• 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

Feminists Acting Feministly at Wellesley

(It is important to know what goes on in the mind of today’s Obama-America’ new wave feminist. They are eminently inventive at Wellesley.)


by Lenore Skenazy

A life-like statue of a guy sleepwalking in his underwear awakens a protest by campus feminists.

ETA realistic-looking statue of a sleepwalking schlub in his underpants has caused an outrage at Wellesley, a women’s college in Massachusetts near Boston. The students are so disturbed that they want him—I mean, it—gone.

Grab the smelling salts, ladies. This is not a prowler, it’s a piece of art.

Please read further:


Obama Sweet Speech at Prayer Breakfast Masks His War Against Christianity

Practice what you preach, Mr. President

by Kathleen Parker…… article sent by Mark Waldeland:

WASHINGTON — President Obama gave a lovely speech at the recent National Prayer Breakfast — and one is reluctant to criticize.

But pry my jaw from the floorboards.

Without a hint of irony, the president lamented eroding protections of religious liberty around the world.

Just not, apparently, in America.

Nary a mention of the legal challenges to religious liberty now in play between this administration and the Catholic Church and other religious groups, as well as private businesses that contest the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare.

Missing was any mention of Hobby Lobby or the Little Sisters of the Poor — whose cases have recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court and that reveal the Obama administration’s willingness to challenge rather than protect religious liberty in this country.

It is true that our religious-liberty issues are tamer than those mentioned by Obama. We don’t slaughter people for their religious beliefs. We don’t use blasphemy laws to repress people. But we are in the midst of a muddle about where religion and state draw their red lines, and it isn’t going so well for the religious-liberty lobby.

As it turns out, many in the audience were reaching for their own jaws when Obama got to the liberty section of his speech, according to several people who attended the breakfast. Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, summed up the general reaction of many with whom he spoke: “Stunned.”

“Several people said afterward how encouraged they would have been by President Obama’s remarks if only his acts reflected what he said,” Cromartie told me.

One table was applauding only out of politeness, according to Jerry Pattengale, who was sitting with Steve Green — president of the Hobby Lobby stores that have challenged Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. Pattengale described the experience as “surrealistic.”

The government’s position is that because Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business, the owners’ religious beliefs can’t be imposed on their employees. Hobby Lobby insists it shouldn’t have to sacrifice its Christian beliefs regarding human life.

Pattengale, assistant provost at Indiana Wesleyan University and research consultant to the Green family, also noted the disconnect between the president’s message and policies at home that “are creating a queue at the Supreme Court.”

Perhaps Obama’s advisers counted on the good will of the audience. Or they reckoned that juxtaposed against atrocities committed elsewhere, our debates about birth control might be viewed as not much ado.

It is understandable that many Americans might not see these legal challenges as especially pressing, especially if they’d just like insurance coverage for contraception — a position with which I personally have no disagreement. But these cases are more than a debate about birth control. They have far-reaching implications and, as Obama pointed out, there is a strong correlation between religious freedom and a nation’s stability.

“History shows that nations that uphold the rights of their people — including the freedom of religion — are ultimately more just and more peaceful and more successful.”

Since this is so, one wonders why the Obama administration is so dedicated to forcing people to act against their own conscience. By requiring through the contraceptive mandate that some religious-affiliated groups provide health plans covering what they consider abortifacient contraceptives, isn’t the Obama administration effectively imposing its own religious rules? Thou shalt not protect unborn life.

The answer to this question is above my paygrade, as Obama memorably answered when asked by Pastor Rick Warren when life begins. The more germane question to cases such as Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters is whether the government can accomplish its goal of making free contraception available without burdening religious objectors. Can’t women in Colorado get contraception without forcing the Little Sisters, a group of nuns who care for the elderly, to violate their core beliefs? Their charitable work could not long survive under penalties the government would impose on them for non-compliance.

For now, the Little Sisters have been granted a reprieve, thanks to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Arguments in the Hobby Lobby case are scheduled for March, with a decision expected in June. Meanwhile, another case settled in 2012 reveals much about this administration’s willingness to challenge religious freedom. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the question boiled down to whether the government can decide whom a church hires as minister. Since when?

Not yet. In a rare move, all nine justices ruled against the government, stating that the federal government does not get to direct who preaches the gospel. But it wanted to.

The Obamaling Party of PseudoScience

The Party Of Science Has Absolutely No Clue What It’s Talking About Ignore the propaganda. Things are more complicated.

by Andrew Quinn at HotAir:

It hangs over American politics like a moth-bitten blanket. An old and weary narrative, it crowds out conversation and lets shopworn cheap-shots masquerade as thoughtful critiques. Yes, it’s one more marker of the bad faith and disrespect that pervade our politics, but its costs go beyond hurt feelings. Real Americans pay a price for this poisonous argument.

The story in question is “the Republican war on science.” That particular phrase is the title of one 2007 book, but this story’s tentacles stretch far beyond a single volume. For years, a concerted effort has been made to intertwine scientific truth with progressive politics in the public imagination. In recent weeks alone, Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Crist both earned headlines by trashing the “anti-science” GOP. The left-leaning media works hard to make campaign issues out of contrived litmus tests that bear little relationship to real national issues.

Their project seems to be working. When Tumblring twenty-somethings reblog the latest “pro-science” rant from credentialed crusaders like Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson, one cannot miss the whiff of self-styled defiance. Like retweeting a feminist longread or “liking” a Jon Stewart tirade, speaking up for science is now seen as a form of political protest. Sporting an ironic “Science!” t-shirt is at least partially about sticking it to Republican rubes.

This script has become so familiar. From spirituality to environmentalism to financial economics, we hear, conservatives’ insufficient educations leave them unable to see past shadow and superstition. The right buys blissful ignorance by disengaging from reality.

But liberals’ intellects deprive them of this luxury. Cursed with vision keen enough to see in shades of grey, progressives cannot help but examine all the evidence and see what makes sense. Building a messy worldview out of complicated facts may be less viscerally satisfying than dictating from dogma, we’re informed, but it is infinitely more honest. So when you’re looking for leaders who will actually improve people’s lives, the talented technocrats beat the Manichean moralists eight days a week.

Policy should belong to pragmatists, the story concludes. And thus politics should belong to progressives.

Read Further: http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/12/the-party-of-science-has-absolutely-no-clue-what-its-talking-about/

Impeachment Procedings Against Obama?

Impeach President Obama?

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“……if Mitt Romney had been elected president and then proceeded to rewrite Obamacare on his alleged executive authority, Democrats would probably be screaming for his impeachment. So should Republicans be screaming for President Obama’s impeachment?”

John says no:

Technically, President Obama’s misuse of executive agencies to harass his political opponents and his usurpation of Congress’s powers by purporting to rewrite statutes by executive decree–the Obamacare changes are not the only instances–are grounds for impeachment. These are, in fact, precisely the sorts of abuses for which the impeachment remedy was intended, and for which no other remedy is adequate. For political reasons, impeachment is not an option, and I don’t mean to suggest that Republicans should start talking about it.

My view is a little bit different. I don’t believe Republicans should start talking seriously about impeachment now, with congressional elections looming and the GOP seemingly in good shape for them. But after the elections, and especially if Republicans gain control of the Senate, the calculus might change.

There are really only three relevant questions here: (1) has Obama committed impeachable offenses, (2) would impeachment proceedings (which would certainly fail to remove Obama) hurt the country, and (3) how would his impeachment play out politically. The third question is relevant because Republicans have no obligation to further weaken their position in a futile attempt to drive Obama from office through the impeachment process.

If Obama continues on his current course of overriding and rewriting the law, my answer to the first question will be a pretty easy “yes.” Under the same scenario, I think the answer to the second question is “no,” impeachment would not hurt the country. If anything, we might be better off with impeachment proceedings because they might cause Obama (or at least future presidents) to feel less free to do whatever he wants.

As for the third question, impeaching a president, even an unpopular one, is presumptively bad politics. But if the Obamacare fiasco deepens, if some Democrats begin to jump ship, and if Obama’s favorability rating drops another ten points, it’s far from clear to me that impeachment proceedings would hurt Republicans more than Democrats. Indeed, Republicans paid only a small political price for impeaching a popular president in the late 1990s.

So I agree that Republicans shouldn’t talk about impeachment now. But neither should they rule it out.

In the meantime, we really need to get the Supreme Court to review some of Obama’s lawless actions. I strongly suspect that the center-right majority on that Court is looking for an opportunity to teach Obama a lesson on the limits of executive power.

Comment by g: I strongly supported the Impeachment procedings against Billy Clinton, not merely for his philandering with his ‘office worker’, not merely for his blatant lie assuring the American public with television performance he didn’t have sex with ‘that woman, Miss Lewinski’, and not merely for the other females in and out of the White House he was mollesting, but for his LYING UNDER OATH assuring the courts and the country he “didn’t have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

He deserved to be Impeached….but not removed from office, because the ‘quality’ of his crimes were not sufficiently severe for removal for office. The stain for his behavior was sufficient.

Obama’s crimes, thus far, have been much more frequent and much more egregious that Billy Clinton’s.

Add them all up by yourselves. Reread the Law of the Land first.

Jason Kissner: “John Boehner, Eunuch”


by Jason Kissner at the American Thinker:

Less than 24 hours after President Obama illegally rewrote the law he had previously jammed down Boehner’s — and the country’s — throat, Boehner handed the budding dictator a clean debt-ceiling hike.

Last October, Obama vindictively shut down the federal government upon his having refused to delay ObamaCare, which of course is exactly what he himself lawlessly did on February 10, 2014!

Of course, Boehner is hardly in a position to argue now, having foolishly (immensely so) accepted responsibility for the shutdown.

Never mind Boehner’s cowardice (we’ll get to that in a moment); what kind of moron cedes that kind of maneuverability to the enemy?

Here is what a real leader would have positioned himself to say on February 11 to the man known as Obama:

“Not only has Obama once again dictatorially rewritten a law read by nobody who passed it, he has also accepted responsibility for last October’s shutdown. Last October, we asked Obama to do exactly what he himself did yesterday in a completely illegal way, but Obama preferred the alternative of shutting the government down, knowing that he would act on his own, illegally, whenever necessary.

The time for Obama’s lawlessness has come to an end. The only way he is going to get a debt-ceiling hike is if he delays the individual mandate. If he refuses, the consequences of his refusal fall upon him. We are only asking him to do legally today the kind of thing recent history has irrefutably shown he will do tomorrow, but illegally.”

Instead, assuming that Boehner actually dislikes ObamaCare, he is gambling that the practical depredations and inconveniences of ObamaCare will undo the law.

The problem with this strategy is simple: a country whose legislators allow the executive to usurp their power and defy the law of the people is, sooner or later, doomed — because under such circumstances, monstrosities even greater than ObamaCare are all but certain to follow.

Of course, Boehner does not have the constitution for any of this. Whether it’s to do with race, government shutdowns, the nature and scope of executive power, or anything else really–eunuchs like Boehner allow the Democrats to dictate the terms of the debate — which means battles are lost before they are even “engaged.”

Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.