• 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

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/

Advertisements

Twila Brase Asks: Will President Trump be Forced to Rob Peter to Pay Paul in Health Care World?

Commentary by Twila Brase, Director of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom:

Will President Trump Rob Peter?

Health plans are fear-mongering. They’rethreatening to hike insurance premiums unless President Trump pays subsidies that even the Democrats refused to fund. Now the Congressional Budget Office piles on, agreeing that premiums will increase if Trump refuses to pay the ACA cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies to health plans.

Here’s the bottom line: Health plans want Trump to rob Peter to pay Paul. Health plans promise lower premiums if Trump agrees to redistribute wages through higher taxes.

This is attempted extortion.

The health plans no doubt knew the 2010 ACA did not fund these subsidies so they should NEVER have agreed to participate in the Obamacare exchanges in 2013. Perhaps Obama promised them he’d go around Congress, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Obama made CSR payments to health plans to lower the cost of deductibles and co-pays for people up to 250% of federal poverty guidelines (average payments of $12 – $120/person/mo) – even though Congress never authorized it. That’s why the U.S. House sued the Obama administration.

The folks getting lower premiums through CSR subsidies are also eligible for premium subsidies, with both subsidies being paid directly to the health plans. Insurers want to keep this stream of taxpayer cash flowing.

In 2016, unlawful CSR payments to health plans were made on behalf of around 9.6 million people. The payments total $7 billion to $10 billion a year. We should encourage health plans to exit Obamacare and let the exchanges collapse. States may quickly remember Tenth Amendment rights, reclaim their authority over health policy and restore the affordable catastrophic coverage prohibited by the ACA. Trump can choose to:

  • Let health plans charge Americans the full cost of Obamacare to build the public opposition necessary for full repeal, or
  • Maintain the pro-Obamacare stance of lower-income Americans by protecting them with subsidy dollars taken from taxpayers by force.

To advance repeal, his choice is easy. The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives wonits lawsuit against Obama’s CSR payments but subsidies were allowed to continue pending appeal. The Trump administration has asked twice for a delay (Feb and May) in deciding whether to drop the appeal. The next decision on the case and the subsidies comes this month.

Ask President Trump to do three things:

  1. Drop the administration’s appeal of the U.S. House CSR lawsuit
  2. Stop the unlawful CSR subsidies to health plans – End the Obamacare bailouts
  3. End the taxpayer-funded “special contribution” Congress and their staffers get to cover the cost of their ACA premiums (about $12,000/year).

Contact him here or here. Everyone, including Congress, should feel the full force and unaffordable effect of the ACA. That’s how we’ll get it repealed!

Uncompromising for freedom,

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President and Co-founder

Is Donald J. Trump the Only Fair and Rational Person Left in Today’s American Politics?

Warning…..I am expressing my opinion gathered from my 83 years of human life, an American male who was made well educated primarily by his old maid public school teachers from K through 12  more than six decades ago.
They made me accumulate knowledge primarily so I and my fellow students, both male and female, could better understand the difference between what is and what isn’t….and what is good versus what is evil.
I was male and was treated as a male.  Females then were still allowed to be female.   Today’s Democrat leftist Hillary-like authoritarian  feminism of all colors, sexes, shapes and sizes hadn’t been invented yet.   Universities were still advancing knowledge six decades ago…..until the Gloria Steinem gurus and snakes came out of the nation’s  rotting wood work.   Feminizing the nation’s human animal became a Noah’s flood without an ark for survival……until, it seems,  the arrival of a real live actual American MALE, DONALD J. TRUMP,  IN THE AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE.
My old maid school teachers, ‘Miss this’ and ‘Miss that’, were far better educated regarding things that matter in a freedom-oriented  culture than any of today’s  television or radio programmers and newfolk, leftist fascist or conservative.   These small “l” Liberals not only have disappeared from our America schools, from   the once honorable Democratic Party, the one I attended until the rise of Ronald Reagan, but from the American ballot box.  Two plus two are supposed to  equal four.
The human male animal is born male, to be a father, to be strong,  a builder, protector, curious, a problem solver and a killer, if needed, to survive.  The human female animal is born to be a mother and a nurse with feelings, emotional, caring, ditsy, devious,  rarely a killer….all in order to survive.  Two plus two don’t have to equal four if a human female animal doesn’t want it to be.  She, after all, has feelings (hopefully!)
Politicians, of all sexes, colors, shapes, and sizes  in a democratic form of government are either born devious, or learn their deviousness in college,  from the elders of their political party, or merely from social learnings or business.
In America’s past,  its religion,  JudeoChristianity, was the people’s primary guide to achieve  righteousness…..to know decency and recognize the advantages of good over evil.   “There is neither good nor evil” that ancient adage was ingrained in me…..”ONLY THINKING MAKES IT SO!!!!!”
We now live in America of the leftist era, about fifty years now of rising noises and actions from the feminizers of all sexes, colors, shapes and sizes……where TRUTH IS CONSIDERED SO MALE!   Gone are the real male presidents of my lifetime,  Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.   Gone are the schools and universities, that JudeoChristian educated America which sought TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
We now live in Jeremiah Wright’s black and white  racist Obamaville America, one size, one sex, one color, one thinking, one Party, one BIG BUSINESS, one news agency and language,  the faker the better to unify the country, the one schooling unified by atheism, Islam, or perhaps even nativism…..on the way to create a fascist New World feminized into security, forever the same, stable, changeless, safe and void of knowledge and worry.
………but, along comes a Donald, an unpolitician, ….a  Donald whom I have come to adore, a real “honest-to-goodness” American guy,  a non-drinker, a non-druggie  who loved his parents, who loves his family, and who loves his country, the one before the leftist fascists gained control of the Democrat Party, the American school and university, the American Press, and the American greedy Big Business  manipulators:  Google, Amazon and such guys.
Along came Our Donald yesterday standing at Trump Tower foyer problem solving, preaching real, not fake truth,  freedom of thought, deed, and action while reviewing  honestly  amid the fake news CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox mobsters,  reviewing as fairly as evidence could provide,  the confrontation of two terror gangs  rioting in Charlottesville, Virginia last Saturday.
Note:   John Podhoretz usually advertises himself to be a conservative.  In his article below he  claims to be expert in White Nationalist, KKK, neoNazi goings on in our country.   He does have a Jewish last name.  Does he mask himself when he walks and talks in these KKK, White Nationalist and neoNazi crowds he know about so intimately?
Are they the hoodlums who trash and burn college buildings at the University of California at Berkeley?….the black and white Black Lives Matter  thugs to block traffic and shout hate and murder against whites and their establishments in step as they march  along   downtown streets?…..or the white feminazis, and other has-been  actresses screaming hate against President Trump?……or the countless savages, nearly all black,  who burned up sections of Ferguson and Baltimore USA not too many years ago?
Where exactly have these, yes,  “repulsive shouters, KKK racists, proNazi” practiced and enforced their evil  over the past year,  or years since they have exited the American Democratic Party so much that MATCHES THE VIOLENCE AND HATE of the BLACK LIVES RACISTS OF ALL COLORS, SEXES, SHAPES, AND SIZES?

Caitlin Huey-Burns, RealClearPolitics

Ditsy Judge Howell Okays Democrat Mueller’s Move to Disrupt President Trump’s Presidency

MORE ON THE LEFTIST JUDGE WHO APPROVED MUELLER’S GRAND JURY

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

Beryl Howell is the judge who signed off on Robert Mueller’s request to convene a Washington, D.C. grand jury, and who apparently will continue to “umpire” disputes over the grand jury’s work (which, in reality, is Mueller’s work). As I discussed earlier today, Howell served for ten years as a staffer for Sen. Patrick Leahy, the hyper-partisan leftist.

An unnamed Washington lobbyist assured the Daily Beast that Judge Howell has been a”very straight-arrow as a judge.” He compared her to Robert Mueller — the quintessential alleged straight shooter, now that James Comey has been discredited.

If you’re a conservative and you hear a pillar of the Washington legal community described as a straight shooter, your best response is to duck.

With this in mind, let’s look at a few of the things I’ve learned today about Beryl Howell’s actions as a federal judge. I’ll exclude rumors unless and until they are corroborated.

Item: Judge Howell presided over a trial in which left-wing talk show host Ed Schultz was sued by a sound engineer for breach of an alleged partnership agreement. According to the Daily Caller, Howell showed blatant favoritism for Schultz and contempt for the plaintiff’s lead lawyer.

If so, it might have been because she ruled for Schultz in the first trial only to be reversed on appeal. In any event, one trial watcher reportedly expressed concern that Howell’s behavior would taint the jury’s ability to be fair, especially the impressionable younger jurors who may be influenced by her obvious hatred for the plaintiff’s lawyer.

Plaintiff did lose the case on retrial. In the appeal of that case, plaintiff argued, among things, that Judge Howell belittled plaintiff’s counsel as a Jacksonville, Florida attorney who does not understand the “highly educated, experienced, professional people [of] Washington, D.C.” According to the Daily Caller, Schultz’s lawyers acknowledged that Howell’s comments were “stern” (very probably a euphemism) but not grounds for reversal.

If the picture the Daily Caller paints is even close to accurate, Judge Howell is not a straight shooter.

Item: According to this report from PJ Media, Judge Howell left out the words “so help me God” from a naturalization ceremony. These words are part of the oath prescribed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides for a religious exemption from saying “so help me God.” When a petitioner or applicant for naturalization, by reason of religious training and belief (or individual interpretation thereof), or for other reasons of good conscience, cannot utter this phrase, the words “solemnly affirm” shall be substituted, and the oath shall be taken in such modified form.

However, again according to PJ Media, Judge Howell did use the words “solemnly affirm” either. If she was going to exclude God, she should at least have used the alternative expression of solemnity.

Item: Speaking of immigrants, according to the same PJ Media article, Judge Howell rejected a challenge to Obama’s executive actions that would have provided work permits to undocumented immigrants who met certain requirements. As we all know, the Supreme Court later blocked this blatantly illegal order from taking effect.

Judge Howell’s ruling strongly suggests that, for her, left-wing ideology trumps law.

Item: Judge Howell sided with a liberal law professor who sued to obtain records regarding fences the federal government intends to build along portions of the Texas-Mexico border. “Revealing the identities of landowners in the wall’s planned construction site may shed light on the impact of indigenous communities, the disparate impact on lower-income minority communities, and the practices of private contractors,” she wrote (opinion here).

This ruling was clearly a victory for liberals, who have taken all kinds of actions to block implementation of the federal law requiring the building of fencing. This doesn’t mean Judge Howell’s ruling was wrong. Although the quotation above from Judge Howell seems lame, the issue is fairly complicated, and I haven’t had time to do the analysis necessary to reach a conclusion. However, I think it’s worth bringing the case to the attention of readers who are trying to get a handle on the judge who finds herself in a position, potentially, to do great harm to the U.S. president.

Such a judge needs to be a true straight shooter, not a Washington-issue one. Judge Howell does not even come across as the latter kind. She appears to be a doctrinaire liberal, just as one would expect a former Leahy staffer to be.

I live in the Washington, D.C. area. I know plenty of people around here who aren’t nearly as leftist this judge appears to be, but who despise President Trump. There’s a good chance Judge Howell relishes the chance to stick it to him.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/more-on-the-leftist-judge-who-approved-muellers-grand-jury.php

Fake American Obama’s Legal Lady Lynch Hid Behind Fake Identity

OBAMA’S ATTORNEY GENERAL USED FAKE IDENTITY TO HIDE CLINTON INVESTIGATION E-MAILS

“Former President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, used a fake name to cover up an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, indicates an admission from Lynch’s attorney.

Lynch was caught conducting a secret meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a private plane on a tarmac in Phoenix last year as Clinton’s wife pursued the presidency and amid an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecured email server, which she illegally used during her tenure as secretary of State. Soon afterward, the former attorney general reportedly used a pseudonym to coordinate a narrative about the meeting with Department of Justice officials, Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller reports. 

Also shortly after the private plane meeting, former FBI director James Comey announced that agency would not pursue a case against Clinton, despite admitting he had enough evidence to do so. A month later, Lynch announced the DOJ would not investigate the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with the State Department during Hillary’s tenure, despite the FBI’s reccommendation to do so. The chain of events caused many to question Lynch’s motives, as it was also widely reported that Hillary planned to keep Lynch as attorney general had Clinton won the election.

Using an email account under a fake name, Lynch (a.k.a. “Elizabeth Carlisle”) coordinated with DOJ officials to respond to queries about the secretive meeting with the former president. Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, confirmed her use of an alias on Monday and said she used an email account under a fake identity to prevent “inundation of mailboxes.”

Using fake names was a common tactic among Obama administration officials to evade accountability.  AG Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson all did so when serving in public offices during Obama’s tenure. Lois Lerner, an IRS official who has been suspected of using the tax-collecting agency to target conservative nonprofit organizations, is also thought tohave used an email address registered to a pseudonym to conduct official business.

Reporters at The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and ABC News were hesitant to cover Lynch’s secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, according to emails between journalists and DOJ officials the American Center for Law and Justice recently obtained.

“My editors are still pretty interested in it and I’m hoping to put it to rest by answering just a few more questions about how the meeting came about,” wrote Matt Zapotosky, a reporter for the Post — which recently changed its motto to “Democracy dies in darkness” — in an email to a DOJ official.”

 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/07/obamas-attorney-general-used-fake-identity-hide-clinton-investigation-e-mails/

America’s Current War Against America’s Freedom of Speech

I entered college in 1952.  I majored in Geography and learned to speak Russian quite fluently with an exquisite pronunciation of  the Czarist educated tongue taught by the refugees who escaped execution either from the Russian Motherland directly or from Manchuria when Mao was becoming the world’s mass murderer of all time.   I received a graduate degree in Russian in 1965.

I exercised my ‘exquisite’ Russian in  the USSR on two occasions, in summer of 1966 when the nation was economically ruined but still a vicious fascist state, and again in autumn in 1990 with a group of American Christians who had collected donations to aid the surviving victims of the Chernobyl horror in the Ukraine, a time before Putin,  that first autumn in Soviet life when free speech in public broke out in Kiev…when the tanks were prepared to kill in the traditional Soviet way, but were not instructed to do so.

Leftist fascism is presently tickling our Obamaling Democrat Party  mind these days and so,  is being taught and   practiced at college and university and telecast at television’s fake news centers  nearly everywhere between the Atlantic and the Pacific.   Feminists and Black Racists are noted for their leadership of  the most violent where ever they feast.   And then there is truthless Van Jones, Sanctuary Cities,  Bernie Sanders, and realclearpolitics in general.

Please read the following  realclearpolitics article of great truth by Peter Berkowitz exposing the campus declaration of war against free speech.

Campus Declarations of War on Free Speech

by Peter Berkowitz  at realclearpolitics:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/04/campus_declarations_of_war_on_free_speech_134666.html

French Macron Exposes Courage

BY EUROPEAN STANDARDS, MACRON IS COURAGEOUS

During the French presidential election, Emmanuel Macron didn’t impress me. He seemed like the mother country’s version of Justin Trudeau. But earlier this month, he scandalized proper opinion in the EU with some straight talk about Africa:

At a G20 summit press conference in Hamburg on July 8, French President Emmanuel Macron answered a call for an African “Marshall Plan” from a Cote d’Ivoire journalist. Macron’s stern, clear-eyed rebuff to was startling, as he dismissed the idea with some disdain: “We among the West have been discussing such Marshall plans for Africa for many years and have in fact given many such plans already. So if it were so simple, it would have been fixed already.”

He went on: “The challenge of Africa is totally different, much deeper, it is civilization today.” He cited failed states trafficking in drugs, weapons, humans, and cultural property, Islamic terrorism, and said for a kicker: “when countries have still today 7 to 8 children per woman, you can decide to spend billions of euros, you stabilize nothing.”

I am not sure why this is considered shocking. When millions of inhabitants flee Continent A, entrusting their fates to criminals and risking their lives in inadequate boats in hopes of reaching Continent B, it is blindingly obvious that Continent B is a much better place than Continent A. Such drastic superiority can only be the result of a superior culture, as manifested, inter alia, in superior civic institutions.

Macron touched the third rail. He drew immediate, international censure for his antiquated views, insulting Africa, and white European supremacism. Macron is France’s new roi soleil. How could this happen—the Atlantic beau monde asked itself in horror—this horrible, unthinkable gaffe? Finally, in Foreign Policy Remi Adekoya posed the question, “Is It Racist to Say Africa Has ‘Civilizational’ Problems?”

Yawn. Are there really people who believe that serious conversation about the relationship between Europe and Africa can be shut down by yammering about “racism”?

The possible impact of sub-Saharan African demography and migrations in 21st century Europe is “almost too overwhelming to contemplate,” says a world-traveled London banker I know. But I do hope some very smart, sensible people at the United Nations, World Bank, Palais de l’Élysée, and European Union are giving this serious thought. I know that Beijing is.

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is exploding. That is naturally a concern to European politicians who assume that they can’t put limits on immigration from that continent. One way or another, of course, the future belongs to those who have children.

They come from Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Somalia, and Mali, all over. Mostly Muslim, sometimes Christian or animist, they come, barely literate and with few skills, from a world of shanties, disease and danger, from vast urban slums with zero sanitation or barely electrified villages, a world of bushmeat and fetishes, where life is very cheap.

They want to raise their standard of living in Europe’s welfare states, which is not hard to do. And as everyone knows, including the UN, World Bank, Macron, and the EU establishment, there are hundreds of millions more back home, itching to migrate, as well as an African population explosion going on.

You can’t blame them for wanting to move from poverty, danger and cultural deprivation to the European welfare state. The U.S. conducts a “diversity” lottery under which 50,000 people are randomly allowed to emigrate to this country. In 2012, more than 8.5 million Bangladeshis applied for the U.S. lottery. Why wouldn’t they?

Europe obviously can’t survive in anything like its present form if it welcomes all the Africans who want to live there and are able to wash up on its shores. For practical purposes, there is no end to that migration if the floodgates are open: currently, the population of Africa is 1.2 billion and rising rapidly, while the population of Europe is 743 million and, but for immigration, stagnant.

For Europe, African immigration is an existential question. It is good to see that at least one major EU leader is willing to talk about it.