• 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

You seem to be a good man, Cliven Bundy

I am not fond of cable television’s Bill O’Reilly. He sells news….usually of the Eastern conservative establishment kind. He bloviates, is obnoxious, abrasive, combative as a Conservative with a capital “C”, mind you, meaning he sells his politics rather than practices them in the traditional way…..a product of the American cultural drug and sex revolution of the late 1960s which continues to destroy American democracy to this very day.

Mr. O’Reilly is a product as well as a salesman of this vulgar generation. His schtick is to advertise his arrogance by bloviating, suggesting he is well versed in all matters. This is a rudely feminized generation which worships feelings above truth and thought. O’Reilly seems to feel being obnoxious will help sell his news by attracting more feelings. He suggests he rules his empire with vigor and noise. Women take notice.

Then there is the entertainment industry news, the CNN, NBC, MSNBC or Bloomberg stuff on cable and all of the mindless and clones of the left on regular non-cable tv.

This news delivery isn’t quite as bad as the 1960s or 1990s news delivery in the good old Marxist USSR when I was there. There were two radio radio programs both government contolled….more controlled in speech and topic than Obama’s gang controls television (and press) news coverage…….with the exception of Cable Fox News….and the bloviator Bill O’Reilly.

Please follow citizen Cliven Bundy’s clash with Washington’s Obama gang as well as the Bill O’Reilly’s Conservative bloviators of the American world. Mr. O’Reilly claims Bundy is “a man who does not see things clearly….he should be condemned”.

“Where’s the beef?”

Find out for yourself if Clive Bundy is worthy in his cause and reflection. What is negative, what is racist, what is unworthy about an American rancher’s, or any American’s reasonable comments or thoughts wondering about the quality of urban black culture living in Obama’s America.

Think too, about who, what political party, what racial group of people, what causes are primarily responsible for the “quality” of life in today’s urban black communities. Review American rancher, Cliven Bundy’s comments word for word. Where is the racism? What should his punishment be for daring to utter such words?

Why is today’s American public society so rude, so ugly, so quick to assault, so empty of self resposibility, so obnoxious, so without class, knowledge, and wisdom?

Name an honorable Democrat in the Obama gang running the country or in Congress. There isn’t a one who has demonstrated any honor of being called an traditional American by word or example. Only about half of the Republicans in Congress of whom I am aware, demonstrate exemplary traditional American credentials.

But, alas, there is no leadership.

The Human Lefty Female Mind Working on Christianity and the Environment

This is the year of our Lord, the university, 2014, in which the human female animal is dained EQUAL to the human male animal when made ‘intellectually’ freed from the dead white American males who founded the United States of America.

Mark Waldeland sent the following pronouncement of modern American female religious thinking demonstrated by the ‘Reverend’ Lisa Dahill, professor at Trinity Lutheran Seminary:

Earth Day Bloviating

It is this kind of Earth Day bloviating, under the guise of the gospel, that makes me suspicious of “Christian” environmentalists (from an Ohio newspaper):

“The Rev. Lisa Dahill, associate professor of worship and Christian spirituality, at Trinity Lutheran Seminary (ELCA), summed up her religiously based opposition more bluntly. ‘We in our fossil-fuel based economy are the un-creators of God’s original creation, which is a shocking and horrifying reality we face. We are quite clearly enacting on a global scale what Judas did in the New Testament, namely sacrificing the life of the world for 30 pieces of silver, for a very short term economic gain.'”

Somehow I just can’t see an elderly person heating their home this winter with gas or coal as tantamount to Judas betraying Christ. I would also disagree that the biosphere is basically the same as Jesus, but on a larger (global) scale. One wonders how Dahill drives to her office, heats her home, uses her computer, etc. without re-crucifying Christ? Has she ever considered becoming Amish?

Recycling pre-historic waste (fossil fuels) to warm homes and cook food for God’s people actually sounds like a pretty environmentally sound idea and a great spiritual use of God’s gift of creation (which includes coal and natural gas — if God made it and put it there for our use, it must be good in His eyes!).
Pastor Eric at 11:06 PM

Comment by Glenn:

Beware of human female reverends, professors, and politicians especially those claiming to have been educated in America within the past 50 years.

The human male animal is born a killer who in civilized society is trained to control this natural drive. He is also driven to protect, build, inquire, invent, compose, and be curious.

The human female animal is born ditzy, free of thought and responsibility, enriched with emotion, programmed to shop. If never a mother, how can she possibly be a danger to the human animal future?

Reread the Reverend Lisa’s religious thinking above….and then study the history of NOW…. and read the writings of Andrea Dworkin, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem.

Sonia Sotomayor, the Andrea Dworkin of the Supreme Court


by Mike Gonzalez at the New York Post:

Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling that Michigan voters had the right to ban racial preferences in university admissions didn’t sit well with the court’s self-described “Wise Latina,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her 58-page-long dissent made clear that she’ll be the last line of defense for affirmative-action policies at the highest court in the land.

But a look at the dissent — parts of which Sotomayor dramatically read aloud from the bench — as well as her own history, makes clear that the lady doth protest too much. Immigrants and their children simply have no claim on affirmative action — if anyone does. To the contrary, these policies hurt their intended beneficiaries.

The court didn’t rule on the merits of affirmative action, but simply on whether voters can opt to ban its use in public universities. Sotomayor tried to do several things as she fought a rear-guard battle.

She sought, for one, to equate affirmative action with voting rights, which didn’t fly. More interestingly, she also vainly tried to read this policy into the Constitution, the better to save it from future challenges.

The Constitution, she wrote, “guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals — here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures.”

In other words, one of the highest Hispanics in the land argues that, without preference policies, minorities can’t hope to reach a proportionate participation in universities.

Can you imagine what reading this opinion would do to a young Puerto Rican or Mexican-American girl full of hopes about her own abilities? As Linda Chavez, the highest woman in President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet, once put it, “Ultimately, entitlements based on their status as ‘victims’ rob Hispanics of real power.”

It’s heartening that by a 6-2 majority, the high court didn’t let such nonsense go unchallenged by the voters.

There are many reasons to oppose affirmative action: It imposes the soft bigotry of low expectations on whole groups of people; it delegitimizes the hard-earned diplomas of minority graduates; it flouts simple principles of fair play, and, by rewarding characteristics that have nothing to do with talent or hard work, it contributes to national decline.

Even after considering the above, some Americans are still willing to make an exception for the descendants of Africans forcefully brought here in chains in centuries past. The view is that they can make a case that they’re still suffering from the legacy of the horrible system of slavery, which is only four or five generations in the past.

Hispanics simply have no parallel claim. There’s nothing in the Hispanic experience in America that compares with the repulsive system of slavery. Some Jim Crow laws did affect some Mexican-Americans living in the Southwest, but there was nothing comparable with the African-American experience.

And the vast majority of today’s Hispanics either immigrated here or, more likely, descended from people who immigrated of their own volition. They chose to come here to better their lives.

Sure, America isn’t perfect. No place on this earth can be. But millions of immigrants for 2½ centuries have obviously decided that the advantages far outweigh what problems there are. We should honor their choice.

Even some supporters of affirmative action get the difference and view Hispanic participation as corrosive to these racial-preference programs. Ricky Gaull Silberman, vice chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, once described immigrant participation as “the ultimate nightmare of affirmative action. It is its Achilles’ heel.”

For Sotomayor, of course, affirmative action is personal. She’s said she believes she got into Princeton and Yale Law because of affirmative action, disclosing once that “my test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale.”

It’s what came afterward, when a big law firm came recruiting at Yale, that is more revealing. One partner in the firm asked her, “Would you have been admitted to the law school if you were not a Puerto Rican?”

Sotomayor didn’t react well, lodging a complaint with Yale. The firm had to apologize to the university, lest it lose its coveted right to recruit at the nation’s top law school.

But what on earth did Sotomayor expect? What else did she think could possibly result from racial preferences?

Thankfully, the court sided against her — making it less likely that any future “Wise Latina” will have to face doubts about her real achievements.

Sweden’s ObamaCare

What Sweden Teaches Us About ObamaCare
April 24, 2014 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

The United States can look to Sweden for a preview of America’s health care future, says Per Bylund, a professor at the Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University.

Sweden is routinely praised as an example of a successful socialist country, but its health care industry suggests something else entirely. While Sweden’s universal health care system is consistently ranked as one of the best quality-wise, the country has an access problem.

•Swedish patients face incredibly long wait times simply to get an appointment with a doctor, even having to wait for emergency care. Certain procedures have multiyear wait times, and treatment is sometimes denied altogether.
•As of 2013, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare reported that the average wait time from initial referral to start of treatment for “intermediary and high risk” prostate cancer was an incredible 220 days.
•One 80-year-old Swedish woman recently had to wait four hours before an ambulance arrived. And no ambulance at all came to a one-month-old infant who suffered a cerebral hemorrhage.
This rationing is due to the gap between the number of people seeking care and the capabilities of health care providers — and the United States can expect to see the same results thanks to ObamaCare.

Free markets lead to innovation, as companies and entrepreneurs respond to demand and find ways to offer better products at better prices. Decentralization is the key to an effective free market. But ObamaCare does the opposite.

Swedish patients are routinely denied care because of their government’s policies, which is why many Swedes — despite the guarantee of free public care — have flocked to private insurance coverage over the last 20 years.

•In the last five years, the number of private policyholders in Sweden has increased by 67 percent.
•Notably, these private insurance enrollments have increased despite the fact that the average Swedish family already pays $20,000 annually in taxes toward health care and elderly care.
Bylund, a citizen of Sweden who has lived there for most of his life, says that the only way to have affordable, high-quality and accessible health care is in a system that allows real competition between health care providers.

Source: Per Bylund, “What Sweden Can Teach Us About ObamaCare,” Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2014.

Previous Article /