• 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

Liberalism, Atheism, Feminism, Fascism worship the gods they invent!

Liberalism as Religion

The Culture War Is Between Religious Believers on Both Sides

by Howard P. Kainz        (Article sent by Mark Waldeland!)

Many Christians view the “culture war” as a clash between religious believers and secularist “liberals.” But there are liberals . . . and there are liberals. Most of the heat of battle occurs where traditional religious believers clash with certain liberals who are religiously committed to secular liberalism.

This explains why talking about abortion or same-sex “marriage,” for example, with certain liberals is usually futile. It is like trying to persuade a committed Muslim to accept Christ. Because his religion forbids it, he can only do so by converting from Islam to Christianity; he cannot accept Christ as long as he remains firmly committed to Islam. So it is with firmly committed liberals: Their “religion” forbids any concessions to the “conservative” agenda, and as long as they remain committed to their secular ideology, it is futile to hope for such concessions from them.

But can a secular ideology fairly be classified as a religion?

[ . . . ]

. . . It is important that discussions between liberals and conservatives take place, but these are usually only possible with moderate liberals. A conservative can bring up a religiously charged topic with a moderate liberal, with the result that reasonable, multi-sided representations of the topic will be aired in the public square.

But with a religiously committed liberal, calm intellectual debates are rarely possible. For example, the elegant arguments against abortion presented by Hadley Arkes in his 2002 book, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, will invite thoughtful responses from moderate liberals, but religiously committed liberals will dismiss the arguments unread, considering them on par with the doctrines contained in the tracts handed out by Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormon missionaries. In other words, their motivation is a faith-commitment, the abjuring of which will necessarily result in personal guilt, infidelity to their spiritual community, and possible ostracism if they prove to be embarrassments to liberal believers.

There are no professional cult-breakers to rescue victims from this recent and already widespread religious movement. It is ironic that those who most strongly denounce fundamentalism should prove to be such fundamentalists themselves. While they may constitute a minority of all contemporary liberals, theirs may be the dominant liberal voice in the public square. Therefore, for the advancement of family and pro-life values, and rational sexual norms, it is important for Christians to be able to distinguish the moderate liberal from his religiously committed counterpart. Among the former, allies may be found; among the latter, only firm opponents. •

The Dem’s Red Era of Fascistic Socialism Has Arrived as Feminism..

Socialism or Communism: Call It What You Will

by Jeffrey Folks  at  American Thinker:


For decades, Bernie Sanders has proclaimed that he is a socialist, but is he a communist?

A common definition of communism is a system in which all means of production are owned, and all workers employed, by the state.  A familiar definition of socialism is a system in which all means of production are owned or regulated by the state and all workers, therefore, employed or regulated by the state.  Except for the qualification of “owned or regulated,” there is no difference between socialism and communism.  Some might view socialism as “communism lite,” but there is nothing “lite” about the government takeover of all major industries that Bernie and other leading Democrats advocate.

The Left has already socialized America’s educational system, with SAT scores declining since their peak in 1964 and declining markedly since 2006.  From what was traditionally local schools governed by local school boards, the American system of education became increasingly regulated by the federal government beginning in the 1960s as stipulations on curricula, standards, and treatment of race and sex were attached to the explosive rise in federal funding of education.  By shifting funding away from state and local sources, the federal government was able to gain control of nearly every aspect of public education.

At the center of the socialist movement is the demand for health care “as a right” with Medicare for All as the solution.  Medicare for All is a disarmingly neutral phrase, but it masks a plan for the elimination, and outlawing, of private health insurance.  This would mean government control of the entire process of treatment, including office visits, hospitalization, emergency care, and drug delivery.  With Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare already “serving” 116.5 million patients, this process is well underway, but a complete takeover would transform expectations about standards and timeliness of care.  Imagine calling HHS to schedule a heart bypass operation and finding yourself on an endless menu runaround.  That’s the reality of Medicare for All.

The financial crisis of 2008 made possible a vast expansion in federal control of the financial sector, along with the automotive and housing sectors.  Financial firms were forced to accept “bailouts” to which stringent conditions were attached.  Many of those conditions are still in place, and radicals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocate the renewal of affordable housing policies such as loan quotas for low-income and illegal alien borrowers — the same behavior that caused the financial crisis to begin with.

Another major sector of the economy ripe for picking, as socialists see it, is energy.  The Green New Deal has nothing to do with saving the Earth and everything to do with government takeover of the energy sector.  Obama attempted this takeover via EPA, Fish and Wildlife, Interior, and other agency regulation that shut down leasing of mineral rights on federal lands and on vast areas of private lands.  Now radical Democrats want a more direct takeover of the energy sector by mandating the elimination of fossil fuels by 2030.  Under this plan, government would be empowered to dictate exactly what sources of energy every American would be permitted to employ, and in what amounts.  Supporters have not considered the fact that the Green New Deal would eliminate most sources of electricity, along with nearly all cars, trucks, trains, and planes now in operation.  Apparently, they’re smitten with the idea of a bicycle utopia straight out of Amsterdam.  Most Americans will find it difficult to cycle to work.

It’s not surprising that flashy politicians like Ocasio-Cortez, or seemingly attractive ones like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, can attract Millennial voters.  “Free everything” and a sympathetic view of those struggling in the economy go a long way toward earning votes.  Those were the same enticements employed by communists and fascists in the past.  Hugo Chávez began as a populist who promised a better life for the masses.  Today there is little food in Venezuela for those masses.

With the election of Democrats across the board in 2020, America would become a fully socialist country, not at all different from all socialist and communist countries of the past or present.  Socialism means not just control of the economy; it means the annulment of all our freedoms.  This includes revocation of the Second Amendment; universal government-funded abortion; elimination of religion from the public sphere; expansion of “hate speech” laws and other forms of censorship; use of the IRS, the FBI, and other agencies to suppress political opposition; expansion of the EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and other environmental agencies to control land use and restrict property rights; confiscation of wealth via taxation at 70% and more; and other assaults on the freedoms we enjoy.

Is there any substantive difference between this scenario and communism as it existed in the Soviet Union, communist Cuba, and “socialist” Venezuela?

This being the case, why not label Bernie’s socialism for what it is?  What Democrats have in mind in 2020 — all of them, from Bernie to Beto, with Kamala, Cory, and Biden in between — is closer to Maduro’s Venezuela than it is to the democratic capitalism that Americans have enjoyed in the past.  It is not a benign form of government “helping,” as leftists like to portray it — “you didn’t build that, government built it for you,” so why do you oppose even more government “help”?  What Norbert Michel and others have called “smiley-faced socialism” is not smiley when an armed federal agent comes to your door, demanding a handover of your assets or your land, or the re-education of your children.  The difference between socialism and communism is actually just a matter of semantics.

Smiley-faced socialism is just as oppressive as communism, and it inevitably becomes less smiley-faced.  Like Bernie and the rest in 2020, Obama promised free health care with total choice.  What he delivered was little choice, high cost, and “mandates” forcing everyone to purchase health insurance.  Under communism, there are far more mandates, but they are not at all different from what Obama delivered with the Affordable Care Act.  Orders are issued, and they are followed, and they are enforced by armed federal agents.

If the American people choose a Democrat for president and a Democrat Congress in 2020, we will become a socialist nation.  Perhaps the American people are tired of making the effort required by capitalism.  Perhaps they are tired of arguing with the Left over issues such as health care and “free” education.  Perhaps they want to just give in and let the socialists have their way.  If they do so, it will enslave our nation for the next hundred years.

The truth is that socialism does not deliver equality but only poverty and oppression.  “Democratic” socialism soon becomes less than democratic, and its economy offers only rationing for the poor and special privileges for the political class.  “Medicare for All” would deliver not “Medicare” as we know it, but a degraded version of Medicare — and all would have to accept it, including seniors who had previously benefited from at least some access to health care.

What Democrats have in mind in 2020 is not smiley-faced socialism; it is hardcore collectivism enforced by armed government agents.  Twenty twenty will be a critical election because it will reveal the direction Americans really want to take.

I do not want to live in a socialist or communist nation, but I do not intend to leave.  I only hope Trump will be re-elected and that he will continue to defend our liberties and our free-market system.  Otherwise, the future will be difficult for all of us.

s and our free-market system.  Otherwise, the future will be difficult for all of us.