• 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

Can Mass Voter Fraud in 2016 Presidential Election in California be Proved?

CAN MASS VOTER FRAUD BE PROVED IN CALIFORNIA?

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Voter fraud is a Rorschach test of American politics. If you are a liberal, you fervently believe that it is virtually non-existent, and any effort to prevent it must be a pretext. If you are a conservative, you believe that voter fraud is a reality and are probably suspicious that it sometimes swings elections.

At Breitbart News, former California State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly points out that California’s record keeping in relation to the driver’s licenses it issues to illegal aliens may provide a simple opportunity to find out, once and for all, how serious a problem voter fraud is:

[T]he California DMV can internally differentiate within their database who holds an “illegal alien” AB60 license — which contradicts what is being pushed by left-wing activist websites that have reassured illegal aliens that once the driver’s license is entered in the database, the entry is indistinguishable.

In a state like California, where every regular driver’s license holder is automatically registered to vote, and where almost a million illegal aliens have received these “federally-restricted, drive only” licenses — it’s critically important that additional safeguards be in place to prevent non-citizens from being “accidentally” registered to vote.

When asked about how the DMV prevents this from happening, Gonzalez said “[t]he programming blocks AB 60 applicants from having the option to register to vote.”

How is the California voter assured that voter fraud is not happening, given that the only safeguards in place are a computer program and the honor system?

Donnelly suggests that Attorney General Jeff Sessions subpoena California’s AB 60 list and its voter list from the last election, and compare the two. Good idea! We join in that suggestion.

If it turns out that there is no, or almost no, overlap, it doesn’t mean that voter fraud doesn’t happen anywhere else. (In Minnesota, for example, quite a few specific instances have been documented where the identity of the person casting an illegal ballot is known.) But if voter fraud isn’t happening in California, with its huge population of illegal immigrants, it probably isn’t a very big problem in most other states, either.

So let’s compare California’s lists and settle the question.”

Democrats Back Speech Control on Campus…..”HELLO HITLER!”

Poll: Plurality of Democrats say campuses should not allow speakers whose words are thought “hateful” or “offensive” by some

by Allahpundit  at HotAir:

“Via WaPo, it’s worth noting that the question asked by Morning Consult here mentioned “universities,” not public universities specifically. The latter implicates the First Amendment, the former doesn’t (or rather, doesn’t always). But there’s value to the broader wording: What they’re testing is people’s moral commitment to tolerating “hate speech,” stripped of any legal niceties that might influence their opinion. Forget what the Constitution says for a minute. Should higher education let people speak on campus if what they say is regarded as hateful or offensive by some? Emphasis: Some.

Sure, says a narrow plurality of Democrats. And they’re one of the few demographics who do.

Among the dozens and dozens of subgroups for which Morning Consult has numbers, only four crack 40 percent support for barring speakers based. One is Democrats generally at 41/39 and two others are parts of the Democratic base — African-Americans, who split 42/31, and Democratic women, the single most supportive subgroup of hate-speech bans in this poll at 47/33. (The fourth group is homemakers, who split evenly at 40/40.) Women, in fact, are significantly more willing to ban speakers from campus than men are regardless of their political affiliation. Both among Democrats and Republicans and across the wider population, the gap between females and males is double digits……”  Please read on:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/04/poll-plurality-democrats-say-campuses-not-allow-speakers-whose-words-thought-hateful-offensive/