• 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

Sonia’s Conclusions Better Than A White Man’s

From the very beginnings of our democratic America, three overriding ideals were established as the foundation upon which the nation would be built: The country would maintain a reverence for God, liberty, and be created, E Pluribus Unum.

Today’s American Democrat Party led by Barrack Hussein Obama, is being mobilized to destroy all three; liberty trumped by equality, God by secular paganism and atheism, and E Pluribus Unum sanctimoniously replaced by the covert racism of diversity in the form a revival of tribalism. The tribes to be recognized are the victimhood constituencies of the Left: gays, blacks, God proof Jews, feminists, especially the single women kind, union members, and more recently, latinos. All have been taught to carry a grinding axe against the “white male establishment” for their victimhood suffering, and Obama time has become the time for their advent.

President Obama has announced he prefers judges who have empathy for his loyal followers and has selected Sonia Sotomayor, a Puerto Rican from New York City as his choice for membership to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Like Obama, Sotomayor apparently is very open with her words. Her frank statement “The court of appeals is where policy is made” clearly identifies her as a defiant opponent of the American Constitution, ie a Lefty revolutionary. Most Americans under 55 have probably forgotten or were never taught that the Federal Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land does not give the courts the right and power to make policy. Policy and law making were designed to emanate from Congress, a body not appointed, but elected by the people. These powers along with those of the Presidency were purposefully divided in order to safeguard the country from tyrranny.

Another utterance by Ms. Sotomayor underscores her racial and sexual self elevation: “I would hope that a wise latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white man who hasn’t lived that life.”

One might wonder how any man could have lived that woman’s life under any circumstances, no matter how rich or wise it was claimed to be. Sonia Sotomayor must have gone to graduate school at Yale where she learned there is no difference between the human female and male.

Perhaps to Sotomayor, Leftwing males are identical to Leftwing females. Except in her view, one makes better conclusions. Fortunately, wonderful differences between the sexes still exist among conservatives.

Obama believes favors should be offered folks who have live a tough life. Why doesn’t he favor Clarence Thomas?

Why is the president so certain tribalizing is good for the country?


“This guy is a Master of disingenuousness!” complained Charles Krauthammer on television last week referring to rockstar president-preacher Barack Hussein Obama. Again and again this remarkable columnist and Dennis Prager analyze the art of Obamaspeech exposing its vacuousness and disingenuousness within his baritone arias of command, knowledge, certitude and superior morality.

I would love to eavesdrop on a private conversation between the two of them about Obama… without the restraints of public standards. It would begin with civility, I am sure. Then each would give examples, which freely flow from the former Illinois Senator’s mouth whenever he performs his solos on television or radio. Frustration would build upon frustration. They both would shift to ever higher gears of frenzy from sardonic energy as they play “Can You Top This?”

Squeezed between every example would be moaned the plaintive cry, “Why doesn’t anyone listen to what he says?”

Our American educational systems, ever faster sliding down the chute into the furnace of illiteracy, have long demonstrated outstanding abilities to avoid teaching students to listen. We live in the Epoch of Emotion! The rant and act period. Who needs to listen? Who needs to understand?

For those of us old fashioned enough to try, let’s see what good friend, Dennis, dissected from Obama speech this past week in his article at Townhall.com:

“In his latest address – on Guantanamo detainees – President Obama said something of extraordinary importance that seems to have been missed by the media:

“I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more…I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.”

As this President chooses his words carefully, these claims need to be understood.

Note that Mr. Obama did not say what nearly all opponents of water-boarding say – that water-boarding is not an effective method of extracting reliable, life-saving, information. He took no issue with former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s claims that water-boarding or “enhanced interrogation” saved American and other lives. Indeed, he clearly leaves open the possibility, even the likelihood, that this claim is accurate. Rather, what he says is that “methods like water-boarding were not necessary to keep us safe” – not necessary, not ineffective. And why does he believe this? Because they are not “the most effective means of interrogation.”

In other words, the President’s view seems to be that water-boarding the three terrorists did elicit vital, life-saving, information. However, he contends that we could have obtained all that information using means of interrogation that were both non-brutal and more effective.

I pray the President is right. I would love America to be able to say “America never uses brutal methods of interrogation, let alone tortures” while simultaneously obtaining information it needs from captured terrorists to save thousands of innocent people from death and maiming.

But if in fact, these methods exist, they have never been revealed. President Obama needs to share this discovery with the American people, or, if they must be state secrets, with a select few individuals from Congress and the intelligence community.

It is as if the President, or anyone else, announced that brutal methods of combating cancer like chemotherapy and radiation were “not the most effective means” of combating cancer – and then refused to say what non-brutal means were more effective.”

” -and then refused to say what non-brutal means were more effective.”

FOR AMERICA’S SAKE, DEAR FRIENDS, PLEASE LISTEN TO OBAMA’S LYRICS, WITHOUT THE HUM OF HIS BARITONE MELODIES! The man is in love with his gifts. He does not hide from his overtures. He prances from one stage to another practicing modern American education! He acts as if he knows what to do! Please listen to him!

Should any of us be amazed the American media doesn’t delve into any substance of Obama’s plots? Why should they? How could they? They’ve been trained to be partisan deaf and deferential to their stars for decades. Where would they begin to analyze? What would be the purpose? They might have to begin to think before they write.

Three people have been treated to waterboarding for their complicity in the death of thousands of Americans in order to discover plots to repeat such attacks. Three people, not killed, but waterboarded, and the Left would have Americans believe their moral substance has been forever obliterated…at least until they are reeducated by their messiah Obama. He knows a more humane interrogation method, but won’t explain what it is. As Prager noted,

“-and then refused to say what non-brutal means were more effective.”

Yes, president Obama admits he knows superior methods to extract accurate information from the nation’s enemies….But, he won’t reveal the exercise.

Shouldn’t it be in the country’s best interest if Mr. Obama would reveal his secret formula to extract information from those plotting to diminish America’s population? How can we extract this important information from our dear president since in his grand wisdom, he won’t tell us how!

How about waterboarding him? It shouldn’t take much. Obama seems rather wimpy. Just enough so Barrack will confess his secret SO AMERICA WILL NEVER HAVE TO USE WATERBOARDING AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL FOR LEARNING EVER AGAIN!

The president claims this learning by waterboarding doesn’t work. Wouldn’t it be eminently patriotic of him actually to VOLUNTEER to be waterboarded to prove his point? What an opportunity for the president to demonstrate his heroism defending an ideal.

A glimpse back

This morning, while perusing the excellent website Founding.com, a product of the Claremont Institute, I came across this wonderful vignette of a young America, one which has long since vanished.  It came from the pen of Benjamin Franklin in 1794 and was offered as a bit of useful information to those who were considering making a new home in America.  Here is an excerpt:

The truth is, that though there are in (this) country few people so miserable as the poor of Europe, there are also very few that in Europe would be called rich; it is rather a general happy mediocrity that prevails. There are few great proprietors of the soil, and few tenants; most people cultivate their own lands, or follow some handicraft or merchandise; very few rich enough to live idly upon their rents or incomes, or to pay the highest prices given in Europe for painting, statues, architecture, and the other works of art, that are more curious than useful. Hence the natural geniuses, that have arisen in America with such talents, have uniformly quitted that country for Europe, where they can be more suitably rewarded. It is true, that letters and mathematical knowledge are in esteem there, but they are at the same time more common than is apprehended; there being already existing nine colleges or universities, viz. four in New England, and one in each of the provinces of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, all furnished with learned professors; besides a number of smaller academies; these educate many of their youth in the languages, and those sciences that qualify men for the professions of divinity, law , or physic. Strangers indeed are by no means excluded from exercising those professions; and the quick increase of inhabitants everywhere gives them a chance of employ, which they have in common with the natives. Of civil offices, or employments, there are few; no superfluous ones, as in Europe; and it is a rule established in some of the States, that no office should be so profitable as to make it desirable. The thirty-sixth article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, runs expressly in these words; “As every freeman, to preserve his independence, (if he has not a sufficient estate) ought to have some profession, calling, trade, or farm, whereby he may honestly subsist, there can be no necessity for, nor use in, establishing offices of profit; the usual effects of which are dependence and servility, unbecoming freemen, in the possessors and expectants; faction, contention, corruption, and disorder among the people. Whereof, whenever an office, through increase of fees or otherwise, becomes so profitable, as to occasion many to apply for it, the profits ought to be lessened by the legislature.”

These ideas prevailing more or less in all the United States, it cannot be worth any man’s while, who has a means of living at home, to expatriate himself, in hopes of obtaining a profitable civil office in America; and, as to military offices, they are at an end with the war, the armies being disbanded. Much less is it advisable for a person to go thither, who has no other quality to recommend him but his birth. In Europe it has indeed its value; but it is a commodity that cannot be carried to a worse market than that of America, where people do not inquire concerning a stranger, What is he? but, What can he do? If he has any useful art, he is welcome; and if he exercises it, and behalves well, he will be respected by all that know him; but a mere man of quality, who, on that account, wants to live upon the public, by some office or salary, will be despised and disregarded. The husbandman is in honor there, and even the mechanic, because their employments are useful. The people have a saying, that God Almighty is himself a mechanic, the greatest in the universe; and he is respected and admired more for the variety, ingenuity, and utility of his handiworks, than for the antiquity of his family.

I especially like the part about few civil offices and no superfluous ones.


With Liberty and Fairness for all

Ever seeking to paint himself into history using the most vivid colors possible, President Obama made some remarks in a recent posturing session at the National Archives.  In his speech he enumerated some of our founding ideals and he inserted the word ‘fairness’ alongside the words freedom, liberty and justice.  This is typical Obama, well-schooled as he is in how to mix leftist notions into standard American fare.  It is both effective and somewhat devious.  Fairness is a problematic concept.  It sounds like a good word, but what is fair, and how do we achieve real fairness?  Can it ever be attained?  Should it?

When I was in grade school I had a good friend named Lance.  Lance was smart, a natural athlete and the fastest kid in school.  No one could beat Lance in a footrace.  Not even close.  How did this make the other kids feel?  Was it our fault that we couldn’t run as fast?  Was this Fair?  What can be done in the interest of fairness to keep the Lance’s of the world from excelling well beyond the rest of the pack?  Allegiance to the idea of fairness demands that we act, doesn’t it?  The left would have us believe that other inequities of skill and ability are matters that can be evened out by state intervention.

The kernel of the issue it seems to me lies in the difference between the words fairness, equality, and justice.  They are so often used interchangeably without distinction, but they are not precisely the same.  It is this word ‘fair’ that is the nebulous one and its overuse blurs the lines of meaning.  Thus it is an effective tool for the left, which seeks control through language.  Surely we all want to live in a just society, but is that achieved by making everything exactly equal?  Is an equality of outcomes always fair?  The word is so troublesome that the writer George Will said that he has banned it from his home.

The founding fathers believed in equality before the law and equality of opportunity.  But they most certainly did not believe as the left does in an equality of outcomes or situation.  John Adams said: ‘no two men are perfectly equal in person, property, understanding, activity and virtue, or ever can be made so by any power less than that which created them’.

The left believes that the deploying of government force to achieve something more like an equality of outcomes is a good, moral and noble thing to do.  So we shall not be allowed to run as fast as we may, as it leads to too much inequity, too much unfairness.  Are we to remain a society that values freedom above all else, or are we not?  The choice is already being made.   Fairness it appears is to be placed as the higher value in the new American age, and government shall be the instrument of its making.

I close with the words of George Washington:  ‘government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master’.

Is Obama Becoming Americanized?

Charles Krauthammer, my favorite news analyst, observes the following in his Townhall.com commentary entitled: OBAMA IN BUSH CLOTHING

“Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: “The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) — and now Guantanamo.”
Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds: rendition — turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets — claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus — to detainees in Afghanistan’s Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.

What does it all mean? Democratic hypocrisy and demagoguery? Sure, but in Washington, opportunism and cynicism are hardly news.

There is something much larger at play — an undeniable, irresistible national interest that, in the end, beyond the cheap politics, asserts itself. The urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world, as opposed to the fanciful world of the opposition politician, present a rather narrow range of acceptable alternatives.

Among them: reviving the tradition of military tribunals, used historically by George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Winfield Scott, Abraham Lincoln, Arthur MacArthur and Franklin Roosevelt. And inventing Guantanamo — accessible, secure, offshore and nicely symbolic (the tradition of island exile for those outside the pale of civilization is a venerable one) — a quite brilliant choice for the placement of terrorists, some of whom, the Bush administration immediately understood, would have to be detained without trial in a war that could be endless.

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That’s happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won’t have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.”

Well! Where there is life, there is hope. ghr

Obama’s Victimhood Supreme Court

The following quoting of Barack Obama was posted on a blog by Prager Group member, TP Katsa:

“I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and ….when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the ROLE OF THE COURT IS THAT IT IS GOING TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHO MAY BE VULNERABLE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, THE OUTSIDER, THE MINORITY, THOSE WHO ARE VULNERABLE, THOSE WHO DON’T HAVE A LOT OF CLOUT.
Sometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the (lower) court. If we can find people who have life experience and THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ON THE OUTSIDE, WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE THE SYSTEM NOT WORK FOR THEM, THAT’S THE KIND OF PERSON I WANT ON THE SUPREME COURT.

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize, what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. THE EMPATHY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE POOR, OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, OR GAY, OR DISABLED, OR OLD. AND THAT’S THE CRITERIA (sic) BY WHICH I’M GOING TO BE SELECTING MY JUDGES.”

TP Katsa quoted the following passage from the Bible, Leviticus 19:15: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.”

Well, we shouldn’t be surprised Barack Obama missed any sermon which may have included the Judeo-Christian concept of justice, a pillar upon which Western democracy depends. Barrack went to Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago. The millionaire, Jeremiah, preached other matters in his sermons: anti-Americanism and anti-white racism. Barack Hussein Obama claimed he never heard his personal mentor, Mr. Wright utter these diatribes, despite the fact he was a member of Jeremiah’s congregation for 22 years. Moreover, Mr. Obama claimed in his own writings, we should not forget, Jeremiah Wright was like a father to the future president. What did he learn? When did he learn it?

If Obama never heard the pastor’s vitriolics, certainly no one could expect that he would have learned anything in the Chicago church about Biblical standards for justice. What a bore that would have been anyway compared to the theatrics of espousing hate. Could “justice” have been mentioned when Barrack fell asleep in his pew?

As professor, Mr. Obama claims to have taught constitutional law. Whose constitution? How is it possible to be an American, one appreciative of our representative democracy base on the rule of law, claiming to have taught “constitutional” law for ten years and, as president of this democracy prefer tribal favoritism judgments over court decisions based on the rule of law? Was he asleep in class as well when the symbol of blind justice was explained? To be more generous, perhaps his professor also taught constitutional law for ten year and didn’t know anything at all about justice based upon the rule of law.

It seems with his presidency Barack will attempt to make the rules of Political Correctness the law of the land if enough Supreme Court justices leave the bench during Barrack’s reign. But won’t he have to enlarge the Supreme Court to make room for his empathy chieves?

Barack is honest enough to identify the favored tribes to fill his packed courts: blacks, single moms, gays, derelicts and foreigners one presumes as the “outsiders”, (conservatives would be banned) and then we must include the “old”

How will judges be quizzed to prove empathy awareness about these tribes? Who would know what it is to be gay? Would it be demonstrated? Mr. Obama must already know what his criteria for this downtrodden bunch will be. What about all those college professors who are gay, the dancers and other “entertainers” especially those in Hollywood. Which will best know what it is to be gay? Surely no one “straight” qualifies! Does one think gay? Does one judge gay? Barrack seems to prefer that. Some walk and talk gay, yet some of these folks might not be gay at all.

What about fat people? Aren’t they victims of the food chain industries? Universities and other Lefties report this. Shouldn’t they have tribe status in our courts? How fat is fat? Should they be weighed in?

Think of the enormous change of character the majority of American blacks will have to perform. Most seem decent enough folk. Won’t they have to change their behavior to qualify for Obama’s court selections? The few that are married will certainly have to divorce to make it. Others will have to learn how to rob or sell drugs, learn Oakland tongues, and panhandle. They may have to learn to shoot someone.

What is it like to be old? I could qualify. I ache enough. Judge Stevens could qualify, but then he is already a Surpreme Court Judge at age 87. So this slot is already filled. He may not have any empathy for the rest of us old folks though. He’s a Lefty.

The President is right about the rising power of single unwed mothers. Any one of them should know what it is like to be a suffering single mother. Yet, shouldn’t a single mother with eight children from eight different fathers be more qualified for judgeship rather than a divorced gal with only one child? Shouldn’t her empathy score be higher? How about the fourteen year old, single mother? Many barely know how to read candy bar wrappers. Shouldn’t they have a tribal spot on the Court? We should expect quite a scramble here. After all, a single mom may be 95 years old and qualify.

Will Chief Single Mom competitions be handled by American Idol?

Barack’s choice for Disabled Tribesperson will not be a veteran. We all understand that. Veterans know their place in Democrat Party politics. There’s further irony here, however. This judicial representative will be reserved for one of Bill Ayer’s comrades who was injured while trying to bomb a police station in the late 1960s. His hair got singed. He will become Chief Justice the instant Justice Roberts is removed.

During the reign of Obama I, the stars on the flag will come to represent the 50 favored Obama tribe chiefs representing the various victimhood nations, rather than the 50 states. There will be no need for Congress for Obamanation. The president believes in economy. Tribal law will be legislated from the bench, a practice Lefties started years ago.

Good night, America. Sweet dreams.

Klaatu barada nikto,”biological altruism”, and yet another contradiction by the left

This is a little dated, but I saw “The Day the Earth Stood Still” a while back. For those of you sci-fi buffs, it is a remake of the classic 1950’s movie, – with a very important political message of course.

Granted, the original had a political message as well. In the original, the alien Klaatu came to earth to warn us not to extend our human violence beyond earth into outer space, or else the league of intergalactic nations will have to destroy the earth – or whatever. The modern version has a more contemporary algoric message. “You earthlings are destroying the earth with your SUV’s – prepare to be eliminated so the earth can regenerate itself…” I stomached the movie in the hopes that there would be some cool special effects (sadly, there were not enough) – after all, what movie isn’t political any more.

Now, one scene stuck out in my mind. Klaatu meets a scientist who is intelligent enough to contemplate the gravity of the situation (in other words, he’s a liberal). The scientist, played by John Cleese, was awarded a Nobel Prize in “biological altruism”. There ensues much pleading with Klaatu by the scientist – and ultimately by the leading lady who of course succeeds -, but the die is cast. Alas, humanity has been given ample chance but now Gort, the mechanical robot, is scheduled to disassemble all “non-essential” life (i.e. humans) post haste.

The not-so-subtle message is that mankind must evolve to become more altruistic with regard to the planet and recognize our reciprocal relationship with it or else perish – along with the earth, the innocent victim of our excesses.

“Biological altruism” is a Darwinian term for behavior that is developed through evolution, or so it is believed, which solely benefits another at the expense of one’s self and in the end benefits the group as a whole. This is difficult to explain in Darwinian terms, since evolution is a selfish process not an unselfish one. However, the explanation is doable. This behavior evolves into complex relationships in sophisticated species – like us.

Here is the contradiction. Ultimately, as the movie instructs, we the most advanced species on the planet must eventually come to grips with the relationship that we have with the planet and act altruistically with respect to it. This is an inevitable, environment/evolution-driven result. For example, Klaatu (Keanu Reaves) indicates that “some species don’t get it” (paraphrase) and they need to be removed. “There are only so many habitable planets in the galaxy, you know. we have to keep them all working”. Thus, those species that do not evolve to the point of “getting” the altruistic imperative are out. Their very survival depends on their “getting it”. This is therefore an absolute moral imperative. However, the reference to biological altruism is meant to state unequivocally that this absolute moral truth is a consequence of our evolution.

How is this contradictory?

For one thing, there is no guarantee that an evolutionary trajectory will necessarily lead to this earth-friendly conclusion. Klaatu’s species’ evolutionary trajectory obviously did lead there, but how does this then become the overriding, moral, altruistic truth? Sounds kind of arbitrary to me. Did Klaatu’s species establish it because it was the first to “make it” and “get it”, or did it somehow discover this absolute truth? What if Klaatu’s species had gone the way of the aliens in Independence Day, in which it exhausts the resources of a planet and moves on to the next to plunder. That formula seems to have worked for the aliens in that movie. In that case, the “biologically altruistic” way would have been one of resource exploitation, not sustainability. Especially once they had developed those cool advanced space ships/arks to allow them to go to the various planets which they would then plunder. With no limitation as to their mobility, who says they have to be careful not to destroy their own planet?

Now, of course I’m being facetious – it is painfully obvious to sustain the planet we are on. We all know that. However, the issue is absolutism.

The point is that the left engages in absolutism but denies it – in my opinion because, among other things it opens the door to a tacit admission to the existence of a God, and heaven forbid we don’t want that (pun intended). As Friedrich Nietsche pointed out, if there is no God there can be no morality because there can no absolutes derived from humans. Humankind evolves but our mortality-based perceptions are necessarily relative. Thus, if there are absolutes, they didn’t come from us.

Therefore, Klaatu’s species (read: “the left”) is free to be planet friendly, but it may not impose it on us – particularly not at the penalty of death. We may very well come to the same reasoned conclusion – we may not. But don’t use absolutism (neither leftish nor rightish absolutism can be “proven”, it can only be espoused) to make your “open and shut” case. I don’t care how intimidating your big mechanical robot is.