• 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

And What About the Harry Reid Democrat Budget the Senate is supposed to Produce?

Why Won’t Senate Democrats

Adopt a Budget?

at PowerLine:

The United States has now gone almost three years without a budget, because Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats refuse to propose or adopt one. President Obama’s proposed budgets have failed to gain a single vote in support: his FY 2012 budget was voted down in the Senate last year, 97-0, and his FY 2013 budget was voted down in the House this year, 414-0. The Democrats love to castigate the House Republican budget; fine. But why won’t they propose, and pass, their own?

The only answer to that question is that Senate Democrats don’t dare put on paper what they actually plan to do over the coming years–spend the nation into bankruptcy–and vote for it. Last night on the Bret Baier show, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was unable to give a straight answer to a simple question: why won’t the Democratic Party follow the law and adopt a budget, as is required by the 1974 Budget Act?

Click below for video:



We are long past the point where the Democratic Party can be taken seriously.


HuffPost Lefty Howard Fineman finds Obama a Warrior, albeit, an unhappy one

The Unhappy Warrior: President Obama Cries Havoc On GOP, Lets Slip The Dogs Of Reelection

by Howard Fineman     at   the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is leading in the polls, particularly in swing states. The economy is, in some ways, recovering impressively from the mega-meltdown of 2008-09. The Republican Party is poised to nominate Mitt Romney, a man with no public political skills who wants to install an elevator in his garage and has an uncanny ability to generate fear and loathing among many of his party’s most ardent grassroots activists.

Check out the video to which Fineman refers:


Yet Obama, who essentially kicked off the general election season on Tuesday at an annual gathering of newspaper editors, was a grim-faced candidate. No “Happy Warrior” was he. His hair growing grayer by the day, his lips tight and jaw clenched, the president seemed to be looking forward to the campaign with all the joy of a teen combatant in “The Hunger Games.”

There are things in the air and in the papers that surely put him in a bad mood. The Supreme Court, the experts say, may decide to upend his signature domestic initiative, the Affordable Care Act. The front pages offer stories about a lavish spending spree in Nevada by leaders of his General Services Administration and his in-house top gun on health care policy supposedly going to war against — and riding roughshod over — the head of the Food and Drug Administration. Also, the president’s NCAA bracket turned out to be very wrong.

But the main reason for Obama’s grim mood Tuesday was the political strategy that he and his aides have decided to pursue. The president did not much bother to tout his administration’s achievements. Instead and not by accident, he spent most of his podium time crying havoc about the GOP candidates, the Republican House budget and even what he regards as the danger the Supreme Court will act irresponsibly on health care.

While the American Society of Newspaper Editors are not a jovial bunch, at least not at 12:30 in the afternoon, there was little if anything for them to laugh at in Obama’s 40 minutes or so before them — 25 for his dour speech and another 15 for equally bleak answers to questions.

The president’s appearance, also not by accident, took place on the same day as three GOP primaries — in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia — that seem likely to give Romney a big boost and to lead party insiders and pundits alike to declare the GOP race all but over.

If Romney wins Wisconsin, as he is poised to do, he will have done it with a man at his side — Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — whose new federal budget proposal the Obama team sees as key, if not the key, to the president’s reelection chances next November. With its continued tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, its voucherization of Medicare and its deep cuts in all non-defense discretionary spending, the Ryan budget presents an “unambiguously clear” choice among competing visions for the country, the president said.

This campaign, Obama said, is “the make-or-break moment for the middle class” in 21st century America.

As he often does, the president chose to deal with gritty political issues — what to do about the deficit, spending, taxes and entitlements such as Medicare — by widening the lens. This election, he said, will be nothing less than a choice between the “thinly veiled social Darwinism” of a hard-right GOP, whose agenda makes “the Contract With America look like the New Deal,” and his own vision of American community — a vision that used to be shared by a long line of Republican presidents, including Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bushes One and Two, and even Reagan in his good moments.

You know that something is happening in American politics when a Democratic president praises Nixon and George W. Bush, two GOP leaders whom the Republicans themselves never mention.

The president, political advisers David Axelrod, Jim Messina, David Plouffe and the rest of the brain trust have clearly decided that today’s GOP, as embodied by Ryan and Romney (who called the Ryan budget “marvelous”), are so far out of the mainstream that a reelection campaign based primarily on attack is the best way to go.

It may be so, but playing the attacker himself — nasty, hectoring, even apocalyptic — doesn’t naturally suit the president. As a former constitutional law professor, he may also feel uncomfortable questioning the bona fides of the Supreme Court.

He’s a warrior, but didn’t seem happy about it.


Maureen Dowd, our Modern Medusa, Doesn’t Like Men…..at least those who wear Black

As a group, women have a number of serious problems in dealing with the human condition.   Most, like Maureen Dowd, don’t bother to work out soundness of reason, and if they come up with a thought, they seldom know where it belongs so they rely on the most available emotion for guidance of direction and meaning.

 The human female is not curious by nature.   Invention is not her drive.  Knowledge is old fashioned and  according to female propagandists  a male invention unworthy of  the female mind.    Problem solving is not her natural gift or instinct.     Nor was  she  born to be a  killer and sexual predator.   She needs to fit in somewhere.

Maureen Dowd fits in well  as an  Obamawonk.

Today’s  single Lefty  human female expects from government what  the  ‘normal’  human female has expected from her mate or the clan’s alpha male and female,  for tens of thousands of years…….SECURITY…..not LIBERTY,   primarily security from a natural drive  to protect her children rather than to run for political office,   invent the internal combustion engine, or compose Beethoven’s 5th Piano Concerto or any other such ditties he and such as he  happened to put together.

I suppose  Maureen Dowd is a kept gal, and so secure.   Most Marxists of any sex are as long as they feel oppressed.        They usually serve quite obediently as bureaucrats…..and unlike their similarly employed male , can be better trusted to perform  rather than examine and question.    The ‘she’ can usually be relied  on not to rock the boat.   It simply is not in her DNA.

Nature, however, is filled with mistakes.

She can be  very competitive in school exercises.    As an animal however,  she rarely drives to practice  her learnings when with  or without knowledge.      She was not born with a drive  to be  a warrior.

Witness the more native behaviors of the Middle East males versus females.    How long do you think human males would linger inside a burqua before  his  socializing  to control violence would begin to gnaw at him for action?   It is in the testosterone, gals.    That is the way it is.

But, “she”  can make noise, trouble, and verbalize and deceive, if she needs to use a weapon or two.   She screams  for others to hear and so, save her, a practice begun early in age.

Maureen writes, of course, in the New York Times.    She reacts thusly:


By      at the New York Times:

“How dare President Obama brush back the Supreme Court like that?

Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances?

Nah. And why should he?

This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.

It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.

All the fancy diplomas of the conservative majority cannot disguise the fact that its reasoning on the most important decisions affecting Americans seems shaped more by a political handbook than a legal brief.

President Obama never should have waded into the health care thicket back when the economy was teetering. He should have listened to David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel and not Michelle.

His failure from the start to sell his plan or even explain it is bizarre and self-destructive. And certainly he needs a more persuasive solicitor general.

Still, it was stunning to hear Antonin Scalia talking like a Senate whip during oral arguments last week on the constitutionality of the health care law. He mused on how hard it would be to get 60 votes to repeal parts of the act, explaining why the court may just throw out the whole thing. And, sounding like a campaign’s oppo-research guy, he batted around politically charged terms like “Cornhusker Kickback,” referring to a sweetheart deal that isn’t even in the law.

If he’s so brilliant, why is he drawing a risible parallel between buying health care and buying broccoli?

The justices want to be above it all, beyond reproach or criticism. But why should they be?

In 2000, the Republican majority put aside its professed disdain of judicial activism and helped to purloin the election for W., who went on to heedlessly invade Iraq and callously ignore Katrina.

As Anthony Lewis wrote in The Times back then, “Deciding a case of this magnitude with such disregard for reason invites people to treat the court’s aura of reason as an illusion.”

The 2010 House takeover by Republicans and the G.O.P. presidential primary have shown what a fiasco the Citizens United decision is, with self-interested sugar daddies and wealthy cronies overwhelming the democratic process.

On Monday, the court astoundingly ruled — 5 Republican appointees to 4 Democratic appointees — to give police carte blanche on strip-searches, even for minor offenses such as driving without a license or violating a leash law. Justice Stephen Breyer’s warning that wholesale strip-searches were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” fell on deaf ears. So much for the conservatives’ obsession with “liberty.”

The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals who make arguments, but they are weak foils, relegated to the background and trying to get in a few words before the commercials.

Just as in the Senate’s shameful Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives focus on results. John Roberts Jr.’s benign beige facade is deceiving; he’s a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid and often venomous Scalia.

Just as Scalia voted to bypass that little thing called democracy and crown W. president, so he expressed ennui at the idea that, even if parts of the health care law are struck down, some provisions could be saved: “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he asked, adding: “Is this not totally unrealistic?”

Inexplicably mute 20 years after he lied his way onto the court, Clarence Thomas didn’t ask a single question during oral arguments for one of the biggest cases in the court’s history.

When the Supreme Court building across from the Capitol opened in 1935, the architect, Cass Gilbert, played up the pomp, wanting to reflect the court’s role as the national ideal of justice.

With conservatives on that court trying to block F.D.R., and with Roosevelt prepared to pack the court, the New Yorker columnist Howard Brubaker noted that the new citadel had “fine big windows to throw the New Deal out of.”

Now conservative justices may throw Obama’s hard-won law out of those fine big windows. They’ve already been playing Twister, turning precedents into pretzels to achieve their political objective. In 2005, Scalia was endorsing a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, the clauses now coming under scrutiny from the majority, including the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Could the dream of expanded health care die at the hands of a Kennedy?)

Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and the insufferable Samuel Alito were nurtured in the conservative Federalist Society, which asserts that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

But it isn’t conservative to overturn a major law passed by Congress in the middle of an election. The majority’s political motives are as naked as a strip-search.”

Comment:    Maureen’s reasoning is  as naked as a strip-search.   She must be wishfully  thinking with that scene.   The judiciary is to  measure challenges of law as those challenges  fit within the Supreme Law of the Land, the Federal Constitution.    If  in, hopefully their deepest and most honest convictions and research cannot find Constitutional fitting, the law must be deemed unconsitutional, that is, unlawful.

Even lefties not  long ago, but certainly pre Marxist Obama,  referred to the Federal Constitution as the Law of the land and were prideful of the United States as a Nation of Laws, not men.   

Dear Maureen, believe it or not, that is why the Supreme Court exists……to determine the Constitutionality of Obamacare or parts of it.   That is the challenge.

The females on the court might be recused  for their   political, tribal and sexual agendas they carry to any decision they confront as members of the Supreme Court.   They apparently don’t  believe that have to study the  Obamacare tome.    They judge by female intuition…..that is good enough for Marxist nation.



In nearly every arena of life the human female is a reactor, by brain and by instinct.   The screwballs involved with the  feminist movement would like their  western world  to believe the human male has invented,  imagined, composed, built,  warred, survived  sacrificed out of some sort of right wing conspiracy….GOOD OLD BOYS GETTING TOGETHER TO PLOT WOMEN’S SUBSERVIENCE……they advertised, and still do in the  university Woman’s Studies Departments throughout Obamaland.

Paul Ryan: Attack on GOP Budget is Surreal!

Paul Ryan: Obama’s Attack On GOP Budget Is “Surreal”

History will not be kind to a President who chose to duck and run, says Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI), responding to Obama’s comments on the Republican’s “Trojan Horse” budget plan, saying it is the President who is distorting the truth and dividing Americans.

“This is surreal. Really bizarre,” Ryan told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow.


Why Does Obama’s Senate Refuse to Offer a Budget? Carney Refuses to Answer Baier

Bad news: Jay Carney doesn’t like questions

about Obama’s budget

 by Allahpundit    at HotAir:

“To cleanse the palate, a simple question: Since only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget in the Senate and there are 53 Democratic and left-leaning independent senators, why doesn’t smilin’ Harry Reid ram through O’s latest spending blowout? The White House gets awfully fidgety when the media presses them on this, to the point where even former OMB director Jack Lew was forced to play dumb about how many votes are needed for Democrats to pass this thing. Any theories? Any hypotheses for why The One might be nervous about vulnerable red-state Democrats like Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester taking a vote on a budget that calls for another $1.3 trillion deficit this year and a cool $901 billion deficit next year? Leave your informed speculation in the comments.”

Click below for Carney’s dance around answering the main question, “Why Does Obama’s Senate refuse to offer a budget?”


What a rarity it is that a black young man is killed by a white man except when lefty racists play politics

If Obama Had a Son

By Mona Charen   at realclearpolitics:

“When he was first sworn in as Attorney General, Eric Holder made one of the more obtuse comments in political history. When it comes to issues of race, Holder declared, we are “a nation of cowards … we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.” Really? It seems to me that we talk endlessly, and usually unproductively, about race. We love nothing better in America than a good racial angle. The Trayvon Martin case pushes all the buttons. Black provocateurs such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get to strut their stuff. The liberal media get to distort and cheerlead for one side. Conservatives get to indulge their disdain for the race hustlers, and everyone’s blood pressure rises.

We are now engaged in another fruitless shouting match about whether young black men are being hunted on the streets of America and whether “stand your ground” laws are dangerous. But as the estimable Ann Coulter has pointed out, Florida’s “stand your ground” law was irrelevant to the Martin case. Whichever version of events that night you believe: A) that Zimmerman followed and shot Martin in cold blood; or B) that Zimmerman shot Martin in the midst of a fight; the law, which does not require a person who fears for his life to retreat before using deadly force, is not implicated.


While some carry placards demanding justice for Martin, and others counter that thousands of young blacks are killed every year by other blacks without a provoking anything like this sort of outrage; the larger issue is lost.

In fact, young black men are being hunted and killed in appalling numbers. But the violence and mayhem that disproportionately afflicts the African-American community is part of a society-wide disorder. It has a racial angle, but it’s not about race. That disorder is family breakdown, and no discussion of violence or murder or victimization is informed without reference to that overwhelming fact.

Why do African-Americans, with 12.6 percent of the nation’s population, account for 50 percent of the murder victims? Because fatherlessness is most pervasive among blacks.

The illegitimacy rate among all Americans has been rising for decades. In 2012, we reached a grim milestone: The majority of births to women under the age of 30 are now outside of marriage. Among blacks, 72 percent of births are to unmarried women. And while some unmarried mothers go on to marry the fathers of their babies, it’s rare in the African-American community, where only 31 percent of couples are married (In 1960, it was 61 percent).

The result of this adult folly is chaos, misery and often violent death for kids. Why do young males join gangs? Because without a father to guide and protect them, they seek physical protection from human predators as well as ratification of their masculinity from the gang. A counselor at a juvenile detention facility in California told the Patriot Post, “(If) you find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, I’d like to meet him. … I don’t think that kid exists.” A full 85 percent of youths in prison come from fatherless homes, as do 80 percent of rapists, 71 percent of high school dropouts, and 63 percent of teen suicides.

An analysis of studies of family structure published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy found that 90 percent of the change in the violent crime rate between 1973 and 1995 was traceable to the rise of illegitimate births. A large sample looking at students in 315 classrooms in 11 cities concluded that “The single most important variable (in ‘gang centrality’) is the family’s structure …: the greater the number of parents in the household, the lower the reported gang centrality.”

The concentration of single-parent families can affect even those with two parents. A study of 4,671 8th graders in 10 cities found that students who attended school with a large number of fatherless classmates were more likely to commit crimes, even if they came from intact families themselves.

In The Atlantic Monthly, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead wrote that the “relationship (between single-parent families and crime) is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.”

President Obama offered that if he had a son, he would “look like Trayvon.” That’s not what matters. The much more important fact is that if Obama had a son, the boy would have married parents. ”

Barack Hussein is a Master of Chutzpah and Projection……Most Tyrants Are!

Presidential Chutzpah

by John Steele Gordon     at    Commentary:

“Presidential chutzpah. Well, at least you can admire him for that perhaps. After all, someone who graduated from Harvard Law School, edited the Harvard Law Review, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School must be familiar with Marbury v. Madison. As Wikipedia explains, it’s an important case:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional.” The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

And yet President Obama yesterday implicitly claimed never to have heard of it, allowing him to say regarding Obamacare that it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary” step for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” The precedents go back 209 years and, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out on “Special Report” last night, the Supreme Court has been overturning acts of Congress ever since, on average every 16 months. So overturning Obamacare would be about as unprecedented as the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. Actually the precedents go back even further, as Alexander Hamilton mentioned the power of judicial review in Federalist Paper 78, written in 1788. The last president to seriously challenge the court’s power to overturn an act of Congress under the doctrine of judicial review was Andrew Jackson, who famously said after one decision he didn’t like, “The court has made its decision; now let it enforce it.”

The court has overturned laws based on the Commerce Clause as recently as 1995 (United States v. Lopez) and 2000 (United States v. Morrison). Both of those were relatively minor cases, although significant for putting limits on federal power under the Commerce Clause for the first time since the early New Deal. But major pieces of legislation have also been overturned. The National Recovery Act of 1933 was the last piece of legislation passed during the “Hundred Days.” Its purpose was, essentially, to cartelize the entire United States economy under the direction of the National Recovery Administration (the NRA, whose symbol was the famous blue eagle). Franklin Roosevelt called the legislation “the most important and far-reaching ever enacted by the American Congress.” But that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from overturning it in May 1935, by a vote of 9-0.

The National Recovery Act passed the House by a large majority and the Senate by 46-39. The “strong majority” mentioned by Obama in the passage of Obamacare did not exist. It passed the Senate 60-39 on Christmas Eve, when the Senate, briefly, had a filibuster-proof majority. But by the time a vote neared in the House, that filibuster-proof majority had vanished with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. So the House had to pass the Senate bill unchanged in order to get it to the President’s desk. Only much arm-twisting and deal-making allowed the bill to pass the House with a majority of only seven votes, 219-212. It garnered not a single Republican vote in either house, the first time so important a piece of legislation was passed on a totally partisan basis.

As I said, one can only admire his chutzpah. It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda. He can count on the mainstream media buying it, but will anyone else?”

Comment:   PROJECTION:   psychology….”Unconscious transfer of inner mental life.;   the unconscious ascription of a personal thought, feeling, or impulse to somebody else especially a thought or feeling considered undesirable.”

Check out your own dictionary to  verify.

MY WHAT A PERFECT FIT FOR  MARXIST IDEOLOGUE, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMMA.   Every one of the countless malevolent  thoughts he boils to activate,  direct,  and corrupt, he claims his conservative opponents plot.   He is a very skilled  performing  projection.