• 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

America’s “NATIONHOOD and the BORDER CRISES” Reviewed, at last, at CPAC


by  Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

I look forward to the CPAC conference every year because it brings John Hinderaker to town and we get together for dinner, along with his wonderful wife Loree. I don’t attend the conference and watch little of it on television. This year I saw only a portion of President Trump’s two-hour performance.

I was struck, though, when I heard about some of the panels. First, let’s nominate Alex Azar for team-player of the year. The Secretary of HHS appeared on a panel with Alex Acosta, the rightfully beleaguered Secretary of Labor. (Linda McMahon, the former wrestling mogul and now Administrator of the Small Business Administration, was also on the panel.)

I don’t know Azar at all, but I can’t imagine he was thrilled to appear with Acosta, the guy who cut that sweetheart deal with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and who recently was found by a district court judge to have violated federal law in the process.

Why did CPAC think it was good idea to have Acosta participate at its conference? I don’t know. I have never quite understood the wheels within the wheels of that operation.

Another discussion featured Sen. Josh Hawley and Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. They discussed the too-cozy relationship between the government and big tech. Two worthy participants and a worthwhile topic, for sure.

However, the Journal’s editorial page had recently smeared Hawley for daring to have questions about a judicial nominee’s position on abortion/substantive due process/the concept of “dignity” in constitutional adjudication. And shortly before the Senator’s appearance with Strassel, it had written a follow-up editorial attacking Hawley again.

I’m told there was no visible tension between Hawley and Strassel on stage. I wonder whether there might have been an awkward moment or two backstage, though.

The CPAC conference attendees were also treated to a speech by Van Jones. He’s the lefty conspiracy theorist the Obama administration had to get rid of for being too left-wing and too nasty. Now he’s a favorite of the Koch Brothers for working with their operation on leniency for drug felons legislation.

That was enough to land a featured role at CPAC.

I have nothing against “big tent” conservatism. But fawning over Van Jones is “big tent” without conservatism.

Nor is CPAC really about big tent conservatism. Recall that a few years ago, CPAC featured a panel touting the desirability of amnesty for illegal immigrants, another Koch Brothers pet project. There was no room for conservatives who oppose such amnesty. CPAC shut them out.

This particular outrage no longer occurs at CPAC. This year the immigration discussion was called “Nationhood and the Border Crisis.” It featured Sen. Ted Cruz and Rich Lowry.

But the change is due only to the fact that Donald Trump came along with a very different message on immigration than the one peddled at CPAC in the past. We may not have seen the last of stacked pro-amnesty panels at CPAC, or of the Koch Brothers’ ally Van Jones.





Nothing Like America’s Feminazi Dems Killing Babies in a Free Society!

No Survivors: The Party of Gosnell

by  Jennifer Hartline  at  the Stream          Article sent by Mark Waldeland.

When it suits them, Democrats love survivors, and delight in showcasing survivors. Survivors of abuse, sexual assault and harassment, oppression, racism, etc. When the survivor is the “right” person and the abuser/oppressor is the “right” villain, then Democrats are champions of the survivor. (Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford was celebrated for her courage and believed without question, but Dr. Vanessa Tyson, not so much.)

There’s one particular survivor, however, that is always despised and feared by today’s Democratic party: the baby who survives an abortion attempt.

When the Magical Birth Canal Isn’t

The argument has been that abortion is about a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. Her body is her own, so her choice is inviolate, so it goes.

But if the baby survives the abortion and is delivered alive? This presents an awkward situation. It means the abortionist failed to do the job he was paid to do. What a pickle. Now there’s a living victim instead of a dead one. What to do?

Word games must be employed. Suddenly, in this scenario, the baby magically and necessarily remains a fetusand the woman’s rights still supersede all considerations for the baby. (Alexandra DeSanctis does a stellar job exposing this vile trick.)

But a woman’s right to do what? The baby is not in her womb anymore, so her body isn’t involved. Her healthcare is not relevant anymore either, since the baby has been delivered. All that’s left is her desire to not have a living baby, and so we have officially opened the door to legalized infanticide on a whole new level.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

I say a whole new level because every abortion kills an infant. Every abortion kills a living child. Gestational age and stage of development are irrelevant to that fact. We’ve had legalized infanticide for over 40 years, but now one political party is moving to extend that infanticide beyond the borders of the womb, beyond the mother’s body altogether, or risk losing their sacred cow altogether.

After all, if it is declared criminal for the baby to die outside the womb, people might reconsider why it is not criminal for the baby to die five minutes (and a few inches) earlier inside the womb.

If the abortionist is required to give medical care to an infant born alive, how can he also be permitted to deliberately kill that same infant before birth? If the infant lying there is declared a human person entitled to medical care as a patient, how can we justify targeting that same infant for execution in the womb?

There Can Be No Survivors

Living victims reveal the depravity of abortion, so there must be no living victims. This is why all but three Democratic senators voted against the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (BAASPA), introduced by Senator Ben Sasse. The bill would require infants born alive after an abortion attempt to be given medical care and treated as a patient.

Every single Democrat currently campaigning for President voted to deny appropriate medical care to a living infant — not a fetus, an infant — who had the nerve not to die during the abortion as expected.

What smoke and mirrors do they utilize to obscure the savagery behind their votes? The familiar rallying cries of “abortion rights” and women’s healthcare, and their newest word-weapon, the fetus.


Republican politicians just tried (and failed) again to score political points at the expense of women. Enough. 
Women and their doctors should decide what’s best for their health – not the @SenateGOP.      
I voted NO on this bill. Every woman has a fundamental right to access comprehensive reproductive health care and I remain committed to fighting for that. https://apnews.com/90c189d3b11342f693f04e11129f0ee0 

Article from June, 2016 when Our Donald Was Still Campaigning for the Presidency


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:      June 28, 2016

You no doubt have heard about the ABC News/Washington Post poll that came out on Sunday. It showed Hillary Clinton pulling out to a 12-point lead over Donald Trump among registered voters, and therefore got a lot of play in the press. The poll is an outlier, and in any event, it is way too early to be losing sleep over presidential polls.

One thing is worth pointing out, however: even in this outlier poll, Trump holds a ten-point lead among white voters, 50%-40% (down from 57%-33% in May!). It is remarkable that even at his low ebb, Trump wins by a near landslide margin among white voters, a majority of the electorate. Not many years ago, that would have assured him of victory.

This is why Democrats are so anxious to “fundamentally transform” the United States through mass immigration from Third World countries. Only by building up the minority population do they have a chance to stay competitive. But that still wouldn’t be enough, even if the Democrats got most of the votes cast by minorities, if minorities voted in anything like a normal pattern. In order to win, the Democrats need to roll up ridiculous margins, like the 90%-8% lead that Clinton holds with blacks in the ABC/WaPo poll.

This is why the Democrats seek every opportunity to stir up racial conflict. They need to keep minority voters constantly riled up and fearful of a phantom “racism.” The Democrats’ strategy, founded on a cynical exploitation of identity politics, explains the sharp decline in race relations now taking place in the U.S. Racial conflict suits the Democrats. In fact, they need it to have a chance of remaining competitive. This is the sad truth that, more than anything else, has brought our contemporary politics to such a low level.