle, her brother all of whom were  made to disappear from life.
As the human male animal is born curious, a builder, inventor, a protector, but a potential killer by his genetic past, to save his kin, his species.   The human female animal is not born to kill for the sake of the species.   She used to bear children for the sake of the species’ future.   She was never a house builder, cannon builder, or automobile inventor…..or a house builder.    She had to be  a house beautifier, comforter, a crop grower, to organized a safe place  where she could bear,  nurse, and feed her offspring in safety and be  safely ditsy and free to express feelings, needs  about her daily world inside and out for the family to live…..while the human male was hunting, or warring to maintain the safety of his family, community, and eventually his country.
Will Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ever grow past her ditsy states?   I doubt it…..Dear Readers….did you see those hundreds of lefty Dem ditzies all dressed in white during our American President’s State of the Union Speech this past Tuesday?   There are your today’s fascistic  Socialists,  filled with feelings, BUT EMPTY OF BRAIN!  ghr

Cancer in the FBI?

The FBI Manufactured ‘302s’ before Mueller

The FBI calls its report of a given interview a “302.” This Luddite insistence on a written summary in the age of easy voice recording opens the door to all manner of misinterpretation.

In the case of the 302 that recreated the initial interview with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in January 2017, that misinterpretation may not be innocent. To have any value, a 302 must be prepared within five days of the actual interview. That is FBI protocol as well. Last week, when Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered the Robert Mueller legal team to turn over the 302 for the Flynn interview, however, Mueller produced a 302 prepared seven months after the interview.

As Sidney Powell observes in the Daily Caller, there is ample evidence in the infamous Lisa Page-Peter Strzok texts and in the most recent Mueller filing that the FBI had prepared a 302 in a timely fashion. Strzok, in fact, conducted the original interview. That original 302 apparently has been lost or destroyed.

This is not the first time that the FBI — or some entity with power over the FBI — has manufactured a 302 in a politically sensitive case. In the case of TWA Flight 800, the 747 destroyed off the coast of Long Island in July 1996, the FBI and/or CIA manufactured second interviews with the three most critical eyewitnesses.

In fact, the CIA built its infamous “zoom climb” animation around a fully imaginary second interview with Mike Wire, “the man on the bridge.” In Wire’s case, no second 302 was put in his file, but someone did put counterfeit 302s in the files of other two key witnesses.

CIA animation

CIA animation

FBI Witness 32, Dwight Brumley, a U.S. Navy master chief, was looking out a right-side window on USAir 217, a plane heading northeast thousands of feet above TWA 800’s path. As recorded on his original 302, Brumley told the FBI he saw a flare like-object moving from “right to left,” very nearly perpendicular to the path of TWA 800. In a later presentation to officials from the FBI and CIA, CIA analyst Randy Tauss insisted that Brumley “observed flare ascending which moved left to right” (italics added).

This supposed flare, Tauss concluded, “matches aircraft trajectory.” In other words, what Brumley saw was TWA 800 in crippled flight after an imagined fuel tank explosion. Brumley, the CIA claimed, was said to have admitted as much “in a second interview.”

In truth, Brumley’s second interview was created out of whole cloth. No one spoke to Brumley after the first week of the investigation. “There was never a second interview with me by either the FBI, the CIA or any other government official,” Brumley firmly told researcher Tom Stalcup in a recorded interview. “I always maintained that the object moved from my right to left, and I never said otherwise.”

Careless or reckless or both, authorities left Brumley’s original 302 filed in the NTSB docket and manufactured a new one with the original date for his CIA file. It was only after the CIA file surfaced that the fraud became obvious.


FBI Witness 73, who has requested anonymity, may have been the best eyewitness of all. On July 17, 1996, Sandy — not her real name — was visiting friends on Long Island. They were relatives of her fiancé who was working in New York City. That evening Sandy and her two friends drove to a beach near the Moriches Inlet on the South Shore of Long Island.

Just a few minutes after sunset, the FBI would report in its original 302, “She observed an aircraft climbing in the sky, traveling from her right to her left.” This would have been from the west, JFK airport in New York City, towards the east, eventually Paris, the original destination of the ill-fated 747 with 230 souls on board.

The sun was setting behind her. “While keeping her eyes on the aircraft,” the FBI report continued, “she observed a ‘red streak’ moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at an approximately 45 degree angle. The ‘red streak’ was leaving a light gray colored smoke trail. The ‘red streak’ went passed [sic] the right side and above the aircraft before arcing back toward the aircraft’s right wing.”

According to the FBI, Sandy described the arc’s shape “as resembling an upside-down NIKE swoosh logo.” The smoke trail, light gray in color, widened as it approached the aircraft. Agent Lee Butler interviewed Sandy at her North Carolina home three days after the disaster and wrote down Sandy’s account on a 302.

“She never took her eyes off the aircraft during this time,” the 302 continued. “At the instant the smoke trail ended at the aircraft’s right wing, she heard a loud sharp noise which sounded like a firecracker had just exploded at her feet. She then observed a fire at the aircraft followed by one or two secondary explosions which had a deeper sound. She then observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back. She then observed burning pieces of debris falling from the aircraft.”

Weeks before the FBI and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were able to piece together the break-up sequence of the aircraft, Sandy had nailed it. She was the perfect eyewitness. She worked in the travel industry. She had a long-standing interest in aviation. She tracked the plane and the “flare” as separate objects. She read no more into the explosion than what she could observe.

At the Moriches Inlet, she was as close to the actual site of the explosion as any other witness, less than ten miles away. And she was not grandstanding. Just the opposite. Her friends and her fiancé were dead set against her cooperating with the FBI.

As the TWA investigation progressed past November 1996 and Bill Clinton’s successful re-election, the CIA got serious about fulfilling its unprecedented mission, namely discrediting the eyewitnesses to a domestic airline crash. By failing to interview a single one of the more than 250 eyewitnesses to report an apparent missile strike, the New York Times made the CIA’s job a whole lot easier.

According to a theory the CIA concocted, an internal explosion blew the nose off the doomed 747. The noseless fuselage then tilted back and rocketed upright for nearly a mile. According to the CIA, this zoom climb confused hundreds of credible witnesses into merely thinking they had seen a missile.

Only one person stood in the CIA’s way of selling this preposterous scenario to a willfully ignorant media. That was the head of the FBI missile team, Steve Bongardt. Bongardt demanded to know why the CIA analysts failed to account for the eight witnesses who saw an object “hit the aircraft” or the numerous witnesses who saw the object move from east to west, the opposite direction of TWA 800.  In all, he cited some thirty “problem witnesses” whose accounts did not begin to square with the “agency scenario.”

In his conclusion, Bongardt hit the CIA hard. He recommended that the CIA “withdraw its conclusions” until it could meet several conditions, any one of which would have unraveled the CIA scenario. These included the integration of radar data, the validation of key witnesses, and the reconciliation of the thirty “problem witnesses” with the zoom climb scenario.

At the time, Bongardt likely did not know that the newly minted CIA director George Tenet had already signed off on the CIA theory. A month earlier, the politically wired Tenet had sent FBI director Louis Freeh a letter assuring him that “what these eyewitnesses saw was the crippled aircraft after the first explosion had already taken place.”

“CIA will continue to look at problematic witnesses,” the CIA’s Tauss responded. He got to work quickly. On the very day Tauss sent this memo to his superiors, April 29, 1997, a second “302” was prepared for the most “problematic” of the FBI eyewitnesses, Witness 73.

In this second interview, Witness 73 conceded that she had been drinking ‘Long Island Ice Tea’ cocktails” before witnessing the explosion, a concession that undermined her original testimony. As “Sandy” told me years later, she did not know what a Long Island Iced Tea was, did not drink, and, like Wire and Brumley, did not give a second interview.

As a coup de grace, whoever put the second 302 in Witness 73’s file put Bongardt’s name on it. The Deep State was playing hardball even then.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/the_fbi_manufactured_302s_before_mueller.html#ixzz5a6UVzbmQ

The Democrat Terror in America That Dare Not Be Exposed!

Black Violence: The Terror That Dare Not Speak Its Name

by Colin Flaherty  at  American Thinker:


Even stranger than Don Lemon’s fairy tale that white people are responsible for violent terrorism in this country, is the fact that no national conservative media figures refuted him.

A shame, because it is so easily done. And so important to do.

Lemon concocted his claim in front of CNN’s Cuomo the Lesser, who stared dumbstruck as his colleague sketched his vision of white supremacists running amok with terror and violence in their wake.

Cuomo has made a career of shutting up and nodding his head when black people like D. L. Hughley come on his show and insist that white violence against black people is wildly out of proportion. A lie.

The following day, Lemon challenged his angry critics to check the numbers: White terror is eight times greater than other racial terror.

In response, all that we heard from conservative media was fake outrage. Calls for his firing. Demands for a retraction. But not much in the way of using facts to show that Lemon was wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Not that many people expected much else from most conservative pundits. These are the same people who cower in front of “It’s okay to be white” signs.

Well, it’s not okay to be white. That is Lemon’s stock in trade. And he and others ply it so well that most cannot see or even declare the obvious: That over the last five years, black mob violence in America has been — by far — the greatest source of domestic terror.

Shall we review a few: How about before, during and after the trial of George Zimmerman for the killing of St. Trayvon of Sanford. You remember him: He’s the guy who could have been President Obama’s son.

Instead, he became a petty burglar, a small time violent crook, whose death inspired large-scale black violence in Los Angeles, Oakland, Baltimore, Grand Rapids, Toledo,  Gainesville, Mobile, Chicago, and on and on and on. All aided and abetted by Lemon et al at CNN.

I documented a few episodes in this article at the time: Just click here.

But Trayvon was just a warm-up for the real display of black terror in America. That happened in the summer of 2014 in a suburb of St. Louis called Ferguson. There, a cop shot a 6’5 “well-muscled” black man named Michael Brown, after Brown tried to take the cop’s gun, then refused to stand down as he prepared to charge the officer.

After days and days of looting, gunfire, molotov cocktails, property destruction, attacks on police, and yes, death, the Michael Brown riots continued on a low burn around the rest of the country.

It became the beginning of a mantra, Trayvon, Michael Brown. No justice. No peace. No racist police.

It even sparked the growth of a national movement: Black Lives Matter. You remember them: “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now.”

In Baltimore, soon after, a drug dealer named Freddie Grey died in police custody. Yes, there were riots. Yes, the black people of Baltimore burned and looted in an ecstatic frenzy for days.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake held a news conference where she bragged she was giving the rioters “space to destroy.” The next day, she denied saying it, even after being confronted saying it on video.

Over 100 police were injured in those riots. Many after city officials “abandoned” them by refusing to send support when they were under attack from the black people.

This is all on video. Easy to find.

These riots are like dominoes: If you remember one, chances you, you remember the rest. In Milwaukee, a black cop shot a black man. Riots. Burning. Destruction. You know the drill: Everyone was having a good time by the light of a burning gas station.

In Charlotte, black people terrorized the town after cops shot another black criminal in the commission of yet another crime. They did not like that.

Around the country, every day, police are subject to slurs, taunts, threats, violence, and even murder from black people who just are not that into white people.

These examples might not meet the standards of Don Lemon’s phony terror test. But the victims have not forgotten the enormous terror in this country. And how it continues today in different forms.

On Halloween, hundreds of black people rampaged through Hyde Park in Chicago — home to Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and Louis Farrakhan — destroying property, defying police, setting fires.

Watch any of the videos, then try to tell the neighbors they are not being terrorized. But no one was arrested, so it never happened. Except on video.

In South Jersey, two white kids were hospitalized with serious head injuries they received after they refused to give their trick or treat candy to the 10-20 black people who demanded it.

Think that’s not an act of terror just because the black people did not leave a thank you note? Or a sign that said ‘Vote for Maxine?’ Or a demand for more free stuff? Guess again.

In Dallas, five cops were killed during a Black Lives Matter parade. Afterward, black people looted a 7-11 then stuck around under the gaze of local police, dancing — yes, dancing — with joy, celebrating the carnage. At their funeral, President Obama figured it all out: the shooting of the five police was all about white racism.

“You know it,” he urged the crowd to acknowledge.

This is a very long list of black violence and denial, deceit and delusion from reporters and public officials.

Lots more where this came from in my books, the latest being Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry, and videos over at minds.com/ColinFlaherty.

From the big cities to  small suburban enclaves, black terrorism is real. And when stunned residents plead with city officials for help, all they get are weak admonitions about keeping their head on a swivel and don’t forget — calling the cops on black criminals is a very bad thing to do.

Reporters like Lemon insist that absent a handwritten confession, or a sign, or a recorded audio and video, black mob violence in America must be considered “random” and not an act of terror.

But we have something better than notes and idiots spouting hateful slogans: We have patterns. And how they are proof of bias. Just ask former district attorney and current U.S. senator from the great state of Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse.

“When is pattern evidence of bias?” asked the liberal Senator Whitehouse at a recent hearing. “In court, pattern is evidence of bias all the time. Evidence on which juries and trial judges rely to show discriminatory intent. To show a common scheme. To show bias.”

Black on white bias and hostility plus violence equals terror. We see it every day, no matter how often Don Lemon tries to deny it: Black violence is the terror that dare not speak its name.

Colin Flaherty documents the denial, deceit and delusion of Den Lemon and others  in books, articles and videos.  Which you should read if you want to know what is really going on.



My, WHAT A GAL!…..the Pilot of Flight 1380!

Pilot Who Safely Landed Southwest Flight 1380 Had ‘Nerves Of Steel’

by John Sexton    at  HotAir:


You’ve probably read about the near-disaster of Southwest Airlines flight 1380, which had to make an emergency landing after an engine exploded at 32,000 feet. It will be months before the NTSB releases a final report, but investigators are already saying one of the blades on a fan inside the engine had broken off. Some piece of shrapnel set loose by the broken blade struck a window leading it to shatter. That led to decompression of the cabin which sucked one woman, Jennifer Riordan, partly out of the plane. Passengers rushed to pull her back inside and then provided CPR but she was later pronounced dead.

Meanwhile, the plane’s captain, a former Navy fighter pilot, remained extremely calm, quickly dropping the plane to an altitude where passengers could breath without masks and asking for a new heading to the nearest airport. From the NY Times:

In an instant, Captain Shults found herself in a situation most pilots face only during training: having to land a plane after an engine goes out.

For the next 40 minutes, she displayed what one passenger later called “nerves of steel,” maneuvering the plane, which had been on its way from La Guardia Airport in New York to Dallas Love Field, toward Philadelphia for an emergency landing.

In the seats behind her, passengers sent goodbye text messages to loved ones, tightened oxygen masks around their faces and braced for impact. Flight attendants frantically performed CPR on the critically injured passenger, who later died at a hospital.

But Captain Shults, 56, was in control. She learned to fly as one of the first female fighter pilots in the Navy three decades ago, piloting the F/A-18 Hornet in an era when women were barred from combat missions.

“Can you have the medical meet us there on the runway,” Captain Shults calmly told air traffic controllers in Philadelphia. “They said there’s a hole and, uh, someone went out.”

If you think maybe that “nerves of steel” line is some kind of exaggerated praise, it’s not. The audio traffic between the plane and the ground shows zero indication in Captain Shults’ voice that she is in an emergency situation. In fact, if you listen to the entire clip, you can hear some stress creeping into the voices of the other air traffic controllers but Shults remains polite and calm throughout.



Florida’s Broward County Promise Program Sharply Increase Violent Crime

Violent Crime By Juveniles Up Sharply Since Broward County Adopted PROMISE Program

SEE ALSO: California denies report on border duties

Broward County adopted the PROMISE program in 2013 at the urging of the Obama Education Department. As Ed pointed out last month, based on a story by  Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations, the move away from arrests even for repeat offenders appears to help explain why school shooter Nikolas Cruz was able to engage in violence and even bring bullets to school without any arrests or legal consequences. Sunday, Sperry published a follow up looking more broadly at the results of the PROMISE program. He found those results don’t match up with the claims of its supporters:

Broward County now has the highest percentage of “the most serious, violent [and] chronic”juvenile offenders in Florida, according to the county’s chief juvenile probation officer…

Within two years of adopting the discipline reforms, Broward’s juvenile recidivism rate surged higher than the Florida state average.

The negative trends continued through last year, the most recent juvenile crime data show.

Prosecutors and probation officers complain that while overall juvenile arrests are down, serious violent crimes involving school-aged Broward youths – including armed robbery, kidnapping and even murder – have spiked, even as such violent crimes across the state have dropped.

Juvenile arrests for murder and manslaughter increased 150 percent between 2013 and 2016. They increased by another 50 percent in 2017. County juveniles were responsible for a total of 16 murders or manslaughters in the past two years alone, according to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice…

After Broward schools began emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration, fights broke out virtually every day in classrooms, hallways, cafeterias and campuses across the district. Last year, more than 3,000 fights erupted in the district’s 300-plus schools, including the altercations involving Cruz. No brawlers were arrested, even after their third fight, and even if they sent other children to the hospital.

Federal data show almost half of Broward middle school students have been involved in fights, with many suffering injuries requiring medical treatment.

Because the students involved in the fights are considered “mutual combatants,” administrators tell parents they cannot be referred to police under the new discipline code.

The report notes that one year after Broward adopted the PROMISE program it dropped questions from an annual survey asking students if they felt safe in the classroom. The following year, 2015, they discontinued the survey entirely after 21 years.

But a CDC survey of Broward middle schools found 33% of students said they had been bullied at school and 47.4% said they had gotten into fights, some of which resulted in trips to a doctor. Meanwhile, Sheriff Scott Israel was boasting that juvenile arrests were down in his county, citing this as proof the school-to-prison pipeline was coming to an end. But as Max Eden of the Manhattan Institute points out, “Sheriff Israel can boast that arrests are down in Broward County [but] that tends to happen when you stop arresting.” The real question is not whether the program has reduced arrests but whether it has made schools safer or less safe.

So far the people who implemented the PROMISE program are not reconsidering it. Broward County Superintendent Robert Runcie said recently that discussing the program was just a conservative diversion from “common sense” gun reform.