• 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

Black Savagery at Dartmouth Condoned

Eyes Wide Open at the Protest

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.”

Looking out over our shaken campus today, it’s uncanny to recall the one short week that brought us to this point. Over five years of political and racial passions bubbling through our generation look tame next to these seven odd days, as if all the previous campus outbursts were merely a prolonged first chapter.

The current moment began with the demonstrations at the University of Missouri, when students embittered by a series of racial flare-ups forced their president and chancellor out of office. This shockingly potent deployment of activism was joined by an even less predictable outburst when indignant Yale students mobilized to seek the firing of an administrator who declined to police her students’ Halloween costumes, setting off a round of protests on the school’s broader racial climate.

Watching these events unfold from Hanover, no one could have doubted that the movement would make its way to Dartmouth within the week. But the particular form that our own iteration took on the night of November 12 was a shock, even to the by-now seasoned souls of students who have witnessed the past years. The tactics, tone, and words of the Black Lives Matter protesters eerily mirrored everything they claim to stand against. The long list of their clear oversteps should spark a moment of reckoning for every honest onlooker, and especially those who have sympathized with their movement to this point.

The Protest…

Black-clad protesters gathered in front of Dartmouth Hall, forming a crowd roughly one hundred fifty strong.  Ostensibly there to denounce the removal of shirts from a display in Collis, the Black Lives Matter collective began to sing songs and chant their eponymous catchphrase. Not content to merely demonstrate there for the night, the band descended from their high-water mark to march into Baker-Berry Library.

“F*** you, you filthy white f***s!” “F*** you and your comfort!” “F*** you, you racist s***!”

These shouted epithets were the first indication that many students had of the coming storm.  The sign-wielding, obscenity-shouting protesters proceeded through the usually quiet backwaters of the library.  They surged first through first-floor Berry, then up the stairs to the normally undisturbed floors of the building, before coming back down to the ground floor of Novack.

Throngs of protesters converged around fellow students who had not joined in their long march. They confronted students who bore “symbols of oppression”: “gangster hats” and Beats-brand headphones.  The flood of demonstrators self-consciously overstepped every boundary, opening the doors of study spaces with students reviewing for exams. Those who tried to close their doors were harassed further. One student abandoned the study room and ran out of the library. The protesters followed her out of the library, shouting obscenities the whole way.

Students who refused to listen to or join their outbursts were shouted down.  “Stand the f*** up!”  “You filthy racist white piece of s***!”  Men and women alike were pushed and shoved by the group.  “If we can’t have it, shut it down!” they cried.  Another woman was pinned to a wall by protesters who unleashed their insults, shouting “filthy white b****!” in her face.

In the immediate aftermath of the demonstration, social media was abuzz with comments condemning the protesters for their tactics. Many students who had experienced the protests took advantage of YikYak’s anonymity to air their grievances. Some students reached out to The Dartmouth Review to provide additional details.

An anonymous ‘19 explained that while working on a group project in a private study room, his UGA came in and expressed his virulent disappointment that the he was not joining in the protest. The UGA then demanded that he and the other members of his group project to leave the room and join in.

Another ‘19 recalled clapping after a protester said, “let’s give a round of applause for the beautiful people of color who were here for this protest.” The protester then turned on her saying, “for all of you that are sitting down and applauding right now, ‘we don’t care about you’.”

Of course, the protesters themselves have also spoken out in the aftermath of their march. One woman, identifying herself as one of the protesters in a lengthy post to Facebook, wrote, “we raised hell, we caused discomfort, and we made our voices heard all throughout this campus in the name of standing up for our brothers and sisters across the country who are staring terrorism and assault directly in the face.” She went on to accuse those she thought were insincere in their support for the movement of “faking allyship,” and called the activities an “occupation of Baker Berry.”

Click below to learn  more of this Nazi ‘enlightenment’ learned and practiced at Dartmouth College and apparently its faculty  these days of  the rise of    fascistic wars against America:

http://www.dartreview.com/eyes-wide-open-at-the-protest/

Prager Reviews the Left’s Role in Paris Attacks

THE LEFT AND THE ATTACK ON PARIS

by Dennis Prager       article sent by Mark Waldeland:

“The left’s reactions to the terror attack on Paris are in keeping with its tradition of getting almost everything wrong.

Take Bernie Sanders, for example. At the Democratic presidential debate, one day after the Paris attack, the democratic socialist candidate made this observation about al-Qaida:

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely, and led to the rise of al-Qaida and to ISIS.”

That a U.S. senator, let alone a man running for president of the United States, believes that the American invasion of Iraq led to the rise of al-Qaida should automatically disqualify him from serious consideration. It is a testimony to how many on the left twist reality to force-fit it into their ideology.”…..please continue reading:

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/11/17/the-left-and-the-attack-on-paris-n2081712?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Mistrusting Obama on ISIS and Refugees

by Jason Riley at the Wall Street Journal:

“You must understand: President Obama is accustomed to kid-glove treatment from most of the media most of the time. So when he was asked repeatedly at a Monday news conference in Turkey why he continues to insist that he never underestimated Islamic State (ISIS), and that his strategy against the terrorist outfit is working, it follows that he would become a little touchy.

“So, this is another variation on the same question,” snapped Mr. Obama at one point. “And I guess—let me try it one last time.”

His additional explanation failed, of course, not because he’s a poor communicator but because he is attempting to push a political narrative so spectacularly at odds with recent events. Inside of a month, ISIS, which already controls territory in Iraq and Syria, has claimed responsibility for crashing a Russian jetliner, along with bombings in Beirut and now the massacre in Paris. ISIS is targeting police officers, soldiers, concertgoers and soccer spectators. U.S. allies are nervous and the American public is afraid, yet Mr. Obama insisted that “we have the right strategy and we’re going to see it through.”

That White House strategy involves resettling in the U.S. next year some 10,000 displaced Syrians to help alleviate the worst refugee crisis since World War II. More than half of the nation’s governors, citing security risks, are balking at this prospect. The Republican-controlled Congress will almost certainly try to stop resettlement, perhaps by blocking appropriations for it. And history suggests that it will be a very tough sell with the public. In a national poll taken by Fortune magazine in 1938, only about 5% of respondents wanted the U.S. to accept refugees fleeing European fascism; two-thirds agreed that “we should try to keep them out.”

Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Jason Riley on the political debate over whether or not to admit Syrian refugees to the United States. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. has admitted 1.5 million refugees and immigrants from the Middle East. That includes 1,500 from Syria since the war began there in 2011. Michael Chertoff, who led the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, told me Monday that our vetting process works. Unlike European nations that face swarms of people showing up unscreened at the border and creating pressure to be admitted, the U.S. has the luxury of physical distance from the conflict, which allows it to be selective, he said. All potential Syrian refugees are vetted in person in the region they are fleeing, not on U.S. soil, and they are subjected to biometric and other background checks against security databases. The main complaint of critics is that the process is too slow. “We dealt with this issue when we had people coming from Iraq during the war, and it’s quite lengthy—like an 18 months-plus vetting process,” Mr. Chertoff said. “While nothing is perfect, it was a secure and reliable way of making sure you didn’t let in people who were trying to come under false pretenses.”

Mr. Chertoff argues that continuing to admit Syrian refugees makes sense strategically. “It allows us to truthfully say that we’re not hypocrites or bigoted against Muslims or people from other cultures,” he said. “That has a positive impact in terms of the disposition people around the world have toward the U.S. You don’t want to play into the narrative of the bad guy. That’s giving propaganda to the enemy.”

What most concerns the law-enforcement community is not a fake refugee but a long-term resident who later becomes radicalized. The Tsarnaev brothers, who perpetrated the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, arrived in the U.S. on tourist visas in 2002 at the ages of 15 and 8. Radicalization is an increasing problem, evidenced by the fact that stories about young Americans trying to sneak off to join jihad are no longer uncommon.

One reason the U.S. has largely avoided the type of turmoil that places like France have experienced with disaffected Muslim youth is our enduring model of assimilation. America’s focus on shared values and ideals over shared cultures tends to produce religious moderates. The war on terror, however, is clearly testing that paradigm.

To the public, the merits of Mr. Obama’s pro-refugee arguments matter less than the growing perception that ISIS is ascendant and has the ability to strike where and when it pleases. If the president wants Americans to help him do something about a worsening humanitarian crisis, he ought to show them that he’s doing something about Islamic State other than misleadingly insisting that the group has been “contained” and that his strategy has been effective.

So far, people are unpersuaded—and that includes a growing number of those in the media who typically do his bidding.

 

 

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/mistrusting-obama-on-isisand-refugees-1447803738-lMyQjAxMTA1MjE5ODMxMDgxWj

The Bottomless Ignorance of Barack Obama

THE BOTTOMLESS IGNORANCE OF BARACK OBAMA

by Steven Hayward   at  PowerLine:

“Liberals have gushed from the beginning on how brilliant Barack Obama is, and point from time to time to the fact that he was a professor of constitutional law (!) at the University of Chicago, one of the nation’s premier law schools. Of course, if you actually check on what he taught there, it was trendy lefty stuff like a course entitled “Race and the Law” (I have a friend who took this course from Obama) which was devoted exclusively to the creative uses of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which to many liberal is the entire constitution. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught, or studied, the structural aspects of the Constitution, as it is obvious that he (following Woodrow Wilson) has no respect for the separation of powers.

He has displayed his ignorance of our constitutional order before, such as this comment to Matt Lauer in 2012:

Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.

It turns out? It took him nearly four years in office to figure this out? Apparently, because he returned this this theme in his interview just out with GQ magazine:

But what I didn’t fully appreciate, and nobody can appreciate until they’re in the position, is how decentralized power is in this system. . . A lot of the work is not just identifying the right policy but now constantly building these ever shifting coalitions to be able to actually implement and execute and get it done.

Of course, that last sentence is the main point of Richard Neustadt’s legendary work on the persuasive requirements of the presidency, which much of the time Obama seems to think beneath him. I’m guessing Obama never read Neustadt. Maybe never heard of him. After all, these days he’s just another dead white male.

By the way, in that 2012 interview with Lauer, Obama said “One of the things about being President is you get better as time goes on.” Insert your own punchline.”