• 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

Lefty Fascists Control Speech, Language, Principles at Google, Facebook, Wikipedia!

Can Internet Oligarchs Tilt the Playing Field to the Left?

by John Hinderaker  at   PowerLine:            (Article sent by Lisa Rich in California.)

In January 2005, I participated in a conference at Harvard’s Kennedy School on new media. A number of seminal internet figures were there–the founder of Wikipedia, a guy who was regarded as the original blogger, and others, along with some academics. The only “old media” person I recall being there was Jill Abramson of the New York Times, who seemed depressed.
At one point, another participant who was also a conservative took me aside and expressed concern about the fact that the infrastructure of the internet was controlled by leftists. Google, Wikipedia–I don’t remember who else he had in mind;
Facebook and Twitter were still in the future at that point. He was convinced that the Left would use its control over central internet resources to try to control political discourse. I recognized the danger but didn’t know what we could do about it. In any event, the day that guy predicted is now at hand.
One could multiply examples endlessly, but here are a few:
* Facebook helped the Obama campaign in 2012, according to Obama For America’s media director, because “they were on our side.” They still are.
* Dennis Prager is suing YouTube (Google) for restricting or demonetizing more than 50 Prager University videos on the ground that are “inappropriate” for younger audiences. This is absurd; Prager University videos are among the highest-quality content on the web.
* The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, labeled a “great read” an article that calls for the utter destruction of conservatism. Meanwhile, Twitter has been credibly accused of countless instances of discrimination against conservatives, most recently “shadow banning” Ted Cruz, which means making his tweets invisible to most of his followers.
* Two African-American sisters from North Carolina who call themselves Diamond and Silk and are enthusiastic supporters of President Trump have been carrying on a lengthy battle with Facebook. They say that Facebook has systematically discriminated against them, demonetizing their content and ultimately making their posts mostly invisible:
Finally after several emails, chats, phone calls, appeals, beating around the bush, lies, and giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receive notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: “The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.”
* Facebook has undertaken to stop “the spread of false news” and “false narratives” (!) in time for the midterm elections.
They are doing this by empowering “fact checkers” who are almost monolithically liberal.
One could go on and on, but I don’t think there is any serious doubt that much of the infrastructure of the internet is controlled by leftists, and they are putting their thumbs on the scale in favor of left-wing policies and candidates. The question is, what to do about it?
Conservatives could boycott Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but that would bring about exactly the result that liberals want–an absence of conservative voices from the most-used modes of communication. Conservatives could try to start their own competing services, but network effects guarantee that such efforts would by difficult at best, and probably impossible. (Although Paul, in a different context, suggests something of the sort here.)
Some advocate antitrust action against Google, Facebook, and so on. But on what grounds? Monopolization, presumably, but the trouble with these companies is not that they have used improper means to gain or perpetuate market dominance, but rather that they are misusing their market dominance to further their collateral political goals. I am not aware that courts have recognized such a legal theory, and it is not obvious to me how it would fit within the framework of the Sherman Act or other antitrust statutes. But Glenn Reynolds, for one, has advocated “breaking up companies like Facebook and Google.”
Google, Twitter and Facebook are all publicly-traded companies, which could make them vulnerable to SEC investigation.
Again, though, I don’t know exactly what form that would take. Perhaps the FEC could look into whether these companies’ actions amount to illegal contributions to the Democratic Party and its candidates. At a minimum, activist shareholders could make life more difficult for corporate managements who, by driving away conservatives, are probably making their companies less profitable.
In the meantime, tedious though the task is, it makes sense to continue exposing the leftward bias of the internet’s key players.

Trouble in Lefty Greenfield

by George Neumayr  at the American Spectator:

“Hillary famously shouted during the throes of the campaign, “Why am I not up by 50 points?” No doubt the media feels similar rage as it pores over Trump’s latest job approval numbers, which have actually gone up since February, according to CNN: “42% approve of Trump, highest in 11 months.” The CNN correspondent, grudgingly reporting these numbers, chalked Trump’s staying power up to the “economy.”

But in a reversal of the Clintonian adage, it is not the economy, stupid, around CNN these days. It is the sex scandal. Womanizing pundits and louche-living hosts profess shock at Trump’s behavior. They act like it is all so incomprehensible to them. Jeffrey Toobin likes to crank up his wind machine about Trump’s lack of integrity, but not so long ago Toobin’s squalid personal life was tabloid fodder. He was cheating on his wife with former CNN correspondent Jeff Greenfield’s daughter, impregnated her, then (unsuccessfully) put pressure on her to get an abortion, according to the New York Daily News in 2010.

“Jeff and Casey [Greenfield] saw each other off and on over the years,” says one source. “She was married to someone else for two years. After her divorce, she started seeing Jeff again. He said he was going to leave his wife for her. But, by then, Casey had begun to distrust him. She suspected he had several other mistresses.”

In 2008, when Greenfield became pregnant, and when she told Toobin the news, he offered her “money if she’d have an abortion,” says a source. He also allegedly offered to pay for her to have another child later via a sperm donor.

“When Casey wouldn’t have an abortion, Jeff told her she was going to regret it, that she shouldn’t expect any help from him,” claims another source.

Greenfield underwent a risky DNA test while pregnant, but Toobin didn’t provide his sample and stopped talking to her, according to sources. On the day she gave birth, Greenfield e-mailed Toobin, inviting him to meet his son, Rory. A source says Toobin didn’t reply.

How come the angry gods of me-too feminism haven’t gotten around to smiting Toobin? Oh, that’s right. He works for CNN. He enjoys that special immunity accorded members of the self-appointed ruling class. The Toobins look out for each other. Just ask Ryan Lizza, who resurfaced at CNN after the New Yorker sacked him for alleged goatishness, prompting the Washington Post to note:

The restoration of Lizza to his punditry duties marks quite a turnabout from December, when his employer issued this statement: “The New Yorker recently learned that Ryan Lizza engaged in what we believe was improper sexual conduct. We have reviewed the matter and, as a result, have severed ties with Lizza. Due to a request for privacy, we are not commenting further.” Lizza’s name popped up in the controversial and once-privately circulated “Sh—y Media Men” list with the cryptic allegation of being “creepy af in the dms,” apparently a reference to unwanted direct messages on Twitter.

But why should any of this stop CNN from providing near-hourly coverage of whatever Trump was up to eleven years ago? It is still not clear what exactly that entails. Maybe Toobin could enlighten us on whether or not a single consensual act qualifies as an “affair” to be enumerated among feminism’s index of patriarchal offenses. It was humorous to see the greasy lawyer of Stormy Daniels insisting on the relevance of her story while simultaneously describing his opposition research for Rahm Emanuel as old news. Why, he hadn’t talked to Emanuel “since 2007,” he said. In other words, the year after Stormy Daniels said she trysted with Trump. Naturally, he wasn’t pressed on the matter.

But what about the non-disclosure payment? Surely, we can get Trump on that, salivated the media — the same media that has been doling those payments out for years. How many non-disclosure agreements has Jeff Zucker overseen? And isn’t this the same media that yawned at the news of Bill Clinton giving Gennifer Flowers state jobs down in Arkansas? The same media that pooh-poohed the significance of Clinton’s boon companion Vernon Jordan generating job interviews for Monica Lewinsky?

The media’s coverage of Trump is like a nuisance suit that never ends. But instead of finishing Trump off, it wins him enduring sympathy. People turn on CNN and see correspondents who have divorced each other (John King and Dana Bash) reporting with such gravity about Trump’s broken vows and what all of that means for poor Melania, right before, of course, they humiliate her anew by whipping up yet another report on Stormy Daniels…..”

https://spectator.org/more-is-less-for-the-anti-trump-media/

CFACT Requests our SUPPORT!

COMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW

Here’s the good news:

The scientific case to correct the errors, lies and exaggerations of the global warming campaign is winning.

Some more good news:

Teachers, parents and students are getting the message. In 2016, a poll by the (heavily alarmist) National Center for Science Education revealed that at least a third of middle and high school science teachers are climate skeptics. They are joined by large numbers of parents and students who hold the majority in many school districts. They are eager to teach and learn.

Here’s the bad news:

There are thousands of teaching materials on line and in print that address climate change, but virtually none of them present a balanced view of the genuine facts and real scientific discussion about our climate.

This situation needs to change and it needs to change now!

Will you help CFACT create and make available the educational materials thousands of science teachers and millions of parents and students are clamoring for that will inject real science back into the climate curricula?

CFACT contributor (and brilliant mathematician) David Wojick has conducted an extensive survey of the availability of climate teaching materials in education. He concluded that this huge body of material, the vast majority of it funded by our tax dollars, is characterized by a “reprehensible focus on activism over science.” Much of this material targets the federal “Next Generation Science Standards” which requires a ramped up focus on teaching climate.

Will you help CFACT make the materials teachers need to provide balanced, scientifically ironclad lessons on climate available in the classroom? Your gift of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more will make it possible for CFACT to create and assemble the best hard-hitting, factual educational material on climate in print and online.
You probably know CFACT’s highly successful feature film Climate Hustle. I’d like you to be among the first to know that we are also planning to release an educational work/textbook to accompany the movie that will provide the data-driven critical examination of climate science educators and young people so desperately need.

Will you step up and help make this crucial educational tool available to students?

Don’t be daunted by the vast financial and institutional resources the warming campaign commands. They’ve got some serious strength, but we’ve got the facts – and CFACT has proven time and again that those facts in our intrepid sling can bring the climate Goliaths tumbling down.

CFACT is preparing an extensive report that exposes the sad state of climate education in America. Our energetic network of college leaders is already gearing up to bring the facts to their campuses and help their younger siblings balance the debate in high school and middle schools.

Can CFACT’s inspiring student leaders count on you?

In 2015, CFACT provided policy research and grassroots activism which contributed to opening up the climate curriculum adopted by the West Virginia Board of Education. That’s right, CFACT marshalled the facts, engaged and won. We win our share of victories. We’re fighting to win now.

Thousands of educators are teaching their students genuine climate science, but they are forced to cobble together their own research and materials from the general scientific record. Don’t teachers of genuine science deserve the kind of professionally assembled materials available to them that the purveyors of climate alarm take for granted?

CFACT is meeting the climate education challenge, but our success depends completely upon the support of our friends.

Can we count on you to make the strongest gift you can right now? Together let’s take some serious steps to level the educational playing field.

Our students deserve the real facts on climate.  Can they count on you? 

I know they can, so let me thank you in advance.

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

That NewMan in Washington!

MAKING ROOM FOR FREEDOM AGAIN IN AMERICA AND THE GLORIOUS PASSING OF CNN

 

USA TODAY Finally Offers Rare Positives for Our Donald….. “FULFILLING HIS PROMISES”

By every measure of personal and national prosperity, the nation is better off than it was a year ago, and it’s thanks to the integrity of our leader.

by Christopher Buskirk  at USA Today:

Please click below for full article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/18/while-trumps-critics-keep-talking-our-president-fulfilling-his-promises-christopher-buskirk-column/1041117001/

Hillary’s Deplorables! Get to Know America’s FASCISTIC “Democrat” Party BETTER!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

“Wikipedia”     It first should be note that despite its leftists’ claims, Wikipedia is a left wing propaganda “station” from “stark” to mild, from landslide to swamp.

Why?      Wikipedia is an indoor class,  a remote  Hillary class of our America….a very narrow minded, inexperienced,  and school programmed  bunch of   fanatics who disparage humans who “aren’t up to knowing  “Hillary” stuff and snuff.   In today’s Wikiepedia America this stuff and snuff  appear in all sorts of costumes, shapes, colors, sexes, and Godless sizes selling Fascism, Marxism, Leftism, Atheism, Communism, and Feminism of all shapes and sizes, sexes and colors at school, university, on television and throughout your daily newspaper often conveying  Washington Post, Los Angeles,  and New York Times fake news.

Please read the Wikileaks report below regarding the “Hillary” review of those of us who dare to offend Hillary’s deplorable elites….

Hillary Speaks from Wikileaks:

“But the “other” basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

— Hillary Clinton, [9]

also from Wikileaks:

Basket of deplorables” is a phrase from a 2016 presidential election campaign speech delivered by Democraticnominee Hillary Clinton on September 9, 2016, at a campaign fundraising event, which Clinton used to describe a faction of supporters of her general election opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump. Clinton later said that she “regrets saying half [of Trump’s supporters]”, and the Trump campaign repeatedly used the phrase against her during and after the 2016 presidential election. Many Trump supporters adopted the “Deplorable” moniker for themselves. After Clinton’s loss, some journalists and political analysts questioned whether or not the speech played a role in the election’s outcome; Clinton herself wrote in her book What Happened that it was one of the factors for her loss.

Background[edit]

Throughout her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton expressed her concerns regarding Donald Trump and his supporters. The New York Times and CNN cited Clinton’s earlier articulation of similar ideas to the phrase in her August 25, 2016 campaign speech at a rally in Reno, Nevada.[1][2] In that speech, Clinton had criticized Trump’s campaign for using “racist lies” and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence, claiming that Trump was “taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party”.[2][3] Clinton also criticized Trump for choosing Steve Bannon as his chief executive officer, especially given Bannon’s role as the executive chair of the conservative news website, Breitbart News.[4] Clinton read various headlines from the site including: “Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?”, and “Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage.”[5] On that same day, Clinton posted a video on Twitter depicting white supremacists supporting Donald Trump. Within the video is a CNNinterview wherein Trump initially declined to disavow white nationalist David Duke.[4]

During campaign fundraisers in August 2016, Clinton reportedly explained her divide and conquer approach to courting Republican voters by putting Trump supporters into two “baskets”: everyday Republicans whom she would target, and the alt-right crowd.[6] During a September 8, 2016 interview on Israel’s Channel 2, Clinton said: “You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he’s going to restore an America that no longer exists.”[7]

At an LGBT campaign fundraising event in New York City on September 9, Clinton gave a speech and said the following:[8]

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent; don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, “Well, he’s done this time.” We are living in a volatile political environment.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables(Laughter/applause)Right? (Laughter/applause) They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the “other” basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

— Hillary Clinton, [9]

Our Donald Interviewed by NY Times Agent, Michael Schmidt

TRUMP UNBOUND

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

“President Trump sat down with New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt for an interview in West Palm Beach yesterday. Schmidt was low-key and even respectful, while Trump was ebullient. You can read excerpts here. (As always, there is no point in reading any newspaper’s account of the conversation.)

Trump was his usual unscripted self–rambling, not very articulate, sometimes humorously self-promoting, generally correct if often imprecise. He talked at length, and with great confidence, about Mueller’s investigation. Here, he knows things are going his way:

Let’s just say — I think that Bob Mueller will be fair, and everybody knows that there was no collusion. I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion. She’s the head of the committee. The Republicans, in terms of the House committees, they come out, they’re so angry because there is no collusion. So, I actually think that it’s turning out — I actually think it’s turning to the Democrats because there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion.

SCHMIDT: Dossier?

TRUMP: Starting with the dossier. But going into so many other elements. And Podesta’s firm.

He’s right about that. The liberal press has done its best to avert its eyes from the real collusion scandal involving the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, Steele. the Russians who fed lies about candidate Trump to the Clinton campaign through Steele, and the FBI. But the more Trump talks about the real scandal, the harder it will be for liberals, including but not limited to those at the Times, to ignore it.

The Times’s own account of the interview led with the fact that Trump said the Mueller investigation was bad for the country. Well, it is. What Trump actually said is, I think, indisputable:

TRUMP: [Inaudible.] There was tremendous collusion on behalf of the Russians and the Democrats. There was no collusion with respect to my campaign. I think I’ll be treated fairly. Timingwise, I can’t tell you. I just don’t know. But I think we’ll be treated fairly.

SCHMIDT: But you’re not worked up about the timing?

TRUMP: Well, I think it’s bad for the country. The only thing that bothers me about timing, I think it’s a very bad thing for the country. Because it makes the country look bad, it makes the country look very bad, and it puts the country in a very bad position. So the sooner it’s worked out, the better it is for the country.

Trump also is clued into the Awan scandal, although he doesn’t describe it with any precision:

But there is tremendous collusion with the Russians and with the Democratic Party. Including all of the stuff with the — and then whatever happened to the Pakistani guy, that had the two, you know, whatever happened to this Pakistani guy who worked with the D.N.C.?

Whatever happened to them? With the two servers that they broke up into a million pieces? Whatever happened to him? That was a big story. Now all of sudden [inaudible].

Here, too, it would be smart for Trump to keep talking about the Awan scandal. It is a classic example of Iowahawk’s dictum that journalism is all about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.

Mostly, the interview is fun to read because you can tell the expansive Trump knows he is increasingly ascendant. Massive deregulation; economic growth picking up; standing up to Russia, Iran, China and North Korea; destroying ISIS; remaking the federal courts; recognizing Jerusalem; and now, the greatest tax reform in a generation–all while the Mueller investigation crumbles, and his opponents are tied up in knots over his tweets. The winning is under way….”

 

Shortly after 1 p.m. on Thursday, President Trump came off the 18th hole of his golf course here and walked into the club house’s Grill Room. Waiters scurried to bring menus and drinks to a large round table reserved for him as he stopped to shake hands and make small talk with members eating lunch.

The president, in black pants and a white golf shirt, sat down with his golf partners for the day, including his son Eric and the pro-golfer Jim Herman. He took off his white hat, “45” emblazoned in black on the side, ordered a salad and began talking politics to his golf partners.

Usually I cover national security in the Washington bureau, but I spent the past week in Florida covering the president’s Christmas vacation to give my colleagues on the White House beat the chance to take some time off. It’s a familiar assignment for me; I also covered Barack Obama’s vacations in Hawaii in 2014 and 2016.

Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights from The New York Times. Visit us at Times Insiderand follow us on Twitter. Questions or feedback? Email us.

Until Thursday, my time in Florida had been quiet. But that afternoon, I went to Mr. Trump’s golf club with his longtime confidant Christopher Ruddy, who had invited me for lunch. We were seated at a table next to the president and a few minutes into our meal, Mr. Ruddy, who runs the conservative website and television channel Newsmax, went over to say hello to Mr. Trump. The president appeared excited to see Mr. Ruddy, who often goes on cable television to defend him.

I stood behind Mr. Ruddy, who told the president that Mike Schmidt from The New York Times was with him. As I made eye contact with the president, he appeared confused about who I was and why I was there. I walked up, shook his hand and reminded him that I had interviewed him in July in the Oval Office along with two of my colleagues, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker. He said he remembered me and, despite the fact that we’re “the failing New York Times,” he thought we had treated him fairly.

Continue reading the main story   

 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/insider/mike-schmidt-interview-donald-trump.html#story-continues-3