• 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

Evils from Feminists Feminizing the Culture


Tom Shillue stars in the following Prager University class session on  life studies:


Prager University Presents:


(Tom Shillue is probably young enough to be my grandson.    Mr. Shillue  ” Sticks and Stones”   became by far the most popular soliloquy I had memorized in my childhood years especially playground time at grade school from 1939 to about 1943 when other’s picking on me definitely subsided.   I had serious asthma when  outdoors  from  autumn to June which killed me on the playground or when  running around the block  I was required to do for exercise during recess.   Indoors I was made fun of for not being able to read during the same time period.  I had classic dyslexia before the word was invented.   I couldn’t put letters to words unless there were pictures  accompanying the action until   fifth grade.  But by third grade I could read National Geographics articles if pictures were included on the pages….which was usually the case….in black and white in those days.

I was foolish enough to feel sorry for myself once by spilling these  school troubles to my Mother when I was still  in kindergarten….who said “Well, grow up”…..and then    I got the “Sticks and stones may break your bones” treatment and a look to assure me that there would never be a need to mention any  school troubles to her ever again.)

Fights were NEVER allowed in or around school ….or we’d get clobbered by some teacher.    Male teachers didn’t show up until after the war when I was in seventh grade.)   Those gals were tough, but well, very well educated.  Learning knowledge  was valued in those days.”

Should Cruz be punished for his Truths about New York City?

What should punishment be for an intelligent, well educated person such as Texas’  Senator Ted Cruz for telling Truths?

With the evils of political correctness being accepted, practiced,  and even cherished nearly universally among the mouthier  lefty members of American politics connected to urban masses as well perhaps half of the rest of lesser mouth with a bit less ignorance in our major cities who might claim to be free thinking, we might believe that New York City is  a mecca for civility, classic taste, honesty, and intelligence with controls over their usual mouthy arrogance and bigotry  which usually accompany isolates living among cement and concrete who worship their own toast as delicious.

Do read the following National Review article to become more acquainted with its neighborhood of knowledge and tone from some on who brags about his New York and hopes to croak Ted Cruz for being so honest in his summation about the people who advertise it.



Yes, Canada and America….Marks Steyn is the Best Columnist in the World

Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg — and Donald Trump

(Notes from Ezra Levant’s Canada)         THEO CALDWELLREBEL COMMENTATOR

There are two types of people: those who think Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg are the best columnists in the world, and those who are wrong.

The rest of us who opine in public might have a really good day and produce an excellent piece now and then but, for prolific quality, coupling insight with comedy, Mark and Jonah are the only mortal locks in the game.

If these two bylines are unfamiliar, you may recognize them from their broadcast work.

Jonah is the panelist with the goatee on Fox News’ Special Report. Be careful you’re not confusing him with theWeekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, though. A handy way to tell them apart is Jonah is funnier and doesn’t have dry-mouth every damn time he speaks.

Mark, when he’s not writing, is perhaps best known for his guest hosting of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. He’s the Canadian guy with the British accent.

Normally, I eschew columns about other writers, the subject matter being too esoteric for mass appeal, and the enterprise itself sufficiently meta as to miss the point of policy debate.

To wit, why should I read your prose if all you have to tell me is that Paul Krugman said something stupid or that Ta-Nahesi Coates is a race-obsessed tool? And birds go tweet.

But, as the Romans would say, exceptio probat regulam – the exception proves the rule.

In conservative circles, the exceptional nature of Mark and Jonah is not really in dispute, though their supremacy as I have pronounced it may be.

Kevin D. Williamson and Ross Douthat are always worth a read, as are Kyle Smith and Charles C. W. Cooke.Ann Coulter’s weekly screed always brightens a right-thinker’s Wednesday evening. People really seem to like Matt Lewis, and one always learns something from Charles Krauthammer and George Will.

Given the choice, however, between one of Mark’s non-musical Steynposts or Jonah’s G-File newsletter and any of the above, the discerning curmudgeon knows which way to click.

Two quick examples, chosen more or less at random:

Mark on the willful deterioration of modern Christianity:

“Most mainline Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left clichés, on the grounds that if Jesus were alive today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an ‘Arms are for Hugging’ sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.”

And here’s Jonah, on the topic of presidential aspirant Ted Cruz having been born in Canada:

“While I am certainly open to theories about how Ted Cruz is the Manitoban Candidate, hiding in plain sight until he can impose the metric system on our children and make us all passive-aggressively polite, my hunch is that’s not the case.”

That is arguably the best sentence written so far this year.

Before proceeding, I should note that, good as they are, both Mark and Jonah have their weak points.

In Jonah’s case, when he strays from his natural habitat at National Review and writes for mainstream publications like USA Today, his work flattens instantly, losing all traces of humour and style. It’s like he turns into Rich Lowry (incidentally, we pundits have a term of art for the weakest writer on any opinion staff: “Editor”).

Mark, meanwhile, supplements his nonpareil criticism of political correctness, Muslim apologists and “climate change” mountebanks with interminable contemplations of his true passion: songs and their histories. One is patient with such devotion, particularly from someone who has provided so much enjoyment at no charge, as Mark has done. But confronted with thousands of words on who sang the shoo-be-doo’s that magical day when Dean Martin wore a turtleneck and John Kander ordered decaf and Frank Sinatra something-something, honestly, just shoot me.

I should add that neither of these guys is a pal of mine. To my recollection, Jonah and I have never met. Mark and I have a number of mutual friends (Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle prominently among them), but I remember meeting him just once, at a symposium and dinner party in New York City over a decade ago. I told Mark he’s the best columnist in the world and he did not disagree. ‘Nuff said.

The reason for all this inside-baseball, tire-pumping, knob-polishing metaphor-mixing is that these two leviathans of limited government – the north and south poles of planet Leave Me Alone – are at odds over the same thing dividing the entire conservative movement right now: one Donald J. Trump.

That’s not to say that they’re fighting – although that pay-per-view would be a goldmine – merely that they disagree.

For months, Jonah has been pleading with anyone with eyes to read that Trump is not a true conservative and is ill-suited to the presidency. Trump has even deigned to respond, referring to Jonah as “a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants” – a putdown that probably needed at least one more rewrite.

Mark, meanwhile, avers that the Trump phenomenon is a perfectly logical reaction to the feckless, conviction-free conduct of so-called “conservative” leaders like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et al.

A few words from each on the topic:


“Trump has the charisma, I’ll grant him that. But there is no evidence he’s thought deeply about the job beyond how much classier it will be once he has it.”


“For many conservative voters, 2014 was the GOP’s last chance, and they blew it. For those conservative voters whose priority is immigration, 2016 is America’s last chance, and Trump’s the only reason anyone’s even talking about that.”

Both represent their positions well, and for those of us who give regular contemplation to their opinions to help us develop our own (see also, “plagiarize”), beholding them in opposition is like hearing Mom and Dad fight (I’ll leave it to Mark and Jonah to decide which of them is which).

I was about to say Mark has the better of this argument until I saw Sarah Palin had endorsed Trump.

While Palin’s imprimatur may help Trump in Iowa or among “Evangelicals” (the media’s irksome catch-all for anyone who isn’t overtly Catholic or a Democrat), I’ve long suspected that her act has worn thin among regular people.

Sure, we think she got a bad rap in ’08 and we were embarrassed to see liberal journalists act as though they were saving the nation by blocking her from the vice presidency – especially when the alternative was Joe Biden.

But her aw-shucks know-nothingness, her cantankerous up-talk, and her shameless self-promotion have started to rankle.

Palin’s sign-offs used to mean a great deal – Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, who delivered the ostensiblyTrump-maligning GOP State of the Union response, owes her election to being plucked from relative obscurity in a crowded field by Palin in 2010.

Palin was, at one time, the embodiment of that roguish, mavericky, lemme-tell-yasomethin‘ ethos that Trump now represents. But today, among the normal people you don’t see on political panels, I expect she is a tired brand.

Indeed, as Trump’s appeal has been largely based on his independence, it is possible Palin’s endorsement could backfire.

It’s such a standard politician’s move, rendering Trump more like the Republican squishes Mark describes, at least aesthetically.

In a way, Mark and Jonah’s respective positions on Trump the outsider reflect the current state of their careers. While Mark continues to write for publications all over the world, as well as release books and cat albums (no joke, see below), he shook the dust from his cloak and departed National Review, where Jonah is a Senior Editor and now the top-dog writer.

Mark’s reasons for leaving were twofold: One, a prissy NR editor you’ve never heard of (except, perhaps, if you know this story) decided to upbraid him over a couple of jokes Mark referenced in discussing gay marriage and the intolerance of its advocates; two, Mark and NR had irreconcilable differences over legal strategy as they are both being sued by serial litigant and climate mullah Michael Mann.

Much as I would like to say National Review sucks now, in chorus with many conservatives, they still have Jonah – and Williamson, Cooke, and David French are just too darn good for me to spit that out. Even so, under Lowry’s Boehner-like leadership, the place has had a serious come-down from the days when William F. Buckley roamed the earth.

But there they are – Jonah ensconced in what’s left of the manor Buckley built, while Mark, like “Liberty Leading the People” (although with both breasts covered, one hopes), gives voice to the rabble outside.

Let me be clear about the distinction – Jonah is not claiming Trump won’t win, merely that he shouldn’t; and Mark, while acknowledging Trump’s persistent lead in the polls, is not endorsing him so much as saying, if several election victories by established Republicans make no difference, why not give the new guy a shot?

It’s a rare and significant schism between the two best in the business – with potentially serious implications for everyone reading this sentence – this sentence I am writing now – PERIOD.

(Theo Caldwell rises like Olympus above the Serengeti. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com.)

Hillary is running out of liar’s gas….

Team Hillary: Inspector General is part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, or something;

by Ed Morrissey  at HotAir:

“So much for Hillary Clinton’s “no classified information sent or received” excuse, eh? As noted yesterday, intelligence Inspector General Charles McCullough has informed Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that several dozen e-mails have been discovered in the former Secretary of State’s unauthorized private server that have classified information pertaining to “special access programs,” operations so secretive that their classification can only be assigned by certain Cabinet members or their chief deputies.

NBC News noted late last night that these do not include the two previously noted e-mails with Top Secret/Compartmented classified information. Also, the IG and his team actually had to have their clearances upgraded to see the affadavits from intel agents in the first place:…..”    Please plow further for more foul odor:


A tale of two biddies, by  Hillary and George Soros’ Media Matters:


Worry at the American Thinker about the Donald

WHO IS DONALD TRUMP?      by Steve McCann   at the American Thinker

Steve McCann and others pumping words out of the American Thinker are at sea about the Donald…..as I had been several months ago.

What they fail to understand, it seems….being folks who sell their own brand of politics….is that Donald Trump is neither a lawyer nor a practicing politician with weighty habits carried by lawyers and plotting  politicians.

Folks at political American Thinker, PowerLine, HotAir, and nearly everywhere else, who laser beam verbage and tone,  measuring how correct each noun and verb must align with politicians decades past  to measure well with their already fixed set of programmed standards established by  their own  political journalistic habits, becoming the enemies of free expression so essential in a working democracy.

And along comes the Donald….and older man among those running for national office, a successful man in business, one who exudes his love of  the American Dream the moment he talks about it.

The worried about our America of our Obamafied  day…..the thinking, working American male and  female recognize a real American when they hear one speak American as profoundly and  clearly as  Donald Trump speaks American.   They recognize when Mr. Trump speaks about his country and its terrible troubles of our day, it  comes from his heart……which  therefore accentuates his distance from the evil possessed within phony Americans, dishonest Americans  such as foreigner,   Barack Hussein Obama and his chief  feminist colleague, Hillary Roddham Clinton, both without heart for America, both who have so successfully abused our nation for the past decade for their own  political and financial aggrandizement .

Please read the following article from worried Steve McCann at the American Thinker:


Supreme Court to Review Obama’s Immigrant Ruling

Supreme Court to Review Suit Blocking Obama’s Executive Amnesty: What You Need to Know

“The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted certiorari in United States v. Texas, the case involving President Obama’s plan to implement the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” program (DAPA). This case, which deals with the scope of the president’s authority to suspend deportations of illegal aliens, could have major implications for standing doctrine and presidential powers under the Constitution.

Back in 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In announcing DACA, DHS explained that — pursuant to its “prosecutorial discretion” — it would only proceed with deportation against certain young people who have not legally immigrated to the United States if five criteria were met.

Furthermore, DHS set up an application process to allow individuals to apply for and obtain something like a declaratory judgment by DHS that they qualified for this “deferred action.”

In 2014 DHS created DAPA, which expanded the DACA program to cover adults with citizen children, or with children who qualify for DACA.

Now, this “lawful presence” granted by DACA/DAPA never guaranteed an enforceable right to remain in the United States. DACA/DAPA beneficiaries remain in violation of U.S. immigration law.

But under DACA/DAPA, DHS made a promise that it would not enforce the lawagainst these classes of people, amounting to 1.2 million qualifying persons under DACA and 4.3 million qualifying persons under DAPA. DHS is also granting them Employment Authorization Documents, or work permits, which these individuals would not otherwise be entitled to.”…….please read further to get to the point: