• 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

Donald Trump….The Man We Love Visits Duluth….the Northern One


Our friend Howard Root attended the Trump rally in Duluth last night. This is his (fantastic) report along with photos he took at the event (at the top and bottom below):

by Scott Johnson at PowerLine:

When I arrived at 4:00 p.m., the line for admission was at least a half mile long. People had been lining up since before 10:00 a.m., with the line snaking through a glass skyway where the afternoon sun had raised the temperature to over 100. I’ve seen shorter lines for Springsteen tickets, yet everyone was exceptionally polite.

I only saw one protester on the walk over. He was standing on the street corner with his two small children and yelling “F*** Trump” as everyone walked past. On the way back to the car after the event I only saw three scraggly protesters trying to incite the crowd, to no avail other than getting detained by the police officers. I never saw the protest march or talk with anyone who saw it.

At least 25 percent of the audience was under the age of 30, and around 40 percent were women. The senior citizen percentage was less than 10 percent — the lowest I’ve ever seen at a Republican event. Other than the hundred or so party leaders, this was a vastly different crowd from the Minnesota Republican Convention that I attended in Duluth three weeks ago. None of the attendees I spoke with in the concession line at the rally were politically active (other than voting) and none were born-and-bred Republicans.

My big takeaway is that the atmosphere made Trump’s words almost irrelevant — and I mean that as a compliment. Trump understands emotion unlike any other politician I’ve followed. He stages his delivery with plenty of smiles, frequent claps (to the audience) and the longest walk to and from the podium I’ve ever seen. The two big differences between Trump and the usual politician are that (1) Trump never asks the audience for anything other than to be happy, and (2) Trump’s shtick is received as 100 percent authentic. Until I saw it last night, I never would have believed that a one-hour political speech could capture a 10,000-strong crowd from start to finish. A Trump rally is the one political event where you have to be in the room where it happens to understand how it works.

This rally was in support of Pete Stauber, who’s running for Congress in Minnesota’s Eighth District, and who delivered his best (and shortest) stump speech ever. Karin Housley, who’s running for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the disgraced Al Franken, also hit the mark in her short warm-up act and demonstrated why she’s a legitimate contender in November.





Trump’s New Campaign Manager: It’s Time To Fire Sessions And End Russiagate

At times like this, when I’m tempted to feel bad for Sessions, I remind myself that he did more than any other Republican incumbent to open the door to Trumpmania by endorsing POTUS over Cruz in the 2016 primaries. And then, like sunshine breaking through on a cloudy day, the temptation passes.

SEE ALSO: Gowdy: Why didn’t Comey try to get a special counsel appointed in the Hillary probe instead of deciding everything himself?

He’ll be gone from the DOJ within a year and out of politics when he could have stayed in the Senate and held his seat until he’s 100. That’s his payback.

As for Parscale, he should probably stay focused on not getting indicted. Although I suppose POTUS ending Russiagate would be one way to ensure that:

Brad Parscale


Time to fire Sessions

End the Mueller investigation

You can’t obstruct something that was phony against you

The IG report gives @realDonaldTrump the truth to end it all.

I haven’t heard something that incendiary about Russiagate from a Trump confidante since whenever Rudy Giuliani’s last interview was. What makes Parscale’s tweet interesting is that it’s hard to imagine him sending it without clearing it with POTUS first, knowing how much attention it would get. In which case, what’s Trump’s and Parscale’s game here? Jonah Goldberg wonders if maybe it’s a shiny object designed to distract the press, however briefly, from their child separation coverage.

I don’t know. There’s a cynical case to be made that Parscale’s right, that if Trump’s planning to drop the axe on Sessions and especially Mueller, it’s better done sooner than later. That’s because there’s a potential expiration date on treating Peter Strzok as the Mark Fuhrman of the Russiagate probe. That expiration date is the day the IG issues his report on that investigation. If — if — Michael Horowitz determines that there’s no evidence that Strzok’s political biases led him to behave corruptly in assisting Mueller, the case for declaring the whole matter hopelessly tainted by illicit partisan motives becomes harder to make to the public. Better to seize on the damning revelation about Strzok’s texts in the Emailgate report and shut down the whole thing now, before Horowitz does any more reporting on Strzok. If his Russiagate report ends up clearing Strzok, well, too late. Water under the bridge. The probe’s already over at that point.

I don’t think Trump would do that at this point, though. There’s too much at stake. His numbers are improving, he’s notched a political win with North Korea, he’s got the trade war he always wanted. Firing Sessions would be a big deal but wouldn’t derail his presidency. Firing Mueller might. Firing Mueller and wading into official DOJ business to end an investigation into him and his associates definitely would.

Parscale’s probably just blowing smoke. Which has been known to happen among Trump cronies, even on the most sensitive matters:

President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani said on Monday that he was actually just bluffing last week when he called for Justice Department leaders to suspend special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation within 24 hours.

“I didn’t think it would,” Giuliani told POLITICO with a laugh when asked about the Mueller inquiry’s still being very much an active investigation. “But I still think it should be.”…

“That’s what I’m supposed to do,” Giuliani explained on Monday. “What am I supposed to say? That they should investigate him forever? Sorry, I’m not a sucker.”

Maybe Parscale did something behind the scenes to displease Trump and this is his way of getting back in his good graces. Tweeting “fire Sessions” is MAGAworld’s equivalent of sending someone a dozen roses.

Speaking of which, let me blow your mind with this scenario. Sessions either gets fired or resigns before the end of the year, then turns around and declares he intends to challenge Doug Jones for his old Senate seat in 2020. Question: Does he win the GOP primary? Does it matter if his time at the DOJ ends with a resignation rather than a firing? Normally it’d be a no-brainer. Of course a well-known pol like Sessions would win his seat easily in a red state like Alabama, all else being equal. But not everything is equal this time. Trump hates him for failing to “protect” him from Russiagate and has made no secret of it. He’d want to punish Sessions for his “disloyalty,” which might mean recruiting a primary challenger for his Senate bid. We know from hard experience that Trump’s word isn’t law in Senate primaries in Alabama (otherwise Luther Strange would still be a senator rather than Jones) but so much animosity has been steered towards Sessions by Trump Nation, with Parscale’s tweet just the latest example, that it’s hard to imagine him winning votes from the president’s supporters. It’s an open question to me if he could win — especially if he ended up being fired by Trump.

Political junkies should start thinking about this. It’s a cinch that Sessions will leave the DOJ before 2020, as the president can’t remain at war with his AG indefinitely, and he’d obviously be a formidable challenger to the Democrat currently holding his seat. What happens if he runs?







Duluth Rally for President Trump, June 20th


at  350 Harbor Drive…..

Doors open:  3:30 PM CT         Event begins  6:30 PM CT

Please read more below!


Increasing Revenues in the Trump Era

Why It Is Good for Trump To Challenge the International Trade Establishment

by E. Jeffrey Ludwig  at  American Thinker:

“Since the election of Pres. Trump, commentators have been asking repeatedly why he seems so cordial or complimentary of leaders of countries many consider to be “enemy countries” – especially the People’s Republics of China and Russia – while being irritated with our neighbors and friends, especially on the economic front.  Early on in his presidency, he indicted NATO members for not paying 2% of GDP for support of NATO.  And in fact, only five of the 28 members are meeting that benchmark.

Then, in a memorable speech from the Rose Garden on June 1, 2017, Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris Climate Accord.  Students of the accord will understand that it is part of the globalist agenda thrusting toward a one-world government.  In addition to presenting a host of specific reasons for leaving based on a lack of equity in the accord, he also stated, “And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.”

Most recently, he left the G7 meeting in Canada early and refused to sign the final communiqué that was issued, citing offense at the comments made by Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, which were publicly deemed to be a verbal stab in the back.  The president announced increased tariffs on aluminum and steel from Canada and that there would be a variety of tariff hikes on G7 exports to the U.S.

He also has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was renamed and signed by eleven countries – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam – in March of this year.  None of these is considered an enemy by our leaders.

Despite these tensions with friendly nations, the USA is still a signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and a member of the World Trade Organization.  We still are a major contributor to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which were created, along with the United Nations, at the end of World War II.  Negotiations about NAFTA continue, but we are still in that trade agreement.

We can best understand this pushback by Pres. Trump in light of the world economic picture that has emerged since the end of WWII.   International trade in our world, unlike during the period prior to WWII, is governed by a vast network of rules and regulations, and the products covered from every country are described by a variety of documents in mind-boggling detail as they move in and out of the world’s ports of entry.  Trade is no longer just a buyer finding a seller and vice versa; rather, it entails navigating a maze of rules that permits or denies entry into various ports, guides enforcement of health and safety requirements, requires differences in tariffs that depend on relatively small differences in the products’ descriptions, and allows financing of that trade by daily trading in various currencies.  International trade is a multilateral ship titanic with complex strategies for resolving disputes, assuring payments in different currencies, and evaluating quality.  The rules and regulations for assuring the health and well-being and exchange of goods and services of all peoples defies the understanding of any single individual.

In this vast matrix, Pres. Trump is faced with a real dilemma: how to survive in this elaborate matrix while at the same time regaining some of the U.S. hegemony in world markets that was lost while this matrix evolved during the past 73 years (1945-2018)?  Manufacturers and providers of services, as well as the buyers and sellers of those goods and services, find themselves under incredibly complex constraints.  Unlike the original free-market models of Adam Smith, these free markets have been micro-managed into existence by the post-WWII multilateral agreements.  There is an appearance of freedom, but the free markets so-called have been brought into existence by the regional and world players, both governmental and corporate.  So the key question now is, how free are free markets?  President Trump is trying to restore freedom where there is now too great an overlay of constraints, and this writer believes that Trump perceives that enhanced freedom is profoundly connected with greater U.S. hegemony in world markets.  America’s freedom and economic initiative were the bases for its becoming the world’s strongest economy.

Yet the post-WWII thrust has been to implement the world economic model based on David Ricardo’s Theory of Comparative Advantage, first published in 1817, which can be characterized as an economic version of the utilitarian principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”  Briefly, the idea is that every country has some unique efficiencies, which means that certain products will be produced more efficiently there than elsewhere.  Thus, let’s say certain goods and services can be produced more cheaply in other countries.  Then the price of those goods and services will come down; consumers in the U.S. will be able to buy more of those goods and services; and the flow of cash to those countries will generate more worldwide demand for goods and services that we are producing, thereby creating more wealth here.  Under this model, all boats are lifted by the rising (economic) sea.

One can see that as the apparatus of this matrix becomes more complex, as it assumes an international scale, or even a regional scale, managing the day-to-day working of said matrix becomes a herculean task beyond the scope of any national government.  Thus, vast mechanisms have been created to administer this economic panorama.  For example, the European Union is administered by a vast unelected bureaucracy that has its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, and the World Trade Organization has a vast headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

While the U.S. is still at the top of the list of wealthiest countries, hegemony or control in trade has shifted toward these two above-mentioned bureaucracies and other bureaucracies, and away from the U.S.  And all business models must now find a way to function within the regional and world trade matrices.  Individual and corporate initiative is thereby diminished.  Sectors of one’s national economy – think of the coal industry or offshore drilling – become increasingly marginalized or defunct based on decisions of the masters of the matrices, not on our business or political leaders.  Or we find that we rebuilt Japan’s steel industry after WWII and find that in many areas, we became weaker in steel production than Japan.  Self-interest and sovereignty then require that we take steps to resist the matrices that have developed.  That is the underlying reason why Trump is giving some of our friends a so-called hard time, and why it is justified…”



The Foreigner, Anti-American Wall at the Wall Street Journal Replaces Editor with Trump Hater!?!


by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

“The Wall Street Journal has replaced Gerard Baker, its top editor. Baker had been, as the Washington Post puts it, beset with internal criticism of his leadership in covering Donald Trump.

The Washington Post should know. An organ of the anti-Trump resistance, it has hired ten WSJ reporters, at least some of whom defected due to Baker’s insufficiently antagonist approach to Trump, the Post indicates.

Not that Baker showed partiality to Trump. For example, as the Post acknowledges, under Baker’s leadership, the Wall Street Journal produced a series of scoops about Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, and his payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels. And the Post’s sources concede that Baker never killed a story that was damaging to Trump.

However, Baker told his staff that he wanted the Journal to be objective, not “oppositional,” in covering the Trump administration. Objective? We can’t have that.

Baker also has expressed skepticism about some lines of reporting regarding Robert Mueller’s investigation. This, says the Post, caused morale to suffer.

Of course it did. For the Trump-hating press, there can be no filter of its partisan venom. Only full anti-Trump freakout mode will suffice.

In today’s mainstream media, apparently there is no place for a top editor who isn’t willing, unquestioningly, to let his paper become a forum for a daily diet of anti-Trump themes. Objectivity is unacceptable; the paper must be “oppositional.”

But only a subset of the American public — considerably less than half of it, I believe — wants that kind of reporting. Thus, the oppositional nature of the mainstream media will likely make it even less trusted and less read than before.

That’s the silver lining in the MSM’s anti-Trump meltdown.”

 (I, Glenn H. Ray, have subscribed  to the Wall Street Journal for  most of the past quarter century.    Whatever financial resources  I owned were wiped out by  the 2008 stock crash.  My local “newspaper” the MPLS “STRIB”, is a leftist fake and fraud news service politically, culturally,  owned by a big-business Republican.  Nearly all of the info it sells is as news is propaganda cooked by   the Big Business  neo-leftist fascist New York Times and the Washington Post…..an distortion of news and knowledge plowed from the East coast to California by collegiates who loved Hillary (until she lost that November 8th).

The United States of America is already a neo-leftist fascist state educationally, K through graduate school owning the “Liberal Arts”, throughout the nation’s television news with the single exception of Fox Business, the entertainment business, Google, Facebook, and such and about 90% of the nation’s street drug and gangster population.

The Wall Street Journal and Fox News  are  NOT American owned!!!  That they play news from the  fascist Left, shouldn’t  surprise.  They were Hillary folk  in 2016…. world folk Shepard Smith, Howard Kurtz, Chris Wallace, etc.

I shall “can” my subscription to the Wall Street Journal…as I did in August of 2016, but renewed after the great Donald J. Trump victory that November.

Our America is already a fascist state in its politics.   Where does one go to  read an American newspaper for American conservative values and up to date news?

I am cancelling The Weekly Standard when my tenth year subscription is up this fall.   Why would any American Godfearing conservative support the Quisling Bill Kristol bees nest crowd?

Without our Dennis Prager there would be little, if any sunshine for our American day!  Our today’s  JudeoChristian communities voted overwhelmingly for Our Donald that November, 2016.  Seeking, discovering  Truth fill the core of Dennis’s  conservative teachings in the  battles against today’s  Obamaland.  That is likely why these traditional Americans voted for, and elected Our Donald for redemption that November, 2016…..Oh, the joy of it all!

Yet, I’d love to begin my day reading a conservative, truth-seeking and reporting  newspaper delivered to my door to replace the disturbing  news of the Wall Street Journal war against President Trump!


America’s “Saint Clarence”…..nee Thomas!

We Must Clone Clarence Thomas: The Lesson of SCOTUS’ Wedding Cake Decision

by John Zmirak  at Stream      (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

There’s been a battle online over whether or not to call Monday’s Supreme Court decision on a Christian baker “narrow.” The vote was 7-2, which isn’t narrow. But the scope of the ruling was. It seemed to say that in this particular case, the Colorado human rights commissars showed explicit, anti-religious bias. That tainted their case that a vital public interest was served by punishing this Christian wedding cake baker. (He would sell cakes to everyone, but wouldn’t design a specific, gay-wedding cake.)

But bureaucrats with a little more tact would likely get away with closing down Christian businesses. At least under the Court as it stands today.

SCOTUSblog explains the decision as follows:

[T]he justices today handed Phillips a victory, even if not necessarily the ruling that he and his supporters had hoped for. Kennedy, the author of some of the court’s most important gay-rights rulings, began by explaining that the case involved a conflict between two important principles: on the one hand, the state’s power “to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services”; and, on the other, the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

As a general rule, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s cases make clear that Phillips’ right to freely exercise his religion is not absolute, and can be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone. But the critical question of when Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion.

Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. One commissioner, Kennedy pointed out, “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”

The majority left open, however, the possibility that a future case could come out differently, particularly if the decisionmaker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly. “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances,” the majority closed, “must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

No, Silly. Here’s How You Do It.

We need to stuff the court with many more people who think like Justice Thomas

Kennedy, writing for the majority, lays out a little bread crumb trail. The next set of state or federal legislators can follow it. Be tactful. Restrain yourselves from openly comparing Christian religious beliefs to Nazi ideology or racism. Just set up rules that appear to be neutral. Then administer them using neutral language. And I’ll vote your way (wink, wink). See Kennedy:

While the issues here are difficult to resolve, it must be concluded that the State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments — comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order — were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires. The Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. For these reasons, the order must be set aside.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

But … Gorsuch

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, while sound on the legal issues, shouldn’t raise our hopes too high. He asserts:

[N]o bureaucratic judgment condemning a sincerely held religious belief as “irrational” or “offensive” will ever survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. In this country, the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise.

What if the U.S. government concludes that it has a “compelling state interest” in squelching opposition to same-sex marriage or “homophobia”? Then it would find room to do so. As long as public servants stay mum about the religious reasons people give for dissenting. Now, a left that can’t resist applying the “c-word” to the president’s daughter isn’t big on tact.

The Hunt Continues

But we can’t count on that. The hatred today’s left feels toward orthodox Christianity is fanatical. Remember how Inspector Javert, in Les Misérables, sought pretext after pretext for imprisoning Jean Valjean? So the left will keep hunting Christians. Justice Kennedy has just told them the opening and closing days for hunting season.

It isn’t just our freedom at stake. It’s everyone’s. See the opinion of Justice Thomas.

There is an obvious flaw, however, with one of the asserted justifications for Colorado’s law. Ac­cording to the individual respondents, Colorado can com­pel Phillips’ speech to prevent him from “‘denigrat[ing] the dignity’” of same-sex couples, “‘assert[ing] [their] inferior- ity,’” and subjecting them to “‘humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment.’” … These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence. States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Johnson, supra, at 414. A contrary rule would allow the govern­ment to stamp out virtually any speech at will.

In Obergefell, I warned that the Court’s decision would  “inevitabl[y] … come into conflict” with religious liberty, “as individuals .. are confronted with demands to partic­ipate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.” … This case proves that the conflict has already emerged. Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the free­dom of speech could be essential to preventing  Obergefell from being used to “stamp out every vestige of dissent” and “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”  If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.

The Tyranny of the Snowflakes

If the government can stifle free speech, or commerce, or association, because allowing it might “embarrass” people, we truly are lost. America will have abandoned the Anglo-American tradition of liberty going back to the Magna Carta. Instead, we’ll be stuck with a Progressive nanny state that corrals, punishes, and even imprisons dissenters.

The hatred today’s left feels toward orthodox Christianity is fanatical. Just as Inspector Javert, in Les Misérables, sought pretext after pretext for imprison Jean Valjean, so the left will keep hunting Christians. Justice Kennedy has just told them the opening and closing days for hunting season.

Nothing against Justice Gorsuch, but it’s clear we need to stuff the court with many more people who think like Justice Thomas. It’s critical we keep control of the White House and Senate, and press the President to find more judges like the heroic Mr. Thomas. And Mr. Trump needs to be very, very careful. He should remember that advisors lied to Ronald Reagan about Anthony Kennedy’s views. That’s how we got an absurd decision like Obergefell in the first place.