• 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


So is Paul Pelosi getting a DUI charge or not?

by JAZZ SHAW at HotAir: Jun 11, 2022

(AP Photo/Antonio Calanni)

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul was picked up for drunk driving near Yountville, California a couple of weeks ago, I didn’t even bother writing anything about it. The affairs of the spouses of politicians – and even more so their children – are not political news of interest in my opinion, unless their actions have some impact on the government. While we don’t encourage anyone to drink and drive, this sounded like a fairly minor affair where nobody was injured. But do you know what can change my mind and make a story like this potentially newsworthy? That will happen if the police start acting like there could be some sort of coverup on the way. And while it’s too soon to say, some of the responses that the media has been receiving from the California Highway Patrol are certainly coming across as less than transparent in what should be a very basic, essentially open-and-shut case. (NY Post)

Authorities in California have refused to release any footage showing the DUI arrest of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, saying it could “jeopardize” the investigation.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) on Thursday denied a public records request seeking the release of body and dashboard camera video documenting Paul Pelosi’s arrest last month on suspicion of drunk driving.

CHP informed Fox News Digital in a letter that it has the footage in question, “however, the Napa County District Attorney’s Office has advised the release of records would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.”

In a separate press release Thursday, the DA’s Office said that it has not decided yet what, if any, charges, will be filed against the 82-year-old businessman.

I understand why Fox News might want to get hold of the body camera and dashcam footage of the arrest. The story has an obvious hook to it since Paul Pelosi is married to the Speaker of the House. What’s surprising is the fact that CHP is refusing to release the footage to the press two weeks after the fact. Further, the idea that releasing the footage might “compromise an ongoing investigation” sounds farcical.

Unless all of the initial reporting and CHP’s own earlier statements were completely wrong, how much of an “investigation” is required here? They found him at the scene of an accident, he blew something higher than .08 on a breathalyzer test, and they took him to jail and booked him. As unfortunate as the reality may be, roughly 1.5 million people are arrested for DUI in the United States every year on average. It’s a nightly occurrence in pretty much every state in the nation. We’re not talking about solving the Lindbergh baby’s kidnapping here. This should be pretty basic, right?

Then there’s the statement about “what, if any, charges will be filed.” Is that really an issue if you already have the breathalyzer results and there’s no question that he was driving the car? I’m scratching my head at the moment, trying to figure out if there’s any way that the CHP would even consider dropping the charges and giving Pelosi a pass with the eyes of the nation on them. That would look so obviously corrupt that someone would have to call for an investigation.

Not releasing the camera footage for any reason already looks bad enough. Yes, I’m sure it would be embarrassing for Paul Pelosi if that shows up on television for a few weeks, but it would be the same for anyone who found themselves in that position because of their poor judgment. You apologize, keep your head down for a while, and move on with your life. With the kind of money the Pelosis have pulled in over the years, I’m sure Paul can afford to keep a driver on hand until he gets his license back.

Perhaps this delay is being caused by something else and the CHP is planning on moving ahead with the standard charges. If that’s the case, then we should have no problem with it. You’ll likely not hear another peep out of me about the situation. But if the charges against Paul Pelosi mysteriously disappear along with the police camera footage, than this will have become a seriously bigger story.

It Comes From The U.K. Via The London Times:

JUNE 11, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


It comes from the U.K., via the London Times: “Ministers quietly abandon ‘green crap’ as focus shifts to food security.” The threat of starvation, like the prospect of hanging, concentrates the mind:

Boris Johnson has scaled back plans to rewild the country as the government retreats from the green agenda to focus on the cost-of-living crisis.

Ministers last year announced a post-Brexit scheme that would pay farmers up to £800 million a year — a third of the farming budget — to transform agricultural land into nature-rich forests, coastal wetlands, peatlands and wildflower meadows.

Because who needs food? But that was then and this is now:

But the fund, called the landscape recovery scheme, has been quietly slashed to just £50 million over three years, less than 1 per cent of the budget.

The war in Ukraine has precipitated worldwide food shortages:

The UK is hugely reliant on imports, producing roughly 64 per cent of our food, down from 78 per cent in the 1980s.

A new national food strategy, due to be published tomorrow, will confirm a shift in emphasis, saying that land management schemes should reflect “farmer demand”.

Environmentalists are irate, mostly because they hate modern farming, which relies on fertilizers that come in large part from natural gas, as well as other chemicals needed to control pests. Sure, we could go back to farming techniques of, say, the 17th century. And thereby support a global population equal to that of the 17th century.

As for the heartwarming phrase in this post’s title, it comes from former Prime Minister David Cameron:

The tensions echo the storm that embroiled David Cameron in 2013, when the then prime minister was alleged to have ordered his aides to abandon “green crap” despite publicly vowing to run the greenest government ever.

Jan. 6 Bombshell: Schumer team received FBI intel about possible violence, frontline cops didn’t


Capitol Police executive’s email tipoff to Schumer aide night before riot raises concerns in Congress that politics put over security.

FBI intelligence warning that Jan. 6 protesters might violently storm the Capitol, target lawmakers and blockade Democrats in tunnels was never sent to frontline police commanders and officers, but was quietly emailed the night before to a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to documents that raise new concern that politics trumped security preparedness in the fateful hours before the riot.

Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher emailed top Schumer aide Kelly Fado, now the Senate’s deputy sergeant of arms, at about 9:40 p.m. on Jan. 5, 2021 saying he wanted to “provide you visibility” to new intelligence that an FBI threat analysis center had received from a website owner, according to documents obtained by Just the News.

The information explicitly warned that demonstrators had detailed maps of the tunnel systems around the Capitol frequented by lawmakers and their staffs and they were plotting to create a “perimeter” for potential violence and to find “Democratic members early to block them from entering the Capitol.” One point of entry the rioters were targeting was the Library of Congress, he warned.

“The owner of the website submitted an online tip to the FBI NTOC (National Threat Operations Center) stating that he has noticed a significant uptick in new visitors to his website,” Gallagher wrote. “We have identified numerous open-source comments indicating groups intentions of finding the tunnel entrances and confronting/blocking” members of Congress.

“Additionally,” he said, “we have seen a huge uptick with reporting via open source of the groups intentions of forming a perimeter around the campus (indicated in image #5 above) from 0600-1000 hours in order to block all MOC’s from getting inside our perimeter to the Buildings with spots identified for direct action.”

You can read the email and attachments here:



Gallagher, Fado and the Capitol Police press office did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Gallagher’s email to Fado included several screen shots of web communications where demonstrators had detailed maps and discussed plotting specific actions, such as a plan to “block all the tunnel exits” and to ensure that legislators feel “our anger and resolve.”

Remarkably, according to a report the Senate published last year after a brief investigation of Jan.6 security failures, the FBI’s warnings were not distilled to the Capitol Police’s then-chief Steve Sund or its commanders and officers preparing security for the next morning, despite the rich detail and new threat analysis they provided.

“Similar to the intelligence already in IICD’s possession prior to January 5, the FBI SIR and the warning regarding the tunnel system were not elevated to USCP leadership,” the report noted as one of many intelligence and security failures of the department’s leadership.

Key Republican members of Congress told Just the News on Thursday they had been unaware of Gallagher’s tip-off to the Schumer aide and said it provided further evidence that the House Jan. 6 committee, which unveiled prime-time hearings Thursday night, had constricted an investigation to shield Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from accountability for the botched security they oversaw.

“This is a really a shocking bombshell discovery … that shows the political nature of who received intelligence and who did not,” Rep. Jim Banks, chairman of the influential House Republican Study Committee, told the “Just the News, Not Noise” television show. “Remember the Capitol Police officers’ union chief said that they, the rank and file police officers, weren’t tipped off [to] the intelligence, that it was never shared with them.

“But it was shared with Chuck Schumer’s office, a Democrat leader in the Senate. I mean, this is unbelievable. It’s unfathomable to think that that intelligence was shared on a political basis to Democrat leaders, but not with anybody else. And that is a great example of the type of questions … that this sham committee should be investigating and digging into, but they’re not.”

Rep. Rodney Davis, the top Republican on the House Administration Committee, which oversees Capitol operations and security, on Thursday sent a sweeping letter to the Democrat chairman of the Jan. 6 investigative committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), demanding that all evidence of communications between congressional leaders and Capitol Police be preserved so that Republicans could investigate it if they take control of Congress in the November elections.


 6-9-22 1-6 Preservation Letter .pdf

Davis told Just the News that he was troubled that Schumer’s aide would get the detailed FBI intelligence but not the Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund or the field commanders.

“It looks to me like Deputy Chief Gallagher only notified a political appointee of Chuck Schumer with this very, very delicate, important information that needed to get out to everyone,” Davis told the John Solomon Reports podcast. 

“Deputy Chief Gallagher should have had every single person who is part of the oversight of the Capitol Police on this email,” Davis added. “He chose only a staffer, who was who was appointed by Chuck Schumer. These are questions that have to be answered.”

The Gallagher-Fado email is part of a tranche of documents obtained by Just the News from Capitol Police and congressional sources that show widespread security and intelligence lapses before Jan. 6.

An internal after-action report by the Capitol Police Department identified 53 major failures, while the department’s official timeline of the tragedy revealed the Trump Pentagon began offering Congress a deployment of National Guard troops on Jan. 2, 2021, four days before the tragedy, but it was turned down, first by police and later by aides to Pelosi and Schumer.





Internal memos show Capitol Police on the eve of the riot received two separate warnings from the FBI, the one about the targeting of tunnels and another in the form of an intelligence bulletin from the bureau’s Norfolk, Va., office warning that protesters were planning bloodshed, invading the Capitol and targeting members of Congress. Neither were distilled to the frontline commanders responsible for security, multiple investigations have found.



“They weren’t prepared for what happened because the intelligence never reached the rank-and-file members of the Capitol Police Department,” Banks told Just the News on Thursday. “They weren’t equipped for what would happen. They had faulty and outdated equipment, expired shields. Some of our Capitol Police officers didn’t even have helmets on Jan. 6, and then they weren’t trained for what happened on January 6, even despite of all of the BLM riots in the summer of 2020.”

How Corrupt Our Dems Have Become!

June 10, 2022

Leave the Supreme Court Justices Alone

By Malcolm Beifong at American Thinker:

Why are so many people angry at Supreme Court Justices because Roe v. Wade could be overturned? If the Court were to decide that the 1973 ruling in Roe was incorrect, that is not the same as saying that abortion must be illegal. No state need pass any laws that restrict abortion in any way. If they do, and you disagree, then your mostly peaceful protests should be directed at your elected legislative representatives — not Supreme Court justices. None of the current Justices were on the Supreme Court when Roe was originally decided, so it’s not their fault that the ruling then was so bad that it has always been ripe for overturning.

In the latter days of the 18th century, some of the Framers of our Constitution were concerned about the potential for abuse of power by the new federal government. To ensure that our basic rights were not trampled on, ten Amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791 by the states as amendments to the Constitution. Additional amendments and protections came later, and with the passage of the 14th Amendment, those protections have come to be applied to state governments as well (though not without controversy).

Through a process of judicial review, the Supreme Court has final say in whether a state law violates the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. In the case of Roe v. Wade, a Texas law that disallowed abortion unless the mother’s life were at risk was challenged in 1971 by a woman (pseudonym “Roe”) who wanted an elective abortion. So, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide if the Texas abortion law contravened any constitutionally guaranteed rights.

In a 7-2 decision, the court majority ruled (imagined) in 1973 that the Texas law violated the Due Process clause, also included in the 14th Amendment, and declared the state’s criminal statutes against abortion to be unconstitutional for being unduly restrictive. So, the benevolent justices decided to let us know what restrictions would be permitted: none in the first trimester of pregnancy, but some restrictions in the second and third trimesters. They did not say that the Constitution disallowed restrictions on abortion, only that Texas went too far.

In reality, it was the Supreme Court that went too far. The Roe v. Wade ruling was always strange and dubious, a constitutional stretch, as if the court majority were trying to finagle a way to give abortion some constitutional protection that did not exist. Were it a piece of legislation, enacted by our representative legislative body (e.g., Congress), the Roe plan was actually not bad, in that it attempted to find a middle ground for what is a very thorny and contentious issue. But the justices are not our legislators, and as a product of judicial review, which it was supposed to be, the 1973 ruling in Roe was a failure.

You may have loved the original decision, and now feel angry because it could be reversed, but you should be wary of the process that delivered it. Yes, the Supreme Court does need to ensure that our fundamental constitutional rights are protected to stave off political oppression by the government, but abortion is not one of those rights, and throwing tantrums before the court or threatening the justices is not how this is supposed to work. Supreme Court justices should not be allowed to re-write the Constitution to suit their own personal beliefs. This is not some fresh take from me. Justice Hugo Black put it well way back in 1965, in his dissenting opinion for an earlier, somewhat related case concerning birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut):

“I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court’s belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country.”

But even setting aside the judicial overreach in Roe, how should a democracy decide the debate on abortion? Though the issue may seem unambiguous to its advocates, there are also those who view abortion as akin to murder. That’s pretty serious. So, should we allow a body of nine unelected lawyer-types serving lifetime positions, judicial oligarchs if you will, to settle the matter? Is that democratic? Even some of the justices themselves understood that they were not the ones who should be resolving such a contentious extra-constitutional issue. Justice Byron White, for example, noted in his Roe dissenting opinion:
“This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”
But abortion advocates are such… babies. It’s so much easier for them to let the court decree that they can get their way, than having to win the majority of ordinary people to their cause. The Democratic Party, of which abortion advocates are a large subset, would have us believe they are great champions of democracy, but they don’t seem to be so hot on the idea when their extreme ideas are rejected at the polls (see also: Marriage, Gay). Like a baseball team that can’t pitch well enough to strike out the other side, they pressure the Supreme Court umpires to widen the strike zone when their opponent is at bat. You know, Justice Alito, they’d hate to have to come to your house… you too, Kavanaugh.

We need to understand that not everything we think we should be allowed to do is a constitutionally protected right. That is as it should be, and is not the fault of the Supreme Court. Some issues are best left to the people to sort out over time, and abortion has always been one of those issues.

Getting To Know The Bible Better?

An Epidemic of the Sixth Commandment’s Violation

by Greg Laurie on Jun 10, 2022 (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

Our culture today is awash in violence and murder. Everywhere we look, we see it. We see it on our television screens. We see it in theaters, in music, and in video games. And sometimes we even see it in real time.

The taking of lives is so overwhelming that we become numb to it. But just imagine how different our world would be if we obeyed this commandment from God: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13 NKJV).

Meaning of Murder

The Bible does not condemn all killing. In fact, it plainly states the difference God places between killing and murder (see Numbers 35). All murder is killing, but not all killing is necessarily murder.

Take self-defense, for example. The right to defend yourself is clearly supported in the Bible. We also know that God has established the military and law enforcement for our protection. Romans 13 tells us, “The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong” (verse 4 NLT).

However, some people would say that God is against all of this, that God doesn’t like violence of any kind. God is not for war, but there are times when there is a just cause for a war.

In the New Testament, we read that Jesus met a Roman centurion who pleaded with Him to heal his servant. Now, if Jesus were against war, the military and people in uniform, He would have said to this solder, “Forsake your armor and your weapons, and follow Me.”

Instead, Jesus said to the soldier, “I will come and heal him” (Matthew 6:7 NLT).

But the centurion told Him, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it” (verses 8–9 NLT).

In other words, “Just speak the word, Jesus, and it will be done.”

Jesus commended him by saying, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!” (verse 10). Then Matthew tells us the servant was healed that very hour.

What does the word “murder” mean, then? Translated from the original Hebrew, it means “to dash in pieces.” In Scripture this word is never used to describe the death of an animal, the death of an opponent in war, or death that comes through capital punishment.

God Himself, in my opinion, established capital punishment, because Genesis 9:6 says, “If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image” (NLT).

The Bible views capital punishment as a deterrent, as a protector of life. And what I find ironic is that some of the people who oppose capital punishment also support abortion on demand. Basically they’re saying, “Spare the guilty, and take the life of the innocent.” An unborn child in the womb is innocent and has every right to live.

Of course, there are varying degrees of opinion, even among Christians, on capital punishment. But I will not concede any point on the topic of abortion, because life begins at conception, and we were made in the image of God.

If you don’t agree with that then, frankly, you disagree with the Bible. The psalmist David wrote, “You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb. … You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed” (Psalm 139:13, 15–16 NLT).

Also showing that God has a plan for us, even before birth, He said to the prophet Jeremiah, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5 NLT).

I like this statement from Max Lucado: “You were deliberately planned, specifically gifted, and lovingly positioned on this earth by the Master Craftsman.”

If a woman doesn’t feel that she can raise her child, then there are many, many people who would love to adopt that child. But abortion should not be on the table as a possibility, because every child is created by God and should be given the chance to live.

You might be thinking, “Well, this doesn’t really apply to me. I’ve never murdered anyone. I haven’t had an abortion.” However, Jesus took it a step further in the Sermon on the Mount and said, “You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!” (Matthew 5:21–22 NLT).

That hits closer to home.

Jesus was saying, “Look, you can say that you have never killed anyone, but do you hate someone so much that you wish they were dead? Then, in effect, you’re a murderer in your heart.”

There are some people who are driven by anger and hatred. But hatred is clearly forbidden in Scripture. The Bible says, “Anyone who hates another brother or sister is really a murderer at heart. And you know that murderers don’t have eternal life within them” (1 John 3:15 NLT). Of course, even Jesus exhibited righteous anger (see Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46). But it’s a fine line, and we must be very careful not to cross it.

The apostle Paul wrote, “Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior. Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:31–32 NLT).

Every one of us has broken God’s commandments. But the commandments were not given to make us holy; they were given to show us how unholy we actually are. It all comes down to our need for Jesus. And He stands ready to forgive any sin we’ve ever committed, if we will turn from our sin and start walking with Him.


JUNE 10, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


Would-be assassin Nicholas Roske failed to carry out his mission of assassinating Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This isn’t surprising: the sort of person who acts on incitement from the likes of Chuck Schumer is more or less deranged, and more or less incompetent. Yet there are more where Roske came from, and one of them may succeed.

What do the Democrats think about attempted assassinations of Supreme Court justices? To my knowledge, neither Schumer nor Joe Biden’s handlers have commented. I surmise that the Democrats are hoping for one or more assassinations to take place before Biden is hustled out of the White House, so that his handlers can appoint a successor.

The attempt on Kavanaugh’s life has only emboldened the Democrats’ efforts to intimidate conservative justices. Thus, the dark money group called “Ruth Sent Us,” which has been behind much of the publication of justices’ home addresses and threats against their families, is calling for action against Justice Amy Barrett:

Barrett attends church “DAILY”? The horror!

What I would like to know is, who funds “Ruth Sent Us”? I hazard a wild guess that it is not some fringe group, but rather mainstream Democratic Party donors like, say, George Soros. I think the campaign to expose conservative Supreme Court justices and their families to the risk of assassination is not “extremist,” but rather has been orchestrated by the leaders of the Democratic Party–Joe Biden’s handlers, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and so on. And I think they hope that one or more assassins will succeed so that Biden’s handlers will be able to nominate one or more justices.


Does this speculation seem beyond the pale? Once, I would have thought so. But, apart from open advocacy of assassination by Democrats as in the tweet above, Democratic leaders haven’t done anything to rebut it.

And I can’t think of an alternative explanation of why Merrick Garland and other Democratic Party authorities have failed to enforce laws against demonstrating outside judges’ homes. I can’t think of another explanation of why leaders of the Democratic Party can’t bestir themselves to condemn an assassination attempt. I can’t think of another explanation for why the Washington Post buried news of the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh deep in their “local news” section.

Nor can I think of another explanation of why leaders of the Democratic Party haven’t called off “Ruth Sent Us” in the wake of the Kavanaugh assassination attempt. Could they do so? I am pretty sure they could. But let’s find out! Who, exactly, is financing “Ruth Sent Us”? How do those people (or maybe just one person) relate to assassination-inciter Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party generally?

Inquiring minds want to know. The effort to intimidate or, better yet, assassinate Supreme Court justices didn’t begin with marginal characters like Nicholas Roske, just like the idea of assassinating the House Republican baseball team didn’t originate with James Hodgkinson. The leaders of the Democratic Party are in the dock. Can they defend themselves?

So far, they haven’t even tried.

“Today, Democrats hold our children in the least degree of love, which amounts to hate”.

June 10, 2022

Why Do Democrats Hate Our Children?

By Deborah C. Tyler at American Thinker:

One of the most difficult psychological transitions is facing hatred of self or loved ones by significant people in our lives. The challenge of admitting when we are hated makes it difficult to take steps to protect the vulnerable from that hatred. The normal mind projects onto others the degree of acceptance and respect that it naturally grants to others. The healthy mind must learn through unhappy experience when mutual acceptance and respect are absent. Therefore, it has been hard to admit that over time Democrats have succumbed to beliefs and policies based on hatred of us and our children.

Why do Democrats advance policies that inflict death and psychological debasement on American children? Democrats hate America’s children — yours, not theirs — because evil hates innocence, because they follow a climate cult that promotes human sacrifice, because they fear the children who come through us will be resistant to political subjugation. We must face the purpose of Democrat hate, and grasp its spiritual causation, if we are to introduce vital remedies to protect our children.

Nancy Pelosi venerates the murder of viable babies as, “Sacred ground to me.” How can we deny that Democrats passion for perinatal infanticide amounts to hatred

Biden’s FDA shuttered a vital baby formula plant in February with no plan to reopen. Even the Democrat propaganda machine found no evidence the plant needed to be shut down. Nevertheless, Democrats are stockpiling formula for their favorite children — post-American replacement babies — while blocking production for yours.

When an old man sits on the stoop with candy and talks to little boys about their pee-pees he belongs in prison. When Dems entrain theories of sexuality into a captive audience of schoolchildren, that too is criminal. A child wholesomely integrates developmental changes in sex consciousness given human love and the influence of God-based moral truth. “Don’t Say Gay?” Sign me up!

Democrats celebrate high-price designer babies purchased by wealthy men like Pete Buttigieg. That is a form of non-labor child enslavement.

Ketanji Brown Jackson called cutting in line to the Supreme Court “diversity,” but her appointment subverts diversity. There has never been an Asian-American, Native-American, or Hispanic man on the Supreme Court. Brown decorated herself in motherhood while defending her enablement of pornographic baby torture. That’s what they do. They don’t hate their own children — just yours.

What is the worst example of Democrat child mistreatment? “Gender” theory that inflicts confusion and sex-identity disorders? Über-Dem Mayor Adams mummifying five-year-olds in useless masks while sparing adults? For me, it’s zero progress in understanding the devastating childhood neurological disorder of autism. Democrats control the universities, NIH, and public research programs. They spent billions for HIV-AIDS research because that disease mainly spreads through culturally privileged adult lifestyles. For autism zero progress.

As a psychotherapist, I help people understand the difference between purpose and causation of problematic behavior. For example, the purpose of dysregulated anger may be to control other people, while the cause may be prior trauma. Democrats’ purpose in every position they take is to accrue power, to weaken the American economy and people, to undermine the operation of law and justice. Democrats destroy the natural family, undermine the love-based authority of parents, sicken the minds and bodies of children, and ultimately destroy faith in God. It is in their thirst for power that Democrats functionally hate our children.

To understand the causation of Democrat hatred of our children, as distinct from its political purpose, we ask from whence Democrat hatred of any child? Does it arise from an independent source of pure evil, a Satan who rivals God? Perhaps, but I think not. If Democrats hatred of children was an expression of pure evil, they would be evil in all purposes, and they are not. Furthermore, my mother was a Democrat, and she was neither a tool of Satan nor lacking in moral stamina, this I can tell you.  What happened between my mom’s Democrat party of the 1950s and today? It disappeared over time, replaced not by pure evil, but by a belief system progressively disconnected from God, therefore with no source of unconditional love for all children. Democrats now express the lowest degree of love for our children, which is indistinguishable from hate.

It has been given with divine authority that loving your own child requires neither God nor goodness. Even cruel people can love a child who loves them back. There is one source in creation of love for every child, of universal and infinite love for all, and that is God. Without God, human beings invariably without exception create division and strife because without God there is no source of love for all.

For example, the Democrat imperative that it is sacred ground to kill babies developed over years. First, God’s love for all was diluted, seemingly compassionately, because the mother may be poor or sick. Today Democrats worship the right to murder a fully viable baby.

The central focus of Democrat politics since my mother’s day has been special rights and privileges based on the intrinsic characteristics of race and sex. Equal justice for all dwindled as Democrats brainwashed the weak-minded to the dogma of special rights for voluntary behaviors, especially for sexuality minorities. Behaviors that had traditionally been considered spiritually dangerous by the permanent theistic religions, became venerated, and religions had to be destroyed. Frank hatred of God entered political conversation and public prayer was abolished. Despite mouthing scriptural sound bites, Democrats champion anti-moral philosophies to rationalize their architecture of cultural privileging against God and life.   

Today, Democrats hold our children in the least degree of love, which amounts to hate.  Children do not vote or make political contributions, they are the least politically powerful group in America. Having booted God’s presence from public praise, Democrats have rejected the source of love for all, and all children are no longer precious to them. 

The tragedy in Uvalde, Texas has nothing to do with guns. It resulted from decades of tearing down the integrity of our civilization, marginalizing father-led families, and culturally and chemically poisoning our children. Barack Obama’s monstrous tweet exploiting nineteen unnamed murdered children encapsulates the mechanics of Democrat hatred The leader of the Democrats remains devoted to Trayvon Martin and George Floyd, both of whom died while drug-affected and committing a crime. These men are the weapons he uses against our children to blame America, disrespect the police, and accept that they are either hated or hateful. Democrats work to weaken drug laws, normalize the debilitating drug cannabis, and flood America with lethal drugs across an open border. Democrats have worked tirelessly to pull patriotism and faith out of public schools.

How many of the school shooters attended a religious service during the week of their crime? It is imperative to reinstate daily prayer in public schools. Every school should have a weekly assembly, including prayer, which builds the sense of community and sanctity of life of every student. Elementary schools must reinstate released time in which every student is released to religious training of the parents’ choice. Recreating the awareness of God’s love as the only source of love for all children, across American public institutions, is the first best antidote to hate.

Dr. Tyler writes Psychology Reoriented at Substack.

That Mess Called “America”!

Is the next insurrection coming to the Supreme Court?

by ALLAHPUNDIT Jun 10, 2022 at HotAir:

AP Photo/Anna Johnson

I don’t foresee any presidential-led plots aimed at intimidating the Court into upholding Roe, replete with Biden dialing up Brett Kavanaugh and warning him not to be a “pussy.”

Nor do I anticipate Biden urging rabid liberals to show up en masse at the Court for a “wild” demonstration.

And just as it’s foolish and counterproductive for anti-Trumpers to compare January 6 to 9/11, I think it’s counterproductive for those worried about threats to the Court to reach for an insurrection analogy.

But WaPo columnist Jason Willick is right to worry about a “January 6 moment” happening to SCOTUS. If a justice were to be assassinated by some lunatic hoping to prevent the Court from overturning Roe, it would be historically wrenching for the country. It would differ from the insurrection in kind, the handiwork of one disturbed individual instead of thousands. But the goal of using violence to prevent a branch of the federal government from lawfully carrying out momentous work would be similar.

Democrats have spent years rhetorically delegitimizing the Court in their pique over Merrick Garland’s treatment and the resulting lopsided right-wing majority, Willick writes. That created tacit permission for other transgressions, like protesters showing up to the justices’ homes. Maybe inevitably, a few days ago a nut arrived outside Kavanaugh’s home hoping to commit the ultimate transgression.

There’s no organized plot here as there was with the insurrection. But if endless inflammatory chatter leads to a member of the Court being shot, another piece of America’s civic facade will crumble.

Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who last month on Twitter described the Supreme Court majority as “stolen, illegitimate and far-right,” is emerging as one of the most dogged demagogues in the Jan. 6 sequel. Two weeks ago, he repeated his claim that the court was “illegitimate” in an address before a crowd of protesters in Washington. He called for court-packing to “get back the two stolen seats” (apparently Gorsuch’s and Barrett’s).

What’s the difference between pronouncing a duly elected president illegitimate and declaring the same about duly confirmed justices of the high court? For some liberals, it’s simply that they agree with the latter claim. The merits of such grievances are beside the point. The significant parallel is that partisan extremists, fearing the loss of ideological control over a branch of government, seek to fundamentally attack and nullify its authority…

The Jan. 6 assault on the election failed, and officials are establishing deterrence against a replay. Yet the parallel political campaign to undermine the Supreme Court is building with much of elite Washington’s approval. If Republicans take control of Congress in 2023, the Senate and House judiciary committees should take immediate aim at efforts to interfere with the court. The Jan. 6 committee can be a partial model.

The DOJ has yet to prosecute anyone for protesting near a justice’s home, notes Willick, even though doing so is banned by federal law. And the House still hasn’t acted on a bill to increase security for Supreme Court employees, although Pelosi is promising to take it up early next week. The justices will have security, she claims. The question is whether other employees will too.

At last check, Biden had yet to speak publicly about the attempt on Kavanaugh’s life.

Many have noted how little coverage the assassination bid has gotten in major media, far less than it would have received if a liberal justice had been the target of a right-wing nutter. The increasing harassment of pro-life activists as we approach a ruling on Dobbs is also being overlooked by most press, though. The Dispatch has a look at that trend today:

A Mother’s Day arson attack using Molotov cocktails damaged the Madison office of Wisconsin Family Action, a pro-life lobbying group. “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either,” read graffiti on the outside of the building. In Keizer, Oregon, one individual threw two Molotov cocktails at the Oregon Right to Life office building, leading to a small fire that damaged the building’s exterior, according to local police.

Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life Action, told The Dispatch that street activists are increasingly becoming targets for abortion advocates. “We are finding a sharp increase in violence from those who go into the streets to agitate for the violence of abortion,” reports Hamrick, noting the recent attacks and harassment of pro-life activists.

After the investigation into the Wisconsin arson, Jane’s Revenge claimed responsibility for the fire, sharing a communique via Tor with a reporter at Bellingcat, Robert Evans. Evans later posted quotes from the file on Twitter. “This was only a warning,” the communique reads, asserting that its authors “are forced to adopt the minimum military requirement for a political struggle.” It also carries threats of further violence. “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings.”

There’s more at the link. Campuses are growing more tense too.

Politico has an interesting gloss on lefty rage over the Court today, focusing on activists who’ve directed their anger about the 6-3 conservative majority not at Brett Kavanaugh or even Mitch McConnell but at … Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Yes, yes, she’s an icon and a liberal hero, they allow, but she was also “extraordinarily self-centered” in refusing to retire during Obama’s eight years as president, as one put it. Ginsburg was 75 when Obama was sworn in; if she had retired at the start of his second term, she would have had 20 years on the Court. Instead she hung on and ended up with chronic health problems into her late 80s. She *almost* survived the Trump administration anyway, but not quite, and now Amy Coney Barrett will hold that seat for 30 years or more. “She gambled,” said one law professor of Ginsburg not retiring sooner. “But she didn’t just gamble with herself. She gambled with the rights of my daughter and my granddaughter. And unfortunately, that’s her legacy. I think it’s tragic.”