• 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 Conservative Jonahs Who Turn Rodent if Our Donald Isn’t Perfect!


(Dear reader—Fair warning: this is a long post, so best to settle in on the couch and make sure your dogs have completed their morning walks . . .)   

by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

Okay class, everyone settle in for today’s seminar and get out your textbook, Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West.  Turn to page 316, and circle this sentence: “Indeed, as much as I hold Trump in contempt, I am still compelled to admit that, if my vote would have decided the election, I probably would have voted for him.”

I begin with this admission against Jonah’s supposed interest to point out to his many detractors on the right that he is actually on our side. A lot of my friends are on a hair trigger with everything Jonah says or writes these days because of his relentless criticism of Trump. (For some reason most of my critical friends seem to be named Julie. A statistician will probably tell me this can’t be chance—it must be a conspiracy! Though actually it is the pseudonymous “Tom Doniphon” who is working overtime at American Greatness to smack Jonah’s book around.) The ongoing divisions over Trump are provoking complaints that, among other sins, Jonah has committed a literary appropriation (heh) of James Burnham’s famous 1962 title. This is a silly charge, as Harry Jaffa first explained to me about why he wasn’t bothered by the many other authors who also titled their Lincoln books A New Birth of Freedom.

Now, I have my own specific criticisms of Jonah’s book; in fact I have enough nits that I can probably knit a small sweater. Yes, he has some details of Michael Anton’s biography wrong; yes, his handling of the Declaration of Independence is sloppy in a couple of respects (but correct on the essentials); yes, Lockeans in every corner of the ring will want to dispute his summary accounts of Lockeanism as incomplete. (The irony of the long-running disputes about Locke is that they resemble an intellectual state of nature out of which no civil society seems ever likely to arise. But that’s a subject for another day—and 500 more books.) At the end of the day, as I shall try to explain, all of these nits will yield a sweater barely suitable to cover up an anorexic Barbie doll.

My chief overall complaint about Jonah—aside from not coughing up those old blackmail photos of me from Vegas he keeps in a safe deposit box—is that for all of his copious pop culture references, there is a conspicuous absence of references to Blazing Saddles. Which absence, as any East Coast Straussian will tell you, obviously means that he screens Saddles every Saturday morning. As I’ve paraphrased to him many times, adopting his own self-description, “What’s a dazzling Upper West Side demi-Jew like you doing in a rustic setting like Washington DC?”

Anyway, rather than embark on an undoubtedly frustrating and unproductive disputation over specific criticisms of Jonah and Jonah’s book from my friends (or enemies), I want to set out instead by disputing a positive review of the book that I think starts out wrongheaded, out of which I think a robust general defense can be constructed that does not require frowning at my friends. Adam Keiper opens his review of Suicide of the West in the Weekly Standard in the following way:

Goldberg’s book is a big, baggy, sometimes frustrating, often brilliant combination of intellectual history and political essay. He says that the original manuscript was twice as long as the final product; it certainly should have been much further pruned.

Wrong, and wrong. It’s not the book that’s baggy. Jonah’s pants are baggy, and perhaps Keiper is coming closer to explaining Trump’s famously inscrutable dig at Jonah’s supposed inability to buy trousers. It’s the last sentence—“it certainly should have been much further pruned”—that is the wrongest part of Keiper’s evaluation.

As Jonah has explained, the original manuscript of the book was more than twice as long as the final product, and was reduced at the request of his editors at CrownForum books (my publisher, I’ll add; they were very indulgent of my preposterous notion of writing a huge two-volume political biography of the life and times of Reagan, for which extraordinary latitude I’ll always be grateful). I understand why the publisher would want the book, or any book, to be shorter, and I’m sure the shorter length aids overall sales, but I think the book is in fact too short. I would like to have had the longer version. Too bad we can’t do books after the fashion of movies, with a “writer’s original edition” like we have a “director’s cut” of so many movies.

Okay, yes, I’m weird. For example, I much prefer the complete, unabridged four-volume version of Churchill’s Marlborough to the dreadful one-volume edition edited by Henry Steele Commager, who managed to be unerring in cutting out the best parts of Churchill’s account. (I have a theory about why Commager edited Churchill as atrociously as he did, but that’s for another day, too.)

Another way of getting at the inherent defect—but necessity—of short books is to ask for a show of hands for the following question: how many of you have read even one volume of Deirdre McCloskey’s magisterial trilogy consisting of Bourgeois DignityBourgeois Virtues, and Bourgeois Equality? Confession: I have only read a little of McCloskey’s triptych, but have long been a huge fan of all of McCloskey’s remarkable body of work, and agree with Jonah about McCloskey’s originality and deep cross-disciplinary perception. McCloskey is one of the very few senior academics who can rightly be called a polymath of the old school. Just have a look at McCloskey’s author description in her books: “Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago.” She really is an Erasmus for our time.

And in fact McCloskey is one of the inspirations and sources for some of the main themes in Suicide. McCloskey set out to get at a surprising mystery: there is no consensus about what causes economic growth, or an explanation for why the “industrial revolution” began to take off like a rocket roughly 300 years ago after centuries of essentially no economic growth at all. (The subtitle of Bourgeois Dignity is Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World.) The standard factors we learned in Econ 101 way back when—land, labor and capital—aren’t the driver, nor is technological progress. Institutions matter, yes, as does most crucially classical liberalism. But our picture of the prosperity and success of the West is getting more out of focus as time goes on.

McCloskey offers some provocative and well-argued ideas, but Jonah’s shorter work casts an even wider net, and attempts to return fire against the contemporary attacks on democratic capitalism, which, in case you haven’t noticed, have been gaining strength lately. One large part of the reason for this is the willful nihilism of the modern left, or what Malcolm Muggeridge way back in the 1970s called “The Great Liberal Death Wish.” Yes, Jonah perhaps owes one of his main themes—that suicide is a choice—more to Muggeridge than Burnham, but in any case he actually explains it with explicit reference to Lincoln’s warning in his Lyceum Address that if America ever fails it will be on account of self-willed causes—suicide—rather than foreign military invasion. Lincoln underestimated the potential for the invasion of bad foreign ideas—this is a major theme of both this book and Jonah’s previous exploration, Liberal Fascism, but in any case this reference alone earns some chits with this Claremonster. (One thinks immediately of Leo Strauss’s remark about German ideology in Natural Right and History that “It would not be the first time that a nation, defeated on the battlefield, and, as it were, annihilated as a political being, has deprived its conquerors of the most sublime fruit of victory by imposing on them the yoke of its own thought.”)

But our confusion over the nature and causes of the success of the West also owes to the increasing specialization of intellectual life. As I plan to explore in either a long article or short book some time soon, the proliferation of academic specializations over the last century, while generating finer and finer slices of advanced insight, has deprived us of our appreciation and perception of the whole. History and politics, for example, were once studied together in universities. Now they are completely separate disciplines, which entails great loss of depth accruing to both. Sociology is really just a branch of political science (ditto anthropology), while social psychology, which is a distinct and separate branch of psychology now, is a bastard recombination of psychology and sociology. Economics is in the process of subdividing into several distinct fields, with the main portion of the discipline looking more like just a wing of the math department, and with one new branch—behavioral economics—ironically casting an imperial reach into psychology. And academic philosophy is almost wholly sidelined and isolated from the public mind in ways and for reasons that take too long to explain. (All of this intellectual subdivision, incidentally, creates a void into which the radicalized “disciplines” of the politicized “studies” departments rush in to exploit. As I say, more on this another time, though I did talk about this some in Power Line Show podcast #69, in case you missed it.)

The result is a situation in which the ambition to write broad-gauge synoptic accounts of the social order of democratic capitalism is nearly extinct. There are a few notable and partial exceptions, such as Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now, offering a robust defense of Enlightenment liberalism. (And the left is fiercely attacking Pinker, who is otherwise an orthodox modern liberal, for this sin.) Jonah’s book is another, except that it is much more ambitious and wide-ranging than anything else on offer today.

Samuel Johnson argued that “Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed,” and as such Suicide of the West is an attempt to remind us with fresh language and up-to-date cultural analysis of the reasons our democratic order is under attack—a state of things that just a couple decades ago seemed impossible to conceive. The central idea of Suicideis the centrality of human nature, which the left today must fundamentally attack because it is the chief obstacle to their authoritarian dreams. Jonah frequently quotes Horace: “Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret.” Actually, Jonah quotes Horace in English: “You can expel nature with a pitchfork, but it will always came back.”

One might try to make something of a contradiction out of Jonah’s embrace of human nature with his parallel argument that what we today deplore as selfish tribalism is in fact the natural state of humanity, and that liberal notions of equal rights—and democratic capitalism—are in fact unnatural, and are undermined precisely by its very success. Here perhaps he is restating some of the ideas worked out a generation ago by Daniel Bell, but Joseph Schumpeter is the acknowledged larger inspiration for his argument. The point is, uncivilized human nature makes our social order always prone to the same law of entropy as our physical order, and as such is the chief refutation of the easygoing historicism behind the favorite modern liberal cliché about “the side of history.” Civilization takes work, as much to maintain it as to create it in the first place. Or as John Stuart Mill suggested, the chief defect of Hegelian liberalism is the assumption that the progress of humanity from barbarism to civilization is an irreversible process………..”

Television Jonah Goldberg is very windy, a good guy who enjoys staring at central stage.   Count the names of the past he adds to his excitements when lecturing!   Certainly, when colleged, the more names dropped in a thesis, the higher the grade!!

Please read on below to get to know Jonah better!


The Moore Speech, the Truth that Explains Why We Love the 45th President of our Beloved America

Prager U….The Unique Power of Capitalism

As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer

Another Prager U. Lesson!

The rich are getting richer, and the poor are… also getting richer. What’s driving this wealth creation process? In this video, Daniel Hannan explains why it is capitalism — and capitalism alone — that has led to the unprecedented enrichment that is the central fact of Western life.

Please click below for another  five minute lesson advancing  Truth:


Trump Rallies Support for Rick Saccone in Pennsylvania

I attended our GOP State Senate District Convention Call yesterday  morning.   Republicans where I live in a western suburb of Minneapolis  haven’t quite managed to run an orderly, inspiring  meeting for years.

Crooked Hillary easily gobbled up  Hennepin County in 2016 which includes Black Racist and Super Feminist Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Brooklyn Park, Bloomington, and the Minnetonka where I live.    Most of the wealthy and Big Business super wealthy  of this Goopher land America buy enough leftist Democrats to own  the state and most of  its U.S. Congressional Districts politically.

Yet, OUR DONALD nearly beat Crooked Hillary here in 2016.   Our Minnesota was either THE very last STATE or the second to the last STATE to declare a winner that Presidential election year the tally was so close.   Donald won all but 9 of Gopherland’s  87 counties.     Minnetonka folks, however,  preferred  liar Hillary  big time .

And then there is our  fascist GOOGLE speech control police who,  according to reports from many circles, make conservative sentences and paragraphs, even entire articles they disagree with disappear from these pages if deemed sufficiently unObamaloving.

Our Dennis Prager has recently challenged National Google’s Fascism habits  in a national court case.

Full Replay: President Trump Campaigns For Rick Saccone In Western Pennsylvania




Why Does the Left So Hate Our Beloved Donald J. Trump?

Why Trump Is So Hated by Leftists

by Lloyd Marcus  at American Thinker:

My brother expressed his disgust watching an animated TV show trashing Trump, titled Our Cartoon President.  Incredibly, leftists have hijacked the airwaves and everywhere people gather to exploit as platforms to spread their vitriolic, insane hatred for Trump.  Outrageously, TV coverage of the Olympics included leftist hatred for the Trump administration.

Despite the shocking discovery that leftist policies probably played a role in the deaths of 17 kids in the Florida school shooting, leftists continue puppet-mastering students to blame Trump.

Even Sunday worship has been hijacked by leftists to trash Trump.  My brother asked the pastor of his all black church to please stop including a lie-filled Democrat-talking-points rant about Trump in his sermons.

Leftist disrespect and venomous hatred for President Trump is unprecedented, over the top, and boldly spewed 24/7.  I wondered, why?

I reached out to prominent conservatives and Republicans for their thoughts.


I think Trump is hated by the left because his ideology, his words and actions, are the exact opposite of the left’s ideology. He is not a “globalist,” but loves America, our homeland; he knows that we can’t continue being the world’s number-one giver if we are not safe and successful ourselves.  He knows that capitalism, not communism, will feed the poor; capitalism makes everyone richer, while communism makes everyone equally poor.  He knows that free enterprise and less government regulation will provide jobs and boost our economy, not socialist handouts and overregulation.

He knows that less unemployment and getting out of debt will save our nation much more than wasting time and money on things like the scientifically unproven climate change hoax and its hidden goal of controlling the masses.  He believes in individual freedom and responsibility, not government control.  He’s not a secularist (new word for atheist, according to Julia Sweeney’s TED talk), but a defender of religious liberty, including Christianity.  He is protective of Americans and not protective of our enemies, some of whom sneak into our midst through unenforced immigration law.

He thinks all lives matter, not just black lives; he respects the police, firefighters, and military instead of fanning the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals flames of violent civil unrest and class and racial warfare.  He is not a saint, and he doesn’t pretend to be.  He believes in free speech, not political correctness.  The left is confused; leftists don’t know how to respond to a politician who speaks from the heart, not from talking points.  The left hates Trump because the Tea Party loves him.


Trump is hated the same way and for the same reason President Reagan was hated.  He is a fighter, and he is moving a conservative agenda forward.  The left did not like George W. Bush, but they did not hate him the way they hate Trump, because Trump believes in fighting and winning.


Why are the reprobates in both parties so averse to helping President Trump stabilize and protect what little of a future we have left?  What is it that both political parties find so repulsive about protecting American citizens?

The answer is fairly easy to state, and more complex to explain in intricate detail.  Ergo, I will simplify the explanation as much as possible.  They are fighting President Trump because he is a threat to their “one-world government.”

President Trump’s victory in America has spawned a new generation of pro-nationalist leaders who refuse to be ruled by a heteronomous government that is handpicked in a wine- and cheese-filled room located in a hotel at some posh island retreat.  Bush had great dreams for a North American-style European Union by implementing NAFTA, full amnesty, and open borders.

While we were marginally successful in stopping Bush, Obama destroyed any chance of making it happen because of his contemptible arrogance and his hedonistic wife, who viewed the American taxpayers as her American Express Card.

Notwithstanding, the bones of North America becoming the Western-type E.U. were still in place, and both parties knew that it was only a matter of time until they succeeded.

But then “Along Came Donald J. Trump.”  Once again, the arrogance of the ruling elite thought We the People could be bullied and intimidated into doing as we were told.  But this time, their schemes and machinations did not work because we saw in President Trump a man we could trust.  And the power elite will never forgive President Trump nor will they forgive We the People for electing him.



As I explained in the run-up to the 2016 election here and here, I’ve always believed that Donald Trump is the Real Deal.  That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he does or says.  But there’s little question that the president is his own man.  And that drives the Establishment crazy.  The oligarchs want someone they can control.  They rely on leveraged politicos to do their evil bidding, but Trump has given them no such foothold.  So they use their Establishment-controlled media to foment hate against him.  This fake news jihad is effective but will not stop Trump.


He fights!


Trump is hated not only by the left, but by the RINOs for the exact same reason: they can’t control him.  They can’t intimidate or shame him as they do everyone else, and probably the most poignant and profound is that he believes in something greater than himself, than the state, than politics…and that is God.

They hate that because they serve a fallen savior who battles against the truth on a daily basis while Trump champions the truth.

I wish to thank these great patriots for their insightful input.  Here’s why I believe that Trump is so hated by leftists.

Leftist hatred for Trump is rooted in their mission to undermine all things wholesome, godly, and good for America.  Everything leftists do, in essence, gives the God of Christianity the middle finger.  It is not coincidental that leftists hijack Christian symbols and institutions for their anti-God agenda.

For example: The rainbow was God’s promise to Noah to never again let floodwaters destroy all life.  Homosexuals hijacked God’s rainbow to symbolize behavior God calls an abomination.

God created marriage as a holy union between one man and one woman.

Despite civil unions readily available to them, homosexuals successfully broke down marriage, resulting in every conceivable deviant configuration to eventually be legally declared marriage.

Trump in the White House is a miracle.  Despite leftists’ 24-7 efforts to stop and destroy him, President Trump has remarkably implemented 64% of his Make-America-Great-Again agenda.  Fasten your seat belts, leftists: Trump has only just begun.



That NewMan in Washington!



USA TODAY Finally Offers Rare Positives for Our Donald….. “FULFILLING HIS PROMISES”

By every measure of personal and national prosperity, the nation is better off than it was a year ago, and it’s thanks to the integrity of our leader.

by Christopher Buskirk  at USA Today:

Please click below for full article: