• 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

WHAT REALLY DIVIDES CONSERVATIVES

WHAT REALLY DIVIDES CONSERVATIVES……by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“What best explains the division we see among conservatives these days? Is it ideology, strategy, or just tactics? All three factor in. But I believe the biggest source of division is cognitive.

Some conservatives perceive that the left is bent on radically transforming American values, institutions, and ways of living, and will use almost any tactic, regardless of its legality, to accomplish the transformation. Others perceive the current moment as a normal clash of opposing parties and opinions — serious, but not exceptional.

I am in the former camp, but my purpose here is not to argue the question. Rather, I want to discuss some implications of the cognitive divide.

The Tea Party movement (as its name implies) signaled the beginning of a mainstream conservative movement that viewed contemporary Democrats as more than just practitioners of liberal business as usual. In 2010, it helped sweep into Congress dozens of new members who believe, or at least professed, that American liberty is on the line.

These members weren’t elected to improve the lot of illegal immigrants, to promote leniency for drug felons, or to reach compromises with Democrats over how much the federal government will grow. They were elected to stop the Obama agenda in its tracks and, if possible, to roll it back.

Legislative roll-back has not occurred; it was never a realistic possibility with Obama in the White House. But Republicans stymied the left’s legislative agenda. There was a close call on immigration reform, but since 2010 Congress has essentially shut-out Obama legislatively.

The sequester, a big goose-egg for Obama, is perhaps the best illustration of how things changed after 2010. Democrats were confident that Republicans wouldn’t consent to budget cuts if they had a substantial impact on military spending.

In a normal political moment, the Dems would have been right, but in this moment, they were wrong. Republicans held the line on spending cuts to the great consternation of Obama.

John Boehner and his fellow “establishment” Republicans chafed throughout this period of strong resistance to Obama. Boehner would have loved to cut a grand budget bargain with the president. Eric Cantor would have loved amnesty-style immigration reform.

However, Boehner, Cantor, and the rest felt constrained by Tea Party movement. They even went along for a while with a partial government shut-down, even though their every instinct told them (not without justification) that this move was ill-advised.

Now, only a little more than a year remains of Obama’s presidency. Since the beginning of this year, moreover, he has even fewer Democrats in Congress than he had during the legislatively barren period of 2011-2014. One would expect, then, that his presidency would simply peter out, at least from a legislative standpoint. Even had there been no Tea Party movement, Obama should be the lamest of lame ducks.

Yet, he may not be. More than a few congressional Republicans suddenly feel the urge to work with Obama and his loyal liberal legislators. The bottled up instinct to legislate and to deal is coming to the fore.

A central element of Obama’s leftist ideology is the slanderous proposition that our “racist” criminal justice system has produced “incarceration nation” — a regime in which Blacks needlessly languish in jail thanks to a misguided (or worse) war on drugs. Suddenly, key conservative legislators on the Senate Judiciary Committee have helped liberals write legislation that would put thousands of drug dealers back on the streets.

Meanwhile, the House is poised to elect Paul Ryan its Speaker. Ryan is an ardent supporter of amnesty-style immigration reform. To him, it’s a matter of religious conviction. In addition, Ryan probably yearns to strike a grand budget deal with the Democrats. For him, such work is far more fulfilling that saying “no” to Democrats.

Indeed, Ryan apparently doesn’t believe that the House has done the nation a service by saying “no” to the Dems. He is on record as stating that the Republican House has “fall[en] short” and, indeed, “add[ed]” to “the country’s problems.”

Ryan’s urge to compromise and to deal makes sense if you believe that this is a normal political moment. Normally, when push comes to shove, Republicans and Democrats work together, if not to solve our nation’s problems then at least jointly to kick them down the road.

But if it’s true that Democrats are on a mission to radically transform at all costs, then seeking compromise with them will usually be a mistake because meaningful common ground won’t exist. This doesn’t mean that Republicans should never compromise. There may be circumstances when dealing with the Dems is necessary as a tactical matter. In these cases, the “bargains” should be minimalist, not “grand.”

Republican voters seem to agree that the Age of Obama is not a normal political period. That’s why four of the five top-polling GOP presidential candidates either have never held political office or (in the case of Ted Cruz) have held it only briefly and used it to hurl bombs.

GOP voters seem to be thinking “outside the box.” Another way of looking at it, though, is that they perceive our politics as having moved into a new box in the Age of Obama.”

Press Establishment Attack on Trump

Heading a listing of ‘news’ articles realclearpolitics advertises “Trump slams Carson and the Polls After Losing His Lead in Iowa”, and offers the following article as evidence:

“MIAMI — Some Republicans have wondered how Donald Trump would react when, finally, he did not lead in a poll.

That question was answered Friday during a rally at the businessman’s golf course and resort in Miami, Trump National Doral. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, Trump did not take the news quietly.
After 100 straight days atop the national polls, Trump got his first taste of electoral adversity this week when retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson surged to the top in Iowa. Carson led Trump by nine points in a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll released Friday, and by eight points in a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Trump couldn’t quite believe it.

“I love Iowa, and I honestly believe those polls are wrong,” he said. “I’m a Presbyterian, I’m a great Christian.”

Later, Trump questioned the motives of the pollsters themselves, although he has touted polling by the same outlets in the past.

“Those pollsters do not like me,” he said.

For the real estate tycoon, whose candidacy is fundamentally rooted in the concept of winning, polling has been at the center of his campaign message. At a recent rally in Richmond, Va., Trump opened his remarks by reading off recent poll results, state by state, for 10 minutes.

Much of that material was still intact Saturday: Trump still leads nearly everywhere else, and he received a rousing cheer from the crowd when he mentioned his strong standing in Florida. But he dwelled on the news out of Iowa.

When the most recent poll was released, Trump said, “My wife called and she said, ‘Are you OK?’ And I said, ‘How bad is it? How bad is it?’”

The media’s interpretation, he concluded, “made it sound like it’s the greatest defeat in history.”

Another immediate consequence of the polling seems to be that Trump has found a new target for his attacks: Whereas he has taken pleasure in criticizing Jeb Bush as “low energy,” Carson is now “super low energy” in Trump’s estimation.

“We need tremendous energy,” he said Friday.

And as Trump recited his signature promise to “bring back jobs from China,” he added this new line: “Honestly, Ben Carson cannot do that, folks.”

But Trump isn’t the only one a bit stunned by the latest Iowa polling: Carson, too, expressed surprise Friday at the results.

“I expected that I was going to sort of inch past Trump, but I didn’t think it would be that giant leap,” he told the Des Moines Register on Friday.”

Establishment Republicans don’t like Mr. Trump

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/24/trump_on_his_lost_lead_in_iowa_polls_are_wrong_128542.html

Prager University: WHY WE’RE LOSING LIBERTY

WHY WE’RE LOSING LIBERTY

Was the Constitution written in a way that was designed to protect freedom and limit the government’s size? Has it been effective in doing that? And what’s the Supreme Court’s record when it comes to protecting our rights? Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, answers these questions and more.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/why-were-losing-liberty