• 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

Richard Dawkins and the Pope – two peas in a pod?

Devil’s advocate here to annoy you all again – sorry, it’s in my nature.

I’d like to pose a paradoxical thesis that the two gentlemen mentioned above are practially one and the same. The progressive, self-proclaimed consciousness raiser Dawkins and his disposal of God as a delusion, and the pope, most faithful of all believers in Christ.

Why? I’m bored, I guess. But maybe I can get a rise out of someone.

So here’s the reason:

Dawkins, a consummate atheist, is fully aware that he chooses to be one. His disposal of God in his book “The God Delusion” is tight as a drum. His arguments are ironclad. There is absolutely, unequivocally, indisputably no physical evidence whatsoever of God. The only evidence we have gathered so far about the universe and the world we live in suggests only that we do indeed exist. God is make-believe.

The pope, a consummate christian, is fully aware that he chooses to be one. His defence of God in his book “The Bible”, is also tight as a drum. His arguments are also ironclad. There is indeed absolutely, unequivocally, indisputably no physical evidence whatsoever of God. The pope believes in God nevertheless, who is therefore “make-believe”. This doesn’t bother the pope because he operates on what is known as “faith” ( a belief in something that cannot be proven). 

So what?

Well, according to the bible, God does not play favorites (we do, but that’s another story). All it takes for God to credit us with faith is a mustard seed of it. Dawkins has it – he knows that he can’t disprove God’s existence so he must by his own admission leave the door open at least a crack. He does not like it, but he is honest enough to admit it. The pope is also credited by God with faith. He knows that he cannot “prove” God’s existence. He keeps his door wide open anyway.

Dawkins actively disbelieves in God whereas the pope actively believes. These are not two equivalent forms of faith and it is not the point being made here. The point is that God does not differentiate between a cracked door and a wide open one. The pope gets a gold star, and so does Sir Richard.

The two gentlemen are “practically” the same because faith doesn’t get scored based on “how much” of it one possesses. Otherwise the score would be about a million to one in favor of the pope. The bible says that “faith without works is dead”. What this means to me is not that one doesn’t have faith if one doesn’t act like it or that one has “more and more” faith the more one acts on it. What it means is that one’s faith will eventually die if one does not act. Richard Dawkins acted in analyzing his own belief system – albeit in an agressively anti-religion kind of way. It brought him to the admission that he can’t deny the possibility. He gets an A from God. The pope isn’t the teacher’s pet. He get’s an A, too, though.  

Salvation is a different thing altogether, though…

That’s my pontification for today.

Obama Tells The Truth At Last!

My good friend and senior, Marylee Rich enriched us with the following report from HotAir.com. The President talks so much with the unclear to fog over the clear of his neoMarxist deflowering of America, he slipped and the following truth “slipped” out of his lips:

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.
The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.["]

Lily Abigail Helgeson is here!

Lily Abigail Helgeson was born June 25, 2009 at 12:22 am. She weighed 7 lbs, 7 oz and measured 21 inches long. Both mother and child are doing fine. See you at the Seder!

Lily.Abigail

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
Education/Lecture

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.”

“THIS BOOMER ISN’T GOING TO APOLOGIZE”

By STEPHEN MOORE
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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 330 other followers