• 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

Harvard’s Imam Explains Shariah Compassion

There is no Harvard in the world of new-wave Muslim fanatacism. It’s our Harvard who has a chaplain explaining the religious devotion of the world’s most talked about religion in our time, 2009. It’s our Harvard of Cambridge, Massachusetts: one of the great centers of the renaissance of tribalism in our generation, the basis for neoMarxism of the “change we have been waiting for” now raging across America.

I received this article in midApril this year from conservative friend, Marylee Rich of New Hope, Minnesota. For those who have not yet reviewed the film regarding the expanding popularity of Shariah “justice” in the United States, ‘THE THIRD JIHAD’, you might find this peek at modern Harvard as “interesting” as we often comment in Minnesotanese. It might yield a different feeling for those who have seen the film.

Readers should remember Harvard has received tens of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia to fund its Islamic center to “enlighten” American youth. It isn’t the only American center for youth development so well blessed.

“What do Pakistan’s Swat Valley and Harvard University have in common?

Their leading Islamic authorities uphold the Shariah (Islamic law) tradition of punishing those who leave Islam with death.

There are differences, of course. For one thing, Shariah actually rules the Swat Valley, while Shariah’s traditions, as promulgated by Harvard Muslim chaplain Taha Abdul-Basser, retain a more or less theoretical caste. In a recently publicized e-mail, for example, Mr. Abdul-Basser approvingly explained to a student the traditional Islamic practice of executing converts from Islam.

As the chaplain put it: “There is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment), and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human-rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”

Certainly, one should not dismiss Mr. Abdul-Basser out of hand – or the chilling implications of what it means to have a religious leader at Harvard validate the ultimate act of Islamic religious persecution. But dismissing – or, rather, ignoring – this controversy is precisely what Harvard is doing in what appears to be an institutional strategy to make it go away. No one from the public-affairs office I contacted would answer questions or return phone calls. The lady who unguardedly answered the phone at the Harvard Chaplains’ office couldn’t get off fast enough, offering by way of answers a faxed “On Inquiry Statement” prepared by Mr. Abdul-Basser in which he issued a raft of denials unrelated to the e-mail statements in question.

“I have never called for, advocated or otherwise supported the murder of anyone – ever,” he wrote. Nope, he didn’t, especially since under Shariah, death for apostasy is not considered “murder.”

“I have never expressed the position that individuals who leave Islam … must be killed.” True.

Indeed, in the original statement, Mr. Abdul-Basser specified the unworkability of death for apostasy “in our case here in the North/West” because, for one thing, it “can only occur in the domain and under supervision of Muslim governmental authority and can not be

performed by nonstate, private actors.”

And finally: “I do not hold this opinion personally.”

This doesn’t exactly resound as a bell-clanging denunciation of the Islamic juridical consensus on death for apostasy. But maybe more disturbing than either Mr. Abdul-Basser’s Shariah position or Harvard’s stonewalling is the silence of the media. With the exception of the Harvard Crimson, no news outlets have covered the story.

It broke online when someone anonymously leaked the e-mail to talkislam.info on April 3, and it was picked up by researcher Jeffrey Imm on April 4 and subsequently blogged at various sites. (I wrote about it at http://www.dianawest.net on April 4.) The Harvard Crimson became the

sole media outlet to report the story on April 14.

Compare this silence to the uninterrupted media pillory that Lawrence H. Summers endured back in 2005. For suggesting that differences between men and women, not discrimination, accounted for a dearth of women in the sciences, Mr. Summers was ultimately driven from the Harvard presidency. Today, for seeing “great wisdom” in the Shariah tradition of capital punishment for apostasy, Mr. Abdul-Basser not only doesn’t rate a news squib, but he also continues to minister to Harvard’s flock.

Not incidentally, a number of Harvard Muslims – two by name and three anonymously – objected to Mr. Abdul-Basser’s statements in the Harvard Crimson story. One student said Mr. Abdul-Basser shouldn’t be the official Muslim chaplain. His reason, in part, was because the chaplain “privileges the medieval discourse of the Islamic jurists and is not willing to exercise independent thought beyond a certain point.”

Identified by name in the original Crimson story, this student later requested and received anonymity from the online edition “when he revealed that his words could bring him into serious conflict with Muslim religious authorities.”

His “words”? What kind of “serious conflict”? What “Muslim religious authorities”? The article didn’t say.

Another Muslim student who called Mr. Abdul-Basser’s remarks “the first step towards inciting intolerance and inciting people towards violence” also requested anonymity “for fear of harming his relationship with the Islamic community.” So did a third Muslim student in order “to preserve his relationship with the Islamic community.”

It is here that we broach the most disturbing aspect of this highly disturbing story: There are Muslims who oppose the Shariah tradition of death for apostasy but don’t feel free to say so publicly – not at Harvard, not in the Swat Valley. But little wonder. No Harvard official, neither religious nor administrative, has been willing so far to speak out against the chaplain’s statement, let alone can him. This means that when it comes to Shariah rules versus freedom of conscience at Harvard, it is freedom of conscience that goes unprotected by those hallowed, ivy-covered walls.

No wonder nobody wants to talk about this story.”

Diana West is a columnist and the author of “The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.”

Is the death of private health care a foregone conclusion?

Hi, its me, your friendly neighborhood devil’s advocate again!

I pose the above question in response to a well-reasoned argument by a well-known commentator, Dean Edell. He’s an MD-turned-talk-show host. Very smart and reasonable guy so it’s hard to argue with his reasoning.

His argument is that he does not believe a government run option that “competes” with the private health care system will necessarily bring down the private system and we will not be on a single payer system as a result. He doesn’t advocate a government option per se, but doesn’t rail against it either. If a single-payer system is what the government is surreptitiously aiming for, that is a different story, but for the time being, let’s consider Dr. Edell’s logic.

He uses the analogy of the post office vs. FedEx and UPS. The post office could put FedEx and UPS out of business if it wanted to. Just match services (which it attempts to do anyway), drop prices and subsidize operations from taxpayer revenue (surreptitiously, of course). This would work for a little while, perhaps long enough to put UPS/FedEx out of business.

So why hasn’t the post office eliminated UPS/FedEx? Basically, it would be much too costly and would be a useless exercise. For one thing most obviously, the postal service is not a very efficient avenue through which the government can gain ultimate control of the people (the ulterior motive, of course). Needing Uncle Sam to heal us is a much more efficient way. Secondly, there are simply too many smart entrepreneurs for the postal office to compete with (none of whom work for the USPS). Ultimately, private mail services would return in any case.

Thus, it is Dr. Edell’s argument that the fear of government destroying the private health care system is overblown. The old addage “you get what you pay for” will always ring true. I would rather pay twice as much for a car I can rely on instead of a Yugo (or soon-to-be Government Motors hybrid). Similarly, private insurance will not go away – even if it does it will come back in some form ultimately. It will most likely remain and we who actually want medical assistance will pay for it. Others will see what they have bought (nothing) and opt for the more expensive option – private health care.

Obama argues that the public option will force private insurers to become more efficient. He is being disingenuous as we all painfully know. The artificial pressure of lower costs will only lower the overall quality and quantity of care. Private insurers will indeed feel even more pressure to become more efficient – they already do – so Obama has a convoluted point. But there will be those providers, like the Mayo clinic, who will be all the more highly regarded and we will willingly pay more. Obama wants to “level the playing field”, but he will only further separate the haves from the have-nots.

Private insurance will not go away.

For your consideration and comment.

The Third Jihad

For those interested, the screening of “The Third Jihad” that was seen at the June Prager Group will be presented again:

Wednesday, June 24, 2009
7:00 – 9:00 pm

Living Word Christian Center
9201 75th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN

Host:  Minnesotans Against Terrorism

Phone:  763-315-7000
Email:  ilan@MATmn.org

The Modern American Believer!!!

My good friend, Steve Levin forwarded this article to me. I believe it is one of the most important offerings for Americans to study in some kind of depth about the modern American personality….a skill, unfortunately almost totally lacking among the folks described by Stephen Moore in his article.

Almost all of my clients and many of my friends are very comfortable in their living space and grasp of contemporary “Truth”. They are college graduates, unread, unaware of anything resembling history, but champion gay rights, anti Christian collectives, anti American “leadership” in anything, are devoted to Vitamin D or Vitamin C , have discovered the equinox and believe CO2 is a pollutant. If they have kids…many were sent to Breck or Blake. All go on to university, and have all sorts of discomforting complexes about being American. And they, relative to my standards are very, very financially comfortable. They are intellectually comfortable also. They are free of religion, and never bother to think about important matters. But, they know what they feel.

They adore Obama and refuse, REFUSE, to find a blemish upon him. They all hated GW. Mainly, in my view, because he was a sincere Christian, a person who had humbled himself before his “maker” to help straighten out his life. And he did so. To be a sincere Christian is to be Neanderthal according the rules of belief of the contemporary American college graduate. An insincere one is okay, for these liberated Americans laugh at the idea either Bill Clinton or Obama ever have been Christians. The Bible talk of each simply was a clever ruse to con believing conservatives to join Liberal causes…a shrewd political move.

They find no blemish because they never learned anything “American”. Attorneys, business people, the early retired, therapists, psychologists, professors, financial advisors, many financial advisors, builders, bankers, these are folks who cannot explain in any accuracy, the construction of the Federal Constitution, the reasons for separation of powers, the separation of powers itself, the struggles throughout American history of politicians, long dead, to act according to the principles of the Supreme Law of the Land, in otherwords to behave lawfully! These modern Americans feel superior. They are wealthy, confortable, and achieved all while shedding God. Their children go to the best universities.

They are not evil. Most are even very likeable. They are high enough up the contemporary financial stratum to decline discussions with anyone beneath their style of thinking or worship, something they would find contemptuous. To be safe they avoid any and all discussion and assume we all think the same if we are “worth while”.

The ignorance of these “professionals”, outside their immediate employ, is magnificent and complete. They read the New York Times. They sincerely believe in global warming, or whatever their leftwing, antiChristian Obama heroes want to call whatever new climate crisis might come along, fair or foul

When I read Stephen Moore’s article, I picture many of my friends and clients. I have to believe our Prager friends will recognize these characteristics of the “Modern American Believer”, for these folks are today’s Left, the “Modern American Believer.”


Last weekend I attended my niece’s high-school graduation from an upscale prep school in Washington, D.C. These are supposed to be events filled with joy, optimism and anticipation of great achievements. But nearly all the kids who stepped to the podium dutifully moaned about how terrified they are of America’s future — yes, even though Barack Obama, whom they all worship and adore, has brought “change they can believe in.” A federal judge gave the commencement address and proceeded to denounce the sorry state of the nation that will be handed off to them. The enemy, he said, is the collective narcissism of their parents’ generation — my generation. The judge said that we baby boomers have bequeathed to the “echo boomers,” “millennials,” or whatever they are to be called, a legacy of “greed, global warming, and growing income inequality.”

And everyone of all age groups seemed to nod in agreement. One affluent 40-something woman with lots of jewelry told me she can barely look her teenagers in the eyes, so overcome is she with shame over the miseries we have bestowed upon our children.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that graduation ceremonies have become collective airings of guilt and grief. It’s now chic for boomers to apologize for their generation’s crimes. It’s the only thing conservatives and liberals seem to agree on. Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, told Butler University grads that our generation is “just plain selfish.” At Grinnell College in Iowa, author Thomas Friedman compared boomers to “hungry locusts . . . eating through just about everything.” Film maker Ken Burns told this year’s Boston College grads that those born between 1946 and 1960 have “squandered the legacy handed to them by the generation from World War II.”

I could go on, but you get the point. We partied like it was 1999, paid for it with Ponzi schemes and left the mess for our kids and grandkids to clean up. We’re sorry — so sorry.

Well, I’m not. I have two teenagers and an 8-year-old, and I can say firsthand that if boomer parents have anything for which to be sorry it’s for rearing a generation of pampered kids who’ve been chauffeured around to soccer leagues since they were 6. This is a generation that has come to regard rising affluence as a basic human right, because that is all it has ever known — until now. Today’s high-school and college students think of iPods, designer cellphones and $599 lap tops as entitlements. They think their future should be as mapped out as unambiguously as the GPS system in their cars.

CBS News reported recently that echo boomers spend $170 billion a year — more than most nations’ GDPs — and nearly every penny of that comes from the wallets of the very parents they now resent. My parents’ generation lived in fear of getting polio; many boomers lived in fear of getting sent to the Vietnam War; this generation’s notion of hardship is TiVo breaking down.

How bad can the legacy of the baby boomers really be? Let’s see: We’re the generation that spawned Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google, ATMs and Gatorade. We defeated the evils of communism and delivered the world from the brink of global thermonuclear war. Now youngsters are telling pollsters that they think socialism may be better than capitalism after all. Do they expect us to apologize for winning the Cold War next?

College students gripe about the price of tuition, and it does cost way too much. But who do these 22-year-old scholars think has been footing the bill for their courses in transgender studies and Che Guevara? The echo boomers complain, rightly, that we have left them holding the federal government’s $8 trillion national IOU. But try to cut government aid to colleges or raise tuitions and they act as if they have been forced to actually work for a living.

Yes, the members of this generation will inherit a lot of debts, but a much bigger storehouse of wealth will be theirs in the coming years. When I graduated from college in 1982, the net worth of America — all our nation’s assets minus all our liabilities — was $16 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. Today, even after the meltdown in housing and stocks, the net worth of the country is $45 trillion — a doubling after inflation. The boomers’ children and their children will inherit more wealth and assets than any other in the history of the planet — that is, unless Mr. Obama taxes it all away. So how about a little gratitude from these trust-fund babies for our multitrillion-dollar going-away gifts?

My generation is accused of being environmental criminals — of having polluted the water and air and ruined the climate. But no generation in history has done more to clean the environment than mine. Since 1970 pollutants in the air and water have fallen sharply. Since 1960, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh have cut in half the number of days with unsafe levels of smog. The number of Americans who get sick or die from contaminants in our drinking water has plunged for 50 years straight.

Whenever kids ask me why we didn’t do more to combat global warming, I explain that when I was young the “scientific consensus” warned of global cooling. Today’s teenagers drive around in cars more than any previous generation. My kids have never once handed back the car keys because of some moral problem with their carbon footprint — and I think they are fairly typical.

The most absurd complaint of all is that the health-care system has been ruined by our generation. Oh, really? Thanks to massive medical progress in the past 30 years, the chances of dying from heart disease and many types of cancer have been cut in half. We found effective treatments for AIDS within a decade. Life expectancy has risen and infant mortality fallen. That doesn’t sound so “selfish” to me.

Yes, we are in a deep economic crisis today — but it’s no worse than what we boomers faced in the late 1970s after years of hyperinflation, sky-high tax rates and runaway government spending. We cursed our parents, too. But then we grew up and produced a big leap forward in health, wealth and scientific progress. Let’s see what this next generation of over-educated ingrates can do.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.

Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your fingertips.

Radio stations in Twin Cities carrying Dennis Prager’s show

Anyone know of any stations carrying Prager in the TC area besides AM 1280 ?  In my area (West Saint Paul) reception is very bad and I can’t get him. Used to listen to him via podcast but now he’s charging for those, and I haven’t ponied up yet. I know AM 1280 broadcasts him via internet live; was just wondering if there is another RADIO station that carries him. Thanks..

The Sinister Barack Obama

On a recent Monday evening Charles Krauthammer talked frankly and unemotionally to a small group of people at the Center for the American Experiment. For those of you who have followed Mr. Krauthammer’s intellectual and writing abilities over the years, will especially appreciate the gravity of his comments. The man is a profoundly gifted reporter of things the way they are!

The following notes were taken by a member of this audience:

“1. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be strightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to ‘level the playing field’ with income distribution and punishment to the achievers of society.
2. His three main goals are to control Energy, Public Education, and National Health Care by the federal government. He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for free college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it free and add 46 million people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive rationing of services.
3. He’s surrounding himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they’re going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industies. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama’s not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. AGAIN, WATCH WHAT HE DOES, NOT WHAT HE SAYS.
4. Obama doesn’t really see himself as president of the United States, but more as ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first president ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies.
5. He’s now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill and pain will not come due until after he’s reelected in 2012. He’d like to blame all problems on Bush from the past and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego and is a narcissist.
6. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We’re spending trillions that we don’t have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion dollar payoffs to Obama allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left so he can get support for his agenda.”

I am certain that the vast majority of Americans have no fear yet of this president and the consequences of his political, financial, and verbal ruthlessness, consequences which will cause indescribable disorder in the country. I am still in the minority here. I agree with every assumption made by Charles Krauthammer in these notes taken at this recent meeting at the Center for the American Experiment. Except maybe for one…This graduate student president is indeed a State Socialist comrade. ghr

“Obama’s Cocky Ignorance”

Last June the following article was sent to me regarding a trait or two Thomas Sowell had noticed flaunted by the next president of the United States. Thomas Sowell is a conservative whose writings must never go unread. Now that we know this president better, how prescient was my favorite conservative writer’s analysis of Obama as we look back over the first year of his “reign” over America?

“Cocky Ignorance
By Thomas Sowell
Now that Senator Barack Obama has become the Democrats’ nominee for President of the United States, to the cheers of the media at home and abroad, he has written a letter to the Secretary of Defense, in a tone as if he is already President, addressing one of his subordinates.

The letter ends: “I look forward to your swift response.”
With wars going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a Secretary of Defense might have some other things to look after, before making a “swift response” to a political candidate.

Because of the widely publicized statistic that suicide rates among American troops have gone up, Senator Obama says he wants the Secretary of Defense to tell him, swiftly:

“What changes will you make to provide our soldiers in theater with real access to mental health care?”
“What training has the Pentagon provided our medical professionals in theater to recognize who might be at risk of committing suicide?”

“What assistance are you providing families here at home to recognize the risk factors for suicide, so that they may help our service members get the assistance they need?”

“What programs has the Pentagon implemented to help reduce the stigma attached to mental health concerns so that service members are more likely to seek appropriate care?”

All this sounds very plausible, as so many other things that Senator Obama says sound plausible. But, like so many of those other things, it will not stand up under scrutiny.

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

No one needs to be reminded that suicide is a serious matter, whether among soldiers or civilians. But the media have managed to create the impression that it is military service overseas which is the cause of suicides among American troops, when civilians of the same ages and other demographic characteristics are committing suicide at an even higher rate at home.

Moreover, this is not the first time that military service overseas has been portrayed in the media as the cause of problems that are worse in the civilian population at home.

The New York Times led the way in making homicides committed by returning military veterans a front page story, blaming this on “combat trauma and the stress of deployment.” Yet the New York Post showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

In other words, if military veterans are not completely immune to the problems found among civilians at home, then the veterans’ problems are to be blamed on military service– at least by the mainstream media.

Does Senator Obama know how the rate of suicides or homicides among military veterans compares to the rate of suicides or homicides among their civilian counterparts? Do the facts matter to him, as compared to an opportunity to score political points?

Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Senator Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of “the first black President” paramount, even if that means a President with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?

The media have been crucial to Barack Obama’s whole candidacy. His only achievements of national significance in his entire career have been media achievements and rhetorical achievements.

Perhaps his greatest achievement has been running as a candidate with an image wholly incompatible with what he has actually been doing for decades. This man who is now supposedly going to “unite” us has for years worked hand in glove, and contributed both his own money and the taxpayers’ money, to people who have sought to divide us in the most crude demagogic ways.

With all his expressed concern about the war in Iraq, he has not set foot in Iraq for more than two years– including the very years when progress has been made against the terrorists there.

You don’t need to know the facts when you have cocky ignorance and the media behind you.”

What grade would YOU give this last year’s Thomas Sowell article? ghr


Does anyone else have anything to say on this blog except for Glenn?

Not trying to be disparaging, Glenn. However, I prefer discourse to lessons.

Teaching “Gay” to First Graders in California

One of the most aggressive tribes presently powering the Obama Leftwing coalition is the fanatic and even paranoid, and often devious and mean American gay political movement. Competence, honesty, decency, forthrightness have little meaning in this organized political community where the important matter in all of life is the fulfillment of a particular kind of sex drive. This is one huge totalitarian movement based mostly on the base. In its drive to gain acceptance among decent Americans, its history over the past quarter century in America is rank with disgrace and shame. From my own experience in this community, I cannot think of much noble to describe Gay Leadership. Mob rule, hysteria, paranoia, hate, and permanent adolescence come to mind. Yet, I do believe there is a civilized silent majority who endure this tremendously embarrassing public personna by staying home and attempt to lead an honorable life based on the best American values.

For those Americans who have loved ones discovering they are homosexual, you must know the crushing blow so many suffer facing life with this normal abnormality. Some loving families handle it well. Some loving families do not. As more is known, as more homosexuals are known as decent law abiding, responsible Americans who actually grow up into adulthood, no doubt the stormy poltical climate of the present will pass.

My message to any male homosexuals who are facing discovery or have lost some direction for their future, let me assure you, there can be a good life AD..ie, “after discovery” if you grow up a bit quicker than others and learn to focus on being responsible for your own future.

The following article comes from California about kindergarten and first grade curricula changes in the Alameda area school systems. Do you think this gay political movement is interested in what might be best for the country? Please read the following news article:

“If you live in Alameda County in California, which encompasses the East Bay area of Oakland, Fremont, notorious Berkeley, and some of the poorest neighborhoods of the state, your kindergartners, 1st graders, and on up, are going to begin to learn about gay parenting and sexual orientation, ostensibly to keep the children from becoming bullies.

This, despite the protests of 500 parents who showed up to oppose the vote of the Alameda School Board just days ago. So many parents signed up to speak in opposition to the Alameda Board’s vote for gay curriculum that another five hour public hearing will be held Monday night, June 8, 2009, just to accommodate all the angry parents.

As a former school board president in Los Angeles, I have seen my share of angry board meetings. Never, even in our large city with contentious issues like busing and boundary changes, have I ever seen 500 parents make the effort to speak at a school board meeting. Political and gay activists are playing with dynamite by trying to force teaching about gay sexuality into public schools. Even voters who supported gay marriage in California oppose bringing the subject into the schools. Most people just don’t feel that any kind of sexuality — gay or straight — should be part of school instruction, and legally, schools must wait until 5th grade to even discuss maturation.

Along with marriage, civil rights, and sexuality, maybe gay activists believe they’re also experts on the needs of children.”

Parents, pay attention, because your school may be next.

George Will on Obama’s “meddling in the private sector”

George Will came up with a top notch article at RealClearPolitics, June 07, 2009 which I feel I must share with our Prager audience:

WASHINGTON — “I,” said the president, who is inordinately fond of the first-person singular pronoun, “want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector.” He said that in March, when the government already owned 80 percent of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision.” But the government is GM’s largest shareholder, customer, tax collector, regulator, partner in determining employees’ compensation, protector of dealers and pension guarantor. GM’s other large owner, the United Auto Workers, is increasingly a government dependant.

Yet Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom, two of the president’s fixers of Detroit, recently wrote in USA Today that government “will play no role” in running GM. They were not under oath.

“What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM,” says the president who, when not firing GM’s CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members, is designing new products (imposing fuel economy requirements that will control size, weight, passenger capacity and safety). The president, overcoming his professed reluctance to run GM, resembles the journalist Don Marquis when, after a month on the wagon, he ordered a double martini and exclaimed: “I’ve conquered my goddam willpower.”

Washington mandates that Detroit must build cars for which there is much less demand than Washington demands that there be. Then Washington tries to manufacture demand with a $7,500 tax credit for purchasers of the electric Chevrolet Volt, supposedly GM’s salvation. So, GM is to be saved by a product people will not buy without a cash incentive larger than the income tax paid by 83.4 percent of America’s families.

It is reasonable to assume that GM will become profitable — if you make unreasonable assumptions about annual vehicle sales and GM’s share of the market. Besides, the government that runs Amtrak (which has lost $23 billion, in today’s dollars, just since 1990) vows to make GM efficient.

But one reason Amtrak runs on red ink is that legislators treat it as their toy train set, preventing it from cutting egregiously unprofitable routes. Will Congress passively accept auto plant-closing decisions? Rattner says Washington’s demure vow is: “No plant decisions, no dealer decisions, no color-of-the-car decisions.” He is one-third right. Last week, under the headline “Senators Blast Automakers Over Dealer Closings,” The Washington Post reported, “Because the federal government is slated to own most of General Motors and 8 percent of Chrysler, some of the senators said they have a responsibility, as major shareholders do, to review company decisions.”

The pressure to politicize the economy is spreading. John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, and Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — which is government organized as an interest group to lobby itself — have demanded the resignation of two directors of Citigroup. Their premise is that businesses receiving direct government subventions should conform to the wishes of the president’s allies.

GM is adopting new ways to lose money: Responsive to its UAW masters, GM is moving from China to America the production of some components of one Chevrolet model. Says UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, “It should be built here if it’s going to be sold here.” That principle, now successfully asserted, means economic autarky — the end of international trade, and of prosperity.

The government’s $50 billion — so far — acquisition of the shadow of GM will injure, with unfair financial advantages, the surprisingly healthy U.S. auto company, Ford. Of course, the government does not intend that injury, any more than it intended to cause protests in Mexico over the high price of corn tortillas, a result of Washington’s mandate that Americans burn corn (ethanol) in their cars.

Washington’s “rescue” of GM began because GM is “too big to fail,” and bankruptcy is (well, was) “unthinkable.” Big? GM’s market capitalization, $375.8 million on Wednesday, is about the size of California Pizza Kitchen’s ($340 million) — is it too big to fail? — and one-eleventh that of Harley-Davidson ($4.3 billion). Fail? If GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success.

The administration is determined to prop up GM as a jobs program for the UAW and Midwestern states rich in electoral votes. This frenzy will intensify as the administration’s decisions deepen the debacle.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 314 other followers