• 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

Democratic Party Chair Obamalies: Claims she “doesnn’t know” Party affiliation of Obama Super PAC

Video: DNC Chair “doesn’t know”

party affiliation of Obama Super PAC

by  Jazz Shaw  at   Hotair:

Comment:  Nazism Swept Germany because Hitler was a Nazi.   Lies sweep Obamaville because Obama is a chronic liar.   CAN YOU TOP THIS MARXIST SLUSH  OF THE DAY OFFERED  BY OBAMA’S  PARTY CHAIR?


Shaw writes:  

I’ll confess right up front that I’m a big fan of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is endlessly entertaining (in a completely unintentional way) and her staggering blunders and fantastic statements do a great deal to promote the unserious nature of the DNC in many things. She is, in an ironic sort of way, one of the greatest gifts that the GOP has received in quite some time.

But even given all of that, one of her most recent interviews on Fox News may just win some sort of award for the Silliest Thing Said in Politics for the week. Take a look.


Further comment:    Marxists do not possess the same moral compass as those who truly believe in mankind’s religious battle between good and evil.   Since there is no God and goodness is a matter of Party opinion   in the Marxist way of things, its followers can invent whatever comes to the mind in favor of Marxism’s drive to reduce the masses to  equality under the yoke  of the STATE.

Lefties Claim they are giddy over Ryan choice

The Ryan Pick: Why Romney Changed to Obama’s Game

by John Heilemann    at   the New York Magazine:

Yesterday afternoon, as I was making my way into the White House for an interview, I ran into David Axelrod trundling along on his way out. We chatted idly for a few minutes about the political topic du jour: Who was Mitt Romney going to pick as his running mate? I told Axelrod that I was still convinced, as I had been for months, that Rob Portman would be the guy (ahem), and sagely explained why it wouldn’t be Tim Pawlenty (phew) and just couldn’t be Paul Ryan (doh!). Axelrod studiously maintained a poker face throughout our discussion. But I couldn’t help but detect a gleeful flicker in his eyes when we talked about the fervor on the right for the congressman from Wisconsin.

With Mitt Romney’s announcement this morning that he had tapped Ryan, the very same flicker is enlivening the eyes of everyone residing at the Obama for America HQ in Chicago and in the warrens of the White House, coupled with grins wide enough to span the distance between the two. But as giddy as Democrats are about the pick, so are Republicans and in particular conservative stalwarts. The underlying cause of the joy on both sides is the same, and it also happens to be the reason why the country should love the selection too: It raises the stakes and starkly clarifies the choice that voters will face in November — in one fell and dramatic swoop transforming a campaign that was teetering on the edge of being about nothing (of substance, that is) into a contest about Very Big Things indeed.

That the right is thrilled comes as no surprise, of course, given the despondency sinking in among hard-core conservatives (and, really, most Republicans) over the state of the Romney campaign during this long hot summer. Themeless, timid, error-prone, and on the defensive over Bain, taxes, and the dreadful foreign trip, the Romney campaign has seen their guy’s position in the race steadily erode, with three new polls showing him behind by seven to nine points and Obama at or near 50 percent (CNN 52-45 percent, Fox 49-40 percent, Reuters/Ipsos 49-42 percent). While the GOP political class has loudly and justifiably lamented Team Romney’s poor performance on defense against Team O’s attacks, conservatives have been more troubled by its abject failures of offense: its inability or unwillingness to lay out a bold and clear agenda to contrast with that of the president.

In choosing Ryan, Romney, in effect, both acknowledged and granted the validity of that latter set of criticisms. As my colleague Jonathan Chait and others have written, Ryan has become the de facto ideological and intellectual leader of the contemporary GOP. His agenda of turning Medicare into a voucher program, bloc-granting and taking the meat axe to Medicaid, drastically cutting spending on virtually every other government program (except defense, natch), and, yes, privatizing Social Security has been called many things, from courageous and bold (by countless conservatives) to “thinly veiled Social Darwinism” (by Obama) and “right-wing social engineering” (by Newt Gingrich). What you cannot call it is vague or vacuous or mealy-mouthed — all words that have been attached to the man at the top of the ticket.

So this was not a safe or conventional pick — not a pick motivated by winning a state (as Portman would have partly been regarding Ohio or Marco Rubio would have partly been regarding Florida). This was a pick about ideas, about policies, about core convictions. But it was also a pick driven by political weakness. All along, Team Romney’s bedrock strategy has been to make the 2012 election a clean referendum on Obama’s economic management and leadership, an election about unemployment, growth, and wages. In elevating Ryan, what Team Romney has done is execute a sharp U-turn, embracing the theory that 2012 will not be a pure referendum but a choice election, and one in which the two sides’ contrasting approaches to the deficit, debt, entitlements, and taxes will take center stage. And while this is surely not a Hail Mary pass on the order of John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin, it is almost as much, as some Romneyites admit, an attempt to (pardon the expression) change the game.

All of which helps explain why the Obamans are grinning madly. It’s not simply that they, too, see the pick as an admission by Team Romney that its strategy was failing. Or that Ryan doesn’t clearly pass the test of being (and, crucially, looking) ready to be president. Or that his utter lack of private-sector bona fides undercuts, however mildly, Romney’s attacks on Obama for lacking same. It’s that Chicago and the White House perceive this as a broader capitulation regarding the core dynamic of the race: an acceptance of the “choice election” framing, which is exactly the frame that the incumbent and his people have embraced and attempted to propagate from the start.

And just why have they done that? Because they knew full well that if the race were purely a referendum on Obama, they would likely lose — but if bright lines could be drawn on values and visions regarding fiscal choices, that was the kind of election they could win. This was why Chicago was planning to hang the Ryan budget around Romney’s neck regardless of whether the congressman was on the ticket or not. Obama’s data jockeys have been polling and focus-grouping on this for months, and they are over the moon about what they have found. And while that data is guarded by lock, key, and Uzi-toting thugs (kidding — sorta), anyone interested in the topic should take a look at the work that Stan Greenberg and his team at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner did recently on the Ryan agenda and its electoral implications for Democracy Corps. To put it mildly, their conclusion is fairly bracing:

At the outset, the Ryan budget (described in Ryan’s actual language) barely garners majority support. And voters raise serious doubts when they hear about proposed cuts — particularly to Medicare, education, and children of the working poor. President Obama’s lead against Romney more than doubles when the election is framed as a choice between the two candidates’ positions on the Ryan budget — particularly its impact on the most vulnerable. The President makes significant gains among key groups, including independents and voters in the Rising American Electorate (the unmarried women, youth, and minority voters who drove Obama to victory in 2008).

The crucial question, to be sure, will be what the small sliver of undecided voters conclude when the dueling cases of each side are put to them. But however the chips fall and the cookies crumble in the coming Ryan-centric fracas on the hustings, at the conventions, and on the debate stages this fall — side note: Biden versus Ryan, holy moly, get your ringside tickets now! — it’s hard not to argue that Mitt Romney has done the country a major favor. No more hide-and-seek. No more guessing games. No more theorizing about what President Willard would do if he found himself behind the biggest desk of all. With Romney and Ryan now joined at the hip, the choice and the stakes of 2012 are as clear as day. As a man with no knack for memorable phrases once memorably said: Bring ’em on.”

Comment:    The snotty words above may well ring true.    With so many Americans again on the government dole and pay roll…..with 49% of these voters who do not pay federal income tax at all, and 100,000,000 receiving Obama’s hand outs of  food stamps,  Obama’s Marxism might be already in control of the American soul.

Need we say anything about the nation’s new government supported religion,  irreligious Marxism already entrenched in the left wing courts?

Ryan and Obama have already Battled

Obama and Ryan have tangled repeatedly

by Stephan Dinan    at   the Washington Times:

When Mitt Romney taps Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate on Saturday, he is picking someone who has already tangled toe-to-toe with President Obama on several occasions, and is prepared for the bruising battle ahead.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has built up plenty of bad blood with Mr. Ryan, calling him the architect of “social Darwinism” earlier this year, stemming from the Wisconsin Republican’s budget plan.

Last year, liberal activists produced a campaign video equating Mr. Ryan’s budget plans to pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff. And Mr. Obama pointedly blasted Mr. Ryan in a closed-door meeting with donors in Chicago, saying he’s “the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill — but wasn’t paid for. So it’s not on the level. And we’ve got to keep on, you know, keep on shining a light on that.”

But Mr. Ryan has shown he’s not shy about firing back at the president, bringing both budget numbers and sharp rhetoric to the fight.

“Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells,” the usually mild-mannered Mr. Ryan said. “Exploiting people’s emotions of fear, envy and anxiety is not hope; it’s not change. It’s partisanship. We don’t need partisanship. We don’t need demagoguery. We need solutions. And we don’t need to keep punting to other people to make tough decisions.”

Mr. Ryan’s first go-around with Mr. Obama came even before he became Budget Committee chairman. He was one of the Republicans invited to the White House for the 2010 summit on health care, and in six minutes sliced apart the math behind Democrats’ plans, arguing they didn’t meet the president’s own goals of cost-cutting.

Republicans feel the Ryan pick gives them an edge.

“Obama thinks he is smart and in command of the facts. Ryan actually is,” said Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist.

In tapping Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has turned the election from a referendum on Mr. Obama’s economic record into a choice between two dramatically divergent views of the government’s spending and taxes.

It also instantly elevates this year’s election beyond the name-calling and accusations of recent weeks, and gives both sides something substantive to debate.

Mr. Ryan has written two budgets, both of them passed by the House but never acted on by the Senate, that would have kept tax rates low while deeply slashing spending, including making major changes to entitlement programs.

The latest plan, which Mr. Ryan dubbed the “Path to Prosperity,” proposed turning Medicare into a voucher-like program for seniors, and overhauled Medicaid, turning the federal-state health program for the poor into a block grant to the states, similar to welfare.

His budget spends 15 percent less than Mr. Obama would over the next decade, and he would rack up $3.1 trillion in cumulative new deficits during that time, which is less than half of the deficits the White House says Mr. Obama’s budget would produce.

Over the long run Mr. Ryan’s budget would cap taxes at 19 percent of gross domestic product — slightly higher than the post-World War II average — but would bring spending down to 16 percent of GDP by 2050, which would mean cutting about 40 cents out of every dollar spent if it were to happen today.

Those moves made Mr. Ryan a target for Mr. Obama.

The president said he personally likes the congressman, but has not been shy about attacking his proposals.

In choosing Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney elevates the budget to a top issue, and highlights Senate Democrats’ failure to pass a budget for the last three years. As it spotlights Mr. Ryan’s plans, it will shed attention on Mr. Obama’s own budget, which was defeated by a vote of 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House — earning not a single Democratic vote of support.

Democrats argued the bills they were voting on weren’t actually Mr. Obama’s budget, though Republicans said the plans embodied all of the numbers and plans the president had proposed.

Mr. Ryan has been a major player in some of the big spending negotiations of recent years, including serving on — and voting against — the Bowles-Simpson commission report proposing tax increases and spending cuts to try to reduce the deficit.

But he was left out of last year’s deficit supercommittee. Wisconsin press reported that he asked to be left off the panel.

Krauthammer’s View of the Ryan Choice

Krauthammer: “Paul Ryan Has That Reagan-Like Quality”

at realclearpolitics video:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think they are vastly underestimating Ryan and also vastly underestimating what the pick does to the ticket. The best analogy is, I think, the late 1970s when Reagan became the candidate and people thought — Democrats thought this is a real opportunity for us. ‘Look at all the wild stuff he’s done. He’s a guy far out on the right. Easy target.’ And it turned out to be different. I think Ryan has that Reagan-like quality.

And one thing that I think that Democrats are misreading, they just assume that Ryan will be a target. They’ll be on the defense on Medicare and the budget. But they don’t understand how much Ryan is good at attacking. Attacking on substance.

There was one meeting, early in the administration Obama decided to have a roundtable with Republicans in a way to show how open he was to new ideas. They held it in the Blair House, I think you and I — Bret — covered it at the time. It went on for hours. Obama was the chair of the meeting, so he controlled the microphone and the one guy who bested him time and again in that argument — the one guy who always got ahead of Obama and put him on the defensive was Paul Ryan. And I think that they are underestimating who they now have as an opponent.

for the video click below: