• 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!


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.”