• 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

Obamacare Will Crush Independent Businesses

The Impact of the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act

on Job Creators and the Economy

from the Na tional Center for Policy Analysis:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will radically transform the U.S. health care system. Arguably the most radical piece of legislation ever passed by Congress, the law seeks to provide health insurance to many Americans by requiring many employers to provide coverage. This provision, however, threatens the fragile economic recovery in the United States, says John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis and a research fellow with the Independent Institute.

This is first true when mandated coverage is understood as a raise to the minimum wage. Economists have found that noncash benefits typically substitute dollar-for-dollar with real cash wages. Thus, the cost to the employer of providing coverage will be taken directly from potential wages.

  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the average annual cost of a minimum benefit package at $4,500 to $5,000 for individuals and $12,000 to $12,500 for families in 2016.
  • That translates into a minimum health benefit of $2.28 an hour for full-time workers with individual coverage and $5.89 an hour for full-time employees with family coverage.
  • Thus, the minimum cost of labor will be a $7.25 cash minimum wage and a $5.89 health minimum wage (family), for a total of $13.14 an hour or about $27,331 a year.
  • Any worker whose productivity level is below this wage will be hard-pressed to find a job.
  • Further, employers will be further incentivized to invest in capital that can perform simple tasks and price low-skilled workers out of the market entirely.

Aside from this impact on the labor market, Americans will also face a new economic burden in the form of taxes. Both direct and indirect (felt through higher prices passed onto customers), these taxes will stifle economic growth.

  • Americans and American businesses will face more than $500 billion in 19 new types of taxes and fees over the next decade to fund health reform.
  • According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, about 73 million taxpayers earning less than $200,000 will see their taxes rise.
  • Additionally, the law’s tax on medical devices will cost 45,661 jobs across that industry alone, according to former chief Labor Department economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth.

Source: John C. Goodman, “The Impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Job Creators and the Economy,” testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, National Center for Policy Analysis, July 10, 2012.

For text:


For more on Health Issues:


Laffler: Everywhere Government Spending Depressed the Economy

Arthur Laffer: The Real ‘Stimulus’ Record


In country after country, increased government spending acted more like a depressant than a stimulant.



Policy makers in Washington and other capitals around the world are debating whether to implement another round of stimulus spending to combat high unemployment and sputtering growth rates. But before they leap, they should take a good hard look at how that worked the first time around.

It worked miserably, as indicated by the table nearby, which shows increases in government spending from 2007 to 2009 and subsequent changes in GDP growth rates. Of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, those with the largest spending spurts from 2007 to 2009 saw the least growth in GDP rates before and after the stimulus.

The four nations—Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic and Finland—with the biggest stimulus programs had the steepest declines in growth. The United States was no different, with greater spending (up 7.3%) followed by far lower growth rates (down 8.4%).




Still, the debate rages between those who espouse stimulus spending as a remedy for our weak economy and those who argue it is the cause of our current malaise. The numbers at stake aren’t small. Federal government spending as a share of GDP rose to a high of 27.3% in 2009 from 21.4% in late 2007. This increase is virtually all stimulus spending, including add-ons to the agricultural and housing bills in 2007, the $600 per capita tax rebate in 2008, the TARP and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts, “cash for clunkers,” additional mortgage relief subsidies and, of course, President Obama’s $860 billion stimulus plan that promised to deliver unemployment rates below 6% by now. Stimulus spending over the past five years totaled more than $4 trillion.

If you believe, as I do, that the macro economy is the sum total of all of its micro parts, then stimulus spending really doesn’t make much sense. In essence, it’s when government takes additional resources beyond what it would otherwise take from one group of people (usually the people who produced the resources) and then gives those resources to another group of people (often to non-workers and non-producers).

Often as not, the qualification for receiving stimulus funds is the absence of work or income—such as banks and companies that fail, solar energy companies that can’t make it on their own, unemployment benefits and the like. Quite simply, government taxing people more who work and then giving more money to people who don’t work is a surefire recipe for less work, less output and more unemployment.

Yet the notion that additional spending is a “stimulus” and less spending is “austerity” is the norm just about everywhere. Without ever thinking where the money comes from, politicians and many economists believe additional government spending adds to aggregate demand. You’d think that single-entry accounting were the God’s truth and that, for the government at least, every check written has no offsetting debit.

Well, the truth is that government spending does come with debits. For every additional government dollar spent there is an additional private dollar taken. All the stimulus to the spending recipients is matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis every minute of every day by a depressant placed on the people who pay for these transfers. Or as a student of the dismal science might say, the total income effects of additional government spending always sum to zero.

Meanwhile, what economists call the substitution or price effects of stimulus spending are negative for all parties. In other words, the transfer recipient has found a way to get paid without working, which makes not working more attractive, and the transfer payer gets paid less for working, again lowering incentives to work.

But all of this is just old-timey price theory, the stuff that used to be taught in graduate economics departments. Today, even stimulus spending advocates have their Ph.D. defenders. But there’s no arguing with the data in the nearby table, and the fact that greater stimulus spending was followed by lower growth rates. Stimulus advocates have a lot of explaining to do. Their massive spending programs have hurt the economy and left us with huge bills to pay. Not a very nice combination.

Sorry, Keynesians. There was no discernible two or three dollar multiplier effect from every dollar the government spent and borrowed. In reality, every dollar of public-sector spending on stimulus simply wiped out a dollar of private investment and output, resulting in an overall decline in GDP. This is an even more astonishing result because government spending is counted in official GDP numbers. In other words, the spending was more like a valium for lethargic economies than a stimulant.

In many countries, an economic downturn, no matter how it’s caused or the degree of change in the rate of growth, will trigger increases in public spending and therefore the appearance of a negative relationship between stimulus spending and economic growth. That is why the table focuses on changes in the rate of GDP growth, which helps isolate the effects of additional spending.

The evidence here is extremely damaging to the case made by Mr. Obama and others that there is economic value to spending more money on infrastructure, education, unemployment insurance, food stamps, windmills and bailouts. Mr. Obama keeps saying that if only Congress would pass his second stimulus plan, unemployment would finally start to fall. That’s an expensive leap of faith with no evidence to confirm it.

Mr. Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates and the Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics, is co-author, with Stephen Moore, of “Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status” (Threshold, 2010).

Comment:   Dennis Prager reminds Americans that the Left with Marxism at its worst, ultimately destroys EVERYTHING IN THE CULTURE IT  TOUCHES.

We are witnessing it here in America if we care to.    Marxism in religion and in governing, afterall ranges between the immoral and the amoral.





New Lefty Twist: The Economy is Letting Obama Down!

How the economy is letting Obama down

by Paul Mirengoff    at    PowerLine:

Politico is featuring an amusing piece called “Obama’s 4 economic letdowns.” It wasn’t instantly clear to me who Politico believes is letting down whom. But it’s apparent from the article that Politico’s Ben White sees Obama as the victim.

Specifically, four forces are victimizing him: Congress, the Fed, the Europeans, and corporate America. At least Politico had the decency not to blame automated teller machines.

Congress is to blame for our economic woes because it’s doing nothing about “fiscal cliff fears.” But what about Obama? He has failed to propose a budget plausible enough even to garner any votes from Democrats. And not only did Obama reject the fiscal solutions proposed by his own bipartisan commission (Bowles-Simpson), he is now attacking an approach advocated by Mitt Romney that that this very panel called for.

Politico also laments the fact that the Fed won’t embark on fresh campaign of “quantitative easing.” But the Fed has been pumping money into the system throughout Obama’s tenure. Moreover, Obama claims that the economic situation has been turned around and that it’s just a matter of time until existing policies usher in happy days. If that’s the case, it would be reckless for the Fed to engage in even further “easing.”

As for the Europeans, Politico has a point. The U.S. economy is always influenced by what happens overseas. Long before “globalization,” Martin Van Buren saw three years of trying to cope with fallout from the Panic of 1837 go to waste when the European economy turned south in the run-up to the election of 1840.

The banking policies of Van Buren’s party are generally believed to have helped cause the Panic of 1837, just as the housing policies of Obama’s party helped cause the recession of 2008. But at least Van Buren didn’t push the U.S. to adopt policies that led to Europe’s economic woes. The same cannot be said for Obama.

And finally, there is corporate America. If only it would stop sitting on that giant pile of cash and hire more people.

Politico correctly argues that economic uncertainty is causing American firms to keep their money on the sidelines. But Politico refuses to consider that Obama’s policies — e.g, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, excessive regulation and the threat of more to come, failure seriously to tackle our fiscal problems — are contributing significantly to the uncertainty.

It is too busy fretting that the economic situation “could cost [Obama] his job.” It could indeed, and there would be nothing unjust about that outcome.

Comment:    For Shame, ECONOMY.    Marxists everywhere are disappointed in you.    Has Mr. Obama sicked Eric Holder on you yet?   What will the world’s atheists say?

If Marxist Obama Wins Again…..Where will America be in 2016?

About 2016: Obama’s America

2016 Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world’s most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man’s past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, “If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?”

Across the globe and in America, people in 2008 hungered for a leader who would unite and lift us from economic turmoil and war. True to America’s ideals, they invested their hope in a new kind of president, Barack Obama. What they didn’t know is that Obama is a man with a past, and in powerful ways that past defines him–who he is, how he thinks, and where he intends to take America and the world.

Immersed in exotic locales across four continents, best selling author Dinesh D’Souza races against time to find answers to Obama’s past and reveal where America will be in 2016. During this journey he discovers how Hope and Change became radically misunderstood, and identifies new flashpoints for hot wars in mankind’s greatest struggle. The journey moves quickly over the arc of the old colonial empires, into America’s empire of liberty, and we see the unfolding realignment of nations and the shape of the global future.

Emotionally engaging, 2016 Obama’s America will make you confounded and cheer as you discover the mysteries and answers to your greatest aspirations and worst fears.

Love him or hate him, you don’t know him.

About the Filmmakers

Gerald R. Molen

Gerald Molen has produced many of the most memorable films in the last three decades including blockbusters like Jurassic Park, Twister, Days of Thunder, Hook and Minority Report. He was a producer for the Academy Award winning film Schindler’s List and co-producer for Rain Man which won the Oscar for Best Picture.

Dinesh D’Souza

Born in Mumbai, India Dinesh D’Souza has truly lived the American Dream. He moved to the United States to attend Dartmouth College and upon graduation he went to work in the Reagan White House as a policy analyst.

He has been a fellow of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University and the American Enterprise Institute. He is also the author of the New York Times Bestseller The Roots of Obama’s Rage. His other book titles include the popular What’s So Great About Christianity, Letters to a Young Conservative, and The End of Racism. He is a popular speaker and has appeared on Hannity, The Colbert Report, Glenn Beck and Politically Incorrect.

The above resume of the documentary, About 2016: Obama’s America,  was found at dennisprager.com.

What, Can’t Sleep? What are your Sleep Habits Like, these days?

from the Wall Street Journal:

Decoding the Science of Sleep

In today’s always-on economy, we’re tired like never before. Caffeine and sleeping pills only do so much. How did we get this far away from our most basic, ancient habits? And how can we get back on track?