• 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

The Fully American Mitt Romney Campaigning in Ohio

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-ohio-i-feel-were-all-catholic-today_648739.html

 

Romney in Ohio:

‘I Feel That We’re All Catholic Today’

 

by John McCormack

(article sent by Mark Waldeland)
 
 At a townhall-style campaign event in Ohio on Wednesday, Mitt Romney was asked by a voter about his views on Barack Obama’s “attack on religious freedom.”

Romney replied:

Religious liberty, our first freedom of those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the president and his administration said they are going to usurp your religious freedom by demanding that you provide products to your employees, if you’re the Catholic church, that violates your own conscience.

And so whether it’s a Catholic businessperson or the Catholic church itself they’re being told what they have to do that violates their religious conscience. That attack on religious freedom I think is a dangerous and unfortunate precedent.

And I know we’re not all Catholic in this room. Many presumably are. But I feel that we’re all Catholic today. In our battle to preserve religious freedom and tolerance and freedom in this country, it is essential for us to push back against that. 

Romney received a 20-second standing ovation. 

“Say it again!” yelled a member of the audience as the applause subsided.

“I will say it again,” Romney replied. “That’s one more good reason to get rid of Obamacare. And I’m going to get that done the first day I’m in office.” 

After he received another standing ovation, Romney said, “Now, you’d think I’d have started with that. That’s the line I should have started with, right?”

Romney’s remarks on religious liberty begin at the 7-minute mark in this video (via NRO):

U.S. Income More Extreme between the Most and the Least, than in 1979

Income Inequality in the United States

Income inequality appears to be growing in the United States. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released October 2011, which analyzed incomes among the five quintiles between 1979 and 2007, found that over the course of the past few decades, those within the highest quintiles have seen incomes grow much faster than their low-quintile colleagues, says Merrill Matthews, a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.

  • According to the CBO, the total share of income for families in the highest quintile rose from 43 percent to 53 percent between 1979 and 2007.
  • Moreover, the top 1 percent’s share doubled from 8 percent to 17 percent.
  • By contrast, the other four quintiles’ income share was lower in 2007 than in 1979, with the lowest quintile shrinking from 7 percent to 5 percent of total income.

However, the CBO’s report, while advertised as comprehensive in its consideration, failed to consider a number of mitigating factors that help explain these trends. Incorporation of these factors allows for a clearer understanding of income inequality in the United States.

  • There are fewer people per household in the United States now than there were in 1979 (the average figure fell from 3.33 to 2.59).
  • This is partially a function of a higher rate of divorce, along with more seniors living on their own.
  • This spreads out household income and causes it to appear lower in aggregated data.
  • Furthermore, the CBO’s income data fails to consider the role of benefits in total compensation.
  • An Employee Benefit Research Institute study points out that in 1950, wages made up 95 percent of total compensation, while benefits comprised only 5 percent.
  • By 2004, wages were only 81 percent, versus 19 percent for benefits.
  • Mark J. Warshawsky, director of retirement research at Towers Watson and a member of the Social Security Advisory Board, concludes that while income may have become more unequal, total compensation growth was essentially evenly distributed across all earnings levels.

Source: Merrill Matthews, “How ObamaCare Increases Income Inequality,” Forbes, June 22, 2012.

For text:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/06/22/how-obamacare-increases-income-inequality/

For more on Economic Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=17

Why Are So Many Obama Democrats Slimy in their Public Statements?

Frank Lautenberg, Democrat Senator from New Juersey, the Obama slime of the month?

by John Hinderaker in 2012 Election, Liberals, The War on the Koch Brothers

Lautenberg, Like Obama, Scurries For Cover

We wrote here about Frank Lautenberg’s disgraceful speech on the Senate floor, in which he accused Charles and David Koch of attempting to “subvert the upcoming election” and apparently called for a boycott of consumer products manufactured by Koch Industries, which he identified by name (Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, etc.) It turned out that Lautenberg was asking for a boycott of his own constituents, notwithstanding New Jersey’s current economic doldrums, since Georgia-Pacific has operations and employees in that state.

Apparently embarrassed by that revelation, Lautenberg and his allies are now backtracking feverishly, denying that Lautenberg called for a boycott of Koch Industries. But that leaves us with a puzzle: if Lautenberg wasn’t suggesting that his listeners ought not buy consumer products made by Koch Industries, then why did he list them, and describe them as “a source of revenue for the Koch brothers”? Was he giving Koch a little free advertising? That didn’t seem to be his intent.

Lautenberg is thus much like Barack Obama, whose backers are desperately trying to limit the damage from Obama’s “you didn’t build it” oration by claiming that the president’s words are being “taken out of context.” (One Obama ad even accuses Mitt Romney of misquoting Obama, even though Romney quoted word for word from Obama’s speech.) In fact, the context of Obama’s remarks is what makes them so repugnant. The context was Obama’s desire to raise our taxes; his point was that the government is the source of all good, and therefore when the government raises your taxes, you should sit down and shut up rather than complain.

If Lautenberg wasn’t trying to discourage people from buying Koch’s products, then what was his point? Just as, if Obama wasn’t trying to justify the idea that government is entitled to take as much of your money as it wants, then what was his point? In both of these episodes, prominent Democrats said what they really thought, but then were forced to backtrack when they realized that they had violated basic American political traditions.

More outstanding Krauthammer on Obama’s Marxist Mouthings in Roanoke

Did the state make you great?

by Charles Krauthammer   at  the Washington Post:

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

— Barack Obama,

And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.

To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.

Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.

Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.

Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.

The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.

More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.

The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.

What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia’s world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all- giving government of bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s on her own is at her grave site.

Julia’s world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state.

Or to put it slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.

Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.

Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

 

 
 

Alleged Terrorist of Israelis is an Algerian-Finnish Swede from Gitmo

Bulgaria terror bombing suspect identified

by Thomas Lifson   at the American Thinker:

A former Gitmo detainee of Swedish nationality, released to Swedish custody and let go, has been identified as the man who bombed the busload of Israeli tourists yesterday, killing 5 of them and the driver.  Medhi Ghazali, 36, is being named by the Bulgarian media as the suspect. The Times of Israel reports:

The Bulgarian reports, rapidly picked up by Hebrew media, posited various versions of how the bomber had detonated the bomb, including the suggestion that the bomber had not intended to die in the blast, but may have wanted to place the bomb on the bus and flee.

Ghezali has a Wikipedia page, which describes him as a Swedish citizen, with Algerian and Finnish origins. He had been held at the US’s Guantanamo Bay detainment camp on Cuba from 2002 to 2004, having previously studied at a Muslim religious school and mosque in Britain, and traveled to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it says. He was taken into custody on suspicion of being an al-Qaeda agent, having been arrested along with a number of other al-Qaeda operatives.

Following a lobbying effort by Swedish prime minister Göran Persson, Guantanamo authorities recommended Ghezali be transferred to another country for continued detainment, and he was handed over to Swedish authorities in 2004. The Swedish government did not press charges.

A 2005 Swedish documentary about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp starred Ghezali, who detailed his experience in American custody.

One has to wonder if he was portrayed as a victim, or even a hero, in that Swedish documentary.  If these reports are all true, those Swedish diplomats who worked to release him have blood on their hands.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/bulgaria_terror_bombing_suspect_identified.html#ixzz218NYbYml