• 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

SPECIAL!! Flake Andrew, the Cuomo Running New York, Says He’ll “Sue” If Supreme Court Overturns Roe!

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: If The Supreme Court Overturns Roe, I’ll Sue

by Allahpundit  at  HotAir:

He’ll sue? Who does he think he’s going to sue, Brett Kavanaugh?

Somehow, some way, this guy is a law-school graduate.

 I’ve said this before but the terrible truth of it bears repeating: Chris is the “smart Cuomo.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says he’ll sue if the Supreme Court rolls back Roe v. Wade.

Gov. Cuomo has been calling on lawmakers to increase protections in New York.

“We never passed the New York State law because we relied on Roe v. Wade and everyone assumed it would always be there,” Gov. Cuomo said.

When he says “I’ll sue,” he doesn’t really mean anything by it. He’s terrified that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s House primary upset is a harbinger of what Cynthia Nixon’s going to do to him in the gubernatorial primary so he’s making whatever beast-like grunts and whistles he feels he needs to in order to protect his left flank. Next week he’ll be threatening to challenge Kavanaugh to a duel. He’s a clod. But in an indigo blue state, when your daddy was a popular governor, the right grunts and whistles are all you need to win.

As for what he says about New York law being tougher on abortion than Roe, that’s marginally true. You’re free to liquidate your fetus up until 24 weeks but late-term abortions are forbidden even there unless a doctor decides it’s necessary to save a woman’s life. Cuomo naturally wants abortion removed entirely from the Penal Code if possible, which would presumably make the dream of abortion on demand up to the moment of crowning a reality.

Kathleen Gallagher, the director of pro-life activities for the New York State Catholic Conference, a key opponent, said that the governor’s proposal would make late-term abortion available “for almost any reason,” would let health providers other than doctors perform abortions and would eliminate the crime of an “unwanted abortional act.” The latter applies in cases where, for instance, an abusive partner pushes a woman down stairs with the intent of ending a pregnancy. Without abortion being part of the penal code, that partner could still be charged with assault on the mother, but with no crime against the fetus.

He’s going to try to use the lefty froth over Kavanaugh to get New York’s law repealed now. But even if he can’t, is there any doubt that New York Republicans would be steamrolled if Roe really were overturned and the state’s liberal voters demanded full legalization? Cuomo’s scaremongering is an ironic reminder to blue-staters that not only would nothing change in their backyards if Roe were dumped, the new legal regime that replaces it in the state legislature might be more liberal than what Roe has provided them. If that’s possible.


Dem Rude Rubin Demands Trump Staffers Should be Harassed for Life

Rubin: Trump Staffers Deserve Harassment For Life, You Know

by ED MORRISSEY at HotAir:

Should Trump staffers be safe from harassment in public? One answer to this question has been making the rounds among conservatives since yesterday morning, when Washington Post’s conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin offered it on MSNBC. On one hand, Rubin does offer a rather nuanced argument about the effectiveness of denying service to Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a way to influence policy. She then argues that Sanders asked for it — and deserves it as a “life sentence”:

I don’t think what’s most effective is throwing Sarah Huckabee Sanders out of a restaurant. I wouldn’t serve her either, frankly, but what’s most successful is getting a million people on the street to protest.
Let’s get a million people to go to Maine or a million people to go to Alaska and start putting pressure on those Senators. So it’s perfectly civil to do that — no one is telling them to be violent protesters, but we’re not going to let these people go through life unscathed.

Sarah Huckabee has no right to live a life of no fuss, no muss, after lying to the press — after inciting against the press. These people should be made uncomfortable, and I think that’s a life sentence frankly.

That’s a bit contradictory, isn’t it? Trump complaining about the press in campaign rallies and calling them “fake news” in front of a few thousand people is an “incitement,” according to Rubin, but a million or so people showing up to “put pressure” on elected officials to ensure they don’t “go through life unscathed” isn’t? One can criticize Trump’s frequent and low-substance criticisms of the news media on their own merits and demerits (and with some good reason), but griping about the press isn’t an incitement to violence, not even at a rally. Suggesting that people harass staffers like Sarah Huckabee Sanders in public certainly sounds a lot closer to incitement than Trump’s “fake news” complaints on the stump.

Of course, the civility argument has become the latest chicken-egg debate. Trump himself hardly was — or is — a model of civility, but incivility has been a long time coming. Trump is the result, not the source, thanks to the gradual evolution of political-electoral debate away from arguments over policy to warfare on the basis of character. But accusing people of incitement while demanding public harassment for one’s political opponents is a great example of how we got where we are at the moment.

Speaking of which, conservatives have been howling for Rubin’s head for some time in her response to her evolution from a conservative voice at the Washington Post to … something else. In another clip at Newsbusters from the same show, Rubin also called for protests to force Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to go “all out” in opposing any Donald Trump pick for the Supreme Court that might have a conservative perspective on abortion. That had commentators on the Right aghast too:


The message to those two women by Democrats by pro-choice women in those two states — by the entire states of Maine and Alaska — has to be simple. You vote for this, Ms. Collins, Ms. Murkowski, you have voted to criminalize abortion — this is on you. And we’re not going to accept these nonsense excuses that, ‘Well, because he said he was in favor of precedent, this won’t count, you can vote for him.’ No! It has to be all-out, on the ground in those states.

Those women have to be put under a glaring light so that they finally have to make a choice that actually does go against their party. Unless they were just phony pro-choice women all along — which is distinctly possible.

That doesn’t sound like a traditionally conservative opinion, does it? Normally conservatives don’t concern themselves over whether women are “phony pro-choice” politicians.  Neither do the entries on her blog at the Post indicate much connection to conservative principles, despite the Post’s subhead on Rubin’s column: Jennifer Rubin’s take from a conservative perspective. In one recent column, Rubin accused pro-life groups of “pulling a bait and switch,” and conservatives are accusing the Post of doing the same with Rubin’s blog, which was intended to give a little balance to the paper’s mainly liberal and left-wing opinion lineup.

There is a valid truth-in-advertising argument there, but calls for Rubin to get fired over her shift in perspective miss the point. If her opinions have changed or even her entire political perspective, then those of us in the opinion biz would be better off attacking the arguments (and the labeling) rather than Rubin herself or the Post for carrying them. After all, our opinions and perspectives might change on issues too, and while it would be incumbent on us to explain why, it shouldn’t necessarily result in deplatforming. The Left demands that all too often, and we shouldn’t fall into the same trap described so well by my friends Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham in their book End of Discussion. Take on the arguments, and let the chips fall where they may.

However, if the Washington Post really does have an interest in featuring a voice from the Right, they may want to add onto their staff. That would be the civil thing to do, adding to the debate while expanding it. And given how badly the media missed the momentum in politics in both 2014 and 2016, it would likely be the smart thing to do as well.


Fox Fascists Out of Their “Cotton-Picking” Minds

It should never be forgotten that Fox is BIG BUSINESS.   It politically is usually not Huffington and friends, run by Noam Chomsky types whose leftist deceit is celebrated in “can you top” competition with CNN and friends.

I’ll be eighty four this summer.   I haven’t heard the phrase “Cotton pickin minds” for sixty years….a popular phrase among radio dramas having nothing  whatsoever to do with human skin color.   It had to do with boring jobs.

Fox frequently enjoys displaying  psychological performing screwball, a loony named Cathy Areu….one of the most obnoxious, foul thinking, mouth displaying,  screwball anywhere on television at any time in my life….which precedes the arrival of TV “pox”.  Notice the  fat Fox folks accumulate every month of their tv lives.    The fattening comes directly from the news political territory…..from dining and drinking with powerful people, of course.

Fox is often mouthing  “Fake News” regarding our President Donald J. Trump….starting in fox clothing  with Democrats and RINOs such as Chris Wallace, Howard Kurtz, and Phil Cavuto and a dozen feminists.

Ratings  count!!   Donald Trump’s announced political ratings aren’t yet threatening to Aussie owned  Fox fake news…..Yet, I LOVE Fox complete  televisings of President Trump’s talk to his American public……

Nevertheless, where do these Fox programmed fascists come from punishing David Bossie for “out of your cotton pickin mind”.    (Aussies, maybe?)

Please review the following article regarding the Fox news suspension:


“Truth” Telling at Democrat’s Fascist Fake News

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Not that this will come as a surprise, but it is entertaining to watch NBC’s John Heilemann gleefully explain how “we” have a great opportunity to bludgeon President Trump and the GOP with the faux crisis at the border. In a mere 47 seconds, he gives the game away on a couple of fronts:



Have you ever thought why the American Leftwing gangs are so ditsy…..that they have disgust for truth but faith in their  feelings?

Today, the leftist gurus in control of legislatures, schools, universities, news journals, Google,  and television,  are sexually driven regardless of sex by birth, to hate truth and worship feelings…..a feminist drive by Nature….or, in our more truthful past, by God.   Can we agree that the human male is born to be a killer, among other features, and must learn as a human to control that animal in him….unless needed.

It was the human “he” in English, or “own” in Russian, not “she”, or “ana” in Russian who was genetically driven by his Maker to protect his mate and flock of the species to hunt, kill, build, explore, invent, feed, and defend.

Today’s American feminist and feminazi propagandists who strangely now in the 21st century come in all colors,  sexes, and sizes,  consider themselves sacred, pure, the chosen by the fascist left to lead and conquer, to put down the human male and make room for Sheba Clintons who insist they are superior to anything male.   What genetically drives these she of up-to-date American leftist  tribes whereever?

She is born to provide tomorrow’s adults….She is NOT born a natural killer…..BUT SHE IS BORN DITSY!!!!  Seeking TRUTH IS possible, but rare as a female drive, because it is   FOREIGN, BORING, DEAD END, WITHOUT FEELINGS by instinct among the vast numbers of female human animals.

The She is “moved”, i.e.,  conquered  by feelings first AND usually forever.

Do note  how Nancy Pelosi Democrats of all shapes, sexes, sizes, and incomes are so alike Charles Schumer, Donnie Deutsch, John Heileman, and nearly everyone at Fake News, CNN.



George Soros’ Fascism from Democrats for All Americans

A Glimpse inside George Soros’s Open Society Foundations

by Marion DS Dreyfus  at  American Thinker:

If you wake up with a spearmint-fresh brain that hasn’t read a magazine, seen a newscast or exchanged what’s been happening, you could be excused  for being charmed and seduced by the programs offered by the Open Society Foundations, a “rights” organization that bills itself as a grant-making association formed by billionaire George Soros in 1993.

Materials available at the entrance to his Open Society building lobby assert that Soros is one of the world’s biggest philanthropists, having given away, his materials say, over $32 billion. Recipients of his international meddling would have other nomenclatures for this.

Offered at the Open Society every few weeks are slide-ameliorated talks on issues of concern to mostly Third World countries.  And, of course, progressive Democrats.

The recent one, was held, as are most, at Soros’ luxe building on West 57th off Broadway. The topic, which was preceded by a color documentary of some 20 minutes’ duration in Spanish (English subtitles, mostly), was titled: “The Industrialization of Coca.”  The lecture title could have been interpreted as a criticism of coca leaves’ commercialization. But it wasn’t. Instead, four panelists, a translator, and a moderator spoke of the many medicinal and commercial uses of coca leaves, trying to dispel the taint that instantly accompanies the noun coca.

On page 17 of a 68-page brochure* richly illustrated with graphs, black-and-white images, and reference tables, there is a table comparing the nutritional offerings of coca with lentils, beans, corn and plantains. The five parameters include crude protein, phosphorus, calcium, potassium, and iron, all in milligrams. Coca does indeed, from the table, stand up to scrutiny and comparison, coming in just under lentils and beans in all but potassium, and comes in far higher than all in iron (55.8 mg), more than eight times the nearest contender, lentils. And coca comes in with more than four times as much phosphorus as lentils and beans, as well as 16 times the next nearest contender, beans, in calcium.

Another table provides other elements of the bland leaf (all recorded in dry base, which refers to the dehydrated vegetal matter submitted to labs for analysis):  Neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, cellulose,  hemicellulose, ashes, carbs, lignans, and humidity. These, from a 2015 study, comparing results to a prior 1975 study on the same lab protocols.

So it would appear that in fact, properly handled, coca is indeed  a valuable addition to the medicine-  and pharmacopoeia shelf.

The documentary displays leathery farmers and their equally worn wives planting, tending, reaping, and preparing coca plants in South America. It is emphasized that banning their bread and butter will impoverish the men women and children making their living in the fields for generations.

You enter,  if your name is listed on a sheet perused by a kindly pewter-haired gentleman Cerberus, who directs you along the hall and then down the stairs some 20 steps, to a large, well-lit series of rooms off a reception area.

There, before any talks begin, a bright white anteroom is spread with 15 different  kinds of delicious hors d’oeuvres, from cunning dim sum to shredded salads to fish balls and dip. A barista at the far end of the room dispenses wine, sparkling water, soda, and juice.

All of this is free, for every talk given. There is quite the selection of pony-tailed and man–bunned superannuated hippies, leftists and grad students making themselves platefuls. And having seconds.

It’s not hard to see why people would gravitate to a free buffet spread and beverages, all free, all seemingly limitless.

So seduction begins the moment you get down the stairs and scarf the food and drink. The panelists are accredited, many having ‘advanced degrees’ and living in the countries under discussion. At the coca talk, one of the main speakers spoke only in Spanish, translated paragraphs later by a interpreter in good English. She went on many sentences too long, however, before the translator recited her words in English.

After the hour-long presentation, extended with Q & A, the visitor can go back out to the food and get thirds, and solicit more wine or soft drinks.

When you leave, upstairs at the turnstiles going out, there is a glass jar with dozens of colored jelly beans you can scoop out and plop into your mouth, en route home. Everywhere you look are snazzy brochure stands and expensively produced handouts telling you where else the Soros hand goes: Hungary. Romania. Italy. Germany. France. South America and some African countries.

These fora are just a slim slice of the Soros empire. The billionaire has initiatives of all sorts on much higher levels, costing many millions of his vast fortune.

One of his initiatives, co-produced with Barack Obama when he was president, but apparently still chugging away beneath the radar, tried to shoehorn homeless and poor into every community, so as to disperse the poor and give a fair shake to those not as wealthy as the reviled 1%. This initiative cost nearly $1 million in one year, but it has met, not surprisingly, with opposition.

One wonders whether Obama and Soros themselves would be included in these forced neighborhoods.

The attempt, always, is to close the gap in wealth, to lower the prerogatives of the haves, and bring the poor into comity with the money and real estate, ideally, of the wealthy.

If you are a leftist, it is heaven on a stick. Food, leftist cant, no questions of attendee fealty asked, and the promise of more to come. All it costs is your acquiescence and yea vote. If or when it ever comes to that.

Not a word is broached about Soros’ financial dealings to bankrupt allies [notably, England] and make pocket change for the benefactor of the wild leftists. Few words are mumbled about his interfering in elections here and abroad.

Nothing is noted about his acts as a teenager reportedly collaborating with the Nazis to throw Jews out of their centuries-old homes and “liberate” their property and assets. Recently, Roseanne Barr made mention of Soros’ Nazi past, and the leftist media called her allusions “anti-Semitic” assertions. First, Roseanne is herself Jewish. Secondly, Soros is famously repulsed by and rejects anything resembling being called or being referred to as Jewish. He is notably anti-Zionist, and always has been.

He has boasted “If I did not do it, someone else would have.” No apology. No shame.

Expunged in the minds of the eager hangers-on who flock to Open Society events, buy into his continental meddling, or take a subsumed but potential hand in Soros’ nefarious doings as they age up is any hint of questioning about any of this free-for-all subversion take-down philosophy.



Trouble Brewing Among Our Fascist Elite

Schism in Harvard Yard

Solzhenitsyn’s Blunt Sermon Still Cuts Deep 40 Years Later

. . . The opening of Solzhenitsyn’s speech suggested he would be discussing the Cold War and the cultural and political split between East and West. But it soon became clear that he had another schism in mind: two rival and competing views of human nature. “This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.” With courage and insight, Solzhenitsyn made it clear where the fault line lay and on which side of it he stood.

On one side of the divide were those who posited the autonomous human being standing as “the measure of all things on earth.” On the other side stood Solzhenitsyn and those like him, who saw “imperfect man, never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.”

On one side were those who held a utopian anthropology: the view that the human species was ultimately perfectible, and that the goal of human happiness would be attained extrinsically by changes to man’s social, political, and economic milieu. From the other side, Solzhenitsyn reminded his hearers of the deep human tragedy:

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be a fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It does not take a 40-year vantage point to see that Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard address was more than a warning and other than a screed; that it was more on the order of a sermon; that, at its deepest, it was a call to conversion.


(Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

Getting to Know the Ultimate Left Better with Joseph Stalin in Control

Sent by California’s Lisa Rich