• 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

Is Omar What Goopherland Paul Welstone’s “Legacy” Created?

Rep. Omar And Rep. Crenshaw Fight About 9/11 On Twitter

This argument started with something Omar said at a CAIR event which took place on Saturday, March 23rd. A Twitter user who goes by @Imamofpeace criticized Omar for referring to the 9/11 attack on the United States with the dismissive phrase, “some people did something.”

Imam Mohamad Tawhidi


Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers to it as “Some people did something”, then she goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

That caught the attention of Rep. Crenshaw who said Tuesday that describing a terrorist attack that killed thousands of Americans that way was “unbelievable.”

Dan Crenshaw


First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as “some people who did something”.


Imam Mohamad Tawhidi


Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers to it as “Some people did something”, then she goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

Embedded video


McClatchy “Well Known For Publishing False Stories”, Being Sued For Publishing False Stories!


(Review the defamation pix and claim below….)

The only purpose of McClatchy’s story was to put Congressman Nunes’s name in a headline along with the words “yacht,” “cocaine,” “prostitutes” and “fundraiser.” In fact, he had nothing to do with the episode. Nunes is a limited partner in a limited partnership that owns a winery. The winery has a yacht, and donated an evening on board the yacht to a charitable auction. (No good deed goes unpunished.) The guy who bought the evening on the yacht at the charity auction apparently threw a party that included cocaine and prostitutes. Devin Nunes had no knowledge of it and nothing to do with it.

The whole story was a politically-inspired fraud. But McClatchy’s fake news spread widely in newspapers (“A new report links California Republican Congressman Devin Nunes to a lawsuit concerning a Napa winery’s San Francisco Bay cruise that allegedly featured prostitutes and cocaine”) and social media (“Devin Nunes just got caught up in a disgusting yacht, cocaine, prostitute scandal”).

The incident happened in 2015 and was reported then, but McClatchy’s Fresno Bee made a major story of it in 2018, apparently in hopes of defeating Nunes in his re-election bid.

There is much more in the Complaint. Among other things, the role of political operative Liz Mair (who says on Linked In: “What do I do for these clients? Anonymously smear their opposition on the internet”).

What are Nunes’s chances of winning? Close to zero, I assume. Under current defamation law, I think it is almost impossible for a public official to win a defamation case no matter how egregious the facts are. My hope is that Nunes’s case survives long enough to enable some discovery. It would be fun to look at the email traffic at McClatchy to see why they chose to resurrect the 2015 “yacht” story just in time for the 2018 election campaign, for example. And whether they acknowledged in writing that they targeted Nunes because his committee was investigating Obama administration misdeeds.

There is one other hope, I suppose: if President Trump gets another Supreme Court nomination, it is possible that the Court might revisit the constitutional straitjacket in which it has placed the common law of defamation. That would be a good thing, from which Devin Nunes might possibly benefit.


Klobuchar IS As Big a Political Crook As Other Dems!


by Scott Johnson  at  PowerLine:

Largely as a result of unprecedented Democratic obstructionism in the United States Senate, President Trump has yet to staff many executive positions in his administration or fill many judicial vacancies. This afternoon comes word that the Republican majority has finally altered Senate rules to reduce debate time on most presidential nominees by reducing post-cloture debate. They have done so by exercising what the media refer to as the “nuclear option” — what should probably be known as the Harry Reid option — under which a Senate majority changes the Senate rules.

In order to understand the meaning of this particular procedural change, please read Thomas Jipping’s explanation at NR’s Bench Memos. Jipping’s explanation incidentally exposes Amy Klobuchar’s utter dishonesty about it. Despite her reputation, as we have frequently pointed out, Klobuchar is just like all the rest. If she or any other Democrat were to become president, Republicans should be hard pressed to explain any vote in favor of the president’s executive and judicial nominees.

Who deserves the most credit for the change? One explanation you are guaranteed never to find on CNN, MSNBC, or in the newspapers they follow is the one advanced by Senator Tom Cotton with characteristically meticulous scholarship. In the video below, Senator Cotton recalls some ancient history relevant to this particular change (below). Whether we need go back quite this far, the credit certainly belongs to the man Senator Cotton singles out. Thank you, Senator Cotton.

Embedded video

Tom Cotton


Today, Senator Schumer reaps what he sowed 16 years ago. I will call it, Miguel Estrada’s revenge.


Greasy Fats Nadler in 1998 vs. Greasier New York Nadler Today

Nadler In 1998: Of Course You Can’t Release Grand-Jury Testimony In Prosecutor’s Report

Nothing is more consistent about partisan warfare in the Beltway than inconsistency. Today’s case in point comes from 1998 (and from Jeff Dunetz), when House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) objected to the idea that everything found by an independent prosecutor should get published for all to see. Nadler told Charlie Rosethat Ken Starr’s report might contain “all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” including “statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses.” Besides, Nadler argued at the time, releasing grand-jury material violated federal law.

NADLER: Well, we were just– the House was just reassembling today. We haven’t been in session for a month, so people were just arriving. I just got here in mid-afternoon, after having a series of meetings in New York. But we did get the report, which is now in the hands of the sergeant-at-arms under armed guard. It’s 36 boxes. We’re told it’s two copies, so it means 18 boxes per copy. There is, I gather, a 400- or 500-page report and the balance is appendices and supporting materials.

Now, Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. So, I assume what’s going to have to happen before anything else happens is that somebody — the staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority member — is going to have to go over this material, at least the 400 or 500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is, as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all. Now, the House Rules Committee will be meeting overnight, and I presume that we will vote tomorrow probably on a recommended rule as to how to handle the report.

Emphases mine. If that sounds familiar, it should; William Barr and others have made the same arguments about the contents of the special counsel report from Robert Mueller. On top of that, the Department of Justice has specific policies that prohibit the release of investigative material involving anyone who hasn’t been indicted. James Comey did that twice and got fired over it. That is why Trey Gowdy argued last week that the Mueller report shouldn’t be released in any significant form, public curiosity be damned. The executive summary should suffice for public consumption.

There’s a goose/gander argument here, at least at first blush. Starr ended up releasing a significant amount of material in his final report (which ended up being sold as a book), so one argument would be that to do otherwise now would be inconsistent. Also, as noted above, Comey did it to Hillary Clinton, although he got fired for it, too. Both of these are easily parried, however. In the latter case, the FBI and DoJ had been leaking like sieves in this investigation until Mueller took over the case and imposed an impressive amount of discipline on it. As for Starr, he operated under a different statute that didn’t require him to answer to the DoJ or follow its policies. And it was Starr’s investigation that motivated Congress to get rid of that earlier independent-prosecutor statute and replace it with the more accountable special counsel office to which Mueller got appointed in this case.

At any rate, don’t expect Nadler 2019 to be swayed by Nadler 1998, even if confronted by the latter, or any of those who still hold out hope of tripping up Donald Trump over Russiagate. They have rationalized away these objections long ago, as have Nadler’s House colleagues who are also leftovers from that period. The nature of 6(E) material hasn’t changed, but Nadler’s ambitions have. That’s all the consistency we can expect from Beltway veterans.



Dems Working Overtime to Hide Their Crimes and Misdemeanors!


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

To say that it has been a tough week for the Democratic Party is an understatement. Yesterday Mitch McConnell obliged grandstanding Democrats by bringing the Green New Deal resolution up for a vote in the Senate. The Democrats regarded this as a dirty trick, evidently because they do not intend their policy proposals to be taken seriously.

The Senate vote was 57-0 against the Green New Deal. Almost all Senate Democrats voted “present,” taking a leaf from the Obama playbook. The six senators who are running for president–Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand–all co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution, yet all voted “present.” All Republican senators voted against the resolution, joined by Democrats Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Doug Jones and Angus King.

The Democrats are coming in for a lot of well-deserved ridicule. Fir example:

Stephen Miller


I don’t know how I’m supposed to tell my 8 year old Minerva that Democrats today had a chance to save our planet and her future. And now instead her future will be drinking motor oil.

Ronna McDaniel


Booker compared the Green New Deal to fighting the Nazis.

Gillibrand compared it to the moon landing.

Harris called it “sound & important.”

Klobuchar called it “aspirational.”

But given the chance to vote on it, they all courageously voted: “Present!”https://www.gop.com/2020-democrats-courageously-vote-present 

2020 Democrats courageously vote “present”

When given the opportunity to vote for the “Green New Deal,” Democrats courageously voted “present.”

Yesterday’s vote reminds one of when the Senate voted 95-0 against the original anti-global warming measure, the Kyoto protocol. Al Gore famously was among those who voted no.

Was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, principal author of the bill to kill the cows, ban air travel and abolish the automobile, outraged by her fellow Democrats’ failure of will? Of course not. She is as much a phony as the rest of them. She denounced the Senate’s holding a vote on her resolution as “a disgrace.”

There are several serious problems with global warming alarmism. One of them is the disconnect between the problem, as described by alarmists, and their proposed solutions. That is, if you believe the models’ projections, the measures they support will do virtually nothing to avert catastrophic warming. If you believe the models, the Green New Deal doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. If the models are right (they aren’t, they absurdly overstate the importance of CO2, as has been proved by observation) the United States could cease to exist and it wouldn’t make much difference. In order to save the Earth–if the alarmists’ models are correct–something must be done about India and China, where hundreds of coal-fired power plants are now under construction.

If the Democrats really believed that climate change is an existential threat to the planet, they would advocate invading China and India in order to destroy their power plants (and, I suppose, murder their cows and force them to stop driving cars). Or perhaps the coal-fired plants could merely be bombed from the air. But the Democrats don’t advocate these measures. Climate change alarmism is a joke. It exists only for purposes of domestic politics, and as an excuse to feather the nests of “green” entrepreneurs who support the Democratic Party.


Dark Agenda, by David Horowitz

David Horowitz Exposes the Left’s Dark Agenda

by  Richard Kirk  at American Thinker:

Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, by David Horowitz,

David Horowitz has always been a writer whose work I’ve appreciated since his compelling political biography, Radical Son, which related the author’s break from his communist upbringing after Black Panther associates murdered his bookkeeper friend Betty Van Patter.  But brevity and crisp linkage of multiple intellectual threads were never characteristic of Horowitz’s brilliant, often voluminous, exposés of leftist thought and practice.  By contrast, Dark Agenda is a concise, chilling book brimming with evidence that links numerous cultural depredations to one overriding theme:  The left’s attack on Christian America’s founding in the name of “cultural Marxism.”

“Christian America” is the novel component in Horowitz’s analysis, a term that acknowledges the historical fact that America, at its founding, was 98 percent Protestant.  Protestantism, in turn, was intimately linked to the doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” and to the more broadly Christian idea that all people are created by God.  In view of these beliefs and the fact that Protestant groups were living side by side, it followed that in America there would be no institutional or governmental mediator between the individual and God.  It also meant that each individual’s rights were endowed solely by their Creator and that freedom of conscience and speech would be hallmarks of the new republic.

“Cultural Marxism,” by contrast, represents the application of its “oppressor versus oppressed” vision of society to various victim groups:  blacks, “people of color,” women, native Americans, homosexuals, transsexuals, and any other group claiming victimhood.  For Marxists what stands between these oppressed groups and a world in which “social justice” and equality is fully realized are the oppressors, those who supposedly establish the laws and mores that keep them in power.  Thus, failure or success isn’t the result of individual choices but the inevitable outcome of a system designed to unfairly help one group (white, Christian, males) and harm the others.  Accordingly, what matters politically is destroying the patriarchal Christian system itself with its emphasis on individual moral and economic choices and replacing it with a group-focused system that, in my own words, oppresses the oppressors.  Put quite simply, “Christian doctrines were foundational to the American Republic, which the left despises.”

After reading the last two paragraphs, one might think Dark Agenda is highly philosophical and abstract.  This impression couldn’t be further from the truth, as these core ideas are given clear expression and development via an array of examples, many of which are doubtless unknown to even the most politically-astute readers.  Who knew, for example, that the $621 million U.S. Capitol Visitor Center that opened in 2008 “is less a monument to the nation’s founding and institutions than it is to the antireligious left’s vision for America.  When it opened, all references to God and faith had been carefully, deliberately edited out of its photos and historical displays.”  For example, the national motto was said to be “E Pluribus Unum” when, in fact, it is “In God We Trust.”  Among other historical travesties, a large “image of the Constitution was photoshopped to remove the worlds ‘in the Year of our Lord’ above the signatures of the signers.” Similarly, the “table on which President Lincoln placed his Bible during his second inauguration is on display — just the table, not the Bible.”

These examples are picayune compared to the spiteful governmental coercion that’s been employed to force The Little Sisters of the Poor, among others, to violate their consciences thanks to Obamacare abortion provisions.  The Supreme Court has been the giant secular lever employed by leftists to fundamentally transform “Christian America” into a state hostile even to a school-girl who joined hands with classmates to give thanks for her food. These politically-motivated  “lawyers,” as Horowitz contemptuously labels the high court, began their anti-Christian, anti-Constitutional mission with the expulsion of prayer from public schools in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale).  That assault on the free exercise of religion now extends beyond commencement ceremonies and football fields to a bakery that was  embroiled in legal battles for years for refusing to provide a celebratory cake for a gay ceremony billed as a wedding — a “crime” made possible by Court rulings against the Defense of Marriage Act and in favor of redefining marriage.

The case of Roe v. Wade (1972), which awakened religious conservatives to the fundamental attack on Christian America, is cogently dissected in Dark Agenda, both from a constitutional perspective as well as through the eyes of Norma McCorvey, the anonymous “Jane Roe” who was intentionally deceived and reduced to a legal prop to secure the Supreme Court’s “right to privacy” abortion ruling.  (As Horowitz notes, in Marxist thought it’s the grand arc of history and oppressed groups that matter, not mere individuals.)  That ruling officially brought about the cultural civil war that for the anti-Christian left involves not simply a virulent hatred of President Trump but also hatred directed toward his supporters who are regularly vilified as Nazis, sexists, racists, homophobes, and “deplorables” who are rightly denied freedom of speech and conscience.  Trump’s Oval Office predecessor did his best to stoke these emotions as Horowitz’s litany of anti-Christian comments and actions by President Obama illustrate — from avoiding religious references during a traditional Thanksgiving ceremony to pursuit of a foreign policy that led to the annihilation of the ancient Christian community in Syria.

Among the sidebars accompanying Horowitz’s central narrative are insights into the abusive and mendacious character of atheist Madelyn Murray.  For example, in 1960 Murray “set out with her two sons . . . intending to renounce her American citizenship and defect to the Soviet Union.” Her repeated attempts at emigration were rebuffed by the Soviets who were probably aware of her emotional instability and violent outbursts.  Murray’s revolutionary predecessor, Margaret Sanger, was also a communist sympathizer and racist.  A 1930 article in The New Yorker about Ms. Sanger noted that her monthly newspaper, Woman Rebel, “mixed its birth-control propaganda with a good deal of red-flag-waving, and perorations of the ‘Workers of the World, Arise!’ variety.” The author also observed that she “composed an editorial declaring: ‘Even if dynamite were to serve no other purpose than to call forth the spirit of revolutionary solidarity and loyalty, it would prove its great value.'”

Horowitz ends Dark Agenda with this chilling paragraph reminiscent of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “A nation divided by such fundamental ideas — individual freedom on one side and group identity on the other — cannot long endure, any more than could a nation that was half slave and half free.  The urgency that drew the religious right into politics fifty years ago is now an urgency of the nation itself.”  Even individuals well aware of the cultural Civil War that now rages in America would do well do arm themselves with the insights in this book — insights that both explain the ideological  roots of the conflict and document a host of grievous wounds that “Christian America” has already suffered.  Horowitz, an honest agnostic, is doing his best to prevent those wounds from becoming mortal.



Dems on the March to Dislodge Our Freedom in America and its President Trump

New Hampshire Poll: Elizabeth Warren Leads Amy Klobuchar By One Point — For Fourth Place

by  Allahpundit  at  HotAir:

Is there anything new to be said about this terrible result for Warren in New Hampshire that wasn’t said about the last terrible result for Warren in New Hampshire? No, not really.

SEE ALSO: Sunrise Movement protesters occupy Sen. McConnell’s office, get arrested

Am I going to blog it anyway because it tickles me to see her struggling in her own backyard? Oh yes. Very much.

In fact, I should warn you now. There are likely to be many terrible polls for her over the next 11 months and I’m apt to write about every one of them, purely for the schadenfreude factor.

Emerson carved up the results by age group: 18-34, 35-54, 55-74, and, weirdly, 75+. The only one in which Warren’s not stuck in single digits is the last, where she’s at 18 percent. Imagine having as your core constituency a group of voters that’s at death’s door. For most candidates, the challenge in New Hampshire is attracting support. For Warren, an additional challenge is not having her current support expire before primary day.

It’s too obvious to belabor the point but Bernie’s decision to run and gobble up the progressive vote is an immense problem for the almost-but-not-quite-as-far-left Warren. Sanders is crushing it with the youth vote here, piling up a lead of more than 30 points in that group over second-place Joe Biden. (Bernie’s share of the vote declines with each successive age cohort.) Warren is left at the margins, rolling out a splashy new progressive idea every week to try to pick off part of the Sanders personality cult. She proposed a new tax on the mega-rich, she started talking up universal child care, she floated the idea of reparations for slavery. Today she’s out with something new.

Warren’s bid for the White House has been defined since its start by themes of fighting corruption and money in politics. The Massachusetts Democrat took that to the next level on Monday, blasting out an email to supporters vowing to forgo any “fancy receptions or big money fundraisers only with people who can write big checks,” as well as phone calls to wealthy donors.

“For every time you see a presidential candidate talking with voters at a town hall, rally, or local diner, those same candidates are spending three or four or five times as long with wealthy donors — on the phone, or in conference rooms at hedge fund offices, or at fancy receptions and intimate dinners — all behind closed doors,” Warren wrote. “When I thank the people giving to my campaign, it will not be based on the size of their donation.”

She’s going to try to cut into Bernie’s vote through sheer hustle, figuring that the more proposals she rolls out, the more it’ll force progressives to consider that she’s a better bet as president to move an ambitious agenda than Sanders is. That’s worth a shot strategically if you believe primaries really are decided by policy contests. I tend to think they’re decided by “brands.” And Bernie’s brand is an order of magnitude more valuable on the left than Warren’s is.

Gotta look on the bright side, though. Biden might not run, which means she’s liable to finish no worse than, uh … fourth, once Klobuchar inevitably passes her. In the state next door to her own. Hoo boy.

Congrats to Kirsten Gillibrand on keeping pace with John Delaney, by the way.