• 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

MN Man, John Hinderaker, Visits the Minnesota State Fair


Today, I spent the afternoon at the Minnesota State Fair. I was on the radio for 2 1/2 hours with my friends Ed Morrissey and Lee Michaels of AM 1280 the Patriot. Minnesota’s State Fair is one of the world’s great events. Even the New York Times, which is rarely right about anything, has acknowledged as much.

If you have never been to the Minnesota State Fair, photos accompany the Times story. Like this, for example:

Which gives you some idea. Today I was probably the only Fairgoer dressed in a coat and tie and carrying a briefcase. What can I say? I was coming from my office and was on company time.

All Minnesota politicians work the Fair. (It was at the Fair that Al Franken encountered one or more of his #MeToo women.) It is a unique opportunity to talk with a broad cross-section of Minnesotans–Americans, that is–and learn what is on their minds. Today at the Patriot booth, we interviewed my Congressman, Jason Lewis, who is running for re-election in a bellwether swing district; Doug Wardlow, the Republican who is running against Keith Ellison for Attorney General; and Karin Housley, the Senate candidate who I think may score a major win for the GOP.

These candidates’ comments on their State Fair experiences were strikingly similar. They all noted the yawning chasm between the “news” as reported on cable TV stations and in the liberal media, and the concerns expressed by State Fairgoers. No one cares about Paul Manafort. No one cares about Amaroso, or whatever her name is. Everyone knows taxes have been cut, and everyone knows the economy has taken off. There is massive support for continuing the policies of the Trump administration. Impeachment? No one is talking about it, but the last thing voters want is to derail the successes of the last year and a half.

In my opinion, Minnesota State Fairgoers are as good a cross-section of American voters as you can find. And, despite the old-time roots music at the Farmers Union booth–the Farmers Union still exists, apparently–and a pretty darn good 60s band at the AFL-CIO booth, it doesn’t appear that many Minnesotans are buying what the far Left is selling. That is probably a pretty good microcosm of American voters.

I am very much tuned into this, since I have been invited to testify before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress next Thursday, a week from tomorrow, on the effects of the Trump tax cuts on Minnesota’s economy. Those effects have been positive, to say the least. I think voters across America, not just in Minnesota, have noticed. I will have more to say about my Joint Economic Committee appearance in due course.

To wrap up, here is a photo of me with Karin Housley following our interview. I told her I would only post it on my family’s chat line. Sorry, Karin, I changed my mind:

Karin Housley is one of the nicest and most hard-working people I have met in politics, and she is a solid conservative. You can help her by going here to donate. She represents a real opportunity for a Senate pickup. Trust me on this one.

Similarly, my friend Jason Lewis is in a tight re-election race in Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District. He won in 2016 by 1.7%, and the Democrats are running the same candidate, lesbian activist Angie Craig, this time. If Republicans carry districts like Minnesota’s 2nd, we will hold the House. If not, we won’t. Jason is a long-time talk radio host and both a principled and a practical conservative–the sort of person we need more of in Washington. You can contribute to his campaign here. Again, I vouch for Jason as a worthy conservative candidate who won’t go swamp on us, and whose seat is vital to maintaining control of the House.

Finally, if you don’t want a Nation of Islam has-been; an abolish-ICE, sanctuary state, no-borders leftist; a multiple domestic abuser; and a life-long advocate for cop-killers elected Attorney General of Minnesota, where his entire agenda will be bedeviling the Trump administration, not enforcing the laws–many of which he is opposed to and has pledged to disregard–go here to contribute to Doug Wardlow’s campaign. Doug is a good guy and the alternative to a truly dark future for Minnesota law enforcement.

When I watch cable news, I get depressed. When I spend an afternoon at the State Fair, I think there is still hope. Let’s make it happen!



(Proof not all is gray, fascistic, sulky and Ellison in Minnesota……at least for a day!)

GOPers Join Donkeys Complaining about Our Donald’s Wonderful Use of Tweeting to U.S. Folks!


President Trump continued publicly to criticize Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General, yesterday. He tweeted:

“Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr.

FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems – and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!

Many have become numb to the weirdness of a president who publicly taunts not just his adversaries, but his own appointees. I’ll return to that subject in a moment, but first, let’s look at the substance of the taunt.

It’s not the job of the Justice Department to pursue every talking point pushed by members of his party. In this case, though, Trump is right that serious issues of corruption have been raised.

But the Justice Department is “looking into” most of them. It has investigated the conduct of McCabe and Strzok. Both have been fired. It has referred McCabe’s case for possible criminal indictment.

Moreover, the Justice Department reportedly is investigating the Clinton Foundation over allegations of pay-to-play. And Sessions has appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber to investigate the FBI’s behavior during the 2016 campaign.

Huber has broad prosecutor’s power. He can convene a grand jury, issue subpoenas, collect evidence and order witnesses as he delves into such matters as whether the FBI abused its powers when it sought permission and then carried out wiretapping of a Trump campaign figure, or whether it trod too lightly in pursuing questions about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

We haven’t heard much about Huber’s work, but that’s not surprising. He hasn’t been on the job for nearly as long as Mueller has been. In addition, Huber has no incentive to publicize his work, and neither does the mainstream media.

Even in the face of inaction, it would be odd for a president publicly to exhort his AG to investigate these matters. Given that many of them are under investigation, Trump’s exhortation is downright weird.

Sessions works for Trump. If Trump has questions about what is or is not being investigated at the DOJ, all he has to do is ask Sessions. If he wants to urge that something be investigated all he has to do tell him.

Sessions was at the White House on Thursday. He could have exhorted Sessions in private. Had he done so, Sessions might have reminded the president that most of the matters he later tweeted about are being looked into.

But this wouldn’t have served Trump’s purposes.



What if the National Football League Were as Corrupt as today’s Schumer Democrats?

Our Donald Trump Stars in Montana

Donald Trump Jr: Jon Tester is no partner of President Trump


Donald, FULL BLOODED AMERICAN, Reviews His Hillary Presidential Opponent a few weeks before 2016 Election

Could Not Have Happened to a Better Bunch of Guys!

The Minnesota Vikings are a team most disliked by the National Football League.   The league is an eastern state Turkey Fest based upon money making.   Money is where the NFC East exists…..New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Dallas Cowboys,  and Washington Redskins are all the most favored….

But a second group of favored DOES exist……the AFC East where the New England Patriots, Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, and the New York Jets…..again heavily favored at National Football League Headquarters.

Both of these  National Football League groups are overwhelmingly favored by the league’s money  gurus to be advertised and displayed on game day television and review of games played thereafter.    Reffing at post season games tends to favor both the big money maker urban community teams as well.    Take a look at the reffing ruffing up of Vikings quarterback, Brett Favre in the NFC playoff in 2010.  New Orleans needed a heartbeat and certainly is a far richer source for $$$ than Minneapolis…..and the NFL obliged with a terribly foul officiated game.

Game officials apparently missed their opportunity to secure a Saint win,  although there was a very foul foul called by the game’s  head ref chief when the Vikings were on a drive to regain a two touchdown lead late in the game.

Even the referees failed to expect the following Minnesota Miracle:

The Conservative Jonahs Who Turn Rodent if Our Donald Isn’t Perfect!


(Dear reader—Fair warning: this is a long post, so best to settle in on the couch and make sure your dogs have completed their morning walks . . .)   

by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

Okay class, everyone settle in for today’s seminar and get out your textbook, Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West.  Turn to page 316, and circle this sentence: “Indeed, as much as I hold Trump in contempt, I am still compelled to admit that, if my vote would have decided the election, I probably would have voted for him.”

I begin with this admission against Jonah’s supposed interest to point out to his many detractors on the right that he is actually on our side. A lot of my friends are on a hair trigger with everything Jonah says or writes these days because of his relentless criticism of Trump. (For some reason most of my critical friends seem to be named Julie. A statistician will probably tell me this can’t be chance—it must be a conspiracy! Though actually it is the pseudonymous “Tom Doniphon” who is working overtime at American Greatness to smack Jonah’s book around.) The ongoing divisions over Trump are provoking complaints that, among other sins, Jonah has committed a literary appropriation (heh) of James Burnham’s famous 1962 title. This is a silly charge, as Harry Jaffa first explained to me about why he wasn’t bothered by the many other authors who also titled their Lincoln books A New Birth of Freedom.

Now, I have my own specific criticisms of Jonah’s book; in fact I have enough nits that I can probably knit a small sweater. Yes, he has some details of Michael Anton’s biography wrong; yes, his handling of the Declaration of Independence is sloppy in a couple of respects (but correct on the essentials); yes, Lockeans in every corner of the ring will want to dispute his summary accounts of Lockeanism as incomplete. (The irony of the long-running disputes about Locke is that they resemble an intellectual state of nature out of which no civil society seems ever likely to arise. But that’s a subject for another day—and 500 more books.) At the end of the day, as I shall try to explain, all of these nits will yield a sweater barely suitable to cover up an anorexic Barbie doll.

My chief overall complaint about Jonah—aside from not coughing up those old blackmail photos of me from Vegas he keeps in a safe deposit box—is that for all of his copious pop culture references, there is a conspicuous absence of references to Blazing Saddles. Which absence, as any East Coast Straussian will tell you, obviously means that he screens Saddles every Saturday morning. As I’ve paraphrased to him many times, adopting his own self-description, “What’s a dazzling Upper West Side demi-Jew like you doing in a rustic setting like Washington DC?”

Anyway, rather than embark on an undoubtedly frustrating and unproductive disputation over specific criticisms of Jonah and Jonah’s book from my friends (or enemies), I want to set out instead by disputing a positive review of the book that I think starts out wrongheaded, out of which I think a robust general defense can be constructed that does not require frowning at my friends. Adam Keiper opens his review of Suicide of the West in the Weekly Standard in the following way:

Goldberg’s book is a big, baggy, sometimes frustrating, often brilliant combination of intellectual history and political essay. He says that the original manuscript was twice as long as the final product; it certainly should have been much further pruned.

Wrong, and wrong. It’s not the book that’s baggy. Jonah’s pants are baggy, and perhaps Keiper is coming closer to explaining Trump’s famously inscrutable dig at Jonah’s supposed inability to buy trousers. It’s the last sentence—“it certainly should have been much further pruned”—that is the wrongest part of Keiper’s evaluation.

As Jonah has explained, the original manuscript of the book was more than twice as long as the final product, and was reduced at the request of his editors at CrownForum books (my publisher, I’ll add; they were very indulgent of my preposterous notion of writing a huge two-volume political biography of the life and times of Reagan, for which extraordinary latitude I’ll always be grateful). I understand why the publisher would want the book, or any book, to be shorter, and I’m sure the shorter length aids overall sales, but I think the book is in fact too short. I would like to have had the longer version. Too bad we can’t do books after the fashion of movies, with a “writer’s original edition” like we have a “director’s cut” of so many movies.

Okay, yes, I’m weird. For example, I much prefer the complete, unabridged four-volume version of Churchill’s Marlborough to the dreadful one-volume edition edited by Henry Steele Commager, who managed to be unerring in cutting out the best parts of Churchill’s account. (I have a theory about why Commager edited Churchill as atrociously as he did, but that’s for another day, too.)

Another way of getting at the inherent defect—but necessity—of short books is to ask for a show of hands for the following question: how many of you have read even one volume of Deirdre McCloskey’s magisterial trilogy consisting of Bourgeois DignityBourgeois Virtues, and Bourgeois Equality? Confession: I have only read a little of McCloskey’s triptych, but have long been a huge fan of all of McCloskey’s remarkable body of work, and agree with Jonah about McCloskey’s originality and deep cross-disciplinary perception. McCloskey is one of the very few senior academics who can rightly be called a polymath of the old school. Just have a look at McCloskey’s author description in her books: “Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago.” She really is an Erasmus for our time.

And in fact McCloskey is one of the inspirations and sources for some of the main themes in Suicide. McCloskey set out to get at a surprising mystery: there is no consensus about what causes economic growth, or an explanation for why the “industrial revolution” began to take off like a rocket roughly 300 years ago after centuries of essentially no economic growth at all. (The subtitle of Bourgeois Dignity is Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World.) The standard factors we learned in Econ 101 way back when—land, labor and capital—aren’t the driver, nor is technological progress. Institutions matter, yes, as does most crucially classical liberalism. But our picture of the prosperity and success of the West is getting more out of focus as time goes on.

McCloskey offers some provocative and well-argued ideas, but Jonah’s shorter work casts an even wider net, and attempts to return fire against the contemporary attacks on democratic capitalism, which, in case you haven’t noticed, have been gaining strength lately. One large part of the reason for this is the willful nihilism of the modern left, or what Malcolm Muggeridge way back in the 1970s called “The Great Liberal Death Wish.” Yes, Jonah perhaps owes one of his main themes—that suicide is a choice—more to Muggeridge than Burnham, but in any case he actually explains it with explicit reference to Lincoln’s warning in his Lyceum Address that if America ever fails it will be on account of self-willed causes—suicide—rather than foreign military invasion. Lincoln underestimated the potential for the invasion of bad foreign ideas—this is a major theme of both this book and Jonah’s previous exploration, Liberal Fascism, but in any case this reference alone earns some chits with this Claremonster. (One thinks immediately of Leo Strauss’s remark about German ideology in Natural Right and History that “It would not be the first time that a nation, defeated on the battlefield, and, as it were, annihilated as a political being, has deprived its conquerors of the most sublime fruit of victory by imposing on them the yoke of its own thought.”)

But our confusion over the nature and causes of the success of the West also owes to the increasing specialization of intellectual life. As I plan to explore in either a long article or short book some time soon, the proliferation of academic specializations over the last century, while generating finer and finer slices of advanced insight, has deprived us of our appreciation and perception of the whole. History and politics, for example, were once studied together in universities. Now they are completely separate disciplines, which entails great loss of depth accruing to both. Sociology is really just a branch of political science (ditto anthropology), while social psychology, which is a distinct and separate branch of psychology now, is a bastard recombination of psychology and sociology. Economics is in the process of subdividing into several distinct fields, with the main portion of the discipline looking more like just a wing of the math department, and with one new branch—behavioral economics—ironically casting an imperial reach into psychology. And academic philosophy is almost wholly sidelined and isolated from the public mind in ways and for reasons that take too long to explain. (All of this intellectual subdivision, incidentally, creates a void into which the radicalized “disciplines” of the politicized “studies” departments rush in to exploit. As I say, more on this another time, though I did talk about this some in Power Line Show podcast #69, in case you missed it.)

The result is a situation in which the ambition to write broad-gauge synoptic accounts of the social order of democratic capitalism is nearly extinct. There are a few notable and partial exceptions, such as Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now, offering a robust defense of Enlightenment liberalism. (And the left is fiercely attacking Pinker, who is otherwise an orthodox modern liberal, for this sin.) Jonah’s book is another, except that it is much more ambitious and wide-ranging than anything else on offer today.

Samuel Johnson argued that “Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed,” and as such Suicide of the West is an attempt to remind us with fresh language and up-to-date cultural analysis of the reasons our democratic order is under attack—a state of things that just a couple decades ago seemed impossible to conceive. The central idea of Suicideis the centrality of human nature, which the left today must fundamentally attack because it is the chief obstacle to their authoritarian dreams. Jonah frequently quotes Horace: “Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret.” Actually, Jonah quotes Horace in English: “You can expel nature with a pitchfork, but it will always came back.”

One might try to make something of a contradiction out of Jonah’s embrace of human nature with his parallel argument that what we today deplore as selfish tribalism is in fact the natural state of humanity, and that liberal notions of equal rights—and democratic capitalism—are in fact unnatural, and are undermined precisely by its very success. Here perhaps he is restating some of the ideas worked out a generation ago by Daniel Bell, but Joseph Schumpeter is the acknowledged larger inspiration for his argument. The point is, uncivilized human nature makes our social order always prone to the same law of entropy as our physical order, and as such is the chief refutation of the easygoing historicism behind the favorite modern liberal cliché about “the side of history.” Civilization takes work, as much to maintain it as to create it in the first place. Or as John Stuart Mill suggested, the chief defect of Hegelian liberalism is the assumption that the progress of humanity from barbarism to civilization is an irreversible process………..”

Television Jonah Goldberg is very windy, a good guy who enjoys staring at central stage.   Count the names of the past he adds to his excitements when lecturing!   Certainly, when colleged, the more names dropped in a thesis, the higher the grade!!

Please read on below to get to know Jonah better!