• 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

Democrats Finally Feminize into State Socialism to be taken care of…..

IT’S OFFICIAL: DEMOCRATS NOW THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA

by Steven Hayward   at PowerLine:

With new survey evidence showing that the base Democratic Party voter has been steadily shifting to the left for the last 15 years, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post yesterday made it official:

When Bernie Sanders launched his bid for the Democratic nomination, he was often asked whether he, a democratic socialist, would actually become a Democrat. Now, more than a year after he ignited a movement with his unsuccessful bid, that question is moot. The Democrats have become socialists.

This became official, more or less, Wednesday afternoon, when Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party’s rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker. Kamala Harris. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Over at The new New Republic, John Judis agrees:

[M]uch to my surprise, socialism is making a comeback. The key event has been the campaign of self-identified democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who almost won the Democratic nomination and is now reputedly the most popular politician in America. Several opinion polls have also found that young people now think favorably of socialism and ill of capitalism—a result that would have been almost inconceivable in the 1970s, when socialism, in the words of historian Staughton Lynd, was still a “forbidden word” in American politics. . . For the first time since the ‘60s, socialism looks like a politics with a future in the United States.

I’ll go on record to say that if Democrats want to make one-size-fits-all single-payer health care the centerpiece of their 2020 campaign, it will be the biggest albatross since George McGovern’s $1,000 per person “Demogrant” idea went down in flames in 1972. Yes—indeed people like “free stuff,” but there are tens of millions with health care they like just fine (including union workers with gold-plated plans they’d lose under Sanders’s scheme). The attack ads write themselves: just imagine a parade of veterans telling their stories of lousy care and long wait times at VA facilities, with the tag line “Government Single-Payer In Action. Or inaction.” Or something like that.

Meanwhile, Sen. Feinstein continues to receive blowback from the left for her blatant anti-Catholic bigotry. This time from someone who surely doesn’t want Prof. Amy Barrett confirmed to a circuit judgeship any more than Feinstein does, but at least Lawrence Tribe is willing to note honestly what has taken place:

When you’ve lost Larry Tribe. . .

Finally, just for fun, maybe my favorite headline from the campaign last year, appearing in the Washington Post in March:

Advertisements

A Rarity at the New Republic….A RATIONAL ARTICLE

Redoing the Electoral Math

I argued that demographics favored the Democrats. I was wrong.

“If any force on Earth could be powerful enough to unite the Democratic Party, you’d have thought the words “President Donald Trump” would do the trick. Instead, Hillary Clinton’s defeat last November only served to intensify the split within the party. Nine months in, two warring camps continue to offer seemingly irreconcilable versions of what went awry and how to fix it.

On one side, populists like Bernie Sanders and Rust Belt Democrats like Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio argue that the party lost by neglecting working-class voters while catering primarily to “identity politics.” On the other side, an equally vocal contingent makes the opposite case: that the Democrats will blow it in 2018 and 2020 if they take voters of color for granted and focus their energy on wooing the white voters who backed Trump.

Steve Phillips of the Center for American Progress, a leading proponent of the latter view, argues that the Democrats doomed themselves in 2016 with “a strategic error: prioritizing the pursuit of wavering whites over investing in and inspiring African American voters.” In the wake of the election, Phillips wrote in The Nation that “the single greatest force shaping American politics today is the demographic revolution that is transforming the racial composition of the U.S. population.”

Taken together, Phillips writes in his book, Brown Is the New White, “progressive people of color” already combine with “progressive whites” to make up 51 percent of voting-age Americans. “And that majority,” he adds, “is getting bigger every single day.” The strategy prescription logically follows. Rejecting the notion that Democrats must woo Trump voters as a “fool’s errand,” Phillips says the party must be “race-conscious and not race-neutral or color-blind.” Demographics are destiny. “The concerns of people of color,” he concludes, “should be driving politics today and into the future.”

This isn’t a new argument, of course—and I bear some responsibility for it. The book I co-wrote in 2002 with demographer Ruy Teixeira, The Emerging Democratic Majority, laid out an overly optimistic forecast of the party’s prospects in an increasingly diverse America. By and large, Teixeira still holds to the view that the growth of minority populations will provide a long-term “boost to the left.” In his new book, fittingly titled The Optimistic Leftist, Teixeira notes that by the 2050s, eleven of the 15 largest states will be “majority-minority.”  There’s more….Please read on…..

https://newrepublic.com/article/144547/redoing-electoral-math-argued-demographics-favored-democrats-wrong

Germanic Fascism Alive at Deutche Welle Election Night, Nov. 2016

The United States, Canada, the Queen’s Great Britain, the West  in general establishments, pretend and advertise to be democratic in the languages they speak to themselves and their public.  THEY LIE!

These elitists live in the same leftist closets….one Party, one Thought, one Press….fake news.   They sold their fake news throughout the minutes and hours to the very end and beyond the SHOCK FROM THEIR BIGOTRY….”Something wasn’t measured”.

Do explore that election evening, that popular victory of Our Donald, that November.  Do review the nearly universal fascism reported  as news at CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, CBS, ABC, and abroad in particular CBC, Deutche Welle and its “whitest of counties”, in a country who’s wildest most vile practicing racists  today are black in color, not only in per cent of population but very likely by statistics if TRUTH be told.

Listen to these fascist pundits reviewing the American character who dared to vote for Our Donald as racists….FAKE NEWS, folks.   It took Our Donald and his courage to expose the LEFTIST PARTY COLLEGE “EDUCATED” think alikes  who don’t work for a living, have no interest or ability to seek truth, but enjoy and protect their cultural status!  Please view the following for starters:

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

A Very Able Press Secretary, Indeed!

JAMES COMEY IN THE DOCK? AND MORE

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

“I think Sarah Sanders is a terrific press secretary. In her press briefing today, she handled the White House press corps with her usual aplomb. The White House emphasized President Trump’s efforts toward a bipartisan tax reform bill, but James Comey also came up, repeatedly:

Q [by New York Times reporter] Is the President aware that Steve Bannon described firing James Comey as the biggest mistake in modern political history?

MS. SANDERS:  Whether he is or not, I think that everybody knows exactly where the President stands on that issue. The President is proud of the decision that he made. The President was 100 percent right in firing James Comey. He knew at the time that it could be bad for him politically but he also knew and felt he had an obligation to do what was right, and do what was right for the American people and certainly the men and women at the FBI.

I think there is no secret Comey, by his own self-admission, leaked privileged government information. Weeks before President Trump fired him, Comey testified that an FBI agent engaged in the same practice; they face serious repercussions. I think he set his own stage for himself on that front. His actions were improper and likely could have been illegal.

Comey leaked memos to the New York Times, your own outlet. He politicized an investigation by signaling he would exonerate Hillary Clinton before he ever interviewed her or other key witnesses.

He is very happy with the decision he made, and I think he has been fully vindicated by a lot of those new things and knowing that it was the right one.

Hard-hitting, to say the least. A bit later another reporter followed up:

Q You said that the actions of James Comey could have been illegal. You, the other day, referred to potential false testimony. The DOJ is not commenting, but I would put to you, would the President encourage the DOJ to prosecute Comey?

MS. SANDERS:  That’s not the President’s role. That’s the job of the Department of Justice, and something they should certainly look at.

The White House thinks that Jeff Sessions should be considering a criminal prosecution of James Comey. That’s news.

Q  Is that something you’d like to see?

MS. SANDERS:  I’m not sure about that specifically, but I think if there’s ever a moment where we feel someone has broken the law, particularly if they’re the head of the FBI, I think that’s something that certainly should be looked at.

A few minutes later, a further exchange:

Q  Thank you, Sarah. Yesterday, when you were talking about James Comey, you mentioned that he gave false testimony. I didn’t hear you say that again today. Do you still stand by that?

MS. SANDERS:  I did say that actually today.

Q    You did say —

MS. SANDERS:  Yeah.

Actually, she hadn’t said it, but in that answer she stood by the allegation. Is it possible that a criminal prosecution of James Comey is in store? It seems highly unlikely, but perhaps Comey won’t sleep well tonight. If so, his unrest is well deserved.

There was much more of interest in today’s press briefing, including this question and answer about Hillary Clinton’s book:

Q And also, will the President be reading Hillary Clinton’s book? (Laughter.) And what does he think about the excerpts that have gotten out so far?

MS. SANDERS:  Whether or not he’s going to read Hillary Clinton’s book, I am not sure. But I would think that he’s pretty well-versed on “what happened.” And I think it’s pretty clear to all of America. I think it’s sad that after Hillary Clinton ran one of the most negative campaigns in history and lost, the last chapter of her public life is going to be now defined by propping up book sales with false and reckless attacks. And I think that that’s a sad way for her to continue this work.

That was an appropriately charitable evaluation from, in my view, a very able press secretary.”

America’s Feminizing of the Human Male Connected to Birth Control?

Great numbers of today’s American human male animal under age 40 are NOT the male of “its” previous generation.  This  “He” has been feminized in  tongue and body action filled with sensitivity,  feelings, and leftism.  “He” craves care, protection.

Great number’s of today’s American human female animal under age 55, especially those starring on television news or in college riots,  no longer seem able to speak in tones beyond a twelve year old spoiled brat demanding, shouting, conniving for  sweets.    Whatever happened to the elegant American English Olivia de Havilland Joan Crawford,  Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, my Mother and all of the other mothers on our block 75 years ago who  used to speak so beautifully adult female?

Birth Control and Homosexuality: Unintended Consequences

By Mike Konrad at American Thinker:

“In the 1980s, I had a boss who had gotten a masters degree in psychology from New York University. He was a brilliant man; could have been a doctor. He told me a story that explains much of what we see in society today.

It seems that while doing his graduate work in the early 1960s, he had to do research on lab rats, which were given the synthetic hormones used in the then new birth control pills. The results, he told me, showed that the grandchildren of these lab rats would have high rates of homosexual behaviors. From what he told me, the findings were suppressed. Apparently, the powers that be wanted “the pill” to pass muster. What happened to the second generation of rats that followed was of no consequence to them.

Then my boss told me: The first generation of kids born to mothers using the pill have already arrived. But we should expect in another generation a noticeable increase in homosexual behavior, as they would be the second generation. As that was then still in the future, I was shocked.

This was told me in the mid ’80s. By his reckoning, we should have seen a societal explosion of homosexuality starting around 2000, and subsequently. And, of course, we have seen such an explosion. His prediction came true.

Now, to many classic conservatives – whether religious or merely social – homosexuality is a choice, something which can be learned and/or unlearned.  The problem is: There is a degree of evidence that it may be contrariwise in some individuals…….”   Please continue reading below:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/birth_control_and_homosexuality_unintended_consequences.html

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