• 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

Dennis’ Plea for Donald that Eve of America’s Victory Over Fascism

A Final Plea to Never-Trumpers

by Dennis Prager at The Patriot Post,  Nov. 8, 2016

 

“It is very hard to publicly affirm a position for nearly a year and to then, at the last minute, change one’s mind.

Nevertheless, even as late as Election Day itself, I wish to address those conservatives and Republicans who have declared themselves Never-Trumpers.

I was one of you in vigorously opposing Trump’s nomination — on my national radio show and in my syndicated column. And I paid a price, as you have, in losing longtime supporters — in my case any number of listeners who supported Trump from the outset and found my strong opposition to him disappointing and worse.

Unlike you, however, I did say from the beginning that if he were to be the nominee, I would vote for him.

On this Election Day, I am more convinced than ever that this was the right position. I even have to believe that in the wee hours of the night — when worrying about the current and future state of our beloved country keeps you awake — many of you have at least wondered whether you have taken the right position.

Most of you are simply too intelligent, too idealistic and too self-questioning not to have at least on occasion had second thoughts. If you understand — and I cannot believe that most of you don’t — how destructive another four years of any Democrat in the White House, let alone the truly corrupt Hillary Clinton, would be, it is inconceivable that you have never questioned your Never-Trump position. Never-Trump, after all, is not the same as Never-Question.

To prove my point, one of my favorite Never-Trumpers, Jonah Goldberg, wrote in May: “If the election were a perfect tie, and the vote fell to me and me alone, I’d probably vote for none other than Donald Trump.”

In that moment of exquisite honesty, Jonah acknowledged one of the most important moral arguments to be made for voting for Trump — the Lesser of Two Evils argument.

To which conservatives who won’t vote for Trump often respond: “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

Now, forgive me, but that it is a complete non sequitur, morally and intellectually unworthy of any conservative, religious or secular, who makes it. The only relevant moral lesson here is not that the lesser of two evil is still evil; it is that choosing the lesser of two evils, by definition, increases good. Would you amputate your leg if it might save your life? Or would you say that because losing your life and losing your leg are both evils, you won’t amputate your leg because the lesser of two evils is still evil?

Then there is the Never-Trump argument that Donald Trump isn’t a conservative. I agree that he hasn’t been his whole life, because he probably never gave the subject of the differences between left and right five of minutes of serious thought (nor, if we are to be honest, did Republican presidential nominee John McCain, whom I also worked hard to elect). But Trump and Mike Pence and his top political advisors are well to the right of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As Victor Davis Hanson wrote last week, in his plea to Never-Trumpers:

“On the Supreme Court, Obamacare, the debt, rebuilding the military, the Second Amendment, school choice, abortion, reforming the tax code, re-examining regulation, energy exploration and production, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and a host of other issues, the Republican ticket is the antithesis of Clinton/Kaine — and is recognized as such by nearly all progressives.”

Why isn’t all that enough to vote for Trump?

Then there is the argument that electing Trump means that in the eyes of many Americans, especially young Americans, Trump will embody conservatism and Republicanism, and that would be a calamity.

On that noble concern, I am not willing to turn America over to four more years of leftism. First of all, the damage the left will do, if not permanent, will almost certainly last a generation. And I happen to think it could very well be permanent. Can you name a country outside of some formerly Communist countries (which had Communism forced on them), that chose to go left and has fully recovered from a generation of leftism?

Given the arguments in favor of voting for Trump, I see only three possible explanations for conservatives helping to elect Hillary Clinton.

One is that they are certain Donald Trump is so psychologically imbalanced that he will jeopardize America and the world. But they have to be certain of this. If they have any doubts, they have to vote for him — because they are certain about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. And between certitude and incertitude, one must always act on what is certain.

The second is their self-image: How can they, truly decent people, vote for someone who has exhibited the uncouth speech and behavior that Trump has? Or, as some have expressed it, “How can I explain to my daughter that I supported Donald Trump?”

As someone who also thinks of himself as decent, I think that saving America from Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the left is the most decent thing I can do. And as for your daughter, just have her speak to any of the millions of wonderful women who are voting for Donald Trump. They will provide your daughter with perfectly satisfying moral and woman-centered answers.

And the third explanation for the Never-Trump conservatives is they that they believe we will survive four more years of left-wing rule, and that America is really not in such bad shape anyway. That argument was made this weekend by a writer for National Review. “The United States of America is not a wreck,” he reassures us. “The people who are telling you that it is — on both sides — are trying to sell you something. Don’t buy it.”

Question: What exactly am I, or Victor Davis Hanson, or Thomas Sowell, or at least half of The Wall Street Journal columnists, or millions of religious Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Mormons trying to “sell you”?

And second, that writer and others who think like him seem to be living in a different country than I am. Because compared to America at any time in its history except for the Civil War years, the country I am living in is indeed a wreck — and getting worse each day, and in every way. After another four years of a Democrat in the White House the country called the United States will still be here, but America as envisioned since its founding — as the world’s beacon of individual liberty, Lincoln’s “Last Best Hope of Earth” — won’t.

To think otherwise is willful self-delusion……..”

Dennis Prager, the great American conservative teacher in today’s America, has become one of America’s favorite intellectual preachers backing our nation’s 45th President, Donald J. Trump!   I am so relieved for I admire these two living Americans who love their country so above all others.

I first met Our Dennis a week before the US 2004 Presidential election, George Bush versus the silly huckster from Massachusetts and Vietnam, John Kerry.    A close friend of mine, a talented artist of quality painting, was a regular listener to the Dennis Prager show late mornings here in Minnesota.   We were both clones of the same conservative politics and very unhappy about the decline of the  American condition.

It must have been a Monday for all three Prager hours were spent reviewing the coming critical election.  John Kerry was a known chronic liar, a proven  charlatan playing hero movie-making in Vietnam, and suspected of being a gigolo to secure his wife’s wealth from the Heinz world.  Besides, he was a Senator from Massachusetts.  How more political criminal could one become?

In five minutes Dennis was railing about Kerry being an empty suit measuring every button…..(Wow, did he know this worm well!)   He began describing the Senator  rather professorially as if lecturing about Kerry countless  “weaknesses” rather than faults…all true,  well known, and perfectly described.   As Dennis reached into his second  bag  of fifty Kerry faults, his voice tightened, its volume increased, cadence quickened, until his  fury caught fire to a level of explosion as if Truth had nuked Emotion…..ALL OF IT ACCURATE….RIGHT ON, DENNIS PRAGER!!

I became a major  fan of Dennis Prager that moment and ever since with the single exception of his months of distaste for  Our Donald until Donald was the only Republican left to save America.   Dennis  was so wrong, so bigoted, so stubborn and unfair, so unDennisly wrong regarding the soul, character, and intelligence, and most of all, the love this Donald Trump truly had for his country.

I was myself a convert.   Yesterday was my 83rd birthday.  I had religiously followed American presidential elections since Truman beat Dewey in 1948.    Until August 6, 2016 my review of Our Donald was similar, a fancy pants from New York wealth who had a number of marriages and led  some kind of a dumb show on television, an Eastern  kook who had threatened off and on to run for the American presidency in the past.

I remember reading newspaper  details of Donald Trump’s divorce by his  first wife, Ivana, decades ago.   My own summation of his real  presidential  value was also deep in Dennis’  pit of the ridiculous until  Megan Kelly advertising herself as a wounded feminist approached Our Donald at the first Fox  Republican presidential “debate” worried about his view of women,  “You’ve called them pigs” and such,  and then dumped the only nasty questions of the evening on Our Donald, “Is this the way you feel about all women?”

I admit I boiled immediately over the unfairness.   Sweet talk and sugar fed to all but one of the ten   contestants, to this Donald J. Trump.

And then Donald’s answer….”No!  Only Rosie O’Donnell!”    It took him one second of television time  before that answer roused a roar of laughter from the large Fox live audience, the volume likely never heard at Fox before or since.

It was then I sent myself through the internet to learn more about Donald Trump’s background…his love for his parents, respect for his Dad and older brother, his athletic and scholastic talents…..he was offered a major league baseball contract following college, but decided to work with his dad’s building industry instead.     I learned about his terribly  public first divorce, the Mother of three of his five children, and that he slipped into mid life miasma….my interpretation.

He had taken risks in his businesses.  He had weathered  difficulties usually with problem solving abilities   brighter than anyone  else.   For more than a decade he often  carped in public about America’s demise, cultural and political,  the same complaints I had collected.

I found out Donald Trump  was well liked by his staffs and was known to have had a habit of paying out of the blue for common folk accidents physical and/or financial…..and that he doesn’t drink or smoke….the testament against drinking coming from the loss of his older brother who could not end his alcoholism and instead  killed himself.

In two weeks he was my man!    After Donald Trump’s  election Dennis interviewed my long time American political-social conservative favorite, David Horowitz whose articles I used to read in the 1960s when he was still an active Communist out in California.   Dennis noted to his radio listeners that unlike himself, David Horowitz had converted to the  Trump candidacy quite early in the campaign.   He asked David what moved him to favor Our Donald.

Horowitz answered “the moment Trump  answered Megyn Kelly’s question implying he was rude to   women and so, couldn’t qualify for the presidency that  first Fox debate assembly, the night Our Donald  corrected her assumption by answering, “No! Only Rosie O’Donnell”.

My favorite American Presidents of my lifetime before the blessed election of Donald J. Trump,  and I have followed  them all closely since 1948,  are a threesome….in order,  Ronald Reagan, Harry S. Truman, and John F. Kennedy.

Already Our Donald has move ahead of all of them….Our America is going through a hell right now…..with chaos at home with atheism,  the hysterical feminist collegiates and black racist-Marxist riots and rebellion, and the Islamic fanaticism  the “Un” in North Korea abroad with  the Charles Schumer and worse anti-democratic socialist dictatorial oriented leadership of the once honorable Democrat Party.

Dennis!   God Bless You for the good you now know exists in Our Donald.   This Donald Trump expressed the best American message to the World ever spoken by an American President this past week.     He has the advantage of not being a programmed politician and so, speaks from his soul…..A GOD FEARING SOUL WHO LOVES AMERICA, I have noticed….Haven’t you also, Dennis and dear readers?

 

 

Advertisements

Press Pressed by Trump Moves Against North Korea Regime

TRUMP MOVES AGAINST NORTH KOREA, PRESS IS CONFUSED

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Today President Trump issued an executive order that imposes financial sanctions on those who do business with North Korea:

President Trump announced new U.S. financial sanctions Thursday that target North Korea and foreign companies or individuals that do business with the rogue nation….

The new penalties seek to leverage the dominance of the U.S. financial system by forcing nations to choose whether to do business with the United States or the comparatively tiny economy of North Korea.

The main target, I take it, is China, and there are preliminary indications that the Chinese may be responding:

Significantly, Trump also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping had ordered Chinese banks to cease conducting business with North Korean entities. Trump praised Xi, calling the move “very bold” and “somewhat unexpected.”

The administration was careful not to over-sell the move, saying that it won’t change the Kim regime’s goals and attitudes. Rather, the objective is to slow down North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs by starving them, partially, of funding.

One might think that liberal reporters, who pretend to think that President Trump might launch missiles at North Korea at any moment, would applaud Trump’s latest move, but–just kidding. No one expected that.

Today U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley gave a press briefing in New York. Reporters were aware that on October 15, President Trump will report to Congress on Iran’s compliance, or lack thereof, with Obama’s nuclear deal. Trump will either certify, or decline to certify, Iran’s compliance. He will also report on Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missiles work, and its support for terrorism. Here are the relevant questions and Ambassador Haley’s answers. Note how the reporters misapprehend the relationship between the current North Korea crisis and the Iran deal:

Q The German Foreign Minister said today that any disavowal of the Iran Deal would reduce the likelihood of getting any similar disarmament deal with North Korea. Do you share those concerns that any actions on the Iran Deal might reduce the possibility of getting a deal with North Korea?
And separately, as a point of clarification, do you support a full oil embargo on North Korea?

AMBASSADOR HALEY: So I think let’s go back to Iran in the first place. What I will tell you is, a lot of countries are going to have their opinions on whether the U.S. should stay in the deal or not. But those countries don’t have Iranians saying “death to America.” They’re not saying “death to Germany.” They’re not saying all of those things. What we can see is terrorist attacks happening everywhere with ties to Iran. And that’s something we need to be careful about.

And so it has never moved the U.S. to care about what other countries say. What does move the President is, are we doing everything in the best interest — security interest for the American people. And that’s what you’re seeing is playing out.

In terms of comparing Iran to North Korea, that’s exactly what we’re doing, is we had so many bad deals with North Korea and everybody looked the other way. And every time they broke that deal, they looked the other way. Well, where are we now? They now have a hydrogen bomb. They now have ICBM. So if we don’t do something and we make the same mistakes we made with North Korea, we will be dealing with Iran that has nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. And so that’s the concern and that’s what we’re trying to do with that.

The point seems blindingly obvious–let’s not repeat the mistakes we made with North Korea in the case of Iran–but reporters (and Democrats generally) don’t seem to get it. More:

Q Ambassador, how can the U.S. maintain its diplomatic credibility and get a nuclear deal with North Korea when it is willing to consider blowing up, damaging, putting in peril the existing diplomatic deal with Iran on its program? Doesn’t this undermine U.S. credibility?

To a liberal, “credibility” means reliably and consistently being a sucker. Ambassador Haley knocks this one out of the park:

AMBASSADOR HALEY: It does not undermine U.S. credibility. What it shows is that the United States is going to always watch out for its people, and that just because there was some agreement that was agreed to — the smartest thing any country can do is go back and look at it and say, “is it working”; not have too much pride to say, “Oh, I signed it, I have to continue to be a cheerleader.” Is it working?

And I’ll ask you, do you think that deal is working when Iran continues to test ballistic missiles? Do you think that deal is working when they are supporting terrorists everywhere, from Lebanon to Yemen to Syria to Iraq? Do you think it’s still working? And do you think it’s still working when they’re smuggling arms and now working with North Korea? Is that in the best interest of the United States?

I would question that. Because what you’re looking at is a country that says “death to America,” working with other countries that may also want the same thing. And the President has the responsibility to make sure nothing happens to Americans. And I think that’s what he’s trying to do.

When the Democratic Party’s representatives get chewed up like that, it is a good day for the Trump administration, and for America.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/09/trump-moves-against-north-korea-press-is-confused.php

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

When Our Donald Visited Poland

Renouncing Fatalism: Trump and Tocqueville in Poland

“Trump did well in Poland to eschew all talk of “the wrong side of history” and instead to emphasize the real power, for good and ill, that we have over our own destiny. By doing so he defended our dignity and upheld our humanity.

Donald Trump says a lot of striking things. This tendency has been the theme of a good deal of commentary over the last two years. Less noticed, but no less interesting, are his striking omissions: Trump says many things that a normal politician would not say, but he also sometimes omits things that a normal politician would say. And sometimes those omissions are not to be regretted but praised. Such is the case with President Trump’s recent address to the people of Poland.

Speaking in Warsaw, Trump warned his listeners that civilization is threatened by extremism and terrorism. He then reassured his listeners that the enemies of civilization would be defeated. So far, the president had said nothing that many other modern, western political leaders might also have said in a speech about international affairs—although the commonplace character of his warnings and reassurances might have been somewhat obscured by the combative tone for which he is so famous.

Then came the remarkable and significant omission. Trump did not rest his reassurance on the same ground as the typical politician would. The kind of contemporary political leader to which we are accustomed would have told his audience that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because they are “on the wrong side of history.”

Trump said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, he said, in effect, that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because the defenders of civilization are determined to defeat them. “Our adversaries,” Trump said, “are doomed because we will never forget who we are,” and we, accordingly, will not fail to do what is necessary to preserve the blessings we have inherited.

This rhetorical change makes all the difference in the world. The typical formulation reassures us that goodness will prevail because History—understood as a superhuman, impersonal force—tends of its own accord in the direction of goodness. This is history as it is understood by the ideology of progress, moving of necessity toward greater enlightenment, freedom, and justice for all human beings.

Trump’s formulation, in contrast, holds that goodness will prevail because the good will exert themselves. On his view, the outcome rests on us—not on any impersonal, superhuman forces but on personal and human ones. Trump hammered this point home by raising the possibility that civilization would be destroyed if civilized people fail to do their part to defend it. The failure of the enemies of civilization, he suggested, is conditional: they are “doomed to fail ifwe want them to fail.” And if we do not do our duty, this civilization, which is unlike any that has existed before, will pass away and “will never, ever exist again.”

In framing the issue in this way, Trump performed an important service—at least according to the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville. It is unlikely that Trump has ever studied Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Perhaps, then, it was by what Machiavelli would have called a “fortunate astuteness” that the president addressed a democratic people in precisely the way that a responsible democratic statesman should address them……….”   Please read the entire article!

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/07/19741/

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

Nazi = NATIONAL SOCIALIST No Matter How Often Today’s American Leftist Democrats LIE

NEO-NAZIS AND COMMUNISTS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Neo-Nazis have been around for a long time. I remember learning as a teenager that there was an American Nazi party led by George Lincoln Rockwell. It seemed odd, but no one paid much attention. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists–the terms seem to be used interchangeably these days–have been with us for decades, regarded as irrelevant fringe groups consisting of nuts and watchful FBI agents.

Suddenly, though, that has changed. Neo-Nazi/white supremacist groups turned out a few hundred tiki torch-carrying goofs in Charlottesville, and now these fringe kooks have become, we are told, a crisis of the republic. Politicians race to denounce them, and President Trump has been criticized in many quarters for not denouncing them fast enough, or harshly enough, or uniquely–that is, without denouncing anyone else at the same time. If that sounds crazy, you are right. It is crazy.

Neo-Nazi sightings, no matter how lame, have become newsworthy. Thus, the Daily Mailreports, breathlessly, on “The shocking moment Neo-Nazis gather at Arlington shopping center to commemorate assassinated leader with Nazi flag and salute.”

A small group of neo-Nazis held a ceremony outside a shopping mall, sparking a protest by angry neighbors in response.

The neo-Nazis, five men and one woman, were marking the 50th anniversary of the assassination of American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell in Arlington, Virginia, around noon on Friday.

The small group fit into a single parking spot at the Dominion Hills Shopping Center, where 50 years previously, on August 25, 1967, a disgruntled fellow Nazi shot and killed Rockwell.

Here they are. All six of them:

Their brief ceremony prompted a much larger outpouring of outrage from nearby residents who were determined to show, apparently, that they are opposed to the scourge of Nazism:

After 70 years of irrelevance, neo-Nazis have finally arrived, although they are still (or perhaps more than ever) rare birds. I personally have never met a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist. I have, however, met quite a few Communists. And last year, the Democratic Party likely would have nominated for president a man who admits he is a socialist and who spent his honeymoon in the USSR’s Communist utopia, but for the DNC’s rigging of the primary process.

Historically speaking, Marxian socialism of the sort that is almost, but not quite, advocated by politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn is at least as great an evil as national socialism, which is supported by…whom, exactly? And, as it happens, there are quite a few more members of the Communist Party USA than there are white supremacists or Nazis, at least as measured by participants in demonstrations:

So why is it that neo-Nazis, an irrelevant fringe group until a month ago, are suddenly a major issue, while the apparently larger number of American Communists continue to be ignored? Why are insignificant marches sponsored by neo-Nazis covered in real time by pretty much every news outlet, while larger demonstrations by Communists go unreported? Does anyone seriously believe that either faction commands any significant support, or plays any important role in our political life? If not, why the current obsession with neo-Nazis and (if there is a difference) white supremacists? And why has this obsession with neo-Nazis suddenly appeared?

Perhaps I am missing something. But it seems blindingly obvious that the answer is: hyping neo-Nazis became an opportunity to serve the Left’s interests in January of this year, based on leftists’ more or less insane association between neo-Nazis and American conservatives, while hyping the American Communist Party does not–and will not at any time in the future–serve the Left’s interests. That is the difference.”

FASCISTIC CNN REFUSES TO RUN TRUMP REELECTION AD

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FIRST RE-ELECTION AD [UPDATED: CNN REFUSES TO RUN IT]

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

“We truly have entered the era of the permanent campaign. The 2020 election is more than three years away, and President Trump has already released his first ad. I suppose the ad has in view not only Trump’s re-election, but also the fact that the Democratic Party press doesn’t want to cover the administration’s accomplishments, preferring to obsess over Trump’s foibles and non-existent scandals. The ad seeks to remind voters of Trump’s record so far, which is, in fact, impressive: