• 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

Our Constitutional Crisis Has to Do with Democrats Corrupting America’s Intelligence, Decency, and Freedom


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.

Yet today, a great many of the things that we consider to be within the federal government’s purview are absolute affronts to the Constitution, and particularly the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson held to be the foundation of the Constitution:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: “That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States and the People.”  To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

How can we define our nation to be one of limited federal authority when, every day, we see that the restrictions of our Constitution have become meaningless? And if the limitations of the Constitution (again, its central function) have largely become meaningless, how can it be denied that we have long existed in a state of “constitutional crisis?”

A federal Department of Education (DoE), for example, has absolutely no right to exist in the scope of the Constitution.  Congress was beyond its tether when it allowed for this executive institution to have been born.  Yet billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars have been thrust into this federal institution to regulate our children’s education, and few ever consider the question as to whether there was the right, in the first place, of the federal government to create such an institution with the immeasurable power it has.

Tell me, where in the Constitution can you find any evidence that the federal government has the right to confiscate wealth from Americans, and then to grant or withhold payment to states based upon this federal agency’s evaluation of their adequate adoption of Common Core curricula?  And when you cannot find any such evidence that the federal government has such a right granted by the Constitution, wouldn’t you have to admit that the Obama administration’s having done precisely that is in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, and thus represents a “constitutional crisis?”

Take a look at the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Department of Transportation.  There is equally no allowance given to the federal government, by the Constitution, to regulate these spheres of assumed jurisdiction.  All of these agencies, including the DoE, more embody the planks of Communism found in Marx’s Manifesto than our own Constitution.  And yet the mere fact that these federal now agencies exist is enough to give us, with our modern sensibilities, the presupposition that the federal government must have a right to exert its influence in said areas of life, however cumbersome or costly they may be, and however absent any validation for that assumed power might be in our nation’s Constitution.

The reality is that very little of anything Washington considers its day-to-day business today has anything to do with the Constitution.  Our constitutional crisis is, and for quite some time has been, that the Constitution no longer matters in our political discourse.  Our national conversation about whether a thing is right or wrong tends to be a matter of preference and partisan interest.  Yes, the Constitution can be opportunistically invoked by either side as substantiation for any outrage. But it is generally an argumentative substrate of convenience, and rarely of principle.

The left is currently demonstrating this with the furor over Comey’s firing, but I sincerely hope that when conservatives talk about “draining the swamp” in D.C., they are suggesting a return to constitutional principles of limited federal authority, because this thing works both ways.

After all, if Ivanka Trump pushes for a $500 billion federal childcare bill (as she’s doing) because it’s her preferred cause du jour, and Congress indeed acts to provide single mothers with taxpayer dollars for childcare, wouldn’t it be very much like the federal overreach that we once claimed Obamacare represented, and thus be a true “constitutional crisis?”  Where does the Constitution define that the role of the federal government to seize wealth from taxpayers to provide childcare for American mothers?

If you happen to like this idea so much, you are free to petition your state to enact such a law with your state’s money to subsidize the payments.  I believe it would still be wrong, but this is how federalism works, and how the Constitution was intended to work.

We can only make American great again by again making America what the Constitution intended it to be.  And we can only do that by working to rein the federal government back within the boundaries that the Constitution defines.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/our_constitutional_crisis_has_nothing_to_do_with_james_comey.html#ixzz4hNTStOJk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Democrats Play Fascism Attacking Trump’s Travel Order


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

“We wrote here about an ACLU lawyer arguing one of the Trump travel moratorium cases in the 4th Circuit who said that the president’s order “could be constitutional” if only it had been issued by the rightful president, Hillary Clinton.

As a matter of constitutional law–or law, period–that is idiotic. But it wasn’t just a slip of the tongue by an incompetent lawyer. Today, arguing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawyer representing the State of Hawaii answered a judge’s question by saying that “context matters,” and therefore a president other than Donald Trump could properly issue the same order.

It is not hard to understand what is going on here. President Trump’s travel moratorium is obviously constitutional, and unquestionably is authorized by a federal statute that specifically allows him to issue such immigration orders. Liberal lawyers shopped for grandstanding liberal district court judges who would go along with their absurd theories, but as they work their way up the chain of command, they can’t seriously argue that Trump’s order is, on its face, unconstitutional. That position is simply stupid.

Instead, they have to argue that it is “unconstitutional”–in the way in which liberals use that word, having no reference to the actual Constitution–only because it was issued by President Trump. They will eventually lose that argument. If it were accepted, it would effectively render the Constitution irrelevant. We would be living in a realm of pure, unconstrained politics.

The newspapers would have us think that the remarkable thing going on in Washington is the craziness of the Trump administration. I think it is far more accurate to say that the remarkable thing going on in Washington, and across the country, is the insanity of the Left.”

Fascist Canada’s Review of President Donald J. Trump

Why Is James Comey Still Around?


by Jonathan F. Kieler  at American Thinker

“James Comey epitomizes a lot of what is wrong with Washington and the elite culture of which he is a part. The question Americans ought to be asking after his recent testimony before Congress is not “What happened?” with Hillary Clinton, the election, or the Russians but “How the hell is this guy still running the FBI?” It’s a question for the president too.

Comey is a creature of Washington and the self-interested hypocritical elites that President Trump excoriated on his road to the White House. And yet there was Comey the other day, preening before Congress in his “ah shucks I’m just a big tall guy trying my darndest to do the right thing” act, balancing attacks from the left and right with a complacent disregard for any notion of what is right, other than his take at the moment on any particular issue.

Comey’s survival owes in part to some basic qualities. In many respects he is the type of guy who typically prospers in a hierarchical environment. He is tall and imposing, while being technically smart and basically competent. Comey always appears calm and has the knack to look slightly exasperated when fielding questions or criticism, as if those inquiring are barely worthy of his intellect or attention, but he deigns anyway.  In an attempt to buffer his obvious condensation he offers up that occasional “Aw shucks” moment, as when at the recent hearing he exclaimed “Golly!” to explain how he felt about the slings and arrows sent his way.

Comey is very much like his bete noir Hillary Clinton, the woman with whom he is now historically entangled — don’t try to imagine it literally. Like Hillary Clinton, he won’t go away, can’t admit to mistakes, nor does it appear he has a good sense of self-awareness. It’s like inspector Javert investigating Torquemada, or vice-versa, it really doesn’t matter.

Hillary Clinton obsessively blames Comey for her defeat at least in part because consciously or not, she recognizes that he acted much the way she would have in a similar situation. That is, she would have lied, dissembled, and rationalized a position that she thought would bring her personal advantage, and arrogantly blow off any criticism as ignorant or in bad faith.

And as like members of the same class, Comey’s “accomplishments” are actually similar to Hillary’s. They are marked by connections, politics, legalisms, self-interest, and mediocrity. Just as Hillary nurtured a false reputation as a crusader for women’s and the underprivileged, so Comey carefully cultivated one for probity and impartiality. The centerpiece of this construct, his 11th hour intervention to stop evil White House counsel Alberto Gonzales from getting ailing then Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off on a wiretapping order Comey deemed illegal has a kernel of truth to it, not unlike Hillary’s coming under sniper fire in Bosnia. It assumes that Ashcroft could not have refused to sign but for Comey’s hulking presence in the room. It’s a nice story, but that’s all it is.

Even Comey’s use of language mimics to some degree Hillary’s similar efforts, as when she modulates her grating harangue into an odd approximation of a southern drawl. Thus we get Comey’s “golly” comment, quite as if he fell off the turnip truck, and the even more inauthentic dyspeptic comment that he’s “mildly nauseous” over the idea that in another 11th hour act, reopening of the Clinton email investigation, might have influenced the election. Like everything Comey seems to do, it’s an attempt to have it both ways, to eat his cake and keep it too, which ought to make ordinary Americans on both sides of the aisle a bit queasy.

But Comey’s real genius is that he knows what ordinary Americans think doesn’t matter. All that matters is what his fellow elites think, and they still seem unwilling to make him pay for his myriad errors in handling the Clinton email scandal. He’s cleverly taken the position that because everybody is upset with his actions, both on the right and on the left, he must have done things correctly, like Solomon threatening to split the baby, only to tweak out the ethical center.

He knows that lawyers and politicians more than anyone are familiar with this approach, deal-making and compromise being the lifeblood of both professions. Every lawyer knows the old saw that a modest settlement is usually better than a trial, and that if both parties walk away from the negotiations unhappy, than the mediator must have done his job well.

But this is not what Comey’s really done. Unlike Solomon, metaphorically speaking, he actually split the baby that is federal law and procedure then ground it up into an unidentifiable mush, ladled equal portions to both Democrats and Republicans, and expects everybody to go “Mmmmm!” It’s enough to make a reasonable person much more than mildly nauseous.

The real question now is what does Donald Trump think about all this? One of his most puzzling moves was the decision to keep Comey on as FBI director. Not long after the FBI went through a pro forma interview of Hillary and shortly before Comey’s infamous July announcement that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges in the email scandal Trump tweeted that the system was “rigged” presumably with Comey at the controls. Comey’s July announcement seemed to prove that, but now Trump seems content to keep the rigged system in place, Comey still at the controls.

Trump came into office seemingly willing to confront and put some big tough guys in their places. But upon meeting and getting to know some of them, he’s had a change of heart, for example reverting back to “one China” rhetoric after meeting with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, whom he clearly respects. That might make perfect sense on the international stage and be good policy in dealing with the world’s largest nation, but Comey works for Trump.

Does Trump actually like the guy? Does he think Comey’s actually doing a good job now after excoriating him on the campaign trail? Or is Trump, like the Washington elites among whom Comey swims so successfully, unwilling to put the big guy in his place, which means somewhere other than the FBI……..”  Please read on:


Can Mass Voter Fraud in 2016 Presidential Election in California be Proved?


by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Voter fraud is a Rorschach test of American politics. If you are a liberal, you fervently believe that it is virtually non-existent, and any effort to prevent it must be a pretext. If you are a conservative, you believe that voter fraud is a reality and are probably suspicious that it sometimes swings elections.

At Breitbart News, former California State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly points out that California’s record keeping in relation to the driver’s licenses it issues to illegal aliens may provide a simple opportunity to find out, once and for all, how serious a problem voter fraud is:

[T]he California DMV can internally differentiate within their database who holds an “illegal alien” AB60 license — which contradicts what is being pushed by left-wing activist websites that have reassured illegal aliens that once the driver’s license is entered in the database, the entry is indistinguishable.

In a state like California, where every regular driver’s license holder is automatically registered to vote, and where almost a million illegal aliens have received these “federally-restricted, drive only” licenses — it’s critically important that additional safeguards be in place to prevent non-citizens from being “accidentally” registered to vote.

When asked about how the DMV prevents this from happening, Gonzalez said “[t]he programming blocks AB 60 applicants from having the option to register to vote.”

How is the California voter assured that voter fraud is not happening, given that the only safeguards in place are a computer program and the honor system?

Donnelly suggests that Attorney General Jeff Sessions subpoena California’s AB 60 list and its voter list from the last election, and compare the two. Good idea! We join in that suggestion.

If it turns out that there is no, or almost no, overlap, it doesn’t mean that voter fraud doesn’t happen anywhere else. (In Minnesota, for example, quite a few specific instances have been documented where the identity of the person casting an illegal ballot is known.) But if voter fraud isn’t happening in California, with its huge population of illegal immigrants, it probably isn’t a very big problem in most other states, either.

So let’s compare California’s lists and settle the question.”

Yes, Slippery Comey, but Where are the Indictments against CROOKED HILLARY?

How many crimes has Crooked Hillary committed, Mr. FBI man?  Where are the indictments against her that any noted Republican or common citizen would have received for the same crimes and put to jail?    You sounded  terrific self-serving on television today when your Democrats were play- investigating their Russian connection against Our Donald.

How many times did you remind your television audience that Anthony Wiener had no right to even one rather than thousands of classified emails from Hillary’s server?

You seemed clever, but sleazy today Mr. FBI man!   Where are these indictments?

Comey: Loretta Lynch’s Tarmac Meeting With Bill Clinton Forced Me To Go Public About Clinton Investigation

by Tim Hains   at realclearpolitics:

“At an annual FBI oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committe on Wednesday, FBI director James Comey said that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to meet with Bill Clinton on an airplane in Arizona forced his hand on his decision about whether or not to go public with the details about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton.

His decision to tell the public, he said “Offered us the best chance of the American people believing in the system, that it was done in a credible way.”

Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Plane Discussion “A Short, Chance Meeting” That “Was Purely Social

“I’m not picking on the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who I like very much,” Comey said. “But her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me. [After that], I then said, you know what, the [Justice Department] cannot by itself credibly end this.”

He continued: “The best chance we have as a justice system is if I do something I never imagined before, step away from them and tell the American people, look, here’s what the FBI did, here’s what we found, here’s what we think. And that that offered us the best chance of the American people believing in the system, that it was done in a credible way.”

JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: And I — I — I’ve lived my whole life caring about the credibility and the integrity of the criminal justice process, that the American people believe it to be and that it be in fact fair, independent and honest. And so what I struggled with in the spring of last year was how do we credibly complete the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails if we conclude there’s no case there?

Please read on…..Crooked Hillary’s rapacious husband meets with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac for a chat, or did they play tinker toys?



Hillary Still in Love….with Herself

Dems, Tell Hillary to Go Back to the Woods

 by A.B. Stoddard   at realclearpolitics:

“Before Hillary Clinton puts more miles on her comeback tour, Democrats should let her know she’s done enough damage and it’s time to pack it in. That won’t stop her, since even after losing to Donald Trump she fancies herself some misunderstood martyr, but it might slow her down a bit.

While they crawl out of the wilderness that both Clinton and President Obama left them in, any moments Democrats spend amusing their failed 2016 nominee as she tries to find a way back to some sort of relevance is more than wasted energy — it’s self-sabotage.

 Last week Clinton sat in sanguine reflection at a carefully timed interview at a Women in the World Summit event and blamed everyone but herself for her staggering loss five months ago. After telling New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that personally she’s just fine, but that “as an American, I’m pretty worried,” she listed the causes for her loss: WikiLeaks, for publishing real emails about her campaign; Russia, for interfering in the campaign; FBI Director James Comey; and misogyny. When asked about future office, she did not rule it out, repeating that she wants to do “interesting things” and has “no plans” to ever run again. It was, well, Clintonian in its predictability……..”   Please read on below.   With Hillary there is always more, more, and more!