• 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

Clarence Thomas’ Truth about Supreme Court Cowards’ Avoiding Abortion Slaughter Industry Issue

Clarence Thomas Speaks the Truth for SCOTUS on Abortion

by Mario Diaz  at  American Thinker:


In today’s concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Justice Clarence Thomas dared speak the truth about the abortion industry in an area of law and policy infested with euphemisms, deception, and distortion.  That “the Constitution itself is silent on abortion,” for example, is a most obvious observation that anyone old enough to read can confirm.  But to write it plainly in a Supreme Court opinion, as he did, is nothing short of an act of courage in today’s day and age, when the darkness of abortion has such a firm grip on our political, legal, and cultural environments.

The case dealt with an Indiana law that contained two provisions.  The first dealt with the “disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers,” and the second barred “sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions by abortion providers.”  In a Per Curiam opinion (meaning it comes from the Court as a whole and not signed by any particular justice) the Court granted cert. on the first question and reversed the lower-court ruling that had invalidated the law.  But it denied hearing on the second question, leaving in place the lower court’s ruling that invalidated it.

On the first question, dealing with the disposition of fetal remains, the Court said, “The Seventh Circuit clearly erred” in saying the state’s interest in the proper disposal of fetal remains is not legitimate.  Justice Thomas said the lower court’s decision was “manifestly inconsistent with our precedent.”  He is right.  The Court had already said in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that “a State has a ‘legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.'”

The only question, the Court said, is if Indiana’s new law is “rationally related” to that clearly legitimate interest.  This is the lowest standard possible; it just needs to be rational.  Yet the lower courts insisted on toeing the abortion preservation line at all cost.  Justice Thomas was just as dumbfounded as the rest of us.  “I would have thought it could go without saying,” he wrote, “nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains.”

It was an easy decision to make, as evidenced by the fact that the Court did not even need oral arguments to decide it.  But as Justice Kennedy acknowledged in the Gonzalez v. Carhart decision, “longstanding maxim[s] of statutory interpretation … [fall] by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion.  The Court at times employed an antagonistic ‘canon of construction under which in cases involving abortion, a permissible reading of a statute [was] to be avoided at all costs.'”

Even the denial of cert. for the second question in this case reeks of political calculations.  It too is not a difficult decision to make.  The Court should have addressed it.

Deciding not to do so, the pro-life community should be thankful that Justice Thomas nevertheless took the time to discuss the question in his concurring opinion, and he did not mince words.  “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” he concluded.

He wrote separately to address that second part dealing with sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions.  He meticulously goes through the sordid history of abortion and eugenics, proving that it “is not merely hypothetical.  The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement.  That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement.  And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.”

Justice Thomas notes, “Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates — including future Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher — endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons.”  He reminds us of the legitimacy of the eugenics movement among intellectuals, noting, “Leaders in the eugenics movement held prominent positions at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, among other schools, and eugenics was taught at 376 universities and colleges[.] … Harvard was ‘more central to American eugenics than any other university[.]'”

After delineating the close connection between eugenics and racism, Justice Thomas highlights the Supreme Court’s own troubling past with assisting in its spread.  “This Court threw its prestige behind the eugenics movement in its 1927 decision upholding the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced-sterilization law.”  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

In that sense, the Court shares this distorted view of the value of human life with the eugenic sympathies of Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger.  After discussing Sanger’s “Negro Project,” an effort to promote population control among black Americans, it is understandable why Justice Thomas concludes that this case “highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.”  Should it surprise us that it is Planned Parenthood, still today, standing as party before the Supreme Court objecting to a law that prohibits the targeting of babies because of their race, sex, or disability?

Eugenics is the stuff of nightmares.  As we pointed out in our brief, which the Court noticed, “abortion has proven to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.”  In Iceland, babies with Down syndrome are being systematically exterminated.  In Asia, sex-selective abortions are commonplace.  Where are the feminists on that?  “[A]s many as 160 million ‘missing’ women — more than the entire female population of the United States,” notes Justice Thomas, have been targeted through abortion because of the mere fact of being female.

It is against this putrid backdrop that this Indiana law stepped in to humbly uphold the value of every human life.  It was promptly challenged by none other than Planned Parenthood.

To their shame, the District Court and the Seventh Circuit went right along with “Big Abortion” without any precedent compelling them to do so, whatever legal, mental gymnastics they tried to do to justify their unjust rulings.  They pointed to the Casey decision, but as Justice Thomas forcefully said, “Whatever else might be said about Casey, it did not decide whether the Constitution requires States to allow eugenic abortions.”  That “remains an open question.”  And Justice Thomas was quick to point out that “[t]he Court’s decision to allow further percolation should not be interpreted as agreement with the decision below.”

We can only hope that the Court takes up the question in the not too distant future and ends once and for all this prolonged nightmare of the targeting of children because of their race, sex, or disability.



Leftist PBS Forecasting the 2016 Hillary Victory

“Trump Brand NOT Republican Brand”

Robert Mueller…..America’s 21st Century Dem’s Bela Lugosi


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Much has been written about Robert Mueller’s appearance before the press today, in which spoke briefly and nervously, repeating points that have already been made ad nauseam in his own report and elsewhere. Why did he do it? And why did he appear so nervous while he did it? Speculation has been rampant.

Scott posted a transcript of Mueller’s remarks earlier today. Much could be said about them, but I want to focus on just one aspect of Mueller’s characterization of his own investigation.

Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

The key word there is “included.” What else did Mueller’s charge include? Nothing, apparently. But we actually know that there were “links” between a presidential campaign and Russians who (if they existed at all) likely were associated with Putin’s regime. The campaign was Hillary Clinton’s, and the Russians were those on whose reports Christopher Steele based his infamous dossier.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign went looking for Russians who could serve up dirt on Donald Trump. In a futile attempt to avoid illegality, the campaign told its lawyers at the Perkins Coie firm to contract with Fusion GPS, run by fervent Democrat Glenn Simpson, who in turn contracted with Christopher Steele to try to find Russians who had (or could make up) useful information on Trump. The Clinton campaign used these multiple cut-outs so it could falsely report the money it paid to Steele as “legal expenses” incurred at Perkins Coie. Maybe somewhere there is a U.S. Attorney who would like to take a look at this.

Just kidding. Christopher Steele obliged the Clinton campaign by finding several Russians who, based on the information they pretended to have, almost certainly were associated with Putin’s regime. Or maybe he didn’t find them at all; maybe he just made up all of the nonsense in the “dossier” and charged the Clinton campaign for his fantasies. Probably neither Steele nor the Clinton campaign cared one way or the other.

If we assume Steele didn’t fabricate the whole thing, then he colluded on behalf of the Clinton campaign with Russian officials or insiders who told him lies. He fed these lies back to the Clinton campaign, which, as Byron York reminds us, did its best to use these Russian fables to win the presidential election.

Here is my question. (I know it has been asked before, but it can’t be repeated too often.) If Mueller’s charge was to investigate “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election…[including] investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” why didn’t he look into the possibility that the false information fed by alleged Russian insiders to an agent of the Clinton campaign was a disinformation effort by the Russian government, meant to interfere in the 2016 presidential election–an effort in which the Clinton campaign colluded?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Steele dossier was exactly that, while there never was any evidence at all that the Trump campaign colluded in any way with Russians. So why was Mueller’s investigation confined to the wrong campaign?

The question answers itself. Mueller’s mission was the same as Christopher Steele’s mission, and Glenn Simpson’s, and Perkins Coie’s, and Hillary Clinton’s: to destroy Donald Trump, by hook or by crook. That is the only explanation for Mueller’s seeming myopia about his own failure to look for collusion where, in all likelihood, it actually existed.


Robert Mueller, Partisan Fraud

Trump’s Rearranging Foreign Affairs

Trump’s High-Wire Act of Reestablishing Deterrence without War

by Victor Davis Hanson at National Review:

Trump’s opponents at home and abroad would love to see him get the U.S. into a messy intervention right before the election.

Donald Trump inherited a superficially stable world from Barack Obama that, in fact, was quite volatile. There had been no tense standoffs with North Korea, but also apparent intercontinental ballistic missiles with possible nuclear warheads now pointed at the United States. Obama more or less punted on North Korea, by declaring it a problem — and hoping that Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear testing did not get too out of hand before 2017.

Then there was the “Iran deal.” It was an appeasing agreement that almost surely guaranteed that Iran would soon have nuclear weapons, along with a revived economy liberated from sanctions and empowered with American cash. Iran’s terrorist surrogates were the greatest beneficiaries of U.S. naïveté. At best, Obama assumed that when Iran went nuclear, it would be on someone else’s presidential watch and therefore not his fault. At worst, Obama, in delusional fashion, believed that empowering Iran would balance Sunni states and bring justice to historically oppressed Shiite and Persian minorities who would take their rightful place in the Islamic world.

Everyone knew that China violated almost every aspect of world commerce. Everyone knew that China would never allow the U.S. to trade with China the same way that Beijing traded with America. Everyone knew that 1.3-billion-person China was a neo-imperialist Communist dictatorship that was headed on an announced trajectory of world hegemony. Obama in particular thought that stopping China’s agenda would be medicine that was more painful than the disease.

Like the proverbial medieval mice who voted to warn of a marauding carnivorous house cat by putting a bell around his neck, the prognosis of Chinese mercantilism and aggression — and the need to confront Beijing — was right-on. But no one wished to do the messy, dangerous work of belling the Chinese cat.

The Obama administration’s Russian “reset” was an ungodly disaster. Vladimir Putin absorbed Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. He interfered freely but often clumsily in U.S. elections — well prior to 2016. John Kerry invited the Russians to reenter the Middle East on the lunatic idea of a Russian promise to address Syrian WMD. Putin violated prior agreements on the deployment of short-range missiles. The more Obama appeased Putin — dismantled missile defense in Eastern Europe, blamed the Bush administration for the tensions that were to be relieved by the reset, and in a hot-mic exchange offered to become more malleable with Putin if Putin would behave while Obama was up for reelection — the more Putin detested Obama.

NOW WATCH: ‘U.S. Justice Department Defends Trump’

U.S. Justice Department Defends Trump

Everyone knew that tired pretenses had nothing to do with the realities on the ground in the Middle East. The U.S. embassy belonged in Jerusalem. The Palestinians of today were no more “refugees” than were the Volga Germans. The strategic Golan Heights were never going to return to the Assad terrorist state. The U.S. had no business funneling financial assistance through the U.N. to Palestinians who either were engaged in terrorism or approved of it. Trump pulled back the curtain and showed all the little devilish men with gears and levers projecting a fake image of norms and protocols on the Middle East projection screen.

Again, these existential crises — Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, the Middle East — all preceded Trump. But they also all tested the Trump doctrine of restoring deterrence without engaging in costly optional wars in which in tactical victories cannot translate into definable strategic success or clear U.S. advantage in a cost-benefit analysis.

Trump’s enemies hope (translated into politicalese) that his ambitious foreign policy does not follow the success of Trump’s dynamic economy. At home, Trump caused a stir by all at once opening up more federal leasing for energy exploration, green-lighting pipelines, massively deregulating, cutting taxes, jawboning outsourcers and off-shorers, confronting asymmetrical trade partners, pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and the Paris climate accord, and recalibrating NAFTA. That huge risk of maximum changes everywhere and swarming the opposition all at once achieved a force-multiplying effect on the economy that soon boomed.

Trump probably believes that if he goes full-bore abroad, true to form, a domino effect will follow, given that the U.S. gains more sway each time it faces down a miscreant. The stakes are certainly high. A big China trade deal, an agreement to denuclearize North Korea and Iran, flipping Putin to become a neutral rather than an adversary, or a Middle East halfway accord could change global realities and empower the U.S. And so the gambler Trump wagers that he can do overseas what he did at home and pull off land-breaking agreements — all at once.

Can he?

Squaring that circle of toughness without risking a major war is now Trump’s political challenge, given that the shelf life of rhetorical deterrence is brief.

The United States cannot abide renegade lunatic regimes with nuclear missiles aimed at its heartland, or aggressive nuclearized regimes with which the U.S. had either already fought a major war or narrowly avoided one. China’s destruction of global trading norms only whets China’s appetite to translate its huge profits into military power and neocolonial adventurism, on the theory that countries that have appeased its mercantilism will probably do the same in matters of its aggressive foreign and military policy.

The Palestinians felt that during the Obama years they were insidiously persuading the United States to ostracize the moderate Arab regimes, embrace an Iranian foil, and decouple from Israel.

Putin asserted that his weak Russia was a match for a strong U.S. because he assumed that he was strong and Obama weak — and therefore his own godhead could do what his country otherwise could not.

Yet Trump all at once is attempting to straighten out all the foolishness of the last decade with China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the Middle East, and, again, he is doing so simultaneously, not sequentially. He might remember that China is the chief threat, and it has some leverage with both Iran and North Korea. In other words, it would certainly be in China’s interest to see the U.S. in a mess with its surrogates in Tehran and Pyongyang while America seeks to face down Chinese mercantilism — with the Middle East descending into another hot war.

So, Trump could achieve either high-profile success — or became mired in endless engagements and a pre-election, public-relations disaster.

Halving the Chinese trade deficit and forcing it to follow global rules would be an astounding achievement. So would denuclearizing North Korea and preventing Iran from getting the bomb. As would finally telling the Palestinians to give up terrorism and get on with building a state, or corralling Putin so that he abandons dreams of a new Soviet Empire and accepts that Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and the breakaway republicans are never going to be Russian again. Prodding a change in government in Venezuela would create momentum elsewhere in authoritarian Latin America. Again, to do all that at once, rather than in sequence, would be singular achievements — and yet likely improbable.

George W. Bush tried to address just three existential challenges all at once following 9/11, and it all but destroyed his presidency. Bush not only fashioned a successful multifaceted anti-terrorism strategy that foiled subsequent attempts to repeat the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings, but he took the war to the enemy. Yet soon the U.S. was fighting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while trying to stop North Korea’s sudden emergence as a nuclear power, and while battling Iranian terrorists inside Iraq and Tehran’s own nuclear agenda — as China stepped up its global profile and began translating its enormous profits into a growing military, and as OPEC and Middle East suppliers helped drive up the cost of oil.

What was problematic about Bush’s “Axis of Evil” of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea was not that the term was necessarily inaccurate about the threats all three posed, or the need to address all of them eventually. The rub was that a country with a sizable force fighting in Afghanistan might abruptly find itself fighting three new dirty conflicts all at once.

In short, Trump might learn from the past and avoid what his opponents hope for — a series of conflicts dovetailing with the 2020 election, as the financial and psychological strain tax the electorate, as they did from 2006 to 2008.

Note in this regard how deeply Trump’s opposition is invested in seeing  him fail or, specifically, how private citizen John Kerry, last spring and summer, and, most recently, Senator Dianne Feinstein have met with the oleaginous Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, ostensibly as “adults in the room” who agree on waiting Trump out — which in fact was the explicit advice recently given to the Chinese by former State Department official Susan Thornton.

Trump’s “principled realism,” “Jacksonianism,” or “the Trump doctrine” ostensibly is tit-for-tat deterrence, not nation-building or optional interventions. If Iran hits an American ship, the U.S. will take out a port facility — but not set foot in Iran. If North Korea sends more missiles over Japan with Chinese approval, maybe Japan might have to do the same thing to North Korea with U.S. sanction.

But Trump also must remember that he ambitiously is trying to solve the major festering challenges of U.S. foreign policy — all at once and right before an election, when his political opposition at home, most of the European Union, and our enemies would like to see him fail at last. So in the next 17 months we should expect all sorts of provocations from abroad, and so-called Logan Acting at home, to make Trump stumble and get into a messy intervention before the election.

He should not take the bait.


The American Feminist Fascist Drive to Expand the Murder of the Human Child!

LCMS President’s statement regarding gubernatorial actions expanding abortion in New York, Illinois

by Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison

Contact: Pamela Nielsen
Media Relations, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

A statement from the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, in response to recent gubernatorial actions expanding abortion in New York and Illinois.

“In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4).

On Jan. 22, 2019, the 46th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand, the governors of both New York and Illinois signed laws to extend and promote abortion.

As he signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo described it as the “evolution” of humankind in America. In Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed an executive order to ensure taxpayer funding of abortions, saying that it would make his state “the most progressive … in terms of women’s reproductive rights.”

Life, not death, is the goal of humanity. History testifies that death is never the means through which justice and human rights prevail. We do not advance on the graves of our children. Germany, which sought eugenics as the solution to problems, now has strict abortion laws. To defend and support life is the goal of every just government, and the right to life is the hallmark of a good society.

Yet abortion laws have allowed the abortion of more than 61,000,000 children since Roe v. Wade. That’s nearly 50 times the number of American soldiers killed in all wars. The abortion industry and its proponents take great lengths to avoid facing the fact that abortion dismembers a living child in a horrid pool of its own blood. This is barbaric.

Abortion is a lie. Science is on the side of life. We shall stand against the barbarism of abortion until our dying breath. Abortion is illogical, as we slaughter babies in the womb while developing ever-better care for other unborn children. Abortion contradicts the natural law written on human hearts that teaches us it is wrong to kill.

Lawmakers and bureaucrats in our country have become emboldened to force citizens to go against their conscience. People publicly celebrate laws that lead to the deaths of children.

How long, O Lord, how long?

Our Christian faith teaches us to value life and to love each and every person as our neighbor. Love is life, and life is the great gift of love. Death is our natural enemy. This can be seen in our lives and in our world each day. Even the birds that seek food in winter testify that life is the goal of their movements and their work. The flowers that grow toward the sun seek the light that enlivens them. We all live under God, who grants life to His whole creation.

And in the giving of His Son to be the Savior, God shows that He is the Lord of life. Jesus came to love. He taught us to love all people, including those whom we consider our enemies. He taught us to unconditionally love every person, even those whom this world considers unworthy of love.

Jesus not only taught us to love. He brought healing and wholeness to the broken. He proclaimed peace to those who were troubled. He sat with those who were excluded. He lifted up those who were beaten down. But most of all, He loved through the sacrifice of His own life on the cross. He died to forgive the sins of all humanity. His forgiveness is a free gift for all who trust in Him, including those who suffer from guilt for aborting their child. He rose on the third day.

The resurrection of Jesus is God’s grand statement that life is the goal of this creation. The resurrection of Jesus proclaims that all creatures find the goal of their existence in life. Just as God raised Jesus from the dead, so we learn that God treasures life over death.

We live as citizens in this world, and we seek to be obedient to our nation’s laws. We thank God for our leaders and for this great land He has given to us and for its precious freedoms and opportunities. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod advocates strong citizenship and active participation in government. We obey the laws of our land and encourage those around us to do so.

We are, however, bound by our conscience to speak against those laws that are unjust and, especially, those laws that violate God’s law and the natural law that binds all mankind. Abortion and other means through which humans kill humans violate these natural and moral laws that form the foundation of society.

Therefore, we stand against these actions and against all laws that sanction abortion or the taking of innocent life. We cannot stand silent when people elected to positions in which they are to protect citizens continue to pass laws and advocate for legislation that undermines the sanctity of human life. Our conscience is bound by both the Word of God and reason to speak for life as a precious gift of God and to speak against any and all who promote the killing of unborn children. We cannot hide the evil of these laws under the banner of “rights” or “privilege.” Children’s lives are at stake. They cannot speak for themselves. We will speak for them, and we will work to protect their lives.

And we will continue to work to love and support the women who face difficult choices or suffer from the consequences of abortion. We support young mothers who have chosen life for their children. We work to provide adoption and other opportunities to care for children in need. And we continue to show God’s mercy to all, just as He, in Jesus, has mercy on all.

We will work, love and pray that all might know the love of Jesus and trust in Him for salvation. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4).

Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Updated Feb. 12, 2019

At its meeting on Feb. 7, the LCMS Council of Presidents and the LCMS Praesidium unanimously voted to sign their names to President Harrison’s statement. The names and districts/regions are listed below.

Council of Presidents

Rev. Derek G. Lecakes
Atlantic District
Rev. Dr. Anthony J. Steinbronn
New Jersey District
Rev. Michael R. Lange
California/Nevada/Hawaii District
Rev. Arie Bertsch
North Dakota District
Rev. Mark A. Miller
Central Illinois District
Rev. Dwayne M. Lueck
North Wisconsin District
Rev. Dr. Chris C. Wicher
Eastern District
Rev. Dr. Allan R. Buss
Northern Illinois District
Rev. Dr. Jamison J. Hardy
English District
Rev. Dr. Paul A. Linnemann
Northwest District
Rev. Dr. Gregory S. Walton
Florida-Georgia District
Rev. Dr. Kevin A. Wilson
Ohio District
Rev. Dr. Daniel J. Brege
Indiana District
Rev. Barrie E. Henke
Oklahoma District
Rev. Dr. Brian S. Saunders
Iowa District East
Rev. Dr. Michael E. Gibson
Pacific Southwest District
Rev. Dr. Steven D. Turner
Iowa District West
Rev. Roger E. Schlechte
Rocky Mountain District
Rev. Peter K. Lange
Kansas District
Rev. Waldemar R. Vinovskis
SELC District
Rev. Dr. David P. E. Maier
Michigan District
Rev. Scott C. Sailer
South Dakota District
Rev. Dr. Roger C. Paavola
Mid-South District
Rev. Dr. John C. Wille
South Wisconsin District
Rev. Donald J. Fondow
Minnesota North District
Rev. Dr. John R. Denninger
Southeastern District
Rev. Dr. Lucas V. Woodford
Minnesota South District
Rev. Eric C. Johnson
Southern District
Rev. Dr. Robert Lee Hagan
Missouri District
Rev. Timothy J. Scharr
Southern Illinois District
Rev. Terry R. Forke
Montana District
Rev. Michael W. Newman
Texas District
Rev. Richard L. Snow
Nebraska District
Rev. John E. Hill
Wyoming District
Rev. Timothy Yeadon
New England District


Rev. Dr. Herbert C. Mueller
First Vice-President
Rev. Dr. John C. Wohlrabe, Jr.
Fourth Vice-President
Great Lakes Region
Rev. Dr. Scott R. Murray
Second Vice-President
West-Southwest Region
Rev. Dr. Daniel Preus
Fifth Vice-President
Central Region
Rev. Nabil S. Nour
Third Vice-President
Great Plains Region
Rev. Christopher Esget
Sixth Vice-President
East–Southeast Region


LCMS President’s statement regarding gubernatorial actions expanding abortion in New York, Illinois

Feelings, NOT TRUTH, Feverishly Govern the Human Female Animal’s Mind!

Truth has seldom been a powerful drive in the feminized  human female animal’s primary drive in life.   FEELINGS UBER ALLES keep interfering with her abilities to recognize Truth.  Unlike the human male animal, she isn’t born driven to problem solve.

Nearly all  of our American feminist loud mouths are Democrats from Nancy Pelosi of the US Senate to our  today’s typical  public school teacher from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The accumulation of knowledge is a human male drive, whether BC 1000 or AD 2019.  “HE” IS THE BORN PROTECTOR OF HUMAN SPECIES SURVIVAL, not the she!!  He is born with a killer instinct his “cultural” life dictates.   She, NOT HE, is born to bear the offspring for the duration  of the species.  He is born curious,  driven to be the provider, builder, and the  protector.

“She” used to be a RESPECTED MOTHER….EVEN IN MY LIFE TIME.   In our good old USA today,  generally her career dictates her mode and mood.   Homemaking has disappeared.   In AD USA 2019 one can even correctly claim HOME has been disappearing.   With the exception of a few of  today’s devoted JudeoChristians, those few who are allowed to  home teach there own children,  America’s married females of age aren’t home caring for their offspring.   They work for a living five days a week instead.

Marriage in America isn’t what it used to be before our American “animal revolution of the  1960s”. Nor are its neighborhoods,  atheism, lefty schools, newsprint and television.

Today’s America has become the land of Dem  “Ditsy Queens”, leftists in today’s Democrat Party where TRUTH no longer has any meaning and the human  male disappearing.

Please read the following article by Michael Barone


Using the Big Lie to Delegitimize Election Results

by Michael Barone  at realclearpolitics:

The Big Lie is back in style. Wikipedia tells us that the term was invented by Adolf Hitler to describe what others did — though he was the biggest liar of all. “The broad masses of a nation,” he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie.”

No one on the political scene in this country or any democratic nation is a monster comparable to Hitler. But some have resorted to the Big Lie in their attempts to override clear decisions of the people, at the risk of delegitimizing the nation’s democracy.

Exhibit A: the claims that Democrats Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum “won” last fall’s elections for governor in Georgia and Florida. Actually, both of them lost by a 50-49 percent margin.

Abrams admits this but insists, “so many people were disenfranchised and disengaged … that I feel comfortable now saying, ‘I won.'” Presidential candidate Kamala Harris told the Detroit NAACP, “without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia. Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida.”

(Please continue reading below to know today’s America better:)



Dem Ilhan Omar’s Islamic Fascism Is Just About What America Dem Feminists Crave For!


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has generally seemed to have nothing but contempt for the country that took her in as a refugee, educated her and elected her to Congress. But in a speech at a CAIR event in Bellevue, Washington, on Saturday, she sounded almost patriotic as she described her own successes and the growing power of Muslims in American government.

This is the poster for the event. It emphasizes the theme of Muslim power:

These are the first few minutes of Omar’s speech:

These introductory comments include a jarring note: Omar’s claim that she is fighting against “efforts to ban our entire religion from this country.” Really? As a Congresswoman, Omar should know that the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and there is no way any religion can be “banned from this country.” Moreover, I am not aware of a single person anywhere–let alone a political movement that needs to be fought against by Omar–that advocates banning the entire Muslim religion from the U.S.

It is hard to tell, sometimes, whether Ilhan Omar is a skilled demagogue or a person for whom allowances must be made because, as Nancy Pelosi put it, she has a “different experience in the use of words” and therefore cannot be held to normal standards of veracity. Unfortunately, in the years to come we are likely to have many opportunities to revisit this question.



The Disappearance of the Human Family in Our Once Good Old Godfearing USA

Motherhood in our America began to disappear  in the 1960s.  Feminists and/ or the financial struggles of the American human family of the period began pushing her out of  house and motherhood.  American feminists of all shapes, sexes, and sizes insisted she was in every way the equal of or superior to the human male animal.   Only human male bigotry and bullishness  have forced the poor dears throughout the millennia to be Mothers.  Sex is sexy.  Motherhood is tough, demanding, and can seem lonely and boring.  Nor does it bring big money to the family unit    She American female went off to college to become stars  in  leftism, butchism, mouthy and arrogance….but still remain ditsy.

There the  American female leftist was taught  butchism, its art and delusion that she, the superior sex she has been programmed she is,  at last, has been made  free from domestic slavery created  by  evil masculinity for the past 4,000,000 years of human development.

She’s in the army or has a job  and owns the government now!  Her Motherhood lasts about a week until she goes back to her occupation.   Since she is made equal or superior to any male, why have a husband?

And goodbye to  the American family, with the exception of those wonderful Christian American mothers who still stay home to  mother providing warmth, soul, knowledge, and strength to  their children,  now  on its Godless, leftist  road to destruction.

Please read the following:


Trouble with Samantha Power in 2016


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

On Friday, PJ Media headlined: “Report: Declassified Docs Will Show That Samantha Power’s 2016 Unmasking Efforts Were Related to Israel.”

Government documents that will soon be made public will reveal stunning information about former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power’s voluminous unmasking efforts in 2016, according to multiple sources.

On Thursday, President Trump gave Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify documents from multiple agencies related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.
As PJ Media reported in September of 2017, Power was unmasking people at a “freakishly rapid rate.”

The former U.S. ambassador moved at such a rapid pace that she ended up “averaging more than one request for every working day in 2016,” multiple sources told Fox News at the time. And she continued to seek identifying information about Americans caught up in incidental surveillance right up to President Trump’s inauguration.

This is really extraordinary. Power was not an intelligence official, she was the U.N. Ambassador. Why was she unmasking anyone, let alone making hundreds of such requests? And why would she keep up this feverish pace right up to the moment she departed the White House?

According to OANN’s Jack Posobiec, Power was targeting calls made about Israeli settlements.

“When she found Gen Flynn making calls she opposed, she passed information to Sally Yates who opened Logan Act investigation,” Posobiec reported on Twitter.


BREAKING: Samantha Power targeted any call made about Israeli settlements for unmasking. When she found Gen Flynn making calls she opposed, she passed information to Sally Yates who opened Logan Act investigation. DNI Coats has now reviewed all unmaskings – @OANN


BREAKING: White House plans to declassify documents showing that Samantha Power was on a “one-woman crusade” for the Palestinians and against Israel in 2016. Repeated unmakings were used to ensure her effort did not fail – @OANN

The context was U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which stated that Israel’s settlements on the West Bank are a “flagrant violation” of international law with “no legal validity.” The incoming Trump administration was urging the Obama administration to veto the resolution. In addition, at appears that members of Trump’s team were lobbying allies to defer the vote, or to vote against the resolution. It sounds as though the Obama administration was lobbying allies in the other direction, trying to undermine the policy of the new administration, although this isn’t entirely clear.

In the event, the resolution passed 14-0 on December 23, 2016, with the U.S. abstaining.

The connection between the trap that ensnared General Flynn and the U.N. resolution has been drawn before, as in the Jerusalem Post.

In the lead up to the anti-settlement resolution which angered Jerusalem, Trump’s team had urged the US to veto the resolution. On December 22nd Trump tweeted “the resolution being considered in the UN Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed.” Egypt postponed the vote on December 22nd. However it passed on December 23rd with 14 in favor and the US abstaining. According to an article at Foreign Policy in February 2017 Michael Flynn played a key role attempting to scupper the UN vote. “Flynn…and other members of the president’s transition team launched a vigorous diplomatic bid to head off a UN Security Council vote condemning Israel’s settlements.” They reached out to the UK, Egypt, Russia, Uruguay and Malaysia according to the report.

The Post reports further that when Flynn talked with the Russian ambassador on the telephone, in the conversation that ultimately resulted in his indictment, one of the two subjects discussed, and about which Flynn allegedly lied, was the U. N. resolution.

There is much more at the PJ Media link, including this from Foreign Policy in February 2017:

Nikki Haley, the president’s pick to serve as U.N. envoy, sought frantically to reach Samantha Power, then still serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, calling her office and cell phone number, a U.S. official told Foreign Policy. Power’s advisors suspected Haley would try persuade Power to veto the resolution, and she did not take the call.

These reports raise several obvious questions. First, why were Obama administration officials so concerned with the U.N. vote as to unmask communications of U.S. citizens on 300 occasions? The Obama administration didn’t come out in favor of the resolution, and it abstained when the resolution came up for a vote. So why would it be so concerned about the possibility that incoming Trump officials might convince allies to defer the vote, or block it altogether?

I can’t think of any reason other than the obsessive hatred of Israel that is so common on the Left. But it is bizarre, in my view, for lame duck Obama minions to carry out a vendetta against Israel, one that apparently was given high priority, through their last days in power. Maybe I am missing something here, but I can’t think what it could be.

Second, the PJ Media report suggests that Power’s unmasking of U.S. citizens involved in conversations about Israel continued until “right up to President Trump’s inauguration.” The inauguration was almost a month after the vote on U.N. Resolution 2334. So if Power’s unmasking continued, did it still relate to conversations about Israel and the U.N. resolution, or was something else going on at that point?

Third, was the Obama administration’s reported frenzy about the U.N.’s anti-Israel vote part of the genesis of the FBI’s effort to disable the incoming Trump administration? The chief ground of the FBI’s effort was the Democratic Party “dossier” paid for by the Clinton campaign, but the Israel-related surveillance apparently comes into play with regard to General Flynn. And the PJ Media story quotes George Papadopoulos, who was “shocked that Bob Mueller told the truth about why I was illicitly targeted and it really had nothing to do with Russia. It had to do with my ties to Israel.”

I don’t begin to understand how these pieces fit together. We can only hope that as Attorney General Barr pursues his investigation, the true story will come out.

Eight Years of Obama’s Communist Orbit, 2009-2017 in Washington, Created Today’s Dem Schiff, Nadler, Blumenthal Red Fascists!

Obama Appointees in the Communist Orbit


This week Rush Limbaugh repeated a quote from James Comey in a  New York Magazine interview:

“I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

It’s hard to pin too much on that quote.  Perhaps Comey was joking by calling his vote for Jimmy Carter a vote for a Communist, in mockery of his supposedly fellow Republicans.

Joking about support for Communism is not all that funny in the Obama administration. Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan actually did vote for a Communist presidential candidate.  Brennan and Comey are two of the central players in the Russia Collusion Hoax.

Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA.  These facts are not in dispute.  Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control.  Our press  chooses not to report them.

Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.

John Brennan

Brennan (who was sworn in as CIA director on a draft of the US Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, instead of a Bible) said that while he had voted Communist, he wasn’t an official member of the Communist Party – and was relieved that he had been accepted into the CIA.

Barack Hussein Obama

His Kenyan father was a communist, who met Obama’s mother, a radical leftist, in a Russian language class.  Stanley Dunham, Obama’s white grandfather, chose a notorious member of the Communist Party to be Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Obama wrote in his memoir that in college, he sought out Marxist professors.  A Marxist student at Occidental College, John Drew, confirms that Obama was a revolutionary Marxist in college.  Drew recounts:

Obama… believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back …As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase “When the revolution comes….”  …”There’s going to be a revolution,” Obama said, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.”  In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution. …Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism.

Obama tells us the  radical socialist conferences he attended before law school gave him his road map in life, i.e., their plan to put a stealth black candidate in the White House.  Obama’s biggest job and his political career in Chicago were launched by self-avowed communist Bill Ayers.  Obama’s run for state representative was as the hand-picked successor of a socialist state representative, who was publicly active in communist circles.  Obama’s calling in life was work as a hard-left Alinskyite radical agitator.  Until he became president, Obama was a 20-year member of an openly Marxist church whose members had to take a pledge against the middle class.  When did Obama reject Marxism?

Valerie Jarrett

Valerie Jarrett is Obama’s closest personal advisor to the present day.  She lived with the Obamas in the White House, had dinner with them nightly and still lives with them in retirement!

“Her late father, James E. Bowman.. was involved with communist front groups and was in contact with a paid Soviet agent in the 1950s who was wanted for espionage.  Jarrett’s maternal grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor, was investigated by the FBI for his membership in communist groups and his business relationship with the same Soviet agent …Her late father-in-law, Vernon D. Jarrett, was assigned by the Communist Party USA to a special cultural arts cell …he was flagged by the FBI as an internal security risk to be swiftly arrested in the event of a hot war with the Soviet Union. The FBI also investigated his wife, Fernetta “Fern” Jarrett, for communist activities.”

Kengor discusses new documents obtained by Judicial Watch that show Valerie Jarrett’s father was active on behalf of Stalin in fomenting racial divisiveness in America, as a member of the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB).

ACPFB “was founded by the Communist Party in order to exploit racial divisions in the United States for its own revolutionary purposes.” Its modus operandi was to polarize Americans along racial lines in order to advance the Soviet agenda.”

David Axelrod

Axelrod was the Chief Strategist for Obama’s presidential campaigns, and a Senior Advisor in the White House.  His mother worked for a communist newspaper.  His father, according to Axelrod in his memoir, “listed his party affiliation as ‘Communist.’  Axelrod got his start in Chicago politics through working for hardline Stalinist Soviet agents Harry and David Canter.

“The Canters were old hardline pro-Soviet communists, so much so that the senior Canter, Harry Jacob Canter, was actually brought to Moscow during the height of the Stalin period to work for the Soviet government as an official translator of Lenin’s writings. Harry was active in the old Industrial Workers of the World and had been secretary of the Boston Communist Party. He was not shy about his political enthusiasm. In 1930, he ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket. After that, he sojourned to the Motherland, taking his entire family to Moscow with him, including his son David, who one day would come know [sic] David Axelrod…  the Canters actually knew and worked with Obama’s old communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis…Davis — again, Obama’s mentor — also knew and worked with Valerie Jarrett’s grandfather and father-in-law in Communist Party/left-wing circles in Chicago in the 1940s.)”

Other Communists, Red Diaper Babies and Marxists in Obama’s Circle

Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Advisor, was up to her eyeballs in the Russia Collusion Hoax against candidate and then President Trump.

Rice wrote a 426-page dissertation praising, as “a model and a masterpiece in the evolution of international peacekeeping,” … the political ascendancy of Zimbabwe’s Marxist dictator, Robert Mugabe. In her dissertation, Rice lauded Mugabe as a “pragmatic, intelligent, sensible, gentle, balanced man” who possessed considerable “patience and restraint.”

David Maraniss, the Washington Post journalist chosen to write Obama’s biography, which covered up Obama’s radical past, was also a red diaper baby.  He father was a member of the Communist Party and worked through a cell in Detroit to secretly influence workers through his articles for the Detroit Times.

Frank Marshall Davis, the biggest influence on Obama’s black identity from age ten through college years, was a card-carrying member of the Communist party.

Frank Marshall Davis was a pro-Soviet, pro–Red China communist. His Communist Party USA card number, revealed in FBI files, was CP #47544. He was a prototype of the loyal Soviet patriot, so radical that the FBI placed him on the federal government’s Security Index. In the early 1950s, Davis opposed U.S. attempts to slow Stalin and Mao. He favored Red Army takeovers of Central and Eastern Europe, and communist control in Korea and Vietnam. Dutifully serving the cause, he edited and wrote for communist newspapers in both Chicago and Honolulu, courting contributors who were Soviet agents. In the 1970s, amid this dangerous political theater, Frank Marshall Davis came into Barack Obama’s life.”

Reverend Jeremiah Wright

Obama’s pastor and personal hero and mentor, was an avowed Marxist.  His church congregants had to sign a pledge to support redistribution of wealth and reject ‘middleclassness.’ Discoverthenetworks reports:

Rev. Wright’s devotion to the tenets of liberation theology, which is essentially Marxism dressed up as Christianity. … calls for social activism, class struggle, and revolution aimed at overturning the existing capitalist order and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia where today’s poor will unseat their “oppressors” and become liberated from their material (and, consequently, their spiritual) deprivations.  An extension of this paradigm is black liberation theology, which seeks to foment a similar Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class solidarity.

Is it any surprise that collusion with Russia, according to Victor David Hanson, was a feature of the Obama presidency?

The Obama administration colluded with Rusian agents who produced the Steele Dossier.  It was paid for by Clinton, but it was Obama’s minions at the FBI, CIA and White House who weaponized this soviet disinformation against President Trump.

We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.