• 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

YouTube Plays Pravda Against Prager University


For more than two years, YouTube has continued to restrict access to more and more of our videos – simply because they present a conservative point of view. There are currently over 80 PragerU videos that are restricted – more than double the amount of restricted videos since filing our lawsuit against YouTube. Silicon Valley giants like YouTube continue to censor the ideas they don’t agree with. They promote their Leftist ideology and restrict conservative speech.

Help us fight against the censorship of our videos.

From the beginning of this process, we’ve been prepared to pursue our lawsuit against Google/YouTube as far, and for as long as it takes to secure every American’s right to freedom of speech online.

Recently, we officially filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court – giving us another opportunity to argue our case against the tech giant.

We need your support, now more than ever.  

As we continue this important fight – not just for PragerU, but for freedom of speech in America – we need to win in both the court of public opinion, and of course in the courtroom.

We recently launched a public awareness video to bring much-needed attention to the issue.  The video has already been viewed over 10 million times – but we still need to reach more people.

We are continuing to circulate an online petition to help fight back against YouTube.  We already have over 500,000 signatures  — but our goal is to get over 1 million signatures so that YouTube cannot ignore us anymore. With your help we can get there.

Can we count on your support as we fight to end the censorship of our ideas?


What the Trump administration gets very wrong about free speech


(CNN)“A generation of sanctimonious, sensitive, supercilious snowflakes.” That’s howAttorney General Jeff Sessions described college students in late July.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department is diving into the roiling waters of campus free speech controversies, mounting legal challenges to alleged infringements on speech by public universities, including the University of Michigan and the University of California at Berkeley. But one of the core premises of the administration’s intervention — that the attacks on speech are primarily directed at conservatives — is called into question by a data analysis from Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project that finds that infringements on free speech are just as likely to come from the right as the left.
Of the more than 5,000 college campuses in the United States, the Georgetown study logged only about 60 incidents of suppressed speech since 2016. In analyzing each one, they found limited evidence that conservatives are being targeted unfairly. Most incidents where conservative speech got interrupted or silenced involved the same high-profile voices, in contrast with the incidents from the left covered by the study, who were speakers and scholars with lower profiles. The researchers note that their work is preliminary and not comprehensive, but their findings do suggest that the state of free speech on campus is far more complicated than Sessions and others of similar mind might have us believe.
Georgetown, with funding from the Knight Foundation, built an online tool to analyze these incidents. The Knight Foundation also recently released a report showing that students strongly support the First Amendment.
Campuses have sometimes lapsed in protecting free speech, and the administration is right to stand up for open expression. But Jeff Sessions’ approach to the campus speech debate — which has thus far been one-sided and even insulting — risks fueling the very intolerance that he aims to counter.
Sessions’ latest salvo in the speech wars came in his July address to conservative high school students attending a conference convened by conservative right-wing nonprofit Turning Point USA. He pinpointed what he called a series of campus free speech threats, including policies confining protests to narrow “free speech zones,” speech codes delineating what can and can’t be said and unruly demonstrations that drown out speakers. He also expressed alarm over mandated warnings about sensitive material in course curricula, catalogues of microagressions and enforced “safe spaces.” Sessions opined that, in an effort to make students feel comfortable, some campuses veer too far toward infantilization. Spotlighting the most extreme examples — campus “cry closets” and lounges with play-doh and coloring books — Sessions ridiculed what he characterized as the spectacle of universities aiming to “equip”students to handle tough rhetoric and uncomfortable ideas.
He cataloged a series of prominent instances of wrongful interference with speech, including a Black Lives Matter disruption of an ACLU event at William and Mary in October 2017, violent demonstrations against theorist Charles Murray at Middlebury that March, and a protest against a Jewish group at Brown the previous year. Sessions rightly asserted that “the First Amendment is not a partisan issue. Constitutional rights are for all Americans — not just those in one party or faction.”
But, despite the bipartisan bromides, Sessions has made it clear that the administration’s prime concern is safeguarding space for conservative ideas and viewpoints on campus from an assault by what he has dubbed the “hard left.” During the July speech Sessions goaded the right-leaning students, citing “elements in our society today who want to stop you and silence you. … They want you to feel outnumbered … to get discouraged … to quit.”
The truth is, in the wider society, conservatives are hardly silenced; they enjoy a great deal of political power, with control over all three branches of government. But Sessions has a fair point that many college campuses skew liberal, and some don’t pay enough attention to ensuring that conservative perspectives can be aired without fear of reprisal.
What Sessions left out is that liberal and left-wing speakers are often targeted as well. As the new Georgetown study, based on analysis of more than 90 recent incidents, points out, there is “strong reason to believe that this widespread perception (that most campus speech attacks originate from the left and target conservative speech) is not entirely accurate.” Sessions might have mentioned Fresno State University Professor Randa Jarrar, who was put under investigation this spring after comments critical of First Lady Barbara Bush, or Princeton Professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, who canceled speaking engagements when she was threatened over her criticisms of President Donald Trump.
Perhaps the most egregious omission was any mention of free-speech-chilling actions by the event’s hosts, Turning Point USA. Turning Point publishes a “Professor Watchlist” naming hundreds of academics for alleged offenses, including op-eds and course material judged too liberal. The American Association of University Professors has criticized the watchlist as a tool of intimidation.
Sessions is off base when he mocks students as “snowflakes.” Most of the examples of campus speech controversies Sessions touched on — for example, Black Lives Matter and Murray’s use of race to explain IQ differentials — center on issues of race. Student activists drawing attention to policing abuses, discrimination in higher education and other forms of racial injustice have sometimes overstepped, veering into misguided calls to suppress speech activists deemed offensive. But their core purpose — to demand a more equal and inclusive learning environment — is one that the Justice Department should ratify rather than ridicule.
Over the last two years, the Anti-Defamation League has documented a threefold spike in white supremacist incidents on campuses, including an allegedly racially-motivated murder at the University of Maryland that is being prosecuted as a hate crime.
The most notorious incident was the white supremacist march at the University of Virginia the night before the deadly rally in Charlottesville. Sessions’ boss, President Donald Trump, later tried to defend the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who took part, saying there was “blame on both sides.”
While talk of campuses as “safe spaces” might once have been dismissed as a misguided quest for psychological comfort, the rise of hateful gestures on campus raises genuine concerns of physical safety.
Amid these rising instances of the use of racial epithets, display of swastikas and nooses hung in trees, students are rightly demanding that their universities do more to provide a safe, equal learning environment for all. Rather than belittling such efforts, Sessions’ Justice Department should promote constructive measures — such as facilitated dialogues across ideological lines, peaceful counterspeech, and stronger reporting mechanisms for hate crimes — that address hatred without impairing free speech.
While the Justice Department has set forth some legitimate concerns, an ideologically lopsided approach risks compounding an already precarious appreciation of free speech among college students. Some student advocates of racial justice evince a sense of alienation when it comes to First Amendment rights, having witnessed them being invoked mainly in relation to speech that they consider offensive. In his dismissiveness, Sessions surrenders the chance to persuade skeptical students that the First Amendment is a critical tool in their quest for social justice, one they should embrace and defend.
Follow CNN Opinion

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

As a rising generation comes to grips with tensions over free speech, it is essential that they not come to view the defense of the First Amendment as a right-wing weapon being used to strip protections that foster an open and equal learning environment. If the administration’s leading national voice on campus free speech treats the debate as yet another ideological sparring ground, it should not come as a surprise if students come to view the defense of free speech with suspicion. As Sessions pointed out, the First Amendment is not a partisan cause. No one, including Jeff Sessions, should try to make it one.


Remember? “Donald Trump Will NOT BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!” the pundits and gurus announced!

US Lefties Control Nation’s Press, Education, and TELEVISION ….except Business Fox.


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

The fact that Facebook and Twitter are the platforms on which political discussion largely takes place, and probably will remain such for the foreseeable future, given the network effects that entrench them, is deeply troubling. Both companies are run by liberals, and free speech is under attack on both platforms.

This story in Entertainment Weekly is a chilling reminder of how little regard liberals–even liberal reporters!–have for free speech:

Facebook executives promoting their video-on-demand service got into a combative exchange with reporters while at the Television Critics Association’s press tour in Beverly Hills on Wednesday. The issue: the presence of right-wing conspiracy site Infowars and Fox News on the social network’s platform.
Reporter: One of the most prominent organizations you’re working with is Fox News, and they’re sort of incorrigible about proliferating a lot of misinformation. Can you speak to your reasoning behind that? Why would you want to work with an organization like that when, as you said, you’re trying to limit the spread of false information?

At this, Rick Van Veen, head of global creative strategy at Facebook, jumped in: “Yeah, well, given that we have limited time. I’d like to keep it — Fidji and I don’t lead the news organization. Campbell Brown leads that…”

Another reporter in the background: Answer the question!

“We have limited time —”

Another reporter: We’ll give you time!

Simo: “We have a range of new shows we’re presenting —”

Reporter: But Fox News is still on every day, including the weekends on this programming list.

Simo: “So is CNN —”

This was met by some chortles in the crowd, presumably because they don’t think CNN and Fox News are remotely compatible when it comes to accuracy.

Simo: “We are really trying to show a range of programming that shows the range of the political spectrum.”

Fox News is by far the most-watched cable news channel, but some liberal reporters, at least, don’t think it should be allowed on Facebook. At this press conference, the Facebook executives explained how the platform limits the circulation of ideas that are deemed to be untrue. Most of the people making decisions on what is untrue, or designing the algorithms that identify untruths, are liberals, and all the pressure to squelch speech comes from the Left. So it isn’t hard to predict the direction this is going.

Meanwhile, Twitter has been trying to persuade users that it doesn’t “shadow ban” conservative accounts. Twitter executives Vijaya Gadde and Kayvon Beykpour wrote yesterday:

People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?”

The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.

We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.

But wait! When people talk about shadow banning, they don’t mean making a user’s tweets “undiscoverable.” They mean that that person’s tweets may not show up in your time line, even though you follow that person. The whole point of following someone on Twitter is that people rarely go to other users’ Twitter pages; they see tweets because they appear on the time line. So while Twitter denies shadow banning, its explanation confirms that the platform does, in fact, shadow ban–“you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile.”

That leaves us with this blanket denial: “[W]e certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.” But Twitter also says that it is working on improving the “health” of political discussion on the platform:

Kayvon Beykpour@kayvz

We’ve heard questions from some of you relating to our work to drive healthy conversation on Twitter. People are asking us 1) about the breadth and precision of our work & 2) the impact of our work on the Search experience. We wanted to address these questions transparently here.

Kayvon Beykpour@kayvz

In May, we started using behavioral signals and machine learning to reduce people’s ability to detract from healthy public conversation on Twitter. This approach looks at account behavior & interactions with other accounts that violate our rules. https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/996421373902905344 

Twitter Safety


Today we are introducing new behavior-based signals into how Tweets are organized and presented in areas like conversations and search.

This is to improve the health of the conversation and improve everyone’s Twitter experience.

Once again, the interpretation of “behavioral signals” and the design that guides “machine learning” are in the hands, overwhelmingly, of liberals. As Ben Shapiro says:

[T]his is the problem: while social media giants like Twitter and Facebook insist that these are just misapplications of their algorithms, the algorithms themselves are completely non-transparent — and mistakes seem to universally hit just one side of the political aisle. There’s a reason for the lack of trust here, and transparency would help cure it. When you take it upon yourself to curate “healthy” conversation, you must define your terms — and all too often, those definitions have resulted in a bias toward those on the Left.

What is currently Twitter’s highest priority? Improving “information quality ahead of the elections.”

Kayvon Beykpour@kayvz

Though we’ve made a lot of progress towards a holistic solution, the truth is that this work is still incomplete and we’re choosing not to prioritize it just now (attached is an email I sent our Health leadership team last week) pic.twitter.com/6xoEv1n3TR

(Note:  Google is also  suspected  for zapping conservative commentary  and complaints.   I suspect so, but must admit I have no actual proof to “report”.  I only note that numbers of contacts  are down dramatically…..once President  Trump took office.)

CNN’s Leftist Fascists Play Racist Game to rid Minnesota’s Jason Lewis from the House of Representatives


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Everyone knows that CNN is maniacally devoted, 24/7, to trying to destroy the Trump administration. But it doesn’t end there. CNN is all in for the Democratic Party, and is doing its part to help the Dems capture the House in November.

See, e.g., the KFile, billed by CNN as “the leading investigation team for the social, mobile generation.” KFile features content by Andrew Kaczynski, pretty much all of which consists of anti-GOP smears. Kaczynski came to CNN via Buzzfeed, which you should keep in mind next time someone tells you that CNN represents legitimate journalism.

Kaczynski has a vendetta against my Congressman Jason Lewis, who represents Minnesota’s 2nd District. The 2nd is a swing district that the Democrats hope to capture this year; hence Kaczynski’s interest. Before he ran for Congress, Jason was a talk radio host for approximately 20 years. Shockingly, in his thousands of hours on the air, he occasionally said something controversial. In 2016, when the 2nd District seat was open, the Democrats tried to mine long-forgotten audio of Lewis on the radio for sentence fragments they could use against him. At one point, they suggested that he was pro-slavery. Happily, it didn’t work. Lewis won and is now running for re-election.

CNN is recycling old Democratic Party opposition research on KFile, and Kaczynski, by his own account, has been listening to hours of Jason Lewis on the radio, looking for nuggets that CNN can promote. (A normal person would learn a lot from listening to Jason’s radio show, but Kaczynski is beyond hope.) Kaczynski explains that he obtained 15 months worth of audio from Jason Lewis’s show from one Michael Brodkorb. Brodkorb was, at one time, a Republican operative in Minnesota. His career crashed after it emerged that he was having an affair with the Minnesota Senate Majority Leader. He later literally crashed, and subsequently embarked on the familiar career of a former Republican, feeding anti-GOP talking points to Dems. What a pair!

You might think that this sort of poison pen journalism by CNN is futile, but that wouldn’t be right. Other Democratic Party media have eagerly republished smears against Lewis that originated at KFile. The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and Time magazine have all republished Kaczynski’s “discoveries.” The irony is that the Democrats tried the same approach in 2016, only to have two local television stations run fact checks. They found that the Democrats’ anti-Lewis ads “mislead the viewer.” Here we go again.

The CNN-generated hysteria reached a point where The Hill headlined: “Media frenzy stirs up violence against Minnesota congressman.” The column, by John Lott, recounted some of the Democrats’ smears:

CNN’s K-File wasn’t done with Lewis. On Friday, it ran another story on Lewis’ “long history of racist rhetoric about African-Americans.” They were upset about another 2012 monologue.

“What the welfare state has done to the black community, a hundred years of racism could not do. A hundred years of racism could not break it up, it could not destroy black families. Jim Crow could not do it. But what dependency has done, is it has caused unwanted pregnancy, illegitimacy.”

Lewis could have simply quoted black economists Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. In a 2011 interview with Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal, Williams argued: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.”

So are Sowell and Williams racist?

I would add that Lewis could also be quoting, or anticipating, Candace Owens. Lott notes that Lewis’s family, like so many others, has been threatened by Democrats:

[T]here is a real cost to this media bias. Right after the news stories broke last week about his “slut” comments, Lewis told me his two daughters were threatened with violence. Last year, mobs surrounded Lewis’ home and frightened neighbors into calling the police. Threats were made about his townhall meetings.

The dark side of this “fake” news is that violence is being stirred up against people based on media lies.

That is today’s Democratic Party, as exemplified by CNN.

Will CNN succeed in flipping Minnesota’s 2nd District to the Democrats? I doubt it. The Democrats are running the same candidate as in 2016, Angie Craig. But Lewis won in 2016, and is now the incumbent rather than contending for an open seat. It is noteworthy that the Democrats can’t point to anything objectionable he has done in his time in Congress. On the contrary, his most important vote was in favor of the popular Republican tax reform bill.

But let’s not take any chances. Most observers think the Democrats will, indeed, capture the House in November. Among other things, this will enable them to shut down the investigations that have slowly shed light on the extraordinary abuses of power that occurred during the Obama administration. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. So if you want to fight back against the CNN/Democratic Party complex, go here to contribute to Jason Lewis’s campaign.



At Last Someone Challenges Snot- Nosed Leftist Liars in Public….Thank you, Secretary Pompeo!

Pompeo to Markey: “Fear Not,” Trump Not Being Fooled By North Korea; Hope You Can Sleep A Little Better Tonight


Democratic Sen. Ed Markey questions Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about whether the Trump administration is being “taken for a ride” by Kim Jong Un in the denuclearization negotiations.

“Fear not,” Pompeo said. “May I? Fear not, this administration has taken enormously constructive actions that have put us in a place that is far better than in either of the previous two administrations, one Republican and one Democrat. We have put an unequaled sanctions regime in place… until such time as denuclearization as we define it is complete. Pressure on the regime is clearly being felt. We still have lots of work to do, but unlike previous administrations, we have no intention of allowing the U.n. sanctions that we led the charge to be put in place, to allow those sanctions to be lifted or not enforced. And until such time as Chairman Kim fulfills the commitment that he made, I am incredibly hopeful that he will. We have not been taken for a ride, senator.”

“I hope you can sleep a little bit better tonight,” Pompeo said.



Will Jews of the “Fascist Left”, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, Charles Schumer et alia, Ban Roman Catholics from the Supreme Court?


by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

I perked up at bit last night during Brett Kavanaugh’s remarks at the White House when he said, “I am part of the vibrant Catholic community in DC.” This may have been a deliberate shout out to the social conservatives who are disappointed that the nomination didn’t go to Amy Coney Barrett, whom Sen. Dianne Feinstein slurred with her infamous comment that “The dogma lives loudly with in you.”

But maybe this comment was also Feinstein bait? In any case, we can expect Feinstein to reprise her role as an inquisitor in the Judiciary Committee hearings for Kavanaugh for the simple reason that she faces a serious challenge from her left in the November election from State Senator Kevin de Leon, who finished second in California’s “jungle primary” last month. De Leon is young and charismatic, and enjoys the enthusiastic support of the Bernie Bros and other surging leftist parts of the Democratic coalition in California. Feinstein, at age 85, is hardly a fresh face for Democrats, and has long been the moderate California Democrat in the Senate. It is not at all unthinkable that de Leon could beat her, so she will be wanting to shore up her left flank this fall. Kavanaugh’s invocation of his Catholic ties might be a way of saying, “Bring it on!” Kavanaugh’s dogma won’t get run over by Feinstein’s bad karma.

Meanwhile, who is de Leon? Good question. The Sacramento Bee looked into his background back in 2014, with some curious results:

The untold story of how Kevin Leon became Kevin de León

By Christopher Cadelago

The name on his birth certificate isn’t Kevin de León.

That’s how the Los Angeles Democrat identified himself more than two years ago when he was sworn in as the 47th president pro tem of the California Senate, the first Latino to hold the position in more than a century. On his birth certificate and voter rolls, however, the 50-year-old politician is Kevin Alexander Leon.

While he’s spent more than a decade climbing the ranks of California politics, rising to become state government’s second-most influential elected official, how KAL became KDL, as he’s known at the Capitol, is a tale he’s resisted telling the public. When he discussed his upbringing, he offered a simple account of growing up with a single mom who came to the U.S. from Mexico. . .

Adding two letters “was never a stretch,” de León said, because ‘de’ means ‘of’ in Spanish. Though he’s used the name – with an accent – for the last 30 years, de León never changed it on legal documents.“Everything that I sign is ‘de León.’ (It) always will be de León,” he said.

Sounds like we have another Gary Hartpence on our hands.



(Is that where today’s Bernie Sanders’  Democrat Party has come to in AD 2018?  …..a fascist assassination of everything Catholic?

Will this and other Prager supporting  sites be censored, smeared  by Leftist Google for asking such questions?

Has our once blessed America  already become  so thoroughly corrupted by the the leftist fascists at the  New York Times and Washington Post, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, AND CBS, and half of Fox News that an American as decent as Brett Kavanaugh be crucified?

My God, this Democrat section of America stinks with their classic EVIL and the mobs they have created and plotted at our schools and universities with their feminist, communist, Marxist, fascist, racist  Democrat Party deceit and bravado !

Sadly, by glenn h. ray!)