• 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

Are America’s Black Racists Behind Today’s Football War AGAINST The National Anthem?

Black Racism was alive and well in the Minneapolis where  I lived and taught high school in the late 1960s and 1970s.    It was already quite popular nation-wide then as  it is today despite the lie  Leftists of any day  still  bleat that racism can only be white in color.

I taught Modern Problems and Russian in a very civilized, then a mostly Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic working class  section of town.   Rebellion against the Vietnam War and traditional Middle Class Christian  values was heating up.

Drugs and sex on the streets had made it to Gopher city.   Black hoodlums were stirred, already in control in a few junior and senior high schools.  They’d throw rocks at busses carrying white student football fans to games at the two predominantly black high schools then, Central and North.   I was a regular chaperone during day time games.

Administrations were required to ignore such incidents.   Teachers and janitors would be fired if they mentioned any black-caused school incidents to the press.

All disruptions even occasional  beatings for the fun of it, were attacks by black males exclusively upon whites, and usually occurred on school grounds.     Administrators refused to confront these attacks.

In 1972 I was transferred.   I had filled out a form improperly.  I chose to be sent to Central.

Black student brutality against whites was more than common within the school.   Teachers had to drive their cars into a fenced-in lot adjacent to the school’s boiler room where we had to enter and exit each day to avoid being attacked.    A tall white senior was beaten to unconsciousness by black students both male and female during lunch hour one day.  It happened outside my classroom door which had been locked for   safety’s sake.    I lost my cool, unlocked the door, ran out onto the hall and shouted angrily at the couple dozen student  savages kicking and stealing money from their prey.   Some “students” I recognized, had come from my own classroom.

The attack had been planned because the victim was the tallest “white dude” among the school’s black students.

A civilized black student from my own social studies class had his winter jacket hanging in his locker set afire by other school  black hoodlums.   It was punishment.   They had ordered him not to talk to me, his  white teacher, during class that week.  He disobeyed.

One afternoon three black hoodlums, one with blond rinsed hair each threw a brick at me as hard as they could as I and my class were sitting in a circle .  One brick hit a radiator and broke into pieces.   They missed me, but a piece hit a student sitting next to me.    They seemed nervous and ran out the door  immediately after their discharge.   It was my fault, I was told by the principal.   I should have had my door locked during class like the other teachers did.

1972 is 45 years ago.   Black racism was alive and well practiced in certain  high schools then.   Guns came later……None of it was ever mentioned in local fake news of that day, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune.    They, as so often happens today, were programmed to believe ONLY WHITES CAN BE RACISTS!…..a very racist statement in itself……especially among educated people, wouldn’t you think?

BLACK RACISTS AND THEIR LEFTIST FRIENDS ARE EXPRESSING THEIR RACISM TODAY BY THE COLIN KAEPERNICK METHOD….wealthy football brats making $$$$ hand over fist, sit on their fannies to sell RACIST LEFTWING POLITICS WITH THE APPROVAL OF LEFTIST WHITE AND BLACK PROFITEERS while the civilized sing the nation’s national anthem.


I am a Tucker Carlson television fan.   This evening he interviewed an arrogant,  mouthy black racist attorney, Scott Bolden.   This black racist attorney man  is an American by birth and upbringing, and very, very wealthy.

Yet, he insisted Blacks are racially oppressed today  as ever before.    There isn’t a white person in the world who knows how blacks suffer under America’s white oppression cops  (presumably, he inferred  ALL  police  are white.

THE CRIMINAL CLASS IN AMERICA TODAY IS OVERWHELMINGLY  BLACK and MALE.  That was not the case when I attended a well  managed mixed race St. Paul Central High school from 1948-1952.  Learned adults were in control of education there.  Negro children , like whites, had fathers and mothers.   Negroes, like whites, went to Church on Sunday’s then.   Negroes with modest means, like whites with modest means, owned shops then, corner markets, shoe repair shops, bakeries, dime stores,  gas stations, drove street cars, taxis, and busses.

In 1957 Negroes were in the army beside me.   I have never had a black racist corpuscle in my body,  but I am not happy with today’s black rascist vulgars and their white leftist  tag-alongs who defile our American flag and anthem at football games or any other place.    These  two major symbols are to remind all of us Americans, despite all of our differences, we are together in our being American.

Most young men playing professional football haven’t been taught much about anything classically lasting and  worthwhile….only things football……little or no history, especially ancient history, geology,  no general science,  climatology, astronomy, botany,   nothing about Soviet Communism,  the American Civil War, and the most inspiring classes of my college life, BIOCHEMISTRY.

Arrogant attorney  Leftist Scott Bolden is clearly a practicing  Black Racist.    If these racists of the Black Lives Matter gangs increase their  poison of lies in their antiAmerican politics, it won’t be long when the white American majority will begin to organize actual WHITE LIVES MATTER PROTESTS when no one will be able to hug and shake hands together, National Anthem or no National Anthem.

Is that what we Americans want?




When Our Donald Visited Poland

Renouncing Fatalism: Trump and Tocqueville in Poland

“Trump did well in Poland to eschew all talk of “the wrong side of history” and instead to emphasize the real power, for good and ill, that we have over our own destiny. By doing so he defended our dignity and upheld our humanity.

Donald Trump says a lot of striking things. This tendency has been the theme of a good deal of commentary over the last two years. Less noticed, but no less interesting, are his striking omissions: Trump says many things that a normal politician would not say, but he also sometimes omits things that a normal politician would say. And sometimes those omissions are not to be regretted but praised. Such is the case with President Trump’s recent address to the people of Poland.

Speaking in Warsaw, Trump warned his listeners that civilization is threatened by extremism and terrorism. He then reassured his listeners that the enemies of civilization would be defeated. So far, the president had said nothing that many other modern, western political leaders might also have said in a speech about international affairs—although the commonplace character of his warnings and reassurances might have been somewhat obscured by the combative tone for which he is so famous.

Then came the remarkable and significant omission. Trump did not rest his reassurance on the same ground as the typical politician would. The kind of contemporary political leader to which we are accustomed would have told his audience that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because they are “on the wrong side of history.”

Trump said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, he said, in effect, that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because the defenders of civilization are determined to defeat them. “Our adversaries,” Trump said, “are doomed because we will never forget who we are,” and we, accordingly, will not fail to do what is necessary to preserve the blessings we have inherited.

This rhetorical change makes all the difference in the world. The typical formulation reassures us that goodness will prevail because History—understood as a superhuman, impersonal force—tends of its own accord in the direction of goodness. This is history as it is understood by the ideology of progress, moving of necessity toward greater enlightenment, freedom, and justice for all human beings.

Trump’s formulation, in contrast, holds that goodness will prevail because the good will exert themselves. On his view, the outcome rests on us—not on any impersonal, superhuman forces but on personal and human ones. Trump hammered this point home by raising the possibility that civilization would be destroyed if civilized people fail to do their part to defend it. The failure of the enemies of civilization, he suggested, is conditional: they are “doomed to fail ifwe want them to fail.” And if we do not do our duty, this civilization, which is unlike any that has existed before, will pass away and “will never, ever exist again.”

In framing the issue in this way, Trump performed an important service—at least according to the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville. It is unlikely that Trump has ever studied Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Perhaps, then, it was by what Machiavelli would have called a “fortunate astuteness” that the president addressed a democratic people in precisely the way that a responsible democratic statesman should address them……….”   Please read the entire article!


John Fund: John McCain’s Obamacare Vote Was Indefensible!!

Being a jerk,  both local and national, is nothing new to American VietNam hero,  Senator John McCain.  Petulant, brash, insulting, sour, angry, disruptive, arrogant…one can add more to his character….the one that gave him the strength to win his battle against his Vietnam torturers back in those Vietnam War years.

John Fund analyzes the moods of the   life long Senator from Arizona well:


Transgenders in the Military? Let Them Be Segregated!! Why Not Female-Only Battalions!


by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“That’s how (minus the question mark) Steven Petrow, a gay Washington Post columnist, characterizes President Trump’s decision to reinstate the ban on transgender people in the military. This characterization tells us plenty about what’s wrong with leftist identity-politics.

The question of whether transgender people should serve in the military is first and foremost a decision about how best to defend America militarily. The purpose of our armed forces is not to promote or reject the LGBT agenda. Its purpose is not to serve as a model for tolerance of transgender and other LGBT people, or to afford them employment opportunities, or even to treat them fairly as individuals. The purpose of our armed forces is to defend the country from its enemies.

Does a ban on services by transgender people serve this purpose? I don’t know.

Petrow cites a 2016 Rand Corporation study, commissioned by the Pentagon, that led the Obama administration to lift the ban. That’s one important piece of evidence. However, it was pretty clear the direction in which Obama wanted to go, so I can’t help but wonder whether the results of the study were preordained. (For a discussion of the manipulation associated with Obama’s decision to ditch “don’t ask, don’t tell,” see this post I wrote in 2010).

Dan McLaughlin at NRO offers countervailing evidence. He cites a 2015 study by the National Center for Transgender Equality. It found:

Fifty three percent (53%) of [transgender] respondents aged 18 to 25 reported experiencing current serious psychological distress [compared to 10% of the general population] . . . Forty percent (40%) of respondents have attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6% in the U.S. population.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year, compared to 4% of the U.S. population, and 82% have had serious thoughts about killing themselves at some point in their life . . .

29% of respondents reported illicit drug use, marijuana consumption, and/or nonmedical prescription drug use in the past month, nearly three times the rate in the U.S. population (10%)

Military veteran and Bronze Star recipient David French, also at NRO, argues that the military is justified in making decisions based on group characteristics:

Do people with certain kinds of criminal backgrounds tend to be more trouble than they’re worth? They’re out. How about folks with medical conditions that have a tendency to flare up in the field. They’re out also.

It’s foolish to create a force that contains numbers of people who are disproportionately likely to have substantial problems. Increased injuries lead to manpower shortages in the field. Prolonged absences create training gaps. Physical weakness leads to poor performance.

It may well be true that military service is one way that transgender people can feel more accepted in society. Again, however, that’s not the purpose of the military.

French concludes:

The military has to make hard choices on the basis of odds, probabilities, and centuries of hard-earned experience. Our national existence – ultimately, our very civilization – depends on getting those answers right. And if there’s one thing that any person learns in war, “fairness” has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.

The battlefield is the most unjust place on earth.

Again, I don’t know what the correct answer is on transgender people serving in the military. But I submit that French’s mode of analysis is the correct one. Focusing on whether a ban amounts to “an attack on the LBGT community” is the wrong mode.”

Glenn Ray wonders if Paul Mirengoff was ever in military service.   I wonder if Paul Mirengoff recognizes there are tremendous differences between the human male and the human female animal (despite the lies, the deceit, the corruption of our nation’s feminized colleges and universities?

I am a child of the second world war.   War was the event of every day even on the home front.   We boys played war games at home.  We went to war movies.  Girls played paper dolls and jumped rope.   From early on I wondered whether I’d have the courage to expose myself to death to save my buddies when I ‘grew up’ .  Did I have that animal drive in me?  I was certain I did.  I would serve my country in any way I could.

One of the main reasons I entered the army was the hope I would have the opportunity to do so.   I can’t imagine an army with females running around pretending to be men.   How could they be trusted in a fox hole.  When would they break and scream which is their nature, an animal  message to the nearby human male they need help?

In those days when adults were adults, men men and women women, the human male was made well aware of his duties in life.   Why would anyone go to war relying on  Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, or Madame Hillary in ones fox hole?



Freedom of Speech?

July 4th and Freedom of Speech

By Elise Cooper at American Thinker:

“Americans should reflect on why July Fourth is such a special holiday. Apart from the birth of the U.S. as an independent nation they should not forget why the Bill of Rights was ratified as part of the Constitution in 1792. There is a reason why the Founders placed Freedom of Speech as the First Amendment.

In including that amendment, they had the utmost confidence that Americans would have common sense. Today, they would probably be turning over in their graves considering the rhetoric coming out of the leftists, celebrities, politicians, and the press mouths. No one is arguing that these people do not have their First Amendment rights to make these horrific comments, but where is the common sense?

After the four Republicans were shot on June 14th, there were calls to tone down the rhetoric, but it was just talk. While introducing his latest film in London, actor Johnny Depp asked the crowd how long has it been since “”an actor assassinated a president,” playing off the Lincoln murder while referring to President Donald Trump. Dan Weber, who founded a conservative alternative to AARP, is horrified that a standing senator, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “I’ve read the Republican ‘health care’ bill. This is blood money. They’re paying for tax cuts with American lives.” He wondered “were there any consequences…? Absolutely not!”

Let’s not forget those who speak publicly, write critically, or satirize militant Islam. They are on the receiving end of violence, threats of violence, and/or lawsuits. Possibly because terrorists realize that freedom of speech is one of the greatest weapons to defeat them. Their response is to have those who challenge them fear for their lives. Recapping just a few instances: The firebombing of Charlie Hebdo‘s offices in Paris in 2011 after the magazine “invited” the Prophet Muhammad as its guest editor; Comedy Central, which airs “South Park,” censored a 2010 episode by excising a segment that originally had the Prophet Muhammad depicted in a bear costume and then turned him into Santa Claus; Theo van Gogh’s movie, Submission, was not aired in many venues; and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (or Muhammad cartoons crisis) began after 12 editorial cartoons that depicted Muhammad were self-censored from most Western publications, including Yale University Press. Van Gogh and the staff of Charlie Hebdo were, of course, later murdered by Muslim fanatics. The al-Qaeda hit list of eleven names with the heading “Wanted, Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam” is meant in dead earnest.

So why didn’t the Western governments defend these individual rights of freedom of speech? Was it political correctness? The hypocrisy is overwhelming. The explanation by the media is that they want to be “sensitive” and not be offensive. The New York Times explained in 2006 that it would not publish the Mohammad cartoons because of the symbols. Yet, one day later, they ran a picture of a painting that showed the Virgin Mary covered in elephant poop. Time magazine’s Bruce Crumley, the Paris Bureau Chief in 2011, wrote this about Charlie Hebdo, “Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies?” And the Washington Post article commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Orlando shooting said nothing of Islamic extremism.

Another battlefront for the war against freedom of speech is on the college campuses. Alan Dershowitz brilliantly said, “What they stand for is the oldest notion, ‘free speech for me, but not for thee.’ Certain groups do not deserve more free speech than others.” Unfortunately, those attending U.S. colleges today do not appear to understand the First Amendment. According to a Pew Poll taken in November 2015, 40 percent of millennials are “OK with limiting free speech that is offensive to minorities.” When asked if they believe in free speech, a majority of Millennials say they believe in it except in cases of “hate speech.”

Most colleges look the other way as protesting mobs shout down speakers, depriving them and those who want to listen of their First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech does not give these people the right to prevent a speaker from being heard. Take for example UC Berkeley, which refused to provide security for conservative speakers, thus limiting freedom of speech. Yet, Berkeley has welcomed prominent radical Islamists, speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry, because they fit within the accepted political framework.

Whether having a picnic or shooting off fireworks, Americans need to understand that one of its core values, freedom of speech, should never be suppressed. Yet, common sense needs to be considered when threatening someone else. After all, no one can yell fire in a public theater. The Founders would probably argue that when they wrote about freedom of speech they took into account the right to the First Amendment comes with some responsibility.”



Our Donald Remembers the Honor of Memorial Day

President Trump on Memorial Day: “Tell Their Stories For 1,000 Years”




by Ben Shapiro   at  the New York Post:

“President Trump’s approval ratings are nothing special. Actually, they’re extraordinarily low by historical standards — he’s clocking in at 44 percent, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. His support base is highly polarized, with 85 percent of Republicans behind him and just 9 percent of Democrats. If those rates drop steadily for the next two years — and given the level of polarization, they certainly could — Republicans would be in serious danger of losing the House, since low presidential approval ratings correlate significantly with House elections.

Then again, Trump’s support base may be stable.

Here’s why…..”   Please read on: