• 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

ACTION ALERT!! Important Request for Your Help Regarding ObamaCare Gender Identity Rule

ACTION ALERT from Twila Brase,  President of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom

Advancing a Medicare-free America,

Don’t forget to refuse to enroll in Obamacare! CCHF has provided a one-page document with three legal alternatives. Find the alternatives, our opt-out petition and more at REFUSETOENROLL.ORG


The Obama administration appears to be creating law out of thin air. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed a federal Obamacare rule prohibiting discrimination in health care programs and activities based on race, color, national origin, sex, age and disability. On the surface, there’s nothing unusual, except they changed the definition of ‘sex.’

In 2013, the Obama administration asked for public comments describing experiences of “[s]ex discrimination (including discrimination on the basis of gender identity, sex stereotyping, or pregnancy).” They received 239 “personal testimonies from transgender individuals.” As a result of this altered definition of ‘sex,’ the proposed rule, released September 8, 2015, would prohibit discrimination based upon “gender identity” and more.

DEADLINE: Comment by this Monday, November 9, 2015

The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex using Title IX of the federal Education Amendments (Title IX for schools), and then adds “gender identity, sex stereotyping, or pregnancy” to the definition of ‘sex’ despite no apparent authority to do so. Hospitals, doctors, laboratories, nursing homes, community health centers, health-related schools, health plans, state agencies and others that receive any Federal financial assistance could not, among other things:
1) Deny or limit coverage, deny a claim, or impose additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions, on any health services that are ordinarily or exclusively available to individuals of one sex, based on the fact that an individual’s sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded by the plan or issuer is different from the one to which such health services are ordinarily or exclusively available; or 2) Categorically or automatically exclude from coverage, or limit coverage for, all health services related to gender transition
Despite the subjectivity of gender identity, and in addition to major concerns regarding cost, ethics, conscience and religious beliefs, the rule will also encourage lawsuits. And physicians could be forced to perform procedures or allow certain treatments requested by a transgender individual — or face penalties for refusal.

There are more than 840 comments so far, with most of the early ones in support of the rule. Please submit a public comment and inform others of the likely negative impact on health care costs and freedom of conscience if this rule is finalized as written.

SAMPLE Letter (change at least one sentence to personalize it so it will be counted).

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed “Nondiscrimination in healthcare programs and activities” rule. I am concerned about the negative impact it will have on our health care system and the rule of law. It does not appear that the ACA gives HHS authority to stretch the definition of ‘sex’ from the Title IX education law to include “gender identity, sex stereotyping, or pregnancy.” Furthermore, gender identity is a subjective choice potentially opening the way to lawsuits. In addition, requiring physicians and others to treat an individual as a woman when he is physiologically a man, for example, may cause significant ethical, medical, moral, safety and freedom of conscience issues for providers, other patients, and staff. Finally, the cost of compliance, potential lawsuits, and the $382.8 million for training is an unfunded mandate and will increase the cost of health care services and premiums. Therefore, I oppose this proposed regulation.

Respectfully submitted,


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: