• 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

Relative to Population, Murderers in America Overwhelmingly are Urban Blacks Without Fathers

(America’s Blacks Vote Democrat by 10-1, a Truth never mentioned:

On average, there is mass killing bigger than Vegas in Chicago each month

By Jack Hellner  at American Thinker:

“There were 762 murders in Chicago in 2016, the most in 19 years.  On average, there was mass killing – by different perps – that adds up bigger than the Las Vegas massacre each month.  Where is the wall-to-wall coverage?

Chicago has very strict gun laws, with no gun shops in Chicago.  The Chicago police and politicians know where the criminals, gangs, and guns are, so why don’t they get them off the street?  We see more effort to restrain the cops instead of restraining the criminals.  In Chicago and elsewhere, we repeatedly see killings and other serious crimes committed by illegals and legal citizens with long criminal records.  What we have is a catch-and-release program instead of a system that protects the public.  We have more concern for the criminals than either the cops or the victims.

Where is the outrage on the nighttime news and the late-night “comedy” shows about the mass killings each month in Chicago?  Where was the demand for a discussion during Obama’s eight years as to why the strict laws weren’t working?

Instead of trying to save the children and others in Chicago at the hands of gangs and other criminals, we had discussions about how bad the police were.  We had demands for sanctuary cities to coddle people who willingly violate our laws.

Many mass killings throughout the world occurred in gun-free zones.  Why weren’t the people safe?

The Nazis took away the guns.  Did that make it safer for the citizens, or did millions die at the hands of the tyrant socialists who took away the guns?

Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they gave us the Second Amendment to protect the people from the tyrants who throughout history have been willing to kill thousands and millions of their people.

So yes, let’s have an honest nationwide political discussion: we should discuss why the gun crime rate is so much higher in Chicago than Houston, even though Houston has much more lenient gun laws and many gun shops.  We should discuss why so many mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, since that is what they are supposed to protect against.  We should honestly discuss black-on-black crime and murders, because that is the cause of most black deaths, not cops or whites.  We should discuss why so many groups gin up hate on cops, since the significant majority of them do their best to protect the public and reduce crime.

Let’s have an honest discussion about sanctuary cities.  Isn’t it logical for people to believe they have the right to pick and choose what laws to obey if politicians who took an oath to enforce the laws pick and choose which ones they want to enforce?  The majority of the public is against sanctuary cities, so why don’t Democrats and reporters who live and die by polls care about those polls?

We should also be honest about Colin Kaepernick.  He kneeled as a protest against cops and to discuss race.  When he wore pigs on his socks, he was ginning up hate against cops.  He, along with Obama, wants to remake America.  It was not about freedom of speech.  When reporters, Democrats, other athletes, and Hollywood say it is about unity and freedom of speech, they should be asked about the pigs on the socks.

The protest by Colin wasn’t popular, so we got the fantasy that it was about freedom of speech.  Then we got the media, politicians, athletes, and others pretending Trump turned it to race.  Reporters and others do a lot of pretending about Trump.  They were for Hillary, and they hate Trump, and almost all reporting reflects that.

I have turned off the nightly “comedy” shows because they are anti-Trump all the time.  Hillary jokes would be much more relevant.  She is a whiny little child complaining every day about how mistreated she is.  They never cared about anything Obama did.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/on_average_there_is_mass_killing_bigger_than_vegas_in_chicago_each_month_.html

Advertisements

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: THE WAR BETWEEN VICTORIOUS NOISE AND LOSER MUSIC WITH SOUL

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MUSIC?   WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO TODAY’S HUMAN SOUL?  WHERE DID ALL  TODAY’S REPLACEMENT NOISES FOR THE ANIMAL EAR COME FROM?

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THOSE NOISES FROM BEETHOVEN?  HANDEL?  W.C. HANDY?  RICHARD WAGNER?  GIACOMO PUCCINI?  GIUSEPPE VERDI?

Some guy at the American Thinker seems to want to know as well?   If you too are an American Thinker, THINK ABOUT WHATEVER HAPPENED TO REAL HUMAN MUSIC?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/what_happened_to_our_music.html

Our Donald Turns to Tax Reform

GRADING TRUMP’S TAX REFORM PLAN

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

“Today President Trump and Congressional Republican leaders released a “framework” for tax reform, which you can read here. The framework is more an outline than a plan; while its principles are generally good, a lot depends on how Congressional committees fill in the details. And then, of course, it remains to be seen what will actually get through Congress. So far, leadership’s track record is not encouraging.

Here are some observations on the framework’s major features:

The plan increases the standard deduction and consolidates the current seven tax brackets into three, at 12%, 25% and 35%. Grade: Incomplete. There is no indication where the bracket lines will be drawn, which makes a big difference to most taxpayers. Also, the document holds out the possibility that “[a]n additional top rate may apply to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code.” This is a poor idea: the current tax code is the most progressive in the developed world, and needs to become less so.

It eliminates the alternative minimum tax. Grade: A. This change is long overdue.

It abolishes most itemized deductions, including for state and local taxes. Grade: A. There is no reason why low-tax states should subsidize high-tax states, and no reason why the federal government should underwrite state and local profligacy.

It repeals the estate tax. Grade: B+. The estate tax is paid only by people who have paid way too many taxes already. The “death tax” is widely unpopular, and doing away with it is a political plus.

It establishes a 25% top tax rate for “small and family-owned” proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations. Grade: ? Frankly, I don’t understand this one. The idea is to help small business owners, but it is hard to see a consistent rationale. Does it mean that lawyers working in proprietorships or small partnerships, for example, will have a 25% top rate? The document says, “The framework contemplates that the committees will adopt measures to prevent the recharacterization of personal income into business income to prevent wealthy individuals from avoiding the top personal tax rate.” I don’t get it.

It reduces the corporate tax rate to 20%. Grade: A-. The ideal corporate tax rate would be 0–one of my law professors once remarked that the only intellectually respectable argument for the corporate income tax is that it employs a vast army of accountants and lawyers–but this is an important step in the right direction.

It allows expensing of capital investments other than structures for at least five years. Grade: C. Along with the cut in corporate tax rates, this will generate a surge of capital investment that will boost the economy in both the short and long term. But unless I am missing something, depreciation makes more sense than expensing, and there is no exigency to justify a temporary holiday.

It reforms taxation of international corporations. Grade: B+, I think. The idea is to facilitate repatriation of profits earned overseas to the United States. Prospectively, there will be no income tax on dividends paid by foreign subsidiaries to U.S. parents. That’s good, and, once again, long overdue. The framework provides for a transition to that system, but the description of the transition mechanism is too sketchy to evaluate. The plan also will “[tax] at a reduced rate and on a global basis the foreign profits of U.S. multinational corporations.” This would make our tax system more like everyone else’s, and is intended to eliminate the incentive to headquarter companies overseas. Again, the details are absent.

Overall, the concepts of the framework are good, although it is disappointing that the top personal rate is not reduced more, and may not be reduced at all. Important details remain to be filled in, and it is not clear whether House and Senate leadership have agreed on them or not. Moreover, what leadership agrees on isn’t necessarily what can pass. If anything remotely resembling the framework becomes law, it will give the economy a major boost, so the Democrats will fight it tooth and nail. Consequently, I assume that once again, a handful of Republican senators will be able to exercise a veto. Moreover, blue state GOP Congressmen (unlike the Senate, the House still has some Republicans from high-tax states) are likely to rebel against elimination of the state tax deduction.

So it’s a good, albeit imperfect, set of proposals, but at this point it is impossible to say what, if anything, will ultimately pass.”

How to Dry Up the Funding For the Democrat Fascist Left

How to Dry Up Hollywood Funding for Democrats

by Ed Lasky  at American Thinker:

“Tired of Hollywood powers that be attacking Republicans in the most insulting and ignorant (see Barbra Streisand tweets, for example) way?  You can strike back, YUGELY.

Tom Hanks and Oprah routinely promoted Barack Obama. Have you had enough of Mark Ruffalo (who did not attend college) spouting nonsense and twaddle to his millions of twitter followers? Disgusted by Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore and many more celebrities lecturing us on our responsibilities to Mother Earth while they consume vast amounts of carbon and calories (in the case of the latter, anyway)? Does George Clooney need a bigger estate on Lake Como? Does Johnny Depp need more money to blow and pay lawyers to defend himself from charges he beats up women?

For decades, conservatives have been under siege from Hollywood. The few overtly conservative actors have been all but blacklisted and, their Marrano counterparts are often afraid of revealing their true selves to coworkers. Democrats routinely collect donations from Democrats in La-La Land. They often also benefit from the luster celebrities impart to their campaigns via appearances, performances, and social media.

There is one easy way to strike back and it was revealed by, of all places, the New York Times.

The past summer box office has been one of the most horrendous Hollywood has faced in years. This has been partly due to competition from other entertainment options (including video gaming), high ticket prices, and a run of movies that are just plain awful…….”   (Please read on!)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/how_to_dry_up_hollywood_funding_for_democrats.html

Twila Brase Asks: Will President Trump be Forced to Rob Peter to Pay Paul in Health Care World?

Commentary by Twila Brase, Director of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom:

Will President Trump Rob Peter?

Health plans are fear-mongering. They’rethreatening to hike insurance premiums unless President Trump pays subsidies that even the Democrats refused to fund. Now the Congressional Budget Office piles on, agreeing that premiums will increase if Trump refuses to pay the ACA cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies to health plans.

Here’s the bottom line: Health plans want Trump to rob Peter to pay Paul. Health plans promise lower premiums if Trump agrees to redistribute wages through higher taxes.

This is attempted extortion.

The health plans no doubt knew the 2010 ACA did not fund these subsidies so they should NEVER have agreed to participate in the Obamacare exchanges in 2013. Perhaps Obama promised them he’d go around Congress, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Obama made CSR payments to health plans to lower the cost of deductibles and co-pays for people up to 250% of federal poverty guidelines (average payments of $12 – $120/person/mo) – even though Congress never authorized it. That’s why the U.S. House sued the Obama administration.

The folks getting lower premiums through CSR subsidies are also eligible for premium subsidies, with both subsidies being paid directly to the health plans. Insurers want to keep this stream of taxpayer cash flowing.

In 2016, unlawful CSR payments to health plans were made on behalf of around 9.6 million people. The payments total $7 billion to $10 billion a year. We should encourage health plans to exit Obamacare and let the exchanges collapse. States may quickly remember Tenth Amendment rights, reclaim their authority over health policy and restore the affordable catastrophic coverage prohibited by the ACA. Trump can choose to:

  • Let health plans charge Americans the full cost of Obamacare to build the public opposition necessary for full repeal, or
  • Maintain the pro-Obamacare stance of lower-income Americans by protecting them with subsidy dollars taken from taxpayers by force.

To advance repeal, his choice is easy. The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives wonits lawsuit against Obama’s CSR payments but subsidies were allowed to continue pending appeal. The Trump administration has asked twice for a delay (Feb and May) in deciding whether to drop the appeal. The next decision on the case and the subsidies comes this month.

Ask President Trump to do three things:

  1. Drop the administration’s appeal of the U.S. House CSR lawsuit
  2. Stop the unlawful CSR subsidies to health plans – End the Obamacare bailouts
  3. End the taxpayer-funded “special contribution” Congress and their staffers get to cover the cost of their ACA premiums (about $12,000/year).

Contact him here or here. Everyone, including Congress, should feel the full force and unaffordable effect of the ACA. That’s how we’ll get it repealed!

Uncompromising for freedom,

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President and Co-founder

Prager U. “Why is Health “Care” So Expensive?

I still work landscaping grounds while  closing in on age 83.   I am half the worker in strength, memory, agility, humor, and speed I was a year ago.   The day before Thanksgiving last year, I endured a knee replacement surgery and spent the next month in recovery.  My bill for the enterprise was around $80,000 for the surgery and its incumbent following vacation.   But, I am still alive and kicking…..as well as regaining the memory.  (I’m no longer on oxycodone.)

My bank savings averages around $1,500 per month, except in winter when often I have to rely on ready reserve to cover my weekly existence.

For nearly 30 years  I, and my family were maintained in good health by “Group Health” here in Minnesota, the best health care a human nest could possibly possess.  Our doctor was a doctor who knew my family and its health issues.  He was not a today’s secretary ‘doctor’ a creation of costly modern medicine insurance.  You know, that guy…and now a few women, factory folk who look to the computer to read what is written about you….and act accordingly within ten minutes until “Next!”

Why is health care so expensive?   I turned to the following article at Prager U. to find out!

https://www.prageru.com/courses/economics/why-healthcare-so-expensive

 

 

Bernie Sanders’ Wife in Trouble for Ten Million Dollar Bank Fraud

Chuck Todd on MTP does not ask Bernie Sanders about FBI investigation of wife for $10 mill bank fraud

By Thomas Lifson at American Thinker:

“Chuck Todd occupies a singular position in broadcast journalism: host of the oldest program in the history of American television. Yesterday, he did something that must have Tim Russert, Lawrence Spivak and Martha Rountree spinning in their graves. He hosted Bernie Sanders, arguably the leader of the American electoral left, and did not ask him about the FBI investigation of his wife for a suspected $10 million bank fraud, nor about reports that he and his wife are lawyering up.

Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/chuck_todd_on_mtp_does_not_ask_bernie_sanders_about_fbi_investigation_of_wife_for_10_mill_bank_fraud.html