• 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

Learn to Become a Leftist Bigot for Only $60,000 a Year at UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY!

How much does free speech cost on college campuses?

by Valerie Greenfeld  at American Thinker

“The tuition rates at universities today are astronomical.  Out-of-state students at U.C. Berkeley pay over $60,000 for their education, and when it comes to free speech, they get only half the argument.

Known as the home of free speech, Berkeley’s official statement guarantees students the constitutionally protected rights of free expression, speech, assembly, and worship.  Nevertheless, conservative Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos’s talk was canceled due to protests on campus in February.  Yiannopoulos is a British commentator and media personality who is openly gay and has been called “dangerous” for expressing his opinions.  After somewhat of an uproar, the talk was suddenly rescheduled for November.  While safety is of the utmost importance, the university still was able to find security for a “vitriolic” white supremacist speaker on campus while canceling Yiannopoulos.

An equal platform should be given to all elements of political discourse.  It is understood that the U.C. Berkeley campus protects and encourages liberal viewpoints, but part of a full education is listening to a speaker you may not agree with in order to learn the other side of the argument.

Suppressing values of inclusion and tolerance to create the appearance of a constructive dialogue teaches students that the progressive political perspective is more important than intellectual honesty.

It is important to put this problem in perspective without making right seem wrong and wrong seem right.  Should all American taxpayers be required to subsidize universities who censor a conservative gay man’s point of view?  Tolerance means allowing all points of view to be heard, not only those with which you agree.  As far as safety is concerned, the students who hold conservative values are those who are unsafe on campus – not those who are rioting and creating havoc……..”  Please read on:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/09/how_much_does_free_speech_cost_on_college_campuses.html

Advertisements

WHERE WERE THE CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE?

DID THE POLICE STAND DOWN?

by Scott Johnson  at  PowerLine:

“On the scene in Charlottesville, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg noted on Twitter: ew York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg was on the scene yesterday. On Saturday she wrapped up her observations on Twitter: “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park” (below).

In this morning’s story on what went down in Charlottesville on Saturday, Stolberg turns to ministerial trainee Brittany Caine-Conley, “a protester at the alt-right rally” (as Stolberg puts it): “There was no police presence. We were watching people punch each other; people were bleeding all the while police were inside of barricades at the park, watching. It was essentially just brawling on the street and community members trying to protect each other.”

At the Daily Caller, Scott Greer rounds up the troubling reportage on this issue including Stolberg’s. He serves up this mind-boggling quote from Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe on the day after (it appears in filtered form in Stolberg’s story):

McAuliffe was asked about the criticism of law enforcement’s inaction Sunday, to which he offered an odd response — he blamed the presence of armed militia for why police didn’t do more. “They had better equipment than our State Police had,” the governor said of why police stayed put and watched the violence unfold.

But, according to ProPublica, the militia members seemed to be the only ones breaking up fights and trying to keep the peace in the tumult.

It would have probably been more effective in suppressing the violence if the men and women paid to keep the peace for a living were out in the mix.

The ProPublica report cited by Greer is “Police stood by as mayhem mounted in Charlottesville.”

By contrast, Stolberg quotes Corinne Geller speaking on behalf of the State Police. “It may have looked like a lot of our folks were standing around,” because of the sheer number of officers on the scene, but “there were other troopers and law enforcement officers who were responding to incidents as they arose.” Can this quote be squared with McAuliffe’s?

Glenn Reynolds infers that the police were ordered to stand down. He wants to know want to know “who ordered the police to stand down in the face of mob violence, and why. A decision to allow citizens to be assaulted in the exercise of their constitutional rights is a federal felony.”

So Dems Want to Play with Treason?

Trump Jr.’s Email: Want to Talk about Treason? Okay…

By Selwyn Duke  at  American Thinker:

“The obsession with Donald Trump Jr.’s “Russian” email chain is just the latest example of what the Media/Democrat Party/Establishment Axis does best: engage in misdirection to confuse people about who America’s real enemies are.

Now, since the emails are currently Exhibit A in Trump treason allegations, let’s talk about treason. No, we don’t have to go back to when Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached the murderous Soviets and asked for help defeating Ronald Reagan in 1984. That’s too old and too obvious. But try this on for size.

We’ve now learned that U.S. soldier Ikaika Erik Kang, just arrested for Islamic State ties, expressed allegiance to the group as early as 2011, which is a bit like a serviceman having expressed support for the Nazis during WWII. Instead of being immediately put in the stockade, however, Barack Obama’s military and FBI, the Daily Mail reports, “investigated to determine whether he posed a threat, authorities said.”

They must have still been wondering in 2013, because that’s when they gave Kang back his security clearance after having revoked it the year before.

This clearly was part of the leftist Obama mentality that sought to elevate anything contrary to Americanism. It didn’t matter that Kang had already threatened “to hurt or kill other service members back in 2011,” as the Mail relates it. It doesn’t matter that he could have been the next Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 at Ford Hood in 2009 after he, too, expressed jihadist sentiments but wasn’t stopped. Hey, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs……”   Please continue reading below:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/trump_jrs_email_want_to_talk_about_treason_okay.html

HOW DEMOCRATS PERMANENTLY STOLE YOUR VOTE

How Democrats Permanently Stole Your Vote

By  Michael Bargo, Jr.    at American Thinker:

Every election cycle we hear about how every vote must count, how every voter must have equal access to the ballot box, and how no one can be denied the opportunity to express their voice to how the government is run. This concern has been seized upon as the primary interest of the Democratic Party who have made it their party’s crusade to ensure fairness in every election, by the careful, fair supervision of the voting process in every voting precinct.

But while this is the public rhetoric, the private reality is much different. The fact is, while Democrats are preaching fairness and equity among voters, in Congress they have seized control through a scheme that has taken over the legislative branch of the Federal government, and done so in a manner that permanently denies all of us the full value of our vote.

How this has been done has, until now, never been explained. At first glance this observation seems to be another unfounded conspiracy, but no observation on how government has managed to steal the value of our vote can be more solidly founded on the principles of our republican form of government and the realities of the national budget.

In order to understand how this vote theft has been perpetrated it’s necessary to briefly review the nature of the American form of national government. From the Declaration of Independence, Notes on the Debate which formed the Constitution, and the final Constitution these principles are certain: that the U.S. government derives its power and authority to govern from the will and consent of the people. And that to consult with the people, Congress, as written in the Constitution, is up for reelection every two years. The President of the U.S. every four years.

Here’s the big question: does this mean that all policy issues are up for reelection every two years? The Constitution does give guidance on this issue. It lists 18 policy issues that Congress will provide for. These include the Army and Navy. The only limit on time regarding the national budget is mentioned for the Army: no appropriations for the Army can be for more than a term of two years. This places an absolute two-year limit on appropriations.

The other essential fact of budgeting is that all bills of appropriations shall originate in the House of Representatives, then voted on by the Senate and signed or vetoed by the president. This clearly states that all appropriations require an act of legislation specific to that appropriation, and by implication that the appropriation cannot last for more than two years.

It’s this two-year time limit that has been seized upon by Democrats as a loophole and violated. In addition, they have seized upon the idea, clearly violative of the Constitution, that all acts of appropriation must be passed by the House.

Does this mean Congress can pass the Social Security Act in 1935 and force all subsequent voters to pay for it? Or does it mean Social Security should be voted on by the voters and their representatives in Congress every year? After all, there is nothing in the one-year limit of appropriations that would prevent Social Security from continuing for many decades.

But the difficulty, what makes this issue more dangerous to the country’s republican form of government, is that two developments regarding this trend clearly violate the Constitution. One is that by mandating Congress fund Social Security forever, Congress clearly usurps the authority of the people to provide their will and consent to the program. Keep in mind the people still have the opportunity to reappropriate money through Congress every year.

The issue then is whether or not these so-called “mandatory” spending programs violate the U.S. Constitution, and they clearly do. Here’s why: the Congressional Research Service reviewed the mandatory spending programs and published their report in 1996 called “Mandatory Spending Since 1962.” The very first sentence of the report states: “Mandatory spending is composed of budget outlays controlled by laws other than appropriation acts.”

In 1985 Congress passed the “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act” and defined “spending authority” as “authority provided in laws other than appropriation acts… and includes contract authority, authority to borrow, and entitlement authority if budget authority to make the required payments has not been provided in advance by appropriation acts.’ The reader can decide how this payment without appropriation acts comports with the requirement that an act of appropriations can only originate in the House of Representatives, as cited in the constitution.

The link then, between the will and consent of the people and how your money is spent by Congress, has been completely broken. The facts prove the point: in fiscal year 1985, 58% of the money spent was not provided for in the annual appropriations process. You and I had absolutely no say in how 58% of tax money was spent in 1985 and the loss of our will and consent as to how Congress spends our money on policies of our choice, as we express them in the ballot box, has dramatically increased.

While permanent appropriations, backdoor spending and spending authority are three of the basic constitutionally corrupt schemes developed to force us to spend money without our consent, deficit spending and debt cannot be overlooked, for these simple reasons: debt creates tax appropriation burdens for future taxpayers. That means taxpayers in the future have no say as to how their taxes are spent. Deficit spending also spends money exceeding revenues: it spends money the taxpayers didn’t pay. So future taxpayers are required to pay for the money spent by past voter groups.

Since every two years a new, unique set of voters is supposed to be allowed to express its will and consent; debt and interest payments force future taxpayers to support the will and consent of past voters. I call every two-year group of voters a voter cohort. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that every vote must count, that all votes have equal weight in an election. But the Court has never addressed the issue of votes cast by different voter cohorts over time. Only votes cast on the same day.

The loss of the value of our vote is complete. Due to the spending of Democrats and Obama in 2010 we lost the entire value of our vote: more was spent on mandatory spending (over which we have no opportunity to consent) interest payments on the debt, and deficits. In 2016, just last November, we had access to only 9% of the value of our vote. When the “pre-spent” amounts equal 100%, that means we have no say at all over how policies in the budget express our will and consent. We are there.

So while cleverly scamming people into believing they worry that “every vote counts” Democrats have forced us to pay for their entitlement programs, the programs that keep them in power. They have permanently taken over Congress. It doesn’t matter if non-citizens vote, or what identity groups prefer. The die has been cast……”  (There’s more…..)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/how_democrats_permanently_stole_your_vote.html

Will the Obamaling Fascists Finally Rule Fox News as They Do Nearly All Other U.S. News Networks?

Will This Be The Week That Was for the Fox News Channel?

By Peter Barry Chowka   at American Thinker:

“The week ahead promises to be a critical one for the future of the wounded and limping Fox News Channel (FNC). Knocked off its perch in early May as the longstanding number one cable television news outlet, FNC is now contending with an uncertain future. Declining ratings, internal conflicts and poor programming decisions, and new controversies have helped to energize a determined outside viral de facto “resist Fox News” campaign with the purpose of taking the channel down.

The decline of Fox News began last year with lawsuits by female employees alleging a hostile work environment, followed by the forced departure of FNC founder, chairman, and legendary media-political savant Roger Ailes (who died on May 18, 2017 as the result of a fall at his home in Florida one week earlier).

In the view of many observers, both critics and longtime fans of the channel, FNC’s new prime time program lineup launched in the wake of the executive and on-air talent shake-ups is simply not working. Since September 2016, FNC has lost three of its four highly-rated prime time hosts: veteran broadcasters Greta Van Susteren and Bill O’Reilly and the more recent breakout star Megyn Kelly. Sean Hannity, the last original survivor in prime time, like O’Reilly, started on FNC on the very first day the channel launched in 1996. For years, Hannity has been the second most popular radio talk show personality in the United States behind Rush Limbaugh and a leading conservative voice. Always a lightning rod for criticism from the left, Hannity has recently come under renewed attack thanks to a new wave of negative media scrutiny coupled with an orchestrated campaign to influence his advertisers to jump ship.


There’s more regarding the rise of America’s Obamaling fascism, i.e.,  the union of university honed fascists, it’s beloved fanatic sexual feminazi movements, the Black Racist Movement, all  mixed in with the traditional Hillary Roddham Clinton servants still weeping, cursing, and, still  plotting for the revolution  since last November’s Presidential election loss.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/will_this_be_emthe_week_that_wasem_for_the_fox_news_channel.html

Time for America to Confront the Democrat Party Fascist Left and Its Strangle Hold on Communication

It is certainly understandable that the American atheist, fascist Obamaling Democrat  savage Left is enjoying its total control over the nation’s press and indoctrination institutions called courts, school, and university.

There is a lot rotten in America’s “State of Denmark” in the left wing of the recently beaten Obama fascist, racist, sexist Democrat Party determined  to continue control the Presidency……feminist fangs, black racists and gangsters, the smug Hollywood millionaires and friends, 20 million or more illegal immigrants hidden and protected by taxpayer money in political cells called “Sanctuary Cities”  weren’t quite enough to con enough Americans to send that oily, noisy,  political slimy criminal, “Crooked” Hillary to the White House.   She should be sent to jail for her crimes against the State.

She’s free, however.   She’s a feminist, leftist Democrat…an Untouchable?

Our Donald was fairly, cleanly, honestly, Constitutionally elected to become the Nation’s 45th President…..and BEST yet, he is not a crooked Democrat, or sleazy Republican….but a businessman skilled at solving problems to build matter.

Over 90% of the American communications empire is grease-mouthed by the Charles Blows,  nearly all of television “news” at the level of Rachel Maddow, the Washington Post’s billionaire,  and the  Jake Tapper “boys” at CNN……folks of the same bath tub oils.    Then there are CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC,  and the Ninth District Courts politically, educationally crippled enough to make certain TRUTH AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ARE LOST IN THE PAST to make room for the goons of their religion, their gods of feelings over Truth!

Will these Obama fascists join the NeverTrumpers…the Bushes et alia to sabotage our refreshing, America-loving, America built, Donald Trump…..or will one party fascism finally kill the United States of America?

OUR AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE, FOLKS.   The Charlie Schumer people of Communist George Soros land are leading our nation  to a Venezuela future!    PAY ATTENTION….AWAKE!  Please read the following article by Newt Gingrich!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/18/gingrich-surrender-or-fight-our-country-is-at-stake.html

Washington Going After Fascist Sanctuary Cities…..It’s About Time!

Sanctuary Cities Face Aid Cuts as Justice Dept. Tightens Screws

by Charlie Savage at the New York Times:

“The Trump administration escalated its confrontation with so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, threatening them anew Friday with the loss of grant money if they do not remove certain barriers.

The Justice Department sent letters to officials in New York City, Philadelphia, California and other places singled out last year by the agency’s inspector general for regulations that interfere with the ability of police or sheriffs to communicate with federal immigration authorities about the status of prisoners in their custody.

“Many of these jurisdictions are also crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime,” the Justice Department said in a news release.

The agency cited the rising murder rate in Chicago and cast blame for gang murders in New York on what it labeled a “soft on crime” stance. It also complained that after the recent arrests of 11 members of the MS-13 Salvadoran street gang, the deputy police chief of Santa Cruz, Calif., stressed that the raid was unrelated to immigration instead of “warning other MS-13 members that they would be next.”

President Trump ran on a platform of cracking down on illegal immigration and issued an executive order during his first week in office aimed at jump-starting that process. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions warned that recipients of federal law enforcement grants were required to comply with a 1996 law that bars the local authorities from forcing officials to withhold information from federal immigration authorities about people’s immigration status.

The recipients of the letters were warned that as a condition of receiving 2016 grants, they must certify by June 30 that they were in compliance with the law. That enforced a deadline on a policy put in place under the Obama administration, which announced the policy last July but gave cities not in compliance time to adjust.

After Mr. Sessions’s remarks, several municipal leaders vowed defiance; Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York said he would fight in court any attempt to strip funding from the city.

On Friday, Nisha Agarwal, the commissioner for the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs in New York, said the city was prepared to respond by the June 30 deadline. She declined to say what the city would tell the government.

In California, where Democrats have waged a defiant opposition to the Trump administration, the State Senate leader, Kevin de León of Los Angeles, charged that it was basing its law enforcement policies “on principles of white supremacy — not American values.”

Mr. de Blasio and other top New York officials also batted back against the “soft on crime” label in the Justice Department’s statement.

“We did not become the safest big city in America by being ‘soft on crime,’” Mr. de Blasio said, standing with the city’s police commissioner, James P. O’Neill, both stone-faced, in Police Headquarters. “This is an insult, this statement.”

New York City is at or near historic lows in most areas of major crime, from murder to auto theft.

The Justice Department doubled down after Mr. de Blasio’s comments, repeating its “soft on crime” description. That prompted Preet Bharara, the former United States attorney for New York’s Southern District, to question why the Justice Department “would ignorantly malign” the New York Police Department. “That makes no one safer,” Mr. Bharara said on Twitter.

The dollar amounts for the grants in question are relatively small compared with the overall budgets of governments that received the letters. For example, according to the Justice Department, the City of New York received a $4.3 million grant in 2016.

Other places sent a letter included the State of California, which received $10.4 million, divvied up among 128 cities and counties; Chicago and its county, Cook, shared a $2.3 million grant; New Orleans, $265,832; Las Vegas’s Clark County, $11,537; Miami-Dade County, $481,347; Milwaukee County, $937,932; and Philadelphia, $1.7 million. Each letter was signed by Alan R. Hanson, the acting director of the Office of Justice Programs, which administers the Byrne law enforcement grant program.

“Failure to comply with this condition could result in the withholding of grant funds, suspension or termination of the grant, ineligibility for future O.J.P. grants or subgrants, or other action, as appropriate,” Mr. Hanson wrote.”