• 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

Andy McCarthy Asks, “How ‘Bout United States vs. Rhode Island?

At National Observer Online Andy McCarthy writes:

“Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect!”

Comment:  Something is certainly rotten in the State of Obama!

Is Obama Going After Arizona Because Someone There Doesn’t Like His Middle Name, “Hussein?”

The following article appeared at PowerLine today.  It was written by Paul Mirengoff.

Rasmussen has data on what voters think about the federal government’s suit against Arizona, which seeks to invalidate that state’s new immigration enforcement law. By a 2 to 1 ratio (56 percent to 28 percent), those surveyed oppose that suit. Moreover, 61 percent would like to see a law such as Arizona’s enacted in their state. That’s up 6 points from two months ago.

Some have said that the lawsuit is smart politics by the Obama administration, even in the short-term, because those who care most about the issue (i.e., Hispanics) will receive extra motivation to support Democratic candidates this fall. However, Rasmussen found that among the 55 percent who say immigration is a very important issue, opposition to the Justice Department’s suit is particularly strong. 72 percent of this group disagrees with the suit.

It’s unlikely, then, that the Obama crowd sees the suit as a good short-term politics. In fact, Rasmussen’s latest numbers are in line with data from when reports of such a possible suit first surfaced. Thus, the unpopularity of the suit didn’t sneak up on anyone.

My sense is that the decision to sue is, above all, an ideological one. Certainly, the point man on the suit, DOJ Civil Rights Division head Tom Perez, is a long-time advocate on behalf of illegal immigrants

This is an administration that won’t back down on its core beliefs. One of its core beliefs is that illegal immigrants should not be bothered by the police. Another is that millions of illegal immigrants should receive amnesty (a belief that is, of course, supported by long-term poltical interests). Vindicating the latter objective requires that the federal government determine just how much immigration enforcement (or more precisely, how little) will occur in the absence of “comprehensive reform,” i.e., amnesty.

Public opinion and short-term political considerations no more influence the administration’s behavior on immigration than they did on health care.”

Comment:  It also should be mentioned that the Federal suit against Arizona perhaps is perhaps symbolic of Barack Hussein’s feelings against America,  consistent with the Obama husband and wife team’s never being proud of their country until the graduate student became Prexie…..a chance to throw more mud at the flag while he still has a chance, kind of like bowing to Castro or Hugo.

Then to, maybe the antiArizona suit is his  poetic way of getting  even with  the sneaky Jew lying in the bushes plotting  his or her next attack against Obama’s policy pushing Islam love.   Arizona is the state whose voters bore Barry Goldwater to the world of thinking conservatism.  Perhaps part of him or his progeny doesn’t like the “Muslim” name the President bares….Hussein. 

Maybe no……Maybe, graduate student Obama hasn’t yet realized 78% of the American Jewish vote for American president in 2008 went for a man whose middle name is Hussein.    And the guy won!!  Perhaps they, like Obama have deep prejudices against Israelis, too.

Obamacare Following The Path of European Health(care?) Bankruptcy


The following article was published at National Center for Policy Analysis.  Is anyone surprised?

Danger Signs in Obamacare!

Some commentary before the article:  While locally Massachusetts is a perfect example of Liberal dictates gone awry, abroad  Germany and  nearly every country connected to the “Soft” socialist left is facing financial crisis amid a service crisis due to the profligate habits of Lefties bribing the voting population.

No one can pay the bills.    These dramatic episodes upon the stage of Western Marxist theaters comprise the ideal dreamed by  our American Obama modern “Reds” of the Soviet world.   Who cares about bankruptcy and the collapse of anyone’s national economy……..Such crises lead to a grater demand for enlarging government power.

Onward to the article:     “Not a single one of its major programs has gotten started, and already the wheels are starting to come off of ObamaCare, says Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute.  The administration’s own chief actuary has reported millions of people could lose their health insurance, health care costs will rise faster than they would have if the law hadn’t passed, and the overhaul will mean people will have an increasingly tough time finding physicians to see them. 

The White House is trying to spin the April report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that although costs will increase, only 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million as previously estimated).  But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for ObamaCare and how many of its promises will be broken, says Turner. 

People losing coverage: 

  • About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid.
  • Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer. 

Higher costs for consumers: 

  • Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums, according to Foster.
  • A separate report from the Joint Economic Committee shows small businesses will be hit hardest. 

Spending increases: 

  • Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade.
  • And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward by a net total of $251 billion over the next decade. 

You can’t keep your doctor: 

  • Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019, which will possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.
  • Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs. 

Source: Grace-Marie Turner, “Nine Danger Signs in ObamaCare,” Heartland Institute, July 2010. 

Comment:  For those Americans who bothered to listen carefully to Obamatalk during his campaigns, and, God help us  his endless campaigning  for Obamalove ever since, we got from Obama what we expected.   As advertised he is a  graduate student for…..”Change”…..Change from a mixed economy with private enterprise somewhat alive and well, to a Socialist centrally planned economy where Obamafolk will be most  alive and well…..even prospering at the expense of us mired in the universal troubles from massive unemployment.  

Obamafuhrer  has already annexed some industries and is hoping (Soviet style) to conquer yet more territory despite the vast Siberia these Democrat-Marxists already command.

Our collective worry should center on the freedom we still have  to be disgusted and angry at Obamachange to authoritarianism,  and with the possibility that the hopelessly leaderless Republican Party, including  those who pretend to be conservative may chicken out from supporting American values in favor of the coming Marxist dictatorship.  Such people in 1930s German society played tootsie with Adolph Hitler early in the Nazi movement just in case to do otherwise might mean “missing the boat”  of future  success.

Even before Obama was born, lefties of their day guessed on the costs of their “improvements” and handouts to the taxpayer.  Some were honest, most like Obama were not.  They, like he, pick any figure  fair or fowl which serves the purpose in making the tax law.  They know Americans don’t want to be pestered with details……..Until now, maybe, with “Obamacare.”

Investors Business Daily: “The President’s One Man Death Panel” Donald Berwick


Remember Sarah Palin?  The former goverrnor of  Alaska?  The female of the human species the Obama people want Americans to hate more than any other?  That Sarah Palin?

Didn’t Ms. Palin in her moment of deepest ignorance dream out loud that the Obamacare Health Plan so deviously and darkly maneuvered into “LAW” some months ago, would lead to “DEATH PANELS as a fundamental American right for better health care?

That Sarah Palin……the no-nothing know-nothing  who said one could see Russia on a clear day from certain shores of Alaska!  The Charlie Gibson Sarah Palin…….Remember her?

The Governor Sarah Palin whom these Charlie Gibsons of the American world painted as a national political candidate woefully inferior to “Community Organizer Barack Hussein Obama!”

Guess what?  President Hussein Obama has maneuvered Donald Berwick to become the Directokr of Obamacare.  Please do read the following Investors Business Daily editorial, “The President’s One Man Death Panel.” 

“The president recess-appoints a fan of rationing and Britain’s National Health Service to direct one-third of American health care. Why does the administration want his views hidden from scrutiny?

‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” That’s what Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama’s nominee to head the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, told a National Institutes of Health publication a year ago, when he was just president and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement.

Such views were to be fodder for a stormy confirmation hearing — except none has been scheduled.

Instead, Obama opted to make a recess appointment of Berwick to head CMS, an agency that oversees a third of all health care spending in the U.S. and that will play a major role under ObamaCare in deciding what care is available and who gets it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly accused the president of trying to “arrogantly circumvent the American people” with Congress out of town for its annual Fourth of July break.

Berwick could serve through 2011 without Senate confirmation. This sleight of hand involving one-sixth of the American economy and the man who will run one-third of that is the fruit of hope and change?

It is understandable why the administration would want to keep Berwick’s views under the radar. He has praised the U.K’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which he says has “developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.”

Last year, the Orwellian-named NICE unveiled plans to cut annual steroid injections for severe back pain to 3,000 from 60,000. “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospital’s Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph.

“It will mean,” said Dr. Richardson, “more people on opiates, which are addictive and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky and has a 50% failure rate.”

And here we thought the first rule of medicine was to do no harm.

If Berwick wants to imitate Britain’s model, perhaps he can explain why breast cancer in America has a 25% mortality rate while in Britain it’s almost double at 46%.

Prostate cancer is fatal to 19% of American men who get it; in Britain it kills 57% of those it strikes.”

Comment:   Unless a government develops a secret police system which effectively paralyzes its population with fear, and as long as some folks can accumulate fortunes fairly or criminally, the latter  including  the politician class,  bribing increases dramatically in a government run economy to become the economic stimulus of any corrupt culture such as the good old USSR. 

In worlds of forced equality the masses know who makes how much money among the fellow masses.  (These masses do not include the Barack Obamas or George Soroses of the world who run the farm the masses tend.) 

Let us assume that one of the clever among the masses has amassed massive amounts of money on the sly.   He, (and it almost always will be a he, despite what is taught at university)  dearly loves his 65 year old mother, but she needs her appendix removed.   

‘Mother’  is also one of the masses and the bureaucrat reading the computer analysis of the woman’s age (by now the longevity of life average  of this socialist dictatorship has fallen to age 63) and health forcast denies the procedure which surely would save her life.  

“Son” has money.   He has hidden it well, saving  it for just this kind of occasion.   As in the good old USSR, he is experienced in the “POD STOLOM” economy……the “Under the Table” business world. 

So he pays a small fortune to encourage the government bureaucrat to change a few words on the computer handout ruling.  Now the bureaucrat has financial freedom to encourage improvements in his own condition to enjoy life a bit better than the standard “FORCED EQUALITY” government standard.

One kind of economy or another will succeed regardless of the degree of fiscal and moral corruption president Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Marxists will introduce to the American scene.  As in any SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP, THAT ECONOMY WILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE TABLE IN NEARLY EVERY CIRCLE  OF NATIONAL BUSINESS LIFE!

Krauthammer on Obama’s ‘Primping Up’ Whenever He Looks Into His Personal Mirror

Charles Krauthammer has written the following article in the Washington Post reviewing French  King Louie the Fourteenth among the character flaws  our president has developed for himself:

“Remember NASA? It once represented to the world the apogee of American scientific and technological achievement. Here is President Obama’s vision of NASA’s mission, as explained by administrator Charles Bolden:

“One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.”

Apart from the psychobabble — farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer — what’s the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won more Nobel Prizes than any other nation by far — but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.

Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence — lauding, for example, Russia’s contribution to the space station. Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the United States to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.

For good measure, Bolden added that the United States cannot get to Mars without international assistance. Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of President John Kennedy’s 1961 pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.

There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy’s. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in France, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Which of course means: If we’re all exceptional, no one is.

Take human rights. After Obama’s April meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we, too, are working on perfecting our own democracy.

Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with China about human rights, the U.S. side brought up Arizona’s immigration law — “early and often.” As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents and suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.

Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama’s modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America’s alleged failing — from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9-11.

It’s fine to recognize the achievements of others and be non-chauvinistic about one’s country. But Obama’s modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.

It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America’s sins and the world’s to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the word “I.”

Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to Cabinet members and other high government officials as “my” — “my secretary of homeland security,” “my national security team,” “my ambassador.” The more normal — and respectful — usage is to say “the,” as in “the secretary of state.” These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution — not just the man who appointed them.

It’s a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama’s exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies — both about himself.

Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama’s modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence — yet not of his own country’s.