• 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

America’s Young Made Illiterate Grade School Through University

K-16: Land of Lies

by Bruce Deitrick Price  at  American Thinker:

Many college kids can hardly write a proper English sentence, never mind a proper essay.  Meanwhile, the essay-writing industry is huge, churning out tens of thousands of illegal documents.  Naturally, all participants in the scam pretend there’s no scam, and so the scam can go on.

Here’s a recent, terrifying report from an editor:

My organization decided a few weeks back that we needed to hire a new professional staff person.  We had close to 500 applicants. Inasmuch as the task was to help us communicate information related to the work we do, we gave each of the candidates one of the reports we published last year and asked them to produce a one-page summary.  All were college graduates.  Only one could produce a satisfactory summary.  That person got the job.

Here is a good indication of how bad things already were 40 years ago.  One investigator concluded:

If you think America’s English teachers have gone “back to basics” and are solving the literacy problem everyone began shouting about in the 1970s, think again. Recent studies show that English teachers know little about the language they’re supposed to teach. They get poor training in writing at college and, as a group, are bad writers.

professor recently reported:

I am about a decade into my teaching career, but even within this fairly short span, I have noticed a startling decline in the quality of written work turned in by my students, regardless of which institution (community college, private, four year school) the papers are coming from.

So what’s going on?

Even though half the incoming students are completely incompetent at the sentence level, colleges pretend it’s not so. In this piece that explains why so many young Americans can’t write well, Natalie Wexler states, “Colleges simply assume students already know how to write sentences.” Course syllabi and textbooks all peddle the fiction that students can produce grammatical sentences at will, without crude errors like fragments, run-ons, or subject-verb disagreements. That’s grotesquely untrue.

In her report, Wexler provides a weighty insight: “With the advent of e-mail, writing ability has become more important than ever, and writing deficiencies have become increasingly apparent.”

It’s not hyperbole to point out that the country’s language skills have gotten rotten.  PBS concluded:

The vast majority of public two- and four-year colleges report enrolling students – more than half a million of them–who are not ready for college-level work, a Hechinger Report investigation of 44 states has found. The numbers reveal a glaring gap in the nation’s education system: A high school diploma, no matter how recently earned, doesn’t guarantee that students are prepared for college courses. Higher education institutions across the country are forced to spend time, money and energy to solve this disconnect. They must determine who’s not ready for college and attempt to get those students up to speed as quickly as possible, or risk losing them altogether.

Meanwhile, there is massive fraud top to bottom. The kids cheat (i.e., plagiarize) by buying essays.  There seem to be hundreds of these businesses, some of them claiming to have hundreds of professional writers.  Meanwhile, the college (or the individual teachers) could easily determine when students are handing in material above their abilities.  The colleges don’t try very hard.

If commonsense safeguards were enforced, the pool of applicants ready for college might shrink tremendously.  The money would stop flowing.  Some professors would no longer have careers.  A lot of colleges could become ghost towns.

The sad tendency started 75 years ago, when the Education Establishment piously announced a number of stupidities: grammar isn’t important, and students shouldn’t worry about correct spelling.  I can remember reading an article in Time 40 years ago where two professors said children would pick up language rules from their environment.  Even young and dumb as I was at that moment, I sensed that these two guys were jive-ass turkeys.

Now we’re probably at the point where lots of kids pay to have their admission essays written.  Maybe they paid for papers in high school.  And then they pay right through their college years.  This might add thousands of dollars to the cost of higher education.  But that’s not so consequential if you’re already paying $30,000 to $40,000 each year.

If you want to see some serious sophistry unfolding in front of your eyes, watch this Huffington Post liberal (one must assume) try to keep the house of cards standing:

Since academic writing is becoming one of the most prominent aspects of the educational system, the constant development of the custom-writing industry is clearly justified. … [S]ome argue … that the content completed by professional writers is not plagiarized. It is completely unique, well-researched and properly-referenced. When a customer buys this type of product, he has the right to use it as a source for another paper, or simply submit it as his own.

Intellectually speaking, that’s Sodom and Gomorrah.

David Coleman is famous for trying to force Common Core on the public.  And Common Core is famous for not teaching kids to write.  According to the Washington Post, “the authors of the Common Core focused just on the skills that students should have at each grade level, not on how to impart them. And few teachers have been trained to teach these writing skills, apparently because educators believe that students will just pick them up through reading. Obviously, most don’t.”

Coleman, having done his dirty work for Common Core, bounced over to take control of The College Board.  His first action was to sandbag “the essay requirement,” the one part  that might reveal how shabby things have become.  In other words, he’s covering up his own tracks.

The main point here is that all sectors of the Education Establishment are conspiring to sabotage reading and writing skills at all levels, while at the same time conspiring to cover up the consequences of this sabotage.

Students don’t learn essential skills, and then the testing of those skills is compromised or hidden.  What better way to hide poor writing skills than to allow a whole new industry to evolve, so students can hire mercenaries to do their work?  Isn’t that clever?  Crime-wise, it’s a double-helix, so slick, so sick, that even people who think they are not concerned about education might want to protest.

The starting point for all of these developments is the poor instruction of reading in the early grades.  Millions of children reach middle school with only limited literacy.  Naturally, their writing skills are even lower than that.  Children need to be good fluent readers, then they acquire a good vocabulary, then they can move to writing an essay.  If reading isn’t taught properly, writing will be an impossible dream.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/k16_land_of_lies.html

Advertisements

Democrats Finally Feminize into State Socialism to be taken care of…..

IT’S OFFICIAL: DEMOCRATS NOW THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA

by Steven Hayward   at PowerLine:

With new survey evidence showing that the base Democratic Party voter has been steadily shifting to the left for the last 15 years, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post yesterday made it official:

When Bernie Sanders launched his bid for the Democratic nomination, he was often asked whether he, a democratic socialist, would actually become a Democrat. Now, more than a year after he ignited a movement with his unsuccessful bid, that question is moot. The Democrats have become socialists.

This became official, more or less, Wednesday afternoon, when Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party’s rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker. Kamala Harris. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Over at The new New Republic, John Judis agrees:

[M]uch to my surprise, socialism is making a comeback. The key event has been the campaign of self-identified democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who almost won the Democratic nomination and is now reputedly the most popular politician in America. Several opinion polls have also found that young people now think favorably of socialism and ill of capitalism—a result that would have been almost inconceivable in the 1970s, when socialism, in the words of historian Staughton Lynd, was still a “forbidden word” in American politics. . . For the first time since the ‘60s, socialism looks like a politics with a future in the United States.

I’ll go on record to say that if Democrats want to make one-size-fits-all single-payer health care the centerpiece of their 2020 campaign, it will be the biggest albatross since George McGovern’s $1,000 per person “Demogrant” idea went down in flames in 1972. Yes—indeed people like “free stuff,” but there are tens of millions with health care they like just fine (including union workers with gold-plated plans they’d lose under Sanders’s scheme). The attack ads write themselves: just imagine a parade of veterans telling their stories of lousy care and long wait times at VA facilities, with the tag line “Government Single-Payer In Action. Or inaction.” Or something like that.

Meanwhile, Sen. Feinstein continues to receive blowback from the left for her blatant anti-Catholic bigotry. This time from someone who surely doesn’t want Prof. Amy Barrett confirmed to a circuit judgeship any more than Feinstein does, but at least Lawrence Tribe is willing to note honestly what has taken place:

When you’ve lost Larry Tribe. . .

Finally, just for fun, maybe my favorite headline from the campaign last year, appearing in the Washington Post in March:

Germanic Fascism Alive at Deutche Welle Election Night, Nov. 2016

The United States, Canada, the Queen’s Great Britain, the West  in general establishments, pretend and advertise to be democratic in the languages they speak to themselves and their public.  THEY LIE!

These elitists live in the same leftist closets….one Party, one Thought, one Press….fake news.   They sold their fake news throughout the minutes and hours to the very end and beyond the SHOCK FROM THEIR BIGOTRY….”Something wasn’t measured”.

Do explore that election evening, that popular victory of Our Donald, that November.  Do review the nearly universal fascism reported  as news at CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, CBS, ABC, and abroad in particular CBC, Deutche Welle and its “whitest of counties”, in a country who’s wildest most vile practicing racists  today are black in color, not only in per cent of population but very likely by statistics if TRUTH be told.

Listen to these fascist pundits reviewing the American character who dared to vote for Our Donald as racists….FAKE NEWS, folks.   It took Our Donald and his courage to expose the LEFTIST PARTY COLLEGE “EDUCATED” think alikes  who don’t work for a living, have no interest or ability to seek truth, but enjoy and protect their cultural status!  Please view the following for starters:

Learn to Become a Leftist Bigot for Only $60,000 a Year at UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY!

How much does free speech cost on college campuses?

by Valerie Greenfeld  at American Thinker

“The tuition rates at universities today are astronomical.  Out-of-state students at U.C. Berkeley pay over $60,000 for their education, and when it comes to free speech, they get only half the argument.

Known as the home of free speech, Berkeley’s official statement guarantees students the constitutionally protected rights of free expression, speech, assembly, and worship.  Nevertheless, conservative Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos’s talk was canceled due to protests on campus in February.  Yiannopoulos is a British commentator and media personality who is openly gay and has been called “dangerous” for expressing his opinions.  After somewhat of an uproar, the talk was suddenly rescheduled for November.  While safety is of the utmost importance, the university still was able to find security for a “vitriolic” white supremacist speaker on campus while canceling Yiannopoulos.

An equal platform should be given to all elements of political discourse.  It is understood that the U.C. Berkeley campus protects and encourages liberal viewpoints, but part of a full education is listening to a speaker you may not agree with in order to learn the other side of the argument.

Suppressing values of inclusion and tolerance to create the appearance of a constructive dialogue teaches students that the progressive political perspective is more important than intellectual honesty.

It is important to put this problem in perspective without making right seem wrong and wrong seem right.  Should all American taxpayers be required to subsidize universities who censor a conservative gay man’s point of view?  Tolerance means allowing all points of view to be heard, not only those with which you agree.  As far as safety is concerned, the students who hold conservative values are those who are unsafe on campus – not those who are rioting and creating havoc……..”  Please read on:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/09/how_much_does_free_speech_cost_on_college_campuses.html

Trump DOJ Goes to Court to Protect JudeoChristian Rights

Trump’s DOJ Just Got Involved in The Supreme Court’s Biggest Religious Freedom Case

The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting a Christian baker in Colorado.

By 

“The Trump administration weighed into one of the marquee cases of the coming Supreme Court term Thursday, backing a Christian baker in a dispute over public accommodations laws and religious liberty.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus (or “friend-of-the-court”) brief supporting a Christian baker in Colorado who declined to create a wedding cake with a pro-LGBT message for a gay couple planning their nuptials. The baker, Jack Phillips, was sanctioned by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for violating the state’s public accommodations law, which prohibits discrimination against certain protected classes in commercial transactions. The Justice Department argues the state is coercing Phillips into creating expression with which he disagrees, in violation of the First Amendment.

“The Department filed an amicus brief in this case today because the First Amendment protects the right of free expression for all Americans,” Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said in a statement. “Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they — like other laws — must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees. That includes the freedom not to create expression for ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs.”

The administration’s filing came on the same day that over 80 congressional Republicans filed their own amicus brief in support of Phillips.

In the brief, the Department says that the high court has consistently ruled in favor of free expression where speech and general laws regulating conduct collide, and that requiring Phillips to create such expression intrudes upon his First Amendment rights.

“A custom wedding cake is a form of expression, whether pure speech or the product of expressive conduct,” the brief reads. “It is an artistic creation that is both subjectively intended and objectively perceived as a celebratory symbol of a marriage.”

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” it adds.

The brief also emphasizes that it’s arguments could not be leveraged in a challenge to an anti-discrimination law like the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race and sex discrimination in the work place, private businesses, and public spaces.

“For the most part, individual First Amendment rights have coexisted comfortably with federal and state public accommodations laws,” DOJ argues. “That is because those laws generally focus on preventing discriminatory conduct rather than modifying the content of expression. Under ordinary circumstances, content-neutral laws that regulate conduct rather than speech receive no First Amendment scrutiny, even where they have ‘incidental’ effects on speech.”

The high court agreed to hear the dispute in June, though the case has not yet been scheduled for argument. The Supreme Court will reconvene from its summer recess on Oct. 2….”

 

https://stream.org/trumps-doj-just-got-involved-supreme-courts-biggest-religious-freedom-case/

Jewish Leftist Senator Feinstein Allergic to Roman Catholics, Christians in the Judiciary?

Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein’s paternal grandparents were Jewishimmigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia.

2 Democrat Senators Show Hostility to Religion in Questions for Judicial Nominee

article by Tiffany Bates at the Daily Signal:        (article sent by Lisa Rich)

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” is an unusual and inappropriate question for a senator to ask a judicial nominee. In fact, the Constitution forbids it.

But that didn’t stop Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., from probing Notre Dame Law professor Amy Coney Barrett about her faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. D-Calif., also chided Barrett for being a practicing Catholic, proclaiming, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Both senators appear to have forgotten Article VI’s admonition that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.”

The senators’ hostility to religion was loudly on display as Barrett and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, having been nominated by the president to fill two federal appellate vacancies.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

President Donald Trump nominated Larsen for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan and Barrett for the 7th Circuit in Indiana. Both women have faced bitter scrutiny from the left. This makes sense, as both are brilliant, young, conservative, and female, making them serious contenders for a future Supreme Court vacancy.

After a delay, Democratic senators from both Michigan and Indiana have returned the nominees’ blue slips, allowing their nominations to move forward.

But just who are Larsen and Barrett?

Joan Larsen

It came as no surprise when Trump tapped Larsen for a seat on the 6th Circuit. She was one of 21 individuals on the list of judicial rock stars he used to fill the last Supreme Court vacancy.

A graduate of Northwestern University Law School, Larsen clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. When asked what it was like to be a woman clerking for Scalia, she has often quipped, “Much like being a man clerking for him.”

In 1998, Larsen became an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan Law School, where she taught constitutional law, criminal procedure, presidential power, and statutory interpretation.

Her academic career was interrupted by brief stints in private practice and as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

In September 2015, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed her to the state Supreme Court. Although Larsen has a relatively thin judicial record due to her short tenure on the court, she has made her views about judging very clear.

When Snyder appointed her, she stated, “I believe in enforcing the laws as written by the legislature and signed by the governor. I don’t think judges are a policy-making branch of the government.”

This is right in line with how her former boss, Scalia, viewed judging. Shortly after Scalia’s death, she penned an op-ed for The New York Times in which she wrote: “Justice Scalia believed in one simple principle: That law came to the court as an is not an ought. Statutes, cases, and the Constitution were to be read for what they said, not for what the judges wished they would say.”

In her 2016 retention election, she again made her views clear, writing:

Judges are supposed to interpret the laws; they are not supposed to make them. The separation of powers, enshrined in both our national and state constitutions, protects the people’s right to self-governance by allowing the elected representatives of the people to make the laws. Judges, like everyone else, are bound by those laws and must faithfully interpret them rather than re-writing them from the bench. Judges, after all, are the public’s servants, not the public’s masters.

Larsen has received an outpouring of support for her nomination, including endorsement letters from 32 University of Michigan law professors and former colleagues and 29 former government officials and colleagues.

During the hearing, she faced questions about her time at the Department of Justice and about a controversial memo that set forth a justification for enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. But Larsen was not involved in researching or drafting that memo.

She also faced questions from senators about the role of legal precedents, as well as a 2004 law review article in which she criticized the use of foreign and international law in interpreting our Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett

Like Larsen, Barrett has a sterling resume. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and for Scalia on the Supreme Court.

She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.

She teaches constitutional law, federal courts, statutory interpretation, civil procedure, and evidence. Notre Dame twice recognized her as distinguished professor of the year.

Barrett is also a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.

In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.

Barrett has robust bipartisan support from the legal community. Shortly after her nomination, endorsement letters poured in to the Judiciary Committee from lawyers across the political spectrum, including 450 former students49 Notre Dame law colleagues, and every fellow Supreme Court clerk that served with her.

The Judiciary Committee also received an endorsement letter from 73 law professors from across the country who called Barrett’s qualifications “first-rate,” including Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Barrett faced numerous questions about her writings, including her criticism of stare decisis or the role of precedent in judicial decision-making in certain circumstances.

For example, she has questioned the practice of judges relying on precedent when it conflicts with the original meaning of the Constitution’s text. Justice Clarence Thomas has also questioned the role of precedent in these circumstances.

She assured the committee, however, that as an appellate judge, she would follow all Supreme Court precedents, which are binding upon all lower court judges.

She also faced questions about a 1998 article that she co-authored as a law student, discussing Catholic judges participating in death penalty cases. In that article she considered situations in which the law and a judge’s religious faith conflict.

Senate Democrats attempted to distort her article, claiming she would put religious beliefs above the law. But in fact, she wrote, “The legal system has a solution for this dilemma—it allows (indeed it requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.”

Barrett is not the first to broach this subject. Many Catholic judges have considered and written on this issue, including Judge William Pryor, who sits on the 11th Circuit, and Scalia.

Despite the tough questions they received, these two polished and accomplished women answered intelligently and gracefully. They both subscribed to the view that judges should not, under the guise of statutory or constitutional interpretation, impose their own policy preferences on the rest of society.

To date, the Senate has confirmed only six of Trump’s judicial nominees (including Justice Neil Gorsuch). But hearings are starting to pick up. Counting Larsen and Barrett, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings for six nominees this week.

With a stunning 162 current and known future vacancies and 32 nominees pending, let’s hope the Senate keeps it up.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/06/two-democrat-senators-show-hostility-to-religion-in-questions-for-judicial-nominee/?utm_source=TDS_Email

Questioning Nominees About Their Religion. Right or Wrong? Let’s Think a Moment about Islam!

LIBERAL SCHOLAR DECRIES QUESTIONING NOMINEES ABOUT RELIGION

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine

It isn’t often that we quote with approval presidents of Ivy League colleges. However, this letter from Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber to the chairman and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves to be quoted in full and with full approval.

The letter pertains to the interrogation of Amy Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, by Democratic members of the committee regarding her religious beliefs. Eisgruber writes:

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Professor Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views.

Article VI of the United States Constitution provides explicitly that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This bold endorsement of religious freedom was among the original Constitution’s most pathbreaking provisions. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), holding that the First and Fourteenth Amendments render this principle applicable to state offices and that it protects non-believers along with believers of all kinds, is among the greatest landmarks in America’s jurisprudence of religious freedom. Article VI’s prohibition of religious tests is a critical guarantee of equality and liberty, and it is part of what should make all of us proud to be Americans.

By prohibiting religious tests, the Constitution makes it impermissible to deny any person a national, state, or local office on the basis of their religious convictions or lack thereof. Because religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship, the Senate should not interrogate any nominee about those beliefs. I believe, more specifically, that the questions directed to Professor Barrett about her faith were not consistent with the principle set forth in the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause.

I am sympathetic to the challenges that your committee faces as it considers nominees to the federal bench. In my book The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Princeton University Press, 2007), I argued that your committee need not defer to presidential nominations, and that the Constitution permits senators to probe the judicial philosophies of nominees. It is, however, possible to probe those philosophies without reference to the religious affiliation or theological views of a nominee, and Article VI insists that the Senate observe that restriction.

The questions asked of Professor Barrett about her Catholic faith appear to have been provoked in part by her co-authored article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases” (1998). I have read that article, and I believe that the views expressed in it are fully consistent with a judge’s obligation to uphold the law and the Constitution. As a university president committed to free speech, academic freedom, and religious pluralism, I must add that, in my view, Professor Barrett’s qualifications become stronger by virtue of her willingness to write candidly and intelligently about difficult and sensitive ethical questions: our universities, our judiciary, and our country will be the poorer if the Senate prefers nominees who remain silent on such topics.

I am deeply concerned by the harsh and often unfair criticisms that are now routinely levelled from both sides of the political spectrum against distinguished judicial nominees who would serve this country honorably and well. On the basis of her accomplishments and scholarly writing, I believe that Professor Barrett is in that category. She and other nominees ought in any event to be evaluated on the basis of their professional ability and jurisprudential philosophy, not their religion: every Senator and every American should cherish and safeguard vigorously the freedom guaranteed by the inspiring principle set forth in Article VI of the United States Constitution.

(Emphasis added)

This letter will likely fall on deaf ears. So desperate are the Democrats to block judicial nominees who don’t share their ideological bent that they are prepared to ignore the Constitution’s prohibition of a religious test for office, to the dismay of liberal scholars like Christopher Eisgruber. When you’re “the resistance,” what difference does the Constitution make? 

Glenn’s comment….Life isn’t as simple as writer  Mirengoff suggests….especially when most civilized people, usually conservatives these days, are not government programmed to  predict our human future.  We are to seek it through learning the past and present.

Twenty years ago who would have believed that since morning September 11, 2001 to today,  thousands of Americans would become  murdered by religious fanatics; that today America’s religiously fanatic enemy, Iran, financially in part supported by an American President, Barack Hussein Obama,  is about to enter the nuclear weapon world within a year or two.

This Islam sympathizer Obama,  an  unreligious son of an Islamic,  would certainly have agreed with writer Mirengoff.    Perhaps he even would have  encouraged Irani immigrants to settle in here to  find employment at the Pentagon or  at the FBI when James Comie maneuvered  Obama-created   corruptions to cause  conservative Americans enough pain to make them disappear.

Seeking goodness as an American  was the America I entered in 1934.   It was then a JudeoChristian  peoples enduring the economic pain of the Great Depression. I, raised Lutheran, lived  in a predominantly Roman Catholic community.   I attended public schools of high quality teachings whose instructors until my college years were nearly all  usually well educated  old maids who loved their careers….regularly reminding me the two American principles we students were never to forget:

1.  “Accumulating knowledge will help us  become closer to God….For God Created and Knows All Matter”, I was told again and again with a finger in my face (for I was terribly dyslexic decades before dyslexia was discovered)…and 2. Because we were Americans and therefore responsible for our future,    ACCUMULATING KNOWLEDGE  WILL HELP US MAKE BETTER DECISIONS AT THE BALLOT BOX!”

Of the two billion Islamists throughout the world, it is claimed that only 20% religiously support the elimination of all JudeoChristians in the world.

Oh well, what’s 400,000,000 fewer people on Earth anyway.   Survivors wouldn’t have to worry so much about Al Gore’s Global Warming deceptions.