• 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

Herschel Walker Enters Politics Well!

OCTOBER 15, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


Herschel Walker squared off against smooth-talking incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock in their one and only debate preceding the election for Georgia’s Senate seat last night. FOX 5 Atlanta has posted video of the whole thing here. RedState’s Mr. Bonchie includes several highlights in the video clips accompanying his account/assessment of the debate here.

Caroline Downey’s straight news story for NRO includes a quote I can’t find in any clip. “Walker confirmed that he does not believe the 2020 election was stolen from former president Donald Trump. ‘President Biden won, and Senator Warnock won, which is why I decided to run,’ he said.”

The Washington Free Beacon’s Chuck Ross declared this moment a “Heisman worthy pivot.”


Alana Goodman also covered the debate in a straight news story for the Washington Free Beacon. This Free Beacon story by Andrew Kerr — ignored completely by the MSM — made its way into the the debate. Goodman reports it this way:

The debate moderators also pressed Warnock over a bombshell Washington Free Beacon report, which found that a low-income housing building owned by the Ebenezer Baptist Church—where Warnock still serves as CEO and senior pastor—has attempted to evict numerous residents for late rent payments.

Warnock denied the report, and said the story was an attempt to “sully the name of Martin Luther King Jr.’s church and John Lewis’s church” by a “desperate candidate.”

“We spend every day every week feeding the hungry, and the homeless. They know that those false charges that they created are not true,” said Warnock.

The Free Beacon report was based on a dozen eviction lawsuits that Warnock’s church-owned apartment building publicly filed against residents since the start of the pandemic—including against one tenant who owed just $29 in back rent. The state of Georgia has launched an investigation into the church based on the Free Beacon report.

“Just to clarify, your position is that the allegations in these lawsuits aren’t true?” asked the moderator.

“I am saying it’s very obvious that my opponent and his allies are busy trying to sully Ebenezer Baptist Church,” claimed Warnock.

In other words, Warnock prevailed in the non-answer and evasion department.


Free Beacon reporter Andrew Kerr followed up on Twitter.


I say Warnock prevailed in the non-answer department. This was a good one too. The non-answers above and below weren’t the only ones. However, they take the cake.


I’m omitting the give-and-take on abortion and the related stories published by the Daily Beast. Walked denied the stories and seemed to me to hold up his end of the debate on the substantive issue. Indeed, Walker at the least held his own and the whole thing contributed to the comedy of American politics. Would that the stakes weren’t so high.

UPDATE: The Washington Examiner’s Barnini Chakraborty comments in “Five takeaways from the Georgia Senate debate.”

Champion Corrupt Hillary’s et alia!

Durham’s FBI Indictment

His prosecutions put the bureau on trial for partisanship and incompetence.

By Kimberley A. Strassel at WSJ OPINION

Oct. 13, 2022

WSJ Opinion: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Trump, Russia’ Disinformation Plant
Review & Outlook: Appearing as a witness in John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, Robby Mook, says she personally approved a plan to give a false ‘Trump, Russia’ claim to the news media (05/23/22). Images: Reuters Composite: Mark Kelly

Listen to article

Length(6 minutes)

Special counsel John Durham stepped into a federal courtroom this week, officially to try Igor Danchenko for lying to the FBI as part of the 2016 Russia-collusion scam. Unofficially, Mr. Durham is putting the Federal Bureau of Investigation itself on trial for incompetence and political chicanery.


Join Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot and Columnists Kimberley Strassel and Karl Rove live from Dallas as they discuss how inflation, Donald Trump and the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling will affect the midterms. What’s at stake in the House and Senate? Will the red wave hit as many predict? The panel will break down what the election will mean for the economy, President Biden’s legislative agenda, and the run up to the 2024 presidential race.

WSJ members are invited to attend this exclusive member event live in Dallas, TX, or via livestream online on Monday, October 17 at 7:00 PM CT / 8:00 PM ET. Purchase tickets to the live event in Dallas or to register for the virtual livestream.See more…

That’s the now unmistakable mission of the Durham prosecutions. The special counsel is using tried-and-true “lying to the feds” charges to unravel for the public the hoax—which on its face requires painting the FBI as dupes. Yet every filing and witness question is instead building Mr. Durham’s case of rank FBI malfeasance.

Mr. Danchenko pleaded not guilty. His trial—and prior to it Mr. Durham’s unsuccessful prosecution of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann—has by now yielded a scandalous portrait of an FBI willing to take nearly any step—and cut any corner—to harm Donald Trump:

The FBI commenced its ugly path on July 31, 2016, when it opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia—based on uninformed hearsay from a low-level aide named George Papadopoulos. It also began receiving reports from British former spy Christopher Steele—a “dossier” containing allegations so surreal as to defy logic.

The FBI rushed to meet with Mr. Steele in early October 2016. It had undertaken no due diligence on its source and had been unable to verify a single dossier claim (and never would). At that meeting it nonetheless took the astonishing step of offering Mr. Steele “up to $1 million” in taxpayer dollars to legitimize his own information. (Usually, the FBI pays another party to verify a source report.)

Mr. Steele was still unable to verify anything; he initially even refused to tell the FBI the names of his sources. FBI Supervisory Analyst Brian Auten admitted to the court this week that while the bureau had zero confirmation of any dossier details, it made the document’s claims central to an Oct. 21, 2016, application for a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump campaign official Carter Page.

It did so despite knowing that Mr. Steele was in the employ of opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, itself paid by the Clinton campaign—a fact so damning the FBI cloaked it in a convoluted footnote to its application. It proceeded despite suspecting (and later confirming) that Mr. Steele was blabbing to the press on behalf of the Clinton campaign—breaking FBI source rules. Early drafts of the Page application blamed a press leak on Mr. Steele, but the FBI ultimately stripped out that crucial info—even as it vouched that Mr. Steele was “reliable.” The FBI also omitted exculpatory evidence, including that Mr. Page worked as a contact for another U.S. intelligence agency for years. The Justice Department inspector general ultimately documented 17 significant omissions and inaccuracies in the application, most of which happened to work in the FBI’s favor.

The FBI didn’t bother to interview Mr. Steele’s primary source, Mr. Danchenko, until January 2017. Never mind that the bureau had itself opened a counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Danchenko in 2009 on concerns he was a national security threat (it was closed in 2011 when the FBI believed he’d left the country). Mr. Danchenko further undermined the dossier starting in January 2017. He said Mr. Steele had misstated or exaggerated many of his statements, that he had no proof of the claims, and that it was “hearsay,” the kind of conversation he “had with friends over beers,” according to the inspector general’s report.

The FBI kept quiet that its source had debunked his own work product—and instead used dossier info to renew the Page surveillance warrant three more times. It rewarded Mr. Danchenko in March 2017 by putting him on the payroll as a confidential human source, where he stayed until October of 2020.

While Mr. Durham presents evidence Mr. Danchenko lied to FBI handlers, there is as much evidence the FBI closed its eyes to glaring problems in his story. One example: According to a prosecution filing, Mr. Danchenko told the FBI that businessman Sergei Millian called him in late July 2016 to confirm a sensational claim about Mr. Trump and prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. Yet Mr. Danchenko reported this confirmation to Mr. Steele in June 2016—a month before the supposed call. Mr. Durham says he will present evidence that there never was such a call. Mr. Auten admitted this week that the FBI never checked Mr. Danchenko’s claims by reviewing call logs or travel records.

Even as its dossier went up in flames in early 2017, former FBI Director James Comey schemed for the media to publish the document. The FBI used what it knew was an evidence-free fog of collusion as an excuse to entrap national security adviser Michael Flynn. It sat mute as collusion claims pressured Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself and as Mr. Comey arranged for Robert Mueller to run a 22-month probe into bogus accusations—a probe that in retrospect looks to have been launched to whitewash the FBI’s actions.

Partisanship and incompetence aren’t crimes, so the FBI isn’t in the dock. But Mr. Durham is making the case for the public—and it’s as ugly as they come.

Write to kim@wsj.com.



How to defeat the education establishment

By Angelo M. Codevilla at the Washington Examiner:

October 14, 2022

The following is an adapted excerpt from the contribution by the late Angelo M. Codevilla to  Against the Great Reset: Eighteen Theses Contra the New World Order , which will be released by Bombardier Books on Oct. 18. The book is a collection of original essays from eminent thinkers, writers, and journalists to provide the first major salvo in the intellectual resistance to the sweeping restructuring of the Western world by globalist elites.

Big and powerful as it is, the edu-class has never been so vulnerable. Never before have so many people been so open, or even eager, to doing without its services. Whatever reservoir of faith and heartfelt support America’s established schools and universities formerly enjoyed is gone. The edu-class’s continuing massive presence depends more on legacy sources of money — mostly government — than anything else. This is the edu-class’s life support. In fact, it has no other resource.

The political task for those of us whose interest lies in rebuilding an educational system that sustains our civilization is to cut off that life support, allowing the edu-class and its offerings compete on the merits of what they deliver. Even more complex and demanding, it must now provide and promote education that actually fortifies and replenishes our civilization. Cutting the edu-class’s financial life support will take neither more nor less than spreading the truth about what it does and does not do and why, given its officials’ hearts and minds, reasonable persons cannot expect it to improve upon what it already delivers.


Elections for school boards are the best ways of rearranging the attitudes of those in control of school financing at the K–12 level. America suffers from excessive concentration of educational power in too few school boards. Campaigning to split present boards into many such entities, each more closely controlled by parents, must go hand in glove with arguments for what should and should not be taught. Tying what government does to willingness to support it with taxes has helped define our civilization since the Magna Carta.

Governments will tax for, and compel, education. Legislating parents’ right to direct to which schools — public, private, or home — both tax revenue and pupils go is essential, not only for disciplining public school boards, but for ensuring genuine diversity, providing the relevant communities with knowledge about what kinds of teaching has which results.

With higher education being further removed from democratic control, political methods for remedying it are necessarily indirect, with one exception: undoing the massive student loan programs that have swollen and deformed colleges while shrinking the middle class and creating a generation of graduates both indebted and useless. Justice and political sense point the way. Since colleges in general and administrators in particular have been the loans’ chief beneficiaries, and since what they have done and not done is the prime reason why so many graduates are dysfunctional, legislatively transferring responsibility for the loans from taxpayers to the colleges would at once reduce their ability to pay themselves and to spend for frivolities, and ensure that, as students default, the consequences fall where they should. Taxpayers will shed no tears for the golden archipelago’s dwellers.

Government’s encouragement of science and technology and support for militarily relevant research pose the same problem today as they did the day Sputnik first circled the globe — more so, because China’s threat to the U.S. is bigger quantitatively and more focused on technology than Russia’s ever was. The challenge for us is to stop repeating the mistake we made by turning the National Defense Education Act and support for education in general into supporting more gender studies than genetics. Intellectually, keeping priorities straight is easy. Politically, it requires the courage publicly to tell hard truths about what is worth what to our civilization and to our power as a nation.

Cutting the life support of higher education institutions requires exposing how little — if any — good they do by comparison with the price and opportunity costs of attending them. A little political action can go a long way in this regard by imposing on them the same requirements for transparency about the effects they have on those they serve as apply to other providers of goods and services.

Reputation (i.e., prestige) is literally the main product that they dispense. What do you get for four years at Old State U.? What about at Old Ivy? These questions deserve empirical answers. Institutions advertise the percentage of students they admit, and sometimes the entrants’ test scores, implying that they select the best and make them better. But the edu-class rejects categorically comparing students’ test scores (absolute and/or relative) before and after they attend. The vehemence of the rejection has increased as the amount of study required for graduation has fallen.


Legislating transparency in educational outcomes is the most potent weapon against scams. Fact-based challenges to established colleges’ hazy claims to beneficence can also help those who start up replacement institutions. But beyond empirical demonstration is that the substance of what is being taught, especially as it flows down from the peaks of academe, has corrupted America. All manner of corruption is so immanent from America’s commanding heights on down as to make superfluous the presentation of facts and arguments about it.

Whoever would reset education in America from its current path must begin by noting and denouncing its corruption of our civilization. Each new generation internalizes civilization as it does its maternal language. Restoring the integrity of the civilization into which we educate succeeding generations requires educators to pay attention to its language’s every word.

Angelo M. Codevilla (1943-2021) was a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute and professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston University.


October 15, 2022

How Boys Learn to Become Men

By Brian Bumbalo at American Thinker:

With so many boys left to the fend for themselves, the claws of social media, television, videogames, and the internet have grabbed hold and corrupted them at a time when they are most vulnerable to outside influences.  Since observational learning plays a critical role in development, studies have shown how this exposure is linked to anger, violence, and anxiety.  What chance do our boys have if the behavior of snakes and sharks is the primary source of guidance? 

While the absence of a father in the home has been shown to negatively impact children, the traditional family does not guarantee a positive impact.  Parents must model the behavior and live the values they hope to instill in their children.  This is important for both girls and boys; however, this article will focus on the significant role a father’s behavior plays in the development of his sons.

There are numerous articles written about a generation of men who fall prey to “toxic masculinity,” which leads to sexism, aggression, violence, and suppression of emotions.  What better way to manipulate a gender-confused society then to attribute all male anger, violence, and sexism to masculinity?  Other significant factors such as boys who are raised without a father, have poor role models, or have suffered abuse are minimized or purposely disregarded.  This permits fitting all of these destructive male behaviors under the same umbrella, allowing the gender fanatics to demonize and pervert masculinity, thereby providing cover for turning boys into their “new version” of men.

Be tough, but in a sensitive way; be competitive, but focus on your opponent’s feelings; be confident, but show your vulnerability.  How is this supposed to work?  We are asking a generation of testosterone-filled adolescent males to do the impossible.  It is easier for them to just escape and engage in undesirable behaviors, such as listening to music that degrades women, playing a game that promotes violence and numbs the senses, and viewing pornographic images and videos on the internet.  After such destructive behavior, is he supposed to sit with his girlfriend and talk about his feelings?  Houston, we have a problem.

I believe there are six critical areas in which a father’s behavior will lay the necessary foundation for teaching boys how to become productive, respectable, and desirable men.

Relationship with his wife

When a woman wholeheartedly gives herself to a man in mind, body, and spirit, it should never be taken for granted.  Other than God’s love and mercy, this is the greatest gift a man could ever receive.  A good husband will acknowledge this gift and through his actions model how to reciprocate a wife’s faithfulness, love, and kindness.

He will view his wife not through a lens of expectation, but through a lens of respect and tenderness.  When a husband views his wife through this lens, his love and appreciation for her will grow without bound.  Her beauty will never fade, her touch will always comfort, and her mere presence will make him want to become a better man.  This will be visible to all, especially his son.


It is when man understands his insignificance through serving an almighty God that he will truly be set free.  In a world that lacks selflessness and humility, a father who lives these virtues is sowing the seeds of faith in the fertile soil of a young boy.  Our godless schools and perverted secular society taint the innocence of childhood and spread the seeds of darkness, creating Mordor on Earth.  A father’s faith plays a critical role in battling these demonic forces.

By living his faith, a father provides the antidote for our poisoned culture.  Without it, our young boys have to face this morally bankrupt and hedonistic society unarmed.

Work Ethic

It seems that with every generation, the traditional American philosophy — work hard and pay your dues — is nothing more than fool’s gold.  Those coming up in this new generation are demanding an employer that aligns with their social views, has flexible schedules, and offers mental health and wellness, or they just quit.  I guess if you are single and have no responsibilities, such a mentality, as imprudent as it sounds, is possible.  This attitude does not work for a man who has to provide for his family, nor does it align with the value most traditional American men place on work.

A father will do whatever it takes to provide for his family.  Sometimes that means working a job he is not completely satisfied with or taking a second job to ensure that the bills are paid and food is on the table.  There is nothing wrong with trying to better your situation, but this is done in a way so as to minimize risk to the family’s overall well-being.  Capricious job-hopping causes emotional and financial stress.  Fathers need to lead by example so their sons will understand the value of hard work and the dignity it provides.

Ability to forgive

Perhaps one of the most difficult virtues to practice is forgiveness — not only to forgive others, but the ability to forgive oneself.

When we carry a grudge, it penetrates deep into the core of our being and releases a negative energy that spreads into our daily lives.  A father who does not practice the art of forgiveness harbors resentment.  This resentment can negatively affect the brain and exposes those around him to the bitterness that has settled in his heart.

A father full of resentment teaches his son that if someone wrongs you, it is acceptable to feel bitter and hold on to that feeling.  One the other hand, a father can teach his son that although you may be unjustly treated, it is not healthy to hold on to the anger and resentment you may initially feel.  By practicing forgiveness, a father creates an environment where healing is possible and negative emotions are unable to fester.

How he handles setbacks

The inevitability of failure can motivate some and paralyze others.  If you have a family, there will be numerous setbacks and sometimes outright catastrophes.  Children need comfort and security.  It is vital that a father accept setbacks, reassure, and develop a plan to remedy the situation.

A son looks to his father during difficult times because he sees his father as the “fixer” of all things.  Just as a sailor looks to the captain during a sea battle, there must be clarity, confidence, and decisive decision-making so all impacted feel somewhat at ease.  

If a father collapses during a setback or crisis, his son will develop fear and anxiety towards failure and may avoid risks at all cost.  Failure avoidance is no way to live.

How he treats people

You can often tell a lot about an individual based on his everyday interactions with people.  Think about how many times you were with your parents, listening to them engaging in general conversation with neighbors, grocery store clerks, bank tellers, or restaurant staff.  A father who looks down on certain people because of a superiority complex sends a direct message to his son — I am better than this person, and he does not deserve my respect.  If a father gets angry or annoyed and proceeds to berate an individual, it sends the same message.

Conversely, if a son witnesses his father engaging individuals in a kindhearted manner and remaining poised in confrontational situations, he learns the importance of treating people with respect and self-control.

As fathers, I think we need to be deliberate in the behaviors we are demonstrating.  We all make mistakes when raising children; it comes with the territory.  However, the proverb “do as I say, not as I do” is a cop-out, and it says much about the character of a man.  We as fathers must “man up” and take responsibility to ensure that we are raising our boys to become men.


October 14, 2022

Desperate Democrats vote to subpoena Trump ahead of midterms — and may not like what they get

By Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

Democrats should be careful what they wish for.

In a nakedly political move ahead of midterms, the January 6 Committee announced, on a 9-0 vote, that they’d subpoena President Trump for testimony on the January 6 riots.  Although they insist that their intentions are pure and the only thing they have in mind is “protecting democracy,” they’d like to pin the title of chief coup-plotter for that crowd-control incident on the former president, and seek to set up the basis for prosecution, if not a prohibition for the former president to run for office again.  Everyone knows that, which is why so few are bothering to pay attention to the crapulent hearings.  Nobody watches a movie where the ending is already known.

But something is up now: they’ve stirred a sleeping tiger.

According to Fox News:

EXCLUSIVE: Former President Donald Trump “loves the idea of testifying” before the House select committee investigating January 6th, a source close to Trump told Fox News Digital just after the panel unanimously voted to subpoena him.

The source said that if Trump complied with the subpoena and testified, he would “talk about how corrupt the election was, how corrupt the committee was, and how Nancy Pelosi did not call up the National Guard that Trump strongly recommended for her to do three days earlier on January 3, 2021.”

The source told Fox News Digital that it is unclear at this point if Trump actually will testify before the committee, but stressed that Trump “loves the idea.”

This could actually make those hearings watchable, although they know that and would probably keep the hearings behind closed doors precisely for this reason.

Three things could happen with this kangaroo court show, and none of them is good for Democrats.

One, a Trump appearance would attract a huge audience, given the popularity of Trump and the prospects ahead that he may well run for office.  For Liz Cheney, who was thrown out of office by her own constituents for this, the taste would be especially bitter.

Two, Trump would be a powerful voice for refuting the nonsense that Republicans attempted a coup d’état on January 6, and the complicity of FBI provocateurs, the failure of the Capitol Police to secure the Capitol premises, the refusal of House speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow the National Guard to guard the premises as President Trump had offered, and the sheer illegality of the commission itself with its handpicked-by-Pelosi members would all be laid out even as the committee tries to narrowly pin the riots on Trump.  They may succeed in holding the hearings behind closed doors, but Trump would be out soon enough to tell the public all about what he said, and in any case, there would be leaks and hidden cell phone footage, given the public interest.  At long last, Trump would be able to defend himself, he’d do it particularly ably, there’d be laughs and one-liners, and the committee would come out looking like sour-face bozos in a clown car.  He’d eat them alive.

Three, a precedent would be set: all former presidents would be compelled to answer to congressional subpoenas, which would create interesting times for obvious coup-plotters such as Barack Obama, obvious corrupt pols such as Joe Biden, and obvious crooks such as Bill Clinton.  If Trump goes, they all have to go, and a Republican-led Congress could make this pretty miserable for them.  The Trump-haters on the January 6 Committee never seem to think these things through.

In their desperation, they think they can at long last Get Trump with this obvious power-grab, which disrespects the separation of powers in the Constitution and makes America subject to the Legislature alone.  If Trump testifies as they wish, they will be in for a surprise.