• 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

The Left’s War on Free Speech

by Kimberley Strassel  at  IMPRIMIS       (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

“The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 26, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

I like to introduce the topic of free speech with an anecdote about my children. I have three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five. They are your average, normal kids—which means they live to annoy the heck out of each other.

Last fall, sitting around the dinner table, the twelve-year-old was doing a particularly good job at this with his youngest sister. She finally grew so frustrated that she said, “Oliver, you need to stop talking—forever.” This inspired a volley of protests about free speech rights, and ended with them yelling “shut up” at each other. Desperate to stop the fighting and restore order, I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.

The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.” She added that we could all start by listening more to what she says.

Then it was the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”

It was at this moment that I had one of those sudden insights as a parent. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies.

With that introduction, my main point today is that we’ve experienced over the past eight years a profound shift in our political culture, a shift that has resulted in a significant portion of our body politic holding a five-year-old’s view of free speech. What makes this shift notable is that unlike most changes in politics, you can trace it back to one day: January 21, 2010, the day the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling and restored free speech rights to millions of Americans.

For nearly 100 years up to that point, both sides of the political aisle had used campaign finance laws—I call them speech laws—to muzzle their political opponents. The Right used them to push unions out of elections. The Left used them to push corporations out of elections. These speech laws kept building and building until we got the mack daddy of them all—McCain-Feingold. It was at this point the Supreme Court said, “Enough.” A five-judge majority ruled that Congress had gone way too far in violating the Constitution’s free speech protections.

The Citizens United ruling was viewed as a blow for freedom by most on the Right, which had in recent years gotten some free speech religion, but as an unmitigated disaster by the Left. Over the decades, the Left had found it harder and harder to win policy arguments, and had come to rely more and more on these laws to muzzle political opponents. And here was the Supreme Court knocking back those laws, reopening the floodgates for non-profits and corporations to speak freely again in the public arena.

In the Left’s view, the ruling couldn’t have come at a worse time. Remember the political environment in 2010. Democrats were experiencing an enormous backlash against the policies and agenda of the Obama administration. There were revolts over auto bailouts, stimulus spending, and Obamacare. The Tea Party movement was in full swing and vowing to use the midterm elections to effect dramatic change. Democrats feared an electoral tidal wave would sweep them out of Congress.

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents,  it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation. It would send a message: conservatives choosing to exercise their constitutional rights will pay a political and personal price……..

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/lefts-war-free-speech/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=april17&hootPostID=1cc5fb9c0443fe5c1329715435c94eac

The Left’s Fascist Control of the American Television Screen

Ben Stein’s “Witch Hunting for Trump”

“I have heard about “Witch-Hunts” all of my life. When I was a small child, Senator Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) and the House Un-American Activities Committee were said by the left-wingers to be on a “witch-hunt” for Communists in the government. That’s what the left alleged against Richard Nixon when he was a young Congressman from Yorba Linda, too. The allegation was a bit misleading, though, because as far as we know, there are no such things as witches. There’s Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi and they are not nice, but no one could prove that there are even such things as witches, let alone that there are witches in high office.

But there were Communists and Communist sympathizers and friends of our murderous enemy, Stalin’s Russia, in high places in government. One need only mention Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, at State and Treasury respectively, to make the point. There really was something worth looking for — traitors who were demonstrably agents of an enemy.

Now, we have a new kind of witch-hunt going on against the administration and the person of Donald Trump. The allegation is that there was some kind of control of the 2016 Presidential Campaign exercised by the Russia and that the control ran by some kind of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump. And now, with the appointment of Mr. Mueller as a Special Prosecutor in this case, we see a REAL witch-hunt hit high gear. This one is a REAL witch-hunt because there is no evidence at all of any kind whatsoever that there was any collusion with the Russians by Trump. There is no evidence that the Russians controlled Trump or anyone in his campaign.

It’s all about a fantasy. So, now we have a hunt for something that is non-existent, as far as anyone knows. In Watergate, there was at least one little crime — the break-in at the Watergate. Here, there’s nothing. The Democrats are going on a witch-hunt for a woman who can ride her broom stick and cast spells that turn men into animals. There’s no evidence of it, but as Dr. Goebbels said, if you make the lie big enough and repeat it enough, people begin to believe it.

The issue was made incredibly clear — inadvertently — by Bob Beckel on Fox News Wednesday night. He was talking about the need for a Special Prosecutor. One of the sane people on the panel said something like, “But there’s no evidence that anything wrong was done.”

Beckel, who says he’s sober now, answered something like, “That’s why we need an investigation.”

But, if we are to investigate everything that’s not proved, as to which there is no evidence, then let’s start looking for zombies or spiders from Mars or flying saucers. Let’s try looking for evidence of wrongdoing by Trump on planets in other galaxies millions of light years away.

What we are seeing now is the physical manifestation of a bunch of high school girls’ hysteria as we saw in The Crucible. Mr. Rosenstein has bowed to the fantasy paranoid hysteria of the mean girls’ sorority known as the mainstream media and appointed a Special Prosecutor to look into — a fantasy. There’s no stained dress. No hollowed out pumpkin. No hollow nickels with microfilm. No, there’s just the mean girls’ sorority determined to get the Pi Phi’s, and somehow getting the deputy A-G to go along with their fantasy and pretend there’s something real about an allegation that a Pi Phi stole another girl’s boyfriend and flew away with him on her broom. And he’s a Special Prosecutor. He’ll find something someone did wrong somewhere. It won’t be about the subject — Russia-Trump collusion in the election. But he will find something and someone will go to prison. That’s what Special Prosecutors do (to Republicans). That’s why they exist. He’ll find something……”

https://spectator.org/witch-hunting-for-trump/

America’s Schools of the New Fascist Social Order?

Education: When the Dare’s on to Build a New Social Order

by Anthony J. DeBlasi       at  American Thinker:

“Progressive Education” came to my school when I was a student at Halsey Junior High School in the 1940s (P.S. 85, Brooklyn, N.Y,).  Principal Stella Sweeting was thrilled as a little girl getting a doll house for Christmas, but the rest of us, teachers included, thought this “experiment” in schooling was silly.  Oh, it was fun to cut classes and paint murals in the hallways – the brainstorm of class buddy Bob and I that, to our surprise, was approved.

Such “official cheating” didn’t faze those with A’s and B’s in their subjects – we’d catch up later (in high school maybe?) – but what of the students who might stumble from such sliding and find it difficult to overcome the challenges ahead?  While this loosening of educational standards at Halsey was, in a word, pleasant, most of my teachers took a dim view of a theory of education that not only ditched authority and tradition but dismissed academic achievement as well – the stance of early 20th Century Marxist education reformers with a mission to prepare America for a socialist future.  Why did the “progress” they envisioned in their “progressive” educational method of indoctrination include dumbing?

How serious a problem this watered-down schooling would be became clear to me when the principal of my high school (Bushwick High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.), Milo F. McDonald, published a report entitled “‘Progressive’ Poison in Public Education” which he delivered to the American Education Association in 1951.  The McDonald Report exposed in detail the so-called “activity program” – better known as “Progressive Education” – that was sprung on the New York City Schools in 1935 in the guise of an experiment, and was being pushed since then.  It was in fact a stealth program launched by John Dewey and a group of like-minded educational theorists to prepare future citizens for a coming socialist age.  It was time, claimed one of them, George S. Counts, to “dare the teachers to build a new social order.”

Since the facts presented in the McDonald Report and the strong case it made against Progressive Education would undermine the Progressive agenda, the one path open to the report was to the bottom of the dustbin of education history.  I have kept a copy of that forgotten report all these years, aware of its importance; it is now accessible at Don Potter.

The dumbing down of successive generations of school children has become documented history.*  The contrast in general school smarts before and after 1960 is plainly visible to older Americans. Less conspicuous is the collateral damage to our culture.  A hint of this negative “side effect” showed in the blight that crept into entertainment in the second half of the 20th Century.  I call it blight because increasing groupthink and decreasing originality fed my perception that independence and creativity in the communication and other arts was declining.  The trend, in numerous ramifying ways including academics, was diminishing the quality of mainstream life in America.

This dumbing trend became the subject of books like The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom in 1987. Much has been written about this trend since, but little has been done to correct it.  The intellectual dimming and cultural downsliding in America long before alarms sounded in books and alternative publications was more than worrisome for those of us who became culture warriors.  Even The American Scholar, signature publication of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, was showing signs of cultural decrepitude after 1960.  An article by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on “sex discrimination” was a hint of the lunacy infecting America’s mental assets.  Ginsburg’s intellectual hubris on the pages of a respected journal was for me a warning that academics were slipping away from reality.  (Ruth Bader Ginsburg would go on to become a Justice of the Supreme Court.)

As the graduates of a system of education that was geared to a socialist restructuring of society gained positions of responsibility and leadership in education, publishing, entertainment, and public service, the writing on the wall of the early 20th Century became the nightmare we face today.

A disheartening fact of American education is that public school teachers don’t know the ugly facts of their own history.  Their collective loss of memory of what made them what they are – the stealth Marxist transformation of the public schools – is one of the great tragedies of the 20th Century.  Those of us who have remained awake through the years must make it our mission to enlighten the young, with the hope and prayer that the 21st Century restore the sanity that once prevailed in our country.

[*See the deliberate dumbing down of america by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, Conscience Press, 1999.]

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

DEMOCRATS PLAY SOVIET FASCISM IN ATTEMPT TO DUMP TRUMP

Democrats project their own Soviet betrayals on Trump

by James Lewis   at  American Thinker:

“Democrats acted in close collusion with the Soviet Union when Lenin, Stalin, and all the other Red totalitarians were in power.  In some cases, leftists betrayed U.S. national security secrets to the Soviets, the most famous being the atom bomb secrets.  Today, Democrats are accusing Donald Trump of plotting with Vladimir Putin to steal an election.  They have convinced themselves that Trump is giving away national security secrets, right in the Oval Office.

This is, in fact, what Bill Clinton did by re-classifying U.S. missile launching secrets to become non-secrets, allowing them to be sold to China.  It is also what Hillary may have been doing with Huma Abedin (from the Muslim Brotherhood family) and letting her email server be so easily hacked that any knowledgeable foreign power could get the U.S. SecState’s confidential information.  Hillary took Muslim Brotherhood money through the Clinton Foundation, and now we know that Bill and Hillary were both involved in a Russian buyout of 25% of U.S. uranium sources.

During the Cold War, when conservatives criticized Soviet Russia, they were viciously slandered by liberals.  Americans in the Cold War always had two great enemies: the Soviet Empire and the domestic left.  If you doubt it, look back at Vietnam, Korea, and other big flare-ups in the Cold War.  The left was always 100% predictable.

If Democrats had a conscience, it would sink them from their weight of guilt.  Fortunately, their media dominance can block out a whole century of pro-totalitarian agitation and propaganda.  The left is utterly deaf, dumb, and blind, most of all to their own guilty collusion with Marxist totalitarianism wherever it spread.

So be it.

But now that Trump and Putin are seeking a way to work together to defeat today’s greatest dangers, the North Korean-Iranian Axis of Evil, the Dems are accusing the president of ratting to the Russians.

Weird, isn’t it?

Ego defenses are very simple.  Let’s say you hate Donald Trump with a deadly passion and have wishful dreams of murdering him, along with Ivanka and the rest of the family.  But you believe you’re a loving peacenik, so you can’t actually admit your hatred to yourself.

So you end up believing:

1. I don’t hate Trump.  I just think he is an idiot who will sell us out to the Russians. My hatred is righteous anger.

2. I don’t hate Trump.  I just think he’s guilty of firing the FBI director to cover up his criminal collusion in stealing the election with Putin’s help.

More righteous anger.

3. I don’t hate Trump.  I just think Trump hates women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, militant atheists, and me.  (Projection.)

All the defense mechanisms are lies.  They distort our feelings in different ways.  The more you distort your feelings, the more primitive and infantile your defenses are.

Obama has pretty primitive defenses, which is why he keeps tossing out blatant lies to the public and praising himself.  Narcissists start with infantile grandiosity and sometimes hatred for others, because deep inside, they are extremely insecure and self-critical.

When Obama did his “blame America” bowing trip eight years ago, he never, ever blamed himself.  Or the left.  Even though the left killed 100 million people in the 20th century, according to Marxist historians.

Obama seems to be utterly incapable of saying, “I was wrong.  I’m sorry I ordered the disastrous invasion of Libya, for no reason whatsoever.”

He will never apologize to Egypt’s President Sisi for overthrowing his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak, and installing an M.B. stooge instead.

Today, Sisi is still in a civil war with the M.B.s in the Sinai Desert and Gaza.

Obama took the side of the Moobers against Sisi, and in Syria and Libya, he took the side of al-Qaeda.

If you’re having trouble understanding the twisting party line of the left, just take a look at Wikipedia’s article on ego defenses, and you can pretty much put a check mark next to whichever one they are using today.

It’s sad.  I wish they would grow up.

But so far they are stuck in denial and infantile rage.

When Communism first swept European universities, a wise man remarked, “These people think they are physicians to society, when they are only the disease.”

It’s their only playbook, and they never stop following it.

Conservatives haven’t fought the left nearly hard enough, because we keep thinking they will change and be open to reason.  But they haven’t.  When they were discredited after the 1940s and ’50s, they just went into hiding to come back in the 1960s.  They are a stubborn virus, and they prey especially on the young and historically ignorant.  They have turned our universities upside-down with malice aforethought.

Nobody in Russia and China seriously wants to bring leftism back.  They are still suffering from the effects.  But in many Western universities, the toxic doctrine of violent utopianism is being preached, along with violent jihadism (which is another utopian cult belief).

We failed to stop them when the virus was still controllable.  Let’s hope the administration can appoint enough constitutionalist judges to help us return to a free and open society.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/democrats_project_their_own_soviet_betrayals_on_trump.html

Politically Correct Fascists at ABC Zap Tim Allen

ABC Cancels Tim Allen’s Successful Comedy Last Man Standing and It Looks Like It Was Because of His Conservative Beliefs

https://stream.org/abc-cancels-tim-allens-successful-comedy-last-man-standing-and-it-looks-like-it-was-because-of-his-conservative-beliefs/

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

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.

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

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