• 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

Anarchy, Disorder, Denial of Authority in the White House?

Article from Twila Brase, President of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom:

“The White House is engaged in anarchy. Do you think this too strong a word? Decide for yourself. Definitions of anarchy found online include:

“A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.”

“Absence or denial of any authority or established order.”

Charles Krauthammer says President Obama has “unilaterally altered” the law “lawlessly at least 15 times.” Obama is now dangling a new illegal proposal to allow Americans with individual insurance to keep their policies for three years — until he’s out of office. It doesn’t matter that we don’t like Obamacare or that it’s unconstitutional. America is a law where the rule of law protects our freedom. And the highest law of the land is the Constitution, which says the president may not write his own laws.

This week, Obama’s Treasury Department declared a second delay of the law’s January 1, 2014 employer mandate – this time until 2016. The Wall Street Journal says employers pressured the administration to “peel back” the requirement. What does it mean for freedom when people with power, cash and connections get America’s president to collude in illegal actions?

Why is Obama doing this? First, a delay of the employer mandate without a delay of the individual mandate will drive more of the public into Obamacare exchanges to implement the takeover. (HHS today reports 3.3 million people have “selected a plan” in the exchange. This includes Medicaid and those who have not paid.) Second, once people are in the Obamacare exchange it will be easier for them to stay there and for employers to pay the penalty rather than provide costly coverage. Third, every decree reduces political pressure on Democrats providing them with cover for the coming elections. And fourth, he’s gotten away with it for months. Why stop now?

Is his lawless behavior an impeachable offense? Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert and Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst called for impeachment last October. More recently Congressman Paul Broun said he’d vote for impeachment. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States says: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

What are “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”? Well, consider what happens if we break the law? If we refuse to insure ourselves, we’re fined. There are 80,000 pages of Obamacare regulations to enforce the law and penalize those who violate it…except, apparently the president who signed it into law.

President Obama is ruthlessly disregarding his constitutional responsibility to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” He finds U.S. law an unnecessary nuisance. As he said to the French president, “That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want.”

Obama is the elected leader of the free world, but he is dismantling freedom and eviscerating the highest law of the land. Is there any higher crime? Under the Constitution, the U.S. Senate has the “sole Power to try all Impeachments,” and the U.S. House has “the sole Power of Impeachment.” Who will take the first step?

REGISTER today to join us next week to support freedom at the CCHF 20th Anniversary celebration on Friday, February 21 – or Donate Today. With your help, we can stop Obamacare with surgical precision by continuing our “Refuse to Enroll” campaign. stopping the exchanges — even if Obama issues one illegal decree after the next. Please donate today to support our “Refuse to Enroll” campaign.

Twila Brase

President and Co-founder

CCHFREEDOM.ORG

Will Obama’s Political “science” Beat Mark Steyn in Court?

OBMALINGS CAN’T STOP MARK STEYN’S BRAIN, SO THEY COUNT ON SUING HIS POCKETS IN THE LIBERAL COURT SYSTEM INSTEAD

(Drama of the decade: Will Obamaling political ‘science’ win the Global Warming fraud?”)

Mann vs. Steyn: The Trial of the Century

by Robert Tracinski at realclearpolitics:

“The global warming hysteria is disastrous enough in its intended goal, which is to ban the use of our cheapest and most abundant fuels and force us to limp along on “alternative energy” sources that are insufficient to support an industrial civilization. But along the way, the global warming campaign is already wrecking our science and politics by seeking to establish a dogma that cannot legally be questioned.

The critical point in this campaign is a defamation lawsuit by global warming promoter Michael Mann against Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

When the “Climategate” e-mails were leaked five years ago, a lot of us speculated that it could all end up in the courts, given the evidence that climate scientists were pocketing large sums of government money on the basis of a scientific consensus they were manipulating behind the scenes. But it’s typical of our upside-down political and cultural environment that when this issue does reach the courts, it will be in the form of a lawsuit against the climate skeptics.

Steyn and the others are being sued for criticizing Mann’s scientific arguments. In the case of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, they’re being sued for Rand Simberg’s complaint that Mann “has molested and tortured data.” (See a summary of the case here.) Frankly, I’m not sure how I escaped this lawsuit myself. I shall have to review what I have written and see if my language was not sufficiently inflammatory. Perhaps I don’t have pockets deep enough to be worth looting. Or perhaps I’m not a big enough target to be worth intimidating and bankrupting. Note the glee with which the left slavers at the prospect of taking out a prominent voice on the right, with one leftist gloating that “it’s doubtful that National Review could survive” losing the case.

(Steyn points out that National Review is insured against such lawsuits and will survive. But it’s interesting that no one asks who is going to go bankrupt funding Mann’s lawsuit. A deterrent to the abuse of libel laws is the prospect of spending a lot of money on lawyers’ fees for a lawsuit that fails. Who is insuring Mann against this loss?)

Please continue:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html#ixzz2t8olVoNz
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

John Stossel Sums up the Graft of the “Privileged People”

THE PRIVILEGED PEOPLE

by John Stossel at realclearpolitics:

Politicians say, “We’re all equal,” and pretend that they represent everyone. But, in fact, they constantly pick winners and losers. America is now like the place described in George Orwell’s book “Animal Farm”: “All animals are equal,” but some are “more equal than others.” “Animal Farm” was about Communism, but today the allegory applies to our bloated democracy, too.

During the “fiscal cliff” negotiations that Congress and the media made sound so tough — as if every last penny were pinched — Congress still managed to slip in plenty of special deals for cronies.

–NASCAR got $70 million for new racetracks.

(Continue below)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/the_privileged_people_121548.html

Why Do Leftists Cherish Murderers So?

WHY DO PROGRESSIVES WANT THE BOSTON BOMBER TO LIVE?

by Dennis Prager:

“Federal prosecutors have announced they are seeking the death penalty for Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, murdered three people and wounded more than 260. In addition, they shot a Boston police officer to death.

In keeping with what the citizens of progressive Massachusetts consider to be progressive values, the great majority of them oppose the death penalty for Tsarnaev. Only one out of three citizens supports his execution.

The Boston Globe reported that, when asked to explain the ACLU’s opposition to executing Tsarnaev, “Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said that the union opposes the death penalty ‘because it is discriminatory and arbitrary and inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment.’”

“Rose pointed out,” the Globe added, “how the community rallied around the slogan, ‘Boston Strong,’ and said ‘that means not letting terrorists or anyone else shake us from staying true to our values.’”

The Globe also reported that “opponents of the death penalty — the Boston Bar Association declared its opposition to capital punishment earlier this month — assert that it provides an ‘illusion of ultimate punishment.’ The group noted that death penalties, even when granted, are rarely carried out.”

So, then, a man who placed a bomb next to an 8-year-old boy and blew him up along with other innocent people must not be executed because executing such people is “discriminatory and arbitrary,” is “inherently cruel and unusual punishment,” and because the death penalty provides only an “illusion of ultimate punishment.”

How is executing Tsarnaev “discriminatory and arbitrary?” Against whom? Muslims? Males? Chechens? How is it “inherently cruel?”

Why isn’t life in prison from the age of 19, which may include time in solitary confinement, inherently cruel?

And “inherently unusual” is logically almost impossible. Almost nothing humans do is inherently unusual. Whatever is unusual is so because cultures have decided that it is. Is eating insects unusual? In America it is. In parts of Africa it isn’t. But it is certainly not inherently unusual. Likewise, capital punishment is only unusual in cultures that have declared it so. In fact it is much more accurate to say that keeping all murderers alive is unusual. It violates the most basic human instinct for fairness and justice.

And the Boston Bar Association’s claim that the death penalty provides only an “illusion of ultimate punishment” is either meaningless or untrue. The death penalty is surely more of an “ultimate punishment,” whatever that term means, than imprisonment.

All these arguments are so morally and intellectually weak that one must search elsewhere for the reason people believe that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev must be allowed to keep his life.

Where shall we search? Given that opposition to the death penalty is deemed a progressive position — meaning a left-wing position — one has to place this opposition within the general framework of leftism. Two major characteristics of leftism, as explained in my last column, are a sympathy with, if not full adherence to, pacifism, and an unwillingness to confront evil.

It is true of global evil. The left didn’t fight Communists nearly as much as it fought anti-Communists (“Cold Warriors,” was a common left-wing epithet). In our time, the left doesn’t fight Islamism nearly as much as it fights those who fight Islamism (“Islamophobic” is the epithet for such people).

And it is true of individual evil. The left regards murderers, rapists, thieves and other violent criminals more as victims than as contemptible. Violent criminals do what they do because of poverty, racism and inequality, progressives argue. And these are not the only reasons violent criminals aren’t to blame. Secular progressive thought also denies free will, viewing all our behavior as ultimately attributable to genes and environment.

Between blaming society and denying free will, progressives are more interested in understanding violent criminals than in punishing them. That explains why in Norway, for example, the maximum sentence for murder is 21 years in prison, and few Norwegian murderers spend more than 14 years behind bars.

In their hearts, most progressive opponents of capital punishment think Norway has it right — including with regard to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whom they see as a young, naive victim of his older Islamist brother and his Islamist mother. On the other hand, the hearts of proponents of capital punishment focus on the photo of Tsarnaev placing a bomb next to an 8-year-old, and believe in that moment he forfeited his right to live. On this issue, the right and left not only have differing ideas, they have different hearts.”

Comment form g : In my lifetime I have found the ACLU to be led and supported most enthusiastically by our leftwing Jewish community in its war against Christianity. Add to this wealthy group of legal extortionists, add the American Bar Accociation and about all of its lawyer members over the past twenty years.

The most devious industry in the good old USA is our nation’s legal industry….where justice depends upon wealth, feminism, cunning, and in our Obama world political evil.

These assorted programmed lefties have far less value for human life when they as if in a stuppor, oppose the death penalty for the more egregious murders.

How about hanging for the creep who killed a couple of adults and two children in Washington, now given life after winning the death penalty by judge and jury…..because the state’s governor yesterday dictated all by his lonesome to ban capital punishment which had the support of the democratic majority at the ballot box.

The left in government, most of them trained in dishonesty as lawyers, simply does not value the life of the individual as most conservatives.

How cheap these attorneys make the life of the living by cherishing the life of the murderer so dearly.