• 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

Know the Issues when Marriage is Destroyed

New Marriage Minute Video: “Massachusetts redefined marriage several years ago. Have there been any consequences for society because of it?”
Posted on Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

 

Minnesota For Marriage Releases New Marriage Minute Video: “Massachusetts redefined marriage several years ago. Have there been any consequences for society because of it?”

Yes, in fact there have been many documented consequences in Massachusetts of marriage being redefined.

Yes, in fact there have been many documented consequences in Massachusetts of marriage being redefined.

CLICK HERE to view the video. Please take the time to share it with all your friends, neighbors, family and colleagues.

Click play on the image above to view the video. Please take the time to share it with all your friends, neighbors, family and colleagues.

The Minnesota Marriage Minute is an ongoing dialogue with Minnesota voters hosted by veteran news anchor Kalley Yanta. The educational videos are designed to explore issues related to the marriage amendment. The videos are in a question and answer format and are released on a weekly basis.

The Marriage Minute series is a great resource for understanding the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment and equipping you to speak about the amendment. Please share this important educational resource with family, friends and neighbors. It’s critically important that all our supporters be as informed as possible about the amendment, and this series of videos is a quick and easy way for you and your friends to learn about what is at stake in this election.

Click play on the image above to view this week’s episode of Minnesota Marriage Minute and then share it with everyone you can!

ABOUT MINNESOTA FOR MARRIAGE

PowerLine: Good Speech by Romney…..Will it Matter?

Good Speech  by  Romney           by John Hinderaker     at  PowerLine:

…….Today Mitt Romney addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars on the eve of his trip to England, Poland and Israel. Those destinations, of course, were not chosen at random. They are three strong allies of the United States that have been cast aside, in various ways, by President Obama. Romney’s speech was pretty much what you would expect from a modern Republican presidential candidate. Romney believes in American exceptionalism and stands for a strong foreign policy that unabashedly seeks to advance the interests of America and its allies. The speech was well written and well delivered; here are some highlights:

I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country. I am not ashamed of American power.  I take pride that throughout history our power has brought justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict, and hope where there was affliction and despair.  I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced.  I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, and that our influence is needed as much now as ever.  And I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion:  This century must be an American Century.

Romney attacked the cuts in defense spending that are scheduled to take place if Congress does not act:

A healthy American economy is what underwrites American power. When growth is missing, government revenue falls, social spending rises, and many in Washington look to cut defense spending as an easy out.  That includes our current President.
 
Today, we are just months away from an arbitrary, across-the-board budget reduction that would saddle the military with a trillion dollars in cuts, severely shrink our force structure, and impair our ability to meet and deter threats.  Don’t bother trying to find a serious military rationale behind any of this, unless that rationale is wishful thinking. Strategy is not driving President Obama’s massive defense cuts.  In fact, his own Secretary of Defense warned that these reductions would be “devastating.”  And he is right.

This is not the time for the President’s radical cuts in the military. Look around the globe. Other major powers are rapidly adding to their military capabilities, some with intentions very different from ours.  The regime in Tehran is drawing closer to developing a nuclear weapon.  The threat of radical Islamic terrorism persists. The threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation is ever-present. And we are still at war and still have uniformed men and women in conflict.
 
All this and more is ongoing in the world.  And yet the President has chosen this moment for wholesale reductions in the nation’s military capacity.  When the biggest announcement in his last State of the Union address on improving our military was that the Pentagon will start using more clean energy – then you know it’s time for a change.

I like the “green energy” jab at the end. Next, Romney went after the Obama administration’s politically-motivated breaches of security:

It is reported that Bob Gates, the President’s first secretary of defense, bluntly addressed another security problem within this administration.  After secret operational details of the bin Laden raid were given to reporters, Secretary Gates walked into the West Wing and told the Obama team to “shut up.”  He added a colorful word for emphasis.
 
Lives of American servicemen and women are at stake.  But astonishingly, the administration failed to change its ways. More top-secret operations were leaked, even some involving covert action in Iran.
 
This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a national security crisis.  And yesterday, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, quote, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.”
 
This conduct is contemptible. It betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field.  And it demands a full and prompt investigation by a special counsel, with explanation and consequence.  Obama appointees, who are accountable to President Obama’s Attorney General, should not be responsible for investigating the leaks coming from the Obama White House.

Whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished.  The time for stonewalling is over. 
 
It is not enough to say the matter is being looked into, and leave it at that.  When the issue is the political use of highly sensitive national security information, it is unacceptable to say, “We’ll report our findings after Election Day.”  
 
Exactly who in the White House betrayed these secrets?  Did a superior authorize it?  These are things that Americans are entitled to know – and they are entitled to know right now.  If the President believes – as he said last week – that the buck stops with him, then he owes all Americans a full and prompt accounting of the facts.

Like most politicians, Obama says the buck stops with him, but he doesn’t really believe it. In reality, the decision to leak classified information for political gain probably came from very near the top of the Obama administration. His principal staffers, after all, know his priorities. Romney assured his audience that he will run a different sort of administration:

And let me make this very clear:  These events make the decision we face in November all the more important.  What kind of White House would reveal classified material for political gain?  I’ll tell you right now:  Mine won’t.

Romney next turned to Obama’s often-disgraceful treatment of our allies, whom Obama seems to think less of for being friendly to us:

The operating principle of American foreign policy has been to work with our allies so that we can deter aggression before it breaks out into open conflict.  That policy depends on nurturing our alliances and standing up for our common values. 
 
Yet the President has moved in the opposite direction. 
 
It began with the sudden abandonment of friends in Poland and the Czech Republic.  They had courageously agreed to provide sites for our anti-missile systems, only to be told, at the last hour, that the agreement was off. As part of the so-called reset in policy, missile defenses were sacrificed as a unilateral concession to the Russian government.
 
If that gesture was designed to inspire good will from Russia, it clearly missed the mark.  The Russian government defended the dictator in Damascus, arming him as he slaughtered the Syrian people.
 
We can only guess what Vladimir Putin makes of the Obama administration. He regained the Russian presidency in a corrupt election, and for that, he got a congratulatory call from the Oval Office.  And then there was that exchange picked up by a microphone that President Obama didn’t know was on.  We heard him asking Dmitry Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to give him “space.”  “This is my last election,” President Obama said, and “After my election I’ll have more flexibility.”

Why is flexibility with Russian leaders more important than transparency to the American people?

Romney then moved on to Israel:

I will leave Reno this evening on a trip abroad that will take me to England, Poland, and Israel.   And since I wouldn’t venture into another country to question American foreign policy, I will tell you right here – before I leave – what I think of this administration’s shabby treatment of one of our finest friends.
 
President Obama is fond of lecturing Israel’s leaders. He was even caught by a microphone deriding them. He has undermined their position, which was tough enough as it was.  And even at the United Nations, to the enthusiastic applause of Israel’s enemies, he spoke as if our closest ally in the Middle East was the problem.
 
The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world.  And the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of the President of the United States.

After a discussion of Iran–”A clear line must be drawn: There must be a full suspension of any enrichment, period.”–Romney moved into the concluding paragraphs of his speech:

It is a mistake – and sometimes a tragic one – to think that firmness in American foreign policy can bring only tension or conflict.  The surest path to danger is always weakness and indecision.  In the end, it is resolve that moves events in our direction, and strength that keeps the peace.
 
I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world. We must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose, and resolve in our might.
 
This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President.  You have that President today.

The 21st century can and must be an American Century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

It is, as Romney says, very simple–America deserves a pro-American president. Foreign policy won’t be more than a side show in this year’s race, but still: most voters understand that a president’s first and most important task is to protect national security. For anyone who is not hopelessly sunk in liberalism, it will be obvious that Romney will give us a stronger foreign policy, and a stronger America, than Barack Obama.

BARACK OBAMA: THE WORST PRESIDENT OF THEM ALL!

Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama

Editorial at the San Diego Union Tribune:

Editor’s note: It’s a presidential election year, so we thought we’d weigh in with our list of the five worst presidents. We start with, yes, the current incumbent. See our other choices at U-T Opinion online.

He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.

He railed against the heavy spending and big deficits of his predecessor, but blithely backed budgets that had triple the deficits ever seen in American history.

He promised a smart, sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system, but ended up giving us a Byzantine mess promoted to the public with myths: that offering subsidized care to tens of millions of people would save money; that people would keep their own doctors; that access to care wouldn’t change; and that rationing would never happen.

He promised a more sophisticated approach to the economy than that of his predecessor, but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees.

He offered hosannas to genius entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs in his prepared remarks, but when speaking off the cuff betrayed his faculty-lounge view of the world, saying of businesspeople, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”

He swore to bring overdue oversight and honest accounting to the corporate world, but made flagrantly dishonest claims about General Motors paying back its government loans that would have triggered a criminal fraud investigation in the private sector.

He promised to set a high new standard for ethics in the White House, but used a baffling claim of executive privilege to shield his embattled attorney general from the repercussions of a cover-up involving the death of a federal law enforcement officer.

He denounced his predecessor for permitting harsh interrogation tactics with suspected terrorists, but once in office somehow concluded that a better, more moral approach would just be to use drones to assassinate such suspects without getting any information from them.

He presented himself as a shrewd student of Washington politics, but once in office displayed a counterproductive standoffishness to many Democratic lawmakers eager to embrace him, never developing the broad range of personal relationships that often mark a successful presidency.

He ran as a unifying force who would bring in a new era of civility and racial healing to Washington, but once in office embraced ugly, Chicago-style political hardball that saw nothing wrong with his supporters’ loathsome practice of depicting opposition to his policies as being driven by racism.

He constantly offered praise for the wisdom and insights of the American public, but reacted to the broad discontent over Obamacare, high unemployment and vast deficits by saying it was a failure of his administration to properly explain its glorious record to a confused populace – not a predictable reaction to his struggles and ineffectiveness.

 

And in December 2011 – at a time in which one-quarter of American adults who wanted full-time work couldn’t find it, after a year in which the federal deficit was a staggering $1.3 trillion – here was what Barack Obama had to say for himself in a CBS interview: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president, with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln.”

Unbelievable. If self-reverence were a crime, our current president would be facing a life sentence. For the good of America, let’s pray we have someone else in charge of the federal government come Jan. 20, 2013.

Obama’s Black Racist Mind and Mouth….”Toure”

GETTING TO KNOW OBAMA’S INNER CITY DEMOCRAT PARTY BLACK PLANTATION RACIST MIND AND MOUTH BETTER.

TOURE ON TV:

Toure On Aurora: “I Would Hope That It Would Be A Trayvon Martin Situation

Click below to learn more about Obama’s MSNBC political star, racist Toure:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/24/toure_on_aurora_i_would_hope_that_it_would_be_a_trayvon_martin_situation.html

Californians to Pay More Jousting the Windmills of Global Warming

New Study on California Global Warming Law

Indicates Higher Costs

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

AB 32, also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, propelled the state to the forefront in the fight against global warming. Successful passage of the law effectively turned the state into one of the most stringent regulators of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation and globally, charging the California Air Resources Board with implementing emissions-reducing initiatives, says the Independent Voter Network.

However, new cost analysis commissioned by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) suggests that the California Air Resources Board’s 2010 projections understated the losses from the law’s implementation. Using notably conservative estimates, the CMTA study finds that economic consequences will be substantial.

  • The study found that the average California family will end up paying an additional $2,500 annually by 2020 when AB 32 is fully implemented.
  • In addition, the state is expected to lose an additional 262,000 jobs and 5.6 percent of the gross state product.
  • Crucially, a state that is already in dire financial straits will, by the study’s estimates, face a whopping $7.4 billion decrease in annual state and local tax revenues as a result of the law.

This new information comes at a time when the state’s government is already struggling to maintain funding for some of its most basic services, and economic recovery remains anemic — prompting calls for further consideration of the law.

Importantly, this new information also sheds light on the seemingly insuperable obstacles that will be faced by the state’s small businesses, which will be disproportionately affected by the law’s policies.

Source: Lucy Ma, “New Study on CA Global Warming Law Indicates Higher Costs,” Independent Voter Network, July 4, 2012.  Andrew Chang, “California Can’t Afford ARB’s Global Warming Policies,” Andrew Chang & Company, LLC, June 28, 2012.

For text:

http://ivn.us/2012/07/04/new-study-on-ca-global-warming-law-indicates-higher-costs/

For study:

http://achangandco.com/Insights.html

For more on Environment Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=31