• 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

The Dysfunctional Left Functioning About KOMEN Withdrawal from Parenthood Funding

WARNING:   THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE APPEARED AT THE MARXIST WEBSITE, DAILY KOS.   READ THE  DYFUNCTION AT YOUR OWN RISK!

This week in the War on Women: How the pink ribbon catastrophe is all part of the war

by Kaili Joy Gray    at Daily Kos:

“Unless you were living under a rock this week, you’re probably aware of the clusterfuck the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation created for itself when it decided to stop fundingPlanned Parenthood’s cancer screening and prevention programs.

What followed was nothing short of spectacular. The foundation’s leadership seemed completely unprepared for the national outrage at the blatantly obvious politicization of breast cancer and women’s health. Karen Handel, the foundation’s senior vice president of public policy and failed Republican candidate for governor of Georgia (endorsed by Sarah Palin), echoed the “cry me a river” response from fervent anti-choicers on Twitter—a tweet that was deleted, but not before an image was taken and spread far and wide across the Internet.

Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker then took to the airwaves to offer a whole new excuse for cutting the funding, insisting that the decision was not political, and tsk-tsking critics, whom she insisted didn’t know what they were talking about and needed to “pause” and “slow down.” Translation: Stop criticizing us for siding with an anti-woman agenda instead of with women. And keep buying our pink crap!

That did not go over too well either.

Next, the Komen Foundation released an apology for its decision, which the traditional media (and, sadly, even many alternative media sources, including feminist writers) inaccurately reported as a reversal of the foundation’s new policy. Additional conversations with members of the foundation’s board confirmed that it had not reversed its policy; rather, the apology was a further attempt to salvage its all-but-destroyed brand, chastise critics, and make the whole PR disaster go away.

What we’ve learned this week is that even if Komen were to continue funding Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer exams and education programs, it’s most likely too late for the foundation to undo the damage it has done to its reputation and credibility as an organization that cares about women’s health. With its new policy, its anti-choice extremist leadership, and its long history of questionable practices, including suing the hell out of smaller charities that dare to use the word “cure,” not to mention the number of articles, new and old, exposing how little of the money the foundation raises actually goes toward cancer research, Komen deserves no second chances. Those who care about fighting cancer have promised to send their money elsewhere, and forced to choose between the pink ribbon and Planned Parenthood, Americans—even self-identified “pro-life” Americans—are standing with Planned Parenthood. I am one of them.

In this weekly series, we usually document and discuss any number of stories that demonstrate the many fronts of the War on Women, and how extremist activists work with extremist lawmakers to roll back legal protections for women and to further enforce anti-woman ideology that impacts women’s lives and livelihood.

So this week, let’s connect the dots to see how a relentless push by activists to destroy the nation’s largest provider of women’s health care led to congressional action, which led to the political decision of a private, supposedly non-political, organization joining in that battle—on the wrong side, against women.”

Obama, the Vulgar is a Christian?…. Obama Says So! Where’s the Proof? Can’t be Found!!!

A Lousy President and a Lousy Theologian

by John Hinderaker     at   PowerLine:

“Scott wrote yesterday about President Obama’s attempt to enlist Jesus in his campaign for higher taxes: “But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’” In drawing this equivalence, Obama implicitly substituted the government for God; in Jesus’s teaching it is God, not any earthly ruler, who gives us much and expects much from us in return.

Obama drew his quote from Luke 12, one of the most extraordinary books in the Bible. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to forget about current events for a while and read it. Luke 12 contains some of Jesus’s most beautiful and powerful words (“Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”) as well as some of his most problematic (“Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.”). Luke 12 also includes this implicit rebuke to Obama: “Take heed and beware of covetousness….”

The quote that Obama cherry-picked comes from one of several parables that Jesus told about servants or stewards who are left in charge of an absent master’s property. The master, of course, is God, and at the end of the parable the master always returns and judges his servant’s stewardship. In another such parable in Matthew 13, Jesus said, “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” But this has nothing more to do with redistribution of wealth by government than the parable in Luke 12.

It wouldn’t be correct to say that Christianity has nothing to do with politics; Christians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who believed that their faith commanded them to oppose the Nazis, for example, were certainly justified in so thinking. But it is a fact that Jesus never said a word about politics–his only pronouncement that touched on the subject, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…,” was a response to questioners who tried to ensnare him in political controversy.

What is unfortunate is when partisans in both church and state try to enlist Christianity, or other religious faiths, not just on matters of life and death, but on one side or another of every petty partisan controversy. Barack Obama is not alone here: my own denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has issued position papers on everything from banking regulation to agriculture policy–every one of which, remarkably, coincided with the position then held by the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The Bible offers us guidance on many topics, but as to whether the top marginal income tax rate in 21st century America should be 35% or 39%, it is silent. Although, of course, it never hurts to keep those many injunctions against covetousness in mind.”

Mark Steyn: Big Tolerance Intolerant of Komen Foundation Rebuff of ‘Planned’ Parenthood

 Komen has its awareness raised

by MARK STEYN    at the Orange County Register             (Article sent by Mark Waldeland)

“As Sen. Obama said during the 2008 campaign, words matter. Modern “liberalism” is strikingly illiberal; the high priests of “tolerance” are increasingly intolerant of even the mildest dissent; and those who profess to “celebrate diversity” coerce ever more ruthlessly a narrow homogeneity. Thus, the Obama administration’s insistence that Catholic institutions must be compelled to provide free contraception, sterilization and abortifacients. This has less to do with any utilitarian benefit a condomless janitor at a Catholic school might derive from Obamacare, and more to do with the liberal muscle of Big Tolerance enforcing one-size-fits-all diversity.The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state’s Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at.Consider the current travails of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. This is the group responsible for introducing the pink “awareness-raising” ribbon for breast cancer – as emblematic a symbol of America’s descent into postmodernism as anything. It has spawned a thousand other colored “awareness-raising” ribbons: my current favorite is the periwinkle ribbon for acid reflux. We have had phenomenal breakthroughs in hues of awareness-raising ribbons, and for this the Susan G. Komen Foundation deserves due credit.Until the other day, Komen were also generous patrons of Planned Parenthood, the “women’s health” organization. The Foundation then decided it preferred to focus on organizations that are “providing the lifesaving mammogram.” Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, despite its president, Cecile Richards, testifying to the contrary before Congress last year. Rather, Planned Parenthood provides abortions; it’s the biggest abortion provider in the United States. For the breast cancer bigwigs to wish to target their grants more relevantly is surely understandable.But not if you’re a liberal enforcer. Sen. Barbara Boxer, with characteristic understatement, compared the Komen Foundation’s Nancy Brinker to Joe McCarthy: “I’m reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said: ‘Oh,’ a congressman stands up, a senator, ‘I’m investigating this organization and therefore people should stop funding them.’” But Komen is not a congressman or a senator or any other part of the government, only a private organization. And therefore it is free to give its money to whomever it wishes, isn’t it?

Dream on. Liberals take the same view as the proprietors of the Dar al-Islam: Once they hold this land, they hold it forever. Notwithstanding that those who give to the Foundation are specifically giving to support breast cancer research, Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion. We don’t want to return to the bad old days of the back alley, when a poor vulnerable person who made the mistake of stepping out of line had to be forced into the shadows and have the realities explained to them with a tire iron. Now Big Liberalism’s enforcers do it on the front pages with the panjandrums of tolerance and diversity cheering them all the way. In the wake of Komen’s decision, the Yale School of Public Health told the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that its invitation to Nancy Brinker to be its commencement speaker was now “under careful review.” Because God forbid anybody doing a master’s program at an Ivy League institution should be exposed to anyone not in full 100 percent compliance with liberal orthodoxy. The American Association of University Women announced it would no longer sponsor teams for Komen’s “Race for the Cure.” Sure, Komen has raised $2 billion for the cure, but better we never cure breast cancer than let a single errant Injun wander off the abortion reservation. Terry O’Neill of the National Organization for Women said Komen “is no longer an organization whose mission is to advance women’s health.” You preach it, sister. I mean, doesn’t the very idea of an organization obsessively focused on breasts sound suspiciously patriarchal?

As Kate Sheppard, the “reproductive rights” correspondent of Mother Jones, tweeted triumphantly, “Overheard in the office: ‘Come at Cecile Richards, you best not miss.’”

Indeed. If you strike at the King, you must kill him. If you merely announce that, following a review of grant-eligibility procedures you’re no longer in a position to make your small voluntary donation to the King, your head will be on a pikestaff outside the palace gates. By Friday morning lockstep liberalism had done its job. All that was missing was James Carville to declare, “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through an oncology clinic awareness-raising free mammogram session, you never know what you’ll find.” After 72 hours being fitted for the liberals’ cement overcoat and an honored place as the cornerstone of the Planned Parenthood Monument to Women’s Choice, Komen attempted to chisel free and back into the good graces of the tolerant: As Nancy Brinker’s statement groveled, “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

Congratulations! Planned Parenthood certainly raised Nancy’s awareness. I wonder what color ribbon that comes with? Black and blue?

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto was unimpressed by the liberal protection racket (Nice little charity you’ve got there; be a shame if anything were to happen to it). As Taranto pointed out, in a real-life protection racket, the victim never pays voluntarily: “The threat is present from the get-go.” By contrast, Komen’s first donations to Big Abortion were made voluntarily. A prudent observer would conclude that the best way to avoid being crowbarred by Cecile Richards is never to get mixed up with her organization in the first place.

It’s not like she needs the money. Komen’s 2010 donation of $580,000 is less than Ms. Richards’ salary and benefits. Planned Parenthood commandos hacked into the Komen website and changed its slogan from “Help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer” to “Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.” But, if you’re that eager to run over poor women on the way to the bank, I’d recommend a gig with Planned Parenthood: the average salary of the top eight executives is $270,000, which makes them officially part of what the Obama administration calls “the one percent.” In America today, few activities are as profitable as a “nonprofit.” Planned Parenthood receives almost half a billion dollars – or about 50 percent of its revenues – in taxpayer funding.

A billion dollars seems a lot, even for 322,000 abortions a year. But it enables Planned Parenthood to function as a political heavyweight. Ms Richards’ business is an upscale progressives’ ideological protection racket, for whom the “poor women’s” abortion mill is a mere pretext. The Komen Foundation will not be the last to learn that you can “race for the cure,” but you can’t hide. Celebrate conformity – or else.”

Marxism Reaches the Supreme Court Via Justice Ginsburg in Egypt

Justice Ginsburg to Egyptian TV:

You probably don’t want to use

our Constitution as a model

 by Allahpundit    at   HotAir:

 
Via MEMRI TV, skip ahead to 9:28. I’m actually sort of charmed that a left-wing jurist thinks it matters much what’s written in a nation’s constitution. Our Supreme Court managed to tease a right to abortion out of a clause governing legal procedure, didn’t it? Seventy years earlier, a right-wing Court teased a right of contract out of the same provision. If you can do that, there ain’t much you can’t do. In fact, we’re on the cusp right now of Congress being granted a new power to force Americans to buy certain products; the clause responsible for that, which deals with regulating commerce between states, was somehow used a few years ago to reach marijuana grown in someone’s own backyard for their own use — with conservative support, do note. A smart, aggressive judge can make a document say nearly anything. The constitution sets certain goalposts, granted, but there’s a lottttt of space between them for a skilled kicker to aim.

Ginsburg’s fondness for South Africa’s constitution, I take it, comes from the fact that their bill of rights includes welfare-state guarantees like the right to housing and the right to health care. In an age when the western world is starting to collapse under the weight of entitlements, she seems to prefer a model that would make it even harder to reform those entitlements through normal democratic means. That’s the last thing Egypt needs given how deep its economic problems run; there’s no way the government will be able to vindicate those rights anytime soon, so why make any promises? But they will promise, no doubt, because that’s what Egyptians are expecting, and if the new regime can’t keep its promise then it’ll simply revert to Mubarak tactics to quiet popular discontent. That’s the other unspoken punchline here, of course — that culture matters at least as much as what’s in the constitution, and probably more. No doubt Coptic Christians will have the right to free speech under whatever Egypt’s new parliament comes up with, just as North Koreans constitutionally have the right to vote, but how long do you think that’ll last under a government dominated by Islamists? In fact, note that the other model she mentions here is Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which somehow failed to prevent Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant from being hassled for criticizing Islam by Canada’s Orwellian human rights Star Chamber. A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.

For video of Ginsburg television stardom click below:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/03/justice-ginsburg-to-egyptian-tv-you-probably-dont-want-to-use-our-constitution-as-a-model/

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers