• 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

Fascistic House Dems Fail in Their Impeachment Move Against the President


by Paul Mirengoff   at  PowerLine:

Yesterday, Rep. Al Green, a left-wing Democrat from Texas, filed articles of impeachmentagainst President Trump. He based his filing on Trump’s suggestion that four radical, America-bashing congresswomen leave the country.

Green’s filing stated:

Donald John Trump has, by his statements, brought the high office of the President of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace and disrepute, has sown discord among the people of the United States, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President, and has betrayed his trust as President of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, and has committed a high misdemeanor in office.

The idea that Trump’s suggestion to the four rads constitutes an impeachable offense is laughable. It’s not serious.

Don’t take my word for it. Take Nancy Pelosi’s. She said:

We have six committees who are working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the president may have engaged in,” Pelosi told reporters when asked about Green’s efforts. “That is the serious path that we are on. . . .”

Then, realizing the obvious implication of this statement, she added, “not that Mr. Green is not serious.”

Mr. Green may be serious. He’s certainly earnest. However, his argument for impeachment isn’t.

Nonetheless, 95 Democrats rejected an attempt to “table” Green’s effort — in other words to kill it. 137 Democrats voted with the Republican members in favor of tabling.

The 95 Dems who opposed the motion to table included some in House leadership. According to the Washington Post:

Rather than tabling the resolution, several Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee tried to persuade Pelosi and other leaders to refer the articles of impeachment to their panel. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a private supporter of impeachment, said that is how such matters are historically handled, but was rebuffed, according to congressional officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal talks.

Nadler and several of his committee members who are in Pelosi’s leadership circle voted against the motion to table.

Green has been offering impeachment articles since the first year of the Trump presidency. Each time, he has been thwarted by a motion to table.

But he’s gaining votes. In the past, his support hasn’t exceeded 66 Dems, according to the Post. This time, he nearly reached the century mark and obtained the backing of Nadler.

I’m not sure whether future impeachment attempts will command a majority of the House, but they might well soon command majority support among House Democrats.

“Furthermore”  by  Glenn:  Insanity seemed to skip the screw ball  minds of Nancy Pelosi Democrats today when in the House of Representatives, they awoke  long enough to vote in an honest American manner,  to put an end to their attempt to remove properly elected President, Donald J. Trump from the White House.    That extremist lefty from Texas,  Al Green, was the hate-Trump fanatic who led the attack.

The final count, not mentioned above, was 332-95 with one vote drifting zero.

The Fascist Left Already Owns Our American Communications System!!!

BIG Lie at Fox About Google NOT Censoring Conservative Speech…Needs to Call Dennis Prager!!?

Google VP Karan Bhatia: Google isn’t politically biased and doesn’t censor conservative speech

From the very beginning, Google has always been about one thing above all else: knowledge. Even as the company has grown and evolved, our mission has remained the same: to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

A core part of our mission is our work to provide access to high-quality information for everyone.

Over the last few years, though, there have been accusations that tech companies like Google are censoring conservative speech by injecting political bias into our products. As the head of Google’s government affairs team, I’ll be testifying on this topic before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday afternoon where I’ll be clear: Google’s products are not politically biased.


Indeed, we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account.

At Google, we aim to serve users everywhere. We want all people – regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or political leanings – to find our products useful. That requires, above all, that we earn and maintain their trust.

Our users overwhelmingly trust us to deliver the most helpful and reliable information out there. Distorting results for political purposes would be antithetical to our mission and contrary to our business interests.

In Google Search, our focus is to make the extensive and diverse range of information on the web accessible to people around the world.

Every day, our search engine handles billions of searches of hundreds of billions of webpages. To manage this volume, we rely on an algorithmic approach and implement rigorous user testing and evaluation before we make any changes to our algorithms.

These algorithms don’t detect political perspectives, much less use them in any way to determine how webpages are ranked. Objective third-party studies – including, most recently, a comprehensive year-long assessment of Google News results by The Economist – have found no evidence of ideological bias in either direction.

We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account.

While Google Search aims to index the web, our YouTube platform hosts content and strives to be a community where people can listen, share, connect and be successful. Here too we employ algorithms to help sort and recommend the millions of hours of video that users upload each day – again, political orientation does not factor into our ranking or recommendations.

We do have a responsibility to keep information that is detrimental to our users’ experience or to society off our platform. We post clear Community Guidelines that users must adhere to when posting content to YouTube, and we prohibit certain content from the platform, such as videos that incite violence on the basis of race or religion.

Such content, in my mind, is not conservative or liberal; it is not political speech; it is content that is dangerous to society and to our community of users. We see it as our right and our responsibility to remove it.

Operating at the scale we do, we’re bound to get criticism from both sides. And we do.

From time to time, for example, political advertising may violate our advertising guidelines – we’ve disallowed ads from both Democrats and Republicans.

From time to time, our Knowledge Panels in Search – which help you find quick facts when you search for information about topics like “Hillary Clinton” or “California Republican Party” – may reflect erroneous information from the web and need to be corrected.

We work hard to learn from our mistakes and constantly improve our products – but importantly, these mistakes have affected both parties and are not the product of bias.

We’re a company of more than 100,000 people increasingly stretched across 24 states in the U.S. and around the world, whose experiences reflect a broad range of backgrounds, religions and political affiliations.

Our employees’ diverse viewpoints are as broad as the 60 countries in which we operate, and we remain dedicated to creating the world’s best technology products that work equally well for everyone.

Ultimately, the growth of the Internet has fostered an unprecedented era of speech and the free flow of ideas.


I’m old enough to remember a time before the web, when our access to news was limited to a few TV channels and newspapers. Today, we have access to an astounding number of ideas, viewpoints and information.

I believe that the Internet and products like Search and YouTube have created opportunities for the expression of diverse political views and a more dynamic political discourse in America – for the benefit of everyone.