• 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

Fanatical Leftists Intimidate the Church to Join Their Hate Groups

With the disappearance  of our America’s traditional  JudeoChristian foundation, Leftism with all of its deceit and evil   is the new religion in  town and at school and university,  and among the nation’s black population,   in the news industry and in command of the Democrat Party.     It is a relatively  new noise in America now consisting primarily of feminists, the nazier the better, the  more devoted black racists, the more fanatic, the more powerful weapons they  use to threaten and conquer.   The following demonstrates a new truck of their old trade:

https://townhall.com/columnists/marcnewman/2017/08/14/selectively-calling-on-the-church-n2368396        (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

Ditsy Judge Howell Okays Democrat Mueller’s Move to Disrupt President Trump’s Presidency

MORE ON THE LEFTIST JUDGE WHO APPROVED MUELLER’S GRAND JURY

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

Beryl Howell is the judge who signed off on Robert Mueller’s request to convene a Washington, D.C. grand jury, and who apparently will continue to “umpire” disputes over the grand jury’s work (which, in reality, is Mueller’s work). As I discussed earlier today, Howell served for ten years as a staffer for Sen. Patrick Leahy, the hyper-partisan leftist.

An unnamed Washington lobbyist assured the Daily Beast that Judge Howell has been a”very straight-arrow as a judge.” He compared her to Robert Mueller — the quintessential alleged straight shooter, now that James Comey has been discredited.

If you’re a conservative and you hear a pillar of the Washington legal community described as a straight shooter, your best response is to duck.

With this in mind, let’s look at a few of the things I’ve learned today about Beryl Howell’s actions as a federal judge. I’ll exclude rumors unless and until they are corroborated.

Item: Judge Howell presided over a trial in which left-wing talk show host Ed Schultz was sued by a sound engineer for breach of an alleged partnership agreement. According to the Daily Caller, Howell showed blatant favoritism for Schultz and contempt for the plaintiff’s lead lawyer.

If so, it might have been because she ruled for Schultz in the first trial only to be reversed on appeal. In any event, one trial watcher reportedly expressed concern that Howell’s behavior would taint the jury’s ability to be fair, especially the impressionable younger jurors who may be influenced by her obvious hatred for the plaintiff’s lawyer.

Plaintiff did lose the case on retrial. In the appeal of that case, plaintiff argued, among things, that Judge Howell belittled plaintiff’s counsel as a Jacksonville, Florida attorney who does not understand the “highly educated, experienced, professional people [of] Washington, D.C.” According to the Daily Caller, Schultz’s lawyers acknowledged that Howell’s comments were “stern” (very probably a euphemism) but not grounds for reversal.

If the picture the Daily Caller paints is even close to accurate, Judge Howell is not a straight shooter.

Item: According to this report from PJ Media, Judge Howell left out the words “so help me God” from a naturalization ceremony. These words are part of the oath prescribed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides for a religious exemption from saying “so help me God.” When a petitioner or applicant for naturalization, by reason of religious training and belief (or individual interpretation thereof), or for other reasons of good conscience, cannot utter this phrase, the words “solemnly affirm” shall be substituted, and the oath shall be taken in such modified form.

However, again according to PJ Media, Judge Howell did use the words “solemnly affirm” either. If she was going to exclude God, she should at least have used the alternative expression of solemnity.

Item: Speaking of immigrants, according to the same PJ Media article, Judge Howell rejected a challenge to Obama’s executive actions that would have provided work permits to undocumented immigrants who met certain requirements. As we all know, the Supreme Court later blocked this blatantly illegal order from taking effect.

Judge Howell’s ruling strongly suggests that, for her, left-wing ideology trumps law.

Item: Judge Howell sided with a liberal law professor who sued to obtain records regarding fences the federal government intends to build along portions of the Texas-Mexico border. “Revealing the identities of landowners in the wall’s planned construction site may shed light on the impact of indigenous communities, the disparate impact on lower-income minority communities, and the practices of private contractors,” she wrote (opinion here).

This ruling was clearly a victory for liberals, who have taken all kinds of actions to block implementation of the federal law requiring the building of fencing. This doesn’t mean Judge Howell’s ruling was wrong. Although the quotation above from Judge Howell seems lame, the issue is fairly complicated, and I haven’t had time to do the analysis necessary to reach a conclusion. However, I think it’s worth bringing the case to the attention of readers who are trying to get a handle on the judge who finds herself in a position, potentially, to do great harm to the U.S. president.

Such a judge needs to be a true straight shooter, not a Washington-issue one. Judge Howell does not even come across as the latter kind. She appears to be a doctrinaire liberal, just as one would expect a former Leahy staffer to be.

I live in the Washington, D.C. area. I know plenty of people around here who aren’t nearly as leftist this judge appears to be, but who despise President Trump. There’s a good chance Judge Howell relishes the chance to stick it to him.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/more-on-the-leftist-judge-who-approved-muellers-grand-jury.php

Our Donald Celebrates in West Virginia

Full Replay: West Virginia Governor Jim Justice Announces Conversion From Democrat to Republican At Trump ‘Make America Great Again’ Rally

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/03/watch_live_president_trump_holds_make_america_great_again_rally_in_west_virginia.html

PRAGER U: The Leftist American’s War against Autos

Click above or here to watch this video

Cars are a symbol of American freedom. If you have a car, you decide where you go and when you go. But progressives want to make car ownership more difficult by making driving as expensive as possible, swapping out roads with bike lanes, and pushing drivers onto buses and trains. Why should Americans do everything they can to stop this grand theft of our car culture? Lauren Fix, The Car Coach, explains in this week’s new video.

In honor of Dennis Prager’s birthday, August is PragerU’s annual fundraising month. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation so that we can continue to bring Dennis’s ideas to the next generation.
WE STAND FOR AMERICA’S FOUNDING VALUES

Firing Sessions is a Terrible Idea!

Firing Sessions Is a Terrible Idea

By Bruce Walker at American Thinker:

“Donald Trump is a naturally polarizing figure.   His bread and butter is brazen attacks on those who challenge him.  As a media figure and as a business promoter, that worked well.  As president, however, Trump needs to pick his fights carefully and avoid needless political bloodletting.  Changing people in his administration when he feels that things have gone wrong suggests that he picked the wrong people to begin with, especially in the first six months of his administration.

In some cases, like Comey, a holdover from the Obama administration, Trump should have cleaned house right at the beginning of his term of office, when people naturally understand Trump’s need to have his own people in key positions.  When Trump gets rid of people who have been his supporters and who have interviewed for the job Trump gives them in his administration, it is a different matter.

Jeff Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump in his run for the Republican nomination.  Sessions is also a man who during his political career has stood up to the Establishment and done what he has believed to be the right thing even if it was not the most politically expedient.  Sessions has a reputation among the Republican caucus in the Senate as a particularly honorable and decent man.  He also gave up a safe Senate seat as a member of the majority party to serve on Trump’s team.

If President Trump fires Attorney General Sessions or if Trump continues to harass Sessions with dumb tweets, then the president runs the risk of alienating honest, genuine Senate conservatives who are immune to threats from Trump but who can give him headaches and problems he cannot imagine.

Almost everything Trump does, except for executive orders, must go through the Senate – legislation, appointments, and treaties.  If Trump alienates conservative Republicans in the Senate, it is hard to see how he will be able to do anything during his term as president.  Why should these senators trust Trump?  Why should they believe he is really conservative, particularly if he taps Rudy Giuliani as the next attorney general, a decent man on the wrong side of nearly every social issue?

When every single Republican Senate vote is vital in repealing Obamacare, why in the world would President Trump risk offending those conservative senators whose support he desperately needs?  While pressure from McConnell and Trump have doubtless switched some votes, every single vote in the Senate is necessary to beginning the repeal process.

When the investigation of Trump and his family bubbles into allegations that suggest the need for congressional investigation, why would Trump go out of his way to outrage conservative senators who will be on the very committees interrogating his family and his staff?  Does Trump grasp that these senators could garner rave reviews from the mainstream media by asking tough questions in these hearings?

Trump behaves as if he were the head of a corporation called the federal government and everyone were his employee subject to firing at his wish.  His influence over senators in conservative states, however, is limited.  (The same is true of House members from safe districts, which is to say nearly every House member.)

Donald Trump won the presidency with less than 46% of the popular vote because conservatives supported him.  Conservatives wanted to support Trump and wanted to believe that he represents their values.  Without their support, Trump cannot do anything at all except lose the next election by a landslide and perhaps even lose the Republican nomination in 2020 to someone like Jeff Sessions……”   There’s more…Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/firing_sessions_is_a_terrible_idea.html

Prager: “A Response to My Conservative Critics About Trump”

The following article appeared July 6, 2017 at the Dennis Prager Show site:

“Writers never know when something they write will strike a nerve — or, in the common phrase of the internet, “go viral.”

Yet my last column, “Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump” did both. Aside from being reprinted on almost every conservative website, Newsweek published the column, and The New York Times quoted it.

More importantly, many major conservative writers responded to it, mostly in disagreement.

It is interesting that the column elicited so much attention. Maybe, like the man who bit the dog, an articulate case by a mainstream conservative in support of the president is so rare that people felt a need to publish it and respond to it.

Whatever the reason, I feel compelled to respond to some of the disagreements.

Before doing so, I want to note the respectful tone that permeated virtually every one of the disagreeing columns. We have enough cannibals on the left without conservatives eating each other up.

After reading the responses, I feel confident in saying that they confirmed my primary thesis: Anti-Trump conservatives do not believe that Americans are fighting what I call the Second Civil War, while pro-Trump conservatives do.

Indeed, Jonah Goldberg in National Review said as much. He denied that we are in the midst of a civil war on two grounds: One is that it is not violent, and the other is that we are fighting a “culture war,” not a civil war.

Whenever I write about the subject, I almost always note that this Second Civil War is not violent. I never thought that the word “war” must always include violence. The word is frequently used in nonviolent contexts: the war against cancer, the war between the sexes, the war against tobacco, the Cold War and myriad other nonviolent wars.

Perhaps Goldberg would respond that he did not write that all wars are violent, only that all civil wars are violent. But if there are nonviolent wars, there can be nonviolent civil wars.

Nevertheless, what most disturbs me is his second argument — articulated in various ways by most of those who disagreed with me — that there is simply no civil war. And many repeated the universal belief among Never-Trumpers that a Hillary Clinton victory would not have been a catastrophe.

My response is that “culture war” is much too tepid a term for what is going on now. Maybe anti-Trump conservatives are fighting a “culture war,” but the left is not. The left is working to undo the American Revolution. It’s very close to doing so.

Of all people, one would think Jonah Goldberg would understand this. He is the author of what I consider to be a modern classic, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change.”

His book leads to one conclusion: We are fighting fascism. How is that not a civil war? When you fight fascism, you are not merely fighting a “culture war.”

So, shouldn’t the primary role of a conservative be to vanquish leftism? To me, that means strongly supporting the Republican president of the United States, who has staffed his Cabinet with conservatives and already won substantial conservative victories. As I suggested in my previous column, conservatives would have been thrilled if any Republican president had achieved what Trump has at this point in his administration.

“But what about Trump’s character?” nearly all my critics ask. Or, as John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine, tweeted, “For Dennis Prager, who spent 40 years advocating for a moral frame for American politics, to argue as he argued today is, may I say, ironic.”

First, I have indeed dedicated much of my life to advocating for morality — for ethical monotheism as the only way to achieve a moral world; for raising moral children (as opposed to concentrating, for example, on raising “brilliant” children); and for the uniquely great Judeo-Christian moral synthesis developed by the Founding Fathers of America.

But I have never advocated for electing moral politicians. Of course, I prefer people of good character in political office. But 30 years ago, I wrote an essay titled “Adultery and Politicians” in which I argued that what political leaders do is more important than their character. To cite but one of an endless list of examples, I would prefer an adulterous president (like John F. Kennedy) who supported Israel than a faithful family man (like Jimmy Carter) who was an anti-Zionist.

Second, as a religious Jew, I learned from the Bible that God himself chose morally compromised individuals — like King David, who had a man killed in order to cover up the adultery he committed with the man’s wife; and the prostitute Rahab, who was instrumental in helping the Jews conquer Canaan — to accomplish some greater good. (And, for the record, I am not suggesting that God chose Donald Trump.)

Third, though I listed his moral defects in column after column during the primaries, I believe that Trump is a better man than his critics maintain. I see no evidence, to cite one example, that he is a misogynist. His comment about famous and powerful men being able to do what they want with women was a) said in private — and we are fools if we assess people by their private comments (Harry Truman, a great president, frequently used “kike” in private comments about Jews), b) not a statement about anything he had actually done, c) not misogynistic and d) often true.

Fourth, even if he were as morally defective as his critics maintain, my response is this: Trump’s character is less morally significant than defeating the left. If the left wins, America loses. And if America loses, evil will engulf the world.”

 

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

CNN Pinned by President?

CNN has fallen into Trump’s pro-wrestling trap and it can’t get up

By Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

The media swells outraged at President Trump’s CNN wrestling tweet do not understand the level at which he communicates to his base, primarily out of their disdain for vulgar mass culture, including reality television and pro wrestling.  (Remember that the root of the word “vulgar” is the Latin “vulgus” or “common people.”)  The president, by contrast, is one of the most successful impresarios (and stars) in the history of American mass culture. Celebrity Apprentice was the most successful reality TV program in the history of the American medium.

President Trump knows how to reach the great mass of the public using images, music, and words, while those who disdain him primarily operate on the level of discourse they consider far superior: an appeal to intellect. Now, as somebody who went to the trouble of acquiring three graduate degrees and teaching at a couple of Ivy League universities, I can make a plausible claim to value intellectual discourse as much as anyone. And I do.  But I don’t kid myself that this is the only meaningful level of communication – in politics, art, human relations, or anywhere else.

The visceral reactions to the wrestling takedown by Trump of a character with a CNN logo photoshopped on his head backfired immediately, as the first stage of the trap sprung.  The primary outrage was that this could incite violence against journalists, which is laughable considering that most of the media establishment shrugged off the Kathy Griffin ISIS-style beheading photo as a harmless exercise of the First Amendment.  President Trump, the impresario, understands the potency of an image such as this:

He knows that these memories do not completely fade. Don’t forget that he is also in the branding business, and understands the nature of keeping images and associations alive on a continuing basis.  The comparison with his own cartoonish image takes place subconsciously even if not in the front of mind:

There’s much more….please read on!

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/cnn_has_fallen_into_trumps_prowrestling_trap_and_it_cant_get_up.html