• 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

Duluth Rally for President Trump, June 20th

TRUMP RALLY IN DULUTH MOVED TO LARGER AMSOIL ARENA

at  350 Harbor Drive…..

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

Please read more below!

http://www.fox9.com/news/trump-rally-duluth-moved

While Obama’s Racists Terrorize, Ben Shapiro Preaches Knowledge and Civility at Yale

 

 

The Ideal Family Begins with a Mom and a Dad!

Why Moms and Dads Both Matter in Marriage

..

by Jenet Erickson  at the Public Discourse        (Article sent by Mark Waldeland)

..

Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable—they both add distinct benefits to the development of children. Courts and legislatures can change legal definitions, but they cannot alter biology or psychology.

As the Supreme Court considers whether to redefine marriage in genderless terms, scholars supporting gender-diverse parenting filed an amicus briefurging the Court not to eviscerate this fundamental norm of marriage given its crucial benefits to the development of children. If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized, the message the law will send is that the gender of parents becomes valueless, since any two adults will do.

Gender Diversity Is in Our Genes

In the late 1970s, Azim Surani tried to create new life using two sets of genes from only a mother, or a father. Everything then known about genetics suggested that with the right number of chromosomes, life would develop normally, even if all of its genetic material came only from a female or a male. But the eggs with only the mother’s genes could not survive. A similar fate met the eggs implanted with two sets of father’s genes.

As science reporter Paul Raeburn describes, Surani discovered that mothers and fathers each contributed something in their genes that was critical to sustaining life. These “paternal” and “maternal” genes appeared completely indistinguishable in every way, yet expressed themselves differently depending on whether they came from the mother or the father. And both were essential to the survival of the egg.

The essential need for both a mother and a father to provide genetic material for survival parallels what social science tells us about the importance of mothers and fathers in children’s development. Fathers and mothers bring similar, even indistinguishable, capacities that enable healthy child development. But like the complementarity of the left and right halves of the brain, they also bring distinct capacities that provide complementary, irreplaceable contributions to children’s healthy development.

Coo and Cuddle vs. Tickle and Toss

Consider what social science research reveals about how mothers and fathers distinctively influence children’s social and emotional development. Mothers are biologically primed to provide nurturing oriented toward creating a strong attachment relationship. Dramatic increases in oxytocin and oxytocin receptors during the process of giving birth and caring for infants act like a switch in mothers, turning on maternal behaviors. New moms find themselves expressing positive feelings, affectionately touching and gazing at their infants, and engaging in “motherese” vocalizations. Infants’ levels of oxytocin parallel their mothers’, producing feelings of calm and well-being that similarly bond mother and offspring.

Fathers also experience significant physiological changes that “prime” them for bonding. But the same hormones elicit different types of responses. Instead of inviting “security-inducing” behaviors, fathers’ levels of oxytocin are associated with “stimulatory” behaviors, like tickling and bouncing. This suggests a biological foundation for what we observe all around us. While mothers are more likely to “coo and cuddle” their infants, fathers are more likely to “tickle and toss.” These differences foreshadow more extensive complementary patterns exhibited across children’s development.

Identity and Emotional Capacity vs. Social and Relational Capacity

A mother’s capacities are uniquely oriented toward identity formation and emotional security. Her ability to detect, interpret and respond in positive, non-intrusive ways to her infant’s needs has been identified as the strongest and most consistent predictor of a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. Neuropsychological studies indicate that mothers have a uniquely sensitive ability to modify the stimulation they give to their infants, matching their infants’ inner state and providing the optimal “chunked bits” of positive interaction needed for development. In the process, children experience positive effects on memory, cognition, stress tolerance, and emotional and behavioral regulation, as well as cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune function.

In this secure attachment relationship, children develop their own sense of identity while learning to appreciate, understand, and empathize with the feelings of others. From infancy on, children are more likely to seek out their mothers for comfort in times of stress. And mothers are much more likely to identify, ask about, listen to, and discuss emotions with children. A mother’s unique orientation toward identifying, expressing, regulating, understanding, and processing emotions is not only important for self-awareness and emotional well-being; it also lays a foundation for moral awareness, including a sense of moral conscience with the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.

Fathers demonstrate a complementary influence. While mothers are uniquely important in developing secure identity and emotional understanding, fathers are uniquely important in developing social and relational capacity. Interestingly, this complementarity is reflected in the way mothers and fathers hold their infants. While a mother is likely to hold her infant to enable maximum contact with her face and body, a father is most likely to hold the infant in a way that gives the baby the same view of the world as the father has. This “football hold” orients the infant’s face outward, toward others.

It is fathers’ involvement with their children that consistently predicts how they relate to others. Father closeness during a child’s adolescence has been identified as the key predictor of empathy in adulthood, as well as marital relationship quality and extra-marital relationship quality in adulthood. In contrast, lack of father involvement has repeatedly been associated with delinquent and criminal behaviors, even into adulthood. For boys, the mere presence of a father in the home predicts less delinquent behavior.

Some of this may be due, in part to the discipline style of fathers. Fathers intervene to discipline less often than mothers, but when they do, they exhibit more firmness and predictability. In contrast, mothers use more reasoning and flexibility in carrying out consequences. Children, in turn, are more likely to comply with their father’s requests and demands than with their mother’s.

More significantly, fathers influence children’s social and relational capacity through their play. Compared to mothers, fathers are much more likely to interact through play. And that play is strongly predictive of the quality of children’s peer relationships. In repeated studies, fathers who spent more time in positive play with their children had children with the highest peer ratings. When fathers were more responsive, patient, playful and less coercive in their play, children showed less aggressiveness and more peer competence, and they were better liked.

As one report noted, “Rough-housing with dad” appears to “teach children how to deal with aggressive impulses and physical contact without losing control of their emotions.” Through play, fathers help children learn how to temper and channel emotions in a positive, interactive way and gain confidence in their ability to do so. As children age, fathers focus less on physical play and engage in more peer-like verbal play in the form of sarcasm and humor. Peer-like verbal play allows a father to tease and joke with a child, within the safety of the father-child relationship, thus strengthening children’s sense of identity and social confidence. While mothers consistently build self-understanding, fathers consistently build social-relational understanding.

Learning Foundation vs. Orientation and Achievement

This same type of complementarity is exhibited in the mothers’ and fathers’ influence on children’s cognitive development and educational achievement. Indeed, mothers seem to be biologically and psychologically primed to provide just the right kind of emotionally sensitive, cognitively stimulating interactions.  Mothers are also are more likely to focus on teaching children in their interactions. For example, while fathers may use a toy to engage with a child, mothers will focus their child on the toy, describe it, and teach about it.  This verbally rich, teaching orientation has important implications for cognitive development, including memory, problem-solving, and language advancement.

Fathers complement the foundational contributions mothers make to children’s cognitive development and build upon it. When fathers are “involved, nurturing, and playful,” children exhibit higher IQs, language development, and cognitive skills. One explanation for this is that children with involved fathers show a social-emotional readiness for learning, including being better able to handle the stresses and frustrations associated with schooling. Fathers also uniquely influence children’s expressive language development, because they are more likely to use a broader vocabulary. Mothers, by contrast, often simplify their language to ensure understanding.

Fathers also play a central role in academic achievement. Children with involved fathers were 43 percent more likely to earn “A” grades, 33 percent less likely to repeat a grade, and 98 percent more likely to graduate from college. Part of this is due to the fact that involved fathers are likely to help with homework and provide financial support for college. But involved fathers also monitor and guide children’s behaviors, helping them avoid behaviors that might negatively impact school achievement. Indeed, they seem to be uniquely able to foster a learning environment with just the right mix of “engagement, affection, and supervision.”

Most significantly, fathers build children’s learning capacity by orienting children toward learning in critical ways. First, compared to mothers, fathers’ interactions are characterized by arousal, excitement, and unpredictability in a way that stimulates openness to the world, with an eagerness to explore and discover. Second, fathers have a unique ability to encourage risk-taking while ensuring safety and security, thus inviting children to pursue opportunities that translate into educational and occupational success. Third, involved fathers consistently focus on helping children learn to do things independently and to find solutions to their own problems, building both capacity and confidence. Finally, fathers tend to be more “cognitively demanding” of their children, pushing them to deepen and demonstrate their understanding. Where mothers are more likely to reach in and help children solve a problem, fathers hold back while still offering support, again building capacity and confidence. This area again demonstrates a complementarity between mothers and fathers that is critical, each being irreplaceable by the other.

Gender Identity and Sexual Development

The importance of mothers’ and fathers’ complementarity becomes particularly obvious as a child attempts to make sense of his or her gender. During this period (beginning around eighteen months), both the “same-sex-as-me parent” and the “opposite-sex-from-me-parent” play vital roles. In the words of famed anthropologist Margaret Mead, “One of the most important learnings for every human child is how to be a full member of its own sex and at the same time fully relate to the opposite sex.  This is not an easy learning; it requires the continuing presence of a father and a mother.”

The continuing presence of fathers emerges as particularly important in the sexual identity of girls. Girls who are not reared by their biological fathers are much more likely to engage in sexual relations at an early age and to become pregnant as teenagers. Father absence has been identified as the single greatest risk factor in teen pregnancy for girls. In fact, the presence and emotional closeness of fathers seems to “set the reproductive strategy” girls use throughout their lives. Perhaps, as Professor Bradford Wilcox concludes, this is because “Girls raised in homes with their fathers are more likely to receive the attention, affection, and modeling that they need . . . to rebuff young men who do not have their best interests at heart.”

For boys, the effects on sexual development are just as significant but manifest themselves differently. Without the closeness and modeling of a father, boys engage in what David Popenoe calls “compensatory masculinity,” exhibited in rejecting and denigrating anything feminine while seeking to prove masculinity through violent and aggressive domination. In contrast, boys raised in homes with fathers are more likely to “acquire the sense of self-worth and self-control that allows them to steer clear of delinquent peers and trouble with the law,” including in their sexual behaviors.

The Precision of Parental Complementarity

In each of these developmental areas, the natural complementarity between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting strengths is surprisingly precise. Whereas mothers are biologically prepared to nurture, teach, and provide care that is especially important for foundational development, fathers are predisposed to take a facilitative approach to parenting, fostering self-reliance, achievement, and healthy peer relationships in ways that are particularly important especially as children begin to transition to adult life. Both mothers and fathers are needed to create life, and both are needed to best facilitate the nurturing of that life. Mothers do not father, and fathers do not mother. Each emerges as a unique source of distinct and critical nurturing in the development of children. Indeed, evidence of these distinct contributions confirms a long assumed proposition: namely, that the direct, continual involvement of both a mother and a father in the home is ideal for the child’s development.

Thus, mandating that gender diversity be legally removed from marriage destroys one of the most fundamental and scientifically documented norms of marriage, which plays a crucial role in a child’s social, physical, emotional, and intellectual development.

Without gender complementarity in marriage, children will be worse off—and society will suffer the consequences.

 

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTUSblog explains the decision as follows:

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

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

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

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

No, Silly. Here’s How You Do It.

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

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

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

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

But … Gorsuch

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

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

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

The Hunt Continues

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

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

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

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

The Tyranny of the Snowflakes

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

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

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

 

https://stream.org/we-must-clone-clarence-thomas-the-lesson-of-scotus-wedding-cake-decision/

It’s the Economy, Folks!

BOOM!

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

On top of yesterday’s jobs report–so good that it had Nancy Pelosi mumbling that “strong employment numbers mean little”–the Atlanta Fed now estimates 2nd quarter GDP growth at an annualized rate of 4.8%. This is based in part on private fixed investment growth rising at a 5.4% rate.

As CNBC notes, “the biggest job gainers have been groups that have historically suffered from stubbornly high levels of unemployment, including younger workers, black workers and so-called marginally attached workers.” On Fox News earlier today, Candace Owens said it’s a great time to be a black American:

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/boom.php

To Know Islam is to Know Muhammad…..or?

To Know Muhammad Is to Know Islam

by Amil Imani   at  American Thinker:

Over fourteen centuries ago rose Muhammad, a supposedly illiterate hired hand of a rich widow, Khadija, claiming he was the bearer of a perfect life prescription from Allah: the Quran.  He claimed that humanity could do no better than to follow its precepts as well as to emulate Muhammad’s own life example for a guarantee of bliss and salvation.  In exchange for this, people had to embrace Islam – surrender – by surrendering their liberty to Muhammad.  Up to this day, the Muslim world considers a perfect Muslim as someone who follows in the footsteps of Muhammad, by action and by deeds.

You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much. (Surat al-Ahzab 21)

To faithful Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad is a role model, and they must follow his Sunnah and learn how to implement its precepts and practices in their lives.  So to understand the Prophet Muhammad is to understand Islam.

Fortunately, for both Muslims and non-Muslims, Muhammad is not around so that we can personally observe his conduct and be tempted to emulate him.  What is possible, however, is to go to authentic Islamic records and discern what Muhammad did during his life and judge it for ourselves.

The absence of Muhammad is fortunate for the Muslims because it enables them to spin many yarns about how virtuous he was.  There are more stories about the kindness, his generosity, his forbearance, and whatnot than any dozen men could do in ten lifetimes.  Muslims, heads in the sand, keep reciting to each other all these made-up tales.

It is fortunate for non-Muslims that we won’t be inclined to do some of things Muhammad did.  Many accounts of his actions, as recorded and reported by reliable, authoritative Muslim sources, would be considered criminal in the civilized societies of today.

Special Hatred for the Jews

Muhammad, for one, was a model of spewing hateful speech, cursing all non-Muslims repeatedly, with special venom reserved for the Jews.  In the Islamic scripture, headed by the Quran, the Jews are cursed and called all kinds of names so many times.

Is it Allah who so despises the Jews, or is it Muhammad?  Either way, it doesn’t make sense.  If it is Allah speaking these derogatory terms in the Quran, then I am shocked.  It is unbecoming of the creator of the universe, the source of all good, to devote so much of his book to cursing a few millions of his own creatures.  Recall that the Quran claims that not even a leaf falls without the permission and decree of Allah.  So why is it that he allows the Jews to behave in ways he condemns?

If it is Muhammad who is angry at the Jews, then it makes sense.  The Jews kept rejecting him and telling him to take his sale pitch somewhere else.  But what doesn’t make sense here is that Muhammad claims that every word of the Quran is that of Allah.  So which is it?

Abusing Women

Islamic records report that Muhammad had numerous wives.  Some even admit that they can’t provide an accurate count because he took wives so often and with great liberty.  A number of his wives were slave women – women taken as booty in battle.  Well, okay.  Maybe he was doing what the Arabs of his time did.  Make war; take everything, including women and children; and treat them exactly the way you would treat your own livestock.  If you found a woman you desired, she was yours.  That simple.

But he also married a child of one of his most senior followers, Ayesha.  The poor child was a nearly six-year-old little girl when he married her, and he consummated the marriage when she was barely nine and he was pushing sixty.  Now, Ayesha was not a slave girl with whom he could take that kind of liberty.  He could not treat her like a piece of property, rightfully his.  She was Abu Bakr’s daughter.  Did Muhammad bamboozle the old Abu Bakr, or did the old Abu-Bakr’s lust for power make him offer his little girl to Muhammad?

Either way, what Muhammad did establish was a shameful and criminal act of marrying little girls as a legitimate practice.  Not long ago, a member of the highest Islamic Council of Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa saying that in Islam, there is no age limit for marrying even infants.  Now, this is the kind of religious sanction that ought to make you cringe.

Other Practices

Just a couple more points here.  Muhammad also declared acceptable killing non-Muslims, plundering their possessions, and taking their women and children as slaves to be held or sold.  He legitimized slavery and even described how slaves should be treated as second- and even possibly third-class chattel.

Muhammad also established what amounts to a modern-day protection racket.  He actively encouraged his followers to attack non-Muslim caravans and habitats, get all the loot they could, give him his cut of 20%, and keep the rest.

But again, if you are the representative of the creator and owner of the universe Allah, everyone must give you a wide berth.  And people did.  It just so happened that men of Muhammad’s time very much liked what he did and preached.  Never mind women.  Women did not count in much of Arabia’s baby, Islam.

Muhammad’s Praiseworthy Acts

Let us set aside these well documented unseemly and even criminal activities and look at some of the good things attributed to Muhammad.

One particular case relates to Muhammad’s trying time in Mecca.  The story is that an old Meccan woman would throw tumbleweeds on Muhammad as he walked by.  In response, Muhammad would speak to her kindly and inquire about her well-being.  This is often cited as an example of how kind and forgiving he was.  Keep in mind that Muhammad was meek in Mecca and had lots of ill wishers and few friends.  He was in no position to retaliate in kind to any abuse he was subjected to.

Once out of Mecca and in power in Medina, Muhammad hardly bothered inquiring about the well-being of old women.  He did treat his friends – his followers – kindly.  But he showed absolutely no mercy to his enemies.  He had his enemies – anyone and everyone who did not fall into his fold – treated by the sword.

A Muslim’s surrender of liberty is not merely a matter of personal choice.  Muslims abandon their most precious rights and are out to make all non-Muslims do so, too, by hook or crook.

In short: I, for one, would hardly want to take Muhammad as my exemplar and emulate him.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/to_know_muhammad_is_to_know_islam.html

Kushner’s Speech in Jerusalem

Jared Kushner in Jerusalem: “Those Provoking Violence Are Part Of The Problem, Not Part Of The Solution”

 

Senior WH advisor Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were among the American delegation at a ceremony marking the embassy’s official opening, which happens to fall one day before the 70th anniversary of the proclamation of the state of Israel.

Kushner spoke publicly for only the second time since he started work at the Trump White House, between Israeli President Rifkin and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

“The United States stands with Israel because we both believe in freedom,” he said, and: “The United States is ready to support a peace agreement in every way that we can.”

“When there is peace in this region, we will look back upon this day and remember that the journey to peace started with a strong America recognizing the truth,” he said.

JARED KUSHNER: Thank you, Ambassador Friedman. You’ve really done a great job today and you’ve done a great job as an ambassador, but today’s really been spectacular. So thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

I’m so proud to be here today in Jerusalem, the eternal heart of the Jewish people.

(APPLAUSE)

And I am especially honored to be here today as a representative of the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

(APPLAUSE)

I also want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu and Sara for being with us here today to celebrate this historic occasion.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

I’d like to ask all of the members of Congress who are here on the delegations to rise and be recognized.

Today would not be possible without your advocacy throughout the years.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, for leading our delegation, Secretary Mnuchin for your leadership and for your friendship.

And of course, Ivanka, thank you for all of the great work you do to help so many people in our country and throughout the world, including me. So I love you.

(APPLAUSE)

I also want to acknowledge Vice President Mike Pence for his tireless efforts to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.(APPLAUSE)

KUSHNER: In December of last year, President Trump announced to the world that the United States would finally recognize the truth that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

He also declared that we would soon move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And just five months later we are standing on these grounds.

(APPLAUSE)

While presidents before him have backed down from their pledge to move the American embassy once in office, this president delivered, because when President Trump makes a promise, he keeps it.

(APPLAUSE)

But today also demonstrates American leadership. By moving our embassy to Jerusalem, we have shown the world, once again, that the United States can be trusted. We stand with our friends and our allies. And above all else, we’ve shown that the United States of America will do what’s right, and so we have.

(APPLAUSE)

Israel’s a sovereign nation with the right to determine its own capital, the same right that is enjoyed by every other country in the world.

In taking this action, the United States has also chosen to strengthen the bond between our two countries. Our special bond is the envy of nations throughout the world. This bond is forged through shared history, sustained through shared interests, and immortalized through shared principles. KUSHNER: The United States stands with Israel because we both believe in freedom. We stand together because we both believe in human rights. We stand together because we believe democracy is worth defending. And the United States stands with Israel because we believe — we know that is the right thing to do.

(APPLAUSE)

When stand together for the principles and the values we share, we shine the light of justice unto the world.

Israel proves every day the boundless power of freedom. This land is the only land in the Middle East in which Jews, Muslims and Christians and people of all faiths participate and worship freely according to their beliefs.

Israel protects women’s rights, freedom of speech and the right of every individual to reach their God-given potential.

These are the same values that the United States cherishes. These are the values that bind us together.

These are also the values that made Israel one of the most vibrant nations in the world. This tiny population has spurred advancements in technology, medicine and agriculture, making the world a healthier, safer and more prosperous place. These are the blessings we hope Israel can one day share with its neighbors.

Last week, President Trump acknowledged another truth and kept another promise. He announced his intention to exit the dangerous, flawed and one-sided Iran deal.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

Iran’s aggression threatens the many peace-loving citizens throughout the region and the entire world. From Israel to Jordan to Egypt to Saudi Arabia and beyond, many leaders are fighting to modernize their countries and create better lives for their people. In confronting common threats and in pursuit of common interests, previously unimaginable opportunities and alliances are emerging.

I am also proud to be here today as a member of the team that President Trump has entrusted to lead the efforts to bring peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It has been an honor to work with our new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo…

(APPLAUSE)

… National Security Advisor John Bolton…

(APPLAUSE)

… our ambassador, David Friedman…

(APPLAUSE)

… and our special representative, Jason Greenblatt, who really does so much for U.S. (ph).

I also want to acknowledge Ambassador Nikki Haley, who really has created a new day for Israel at the U.N.

(APPLAUSE)

On December 6th, President Trump was very clear that his decision and today’s celebration do not reflect a departure from our strong commitment to lasting peace, a peace that overcomes the conflicts of the past in order to give our children a brighter and more boundless future.

As we have seen from the protests of the last month and even today, those provoking violence are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/14/jared_kushner_in_jerusalem_those_provoking_violence_are_part_of_the_problem_not_part_of_the_solution.html