• 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

What Are These Dem Fascists Up To?

 AUGUST 7, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:

WHAT’S BEHIND THE DEMOCRATS’ IRS EXPANSION?

Nearly half of the Democrats’ Inflation Promotion Act is devoted to increasing the budget of the IRS. Think about that: when has more IRS ever been popular? Never. So what are the Democrats up to?

Monica Showalter writes:

The other half [of the Inflation Promotion Act], some $300 billion, will be dedicated to IRS enforcement, surveillance upgrades, and audits against small businesses, who have now been re-labeled “the rich.”

$300 billion to the IRS? Seriously?

Sinema got her demand to not close the carried interest tax loophole which is what her hedge fund donors wanted. Democrats replaced that with a provision to tax businesses even more.

This is ironic. Democrats say the IRS will go after “the rich,” but the one provision in the Inflation Promotion Act that actually would have been bad for the rich–repeal of the carried interest treatment of income earned by hedge fund managers–is now out of the bill. A friend of mine who made a lot of money as a hedge fund manager describes the carried interest concept as “completely unjustifiable.” Yet Chuck Schumer has protected it against reform for many years, on behalf of Democratic Party donors.

Now, finally, the Democrats ostensibly were ready to turn on their hedge fund backers–Wall Street is not entirely a Democratic enclave, but almost–and what happens? Kristen Sinema rides in to save the day not only for her own hedge fund supporters, but for Schumer’s as well. Coincidence?

That was a digression. More on the IRS:

The [Washington] Post reports the IRS expects a much lower return on all those “rich” people they claim they are going to audit with those 87,000 new agents, which is an eightfold increase in their budget….

Wait! 87,000 new IRS agents? Can this possibly be right? And an eightfold increase in the IRS enforcement budget? What do you suppose the IRS will do with that massive influx of money and manpower?

Showalter and others think the Democrats’ IRS will attack small businesses in a major way. That probably is true. But, as the president of a conservative policy organization, I have another concern. We all remember how Barack Obama’s IRS went after Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations before and after the 2010 midterm wipeout. Mostly, they slow-walked the 501(c)(3) approval process. But imagine an IRS hostile to conservative principles, and emboldened by an eight-fold budget increase and 87,000 new agents. What would the IRS do in the liberals’ wildest dreams?

I think the liberals who run the IRS would sic their agents on every conservative nonprofit in the country. They would audit such organizations, looking for evidence that they somehow had violated the extremely vague regulations governing political activity. Such audits would require even squeaky-clean organizations like my own to hire lawyers to defend them. Government lawyers work for free–that is, courtesy of the taxpayers–while private lawyers have to be paid. Thus, a concerted attack by the IRS could largely disable conservative nonprofits, whose revenue would be dissipated by paying for lawyers, and whose energies would be dissipated in dealing with IRS attacks.

Call me paranoid, but I think this lies behind the Democrats’ sudden desire to drastically upsize the IRS.

Uncle Sam SHOULD RETURN TO JUSTICE WITH DONALD TRUMP

A Bureaucratic Swamp Shakedown Is Trump’s Strongest Case For A Second Term

BY: EDDIE SCARRY at the Federalist:

AUGUST 05, 2022

Donald Trump

A second Trump term would be bad for the permanent bureaucracy (Democrats) but very good for American democracy.

Author Eddie Scarry profile

EDDIE SCARRY

I’m sure it wasn’t his intent to make a pretty convincing case in favor of a second term for President Trump, but that’s more or less what New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall just did.

Obviously, no one knows if Trump really plans on a third campaign, but he undoubtedly sees the same wide opening for him that everyone in the national media can see (otherwise they wouldn’t still be talking about him). And that opening exists not just because Joe Biden and the Democrat-led Congress have turned this country into slums and made everything ghetto, but also because Trump has used his time out of office wisely, creating a political infrastructure that, if elected, would allow him to efficiently implement personnel and policy to revolutionize the federal bureaucracy that was so successful in crushing and stalling vast portions of his 2016 agenda.

“The architects of one of the most radical of Trump’s proposals have described it as ‘the constitutional option,’” wrote Edsall. “It would provide for the wholesale politicization of the elite levels of the Civil Service through the creation of a new ‘Schedule F’ classification, allowing the president to hire and fire at will thousands of government employees ‘in positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating character.’”

Sounds good to me. Though Edsall is woefully naive (or dishonest) in asserting that such reforms would result in a “wholesale politicization” of government workers, as if they currently start each day reciting the American pledge and make every decision based on their deep well of Constitutional knowledge.

The “civil servants” who make up the various executive agencies — Transportation, Education, Homeland Security, Justice, etc. — are no different than the people you come into contact with at the DMV or Employment Office. The same is true for federal contractors. They’re lazy, obdurate, unhelpful, and — worst of all, as we saw from 2017 to 2021 — hostile to meaningful change.

And the fact that staffing those agencies and awarding government contracts comes with all kinds of affirmative action requirements and that the main pool of candidates is all Washington, D.C.-area residents (Democrat voters) compounds the problem by a thousand.

To top it off, firing any one of them for incompetence or insubordination is next to impossible. That Trump would do God’s work in dismantling the entire rancid bureaucracy to replace it with something responsive and productive (imagine!) is not an idea that’s going to scare voters. This is why Edsall consulted some Harvard professor to hysterically claim that the aim of Trump’s change is “exerting domination and using the government apparatus to reward loyalists and punish perceived opponents.”

Or maybe the point is to prevent unelected government workers from derailing the president’s policy agenda, as they did — they admitted it — time and time again during his tenure.

If the president, whoever it is, wins office on certain promises, it shouldn’t inspire a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington to see it as their mission to bog down the fulfillment of that agenda because they personally oppose it. That’s the system we have right now, and it’s been proven corrupt.

It would certainly be radical for Trump to win a second term and successfully implement all or even just part of his plan. That’s bad for the permanent bureaucracy (Democrats) but very good for American democracy.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.”