• 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

Profligate $6,000,000,000,000 Spender, Barack Hussein Obama Blames the Rich for America’s Catastrophic Debt

The Obamaweasel  Dictates Terms for the Bush Tax Bill….Promotes Class Warfare on families  making over $250,000 annually.  Others will bathe in the pool of unraised Bush Tax cuts…..including the 49% of voting age American who pay no federal income tax at all.

To Hell with the economy.    Obama banking on re-election by  soaking  those families taking in more than $250,000 a year  to win the Lefty bigot vote and unite 49% of voting age DEMOCRATS WHO PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES AT ALL. 



Charles Krauthammer’s Revised Review of the John Roberts Obamacare vote

The following fascinating article was sent by Arlene Taber.   Charles Krauthammer is the only person I admire a pinch more than Dennis Prager.   I never fail to look forward to hearing his analyses on all matters.    He so stretches my thinking…….and the content of the following does Charles enormous justice.    I pray his review is accurate and will bear good fruit for freedom-loving people….meaning Americans outside the Marxist gang presently  in Washington.
I am not yet persuaded, but I’ll place Charles’ view on the fence until further notice.
I do not know the source by which Charles published the article.   The lengthy statement sounds Charles K. like, though, doesn’t it.    Have you noticed that aw we are moving closer in time to the November show down, Charles is getting windier and windier by the week lengthening his explanations as if clarifications  from God himself. 
What a woeful Ameica this Obama one would be without Charles, Dennis Prager, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Scalia and usually Sam Alito and Anthony Kennedy, and  Thomas Sowell and  Shelby Steele.    Yes, they have company as well…..but one coming up for review is Mitt Romney, noted as the waffler.
Whatever his waffling quotient might have been in the past, the more the public knows about Mr. Romney, the more it will discover that he is a helluva nice guy, a likeable guy who has been very successful doing honest things in life.   He shines in honesty in contrast to the intellectually cheating, dishonest, disingenuous, divisive,  duplicitous, and duplicitous  Barack Hussein Obama, who again and again displays and equal dislike for honesty and America.
Charles Krauthammer writes to his friends:
Charles Krauthammer’s view of the recent Obamacare ruling by the Supreme Court.
June 28, 2012
To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.
I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.
First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.
The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.
Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper “ clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.
Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.
Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.
Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicaid as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.
So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.
That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.

NCAA Lefties Still After North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux to fit Marxist rules of Political Correctness

Leftwing Lunacy and Hypocricy still  mix easily at the NCAA

Mark Waldeland sent the following article:

Now in its seventh year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s battle with the University of North Dakota may be reaching a final conclusion. In 2005, the NCAA announced a complete ban on hosting post-season competition by 18 colleges that were using Native American mascots, logos, or nicknames. The ban was to become effective in February 2006 (TAS, November 23, 2009).
The college sports governing body backed off its strident demand regarding some schools after learning that Native American groups endorsed use of their tribal names by their adoptive schools. TheNCAA relented and gave the go-ahead for Florida State University, the University of Utah, and Central Michigan University to continue using Seminole, Ute, and Chippewa, respectively, without the risk of facing the post-season ban.
However, the NCAA continued its feigned moral outrage at the University of North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux nickname. The association was unmoved by the fact that the nearby Spirit Lake Sioux tribe and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe bestowed the Fighting Sioux nickname on the university in perpetuity during apipe ceremony held on the UND campus in 1969 and tribal members actively campaigned for the school to continue to use the nickname.
There is seemingly no rhyme or reason to how the NCAA compiled its lists of Native American mascots, logos, or nicknames that the organization found acceptable and those that were deemed offensive. Consider, for example, Bradley University and the University of North Carolina-Pembroke. Both schools use the nickname “Braves” yet Bradley landed on the NCAA banned list and UNC-Pembroke got a free pass.
The most recent development in the NCAA-North Dakota battle was a federal lawsuit filed by Spirit Lake Sioux and Standing Rock Sioux tribal members. The plaintiffs requested a reversal of the NCAA ban and monetary damages. In May, U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson dismissed the suit, ruling the tribes had no standing in the matter.
This political correctness wackiness is not restricted only to the NCAA and colleges. The Oregon state Board of Education recentlyruled that all public schools would have to cease using Native American imagery and nicknames.
Earlier this year, the students’ choice of mascot for the Corner Canyon High School was axed by the local school board. Located in suburban Salt Lake City, Corner Canyon is a new school set to open in the fall 2012. Students slated to enroll in the school overwhelmingly voted for “Cougars.” However, the board felt the name would be offensive to older women (Cougar is a slang term for older women who are attracted to younger men) and instead gave the school the nickname “Chargers.”
Opponents of Native American imagery claim its use is racist and offensive. Eager to prove this point, minority students at the University of Northern Colorado in 2002 adopted the nickname “Fightin’ Whities” for an intramural team that was complete with a logo depicting a Ward Cleaver-like character. The students were confident Caucasians would be in uproar over the offensive moniker. In fact, their effort had the opposite effect. The logo and nickname were wildly popular with whites and a nationwide demand to purchase the t-shirts emblazoned with both led to robust sales and profits of more than $100,000. A thriving businesscontinues 10 years later.
Perhaps the most obvious example of how absurd this witch hunt has become is illustrated by the NCAA’s position that the University of North Dakota’s “Fighting Sioux” is offensive while the University of Notre Dame nickname “Fighting Irish” is not.
Illustrating the college sports governing body’s hypocrisy in this matter are the scores of schools among the NCAA’s more than 1,200 members that have mascots, logos, and nicknames that identify with race, ethnicity, or culture that the NCAA has deemed acceptable. These nicknames include: Aggies, Aztec, Braves, Cavaliers, Colonials, Cornhuskers, Cowboys, Crusaders, Diplomats, Dons, Dutch, Dutchmen, Flying Dutchmen, Engineers, Fightin’ Engineers, Fighting Irish, 49ers, Friars, Gaels, Gauchos, Generals, Highlanders, Indians, Jaspers, Knights, Leathernecks, Lumberjacks, Miners, Missionaries, Monks, Muleriders, Norse, Ole Miss Rebels, Oilers, Orediggers, Paladins, Pilgrims, Pioneers, Poets, Quakers, Ragin’ Cajuns, Railsplitters, Rebels, Redmen, Rivermen, Saints, Savages, Saxons, Scots, Fighting Scots, Sooners, Spartans, Texans, Tribe, Trojans, Vikings, Warriors and Yeomen.

Yes, We Do Know that Conservatives are Happier Folk than Liberal-Marxists

Yes, Conservatives are happier than Liberals who seem to be sour and sneering about life all of the time with a poor me attitude and the jealousies that go with it.

Compare jealous and racist Barack Hussein Obama with his political opponent for the American presidency.   Who plays in the mud as a racist stirring up people’s mistrust and jealousies one against another.    Who lies and cheats  daily,  in his braggin about himself as a successful leader……the one who admits, he leads from behind.

Who practices the politics of racism?

Who parses the words of others twisting those words to sell his soul to win an election?   Who sneers and disdains by habit and nature.    Barack Obama is a perfect symbol to lead (from behind) the  unhappy, perpetually unhappy, and the deviously unhappy LEFT. 

And then there is Obama’s candidate foe, Mitt Romney who so often seems to be too boy scoutish  to create something nasty.   Even some of his fellow conservatives wish he should show some profound anger toward Obama and Obamalies about America…about Mitt.   and about conservatives.

And then compare sourpuss Mrs. Obama who never had liked the country in which she was born until her husband became president………with Mrs. Romney who has faced several trials of Nature…….and has never sneered about her country or her condition.

Even when I was a Liberal, I knew conservatives were a happier lot.     Listening to Dennis Prager has amassed the proof.

Conservatvies are also better people.


Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

by Arthur Brooks…..from the New York Times.

WHO is happier about life — liberals or conservatives? The answer might seem straightforward. After all, there is an entire academic literature in the social sciences dedicated to showing conservatives as naturally authoritarian, dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, fearful of threat and loss, low in self-esteem and uncomfortable with complex modes of thinking. And it was the candidate Barack Obama in 2008 who infamously labeled blue-collar voters “bitter,” as they “cling to guns or religion.” Obviously, liberals must be happier, right?

Related in Opinion

Wrong. Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.

Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most conservatives are married; most liberals are not. (The percentages are 53 percent to 33 percent, according to my calculations using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger than conservatives.) Marriage and happiness go together. If two people are demographically the same but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely to say he or she is very happy than the unmarried person.

The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists (43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education, race, sex or age; the happiness difference exists even when you account for income.

Whether religion and marriage should make people happy is a question you have to answer for yourself. But consider this: Fifty-two percent of married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very happy — versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids.

An explanation for the happiness gap more congenial to liberals is that conservatives are simply inattentive to the misery of others. If they recognized the injustice in the world, they wouldn’t be so cheerful. In the words of Jaime Napier and John Jost, New York University psychologists, in the journal Psychological Science, “Liberals may be less happy than conservatives because they are less ideologically prepared to rationalize (or explain away) the degree of inequality in society.” The academic parlance for this is “system justification.”

The data show that conservatives do indeed see the free enterprise system in a sunnier light than liberals do, believing in each American’s ability to get ahead on the basis of achievement. Liberals are more likely to see people as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether individuals can climb without governmental help. My own analysis using 2005 survey data from Syracuse University shows that about 90 percent of conservatives agree that “While people may begin with different opportunities, hard work and perseverance can usually overcome those disadvantages.” Liberals — even upper-income liberals — are a third less likely to say this.

So conservatives are ignorant, and ignorance is bliss, right? Not so fast, according to a study from the University of Florida psychologists Barry Schlenker and John Chambers and the University of Toronto psychologist Bonnie Le in the Journal of Research in Personality. These scholars note that liberals define fairness and an improved society in terms of greater economic equality. Liberals then condemn the happiness of conservatives, because conservatives are relatively untroubled by a problem that, it turns out, their political counterparts defined.

Imagine the opposite. Say liberals were the happy ones. Conservatives might charge that it is only because liberals are unperturbed by the social welfare state’s monstrous threat to economic liberty. Liberals would justifiably dismiss this argument as solipsistic and silly.

There is one other noteworthy political happiness gap that has gotten less scholarly attention than conservatives versus liberals: moderates versus extremists.

Political moderates must be happier than extremists, it always seemed to me. After all, extremists actually advertise their misery with strident bumper stickers that say things like, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention!”

But it turns out that’s wrong. People at the extremes are happier than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race, family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or “extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent).

What explains this odd pattern? One possibility is that extremists have the whole world figured out, and sorted into good guys and bad guys. They have the security of knowing what’s wrong, and whom to fight. They are the happy warriors.

Whatever the explanation, the implications are striking. The Occupy Wall Street protesters may have looked like a miserable mess. In truth, they were probably happier than the moderates making fun of them from the offices above. And none, it seems, are happier than the Tea Partiers, many of whom cling to guns and faith with great tenacity. Which some moderately liberal readers of this newspaper might find quite depressing.

Arthur C. Brooks is the president of the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “The Road to Freedom” and “Gross National Happiness.”

Obamasleaze Moves into Seniors’ Health Care for Re-election Purposes


from Brainshark

Be sure to listen here:  http://my.brainshark.com/The-President-s-8-Billion-Coincidence-356086344

The above  video was sent by good friend and neighbor, Arlene Taber.