• 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

Racism a Democrat Disease?

Racism curling in on itself: 32% of Democrats think it’s racist to disagree with anyone who’s black

by Monica Showalter  at American Thinker:


The Washington Times’ Cheryl Chumley found a poll that tells us a lot about why Democrats, the historic party of racism, think the way they do (non-subscription version here):

In what has to be one of the most interesting polls of the day, Rasmussen Reports finds that “one-in-three Democrats think it’s racism any time a white politician criticizes a politician of color.”

Think what that means.

White politicians can’t say a word against black politicians, Hispanic politicians, Asian politicians — any politician with a skin color that deviates from white — without being accused of racism, according to about a third of Democrats.

Without being guilty of being racist, that is.

That’s just crazy. That’s just speech-stifling, freedom-chilling crazy.

It’s also, as Chumley herself notes later in the piece, actually pretty racist.

See, black people are different from white people in that they’re supposedly these fragile flowers.  They can’t take political give-and-take the way whites can; any disagreement with one of them is evidence of racism in a way it wouldn’t be if the speaker were white.  Same with Hispanics and Asians.

So any disagreement with, say, Maxine Waters, when she spouts something stupid, is the same as putting on the white hooded bed sheet.  Waters, of course, is black, and therefore not only can’t be disagreed with, but she evidently can’t say anything stupid, either.

This is a rather patronizing view of black people or anyone of another race.  It presupposes that such people can’t think.  It presupposes that such people are so delicate that disagreeing with them would be like disagreeing with a two-year-old. Even in Waters’s case, the rest of us know that’s not true.  Waters “thinks” all right — she just thinks wrong.

It also explains why Democrats get so irrational when someone such as, say, Sen. Ted Cruz, or Sen. Marco Rubio, shows up.  In Cruz’s case, the confusion is so intense that they have to manufacture a Latino opponent out of some white guy to return their world to their axis.  And it certainly would explain their irrational reactions to the distinguished black physician and now Cabinet official Dr. Ben Carson, and the much honored black former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, both of whom, by the way, came from classically underprivileged backgrounds and rose to the top of their fields.  Democrats react to these people like a wet plug in an electric socket.

It’s a third of them, according to the poll, and they really think this.  If they don’t think it, they’re telling it to the pollster, out of a belief that this is the correct view to have.

And there’s plenty of evidence that these patronizing and dehumanizing views exist.  Remember this charming statement of intolerance from “squad” leftist Rep. Ayanna Pressley?

“We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice,” she said. “If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.”

It illustrates the mentality perfectly.  If you aren’t a black person of a certain black voice, well, then, you aren’t black, and you need to be eliminated.

It’s actually not only racism curling in on itself as Democrats slide further into irrationality and virtue-signaling.  It’s inhuman.



How Cold Was Duluth, MN 12,000 Years Ago?


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Francis Menton sticks it to the global warming lobby, good and hard:

If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive….

On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:

* What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!

* What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!

* Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!

* You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union.

This is not science, obviously. There is much more at the link, but I will close with this:

Since about 2007, there has been a notable counter-theory to the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. The counter-theory is that fluctuations in world temperatures over the past several decades have been caused more by fluctuations in the cloud cover of the earth than by increases in greenhouse gases like CO2. This counter-theory is often called the “Svensmark hypothesis,” after Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who proposed it.
I have no position on whether this hypothesis is “right.” However, prior to the collection of data, it is a plausible hypothesis — equally as plausible as the hypothesis that increasing temperatures are mainly caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. Accepting the human-caused warming hypothesis as proved requires rejecting the alternative Svensmark hypothesis (as well as all other plausible null hypotheses; but let’s stick with Svensmark for now).

Which brings us to the Povrovsky and Kauppinen, et al., papers. Povrovsky did something that somebody should have long since done by now, which is to collect month-by-month satellite cloud-cover data for the earth for the period 1983-2009, and plot it on a graph, and then compare that graph to the month-by-month temperature graphs. What is the correlation of the two?

It turns out to be exceptionally close:

This is from the article by Povlovsky and Kauppinen:

The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C. We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature.

The debate over global temperature trends rages on numerous levels, and the alarmists are getting the worst of it pretty much everywhere. Actual science is winning over “climate science.”


The Fake Science of Global Warming

Comment:  Ignorance…..that is, the lack of truthful knowledge, is a serious disease in America these days.   Feminists of all sexes, shapes, and sizes rule the schools.  “Feelings” replace the classical male drive to solve problems.

The best human solving of problems, after all, arises from seeking knowledge to discover Truth better.

The female of the human animal used to produce and care for human offspring.   The human male animal used to build, provide shelter, substance, and protection.   He was born to be curious…..to invent…..to wonder.

Today’s America including our Minnesota, has to survive Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Adam Schiff, Jerold Nadler, the SQUAD,  and countless other today’s  fascistic Democrats who have NO TIME OR INTEREST TO SEEK, DISCOVER, OR EMPLOY TRUTH.


I was taught to be a traditional Godfearing  male American primarily by Church, country, and  old maid public school teachers between 1939 and  1952.    We were taught to seek knowledge and Truth then.

Today’s America is becoming  programmed by fascistics,   countless professors, Democrats, and allies at universities and the press to believe white man has caused much sin, especially Global Warming through his politics and inventions.   More and more people are killed annually  by our weather warmed by too many Western white male inventions.

Fascists have never had any  interest in knowledge and Truth.

Our Earth has endured Global Warming in its past…..If it weren’t for Global Warming,  Minnesota would’t exist!

Mark Twain visited Duluth, Minnesota once…..and remarked later in life:  “THE COLDEST WINTER I EVER SPENT WAS SUMMER IN DULUTH!”  But that wasn’t twelve thousand years ago….

What was  Duluth, Minnesota’s  vegetative environment environment  twelve thousand years ago?   Feminazis don’t care about Truth.   They care about feelings!  They won’t look it up…..WILL YOU?