• 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

Dem Fems Shun World Hero Ayaan Hirsi

Ayaan Hirsi Ali On Why Senators Kamala Harris And Claire McCaskill Ignored Her At Last Week’s Hearing

by John Sexton  at  HotAir:

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali testified before a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs last week. Hirsi Ali was there with Asra Nomani to discuss the ideology of political Islamism. But a curious thing happened at the hearing. The Democratic Senators refused to ask Hirsi Ai or Nomani any questions, ensuring they were given almost no time to speak during the hearing. Here’s how the NY Times reported it:

SEE ALSO: GA-06: Hey Democrats, you wasted $30 million for your guy to barely break 48 percent

When the witnesses completed their brief testimonies, Democratic Senate committee members, including four women senators — McCaskill, Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Maggie Hassan and Senator Heidi Heitkamp — ignored Hirsi Ali and Nomani during the question-and-answer session, never once directing a question to them — about half the duration of the entire hearing…

Because of the strategy of deflection by Democratic senators, Hirsi Ali and Nomani spoke for about 15 minutes combined.

Today, the NY Times published an op-ed co-written by Hirsi Ali and Nomani about their experience at the hearing and what they think it means:    (Please read on!)

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/22/ayaan-hirsi-ali-kamala-harris-claire-mccaskill-ignored-last-weeks-hearing/

Universities to “Return” Beliefs to Aboriginal Basics?

IS IT THE NEW YORK TIMES, OR THE ONION?

“A friend sent me a link to this New York Times article, published on Monday, that is headlined “A College Built for Canadian Settlers Envisions an Indigenous Future.” It reads like a parody, but I have verified that the Times actually did publish it. It is about how universities across Canada are “indigenizing.” I will turn the floor over to my friend; the comments on the Times piece are his.

The college was built in the last century, modeled on the great American and British universities. It was imagined as a grand preserve of Western thought for the children of Canadian settlers, then flooding into the country’s youngest province in the prairies. …

Now, all that has changed. Universities across Canada are “indigenizing” — a new, elastic term that means everything from drawing more aboriginal students and faculty members onto campuses built largely for white settlers, to infusing those stodgy Western institutions with aboriginal belief systems and traditional knowledge.
***
Two smaller Canadian institutions introduced indigenous learning requirements for all undergraduates this past school year.

Hilarious! Yes, those “stodgy Western institutions” like Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Bologna, Harvard and Yale. Sure…let’s “infuse[e]” them with “aboriginal belief systems and traditional knowledge” whatever that is…..

Of course, this is a problem:

Aboriginal scholars say that colonial education philosophies and aboriginal theories of knowledge are incompatible.

Just laughable! I can’t wait to compare and contrast “aboriginal theories of knowledge” with Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein…for starters…and I can’t wait to see, to paraphrase a snide remark made in a not dissimilar context, who is the Dostoyevsky of the aboriginals? (Answer: Dostoyevsky is the Dostoyevsky of the aboriginals — a universal, non-tribal greatness accessible even to aboriginals, raising them up as he raised up his own cultural confreres. That is the greatness of those “stodgy” universities.)

I’m also looking forward to all aboriginal “theories of knowledge” concerning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, mathematics, architecture…who is the aboriginal Euclid, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Gauss, etc. ad infinitum.

This, however, has to be among the most fatuous, risible and utterly clueless remarks uttered by a university factotum, and there is plenty of recent competition:

Even Peter Stoicheff, the university’s president, recognizes the challenges.

Universities are so inherently white and Western, when you start to push against it, you realized how intractable a lot of that is,” Mr. Stoicheff said.

Everything is based on reading stuff,” he explained. “Everything is laid out in a hierarchical and linear fashion. Look at the aboriginal ways, from visual expression to the wampum belt, dances and oral storytelling. It’s not linear. Everything is based on the circle.”

“Universities are so inherently white and Western.” Well, duh! One of the great glories of our civilization, and one which the benighted of any tribe are invited to partake of!

This, however, IS right out of The Onion: “Everything is based on reading stuff.” Beyond belief.

Note, too, the New York Times using, intentionally and deliberately, left-wing terms of political correctness: “white settlers,” “colonial educational philosophies” and, of course “indigenous” and “aboriginal”. As the “woke” multi-cultural left well knows, “settler” is an especially loaded term. The anti-Israeli left uses it to describes Jews, and the ANC in South Africa to describe Dutch origin Afrikaners —- with the shared slogan, “one settler, one bullet”.

But you’ll never see the “woke” multicultural New York Times and its rabid left wing allies use the term to describe “refugees,” “migrants” or “undocumented workers” (“immigrants”), will you? So, the Canadians are “white settlers” but the waves of Asian and Muslims arriving are “immigrants.” OK. I wonder what they think of “aboriginal theories of knowledge.”

That was all from my friend. The Times article also says this:

Last year, the academic governing body agreed that all of the 17 colleges and schools, from dentistry to engineering, should include indigenous knowledge.

I am not sure what the Stone Age engineering of Native Americans can teach modern engineering students, but I know this for sure: when it comes to “indigenous” dentistry, count me out!”

Article by John Hinderaker at PowerLine.

Pro-Abortion Clergy Complain about Pro-Life Christians

Pro-Abortion Clergy Complain Pro-Life Christians Dominate The Faith-Based Political Arena

by Cal Thomas   at LifeNews         (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

“The religious left feels left out.

According to an article in The New York Times, liberal clergy feel excluded from the political arena and blame the religious right for occupying what they once believed was their exclusive territory. They are, according to the story’s headline, “seeking to break right’s grip on nation’s moral agenda.”

I wasn’t aware the nation had a moral agenda. An immoral one, perhaps.

The religious left’s agenda is little different from that of secular progressives — from gay rights, to sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants, bigger government and tax increases, abortion. Some on the religious left give lip service to a pro-life position, but they still vote for “pro-choice” Democrats.

Liberal clergy are “fighting for their faith,” says the Times. Which faith? Faith in government or faith in the God they are supposed to serve?

Having suffered rejection and ridicule following Prohibition and the Scopes trial, conservative Christians withdrew from the political arena into a modern version of the catacombs, leaving the religious left at the forefront of culture and theology discussions. That began to change with the formation of the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition and other conservative religious groups.

In reaction, the religious left called for a separation between church and state, believing that conservatives were somehow now violating the Constitution by speaking up on moral issues. The implication was that conservatives should go back to their churches and leave politics and biblical interpretation to them.

To their credit, religious conservatives spoke of a culture in decline, but they, like the left, mistakenly believed the solution could be found in politics. The social issues they addressed were not the cause of our decadence but a reflection of it. If repairs were to be made they would not come from Washington, but from transformed human hearts. Changing hearts is supposed to be the calling of pastors.

The religious right quickly became an adjunct of the Republican Party, just one more interest group to be placated with promises that were rarely kept. In turn, the religious left aligned with Democrats.

A lesson for all is found in Scripture, but it’s often ignored. Here’s one: “Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave” (1 John 2:15-17).

Every sermon dedicated to politics is time taken away from a pastor’s main calling, which is to preach a message that will fit people for Heaven. Are there moral and cultural issues that clergy can and should address? Of course, but the sermonizer should be sure he or she is faithful to Scripture and not preach a message designed to conform to an earthly political agenda.

When they do, this happens:………”  Please read on:

http://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/15/pro-abortion-clergy-complain-pro-life-christians-dominate-the-faith-based-political-arena/

Unlike Amy Klobuchar, Our Donald Opposes Financing Cuba’s Police State

Amy Klobuchar,  in contrast to that viper person, Al Franken, is the more civilized of my state, Minnesota’s U.S. Senate members.  Whenever professional clown, Franken, speaks, listeners follow craving for an immediate  personal cleansing, a shower asap to wash off  the slime the man spews even when he appears on television.

Her last name was well known in the sport’s world here in the Twin Cities a half century ago.    The difficult Jim Klobuchar, local major sport reporter was well known as provocative.

However, Ms. K seems hugely civil, quite unlike the majority of Congressional fanatic leftist fems of all sexes,  shapes, colors, and sizes making trouble with truth and reality.  A quarter of a century ago I did some landscape projects for her home grounds.  She was quite quiet, civil speaking, appreciative, pleasant, and unaware of the vegetative outdoors, yet seems to be sincere while advertising her brand of today’s  leftism on television,  although I am sure she is a child of con-artist Al Gore’s religion, Global Warmingism.

Please read leftist Klobuchar’s assessment regarding President Trump’s fulfillment of a promise he made to Cuban American voters in Florida during his trials causing  his White House victory last November.  He promised  to eliminate leftist Obama’s American financial backing  of the Castro Communist regime’s military and secret police to strengthen its fascist control over the island.

Be sure to listen to American President, Donald J. Trump’s explanation of his readjustments of the Obama financial support to the Castro dictatorship:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/opinions/cuba-opinion-klobuchar/index.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/16/trump_cuba_deal_one_of_worst_by_obama_admin_after_iran_deal_enriches_cuban_regime.html

Prager’s WHY CONSERVATIVES STILL ATTACK TRUMP

Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

by Dennis Prager at Townhall:

“When people you know well, admire, and who share your values do something you strongly oppose, you have two options:

1) Cease admiring them or 2) try to understand them and change their minds.

In the case of my conservative friends who still snipe (or worse) at President Trump, I have rejected option one. The reason — beside the fact that I simply like many of them — is what I refer to as “moral bank accounts.”

Every time we do good, we make a deposit into our moral bank account. And every time we do something bad, we make a withdrawal. These conservatives have made so many deposits into their moral bank accounts that, in my view, their accounts all remain firmly in the black.

That means my only choice is option two. But to try to change their minds, I must first try to understand their thinking.

I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.

While they strongly differ with the left, they do not regard the left-right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

That is why, after vigorously opposing Trump’s candidacy during the Republican primaries, I vigorously supported him once he won the nomination. I believed then, as I do now, that America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president. With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

To my amazement, no anti-Trump conservative writer sees it that way. They all thought during the election, and still think, that while it would not have been a good thing if Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn’t have been a catastrophe either.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Many conservatives, including me, believe that it would have been close to over for America as America if the Republican candidate, who happened to be a flawed man named Donald Trump, had not won. Moreover, I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton.

In other words, I believe that Donald Trump may have saved the country. And that, in my book, covers a lot of sins — foolish tweets, included.

The Never-Trump conservative argument that Trump is not a conservative – one that I, too, made repeatedly during the Republican primaries – is not only no longer relevant, it is no longer true.

Had any Never-Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally, Assad, after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall; appoint a U.N. ambassador who regularly condemns the U.N. for its moral hypocrisy; restore the military budget; and work on lowering corporate tax rates, among other conservative achievements — that Never-Trump conservative would have been jumping for joy.

So, why aren’t anti-Trump conservatives jumping for joy?

I have come to believe that many conservatives possess what I once thought was a left-wing monopoly — a utopian streak. Trump is too far from their ideal leader to be able to support him.

There is also a cultural divide. Anti-Trump conservatives are a very refined group of people. Trump doesn’t talk like them. Moreover, the cultural milieu in which the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives live and/or work means that to support Trump is to render oneself contemptible at all elite dinner parties.

In addition, anti-Trump conservatives see themselves as highly moral people (which they often are) who are duty-bound not to compromise themselves by strongly supporting Trump, whom they largely view as morally defective.

Finally, these people are only human: After investing so much energy in opposing Trump’s election, and after predicting his nomination would lead to electoral disaster, it’s hard to for them to admit they were wrong. To see him fulfill many of his conservative election promises, again in defiance of predictions, is a bitter pill. But if they hang on to their Never-Trumpism and the president falls on his face, they can say they were right all along.

That means that only if he fails can their reputations be redeemed. And they, of course, know that.

But there is another way.

They can join the fight. They can accept an imperfect reality and acknowledge that we are in a civil war, and that Trump, with all his flaws, is our general. If this general is going to win, he needs the best fighters. But too many of them, some of the best minds of the conservative movement, are AWOL.

I beg them: Please report for duty.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/05/30/why-conservatives-still-attack-trump-n2332924

Killing Trump in the Park for Charity

Establishment fixtures at Fox news this evening reviewed the sins between leftist  murderers, anti anything-American rioters, university staff deviates, gangsters, invaders, Pelosi Ditzies, phony investigations, and Obama’s hate America racists all  of  the violent, corrupt revolutionary LEFT with  Donald J. Trump’s tweets.

Both sides  are supposedly  equally responsible for the life threatening attacks  on America culminating in yesterday’s Bernie Sanders’ political gangster attack upon Republican Congressmen preparing for their traditional annual baseball game against their Democrat rivals.   Let’s all get into bed together was their  general modern verbage to accept  the nine year Obama led illegal Sanctuary Cities dictatorship of some twenty million   ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS,  to perpetuate and hurry up their sexist, racist, leftist, anti democratic, antiJudeoChristian  revolution against our once democratic- republic America financed by BIGGEST BIG BUSINESS, even the very Jewish kind by the way, if truth were allowed to be told.

Opponents were called bigots or worse and told to shut up or the Obamaland will shove a riot down our traditional peaceful American necks.   The criminal Hillary, we were told…..the wealthy, crooked one, would carry out Obamaland’s destiny to begin her era to sabotage  free expression in  the country, beginning January 20, 2017.  The New York Times and Washington Post empires reported so.

And then there arose Our Donald.   By corruption with whatever necessary,  these Leftists deviates of the Democrat Party were no going to allow that to happen.  They own the schools, the press, television news, Biggest Business, blacks, illegal immigrants, and two thirds of the American Jewish population…..the unsynogogued Charles Schumer kind…..How could….did….Queen Hillary lose her fixed election?

“TRUMP DID IT!!    “KILL HIM!”….BUT DON’T USE THE “K” WORD!  BE ARTFUL….TEACH SHAKESPEARE…..GO CLASSIC, BECOME ‘UNIVERSITY’ IN THE PARK!

DON’T LET HIM BECOME PRESIDENT!  HE’LL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!  Just Don’t Let Him Become President! NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO!

Fox Guru, Charles Krauthammer, suggests Donald J. Trump, as President,  is equal  in blame for  the current  contemporary war waged by Democrats in the whole, and Republicans by the half……  because?   the  President tweets!

Mark Waldeland sent the following Shakepeare note regarding a current  New York City in-the-park production of the stage  murder of American President, Donald J. Trump to raise funds for  charity.   Mr. Waldeland is a retired high school English teacher.  He knows great literature when he reads it.

Do get to know your American ObamalingLeftist hateAmerica killertypes  better.   The American press and university program so many of them.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2017/06/shakespeare-pro-caesar/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Evangelical&utm_content=247

Please Don’t Forget America’s Dictator, Barack Hussein Obama, who Ignored the Constitution

Our Constitutional Crisis Has Nothing to Do with James Comey

By William Sullivan  at American Thinker:

“President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey has been pretty big news, and there will be no dearth of continued commentary about what it means.  But what rings hollowest in all the commentary surrounding it have been the nearly uniform claims among the left that his firing represents a “constitutional crisis.”

Does the left now care about the United States Constitution?  Because that would certainly be newsworthy.  This is the same left which, as David Harsanyi of The Federalist reminds us, didn’t utter a peep of disapproval about President Obama’s efforts to “unilaterally legalize millions of people without Congress.”  What about the constitutionality of the federal government forcing people to purchase health insurance, forcing private health insurance companies to cap prices for higher-risk clients, setting school lunch menus, peculiarly targeting conservative groups for tax audits, or executive directives to ignore federal immigration law?  The left didn’t care about “constitutionality” when all of those things happened during Obama’s presidency, but now are shouting from the pulpit that Donald Trump’s firing of the current FBI director, whose direct role is to “serve at the pleasure of the president,” is somehow some incredible affront to the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution?

The left’s hypocrisy here is certainly stark, but in a way, it is evidence that the term “constitutional crisis” has been thrown around in so many pithy accusations over the years by the left and right that the phrase no longer has any meaning relative to the actual Constitution of the United States.

Consider that Princeton political scientist Keith Whittington suggests that “[c]onstitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions.”

The “central function” of our Constitution has always been to limit the authority of the federal government, and to clearly enumerate the “few and defined” powers of the federal government to be held in contrast to the “numerous and indefinite” power of state governments, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45. …..Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/our_constitutional_crisis_has_nothing_to_do_with_james_comey.html