• 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

Obama Already Befouling the Campaign…..Marxist Style

Strassel: The President Has a List

Barack Obama attempts to intimidate contributors to Mitt Romney’s campaign.


Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.





Obama Troubles #1

I received the following note from  friend, Brian Ross referring to Obama troubles.  Original source is not known:

“An elderly lady was walking on the golf course on the island of
Martha’s Vineyard. She slipped and fell.

Obama who was behind her by chance, helped her to get up promptly.
She thanked him and he answered

– “It was a pleasure to help you. Don’t you recognize me? I am your
president. Are you going to vote for me in the next election? ”

The elderly woman laughed and replied:

”You know … I fell on my ass … not on my head……”

Obama Leading the Electoral Map

Karl Rove’s first 2012 electoral map:

Including “leaners,” Obama 284, Romney 172, toss-up


 by Allahpundit   at HotAir:

Via Dave Weigel. For a compulsive eeyore like me, if the daily polls showing O ahead are like a shot of whiskey, this is like a shot of heroin. Eyes rolling back in my head.

Dude, I’m nervous.

On the one hand, how seriously should we take a projection that has South Carolina as a toss-up? Maybe this is Rove knowing that his map will get attention and using it to scare conservatives into donating and GOTV volunteering. On the other hand, none of his other state projections look obviously wrong to me. Even if you take New Hampshire and Nevada out of Obama’s “lean” column, he still gets to 271 and a second term.

HuffPo’s Mark Blumenthal is out today with his first electoral map of the campaign too:

The big difference with Rove’s map? Blumenthal gives Florida and its 29 electoral votes to Obama. I’m skeptical that O will take that state again this time, partly because of how well Romney did there in the primary and partly because Rubio will be stumping for him there either as senator or VP nominee. Put that back into the toss-up column and Obama’s at 269, but even then, all he’d need is one win among Nevada, Colorado, or Iowa to give him another four years.

In lieu of giving you my own projection, go look at this one from Ben Domenech, as it seems quite plausible to me. Romney wins Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire while O takes Iowa, Colorado, and the coveted trifecta of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The only state on which I differ, I think, is that last one. Problem is, even turning Virginia red on Domenech’s map isn’t enough to deliver the election to Romney. He needs to win either Ohio or Pennsylvania on top of it, which is why (a) The One is already busy pandering to blue-collar voters with gimmicks like the Buffett Rule and (b) Rob Portman is likely to be Romney’s VP. The rust belt will probably decide things. Again.

Paul Ryan: Do you prefer people ultimately to decide, or office bureacrats of an all powerful government?

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

By from the May 2012 issue

The choice and the contrast in health care.

In March, as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of President Obama’s partisan health care law, the American people saw an event that could mark the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. At the same time, just across the street in the halls of Congress, they witnessed a powerful reaffirmation of the American Idea as the House of Representatives passed the Path to Prosperity—a budget for the federal government.

The interconnectedness of these two events cannot be understated. Taken together, they have refocused a long-overdue debate about the proper role and scope of the federal government. This debate will undoubtedly continue in the months ahead and build to a crescendo in November, when the American people will have the opportunity to make a defining choice about what kind of nation we will be in the 21st century.

Perhaps no single issue crystallizes the choice before the American people and the contrast between the two parties more than health care. The differences between the President’s bureaucrat-centered model and the model advanced in the Path to Prosperity, which champions choice, competition, and individual control, could not be clearer.

The bureaucrat-controlled approach to health care may have begun with the best of intentions, but it quickly ran into the same problem that it always does: bureaucrats are terrible at setting prices in a market economy. As the federal government’s control over health care grew, bureaucratic mistakes started to cause serious problems. Government subsidies drove up costs; and health care became unaffordable for those who didn’t qualify for them. As a result, rising costs now threaten to leave our children buried under a mountain of debt.

As it usually does, this approach called for more and more power to be ceded to Washington in order to solve this problem—and for the first time ever, the unlimited power to force Americans to buy something. The result was “Obamacare.”

The President’s health care overhaul is emblematic of the wrong way to address the problems in health care and Medicare. The law raids Medicare by nearly $700 billion to fund a new, unsustainable, open-ended health care entitlement. It creates a government panel of bureaucrats with the power to impose price controls on providers in ways that would result in rationed care and restricted access to treatments. It vastly expands an already unwieldy administrative state by creating 159 new boards, commissions, and government programs. It is built around the flawed assumption that bureaucrats, if given power over the marketplace, can curb rising health care costs by expertly determining prices and dictating treatment options to doctors and patients.

Ultimately, this approach transforms the relationship between citizen and state, leaving individuals increasingly passive and dependent on their government. Further, it substantially diminishes the quality of and the access to care, as future policymakers cut costs to meet budgetary bottom lines rather than patients’ medical needs. There is no way for “experts” in Washington to know more about the health care needs of individual Americans than those individuals and their doctors know, nor should bureaucrats second-guess how each individual would prioritize services against costs.

The “fatal conceit” of the health care law stands in stark contrast to America’s historic commitment to individual liberty and personal responsibility. And the Supreme Court’s deliberations showed indications that the bureaucrat-centered approach is just not possible in America.

Our Constitution restricts the federal government to certain limited powers, and reserves all other powers to the states and the people. Our Founders trusted the American people, not an all-powerful federal government, to act in their own best interests. They trusted these actions would result in the greatest good for all. Their trust paid off: America became the greatest force for good the world has ever known.

The new health care law, which asserts unlimited power for the federal government to decide how Americans should get their health care, simply is not compatible with the Constitution.

In their deliberations, the Justices of the Supreme Court also raised a very salient point: If this is the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care, what comes next?

House Republicans showed them with the passage of Path to Prosperity, which offers a new approach—one that maintains a critical role for government but ultimately puts the American people in charge, as they should be.

For the second year in a row, Republicans in the House outlined a better way forward in health care. Our budget repeals the President’s health care overhaul and keeps the protections that made Medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years.

To the bureaucrats who have mismanaged the program into bankruptcy we say: Enough. Your approach doesn’t work. Government has never come up with a magic formula for lowering costs and improving quality. It’s time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions. Forcing insurance companies to compete is the only way to guarantee quality, affordable health care for seniors that will last for generations.

Implementing these reforms in Medicare can have the effect of lowering health care costs for everyone; and that’s the answer to the question, “What comes next?”

Our budget shows there are leaders in Washington committed to building on this bipartisan consensus for patient-centered reform. It shows how we can increase affordability for everyone, while preventing government debt from threatening the health security of seniors and the economic security of all Americans.

Putting our trust in the American people—and this goes beyond health care—is what our budget is all about.

We get government bureaucrats out of the business of picking winners and losers in health care and other critical sectors of the economy. Instead, we trust the American people to make their own decisions about what kind of cars to drive or what light bulbs to use.

We give power over safety-net programs to the states, and tell governments that are closest to the people: We trust you can do a better job than the federal government designing these programs so that they actually meet the unique needs of each community.

We lower tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, making clear Washington doesn’t need to micromanage people’s decisions through the tax code. We let hardworking taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and trust them to decide how to spend it.

It is so rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract. But that is where we are.

The President’s approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hardworking taxpayers, and commits our great nation to a future of debt, doubt, and decline. This approach is proving unworkable—in our Congress, in our courts, and in our communities.

The contrast between the President’s approach and ours could not be clearer. We put our trust in citizens, not government. Our budget returns power to individuals, to families, and to communities.

The Path to Prosperity represents a vote of confidence in the American experiment. Putting our trust in the American people will hopefully renew their trust in us. Americans should control their destinies—and we trust them make the right choice about the future of our country.

America is on the wrong track, and the President’s approach is bringing us toward a debt crisis and a welfare state in decline. As leaders, it is our obligation to offer the nation a better way forward, and we have. We are offering the nation the opportunity to realize a brighter and more prosperous future, in a way that’s consistent with our founding values. And we do so with confidence that, as they have countless times since our nation’s founding, the American people will make the right choice and preserve the American Idea for generations to come.