• 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

Arrogant Jewish Bret Stephens Professes Against Second Amendment

“I was taught by my well educated, old maid public school teachers throughout the 1940s to seek learnedness, that is, to listen to all phases of arguments in order to discover Truth.  Learning knowledge, I was told, would make me closer to GOD!

Truth was important in those days.  The 1940s were the war years.

Everyone living on our modest prewar built block was God-worshiping then.  All of the sixteen houses had persons connected to children.   No one was divorced.  Every house had a father.

Two households were Jewish.   These two households were different as neighbors.

Each year the neighborhood was invited to celebrate Spring and Early Autumn with a grand picnic of the households.  Everyone would bring food and drink, and gathered in an empty lot connected to our Victory Garden during the War.     I was the  boy  who twice a year personally delivered  written invitations to every household.  Although always welcomed and invited, the two Jewish families chose never to join us.

Our Jewish population significantly increased in my grade school years and  at the high school where I attended.  Academically, despite their clannish separation from friendships during grade school,  by seventh and eighth grades Jewish kids became more like ‘us’ kids of the same age.   Jewish girls, however,  would usually  refrain from talking to me and other Gentile boys, but not the boys.

I attended a high school with a larger percentage of Jewish students and benefited from it culturally with the exception of one very, very important human  arena of life.   Jewish kids and their parents, who were even then lawyers and business owners, knew NOTHING ABOUT THE OUTDOORS.

Nearly all of the mothers who attended our neighborhood picnics gardened feverishly.   From  age 8 to the end of the War, I was in my glory.    I was in charge of tilling, weeding, harvesting, and insect controlling the vegetables of our half lot wartime Victory Garden, a nation-wide urban effort to grow and share vegetables around the neighborhood.    Our Jewish neighbors never participated in any way.

After teaching high school Social Studies and Russian for twelve years, I wound up working outdoors for a living by developing  artistic  styles of landscape gardening, a business I been  blessed by serving many Jewish families who had a feel for beautiful settings…..despite their inability, actually a disdain to do work out doors especially in public.   They seemed to hate the labor as well as the product.  It was foreign territory.

Many a time  these clients, some also becoming   good friends,  would stand over me while I, lying  on the ground would be stretching,  artistically pruning a conifer to fit the setting and remark,  “You can’t make any money doing that for a living, Glenn!”

I’d guess about 99% of our nation’s Jewish CITIZENS are allergic to their outdoors, especially if they are narrow-minded  jerk  Democrats as arrogant as New York Times Leftist transfer from the Wall Street Journal, writer Bret Stephens is.

He wants to kill the American Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Repeal the Second Amendment

by Bret Stephens of the leftist New York Times:

“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.

Then there are the endless liberal errors of fact. There is no “gun-show loophole” per se; it’s a private-sale loophole, in other words the right to sell your own stuff. The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not true that 40 percent of gun owners buy without a background check; the real number is closer to one-fifth.

The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.

Nor will it do to follow the “Australian model” of a gun buyback program, which has shown poor results in the United States and makes little sense in a country awash with hundreds of millions of weapons. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. Background checks for private gun sales are another fine idea, though its effects on homicides will be negligible: guns recovered by police are rarely in the hands of their legal owners, a 2016 study found.

In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.”

(Further comment regarding Bretprint above….Indoor bigots like Bret Stephens and his mouthful leftist feminist counter parts, do hate outdoor people.  They know nature, a world Brets know nothing about, that  some people  still kill cows and pigs for the food Bret leftists eat.

Bret Stephens people work inside glass and mortar whose walls and floors they don’t clean or repair.  Instead they daintily  toast   pleasures and politics far removed from the realities and demands of the outdoors whether hunting,  gardening or landscaping.

I am NOT a hunter. One of my son’s is and is an avid  fisherman as well.  There is a skill to hunting and other   efforts for retain personal  self reliance.      The indoor, inbred Brets at the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.,  might soon dictate that whatever they deem is  obnoxious and/or threatening  to their afternoon drinks while posting their fake news must disappear from the public Soviet style.

We peons must keep our weapons to defend if attacked….ghr)