• 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

Cut Off Harvard to Save America

or Corporate tax these leftist, sexist, racist, feminazi, atheist, false science, antiAmerican religious university bigots for selling corrupt, dangerous to ones health products!

Universities should be in the business of seeking truth!



The Fuhrer came, saw, and conquered…..but things didn’t turn out exacty as he had planned. He and his homeland were destroyed.

Good riddance to the Fuhrer, but what about the sufferings of his homeland, people defeated, starved, depressed and lost, but seeking hope? Vulnerable, but seeking hope for a better future! The Fuhrer spoke well…..believed deeply in his single and only tolerated path to success and glory.

ENTER American president, the foreigner, as was the Fuhrer to the homeland he destroyed….BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

The following article from the Weekly Standard, THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT, was sent by conservative and friend, Brian Ross:


America’s Marxist University WAR against “BEAUTY”


Modern American Marxism insists that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No beauty can be more beautiful than another. All art is equally beautiful……..which logically means ‘that which is equally beautiful is equally ugly’…..Equality is the goal of Marxist achievement.

I disagree with these academic Marxist goals in any of the social sciences. It is because I am old and have been taught otherwise when Marxism was an anethema to our American way of life..

Is it possible that the utterings of a well heeled, but cold blooded murderer faced with his own imminent demise can be written with magnificent unsurpassed beauty, beauty of words and message you cannot forget as long as you live? Could such utterings rise above the Marxist command of forced equality of today’s lessons of mediocrity? Read the following assemblage of words from the 17th century:

“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time. And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death.

Out, out, brief candle. Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

It is easy enough English to understand. I found it breath-takingly beautiful when I heard it for the first time, read to me by my 9th grade English teacher, 68 years old, 90 pound withered but commanding, Mabel Wicker, at my local urban public high school. There were 35 other kids in that class, mostly of us boys who were disruptive during eighth grade classes in elementary school. This is the same Miss Wicker from whom I earned an F for my first eight week period in her class. I was mesmerized by the Shakespeare she read as part of her daily lectures. I recognized its beauty. I was not disruptive. No one in that class was disruptive. We were not allowed to be.

She used red ink in designing the large F handwritten on my report card to increase the chances for public humiliation.

I enjoyed her readings so much. I had never cared about grades. They never meant anything in elementary school. You were either okay or you weren’t. I never even thought about grades…….until the marking period after the first eight weeks with Miss Mabel Wicker’s flashy red ‘F’ shining for all to see for the rest of the school year.

She expected homework from me. She showed me her grading book. There was nothing listed under my name. It was a perfectly clean slate sans any indication of handed-in homework. She pointed out to me that I had earned my keep. What could I say?

Later in the year I did memorize the above lines from William Shakespeare’s Macbeth as part of the 400 lines of poetry required to get a passing grade.


Krauthammer: Obama assault on the dictionary itself


by CHARLES KRUATHAMMER at realclearpolitics:

He’s never been interested in lowering the deficit. I think that was clear. We had a lot of discussions over the five years where some people on the panel kept saying, ‘Oh, he really wants to get the bargain.’ But Kirsten is right, it contradicts the reason he ran for president. It’s to change a lot of things in society, to give people stuff like health care, et cetera. That’s the vision he had — social Democratic — and reducing the deficit was never on the list.

Read further:


Minnesota Democrat Trio Laughs at ObamaCare Disaster

“I thought the Affordable Care Act would save $2500 per family?”

February 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey at HotAir:

Senator Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Tim Walz came back to Mankato, MN yesterday to meet and greet constituents at South Central College, along with Rep. Collin Peterson. The three Democrats addressed an agricultural symposium, where Peterson talked at length about the farm bill. But KEYC’s Ryan Gustafson captured a priceless moment when one attendee wanted to know why Democrats promised that ObamaCare would save families $2500 a year in premiums:

The lawmakers fielded other questions as well, talking debt and immigration reform, but it was the question about the struggling health care law that everyone in the audience wanted to see answered, and two out of the three Democrats on the dais seemed hesitant to tackle.

The question: “I thought the Affordable Care Act would save $2500 per family. What happened?”

After Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Walz looked at each other, laughter broke out in the room.

Rep. Peterson quickly picked up the microphone to say, “I voted ‘no’, so I’ll let these guys handle that,” to the applause of the crowd.
Walz then tried out the line that Democrats will use in their defense in the midterms:

Walz says, “This health discussion has got to be broader, it’s got to point out where there are weaknesses and failures, it’s got to make sure we’re not leaving people behind or distorting the system. But don’t pretend there was some type of safe harbor before this where everything was just peachy keen.”
Really? We can test this thesis. Before the passage of ObamaCare, we have polling from Gallup about the status of satisfaction with health care in the US. In September 2009, 85% of Americans had health insurance — and 87% expressed satisfaction with their health care, while 61% were satisfied with the costs associated with it. Fifty percent of the uninsured were satisfied with their health care, although 69% were dissatisfied with the costs. The system worked for the overwhelming majority of Americans until Democrats decided that they knew better than doctors and insurers how to remake the market.

View the video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/20/minnesota_dems_hesitate_to_answer_obamacare_question_at_town_hall.html

Obama’s FCC Slitherings to Control Free Speech

New Obama Initiative Tramples First Amendment Protections

by Byron York at the Washington Examiner:

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” Those “needs” will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government’s standards could face an uncertain future. It’s hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.

The initiative, known around the agency as “the CIN Study” (pronounced “sin”), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. “This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,” says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC’s five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). “I’ve never had any input into the process,” adds Pai, who brought the story to the public’s attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

Read further:




FCC Backs Off on Scheme to Regulate the Press

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

For the last several days, I have been accumulating information about the extraordinary plan, launched by the Democratic majority of the Federal Communications Commission, apparently without input or even knowledge on the part of the Commission’s Republicans, to survey radio and television stations, as well as newspapers (over which the FCC has no jurisdiction) with respect to their editorial news judgments. Many observers saw the FCC’s project as the prelude to an effort to push news reporting even farther to the left. See Mark Steyn, Byron York and Tammy Bruce, for a few among many such examples. If you want the details of what the FCC proposed to do, at least as a first step, check out this report by Social Solutions International, which contracted with the FCC.

But it looks as though I won’t have to denounce the FCC after all. A little while ago, the Commission announced that in response to widespread criticism of its editorial monitoring initiative, it is canceling the program. The Commission’s press release is here:

[I]n the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate. Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required. Last week, Chairman Wheeler informed lawmakers that that Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters and would be modifying the draft study. Yesterday, the Chairman directed that those questions be removed entirely.

To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters.

The FCC continues to deny that its intent was to move toward regulation of the news:

Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false. The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal.

The FCC is required by law to report periodically to Congress on barriers that “may prevent entrepreneurs and small business from competing in the media marketplace.” The problem is that the massive study that the FCC proposed to undertake with regard to editorial news judgment had no bearing at all on such barriers to entry. In any event, whether you believe the Democrats’ disclaimers or not, the controversial project has been can