• 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

YOUR WORLD WITH FASCISTIC PHIL CAVUTO

Arrogant, big mouth, cocky, Foxy, antiPresident Trump, Phil Cavuto,  seems to be one of the Fox News  fascistics who froth at their joy mouth to eliminate our American 45th President from the nation’s White House as soon as possible.

Is President Trump  too American for the business folks at Fox News?   Perhaps he can’t be controlled for he LOVES HIS COUNTRY JUST AS I And  MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANS DO!!!   He is not bought or otherwise controlled by BUSINESS, BIG OR INTERNATIONAL.  Is that what makes so many mouths of Fox “News” reporters and reviewers like Cavuto to cheat, distort, so often complain and/or squeal against the President at news hours?  Is it instruction from station leftists or personal?

Or is the American population under age 50 so uneducated, so obtuse to American existence at home and abroad, so drugged, Godless,  and lost in life bearing  no brains clear enough to handle learning right from wrong,  those vitally  important matters of civilized human existence?

Did or did not President Donald J. Trump, while talking on the phone with the President of the Ukraine President, Volodymyr Zelensky,  utter any word or words wondering about  a serious rumor  that a flaky American Vice President’s son, a young man of many serious background issues, carped millions of dollars out of  Ukraine pockets to score a bit of  fuel business for the weak nation nearly crushed by papa Russia?

So what?    Major corruption was in the air.   How did millions of dollars wind up in the pocket of  Vice President’s troubled son?

Dem fascists wouldn’t hear of something so possibly TRUE.  These fascists and fascistics, almost fascists) are programmed to assault before, during, or/and, after such news…THEY OWN OUR PRESS!

Ancient American MILLIONAIRE, Biddy Pelosi, with countless fascist and fascistic Dem friends and allies, immediately turned to their press and television command worlds.  These fascistics  OWN parts of  the Wall Street Journal, and, outside of radio, nearly every  newspaper and television news communication apparatus in our American world.

If TRUTH had any value in today’s American lines of knowledge, business, and communication,  Democrat candidate for the Leftist American Presidency, Ditsy Vice President Joseph Biden should be confronted by law for possible corruption charges,  NOT TO LIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

But TRUTH HAS NO MEANING AMONG  TODAY’S ADAM SCHIFF  ANIMALS DOMINATING OUR ONCE HONORABLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  THEY ARE EITHER MUTE, FOREVER LIARS, OR  FASCISTS OR FASCISTICS PLOTTING “GOOD BYE AMERICA!!!

UNTIL PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE WERE  ALREADY IN OUR CONGRESSIONAL TAR PITS…..ARE YOU TOO UNLEARNED TO KNOW IT?…..OR DO YOU LIVE IN A TODAY’S AMERICAN DEM  BODY WHERE TRUTH,  AND GOODNESS  NO LONGER EXIST?”

These Pelosi fascists of our day who own news television and America’s newsprint from the Atlantic to the Pacific dictate the news that  President Trump has committed a serious crime, one for impeachment and removal from office.   That is the way the fascist Left in power makes truth and knowledge disappear!  Enough noise must overwhelm their own leftist corruptions so their evil can never be reported,  exposed.

I fell in love with Donald becoming our American President,  I think it was August 6, 2015 at Fox center, when the Republican National Committee was plotting to get rid of Mr. Trump as its GOP Candidate for the Presidency……Fox’s Megyn Kelly plotting to get rid of him asap as a presidential GOP candidate listed a few difficulties he had had with some women in the news….asking him if this was the way he viewed all women, never asking any difficult responses from  any of Fox-approved Republicans.

Donald answered, “No, only Rosie O’Donnell.”   My love for Trump began.  My love for functional, staid Republicans diminished.   I have loved and admired Donald ever since!

I am 85.   Somewhere in my 50s  when Donald Trump was happily married to his first wife, well before his Hollywood business jaunt and its episodes I was captured by  a two hour television program about his life.   His was a totally different world from my very modest life teaching  high school Social Studies and Russian in Minneapolis or later on, garden landscaping after being fired by telling Truths about school system to the public.

In the television review Donald Trump  spoke highly of his dad and mom and his opportunities…..had attended two private schools, the second one, according to his dad,  for more discipline in learnings!

Did you know Donald Trump was a gifted athlete in a number of sports.   If I remember the television biography  correctly, when he graduated college, he was offered a contract by the New York Yankees….what else?   HE TURNED THE OFFER DOWN TO WORK FOR HIS DAD IN THE BUILDING BUSINESS.

I was aware Mr. Trump lost his close older brother to alcoholism….according to the biography…..apparently a  main reason our President abstains.

My own dad was Republican.  He was an athlete and a pharmacist.  I married a Democrat in 1957 and remained one until Ronald Reagan.   I did like President John F. Kennedy very much, but no one else in his peculiar family.

Hillary was, is purely evil.   And so are the censoring big business and racist  fascists and fascistics who have taken over today’s once honorable American Democratic Party.

Will 45th American President,  Donald J. Trump,  overcome the Rise of our American fascists and fascistics now dominating American education, communication, and political worlds?

Obviously we cannot know the future.  But, with the rise of our new leaders,  Donald J. Trump and our Dennis Prager spreading knowledge, freedoms, and exposing Truth, WE AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM HAVE A GOOD CHANCE!  ghr

P.S.   HAVE A WONDERFUL  SUNDAY!

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

Clarence Thomas Speaks the Truth for SCOTUS on Abortion

by Mario Diaz  at  American Thinker:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/clarence_thomas_speaks_the_truth_for_scotus_on_abortion.html

“CLARENCE THOMAS IS BY FAR THE BEST SCOTUS JUSTICE IN RECENT DECADES”

Taming the Bench: MAGA Means Ending Judicial Precedent

“It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of decreeing accordingly.” So said Anglo-Irish essayist Jonathan Swift in Gulliver’s Travels in 1726. Unfortunately, something has changed almost three centuries later:

The decisions have perhaps become even more iniquitous.

Swift was rightly mocking the notion of “judicial precedent.” Yet it’s even more preposterous in our time and place, for at least 18th-century British judges didn’t have a constitution to violate. How is the principle even remotely defensible, however, in a nation with our Constitution, the “supreme law of the land”?

One justice who apparently understands this is Clarence Thomas, who just wrote the majority opinion in a recent decision (Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt) overturning a 1979 precedent. He was the ideal candidate for the task, as it has been noted that he’s not a “Court conservative” as much as an originalist. A conservative, after all, would hew to the status quo, which here means honoring precedent. In contrast, as SCOTUSblog pointed out in 2007, Thomas “believes that precedent qua precedent concerning constitutional law has no value at all; he does not give stare decisis  [the notion that judicial decisions should not be undone] any weight.”

This is why I’ve long said that Thomas is by far the best SCOTUS justice of recent decades (yes, that includes Scalia). Moreover, it’s certainly right to distinguish between Thomas’ originalism and being merely a “Court conservative,” which more and more is seeming akin to a court jester.

Why this is so was encapsulated well by British philosopher G.K. Chesterton when he wrote, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.”

Stare decisis’ folly should be obvious. In what other field would anyone assert that once a decision is made, it stays made? Since it’s a statistical certainty that not all decisions will be good ones, this standard only ensures the permanency of error.

Yet to fully grasp stare decisis’ outrageousness, an analogy is useful. Chief Justice John Roberts once correctly said that a judge’s role is only to call “balls and strikes” (this was before he decided that a ball could be a strike when striking a blow for statism). Expanding on this, judges are in fact like baseball umpires, whereas the players are akin to the people, the sport’s ruling body is a sort of legislature and the rulebook is essentially its constitution.

Now, it goes without saying that if an umpire “ruled” contrary to the rulebook — let’s say, refusing to call a player out after three strikes because he believed they were too few — we wouldn’t flatter his falsity and legitimize his legerdemain by calling him a “pragmatist” with a “living document” philosophy. We’d recognize him as a bad umpire derelict in his duty, and he’d be fired.

To the point, however, what would you say about someone who not only accepted his judgment, but viewed it as unchangeable “precedent”?

This notion is just as ridiculous when applied to judges — only far more dangerous. It should in fact disqualify someone from the bench, for justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

They do not take an oath to uphold other judges.

Imagine the reaction if we applied this stare decisis philosophy to President Trump’s determinations. Imagine we said that not only can he “change” the law on the basis that it’s “living,” but that his decisions should then be binding on all future presidents. How would that go over?

No, the analogy isn’t invalid because he’s not a black-robed lawyer. All these officeholders take an oath to uphold the Constitution — and none of them are supposed to be above that supreme law of the land.

Many want to be, though. Power is an aphrodisiac, and this brings us to why judges’ love affair with precedent reflects nothing noble. As Thomas Jefferson explained in an 1820 letter in which he warned about judicial supremacy, “Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.”

This was perhaps reflected in liberal Justice Stephen Breyer’s reaction to the recently overturned precedent. “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next,” he complained. A good justice would be concerned only with what unconstitutional precedent would not be overturned next.

But why is Breyer upset? Is it because he wants to maintain the power of his corps and its privilege of being above the law?

Stare decisis is just a euphemistic way of saying that judges’ decisions — “precedent” — should take precedence over the Constitution. This perverts our system. It undermines the republic. We’re supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Constitution reflects the people’s will in that it was ratified by the states and because Americans tacitly approve it to this day it by allowing it to stand; after all, they can amend it through their representatives.

Yet when judges place their own opinions above the Constitution, such as when elevating precedent, they establish themselves as an oligarchy. We then don’t have the rule of law but the rule of lawyers, a government of, by and for those who’ve arrogated to themselves the power and privilege to manipulate the law according to their own will.

Note, too, that hard and fast respect for precedent actually has no precedent, as our history’s more than 100 overturned SCOTUS decisions attest. So why do leftists now act as if it’s sacrosanct?

Because after more than a century of moving the courts “left,” there’s now a large body of unconstitutional, leftist precedents that serve their agenda. Stare decisis is not for these people principle but ploy, a convenient value of the moment.

Thus, when going through the Senate confirmation process, the norm now is for more “conservative” judges to be asked if they’ll abide by certain precedents (i.e., Roe v. Wade). Translated, this is a demand to conserve yesterday’s progressives’ mistakes.

In reality, judicial nominees should be asked if they’ll respect precedent — and then be roundly rejected upon answering yes. For we can’t MAGA unless we MAJJA: Make American Judges Judges Again. For tolerating oligarchs in black robes ensures a dark future.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/taming_the_bench_maga_means_ending_judicial_precedent.html