• 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

Dump the U. S. Department of Education?

Do We Need the Department of Education?

As President Obama makes remarks about making a sleeker government, and GOP candidates contend that a number of cabinet-level positions ought to be slashed, it becomes important to take a second look at certain departments.  Specifically, the need for the Department of Education, which first came into existence in 1979, should be reassessed on three crucial grounds — any one of which would justify its continuation, says Charles Murray, the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

  • Is the federal government required or even allowed to provide for a public education system by the Constitution?
  • Is there some component, unique to education, which requires action on the federal level?
  • Has the Department of Education demonstrated on efficacy in resolving educational woes that, in and of itself, validates its continuation?

In regard to constitutionality, the answer almost certainly appears to be no.  Though the Supreme Court has undoubtedly legalized the federal government’s intervention in education, nowhere in the Constitution is it even hinted that the government should be involved.

Furthermore, there is nothing about education that requires intervention on the federal level — this country operated for centuries with no federal role in that field.

It is still possible for the Department of Education to be justified if it can be shown that it has had a significant, net positive effect on American education.  However, on a variety of metrics, this seems untrue.  Using data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, researchers can find little reason to conclude that the department has had a beneficial impact on K-12 education.

Even in the field of equalizing educational opportunities between students of different races and income levels, the department seems ineffective.  Title I, meant to upgrade the schools attended by children from low-income families, has not been shown to close achievement gaps between students of differing backgrounds.  In short, the Department of Education appears to have little ability to improve educational outcomes across the board.

Source: Charles Murray, “Do We Need the Department of Education?” Imprimis, January 2012.

For text:


For more on Education Issues:


(from the National Center for Policy Analysis.)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: