• 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

Crooked Sharpton, Anti-Semite Farrakhan Gather to Celebrate NeoFascist Successes in Dem Party?

Al Sharpton: Kingmaker?


Back in December, we learned that Al Sharpton was preparing to retire. In the process, he managed to sell his life story to his own charity, the National Action Network (NAN), for more than half a million dollars. (That’s some sweet work if you can get it, eh?) But what’s the good reverend going to be doing with all this free time on his hands? Apparently, he’ll still be meddling in national politics.

And lest you think this perpetual scam artist isn’t still influential in Democratic politics, think again. There are plenty of 2020 candidates beating a path to his door and hoping for his endorsement. Unfortunately for them, Al won’t be handing out any such endorsement deals for at least another year. (Free Beacon)

Al Sharpton is being heavily courted by Democrats seeking his endorsement as they pursue the 2020 presidential nomination, but he said he won’t make a decision on who he’ll support for at least a year.

The liberal civil rights activist and MSNBC host has met with a flurry of possible 2020 contenders in recent weeks, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), Cory Booker (D., N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), and he’s planning to speak soon with former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D., Texas), the Atlantic reported.

Sharpton has become a mainstream figure in the Democratic Party, in sharp contrast to his early days as a fiery, jumpsuit-wearing racial antagonist, known for his invective against Jews and the police.

I don’t know what sort of a charmed life this guy is leading, but it’s certainly working for him. Despite seemingly always running one sort of scam or another over his entire career, Sharpton has managed to stay one step ahead of the law. And he’s rewarded by being presented as an influential figure in Democratic Party politics. Assuming the original reporting from The Atlantic is correct, nearly half of the top contenders for the Dem nomination in 2020 have either taken meetings with him or requested one.

And it’s not just Gillibrand, Harris, Booker and O’Rourke who are buttering him up. He’s doing a NAN event on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day where Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg will be grabbing photo ops with him.

How does this never come back to bite them? Going all the way back to the days of the Tawana Brawley hoax scandal and continuing through is many issues with the IRS, Sharpton has made a living as a race baiter and tax cheat. He’s urged violence against the police and profited from tragedy for as long as he’s been in the news. He was also famous for shaking down corporations for donations to NAN, threatening them with allegations of racism, protests and boycotts if they didn’t pony up.

And don’t even get me started on his long history of antisemitism. It goes much deeper than his well-known ties to Louis Farrakhan. Sharpton has been an enemy of the Jews for as long as I can remember. (Then again, that last one might not be that damning during a time when antisemitism seems to be getting more popular among Democrats, particularly supporters of new representatives like Ilhan Omar.)

For all that, the Democrats still seem to be stuck with Sharpton like an albatross around their necks. They can’t afford to ignore or offend him and most clearly feel that they need his endorsement. Good luck with that. I can’t help but believe that most of the nation will eventually catch on to his schtick.



Leftists Claim Trump 20% Behind Lefties in Popular Polls…IS IT TRUE?

The Conservative Majority and Polls

By Bruce Walker at  American Thinker:

Gallup on January 8 published a poll that showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in America.  The most resilient political fact over the last half-century is the clear majority of Americans who identify themselves as “conservative” rather than “liberal.”  Even California has a conservative advantage, according to some polls.  Even CNN exit polls in the 2018 election all show the same thing.

Every single major poll in the last fifty years has shown that conservatives outnumber liberals.  What is bizarre about these data is that not only do liberals passionately reject this idea, but so do conservatives, who have become both cynical and depressed and are just as eager to join liberals in rejecting the idea that America is a conservative nation.

The two most conservative presidents of the last century – Calvin Coolidge (Reagan’s favorite president) and Ronald Reagan – were enormous electoral successes.  Reagan defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter by an overwhelming majority of the popular vote and by carrying 44 states, including all of the ten biggest.  When Reagan ran for re-election, he carried 49 states, and a shift of one tenth of one percent would have given Reagan all fifty.

Coolidge carried almost twice the popular vote of the Democrat nominee, Davis, and although the Solid South gave Davis about one quarter of the electoral votes, the landslide was still dramatic:  Coolidge carried the states outside the South, with more than two-to-one landslides in most states.  Had Coolidge run for re-election in 1928, he would have likely won by a margin of the popular vote unequaled in the history of our two-party system.

A review of polling data in 2018 shows the same conservative majority.  None of the polling organizations is conservative, and all of them are, in fact, pretty clearly hostile to conservatives.  CNN did exit polling in the 2018 election, and here are some unexpected findings of the conservative-liberal split in America.

Nationally, CNN found that conservatives outnumber liberals by 36% to 27%.   Consider the CNN breakdown in states where Republicans lost key Senate races in 2018: Nevada, 35% conservative and 25% liberal; Montana, 42% conservative and 20% liberal; Ohio, 39% conservative and 21% liberal; Arizona, 40% conservative and 22% liberal…and so on.  Republicans consistently won fewer votes than the conservative advantage in the state would have provided.

Survey USA shows that conservatives nationally outnumber liberals by 26% to 21% in America.  This is consistent with state polls, which routinely show conservatives as more potent in states than electoral results would suggest.

Indeed, if Republicans won those states and congressional districts in which conservatives outnumbered Democrats, they would have a clear and solid majority in Congress and easy presidential victories.  Republicans ought to embrace this and make each race one of conservatives against liberals – but Republicans shy away from this and are encouraged to do so by conservatives who simply do not believe that they are the ideological majority in America.

What makes this even more bizarre is that the most prestigious polling organization, Gallup, goes to extraordinary lengths to hide conservative strength.  Consider the last Gallup Poll of ideological strength by state.  The title is “Conservative Leaning States Drop from 44 to 39,” but this excludes 14 states that, according to Gallup, are neither “Conservative” nor “Liberal.”  What is the bottom line?  Thirty-nine states are conservative; nine are liberal; and two states, Delaware and Hawaii, have an equal number of conservatives and liberals.  What is the most liberal “state”?  Surprise!  That “state” is the District of Columbia.

This deliberate underplaying and even ignoring the conservative majority in America is something I have been writing about for eleven years at the America Thinker.  There is no real explanation for conservative strength except that it is true.   Nor is there an explanation for Gallup totally ignoring its own findings ten years ago, which showed that every single state of the nation had conservatives outnumbering liberals.  That ought to be a huge news story, but Gallup tacitly ignored its own scoop.

Why, then, do conservatives not run America?  Begin with the only polity in America that has an overwhelming leftist majority: the federal capital.  Then consider the Orwellian monopoly of professors on college campuses.  Polls as early as 1962 have shown that only a small percentage of professors are not liberals.

The left wins by intimidation and by spiking all information that contradicts its dull, dim catechism.  The fact of a resilient conservative majority – a fact produced by news outlets that despise conservatism – ought to give us courage and confidence, but that comes only when we believe in ourselves and the attractiveness of our cause.

Gallup on January 8 published a poll that showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in America.  The most resilient political fact over the last half-century is the clear majority of Americans who identify themselves as “conservative” rather than “liberal.”  Even California has a conservative advantage, according to some polls.  Even CNN exit polls in the 2018 election all show the same thing.



Leftist Der Spiegel Trump Haters Play Political Nazi along with Pelosi’s Dems


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

We wrote here about how Der Spiegel, Europe’s largest news magazine, made a fool of itself by publishing an entirely fictional article about Fergus Falls, Minnesota, and the “Trump voters” who live there. While the extent to which that article was fiction may have been unintended, its anti-Trump–and anti-American–tenor was not. Now, Der Spiegel has published a hit piece on Richard Grenell, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Like the residents of Fergus Falls, Grenell is collateral damage. The real enemy is…well, you be the judge.

Der Spiegel begins rather bizarrely with a denunciation of Tucker Carlson:

Tucker Carlson’s worldview doesn’t come across as particularly complex. It can be summed up in three words: Foreigners threaten America. That’s all that’s needed for good ratings.

His show on the right-wing Fox News channel is among the most successful political shows on American cable TV. The mouthpiece of the American neo-Nazis, the Daily Stormer, has described him as “literally our greatest ally.” His most prominent viewer is Donald Trump.

Got that? Trump is a Nazi! It’s an authoritative characterization, coming from the land of the actual Nazis.

Ambassador Grenell appeared on Carlson’s show and talked about the German government’s refugee policy:

The ambassador made it clear in just a few sentences how little he thought of the chancellor’s refugee policy. “There was no plan in place,” he said, “so the policy really fell apart.” He claimed that anyone calling for secure borders in Germany today faces an “overreaction.” The discourse, he said, is largely being controlled by “elites in Berlin” and he argued that anyone who speaks openly about the issue runs the risk of being portrayed as being part of the “radical far-right” by the German media.

All of that is more or less indisputably true. What’s the point?

Grenell’s TV interview was a thinly veiled call for a change of government in Berlin.

Oh, please. But appearing on Carlson’s show is only the beginning. Now we get to Grenell’s conduct as ambassador:

Many previous U.S. ambassadors were major political and social figures in the capital, enjoying excellent connections to the Chancellery and federal ministries, and playing host to the most powerful and influential personalities in Germany.

… Grenell has taken a different path. On the day he took up his post, he tweeted that “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” Martin Schulz, the former head of the center-left Social Democratic Party, compared his behavior to that of “a right-wing extremist colonial officer.”

Huh? That is wacky even by the debased standards of American political discourse.

Four weeks later in Breitbart, the main organ of the pro-Trump, right-wing “alt-right” movement, Grenell essentially called for regime change. “I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe,” he said.

Which, obviously, is not a “call for regime change.”

Now we get to what may be Der Spiegel’s principal grievance:

In the week before Christmas, Grenell wrote a letter to DER SPIEGEL about the Relotius case, in which longtime DER SPIEGEL journalist Claas Relotius was revealed to have invented reporting for several of his stories, including about the United States. Grenell was justifiably angry, but he didn’t stop there. He accused DER SPIEGEL of anti-Americanism, writing that the United States was clearly “targeted by institutional bias.”

This was the Fergus Falls, Minnesota story, and Grenell’s characterization of it is entirely fair. See my linked post above.

DER SPIEGEL editors and reporters, he argued, had regularly published reports “which could have been proven untrue if they had checked the facts with the Embassy first.” He also wrote that “unfortunately, it is common practice for Spiegel reporters to not even call us before writing.”

To which the magazine responds by complaining that Grenell declined to be interviewed for the article at hand. It is easy to understand why, but this is entertaining:

On Thursday, the embassy answered a list of questions with a written statement: “All seven of your questions are based on fabricated stories that are not true. Every one of the questions assumes something that is false. Konstantin von Hammerstein uses the same tactics as Claas Relotius by pushing a false narrative with anonymous sources.”

Heh. It would be fun to see the questions! The magazine was undeterred, of course, and published its article based on interviews with enemies of Grenell, President Trump, and, perhaps, the U.S.:

Almost all of these [anonymous] sources paint an unflattering portrait of the ambassador, one remarkably similar to Donald Trump, the man who sent him to Berlin. A majority of them describe Grenell as a vain, narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively, but can barely handle criticism. His brash demeanor, some claim, hides a deep insecurity, and they say he thirsts for the approval of others. After one of his appearances, we were told, he asked almost shyly how he had done.

Got that? Grenell is just like Trump! (Other than the gay part, of course.) He is vain, narcissistic and brash–so much so that after a speech, he asks “shyly,” how did I do? How brash can you get?

Der Spiegel tells us that all the best Germans can’t stand Grenell:

Anyone who doesn’t absolutely need to meet Grenell avoids it. “I have no interest in people who are going through Europe with a wrecking ball,” says former Green Party co-chair Cem Özdemir. He is one of several prominent politicians who keep their contact to the American ambassador to a minimum.

Nothing like going to a former head of the Green Party for an objective view of a Republican ambassador. There is much, much more, including an unfavorable contrast between Grenell and his predecessor, Barack Obama’s ambassador Philip Murphy–now the Governor of New Jersey–who, according to Der Spiegel, was beloved by German politicians and bureaucrats. It is easy to understand why. The ambassador of a president who has no intention of advancing his country’s interests can only be popular.

Der Spiegel concludes by denouncing Grenell for being photographed with members of the Alternative For Germany, a new, immigration-skeptic party that won 94 seats in Germany’s most recent election. That is, I suppose, the acid test: those who want border enforcement favor national sovereignty, an inconvenient obstacle to the ambitions of the international New Class. The real target of Der Spiegel’s ire, I think, is anyone who stands in the way of the rapacious New Class, of which its editors and reporters are members. American voters–especially those whom Der Spiegel libeled in its Fergus Falls fantasy–are high on the enemies list.



National Dem Bigotry Against Christianity Is Finally Being Challenged?

These 2 Democrats Are Finally Standing Up to Anti-Christian Bigotry in Their Party

Article sent by Mark Waldeland:
. . . Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii published a searing op-ed on Tuesday chiding her Democratic colleagues in the Senate for questioning Brian C. Buescher, a Trump judicial nominee, over his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic civic organization.

Back in December, Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, used their questioning time to scrutinize the Knights’ “extreme positions” on same-sex marriage and abortion. (Shock: The Knights of Columbus oppose both, in accordance with the Catholic Church.)

. . . But she wasn’t completely alone. Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the only pro-life Democrats left in the House, voiced his concern on the matter:
I would never, ever have expected that membership in the Knights of Columbus would be something that would be viewed with suspicion and maybe even worse. It’s terrible to see membership in the Knights of Columbus questioned like that, but at the core this gets back to the question of religious freedom, and it’s something that we have to continue to speak out about because we, our country, can’t afford to lose that freedom that we’re guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senators who dismiss the Knights of Columbus as “extreme” show just how little they know about the organization. The Knights mostly focus on charity work for the poor,disabled, and orphaned, while raising money to educate underprivileged students who come from all religious affiliations.

They have also been working to aid persecuted Christians in the Middle East and all over the world.

The Knights of Columbus are, essentially, a Catholic version of the Rotary Club. And the depth of their giving is impressive to say the least.

The Federalist’s Helen Raleigh put it best: “The only thing extreme about [the Knights of Columbus] is their generosity.”  . . .

Schumer and Pelosi Spinning


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

It was obvious to anyone who watched that President Trump “won” the dueling border/shutdown speeches Tuesday evening. Trump’s speech focused powerfully on an issue that people care about, border security, while Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi bobbed and weaved on politics, while looking ridiculous in the process.

That isn’t how the liberal press reported it, of course. Multiple news agencies “fact checked” the president’s speech, which, as usual, mostly meant presenting the Democrats’ talking points as counterpoints. In that regard, Mollie Hemingway has a good roundup. The funniest error came from CBS News, which was “fact checking” the president in real time and inadvertently confirmed one of his statements in a post that was later deleted:

Fact check: 1 in 3 women sexually assaulted while traveling to cross the border

CLAIM: The president claimed one in three women have been sexually assaulted traveling to the border.

FACT: Between 60 percent and 80 percent of female migrants traveling through Mexico are raped along the way, Amnesty International estimates.

Nice going, CBS! The general tenor of media coverage of the speeches is apparent from the headlines on Google News:

Not all news outlets were content with critiques and fact-checks. In Seattle, a television video editor apparently tampered with the video of Trump’s speech to make the president look bad. When President Trump doesn’t come across the way the press wants him to, they may have to take matters into their own hands. The video editor has been “placed on leave.”

But the New Yorker takes the prize for the most one-sided, vicious commentary on the president’s border security speech. This is how that magazine’s coverage lined up:

When it comes to hatefulness, I think the New Yorker takes the cake.




Jewess Dianne Feinstein and Dem Lefty Gal Pals Complain about Brian Bescher Being Too Catholic to Serve on a Circuit Court of Appeals

Diane Feinstein

 Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite
The bigger question isn’t whether this distinguished professor doesn’t understand what her judicial oath requires, but rather whether Feinstein understands, as Nebraska’s Sen. Ben Sasse noted, that it is unlawful to impose a religious test on public officials.

In September 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., suggested Judge Amy Coney Barrett is too Catholic to serve on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

More than a year later, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., have renewed Feinstein’s line of attack, suggesting this month that attorney Brian Buescher may also be unfit to serve as a federal judge on account of his Catholic faith. The only difference between now and September 2017 is that Hirono and Harris are not so explicit in their bigotry.

In a set of written questions submitted to the nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Hirono and Harris zeroed in on Buescher’s affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic charitable organization founded in 1882. Harris’ questions began by noting that Buescher has been a member of “an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men” since 1993. She then asked a number of leading questions, including, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” and, “Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?” and, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

This is not so bad, though you can see Harris is clearly using the Knights as a foil to argue Buescher’s adherence to basic Catholic doctrine renders him unfit to serve on the court. The real magic comes when Sen. Hirono takes the same tack, going after the judicial nominee for being a member of a group known best for its flashy uniforms and pancake breakfasts.

“The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” writes the senator from Hawaii.

By “extreme,” she means the Knights oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. In other words, the group is adhering to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Hirono then goes on to ask several related questions, including,

“If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?” and, “If confirmed, will you recuse yourself from all cases in which the Knights of Columbus has taken a position?” and, “Given your membership in this organization, what assurances can litigants have that you will deal with reproductive rights and abortion issues fairly and impartially?”

Here’s the thing, though: The Knights don’t profess anything that isn’t already Church doctrine. They’re not some crazy offshoot of Catholicism that preaches fire and brimstone and other extreme doctrines (however the senators choose to define that word). Their positions are the Church’s positions. The Knights are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. We’re not talking about al Qaeda here.

It’s all too clear what Hirono and Harris are doing. Their questions are an all-too-cute, roundabout way of saying they believe faithful Roman Catholics have no place serving as federal judges. They just don’t want to come right out and say it.

So, it’s not just bigoted. It’s also cowardly. At least Feinstein had the bones to come right out and say she doesn’t want Catholics serving on the courts.

T. Becket Adams is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner, with a focus on media and politics. He is originally from South Bend, Ind.


Food for thought only with Dianne Feinstein in mind:   Are all of those hundreds of Jewish leftist females and males too atheistic and fascistic to be in Congress?  in Government?  Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal,  Adam Schiff,  Jerrold Nadler,   for starters?

Fascistic Fem Democrats Pressure Judicial Nominee to Quit Catholic Group or Else!

Another Religious Test in the Senate

Two Democrats suggest a judicial nominee must quit a Catholic organization.

(Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)


People often assumed that prejudice against Catholic politicians ended with the election of John F. Kennedy. Yet anti-Catholic bigotry is still with us. On Dec. 5 U.S. senators sent written questions to Brian Buescher, an Omaha, Neb., lawyer recently nominated by President Trump to sit on the U.S. District Court in Nebraska. Amid queries about judicial philosophy, two Democratic senators demanded answers about Mr. Buescher’s membership in the Knights of Columbus, a 140-year-old Catholic service organization.

Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono and California’s Kamala Harris didn’t ask about the group’s charitable work, which includes $1 billion of assistance and hundreds of millions of hours of service in the past decade. Rather, they wanted answers about what they called its “extreme positions.”

[ . . . ]

As a leader of black Christians, I feel particularly strongly about the Knights of Columbus. For more than a century they bravely defended minorities. The group ran integrated hospitality and recreation centers for troops in World War I—the only charitable organization that did so. To confront prejudice in the teaching of history, in the 1920s the Knights commissioned books on black and Jewish history in America. They stood against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, the height of its power, helping fund the Supreme Court case that defeated the Klan-backed ban on Catholic education in Oregon. The Knights spoke out against the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany as early as the 1930s. Today they assist victims of Islamic State.

If Catholics like the Knights can be targeted, what should members of my Pentecostal church expect? We share traditional views on abortion and marriage. What about Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons and evangelical Christians? Even the Rev. Martin Luther King’s biblical beliefs would be anathema to Sens. Harris, Feinstein and Hirono. JFK, himself a proud Knight of Columbus, would be unacceptable too.

Let me paraphrase Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association: If this confirmation is decided on the basis that more than 70 million Americans lost their chance of being public servants on the day they were baptized, the nation will lose—in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

If certain senators refuse to see the good that people of faith contribute to their communities, perhaps they can at least recall the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion. Or Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits religious tests for public office. The Constitution protects these senators as well as us.

We non-Catholics must also stand up, if not for courage then for survival. When first they come for the Catholics, we can be certain that all of us are next, and that the respect for faith and diversity of belief that made this country a beacon of freedom is now under severe threat—even from those we entrust with its defense.

Mr. Rivers, a Pentecostal minister, is director of the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies.