• 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

Good American Ben Stein at His Best

Why Do American Universities Preach Fascism for the “Social Sciences”?


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

It is common knowledge that patriotic Americans tend to be Republicans, while unpatriotic Americans tend to be Democrats. According to the latest Gallup poll, the gulf between the parties is widening.

Gallup headlines the fact that only 47% now say they are “extremely proud” to be an American, the lowest total ever recorded. But the partisan divide is stark and, as you can see in this graph, it is getting worse:

The contrast is even greater when liberals are compared with conservatives. Sixty-five percent of conservatives say they are extremely proud to be Americans, almost three times the 23% of liberals who say the same.

As you would expect, the college-educated and the young are the least proud to be Americans. This is the result of a generation of mis-education, in which Howard Zinn has become the #1 guide to American history and Karl Marx is far more widely taught than John Locke. Perhaps the best thing you can do for your offspring is not to send them to college.

Meanwhile, you have to wonder about the future of a party, most of whose members don’t like the country they are trying to take over. Maybe when they have turned the U.S. into Venezuela or Cuba they will be proud to be Americans. Let’s hope they don’t get that opportunity.



Trump Victory in South Carolina


by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

With nearly all of the vote counted, challenger Katie Arrington leads Rep. Mark Sanford by 4 percentage points (and almost 3,000 votes) in South Carolina’s first congressional district. Sanford has just conceded.

This result is the first defeat of Sanford’s remarkable career. He is the “comeback kid” of South Carolina politics, having survived his affair — part sordid, part comical — with an Argentine woman.

Before that affair was revealed in 2009, Sanford served three terms in Congress and two terms as South Carolina’s governor. Afterwards, in 2013, he somehow won a special election for the first district seat, filling the vacancy left when Tim Scott was appointed to the Senate.

Today, three hours before the polls closed, President Trump came out against Sanford, calling him “nothing but trouble.” Tweeting from the plane bringing him home from Singapore, he declared Sanford “very unhelpful” in advancing his agenda. Trump endorsed Arrington, a first term state legislator. Twisting the knife, Trump stated that Sanford “is better off in Argentina.”

Did Trump’s endorsement swing the race to Arrington? Maybe not, coming as late as it did. But I’m guessing that the endorsement put Arrington over the top. Keep in mind that Arrington didn’t just need to outpoll Sanford. She needed to win a majority of the vote to avoid a run-off.

In the most recent count I’ve seen, Arrington is at 50.5 percent, only about 300 votes clear of a run-off (if my math is correct). It’s easy to believe that Trump influenced enough votes to provide that boost.

In any event, the fact that Sanford has at times been at odds with Trump is what made Arrington such a strong challenger in the first place. So under any reckoning, Stanford is a victim of the Trump effect. In this case, the effect will prove salutary, I believe.



The Obama, Clinton, Kerry Creators of Foul Iran Deal Whine Over Iran Foul Deal Fate


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

This is an example of why I like Sarah Sanders. From yesterday’s press briefing:

Q Thank you, Sarah. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and former President Barack Obama all weighed in on the President’s Iran decision. A sampling of what they said: John Kerry was, it “weakens our security, breaks America’s word, isolates us from our European allies.” President Obama — former President Obama said that — called for, “principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country.” And then Hillary Clinton said, “Our credibility is shot.” And they called it a mistake. What is the President’s response to them? And what does the White House think about those former Obama administration officials commenting on this and the appropriateness of that?

MS. SANDERS: I think based on each of those individuals’ lack of success in this entire process on foreign affairs, they would probably be the last three people that we would look to for advice and counsel, and whether or not we had made the right decisions.

My sentiments exactly.


Glenn Replies:   This is the remarkable American era of Donald John Trump, President and fan of these United States.   The Schumer-Pelosi leftist  hate-Trump crowd in Congress has to this date, a year and a half into his presidency,  been  undertaking  a policy to disrupt, corrupt, delay, sabotage  approvals of President Trump’s administration management selections in order to cause delay, disruption and disorder throughout the Trump administration.

Sarah Sanders is the daughter of popular, quick-minded former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee,  one of the most gifted Governor spokesman in the country over the past century.

A Note from My Congressman, Erik Paulsen

Today I wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal responding to Senator Rubio’s recent comments on the tax reform bill.  

From the Wall Street Journal:

Last Friday’s upbeat jobs report was the latest sign that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has strengthened the American economy and helped working families. But this success hasn’t satisfied all the skeptics. My friend and colleague, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, argued in a recent interview that a different approach to tax reform, including a smaller corporate rate cut, would have more directly benefited workers. Based on all the evidence—including the analysis of the Joint Economic Committee, which I chair—I must respectfully disagree.

When House Republicans crafted the tax-reform law last year, our priority was to boost the economy so workers could thrive. Cutting the U.S. corporate tax rate from the highest in the developed world to a competitive 21% wasn’t a luxury. It was a crucial step to prevent the loss of American headquarters and jobs to other nations.

For proof that the gains of tax reform are already flowing to American workers, Sen. Rubio need only ask the nonpartisan analysts who advise Congress on economic matters. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported that real disposable income—workers’ inflation-adjusted earnings, after taxes—rose 3.4% in the first quarter of this year. The bureau specifically credited tax reform for higher wages as well as lower taxes.

Even the Congressional Budget Office, which tends to play down the growth effects of tax relief, estimates the tax law will create nearly one million new jobs over the coming decade, along with higher wages and near-term annual growth of more than 3%. The Joint Committee on Taxation finds that cutting corporate taxes will generate long-term wage growth, and that tax reform will draw foreign investment to the U.S., producing strong benefits for workers.

The good news for workers keeps pouring in, as more than 530 companies have announced bonuses, pay raises and more-generous benefits for employees, as well as utility rate cuts for customers and corporate expansions. Americans for Tax Reform estimates more than four million workers have received bonuses.

In addition to benefits from the business side of tax reform, the tax savings on the personal side mean that a typical family of four earning $75,000 will pay $2,000 less in taxes this year than in 2017.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act wasn’t perfect, and Congress should continue to improve the tax code by adding more individual tax relief and making the current cuts permanent. But no matter how you slice it, working families are benefiting from tax reform. And as the pro-growth effects of the tax cuts continue to work their way through the economy, the best is yet to come.

Sen. Rubio is right to want to ensure that America’s economic policy favors working families—that’s why I supported him during his presidential primary campaign. But as we continue to work on Americans’ behalf, we should recognize the success tax reform has already achieved and use it as a foundation to go further.

Mr. Paulsen, a Republican, is U.S. representative from Minnesota’s Third District and chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

You can read the article in Wall Street Journal here.


Eric Paulsen

Mike Pompeo Better Become U.S. Secretary of State..OR MITCH McCONNELL’S HEAD SHOULD ROLL

Deadline: Corker Sets Monday Committee Vote On Pompeo Confirmation; Update: Heitkamp Endorses Pompeo

by Ed Morrissey  at HotAir:

Let the games … continue. There’s already been a considerable amount of game-playing surrounding the confirmation of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Democrats have their first real opportunity to block a Donald Trump Cabinet appointee in a floor vote, and the first step is to tarnish Pompeo with a negative recommendation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Chair Bob Corker started the countdown today to a Monday committee vote:

SEE ALSO: Lindsey Graham: I endorse Trump for the 2020 GOP nomination

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has set a vote for Monday on Mike Pompeo’s nomination as President Trump’s secretary of state.

Pompeo, who has made headlines in recent days for his secret trip to North Korea over Easter weekend, won the backing of the committee last year as CIA director but faces longer odds this time.

To secure the committee’s blessing, Pompeo will need at least one vote from the 10 Democrats on the 21-member panel. That’s because the day after Pompeo’s nomination was announced, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), formally stated his opposition to Pompeo’s bid.

It’s not just Paul now, either. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who plans to retire at the end of the year, stated that he’s not sure whether he’ll support Pompeo in committee or on the floor, either. That would force Corker to find two Democrats on the SFRC in order to get a positive recommendation for the full confirmation floor vote that Mitch McConnell will likely expedite, regardless of how the committee vote goes.

Needless to say, the likelihood of even getting one Democrat on the committee is rather low. Ranking member Bob Menendez has publicly stated his opposition to Pompeo, as have most of the other Democrats on the SFRC. That makes the necessity of shoring up the GOP position even more urgent, and Reason’s Robby Soave reports this morning that Trump himself has lobbied Paul to reconsider:

President Donald Trump is confident he will ultimately convince Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) to vote to confirm CIA Director Mike Pompeo, the president’s pick to be the next secretary of state. Trump told reporters that Paul “is a very special guy” who has “never let me down.” …

CNN reported that Trump called Paul yesterday and asked him to give Pompeo another chance:

Paul told reporters on Capitol Hill that Trump called him a “few minutes ago” and asked for him to meet with Pompeo and he will.

“I’m open to meeting right now and we’ll see what happens in the meeting,” he said with a smile, adding that no date had been set for the meeting.

The administration is hoping that Pompeo’s starring role in setting up peace talks with North Korea and dialing down the need for military action will appeal to Paul. If Paul flips back, one would presume that Flake would come along for the ride, leaving Corker with the majority he needs to avoid embarrassing the White House.

Either way, though, McConnell intends to have a floor vote on Pompeo. In a floor speech earlier today, McConnell insisted that a vote against Pompeo would be a vote against the diplomacy that naysayers claim they’re defending:

In recent days, the world learned Director Pompeo had undertaken initial conversations with representatives of North Korea, in an effort to bring Kim Jong Un to the table and discuss denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Pursued with clear-eyed realism and clear objectives, this is a worthy effort, and in the best interests of the United States, our allies, and the world.

Although every Commander-in-Chief has insisted it would be unacceptable for North Korea to obtain a nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, it is this administration that finds itself having to actually accomplish that objective. So as a matter of policy, I was encouraged by this news. Based on Director Pompeo’s impressive record at the CIA, the North Koreans undoubtedly view him as credible, determined, and insightful. The quiet nature of these discussions reflect their seriousness. …

I’ve recently heard some critics claim the Trump administration places too little emphasis on diplomacy. In truth, the public statements of Secretary Mattis, former Secretary Tillerson, and former national security advisor McMaster have signaled a clear preference for aggressive, realistic diplomacy over potentially risking American lives. But regardless, in confirming Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, the Senate can ensure the nation has a chief diplomat who enjoys the complete confidence of the president.

Those who claim to want a larger role for diplomacy should match those words with action and vote to approve him.

That will be just five minutes of a 30-hour debate sometime next week or the week after, regardless of what the SFRC does. But if Paul and Flake aren’t coming along, can Pompeo prevail? John McCain may or may not be around for the vote due to his health, and McCain might have reservations about Pompeo too [see update]. That leaves 48 Republicans and a two-vote gap for McConnell and Trump. Can they get two from Democrats?

The Hill’s Jordan Cainey reports that it’s possible:

Of the 15 minority members who backed Pompeo for CIA director, roughly half have now said they will oppose him for the State Department. Being the country’s top diplomat, they say, is vastly different from running a spy agency. …

Of the Senate Democrats who supported Pompeo’s CIA nomination, seven have yet to say how they’ll vote now: Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Mark Warner (Va.). King has also not said how he will vote.

Pompeo met with Warner and McCaskill on Wednesday and had previously met with Manchin and Heitkamp.

“Still working on it. … We had a good conversation. We’re having more of them,” Manchin said on Wednesday.

Four of these face tough re-election bids in states Trump won in 2016: McCaskill, Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp. They’d be more likely to flip if the SFRC reports Pompeo out with an endorsement, though, in order to protect their left flank when it comes time to rally Democrats in these states to the polls. But there’s another Democrat who wasn’t around for Pompeo’s CIA confirmation vote that might have even more reason to be, er, reasonable:

Some moderate Democrats, as well as independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, declined to weigh in, saying they want to discuss it with the nominee first. “I’m going to reserve my comments, and let me talk to Director Pompeo about all that,” said Sen. Doug Jones, a Democrat from Alabama.

Other moderate Democrats who are undecided on Pompeo’s nomination say his North Korea trip is not a major concern. “It might be a positive thing, actually,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. “I look at it as a potential positive.”

Jones owes his seat to the incompetence of Republicans in a special election, not a shift to the left in Alabama. He has to run for re-election, and helping to torpedo one of Trump’s nominees will be portrayed as a sign that Jones is nothing more than a rubber stamp for Democratic party leaders. Tester is an even more interesting case, though, since he seems to be in pretty good position to win re-election whatever he chooses here.

All of this becomes unnecessary if Trump and Pompeo can convince Rand Paul to come back into the fold. Which means that …. all of this will likely be necessary.


A Hewitt Review of Trump Triumphs During His First Year


by Hugh Hewitt   at the Washington Post:

We are going to have to wait a long time for anyone to approach Donald Trump with, say, the detachment and scholarship that Robert Caro has brought to his study of Lyndon Johnson. Caro published his first volume, “The Path to Power,” in 1982, nearly a decade after LBJ died, and about 35 years later the biographer is still at work, on a fifth volume. So it will be with Trump — as it is with all men and women who change history. We will have to wait until we get the end of the story and have access to all the primary sources. We also will need a biographer with the talent and dedication to find the “figure under the carpet,” as Leon Edel described the biographer’s task. The many Trump books along the way should be regarded more or less as source material. They should be graded on how useful they will be to the ultimate project, and of course on the trustworthiness of their contents.

Ronald Kessler’s new book, “The Trump White House: Changing the Rules of the Game,” is trustworthy, and, in an unusual twist these days, it’s favorable to the president. “Because of the liberal bias of the mainstream media,” Kessler writes in a poker tell as obvious as any ever seen, “many of Trump’s achievements are either underplayed or not reported at all.” Kessler doesn’t underplay them, and overstates some, but gets almost everything down — good and bad — of Season One of the Trump presidency. Among Trump’s triumphs, Kessler points to the two most significant: the seating of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and the massive tax cut and tax reform bill. Kessler also got Trump to sit down for an interview on New Year’s Eve at Mar-a-Lago, a conversation that shows the president confident and comfortable in his role.

 I checked with one of Kessler’s sources, who is quoted quite liberally, and discovered that indeed the source spent time with the author. The source hadn’t read the book yet but the voice he projects in the pages sounds right to me. Thus, Kessler’s note-taking or tape-recording seems reliable, which is an odd but increasingly necessary assessment to include in a book review, but we are in an era when facts and sources are sometimes elusive. Kessler’s book seems to me professional and ethical, a workmanlike, useful contribution to the accumulating pile of source material on this presidency (beginning of course with the tweets. All of them. Pity Trump’s Caro).
“The Trump White House,” by Ronald Kessler (Crown Forum)

Kessler, a former reporter for The Washington Post and a former chief Washington correspondent for the conservative news site Newsmax, has published 21 books. For this one, he interviewed the major players in the 2016-17 season: Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer and others. “The Trump White House” deserves a careful reading as a chronicle of what went on inside Trump World in 2017.

Kessler conveys Trump’s world in coherent, readable fashion, and provides the players’ assessments of one another. Not surprisingly, the White House wasn’t a “one for all, and all for one” sort of place in 2017, although some obvious good guys do emerge, such as Priebus, as do some obvious Machiavels, such as Bannon. No one, Kessler reports, was on the inside for reasons other than the obvious ones: Each White House staff member supported the president and hoped to advance his agenda. Priebus and Spicer had long careers as likeable figures before their White House stints. So it is no surprise that in Kessler’s rendering of Trump’s rise to power, both come away as honest, good-humored and hard-working men, their reputations intact. You’d still hire them for jobs, still turn to them for advice, still trust them to keep a confidence. Although they are no longer working for Trump, they emerge in Kessler’s pages as loyal — which can’t be said for other former staff members.

Kessler assumes readers may have gaps in their knowledge of the Trump White House. My own blind spot concerned Melania Trump. I realized after reading Kessler’s book just how large my deficiency was regarding the first lady and that it damaged my reporting in 2016. Kessler showed me that the first lady is much more influential than I had realized. One insight into her role: She was a voice in deciding who should interview Trump and when. I simply hadn’t done my homework on her during the wild ride of 2015-16. (In my defense, that period was simply overwhelming with the constant flow of new faces — how could anyone keep up?)

Kessler gets readers up to speed on Trump’s rise, but the book is only as good as its completion date. In the Trump White House, time marches on, relentlessly. All Trump chroniclers face this problem on an unprecedented scale compared with previous presidencies: This one moves so fast and changes so often — and it’s not just the cast but the script, too.

Yes, Bannon said this and did that, but so what? He’s gone. And not just gone, exiled. Priebus, by contrast, stays in frequent touch with Trump, who owes much to his former aide; in helping guide Trump’s win, Priebus tackled the incoherence of the GOP’s 2012 primaries and ordered the Republican contest by date and rules of participation (caucus vs. primary), arranged the dozen debates, insisting on conservative questioners in every one (I was one in the four CNN-Salem Radio debates), and helped orchestrate the early open and the close of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland without a meltdown.

But the fact is, Trump won in 2016, and Kessler’s narrative drives this home. Nobody “designed” Trump’s grand strategy except Trump, and Kessler’s conversation with Trump reminds us why: Trump keeps his own counsel while consulting a wide variety of sources and keeps his eye on the end game, which is a mark of his success as he defines it.

I read Kessler’s book just as Rex Tillerson ended his tenure as secretary of state and the very smart, loyal and hyper-competent Mike Pompeo was named as his successor, and the brilliant and capable John Bolton was chosen as the third national security adviser in 14 months, and the always enthusiastic and charming Larry Kudlow was named the president’s top economic adviser.

Seeing all these changes reminded me that everything about this presidency is contingent. There won’t be any judgments worth rendering until its conclusion. Like a very long rough cut of a complex movie that is added to daily, with the president’s tweets and off-the-cuff remarks being the director’s notes, Kessler’s book is a review of a film still early in shooting and at least three years from release.

“The Trump White House” is nonetheless a useful read, even if some of the stories are told twice or 10 times. There’s some new material and many absorbing interviews. And don’t be surprised if this is the first in a series of books, perhaps annually, like the old World Encyclopedia updates. Trump history plows onward. But there’s no “figure under the carpet” yet, and may never be.

Changing the Rules of the Game

By Ronald Kessler