• 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

The Minnesota That Produced Omar

THE WASHINGTON POST DOES IT AGAIN

by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine

How much mileage did the Democrats get out of President Trump’s unpresidential tweet suggesting that four ultra-radical, America-bashing congresswomen leave the country? I’m not sure, but I know they didn’t get as much as they wanted.

Now, however, the Democrats and their media backers have a new card to play. At a Trump rally in North Carolina, some in the crowd responded to the president’s reference to the rads by chanting “send them home.”

Trump didn’t say this. He never has. Indeed, he has said he was uncomfortable with the chant.

No matter. The chanting gives a new lease on life to those who unfairly use Trump’s tweet against him.

Naturally, the Washington Post is at the forefront of this effort. Today’s edition features two front page stories about the North Carolina chanting, plus two more on page 6. There’s more in the op-ed section from the usual suspects.

In this post, I want to focus on just one of the news stories — an article by Felicia Sonmez, Rachel Bade, and Seung Min Kim called (in the paper edition) “N.C. Republicans split in response to ‘send her back’ chant at Trump rally.”

The article is dishonest at multiple levels. Its most glaring lack of respect for the truth is the claim that the crowd’s chant of “send her back” is “almost identical to [Trump’s] tweet Sunday telling the women to ‘go back’ [to the places they came from].”

This single, brief passage in the Post contains two instances of dishonesty. First, Trump didn’t tell the four rads to go back. He asked “why don’t they go back?” In quoting from Trump’s tweet, the Post omits the words that are inconsistent with its argument. He didn’t tell them to do anything. The Post is just making it up.

Second, any half-way intelligent person knows the difference between telling people to go back (which Trump didn’t do) and sending them back. To send the four rads back would involve forcibly deporting them. Telling them to go back would leave them free to go back or not. Suggesting that they go back (which is what Trump did) is more innocuous still.

Sommez, Bade and Seung Min Kim know the difference. Yet, they pretend there is virtually none. They are lying.

These three also take issue with Trump’s claim that the four rads hate America. They state: “None of the women has said they hate the United States.”

That’s right, and Trump has never said he’s a racist or that he hates any racial or ethnic group. Yet, pursuant to an editorial decision, the Post writes article after article claiming (sometimes in the headline) that Trump is a racist.

One can easily infer that the four rads hate America from the contempt they display towards the U.S. in their statements. Any half-way intelligent person knows that one can hate something or someone without using the word “hate.”

Even the premise of the Post’s article — its jumping off point for the attack on Trump — is fallacious. The supposed “split” among North Carolina Republicans the Post cites is between Sen. Thom Tillis and Rep. Mark Walker. But there is none.

According to the Post, Tillis said that Trump had no control over what some in the crowd chanted. Walker said the chanting was offensive and needs to stop before it defines the Republican Party.

There no inconsistency here. Both statements can be true.

Tillis’ statement is indisputable. The first part of Walker’s — that the chanting was offensive — is true as well, in my opinion.

The second part — that the chanting will define the GOP if it doesn’t stop — may be too alarmist. However, it will be true if the Washington Post has its way.

 

The Washington Post does it again

Comment from ghr… Actually, the fascistic left Washington Post and New York Times news prints are the major daily reporting sources offered by  the daily  lefty   news standards of Minnesota’s biggest  fascistic information  source, the StarTribune.

Honest folks in Minnesota still carrying some degree of truthful knowledge are quite aware fascistic leftism has generally  ruled the state since Dem Paul Wellstone’s  tenure “making America forever socialist”.

Yet, if he were alive, I don’t think he would ever be swimming in the same fascist pool as this creepy foreigner Omar and  the folks at today’s  StarTribune!

National Education Association Declares Abortion Murder is a “Fundamental Right”!

NEA Supports Killing Future Students, Backs So-Called “Fundamental Right to Abortion”

 NATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER   JUL 9, 2019

American’s largest teachers union officially embraced a position supporting the killing of its future students during its annual assembly Saturday.

The National Education Association (NEA) Representative Assembly passed a measure declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right,” Christian Headlines reports. The union also attacked President Donald Trump and other pro-life politicians who work to protect unborn babies from being slaughtered.

NEA Business Item 56 states: “Furthermore, the NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person’s right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people. The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade.”

“The most misogynistic forces, under Trump, want to abolish the gains of the women’s rights movement,” it continues.

NEA watchdog Mike Antonucci, who writes at EIAOnline.com, explained that the business item is a one-year directive that expresses the will of the union’s policy-making body.

He said Saturday’s vote marks the first time the union officially has supported abortion.

Here’s more from the report:

The NEA passed a resolution in 1985 stating the organization “believes in family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom,” although it didn’t include the word “abortion.”

LifeNews depends on the support of readers like you to combat the pro-abortion media. Please donate now.

“This [1985 resolution] was widely understood by both sides of the debate as being a pro-abortion stance,” Antonucci wrote. “But for the last 34 years, the union has denied it takes any position on abortion. The word has never appeared in the union’s resolutions.”

The NEA has been hesitant to take an official stance on abortion or Roe because there are “a significant number of teachers” who “refuse to join NEA because they believe the organization supports abortion,” Antonucci wrote.

Susan B. Anthony List slammed the vote in a statement, saying it removes all doubt about the union’s politics.

“It is appalling and flies in the face of logic that America’s largest educators’ union, claiming to speak for more than three million members nationwide, would side with the extreme abortion lobby in embracing an explicitly anti-child and anti-family stance,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Furthermore, while purporting to be non-partisan, the Assembly went on record attacking President Trump and his pro-life agenda. We encourage pro-life teachers and parents to stand up and voice their opposition loudly and clearly to union leadership.”

For years, LifeNews has reported about the large donations NEA and other unions make to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America. In 2011, it also gave $60 million to support President Barack Obama for re-election. Obama has been described as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.

NEA Supports Killing Future Students, Backs So-Called “Fundamental Right to Abortion”

In Our Ugly Era of Unisex, What Is A Man?

What Makes Men Men?

The Nature of a Man Is What He Is For

by J. Budziszewski,  Touchstone Magazine:            (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

am a little amused, because it may at first seem that Glenn Stanton and I disagree about everything. He argues that manhood is not natural; I argue that it is. However, this is not a real disagreement, because the term “natural” is used in different senses. Psychologists and sociologists generally use it to refer to what is spontaneous or comes easily for creatures of our nature. Ethical philosophers and theologians generally use it to refer to what reflects the flourishing or proper development of creatures of our nature, and that may come hard. I certainly don’t think males become men easily or spontaneously. But for their own good, I do think they need to become men. So manhood is natural in my sense, even though not in Glenn Stanton’s—and he and I agree about this.

So let us get on with our subject.

How to Know What Men Are

What is it to be a man?

And how can we know?

Some people say the best way to understand the nature of the human male is to consider the selection pressures which operated during his presumed rise from the apes. There are two problems with this strategy. The first is that, on this hypothesis, the only genes that are consistently passed on are the ones for traits that have adaptive value. But obviously this isn’t so. Tell me the adaptive value in seeking to know the meaning of life, or in the ability to be awed, humbled, and transported by the music of J. S. Bach. One eminent sociobiologist claims that we have genes for believing in God, which are adaptive because belief in God unites the social group. Apparently no one told him that believing different things about God can tear the group apart. Besides, why not just have genes for social unity?

The second problem is that, even if we did develop entirely by natural selection, we don’t know what selection pressures were operating. Neo-Darwinian theory cannot say how human males had to come out. All it can do is observe how they did come out, and then spin tales of how that might have happened. After all, the primates all came out differently. The chimpanzee is highly aggressive and dominated by males; the bonobo is less aggressive and dominated by females; and we are neither chimpanzees nor bonobos.

Other people say that the best way to understand the nature of the human male is simply to observe him. That’s better, but there are problems with this approach, too. The first problem is simple variation, because men (and women) are not all the same. For every generalization about either sex, there are exceptions. From this, a naïve observer may conclude that there is no such thing as male and female nature. But this is a mistake. The fact that most women are more nurturing than most men is much more than an accident. It arises from a genuine difference in the underlying reality, the difference between womanhood and manhood as such.

This difference is so powerful that men and women are influenced by it even when they defy it. For example, we say women are more nurturing. Yet some young women conceal their pregnancies, give birth in secret, then do away with the babies. Nothing more opposed to nurturance could be imagined. But wait—consider the ways in which these young women do away with their babies. How often they place them in trashcans and dumpsters, still alive! Why don’t they just kill them? That is what a man usually does if he wants to do away with a child. Perhaps a young woman imagines her baby resting in the dumpster, quietly and painlessly slipping into a death that is something like sleep. Or perhaps she imagines a fairy-tale ending in which some other woman finds her baby in the dumpster and brings him up as her own. No, the act is not nurturing, but even so, the inclination to nurture hasn’t precisely been destroyed; under the influence of other strong motives, it has been perverted. I daresay that such data are not captured by our psychological instruments. It is not enough to count things with a survey. One must see with the eyes of the heart.

The second problem with the “just observe” strategy is that it cannot tell the difference between how we are meant to be and how we are. For example, some observers say that by nature human males are pretty nearly but not quite monogamous. Most men like the idea of having a mate, but many men wander. Now it may be true in a statistical sense that large numbers of men lapse from monogamy. It is also true in a statistical sense that most people are sick some of the time. Do we say then that by nature human beings are almost but not quite healthy? No. What we say is that nature intended them to be healthy, but sometimes they lapse from nature’s intention. Why then don’t we say that nature intended men to be monogamous, but that sometimes they lapse from this intention, too? It is as though a physician who saw only broken arms assumed that if arms have no fractures there must be something wrong with them.

How could we correct such a misguided physician? By calling his attention to the purpose or function of the arms, to their proper work. Broken arms cannot do their work as well as intact ones; therefore, brokenness is not their natural state. The nature of a thing is not determined by how something happens to be, but by what it is for—by what it is designed to do and to become if everything goes well.

The Potentiality for Fatherhood

Very well, then: What are men and women for? In one respect they are for the same thing: being rational, they are for the knowledge of the truth, especially the truth about God. But there is a difference. A man is a rational being of that sex whose members are potentially fathers, and a woman is a rational being of that sex whose members are potentially mothers.

The idea of potentiality needs explanation, because potentiality is not the same thing as physical possibility. Consider a man who is infertile because of some disease. Although it is not physically possible for him to be a father, we should not say that he lacks the potentiality for fatherhood; as a man, he has the potentiality, but the disease has blocked its realization. It is just because he is a man, just because he is endowed with the potentiality for fatherhood, that the block to its physical realization is such an occasion for sorrow.

Another reason why the expression “potentiality for fatherhood” requires explanation is that although siring children is the most characteristic expression of fatherhood, it is far from its only expression. A man might sire a child yet fail in the greater perspective of fatherhood, because he fails to protect the mother, or because he fails to protect the child, or because he fails to give the child that father’s love which only he can give because it is different from a mother’s love.

We can carry this line of reasoning still further. A potentiality is something like a calling. It wants, so to speak, to develop; it demands, so to speak, a response. It is like an arrow, notched in the string and aimed at the target, even if it never takes flight. It intimates an inbuilt meaning and expresses an inbuilt purpose, which cannot help but influence the mind and will of every person imbued with them. Alice von Hildebrand has remarked that although not every woman is called to marry and bear physical children, “every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother.” I am saying that, for men, the reality is parallel. Not every man is called to marry and sire physical children, but every man, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological, or spiritual father.

Inside Manhood & Womanhood

Obviously I cannot speak from inside the experience of womanhood, because I am a man. Yet even a man can see that it is a very different thing to be a woman than to be a man. A man may deeply love his child, but he does not have a womb with which to carry the child in his body for nine months, or milk with which to nourish the child from his breasts. These experiences connect the mother with her child in an intimate, physical bond which we men can easily recognize, but which we cannot experience. In subtle ways they condition a mother’s emotional responses not only toward her child, but also toward herself and even toward everyone else.

They also make sense of certain other differences between men and women, differences for which each sex is sometimes wrongly criticized. For example, are women in general more protective of their bodies than men, and men less careful about their bodily safety than women? Of course they are. Women, who carry children, need to be more protective of their bodies. Men, to protect them, need to be less careful about their own safety. It isn’t that men, by being men, are more virtuous, or that women, by being women, are more virtuous. However, their most typical temptations are somewhat different from those of the other sex, and although they can have all the same virtues, their virtues have different inflections.

The other sexual differences make sense in this light, too. As Edith Stein reminds us, men are more prone to abstraction, and women are more prone to focus on the concrete. Men don’t mind what is impersonal, but women are more attuned to the nuances of relationships. A man tends to be a specialist and single-tasker; he develops certain qualities to an unusually high pitch, using them to do things in the world. A woman tends to be a generalist and multitasker; she inclines to a more rounded development of her abilities, using them to nurture the life around her.

The woman’s potentiality for motherhood ties all her qualities together and makes sense of her contrast with men. Consider just that multitasking capacity. In view of what it takes to run a home, doesn’t it make sense for her to have it? A woman must be a center of peace for her family, even though a hundred things are happening at once. But a man is designed more for the protection of the hearth and the people who surround it than for their nurture.

In speaking of the hearth, it may sound as though I am saying that women should never leave the kitchen. No. Although men gravitate to careers and women to motherhood, not all women will pursue an exclusively domestic life. Even so, the potentiality for motherhood explains why women who do pursue a career, and who have free choice of career, tend to choose careers that allow them to give first place to caring for their children. It also explains why they tend to choose careers that give greater scope to maternal qualities.

In fact, even when a well-balanced woman chooses a traditionally masculine career, she tends to perform it in ways that give scope to maternal qualities. A male lawyer tends to focus on the properties of the task itself. This is worthy, but it is all too easy for him to lose sight of the humanity of his clients. Can he learn to remember their humanity? Of course he can, but he is more likely to need the reminder in the first place. A female lawyer may find the abstract quality of the law somewhat alienating, even though it is necessary. On the other hand, she is much less likely to forget that she is dealing with human beings.

Outward & Inward Directedness

It is much more difficult to speak about fatherhood than about motherhood. Perhaps because the father’s connection with his children is not mediated by his body in the way that the mother’s is—or perhaps because paternal absenteeism and other forms of masculine failure are so conspicuous in our day—most of us have a dimmer idea of fatherhood than of motherhood. Open mockery of fathers has become a fixture in popular culture.

The difference between fatherhood and motherhood, hence between manhood and womanhood, involves a difference in the male and female modes of love for their children, but there is much more to it than that. The difference is both greater and deeper. Manhood in general is outward directed, and womanhood inward directed. This is no cliché; the distinction is quite subtle. Outward directedness, for example, is not the same as other-directedness, for many men prefer dealing with things. Inward-directedness is not same as self-directedness, for the genius of women includes caring for the
local circle.

If the contrast between outward and inward directedness sounds like a dig at male vanity or sexual promiscuity, or a gibe at female narcissism or emotional dependency, it isn’t that, either. Characteristics of those sorts are not the essence of the sexual difference; they are merely vices that result from the indulgence of temptations to which the two sexes are unequally susceptible. In speaking of outward and inward directedness, my intention is not to call attention to the corruptions, but to the good things that are sometimes corrupted. It is a good thing that an unmarried man pursues the beloved, whereas an unmarried woman makes herself attractive to pursuit; it is a good thing that a husband protects the home, whereas a wife establishes it on the hearth; it is a good thing that a father represents the family and oversees it, whereas a mother conducts the family and manages it.

Kings & Queens

Although the directive geniuses of the father and the mother are not the same, both of them truly rule the home. We may compare the father with a king reigning over a commonwealth, the mother with a queen. These potent archetypes express different inflections of glory, nobility, and self-command. Men joke about their wives telling them what to do. The joke would have no point unless two things were true: On one hand, they would not want their wives to be kings; on the other hand, they know their wives are really queens.

We sometimes say that fathers and mothers share and divide the different aspects of sovereignty between themselves in much the same way as the directive functions are divided in corporations. Is this a new idea? Far from it. In one of the letters of St. Paul to Timothy, we find him using a curious pair of words—a verb, proistemi, for what a husband characteristically does (1 Tim. 3:4,5,12), and a noun, oikodespotes, for what a wife characteristically is (1 Tim. 5:14). Both words indicate authority, but with a difference. The term used for the husband has a range of meanings that include standing before, presiding, superintending, protecting, maintaining, helping, succoring, and acting in the capacity of a patron—very much like a chairman of the board. But the term used for the woman means “ruler of the house”—literally, “despot of the house”—very much like the chief executive officer. So the idea is really very ancient.

When all goes well, fathers and mothers also exemplify and specialize in different aspects of wisdom. A wise father teaches his wife and family that in order to love, you must be strong; a wise mother teaches her husband and family that in order to be strong, you must love. She knows that even boldness needs humility; he knows that even humility needs to be bold. He is an animate symbol to his children of that justice which is tempered by mercy, she a living emblem of that mercy which is tempered by justice. A wise father knows when to say, “Ask your mother,” and a wise mother when to say, “Ask your father.” When they do this, they are not passing the buck, but sharing sovereignty. Each of them refracts a different hue from the glowing light of royalty.

Today it is almost embarrassing to have to hear things like I have been saying. Comparisons of fathers and mothers with kings and queens seem naïve, nostalgic, sentimental, and exaggerated. They make us squirm. There are strong reasons for this reaction, but they are bad ones. How many parents have lost their regal dignity, disbelieve in their authority, and confuse the proper humility of their office with being self-mocking and ironic? We have turned husbands and wives into androgynous “spouses,” fathers and mothers into interchangeable “parent figures.” We approach having a child like acquiring a pool table or wide-screen TV. Would it be fun? Would it be tedious? Would it be worth the expense? Fathers and mothers have need of recovering their sense of regal calling, taking up their ball and scepter, and ruling their dominions with love for their precious subjects. It is not for nothing that the king of a commonwealth is called “Sire”; humanly speaking, of the callings of fatherhood and kingship, the deeper and more primordial is fatherhood.

May it be needless to say that mothers and fathers must also recover the conviction of their need for each other. They must do this not only for their own sakes, but also for their young. Every child needs both kinds of love. It is not enough to provide an intermediate love that is half motherly and half fatherly, or an inconsistent love that is motherly at some times, fatherly at others. Nor is it enough to give one kind of love for real, while giving only a pretense or simulacrum of the other kind. Even though the two loves resemble each other, they are distinct, and neither can be imitated by anything else. Yes, it may be true heroism when, through no fault of one’s own, a father or a mother raises a child all alone; yet it is better not to be alone. No woman can fully take the place of a father, any more than any man can substitute for
a mother.

The Chivalric Element

These differences reach even further. For men, growing up is like joining a brotherhood. Today, our grasp of this fact is attenuated by the fact that we have lost our rites and customs of apprenticeship and coming of age. Yet men naturally desire to be something like knights, who not only do hard things, but in firm and fatherly manner train squires who attend them so that these young men can learn to do hard things, too. As I was in earnest before, about the calling of all men to extended fatherhood, so I am in earnest now, about the chivalric element in this calling. A man will more readily aspire to manhood if he can taste it; his life must have the flavor of valor. This is true of how he carries himself not only toward other men, but also toward women.

The fashion of the day is to think of medieval knights not as valiant but as cruel. Many were, yet even in that day, knighthood was more than a veneer for oppression. It was a great and noble ideal that did much to civilize a society still governed by a warrior caste and too often running with blood. Like the members of our own ruling class, different as it is, the members of that caste sometimes fought for the wrong things, fought in the wrong ways, or committed atrocities. All such perversions should be condemned. Yet let us not abuse the members of that caste just because they liked to fight. Are there not plenty of things to fight for in this world, and plenty of evils to oppose? Do we not even speak of the Church Militant?

After all, most men do not simply like to fight; they are too lazy for that. They like to fight when there is something worth fighting for. True, they sometimes make up things worth fighting for just to be able to fight for them, and one of the tasks of becoming a man is learning to resist that temptation. There are plenty of noble things to fight for without making them up. A woman may resisttemptation, but a man thinks of making war against it. A woman may seek to reside in the citadel of virtue, but a man thinks of capturing it. In the same martial spirit, a virtuous man desires to contend for just laws, to defend and protect sound traditions, to attack lies and fallacies with the weapons of frankness and reason, and yes, even to make gentle war for courtesy.

By the way, if it is right at times to fight, then it is also right in some ways to enjoy fighting, even though it is also right to grieve the evils incidental to the struggle and try to minimize them. A certain militancy and a certain vigilance are an essential part of manhood, and a man’s great project is not to do away with his impulse to fight, but to learn to fight nobly and generously—to refine the raw ore, burn away its dross, and make it into purified steel.

This is an ideal to which any man may aspire. It is wholly independent of what he does for a living, of how much education he has had, or of whether he is muscular or athletic. Medieval knights engaged their enemies physically, and there is always some need for that; that is why we have armies and police. Yet there are many ways to fight besides the physical. One may fight through a word in season, a clap on the shoulder, a quiet admonishment or commendation. One may wage war by bearing witness, by lifting the fallen, by refusing to countenance evil. One may do battle by admonishing idlers, by encouraging the faint-hearted, by helping the weak.

A Long Quest & a Difficult Journey

All this makes the achievement of manhood hard work, labor that requires a firm hand with the desires and devices of the heart. The best instance of a human male is not a glorified, walking packet of urges, but a man who, for the sake of the highest and greatest goods, commands himself, strengthens his brothers, and defends his sisters, regarding even the meanest of women as a lady. You may say this is not natural. I say it is natural, in the sense that only in this way does a being of his nature flourish.

Once upon a time the differences between men and women were not thought so strange. We have a long quest and a difficult journey to make before we can speak of them again with ease and gaiety. There are so many sweet and lovely things that our ears can no longer hear without odium, so many blameless things that can hardly be discussed without scandal. Just imagine the din that would erupt in the world if I were to praise and extol that great activity that comes so much more readily to the woman, and is slandered under the false name of being passive: Be it unto me as you have said! And if I were to compound the offense by pointing out that every last one of us, both man and woman, is feminine with respect to God—there would be an earthquake.

The journey back to the commonwealth of sense will be long and difficult, and we will meet trolls and enchanters on the way. I say: laugh at them. They will obstruct passage, demand tribute, and try to lure us into byways and bogs. But since we cannot become any more begrimed and bewitched than we already are in our day, why should that discourage us? With a smile on our lips, a song in our throats, a sword in our hands, and a prayer in our hearts, we may as well fight with good cheer.

 

Fascistic Dem Fems at War with Each Other!

LET’S YOU AND HER FIGHT

by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Currently, the most entertaining spectacle in the nation’s capital is the cat-fight

battle between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “Squad.” This is one fight Republicans hope both sides lose.

Politico provides the Washington insider’s take:

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT, at the moment, we are witnessing a clash within the House Democratic Caucus. It’s PELOSI vs. a group of Democrats who call themselves “The Squad”: REPS. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, ILHAN OMAR, AYANNA PRESSLEY and RASHIDA TLAIB.

THIS IS A CLASSIC CAPITOL HILL POWER STRUGGLE. But it also has some unique qualities, as it pits traditional — or hard — inside-the-Capitol power against external — or soft — political power.

The Squad’s power comes, ostensibly, from its great popularity with the public:

TO PELOSI, if you are one person, you have one vote. That’s the lens through which she views power. If you are one person who controls 20 votes, you’re powerful. If you’re one person who controls one vote, you’re just a normal member. So when she told the NYT’s Maureen Dowd that those four people are, indeed, four people, that was meant not as an insult, but rather as a reflection of a reality under which she operates.

“THE SQUAD’S” power is different. It’s almost entirely external. AOC, Pressley, Omar and Tlaib are big personalities on social media, with massive followings outside the Capitol.

If you take seriously the idea that Twitter either reflects or significantly influences reality, then the Squad is powerful. Here, I agree with Pelosi: I don’t take that idea seriously.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP believes that the weight of the caucus — at the moment — is more aligned with Pelosi. So the speaker’s brushback of the young upstarts is seen as internally wise.

That belief is obviously correct. The most entertaining part of the cat-fight  conflict is Ocasio-Cortez calling Pelosi a racist:

“When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post. “But the persistent singling out … it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful … the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

That was too much for pretty much all House Democrats who are not members of the Squad. The Hill reports, “Dems rush to support Pelosi amid fight with Ocasio-Cortez.”

A growing number of progressive House Democrats, frustrated with an ongoing spat between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D), are taking the freshman New Yorker to task for accusing Pelosi of treating minority women unfairly.
***
“What a weak argument,” said Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), a member of both the Black and Progressive caucuses. “Because you can’t get your way and because you’re getting pushback you resort to using the race card? Unbelievable. Unbelievable to me.”

Unbelievable? Why? This “weak argument” is the one Democrats deploy on virtually every occasion. They just don’t like to see it turned against themselves. But until now, it has worked for Ocasio-Cortez and fellow Squad members like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, so why would they change their tune? AOC’s chief of staff went even farther in accusing fellow House Democrats of racism:

Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide, chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, went a long step further, accusing the centrist members of the Blue Dog and New Democratic coalitions of being racist.

“They certainly seem hell bent to do to black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s,” Chakrabarti said in a tweet that has since been deleted.

One senses, here, an uncertain grasp of history. What I like best, though, is this:

There were early signs that Pelosi’s entreaty not to air dirty laundry in public has yet to sink in.

Part of what is going on here is that some members of the Squad are not only inexperienced, they are also not very bright. I refer to Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar; I don’t know enough about the other two to have an opinion. To the extent that their thirst for publicity and loose cannon pronouncements are the result of less than adequate capacity for their jobs, the Squad has the potential to bedevil the Democrats for some time to come.

As Steve likes to say, get out the popcorn.

 

Comment by ghr:    Nancy Pelosi mentally retired from our American scene of politics about thirty years ago.   She’s been loony  of the House of Representatives of varying degrees ever since!

The human male animal is born with natural killer instincts.   He was always needed to defend and protect the survival of his tribe for the past many thousands of years.   Until the last generation and a half, the human female function, a rather  important one, was to mother her children and tend to the family nest until puberty for the survival of the species.    The “she” of the species was wily and clever in her own way for her own survival.   She was always then as now, however, born ditsy to some degree and reason….one being to maintain her own survival in the tribe.

Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are prime examples of the history of the female ditsy when exercising their ‘role’ “ruling” their space in human “culture”.

Two and two often fail to make four among the general  emoting feminist in action!!   Nor have they ever really invented or built  anything.

Our lefty American kind of females  don’t bear very many children anymore.  They seem to prefer to kill them.    They’d rather play women’s soccer  and display  greatness by being obnoxious and crude to prove their equality to pre-puberty   unchurched American schoolboys.

Democrats Haven’t Always Been Feminized Fascists

Do You Remember When Both Parties Sounded Patriotic?

By MICHAEL BROWN at the Stream:    (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

It wasn’t that long ago that both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates sounded proud to be Americans. That, broadly speaking, both parties sounded patriotic, deeply appreciative of our heritage. That is certainly not the case today.

One party is proud of America, the other ashamed. One party recognizes the serious errors of our past but sees a greatness beyond that. The other party sees us as defined by our errors and failings.

On Saturday, I tweeted, “Do you remember the day (not that long ago) when both the Democrats and Republicans sounded patriotic?”

In response, Raymond E. Grim commented, “This 4th of July I really saw the separation between the Rs and Ds on love of our country. The Rs talked about the greatness of our country. The Ds complained about President Trump and patriotism.”

And my colleague at Stream.org, John Zmirak, wrote, “Yep. The VENEER of patriotism was kept up under Obama, but only to allow him to ‘fundamentally transform’ the country. (Remember Michelle wasn’t proud of America till HE GOT ELECTED.)”

Cruz Calls Out Kaepernick Over Fredrick Douglass

It is not surprising that it was a Republican, Senator Ted Cruz, who exposed Colin Kaepernick’s selective quotations from Frederick Douglass, which Kaepernick posted on July 4th.

The former NFL quarterback wanted Americans to remember the perspective of Douglass, who famously said, “What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? This Fourth of July is yours, not mine” And, “There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.”

Sen. Cruz pointed out that this speech was delivered in 1852, more than a decade before the Civil War. That makes a big difference.

Cruz then cited some of the closing words of this important speech, which included: “Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably, work the downfall of slavery. ‘The arm of the Lord is not shortened,’ and the doom of slavery is certain.”

And, “I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from ‘the Declaration of Independence,’ the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.”

Ignoring the Note of Hope

It is this note of hope, of national pride, of confidence in the solid foundations of our country, that is so lacking in today’s Democratic party.

The Founding Fathers were bad men. (I can virtually guarantee you that the voting districts and educational institutions most upset with the Founders tilt heavily Democrat.)

Capitalism is evil. (Oh, if only we were a socialist country!)

Whiteness is shameful, especially when it is male whiteness. (And our country was founded by white men and is run by white men until this day.)

Yes, we have a lot of apologizing to do. In fact, we need to apologize simply for being ourselves. It’s embarrassing to be an American.

Illegal aliens are heroes, and we are morally obligated to support them and provide their health insurance. In contrast, secure borders are selfish and a strong military is hateful.

And on and on it goes, coming to a head on this 4th of July.

As John Nolte wrote, “Because Democrats and the media have to be —holes about absolutely everything America-related, rather than join President Trump in celebrating America on the Fourth, they — no joke — raged against the idea of celebrating the birth of our great nation in our nation’s capital.”

“No One Who Moves to America From Another Country Goes Back Home”

Interestingly, while taking a taxi from Manhattan to LaGuardia airport this past Tuesday, my driver, who came to the States from Pakistan in 1992, said to me, “No one who moves to America from another country goes back home.”

Obviously, this was not meant to be a scientifically accurate statement, but the overall sentiment is undeniably true.

America is the land of opportunity, incredibly so.

America is the “can do” country, where anything seems possible.

America is the desired destination of countless millions who would love to make our country their home.

America is the land of freedom. (When I asked on the radio this week, “What are some of the greatest strengths and weaknesses of our country?”, one of my staff members replied, “The fact that we can have this conversation openly is one of our greatest strengths.”)

Without a doubt, from a prophetic perspective, America has many serious needs and is guilty of many sins. Having written books referring to our sickly condition, I would be the last to dispute this assessment.

And it is part of the duty of gospel ministers to call us to repentance and change. Count me in for that, on virtually a daily basis.

But America is also an amazing country, a country with wonderful roots. And one would expect our political leaders to celebrate our heritage rather than denigrate it.

Even political pragmatism would suggest that you would have a better chance of rallying voters by cultivating a healthy sense of national pride rather than a crippling sense of national shame.

So, by all means, let’s recognize our ongoing problems and let’s address our very real shortcomings.

But let’s do so realizing that we really are privileged to live here in America, which was and is intended to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

May our political leaders take heed.

 

Do You Remember When Both Parties Sounded Patriotic?

The Disappearance of Motherhood in Today’s America

The most powerful cultural drive among the majority of  today’s American female population is not  to enter motherhood, but to become an  imitation of today’s human male.  “Everything he can do I can do better” is her leftist political and social motto.

After all,  she owns the nation’s college and university social “sciences” world these days.  She pretends to be, because she is programmed to be,  the male equal in the military.   She owns today’s  leftist world of our  nation’s  once Democratic Party.   Truth has no meaning!  Feelings count…..or ELSE!

Schools, universities, teachers, professors, the newspaper world, the CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, NBC, and much of the foreign Fox  all practice a similar dictatorship.

In my lifetime until the beginning of the collapse of civility and honesty in America in the 1960s,  the human female of all colors, shapes and sizes were expected to be, and were proud to be Mothers rather than animals with  human flesh.

Christianity and Judaism taught us so!   My parents obeyed.  Their relatives obeyed.  Our neighbor’s and our relative’s neighbors obeyed.   Negroes and whites obeyed.

And the streets were safe!    It was depression time…..and war time……and war recovery time.    Males worked 48 or more hours per week.    Females were Mothers and Grandmothers  at home, civil, loving, commanding, thoroughly respected, and Godfearing.    A JudeoChristian nation was still  in control.

Godfearing families dominated both in  city and country.   It was Depression and War time.   Gangsters lived in  and worked the big cities, Chicago, Boston, New York, Philadelphia.   In Minneapolis there was noted crook Isadore Blemenfeld’s outfit, but  the neighborhoods were as safe as home.   I lived in Roman Catholic St. Paul.

With the exception of some devoted Christian and Islamic families, today’s American Mother no longer exists.   Either the American she avoids any role as Mother,  cannot find a today’s human male civil or secure enough to bear her children,  or prefers being a feminist forever or is on drugs!

They go to college instead…..playing soccer, hockey, baseball and stuff like males do.   Equality of sexes  is deemed politically correct for eternity, today’s America dictates.

All human sexes are the same, today’s fascistic America claims.    Motherhood today, if it exists at all, is reduced to a female  bearing a child and two days or a week later, or asap,  returns to her career life of eight hours, five days a week, fifty weeks each year as  equal or superior to any male.

I was raised in a very modest but newish neighborhood in St. Paul, Minnesota in the 1930s and 1940s, the depression and war years.   Sixteen families lived along both sides of the street where I was raised.   All but two families had Mothers and Fathers of children who were raised there.  Those two families were grandparents whose children and their families lived out of state.

In truth, “Motherhood” no longer exists in today’s  general American population.   She can’t be if she is absent from Motherhood  most of the week most of the year.

Is it any wonder why so many college gals  of today’s America are so absent of culture, wisdom, and civility?

“Who cares if they play soccer in a world cup?”  you say?

 

 

Will Our America Survive today’s CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, CBS, and ABC Fascism?

CNN RATINGS TANK

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

I’ve been writing over the last few days about the fact that “get woke, go broke” doesn’t always apply to companies that pose as social justice warriors. On the other hand, CNN’s formula–obsessive, over the top Trump hatred, every day, all the time–has bombed. John Nolte has the numbers:

The far-left fake news outlet CNN came in 15th place in primetime during the previous quarter and lost nearly 20 percent of its already pathetic viewership.

Here are the prime time numbers for cable news channels:

Fox: 2.4 million
MSNBC: 1.67 million
CNN: 761,000

Compared with the second quarter last year, all three cable news networks are down, I assume because Trump hysteria has subsided somewhat. Fox is down 2% in prime time, MSNBC is down 4%, and CNN down 18%. It’s tough when you are already in third place and suffer by far the largest loss of audience.

Of course, MSNBC has historically been the farthest left cable network. Nolte says:

CNN is an unreliable and dishonest hate network obsessed with working out its psychosis against Trump and his supporters by going so far as to condone and encourage violence against them.

For all of MSNBC’s flaws, its anchors are nowhere near as dangerous or unstable.

I can’t comment, since I never watch cable news, except to note that our friend Hugh Hewitt has a show on MSNBC, so they have that much balance, at least.

In any event, it seems clear that CNN’s ratings collapse is a function of its utterly boring anti-Trump mania. I wrote quite a while ago that CNN could abandon its programming entirely, and instead simply post a placard that says “We hate Trump.” It is isn’t hard to see why such a boring message repels the audience.

Note from ghr:   Where in television,  print, and schooling in Minnesota today does one party, today’s Leftist Democrat fascism, NOT OWN, RULE, and OBSTRUCT?   Only in the state’s  churches does the fresh air of Truth and traditional Godfearing conservatives  remain alive and well, almost secretly as if imprisoned in yesterday’s catacombs.

Beyond radio, where does a traditional American go to read, meet, and express and seek decency and Truth these days?

A Republican owns the Minneapolis Strib fascistic papers which sell  its Leftism.   The  St. Paul Pioneer Press barely exists.  It used to be a Roman Catholic press fully aware of  fascistic leftism, its evil weapons, threats and lies.

Where does Minnesota  go to read about and absorb the countless achievements of  our gifted, America-loving President, Donald J. Trump?   Nowhere!!   Certainly not the Wall Street Journal!!   Public school is where today’s leftist fascists rule, sculpting creatures even more ignorant and arrogant than themselves.

Are  there any real Mothers today left to mother  their children beyond the week in which they were born?   Is the disappearance of the American family for real?