• 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
  • Advertisements

Transgendered in Military A RACKET or merely STUPID?

Progressives’ arguments in favor of transgender soldiers are drenched in self-righteousness—but they are also inane and dangerous.
“Donald Trump was elected because he says things everyone else is thinking but is afraid to say. He did that very thing when he tweeted that openly transgender individuals don’t belong in the U.S. military.

After the ensuing explosion of vitriol on (mostly) the Left, you would have thought the president had been cleared of collusion with Russia. Since the vitriol comes with a heaping helping of self-righteousness and a side of fanaticism, the arguments in favor of transgender soldiers are drenched in both. They are also inane and dangerous. Here’s a random selection.

‘Transgender soldiers are already serving openly without any issues.’

The Department of Defense lifted the ban on transgender soldiers serving openly only a year ago. It’s hard to believe we have accurate data on the results because we can’t even agree on how many transgender military we have. The DoD calculates up to 7,000; the RAND Corporation says somewhere around 2,500; The Palm Center, a research institute in San Francisco, calculates 12,600; the OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says 16,000; and Kristen Beck, a former Navy Seal who served for 20 years as Christopher Beck before coming out as a transgender woman, estimates there are 75,000 to 100,000 transgender personnel in uniform.

‘Any individual who is qualified and willing to serve should be allowed to serve.’

This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. An individual’s qualifications and willingness to serve are the least important basis for assembling a military unit of maximum combat effectiveness. No one serves in isolation. Soldiers work together, eat together, shower together, and sleep together, all in very close proximity.

The Marines would know. They don’t play, the Marines. They research. Before the ban on women in combat was lifted, they studied the potential impact of gender-integrated units. Every Marine they looked at was both qualified and willing to serve, but it was how the qualified and willing Marines were constituted in units that made all the difference.

All-male squads demonstrated higher performance levels, exhibited more speed and focus, had better accuracy, and engaged targets quicker than mixed male-female units. Is that because men are smarter and stronger than women? Is it because men are more focused when women aren’t around? It doesn’t matter. All that matters—obviously—is that qualifications and willingness to serve are only part of the story.

If an XX individual identifies as male, but requires hormone injections to attain maleness, that’s a soldier who requires regular injections. If regular injections are no big deal, why are Type I diabetics barred from serving because they require insulin?

What happens on a Forward Operating Base if medical supplies are delayed? Or if a soldier is cut off from the base for any length of time? What happens to that soldier’s mental and emotional functioning without the needed hormone injections? If the discomfort with one’s biological sex is so great that one is willing to receive hormone injections to ease it, we can assume that not receiving the injections would be detrimental to one’s well-being and therefore combat effectiveness.

Not to mention the combat effectiveness of one’s unit.

 A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong. [emphasis added]

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

‘It makes our country less safe.’

How are we safer because men who identify as women and women who identify as men are serving openly? How are we safer when we pay for expensive hormones and surgeries instead of bombers and aircraft carriers? At a time when we’ve been forced into sequestration and are struggling to provide the basics, how does it make us safer to divert resources away from ensuring that safety to transgender sensitivity training, mental health services for transgender soldiers who are victims of harassment, facilities upgrades, retrofit showers, and other accommodations within communal living spaces?

We can’t even agree on which bathrooms trans people can use, but somehow we’re safer if we’re all in the shower together? No distraction there.

‘This is legalized discrimination, no different than when the Armed Forces were segregated.’

If race and sex are equivalent, why does the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have rules for transgender athletes but not for black athletes?

For a transgender woman (XY chromosomes) athlete to compete in the female category, the athlete must:

  • Declare female gender identity and live consistent with this identity for at least four years.
  • Demonstrate that total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to first competition. Evaluation on a case-by-case basis will determine whether 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition.
  • Demonstrate that total testosterone level in serum remains below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.

There are no such rules for black athletes to be able to compete with white athletes or vice versa because there is no difference between black and white athletes.

‘Anyone who opposes transgender soldiers in the military is a bigot.’

There are a lot of reasons besides bigotry that someone might object to transgender soldiers, such as diverting funds from winning wars to pay for surgeries and hormones; reducing combat effectiveness due to distractions or tensions; difficulty integrating pre-transition and in-process transition transgender soldiers with the unit as a whole; and understanding scientifically, medically, and socially what it means to be transgender. One of the objections might even be that the presence of transgender soldiers in a unit makes the unit less effective and therefore the transgender soldiers themselves less safe.

‘We would lose soldiers like Kristen Beck.’

No, we wouldn’t. Kristen Beck didn’t serve in the military. Christopher Beck did. Christopher Beck was part of the elite SEAL Team 6 and was deployed 13 times, including to Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, and Africa. Christopher Beck received the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star with valor, and 50 other medals during his 20-year career. He retired from the Navy in 2011. In 2013, Kristen Beck published a memoir: “Warrior Princess: A U.S. Navy SEAL’s Journey to Coming out Transgender.”

It is disingenuous to say Beck is the first female Navy SEAL when that career ended two years before Christopher—who was known for his beard—transitioned to Kristen. There has never been a female Navy SEAL, only a male Navy SEAL who retired and took feminizing hormones.”




McCain Sabotages GOP Obamacare Repeal

With McCain’s ‘No,’ Obamacare Repeal Fails in Senate

by James Arkin  at realclearpolitics:

“With a simple thumbs down, Sen. John McCain dramatically ended Republicans’ seven-year campaign to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

McCain, in the early hours of Friday morning, voted against his party’s scaled-back version of an Obamacare repeal, becoming the decisive vote preventing the GOP from succeeding on its top agenda item and throwing its legislative agenda into deep uncertainty. The Arizona Republican, along with Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, joined all Democrats in opposing the legislation gutting key portions of the ACA. All other Republicans voted for the repeal, which failed by a tally of 51-49.

Republican senators appeared stunned walking off the floor following the vote, with several declining to comment to reporters as they departed. “Needless to say, pretty disappointed,” Sen Pat Toomeysaid. “It’s just sad,” Sen. Ron Johnsonadded.

Sen. Ted Cruz called it a “sad day for the American people.” He also criticized his Republican colleagues who voted against the measure, essentially calling them hypocrites.

“I sadly feel a great many Americans will feel betrayed, that they were lied to. And that sentiment will not be unjustified,” Cruz told reporters. “You cannot campaign against Obamacare and then vote for Obamacare. Those are inconsistent actions.”

Trump tweeted his frustration shortly after the vote failed:

“3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!”

The vote came after seven years of promises to undo President Obama’s signature law and seven months of Republican legislative efforts since taking control of the government in January. There were numerous fits and starts, and deep divisions within the party made threading the needle and passing any legislation extremely difficult. Ultimately, after narrowly agreeing to debate the bill earlier this week, Republicans searched for the “least common denominator,” in their own words, hoping to find any measure of Obamacare repeal that could pass.

Even the scaled-back effort proved unsuccessful.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a somber speech after the failed vote, acknowledged defeat and thanked President Trump, Vice President Mike Penceand his fellow GOP senators for their efforts.

“This is a disappointment. A disappointment, indeed,” McConnell said, adding his thanks to House Republicans, who narrowly passed Obamacare repeal in May. “I regret that our efforts were simply not enough this time.”

McCain, for his part, downplayed his vote as he departed the Senate chamber shortly after 2 a.m.

“I thought it was the right thing to do,” he told reporters.

Later, in a statement, McCain said the legislation he voted against did not accomplish his goals of increased competition, lower costs and improved care:

“We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of aisle, heed the recommendations of the nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people.”

The GOP senators opposing the measure had received a full-court press from their party. The vote was held open more than an hour longer than expected as Republicans spoke with McCain and Murkowski, pushing for a change of heart. Pence, there to cast a potential tie-breaking vote, spoke with McCain in a small group of senators for an extended period. He then spoke to him at length one-on-one on the Senate floor, and again in the private cloakroom off the chamber. Meanwhile, several members of Senate leadership spoke with Murkowski on the floor right until the moment she cast her no vote.

At one point, McCain crossed the Senate to speak with Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, and was surrounded by a crowd of Democrats, who appeared upbeat and jovial. Before the vote, he got hugs on the floor from two fellow longtime lawmakers, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch.

Both Collins and Murkowski voted no before McCain, who waited until after the full roll call of senators came and went before catching the attention of the chamber and putting his thumb down. Audible gasps could be heard in the chamber as he cast the vote.

The legislation that failed was a far cry from the repeal-and-replace measure the House passed, or the repeal bill Senate Republicans passed in 2015. It would have undone key provisions of the Affordable Care Act by gutting the individual mandate, temporarily removing the employer health care mandate, repealing the tax on medical devices and defunding Planned Parenthood for one year.

It was the simplest version of the legislation McConnell thought could pass the chamber. He unveiled it just after 10 Thursday night, and the vote was scheduled to take place shortly after midnight. After the delay to try to persuade McCain, Collins or Murkowski to sign on to the bill, the Senate voted shortly before 2 a.m.

The dramatic failure capped a suspenseful and uncertain day on Capitol Hill, with Republican senators expressing doubts in the late afternoon hours about the details of what they would vote on. Many were opposed to the policy details of the legislation, and said they were supporting it only as a means to begin a conference with the House, hoping the two chambers could craft something that could pass several weeks down the road. Few senators were supportive of the legislation on its own, and though the vast majority ultimately backed it, many of them expressed hope that it would not become law in its current state.

McCain, along with Johnson and Sen. Lindsey Graham, held a press conference in the late afternoon signaling that they would oppose the legislation unless they received assurances from Speaker Paul Ryan that the House would not simply pass the legislation and send it to Trump to sign.

Graham called the repeal bill “woefully inadequate” in the afternoon, and later called it “terrible” and a “fraud.” Others shared the sentiment. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that the legislation would have caused 16 million fewer people to have health insurance next year, and for health insurance premiums to rise by 20 percent.

Ryan ultimately gave an assurance. He put out a statement in the early evening saying that going to conference was “something that the House is willing to do.” But he also made clear that Senate Republicans needed to prove they could pass a comprehensive replacement plan, which the House had already done, and he gave no guarantee that the plan before the Senate would never come up for a vote in the lower chamber. There was frustration among House Republicans, according to aides, that the Senate was asking for assurances when they had yet to pass a bill. Ryan later spoke to five senators — though notably not McCain — on speakerphone in Sen. John Cornyn’s office just off the Senate floor to repeat his guarantee that the bill would go to conference. His assurances convinced all five to support the legislation.

“This is something we’ve got to move on. That’s why I’m taking a chance on this skinny bill,” said Sen. David Perdue, who shared the group of five’s concerns but was not part of the call with Ryan. “I would not want the skinny bill to be the law of the land. The only reason I’m voting on it is as a vehicle to get to conference.”

After the five senators came out in favor of the GOP plan, most eyes in the Senate turned to McCain as the likeliest lawmaker left to oppose it — Collins and Murkowski, who earlier in the week voted against debating the legislation, were expected to oppose it. At that point, however, McCain’s position was not clear. Even Graham, McCain’s closest friend in the Senate, appeared uncertain.

“I think John is rightfully upset with the process, and whatever he does, he’s earned the right to do it,” he told reporters well before the vote.

Democrats, hoping to persuade McCain to vote no, cited the Arizona Republican’s speech on the Senate floor Tuesday where he criticized the process and product of his party’s health care efforts, and predicted that it would fail.

After the vote, Democrats sang his praises.

“John McCain is a hero and has courage and does the right thing,” Schumer said.

McConnell, in his speech after the failed vote, said that Democrats had refused to engage “in a serious way” on repealing the law, and challenged them to put forward health care legislation. He said he would not support “bailing out insurance companies” without other reforms.

“I suspect there are not many folks over here that are interested in that.  But it’ll be interesting to see what they have in mind,” McConnell said.

Still, Republicans and Democrats have said for weeks that if the GOP repeal effort failed, there would likely be bipartisan movement on health care legislation. Sen. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the health committee, said earlier this month he would hold hearings on health care regardless of the outcome of the repeal effort.

Schumer, in a speech on the floor following the vote, said Democrats were celebrating, but relieved.

“Obamacare was hardly perfect. It did a lot of good things, but it needs improvement,” he said. “I hope that one part of turning that page is that we go back to regular order, work in the committees together to improve Obamacare.”….”