• 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

Freedom of Speech?

July 4th and Freedom of Speech

By Elise Cooper at American Thinker:

“Americans should reflect on why July Fourth is such a special holiday. Apart from the birth of the U.S. as an independent nation they should not forget why the Bill of Rights was ratified as part of the Constitution in 1792. There is a reason why the Founders placed Freedom of Speech as the First Amendment.

In including that amendment, they had the utmost confidence that Americans would have common sense. Today, they would probably be turning over in their graves considering the rhetoric coming out of the leftists, celebrities, politicians, and the press mouths. No one is arguing that these people do not have their First Amendment rights to make these horrific comments, but where is the common sense?

After the four Republicans were shot on June 14th, there were calls to tone down the rhetoric, but it was just talk. While introducing his latest film in London, actor Johnny Depp asked the crowd how long has it been since “”an actor assassinated a president,” playing off the Lincoln murder while referring to President Donald Trump. Dan Weber, who founded a conservative alternative to AARP, is horrified that a standing senator, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “I’ve read the Republican ‘health care’ bill. This is blood money. They’re paying for tax cuts with American lives.” He wondered “were there any consequences…? Absolutely not!”

Let’s not forget those who speak publicly, write critically, or satirize militant Islam. They are on the receiving end of violence, threats of violence, and/or lawsuits. Possibly because terrorists realize that freedom of speech is one of the greatest weapons to defeat them. Their response is to have those who challenge them fear for their lives. Recapping just a few instances: The firebombing of Charlie Hebdo‘s offices in Paris in 2011 after the magazine “invited” the Prophet Muhammad as its guest editor; Comedy Central, which airs “South Park,” censored a 2010 episode by excising a segment that originally had the Prophet Muhammad depicted in a bear costume and then turned him into Santa Claus; Theo van Gogh’s movie, Submission, was not aired in many venues; and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (or Muhammad cartoons crisis) began after 12 editorial cartoons that depicted Muhammad were self-censored from most Western publications, including Yale University Press. Van Gogh and the staff of Charlie Hebdo were, of course, later murdered by Muslim fanatics. The al-Qaeda hit list of eleven names with the heading “Wanted, Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam” is meant in dead earnest.

So why didn’t the Western governments defend these individual rights of freedom of speech? Was it political correctness? The hypocrisy is overwhelming. The explanation by the media is that they want to be “sensitive” and not be offensive. The New York Times explained in 2006 that it would not publish the Mohammad cartoons because of the symbols. Yet, one day later, they ran a picture of a painting that showed the Virgin Mary covered in elephant poop. Time magazine’s Bruce Crumley, the Paris Bureau Chief in 2011, wrote this about Charlie Hebdo, “Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies?” And the Washington Post article commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Orlando shooting said nothing of Islamic extremism.

Another battlefront for the war against freedom of speech is on the college campuses. Alan Dershowitz brilliantly said, “What they stand for is the oldest notion, ‘free speech for me, but not for thee.’ Certain groups do not deserve more free speech than others.” Unfortunately, those attending U.S. colleges today do not appear to understand the First Amendment. According to a Pew Poll taken in November 2015, 40 percent of millennials are “OK with limiting free speech that is offensive to minorities.” When asked if they believe in free speech, a majority of Millennials say they believe in it except in cases of “hate speech.”

Most colleges look the other way as protesting mobs shout down speakers, depriving them and those who want to listen of their First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech does not give these people the right to prevent a speaker from being heard. Take for example UC Berkeley, which refused to provide security for conservative speakers, thus limiting freedom of speech. Yet, Berkeley has welcomed prominent radical Islamists, speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry, because they fit within the accepted political framework.

Whether having a picnic or shooting off fireworks, Americans need to understand that one of its core values, freedom of speech, should never be suppressed. Yet, common sense needs to be considered when threatening someone else. After all, no one can yell fire in a public theater. The Founders would probably argue that when they wrote about freedom of speech they took into account the right to the First Amendment comes with some responsibility.”



SURPRISE! Democrats Refuse to Investigate VOTER FRAUD


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

“To its credit, the Trump administration is trying to get to the bottom of the voter fraud issue. President Trump has established an Election Integrity Commission headed by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. The commission has requested publicly available data on voter registrations from the states, and, despite the seemingly innocuous nature of the request, a number of states have refused to cooperate.

One of them is Minnesota. The Star Tribune reports:

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said Friday that he won’t fulfill a request from a presidential panel to ship voter registration information for some 4 million Minnesota voters to Washington.

Simon questioned both whether Minnesota law would allow him to provide the information to President Trump’s Election Integrity Commission and to what end it would be used.

Why would Minnesota law preclude responding to the federal commission’s request? If you keep reading, you find that it wouldn’t:

Minnesota law limits the purposes for which voter data can be purchased and used. The law specifically allows data to be provided for political purposes and law enforcement. If it were the Department of Justice requesting the information, Simon said, “we might be having a different discussion.”

So a political party can buy the Minnesota data, but Secretary of State Simon won’t give it to a federal commission. Simon admits that his objection isn’t really legal:

Simon doesn’t dispute the public nature of some of the data — just the purpose and the motives of the commission. “It sure doesn’t look to me like an objective investigation based on who’s running it and what they’ve already said,” Simon said.

Simon noted that Pence and Kobach have publicly supported Trump’s claims that millions of votes were illegally cast in the recent presidential election. The claims of massive voter fraud usually raise the specter of voting by dead people, felons and immigrants.

Not immigrants, but non-citizens. Simon’s final argument is even sillier:

Simon also said the commission is ignoring the real challenge to election integrity: the threat of cyberattacks by outside forces.

Democrats purport to be horrified by Russian “meddling” in our election that didn’t change a single vote, but they have no qualms about meddling by illegal voters, presumably because they think it helps them.

The Election Integrity Commission is trying to find out how much illegal voting goes on. The Democrats constantly tell us there is no, or virtually no, voter fraud. If that were the case, one would think that they would want to cooperate with the commission to prove their point. The fact that they don’t want the commission to be able to find out, for example, how many people are registered voters in multiple states, suggests that what they really want is for voter fraud to continue, because they know they benefit from it.”

(Certainly voter fraud doesn’t occur only among Democrats here in crooked Al Franken, Minnesota who became Senator by DFL vote recount.   How many illegal immigrants voted for Hillary last November….5,000,000 in California?   Only 3,454, 104 in sanctuary cities?  Minnesota isn’t the only state in the country   run by leftist functionaries).