• 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

Temporary Defeat for Leftwing Racism in America

For more than forty years the American Leftwing has formed the working language of our country. The sculpting and mass production of this product exudes from the campuses of America’s institutions of “higher learning”. Words are manipulated most by professors, passed on to journalists and pastors of faith, politicians and leaders of the various sacred tribes of the organized Left, and finally to the work place, movie theaters and television screens. Orwell defined it as NEWSPEAK.

When I was a child and young man, discriminating was a positive word. A discriminating person was a person with excellent taste. One who could make better choices than the pedestrian person who wouldn’t ever have time to think, much less act of matters of significance. Poverty referred to the condition of being extremely poor…someone without reliable resources to conduct ones existence; someone who deserved help. One who was poor could never be 100 pounds over weight. Democrats in Congress define poverty these days by determining income.

Racism has been the most successfully redefined word in American English used for political advantage. Democrats, professors, public school teachers, the media, entertainers, some judges for Supreme Court membership….becoming now days all peas in the same pod, have by rote teaching, politicking, and judging, indoctrinated the public to believe racism is a disease exclusively of whites. Moreover with most of western Europe nanny state socialist governments, the disease has been defined more precisely as one cursing American whites……even more precisely, American conservative whites…..the great scholarly unwashed and untrainable.

Yet racism as practiced today in reality is more a disease among the American black population, led by the American left political and educational leadership as if managing its “plantation” society. It is decidedly anti-white, more particularly, anti-white male, and most particularly, anti-white conservative male.

Leftwing racism suffered a temporary defeat today with the Supreme Court reversing President Obama’s fellow tribalist believer, Sonia Sotomayor racist decision in the New Haven, Connecticut firemen case.

Until the Obama reign of gift of gab, the beacon of our culture has been the unwavering belief that TO GUARANTEE EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL, in our American democracy THE MODEL FOR JUSTICE MUST BE BLIND!!!

Even before Obama, Democrats preferred judges who peaked through the blind in order to favor certain political tribes allied to the American Leftwing causes. For generations somehow many judges couldn’t conceive of races able to be equal.

Today there was a temporary setback for Leftwing racism and tribalism from a judgment made by the Supreme Court of the United States. One may notice that a deciding vote was made by another one of my heroes of modern American life, Clarence Thomas, a man of extraordinary courage.

The following is an article from RealClearPolitics.com:

WASHINGTON — “The Supreme Court set a new standard for employers’ use of race in hiring decisions, ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance.

Monday’s opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said employers must show a “strong basis in evidence” before ignoring results of employment-related tests — even if they worry the outcome was unfair — so as not to frustrate other applicants. The 5-4 decision, on the final day of the court’s term, follows a series of Supreme Court rulings that limit the scope of policies intended to address racial bias.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, had been closely watched because the lower appeals court’s one-paragraph ruling came from a three-member panel that included Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed Justice David Souter. That now-defunct ruling is certain to feature heavily at her Senate confirmation hearings, scheduled to begin July 13…….

The court’s decision sparked a debate over the impact on companies. Some attorneys said the already uncertain role of race in the workplace would be further unsettled. The ruling could cause employers to be overly cautious in their hiring to avoid mishandling tests or interviews for fear of being sued. Others said the ruling could bring welcome relief to employers who wouldn’t otherwise know how to handle a similar circumstance. The high court’s decision, in that regard, provided some clear guidance: Employers must be on very solid ground before making any decisions that would discriminate against a specific group of employees. Many big American companies and trade associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, declined to comment or didn’t return calls seeking comment.

The case dates to 2003, when New Haven decided to fill 15 slots for lieutenants and captains in its fire department through a test. Of the 19 firefighters who qualified for promotion, none were black and two were Hispanic.

The case turned on the question of whether New Haven acted validly when it tossed the results out of concern that the test was discriminatory and could have placed New Haven in violation of federal civil-rights laws. The question goes to the heart of a bigger debate over affirmative action: When is it proper to discriminate against one group in order to remedy discrimination against another?

Judge Sotomayor and two other judges from the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said New Haven, in refusing to validate the exams, “was simply trying to fulfill its obligations” under federal law after the outcome had a disproportionate impact on minorities.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the court’s conservative majority, said the city violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “Whatever the city’s ultimate aim — however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed — the city made its employment decision because of race,” he wrote. “The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.”

Justice Kennedy said an employer can’t negate an exam unless there is strong evidence the test was unfair to minorities. In New Haven’s case the evidence was quite the opposite, he wrote, as the city took specific steps to ensure that black and Hispanic firefighters were consulted in designing the questions.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the opinion. In 2007, the court invalidated formulas that took account of race to create integrated student bodies. Earlier this month, the court made it easier for local governments that once had discriminatory election procedures to end federal oversight.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority overlooked a long history of racial discrimination in fire departments that justifies extraordinary deference efforts to promote diversity in the ranks.

The white firefighters who studied for the exam “understandably attract the court’s empathy,” Justice Ginsburg said in summarizing the dissent from the bench. But, she added, “they had no vested right to promotion.”

It is rare for the Supreme Court to find itself ruling on an opinion of someone waiting to join its ranks, and Justice Kennedy’s opinion and the published dissent made almost no mention of the appeals-court decision involving Judge Sotomayor.

Monday’s ruling affects any employer of 15 persons or more that uses any type of exams for employees, including test of personality, computer skills, physical fitness or honesty, said Christine Jolls, a Yale Law School professor and a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

Employers that rely on tests may now worry about being sued no matter what they do. “This decision is going to be trouble for business,” she said.

As a result, a number of companies could see costs rise as they try to better evaluate tests and hiring plans, said Sarah Crawford, senior counsel at the liberal Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Law.

Others, including the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business association, said the decision could represent good news. “Now employers have some assurance that they’re not going to be sued if it turns out that despite their best efforts, the process impacts one of the protected categories,” said Karen Harned, the group’s executive director, who called the ruling “a good decision for business.” Joseph Beachboard, a lawyer at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Los Angeles, who represents midsize and large employers, concurred, saying employers get “very nervous” when test results skew in favor of a particular employee group.

“The Supreme Court was sending a message to all employers,” Mr. Beachboard says. “You shouldn’t engage in a form of intentional discrimination to avoid unintentional discrimination.”

Cities including Chicago, New York, Jacksonville, Fla., and Bridgeport, Conn., have been embroiled in litigation brought by applicants alleging the cities illegally crafted tests to either screen out minorities or manipulated results to boost minority scores. Cities have defended their actions, saying they are trying to add minority employees while trying to uphold the spirit of the civil-rights law.”

“E Pluribus Unum” squeaked out a victory against an ancient enemy of civilization, tribalism, the contemporary vanguard of the American Democrat Party. ghr

—Naftali Bendavid, Kristina Peterson, Brent Kendall and Cari Tuna contributed to this article.