• 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

The Disappearance of Teaching TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE in Today’s American Schools and Universities!


Dem Fem Fascists Move to Destroy Electoral College

Abolish the Electoral College? Proceed at One’s Own Risk.

by Susan Crabtree  at realclearpolitics:
Abolish the Electoral College? Proceed at One's Own Risk.

The push to abolish the Electoral College is picking up steam as Democrats turn their attention to the 2020. Former Attorney General Eric Holder is among the latest high-profile Democrats to call for eliminating the age-old system, deeming it a “vestige of the past” and “undemocratic.” Some of the Democrats in the crowded 2020 field, ranging from South Bend, Ind., Mayor Peter Buttigieg to Sens. Elizabeth and Kirsten Gillibrand, had previously sounded the call. Warren has argued for a change in which “every vote matters.”

A group of big-state Democratic senators, including Gillibrand (New York), Dick Durbin (Illinois), and Dianne Feinstein (California), introduced a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would jettison the Electoral College. The measure is mostly an exercise to spur debate because such amendments require two-thirds majority votes in both the chambers of Congress, and GOP Senate leaders would no doubt block it from receiving any floor consideration.

Complaints about the Electoral College arose in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote narrowly over George W. Bush, but was denied the presidency after a fiercely contested Florida recount put Bush in the White House. The Democratic push this time is more than grousing. Amid the party’s continued furor over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump even though she won the popular vote, it has become a rallying cry.

If American history is any guide, however, both major political parties should be careful what they wish for. Altering the Constitution doesn’t always produce the expected consequences. Republicans’ rage over Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to break precedent and seek a third (and then a fourth) term led directly to the 22nd Amendment. Passed by Congress in 1947, it was ratified in enough states to take effect in 1951. Its most obvious result was to deny Dwight Eisenhower a chance to run in 1960, a race he’d have been favored to win. Goodbye, Camelot.

The Republican establishment hasn’t learned that lesson. To them, the equation is clear: Defending the traditional system puts the GOP in the best position for President Trump to win a second term. But some Republicans wonder if the conventional wisdom is short-sighted. For starters, these contrarians are concerned with how the existing Electoral College dynamic has reduced civic engagement in whole areas of the country, from the deeply red South, rural Plains and mountain West to the millions of essentially disenfranchised Republicans in Democrat-dominated California. Such places are ignored every four years as the two major parties and their respective presidential tickets spend almost all of their time and treasure in roughly a dozen battleground states.

Of more pressing concern, these GOP contrarians also point out that the electoral map that currently favors them is not set in stone.

In addition, Republicans who support shifting to greater reliance on the popular vote argue that in five to 10 years, their candidates may find themselves at a disadvantage even under the current system. That’s because demographics are changing palpably and Republicans might well lose their ability to win the important swing state of Florida, and possibly even the GOP anchor state of Texas.

In 2010, according to the U.S. Census, Hispanics made up 23 percent of Florida’s population. Projections put that figure at nearly 26 percent in 2017. Florida’s Cuban-Americans, once reliably Republican, are now split, with the younger generation increasingly voting Democratic. Following Hurricane Maria, Puerto Ricans, who trend Democratic, have moved to Florida by the tens of thousands.

Popular Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis could help blunt Democratic inroads in the near term, but keeping the Sunshine State in play might require significant recalibration.

Texas is another important consideration. It certainly is solidly red today: The Lone Star State has voted Republican in the last 10 elections. But it’s worth taking a closer look. In six of those elections, a Texan named George Bush was on the GOP ballot. And in the previous 20 elections, going back to William McKinley, the state went for every Democratic presidential nominee except Al Smith in 1928, Richard Nixon in 1972, and both times Adlai Stevenson faced World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower. Otherwise, the map was a sea of Democratic blue.

The point here is that over time the political leanings of states change, sometimes radically. For a while, they may swing purple. They may stay that way, or they may move to the other camp. Sometimes their reputations lag behind the reality. From the time of the Civil War to the onset of the Great Depression, Maine was the great bellwether, leading to the mantra taught to schoolchildren across the country: “As Maine goes, so goes the nation.” In 1936, however, Franklin Roosevelt swept every state in the union except Maine and Vermont, leading to a puckish quip from FDR campaign manager James Farley, “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.” But the latter state has changed, too. Until Patrick Leahy was elected in the 1970s, Vermont had never had a Democratic senator. Today, it’s so liberal that Leahy’s home-state Senate colleague felt the need to hyphenate the word “Democrat” and attach “Socialist.” Republicans need not apply.

Could such a metamorphosis take place in Texas? Why not, it happened only a generation ago in California. And last year, Democrat Beto O’Rourke came within two percentage points of ousting Sen. Ted Cruz. Was that an anomaly, or the first signs of a purple flower blooming? Just a month before the election, a Quinnipiac survey found O’Rourke leading among voters under the age of 50, with the support of 66 percent of likely voters between the ages of 18 and 34, while Cruz held a significant lead among older voters.

A March 1 Quinnipiac poll of possible 2020 matchups has Trump essentially tied in the state with Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and O’Rourke.

“If Florida and Texas shift to the Democrats, you look at that blue wall and there’s zero path to victory for Republicans using the current winner-take-all” Electoral College system, Saul Anuzis, the former Republican Party chairman in Michigan, told RealClearPolitics.

History suggests that this warning is exaggerated. For one thing, historically Democratic bastions such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania could very well move in the other direction.

Moreover, Anuzis is not pessimistic. He and others are suggesting that if Republicans are forced to compete for the popular vote it could ultimately strengthen the GOP by making it less of a regional party and leaving it less reliant on an aging demographical cohort: namely, white voters.

These would-be reformers have aligned themselves with a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (Anuzis is a senior consultant). It would go into effect when enacted by states collectively possessing a majority of the electoral votes necessary to elect a president: 270 out of 538. Instead of each state designating all of its electoral votes to the winner of that state’s popular vote, those states in the compact would agree to hand over their electors to the candidate who receives the most votes across the nation.

Unlike the Democratic Party push to abolish the Electoral College, which would take a constitutional amendment, the Newt Gingrich-endorsed compact preserves it, but lessens its power. While national political figures clash over the Electoral College, a growing number of states have already quietly moved to largely bypass it by approving the compact. Last week, Delaware’s governor signed the compact into law, just weeks after Colorado did the same. On Wednesday, New Mexico followed suit.

Eleven other states and the District of Columbia have likewise done so, with the initiative nearing the 200 mark for combined electoral votes but still significantly shy of the 270 needed to switch the system.  That’s one more reason, advocates say, Trump supporters shouldn’t fear the popular vote compact – it has no real chance of becoming law in enough states to replace the Electoral College by 2020.

It’s also based on federalism and respect for state rights, Anuzis explained, and if it’s not working the way states planned, state legislatures can change it. Under the compact, instead of presidential candidates focusing all their time and money on a small number of battleground states every four years and showering those states with pet projects and federal spending to help woo voters there, candidates would be forced to spend time campaigning across the country.

“If you look at little bit beyond Trump and look at the hard math and shifting demographics, going to a system that encourages everyone to vote and candidates to talk to as many people as possible, Republicans have a chance of winning in a very fair fight,” said Anthony Delcollo, a Republican member of the Delaware Senate who co-sponsored the compact bill.

Before winning the Electoral College, Trump expressed distrust of the system, frequently referring to it as “rigged.” He was onto something, Delcollo argued, because the system is rigged against Republicans with an estimated 240 electors coming from traditionally blue states and only 115 from traditionally red ones.

“If Texas does become a swing state in the future, then that number drops to roughly 70,” Delcollo said. “If Texas becomes purple it becomes very, very hard to win in the Electoral College, and if Florida becomes blue, that means a Democrat would win every single time” – assuming, of course, that other states don’t shift in the opposite direction.

Before his 2016 victory upended conventional wisdom, in 2012 Trump used similar language to decry the Electoral College, calling it a “disaster for democracy … a total sham and a travesty.”

Even a month after his win, Trump was still naturally inclined to favor a popular vote system, telling CBS’ “60 Minutes” that he would rather have a process that depends on “simple votes,” as he phrased it.

“You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million, and you win,” Trump said. “There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

After Democrats started gunning for the Electoral College, Trump changed his mind, recently arguing on Twitter that “with the popular vote, you go to just the large states – the cities would end up running the country. Smaller states and the entire Midwest would up losing all power & we can’t let that happen.”

The president seemed to echo sentiments from some of his most ardent supporters on the right who want to preserve the system that handed him his surprise victory. But Democrats are working overtime to prevent a repeat performance, strategically holding their national convention in Milwaukee, Wis., as a show of force in a state Clinton neglected — and failed to win.

Victor Davis Hanson became the latest conservative to push back against progressive Democrats’ calls to scrap the two-century-old tradition of granting electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote within each state.

The Electoral College was designed in part to ensure that candidates “at least visited the small and rural states of America,” Hanson wrote in an op-ed. “The … Founding Fathers did not want elections to rest solely with larger urban populations. The Electoral College balances out the popular vote.”

Hanson characterized the attacks on the system as an unprincipled power grab aimed at preventing another Trump win, which could again happen without carrying the popular vote.

Supporters of the popular vote countered by stressing that the nation’s five biggest cities – New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia – represent just 6 percent of the country’s population. Moreover, the population of the 50 biggest cities represents only 15 percent of the population.

Besides, they say, it’s a myth that the Founders established the Electoral College to prevent elections from becoming contests where presidential candidates would simply campaign in big cities, because in the late 1700s 95 percent of the population lived in places with fewer than 2,500 people.

“It’s basically a travesty that a small selection of swing states decide our president, and they get more funding per capita and they wash out the voice of all the states,” Delcollo said. “There’s nothing small-government or conservative about that.”

Note from ghr.    Some of our “united” states are already far,  far more foul and corrupt than others.   Today’s California, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Nevada all Dem states, lead the lists with their 30,000,000 illegals already invading and nestled in to destroy freedom’s civilization in our once freedom seeking, freedom building tolerant JudeoChristian  lawful,  civil and free United States  of America!   Moreover, Dem ditsy feminazis have arrived at schools, television, and the world of newsprint  to  profess,  and preach” their new waves to cause noise, hate, and violence.

Goodness Still Exists in America

The Life of Sean

by David F. Watson on Down Syndrome & the Lives That Matter   (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

As I watch my eleven-year-old son, Sean, make movies on his iPad, I worry about the future. In this era in which many have taken it upon themselves to insist loudly and publicly that their lives matter, many also insist that lives like Sean’s do not. Last March, the Washington Post published an article by Ruth Marcus entitled “I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome. Women need that right.” As a thought experiment, replace the words “with Down syndrome” with terms for other categories of people. Substitute a particular racial group, gender category, or sexual orientation. The hue and cry over such an article would rattle the heavens. Western culture has developed a normally unspoken hierarchy of humanity, and people with diminished intellectual capacities are on the low end of it.

One might object that categories of race, gender, and sexual orientation do not carry with them the familial and social burdens that people with Down syndrome do. This assumes that “burden” is an appropriate criterion for abortion, an assumption I reject. For the sake of argument, however, let’s grant the validity of this position for a moment. At what point, then, do we decide that the level of “burden” justifies the elimination of an entire category of people?

If you would prefer a closer analogy than that of race, gender, or sexual orientation, replace “Down syndrome” in the headline with another genetic condition, like a predisposition to obesity. “I would’ve aborted a fetus with a genetic propensity to become obese. Women need that right.” Think of the strain that obese people place on our healthcare system. If we could only eliminate such people before they were born. . . . Or how about: “I would have aborted a fetus with a genetic predisposition toward depression.” Or “alcoholism.” Or “Alzheimer’s.” Or “autism.” It is now possible to administer a highly accurate prenatal test for Down syndrome. No doubt the medical community will in time develop tests for other conditions as well. Imagine the headlines our children will read twenty years from now.

To its credit, the Post did publish an opposing opinion by George Will called “The real Down syndrome problem: Accepting genocide.” Will defines genocide as “the deliberate, systematic attempt to erase a category of people.” Consider also the eugenic character of efforts to eradicate people with Down syndrome. We are witnessing a concerted attempt to eliminate an entire category of people precisely because these people bear genetic characteristics considered undesirable. This has, by and large, already happened in Iceland, and it is happening in other parts of Western Europe and the United States. People with Down syndrome are depicted as inflicting a burden on both their families and the wider society. Therefore, this line of thought goes, their elimination makes life easier for all of us. One wonders which group of undesirables will next bear the unfortunate label of “burden.”

Conferring Value on Lives

Do not miss the significance of an article making the case for eugenics appearing in the Washington Post. It is now entirely acceptable to depict people like Sean as superfluous both to families and to society. These people are commonly understood to matter less than other people. Let’s be clear about what is happening here: the devaluing of a certain category of people because of a disability. That is the very definition of ableism. To suggest, then, that it is appropriate to eliminate this category of people in the womb is nothing less than to advocate eugenics. Why is this not considered hate speech? In a world where college students have to run to their safe spaces when a tenured professor opts not to use their preferred pronouns, how is it acceptable to advocate ableist, eugenic policies in an established forum such as the Washington Post?

The reason is that, culturally speaking, we determine the value of certain categories of people by the effectiveness of those who advocate on their behalf. In Western culture, the church has lost a great deal of its once-pervasive influence. Some people—many, in fact—insist that this is a good thing. We have finally thrown off the puritanical shackles of Christianity and entered into a new era of individual freedom. This, however, is a lie. We are no freer than we were before. We have simply decided to serve different masters.

We have entered into an era in which we have to insist that various categories of lives actually matter. The Black Lives Matter movement has given rise to other advocacy groups. We are now reminded that blue lives, brown lives, and gay lives matter. In response to these various slogans, some people have begun to insist that “all lives matter.” But do they? The emergence of these advocacy movements suggests that any widespread cultural notion that human life is intrinsically valuable has vanished. We now establish the value of lives through the will to power. Nietzschean voluntarism has replaced philosophical and theological notions of the intrinsic value of human life.

In this world, people with Down syndrome are at a significant disadvantage. Because they normally experience diminished intellectual capacity compared to “typical” people, it is very difficult for them to enter into the arenas of advocacy and public discourse. The will to power is not within their grasp. We might expect their parents to advocate on their behalf, and some do, but the abortion rate of children with Down syndrome indicates that their parents are often the very ones from whom they need protection.

The Need for Clarity

I am not surprised to see the rise of ethical voluntarism in secular cultures. It is a logical outworking of the epistemic consequence of sin. Under the influence of original sin, people replace the values disclosed to us through divine revelation with values they believe serve their own interests. What frightens me, however, is seeing these values penetrate the church. They have established innumerable outposts within mainline Protestantism, and they are increasingly infiltrating Western Evangelicalism.

I spend considerable time in various communities of the Protestant world: mainline, Evangelical, charismatic, and African-American. When faced with complex ethical issues, Protestants stand at a significant disadvantage relative to Roman Catholics. We tend to make ethical decisions based upon emotivism, biblicism, or some combination of the two. What many Protestant traditions lack is a well-thought-out body of doctrinal and ethical resources rooted in Scripture, but drawing out its implications in disciplined and systematic ways that can help to shape the life of the church. We need more than feelings about the value of life and Scripture passages that support our feelings.

We need more than the writings of theologians and ethicists whose work remains peripheral to the church’s decision-making processes. We need real doctrinal clarity that can give rise to ethical clarity. In the case of the lives of people with Down syndrome, we need theological anthropology. Without clear, reasoned teaching from the church, many of our congregants will simply adopt the values of the dominant culture in which they live.

Reinders’s Insights

One of the finest pieces of theology I have ever read is Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics, by Hans S. Reinders (-Eerdmans, 2008). This work is not simply an outstanding example of the theology of disability, but it could also serve as a model for many other areas of theological inquiry. In the book, Reinders takes up the matter of “profound disability,” by which he means a “state of mental development that has not gone beyond a toddler’s stage of development” (48). Reinders asserts that “being created in God’s image indicates a unique relationship” and that “this relationship is affirmed extrinsically by the triune God. . . . From a Christian point of view, all of this is to say that the human being exists truthfully in God’s friendship, regardless of his or her abilities and disabilities” (313).

When we become friends with people with profound disabilities, we are acting in agreement with God’s friendship with them. In the process, we ourselves are changed. We learn about what it means to be truly human. People with profound disabilities teach us about our own -friendship with God. They show us that “being accepted by God does not depend on our goodness” (320). They show us that, as we age and lose some of the capacities in which we have been taught to take so much pride, our value as human beings is not diminished. In other words, Reinders constructs a theological vantage point from which it is impossible to distinguish differences in value among people with various levels of abilities.

Put differently, in Reinders’s schema, the value of human life is not based on what a person can accomplish on the one hand, or on how much of a “burden” he or she may be on the other. The value of human life is based in God’s love. When we come into agreement with God’s love, we will understand the value of all human life, regardless of disability or any other category we wish to consider. The church must continue to insist that human life has value that is independent of an individual’s ability and power. We must resist the lure of voluntarism. We must be ever vigilant to make sure that our own values are not simply the values of the wider culture with Christian window dressing.

Picking Up Our Game

Particularly among Protestants, this means that we need to pick up our game. We need to take more seriously the theological teaching office of the church, and to help our congregants understand why each human life matters. The people in our churches don’t simply need to know that one human life matters as much as any other; they also need to know why this is the case. If we do not intentionally shape them intellectually and ethically, someone else will.

In her Post article, Ruth Marcus provides us with a moment of exquisite irony when she describes legal efforts to prevent eugenic selection against people with Down syndrome with this comparison: “In an argument worthy of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. . . .” Marcus evokes the specter of a fictitious dystopia for women when she herself is contributing to a real-life dystopia for people with Down syndrome.

Indeed, as I watch Sean make movies on his iPad, I worry about the future. I worry about his future, not because of his level of ability, but because of the voices of those who will say that his life matters less than others’. I pray that the Body of Christ will stand up for him, and those like him, in a world that sees them as burdens rather than gifts.

David F. Watson serves as Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. His most recent book is Scripture and the Life of God: Why the Bible Matters Today More Than Ever (Seedbed, 2017), and he blogs at http://www.davidfwatson.me. David and his wife, Harriet, have two children, Luke and Sean.



Keeping Abreast with the Ditsies!

Woke’s on you

On the “radical intersectionalist poet” Titania McGrath.

Those who doubt the operation of a beneficent, or at least an amusing, providence should consider the case of the British writer Titania McGrath. Margaret Ann Bulkley may have decided to move to South Africa and live her life as a man. But Titania McGrath, a Twitter sensation and the author of the forthcoming Woke: A Guide to Social Justice, is “a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice, and armed peaceful protest. A regular on the live-slam poetry scene, Titania regularly performs at arts festivals, deconsecrated churches, and genderqueer spiritual retreats.” Nice! Ms. McGrath was guyed by Private Eye forthe way she commended her book to the public: “I have written the most important book of 2019. Do not buy it for my sake, but for the sake of humanity.”

Shameless? Or in-your-face intersectional wokeness?

We incline to the latter view. Ms. McGrath burrows deep into the contradictions of late capitalism, patriarchal privilege, toxic masculinity, white supremacism, and heteronormative binary exclusivity. She is so woke she makes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez look like Sleeping Beauty. Consider: “If you don’t think exactly the same way as me,” she points out, “then you’ve clearly got a lot to learn about diversity.” Could any triggered academic put it better? “I despise whiteness. Literally nothing about me is white except for my skin colour.”

Although she is British, Ms. McGrath outdoes Bill Kristol at his own game: “It’s a broken kind of democracy that allows a majority of voters to impose their wishes on the rest of us.” Yes! Ms. McGrath cracks open the hard nut of oppression lurking inside all of us, all men anyway. “Men who are attracted to women clearly have feminine tastes and are therefore probably gay.” Again: “I have posed nude for Penthouse in an effort to dismantle the patriarchy from within.” And how’s this? “If you only have sex with people you find attractive, you might want to ask yourself why you’re such a superficial bigot.”

We’ve been hearing a lot about Brexit lately. But Ms. McGrath might have the most radical proposal we’ve yet heard: “It is our children who will suffer most from Brexit. Therefore we should hold a second referendum but only allow under 12s to vote.” And how about this? “I have always stood up for minorities. As such, it is essential that we respect the wishes of the minority of U.K. voters and overturn Brexit.” Ms. McGrath is also sensitive to the enormity of America’s slaveholding past. “My book is now available to buy in the U.S. on Kindle. If you want the hardcover, you’ll have to order it from the U.K. or wait a few months. I do this in order to punish the U.S. for its complicity in the slave trade.”

She is alert to fat shaming, too: “You’ll notice there’s not a single obese player in the England football team. This kind of discrimination is precisely why the fat acceptance movement is so essential.” She also tweaked NatWest, a British bank, for inciting “violence against vegans.” They apologized.

How woke is Titania McGrath? This woke: “We need to distinguish between bad homophobia and good homophobia. Bad homophobia is when a Christian bakery refuses to make a cake with a gay slogan. Good homophobia is when children are prevented from learning about gay rights in the name of Allah.” Herbert Marcuse’s idea of “repressive tolerance” has nothing on that distinction.

Thinking of wearing a maga hat? “Wearing a maga hat is a form of incitement to violence. So if someone punches you in the face for wearing one, that’s your fault.” Aren’t we hearing that everywhere today? “Whenever anyone says that women aren’t funny, I take it as a compliment. Humour is a patriarchal construct.” Ditto body hair: “Chest hair is a social construct.” You knew that, right?

Remember Jussie Smollett? Titania McGrath gets it: “It is absolutely essential that we believe Jussie Smollett. If we don’t, other people who haven’t been attacked might not have the courage to come forward.”

The absolutely brilliant thing about Titania McGrath, as the world just discovered last month, is that she is really the satirical invention of Andrew Doyle, a former Oxford postgraduate student and clearly a very clever man. The Guardian, the New Statesman, and other woke publications don’t think so. “Lampooning the language of social justice is a cheap shot,” according to The Guardian. The New Statesman, now that Titania (Queen of the Fairies in A Midsummer Night’s Dream) has unmasked himself as Andrew, concludes that his performance is a “tired and unfunny ‘joke’ ” that is “just the old sneering at the young.” Really? We think Andrew Doyle, blessed with a pitch perfect ear for absurdity, has revealed the malign hilarity of woke culture. Twitter was right to ban him four times. He is dangerous to the perpetuation of the woke bubble they love.




The GLAAD War Against Civility

The Silencing of the Lambs

by Michael Brown  at the Stream:                  Article sent by Mark Waldeland.
There has always been one end-game for the radical left: the silencing of dissenting voices, in particular conservative Christian voices.

The radical left is not simply interested in winning in the marketplace of ideas. It is not simply interested in changing hearts and minds. It is ultimately interested in silencing the opposition, especially all opposition that is based on a biblical worldview.

For years I have said that those who came out of the closet (meaning, radical gay activists) wanted to put us in the closet (meaning those of us who identify with conservative biblical values). And for years I (and many others) have documented this, time and time again.

Anything to Avoid True Dialogue

You might wonder how the radical left wants to silence us. How, exactly, does it want to put us in the closet?

By intimidation. By ridicule. By legal action. By expulsion. By exclusion.

For years I have said that those who came out of the closet (meaning, radical gay activists) wanted to put us in the closet (meaning those of us who identify with conservative biblical values). And for years I (and many others) have documented this, time and time again.

Anything to avoid civil, respectful debate. Anything to avoid a genuine discussion of differences. Anything to avoid true dialogue.

Instead, those who differ with the radical left are to be demonized, stigmatized, marginalized, and silenced.

Back in 2012, the gay activist organization GLAAD launched its Commentator Accountability Project. Its purpose was to discourage media outlets from having people like me on their broadcasts. (I was on of their initial list of 36 commentators. The list has greatly expanded now.)

Again, GLAAD’s goal was not to provide useful information for the liberal media to refute our arguments. Instead, their goal was to discredit us and convince the media not to give us any platform.

In short, GLAAD’s operating principles were simple. Exclude people, don’t examine their ideas. Demonize them, don’t dialogue with them.

That’s why I said that GLAAD was not the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (their original acronym; now they’re just GLAAD). Instead, I suggested, they should be known as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.

In that same spirit, it is the radical left which seeks to block conservative speakers from college campuses, even with violent protests.

It is the radical left which seeks to shame people on their jobs and humiliate them in their schools.

As for freedom of speech and expression, that must be a one-way street.

Only the ideas of the left are worthy of dissemination. Dissenters are no better than the Taliban, than ISIS, than the Nazis, than the KKK.

That’s the way the radical left seeks to win.

Student Suspended for Posting Bible Verses

And that’s why a high school student was recently suspended for posting Bible verses in her school in response to LGBTQ pride displays. The displays were perfectly welcome. The Bible verses were not.

As I said, freedom of expression only goes one way.

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

The student, Gabby Helsinger, explains that she was called into the principal’s office and was asked why she posted the Bible verses.

“And I said, ‘Because I wanted to spread the word of God,’” Gabby said in a Facebook video. “And [the principal] goes, ‘Well did you have permission?’ And I said, ‘No.’ I didn’t know you had to have permission because people do it a lot — putting Post-It notes on people’s lockers, so I just did it.”

“Gabby then asked the principal why any material that mentions God or Jesus, it gets removed ‘straight away,’ while ‘gay pride stuff’ can be put up all over school and openly discussed with no repercussions at all,” CBN Newsreported.

Enough said.

Love and Truth

Or consider the unrelenting attack on Mike Pence, the Vice President of the United States. He is a vile person. An ugly person. A person to be shamed by visiting dignitaries and ridiculed by outspoken celebrities. And his wife, Karen, is to be vilified as well.

Why? Because he has the audacity to believe what virtually all branches of Christianity have believed for the better part of two millennia (namely, that marriage is for a man and a woman) and because his wife has the audacity to teach at a Christian school.

Such views can no longer be tolerated.

Forget about tolerance and acceptance and diversity.

Those were just code words used to win over those in the middle. They were nothing more than Trojan horses through which intolerance and exclusivity could be smuggled in.

Once in place, the real agenda now comes to light. And make no mistake about it. It is an ugly, vile agenda. (Yes, I call things like drag queens reading to toddlers ugly and vile, all the more so when one of the drag queens is a registered sex offender.)

How then should we respond to this attempt to silence us? How should we respond to attempts to intimidate us and marginalize us?

Simple. We speak out more loudly and clearly. We take our stands more firmly and boldly. And the more we are hated and slandered, the more we respond with love and truth.

The darkness will never succeed in snuffing out the light.



Ocasio-Cortez’s Dem’s $43 Trillion Budget to Begin Dem’s Socialist Empire

Proof That “the Rich” Aren’t Going to Fund the Tidal Wave of New Spending

This column appeared March 1st, 2019 at the Foundation for Economic Education

So, $47 billion on free college tuition; $1 trillion for new infrastructure; $1.4 trillion to write off student loan debt; at least $7 trillion on a Green New Deal; $32 trillion on “Medicare for All.” By one estimate, these new spending proposals total an estimated $42.5 trillion over the next decade. And this is on top of federal budget deficits, which are projected to rise from $779 billion to $1.37 trillion annually over the same period.

Who is going to pay for all this?

“The rich” is one currently popular answer. New York’s high-profile Rep. Ocasio-Cortez recently suggested that her proposed “Green New Deal” could be financed by a new 70 percent marginal tax rate on “the tippie tops” earners. Sen. Warren has proposed a tax of two percent on wealth above $50 million and three percent on net wealth above $1 billion.

This is on top of what “the rich” already pay. Individual income taxes remain the federal government’s single biggest source of revenue. In fiscal year 2018, they were expected to bring in roughly $1.7 trillion, about half of all federal revenues.

The bottom-earning 50 percent of taxpayers, who received 11.6 percent of total US income, paid three percent of this. The top-earning one percent, who earned 19.7 percent of total income, paid 37.3 percent. This was more than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). These figures are worth remembering when politicians demand that the rich pay their “fair share.”

Sadly, for the schemes of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez or Sen. Warren, there is little evidence to suggest that “the rich” will oblige by simply handing over a much greater share of their income in response to higher tax rates. And even if the revenue estimates are accurate, they are nowhere near adequate to fund this vast spending spree.

The Tax Foundation estimates that applying a 70 percent tax rate on ordinary income over $10 million would raise about $291 billion between 2019 and 2028—0.7 percent of the $42.5 trillion in new spending. Indeed, it would cover just 29 percent of the $985 billion federal deficit anticipated for the single fiscal year October 2018 to September 2019. And that is the Foundation’s higher revenue estimate.

Sen. Warren claims her wealth tax will bring in $2.7 trillion, just 6.3 percent of the $42.5 trillion in new spending. But this assumes that “the rich” will use zero legal tax shelters. This is completely unrealistic.

The historical record offers little hope to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Warren. According to the Tax Policy Center, since 1946, the top rate of federal income tax has ranged from 92 percent in the early 1950s to 28 percent in the late 1980s (it is a different story for the effective tax rate). And yet, over the same period, federal income tax receipts were a pretty stable share of US GDP; the mean average was 16.8 percent and the median 16.9 percent. Indeed, in the two years when the top tax rate was 92 percent (1952 and 1953), tax revenues as a share of GDP were, on average, 17.9 percent of US GDP. In the three years when the top tax rate was 28 percent (1988-1990), that figure was 17.4 percent. Vastly different marginal rates—before deductions, at any rate—but fairly similar revenues.

If “the rich” are going to pay for everything then somebody had better be rich. But while politicians such as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez are calling for higher taxes on “the rich” to fund this new spending, they are also hoping that these higher tax rates will stop anybody from being rich enough to pay them.

Just 18 days after claiming that higher taxes on “the tippie tops” would pay for her “Green New Deal,” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted the following quote from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman: “The root justification [for marginal tax rates] is not about collecting revenue. It is about regulating inequality and the market economy.”

But if you’re proposing to spend an additional $42.5 trillion, you have to collect revenue.

If “the rich” aren’t going to fund this tidal wave of new spending—and aren’t even intended to—who will?

The answer is you, assuming you’re an average, middle-class American. If enacted, these schemes will demand cash, and lots of it. And if “the rich” don’t stump up, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Warren will come after you.

Look at countries where the government does take a greater share of national income in taxation. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the governments of France (46.2 percent), Denmark (46 percent), Belgium (44.6 percent), Sweden (44 percent), and Finland (43.3 percent)—the poster boys for “democratic socialism” now that Venezuela is collapsing—all take more of their citizens’ income than the US (27.1 percent, including state and local taxes), which ranks 31st among the OECD’s 36 members.

But this isn’t the result of taxing “the rich” more heavily, it is the result of taxing everyone more heavily. Finland, Sweden, and especially Denmark bring in 12.6, 13.1, and 25.6 percent of GDP respectively from personal income taxes. This compares to 10.5 percent in the US. True, they have higher top rates of income tax than the US, but what really makes the difference is that they apply them to many more taxpayers than the federal government. In the US, the top income tax rate kicks in at an income level 8.0 times the average wage. In Finland, Sweden, and Denmark, the figures are 1.9, 1.5, and 1.3 times respectively. Notably, the countries with tax systems even more progressive than the US (France, Japan, and Mexico) raise substantially less from personal income taxes than the US does.

The European countries also rely more heavily on less progressive taxes to generate their higher revenues. Payroll taxes account for 6.3 percent of GDP in the US compared to an OECD average of 9.6 percent (12.1 and 14.7 percent in Finland and Sweden respectively). Regressive consumption taxes account for 11.0 percent of GDP across the OECD—and 12.3, 14.2, and 14.6 percent in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark respectively—compared to just 4.3 percent in the US.

If Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Warren want the federal government to collect European shares of national income, they will have to adopt European tax systems. That means higher income taxes on the middle class, higher payroll taxes, and higher consumption taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising $32 trillion in tax revenue would require adding 36 percentage points to the marginal tax rate of every federal income taxpayer in the United States. Not just the rich—everyone. The single woman earning $82,500 and the couple earning $165,000 would see their rates soar from 24 percent to 60 percent.

To borrow from P. J. O’Rourke, the good news is that the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that you’re rich.

John Phelan is an economist at the Center of the American Experiment. 


Classic Ditsy Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Performance


I’ve referred to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a Valley Girl before. That characterization is validated by this montage produced by our friends at Grabien. Taken from her appearance at SXSW in Austin, it documents her 71 “likes,” her 34 “you knows,” and her five “whatevers.” The woman is both ill-informed and unusually inarticulate, not to say, much of the time, incoherent. Here is the Valley Girl before an admiring audience:

Click below for video: