• 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

Time to Repeal Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act!

Time to Repeal the Disastrous 1965 Immigration Act

by Selwyn Duke  at American Thinker:

Question: If someone sells you on something with false advertising and it does the exact opposite of what was promised, are you not entitled to return the product and get a refund?  In fact, if the product caused you harm, should you not in addition be compensated for damages?

Consider that when Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was pushing the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 (S.500) on the Senate floor, he said, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

Actually, he was right.  We now absorb more than a million immigrants annually.

Kennedy next stated, “Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.”

The average yearly number of immigrants prior to ’65 was 250,000.  Even with Common Core math, that’s still less than one million-plus.

Kennedy also claimed, “Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”  His brother, Senator Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), chimed in, “In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States.”

Yet as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) wrote in 2015, “[i]n 1965, whites of European descent [constituted] 84 percent of the U.S. population, while [h]ispanics accounted for 4 percent and Asians for less than 1 percent.  Fifty years on, 62 percent of the U.S. population is white, 18 percent is [h]ispanic, and 6 percent is Asian.  By 2065, just 46 percent of the U.S. population will be white, the [h]ispanic share will rise to 24 percent, Asians will [constitute] 14 percent – and the country will be home to 78 million foreign[-]born, according to Pew projections.”

Kennedy again: “Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.  In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Since the 1965 act took effect, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World.  Moreover, the MPI tells us, “Compared to almost entirely European immigration under the national-origins system [prior to ’65], flows since 1965 have been more than half Latin American and one[] quarter Asian.”

Kennedy summed up, saying the charges he was refuting above were “highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact.  They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship.”

They were actually something else: true.

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a short statement containing more untruths than what the real Lyin’ Ted packed into his immigration bill defense.  It’s not just that he was wrong – it’s that the outcomes were the precise opposite of what he’d promised.  If Kennedy had been a doctor performing a medical procedure, he’d have been sued out of the business.  If he’d been an auto-manufacturer and his pet bill a car model, he’d have had to issue a recall.

So can we finally recall this horrible 1965 immigration act?  Note that even Kennedy tacitly admitted that the act’s ultimate outcomes are undesirable.  He didn’t say, “Flooding the country with one million people per year from economically deprived areas and radically changing the ethnic mix of the U.S. is great.  Let’s do it!”  He passionately claimed that those things wouldn’t happen.

By the way, Kennedy punctuated his prevaricative defense by saying that the charges against the immigration bill “breed hate of our heritage.”  Of course, the balkanization the immigration bill bred is part of the reason our heritage is now so hated.

Speaking of hatred, much is currently directed at President Trump because on Thursday he questioned why we have so much immigration from impoverished nations such as Haiti, as opposed to more newcomers from Norway.  Since this raised many leftists’ ire and with my being the reasonable man I am, I propose a compromise: no immigrants from the Third World or the Old World.  In other words, no immigration, period.

With a population 330 million strong, we have enough people.  With 95 million not in the labor force and robots taking over low-skilled jobs, we don’t need more workers.  With America being balkanized, we don’t need more diversity.  So what does today’s immigration provide?

Oh, yeah – Democrat voters.

Depending on the group, 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants vote Democrat after being naturalized.  Leftists don’t in principle love immigrants or immigration, but they do love electoral domination – and importing foreigners to achieve it suits them fine.

In fact, if 70 to 90 percent of third-world immigrants voted GOP, the Democrats would be clamoring to admit those reliably socialistic Norwegians.


Big Political Surprise in 2018

Newt Gingrich: Get ready for the great political surprise of 2018



Trump Collusion with Russia?

Trump Colludes with Russia by Arming Ukraine

by Daniel John Sobieski   at   American Thinker:

“Memo to Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va. and Rep. Adam Schiff, D- Ca. — if  President Trump is colluding with Russia he has an odd way of showing it. He unleashed America’s energy resources, most recently in Alaska’s ANWR, which puts downward pressure on oil prices, which is the only thing Putin’s Russia has to sell. Then he revives missile defense including a pledge to Poland to deploy missile defenses there.

Now he has announced plans to reverse the policy of the Obama administration, which stood silently when Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine, and sell the Ukrainians lethal defensive weaponry, including anti-tank missiles designed to destroy Putin’s Russian tanks in the hands of separatist rebels:

President Donald Trump is expected to announce his approval of a plan to sell anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainian government, a move that would mark a significant escalation in lethal U.S. military support for Ukrainian forces battling Russian-aligned forces in the border region, four State Department sources tell ABC News…

The sale of anti-tank missiles, which could possibly include the U.S.-made Javelin system, provoked a strong reaction from Russia on Saturday, saying it “crossed the line,” and could threaten to derail Trump’s calls for better relations with Moscow.

This hardly fits the narrative of a Trump Administration in thrall to the Kremlin and once again begs the question of why Putin would have wanted Trump to win over Hillary. Hillary would never have sold anti-tank weapons to Ukraine though she was quite willing to sell Russia 20 percent of our uranium.

President Trump, unlike President Obama, is well aware that it is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expressed view that the demise of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest disasters of modern times. His actions in Ukraine in conjunction with massive Russian rearmament show his desire to reassemble the old Soviet Union.

In his annual address to parliament in 2005, old KGB boss emeritus Putin made the grotesque claim that the “demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest political catastrophe of the century,” demonstrating a nostalgia for what he considers the good old days.

Back in 2012 when Romney put Russia at the top of the geopolitical threat list, President Obama gave a mocking response more worthy of a former community organizer rather than the leader of the free world. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

“You said Russia. Not al-Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama rebuked him regarding our biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because… the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” said the president who promised the Russians more flexibility as he disarmed the United States.

If the Cold War was over, somebody forgot to tell Moscow, for their belligerence towards Ukraine is straight out of the playbook of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. They ruthlessly repressed with Soviet armor the 1956 Hungary rebellion and the 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia.

Putin’s approach is perhaps more subtle, arming so-called “separatists” rather than sending in Soviet armored columns, but it is a distinction without a difference. Grave concerns and sternly worded letters carry no weight with Putin, whose stated ambitions are clear. President Obama did less than nothing, sending only supplies worthy of a Boy Scout Jamboree rather than a sovereign nation resisting Russian aggression. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2015 warned Congress that Russian actions in the Ukraine were the start of a new Cold War and that President Obama’s actions were inadequate:

On Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko gave a 40-minute speech to a rare joint session of Congress alerting lawmakers to the plight of his country under Russia’s creeping “Anschluss.”

Poroshenko once again pled for meaningful aid, including an affiliation with NATO, and warned that a new Iron Curtain may soon descend as Vladimir Putin tries to reassemble the Soviet Union whose demise he has publicly mourned….

In March, Ukraine asked for arms and ammunition, intelligence support, aviation fuel and night vision goggles. The Pentagon agreed only to provide the Ukrainians with supplies of U.S. military rations known as Meals Ready To Eat, or MREs.

This time Ukraine did not get much more than that — just some peripheral gear such as night-vision goggles and helmets. But once again it received no lethal aid that Poroshenko’s country desperately needs, such as requested anti-tank weaponry.

Just as Obama failed to aid Iran’s “Green Revolution” in Iran in 2009 when it might have brought the mullahs to their knees and nipped Iran’s nuclear threat in the bud, Obama allowed Putin and Russia to take the first steps toward rebooting the old “evil empire” President Ronald Reagan worked so hard to defeat. Thanks to President Trump Ukraine’s long-desired anti-tank weaponry is on its way.

Merry Christmas, Vladimir Putin, from President Donald Trump.

The First Year of Our Great American Trump Card

A Tale of Two Years

“It was the best of years, it was the worst of years.
To hear some folks tell it, 2017 marked a hideous cataclysm in the affairs of man.  “So long 2017, you won’t be missed,” wrote Robert Schlesinger in US News & World Report. “Little went well in 2017,” this sage confided in his threnody, “but maybe 2018 will be better.”
Mel Robbins, writing for CNN, sounded a similar note. “This year,” Robbins wrote, “I heard so many people ask, ‘Is this really happening?’” 2017 was “bizarre,” an “alternate reality.”
What happened in 2017 to mark it out as a year that will live in infamy? Dear Reader, I hope that you are sitting down. You will hardly believe the hideous truth. Quaff a bit of brandy. Have the smelling salts at hand. What was the unspeakable reality that sent almost the entire U.S. media, the academic establishment in toto, nearly all of Hollywood, and Democratic politicians from Washington state to Florida into hysterical mourning? Are you ready?  Steady on. Take a deep breath. OK, here it is.
Someone those repositories of virtue did not favor was elected president of the United States in a free, open, democratic election. Can you believe it? Their candidate lost. Even worse, the opposing candidate was elected without their permission, over their strenuous objections, unremitting ridicule, and against their hermetically sealed certitude that such a thing was impossibleimpossible Kemo Sabe!
Now you know the worst. The 2016 presidential election worked as the Constitution said it was supposed to work, not the way Hollywood millionaires, Ivy-educated pundits, angry feminists, or partisan opponents wanted it to work.
There was other bad news in 2017.  On November 8, 2016, the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 18,332. “Little went well” this year, so it is no surprise that the market closed on Friday, December 23 at 24,754. In other words, the market rose 6,422 points, or 35 percent, in little over a year. I’m told that represents more than $6 trillion in shareholder value.  Horrible!
There were other terrible things in 2017. The United States, thanks in part to the exploitation of fracking technology, is now the world’s largest energy producer.  Oil prices, to the chagrin of the Middle Eastern petrostates, and to Russia, are less than half what they were just a few years ago. (That’s one way the cunning Donald Trump kowtows to Vladimir Putin, by supporting policies that enhance America’s energy production.)
“Little went well in 2017,” quoth the scion of Arthur “see-no-evil-among-the-Kennedys” Schlesinger, except that unemployment is at 4.1 percent, consumer confidence is at a 17-year high, and 1.7 million jobs have been added over the course of this annus horribilis.
“Little went well in 2017”—unless, that is, you think that GDP over 3 percent is a good thing or that cutting 16 business-strangling regulations for every one new federal regulation is something to write home about.
“Little went well in 2017,” especially when you consider that the American military, with a $100 billion increase in its budget, is modernizing and strengthening.  Meanwhile, illegal immigration is down more than 50 percent, even though Trump’s promised border wall has yet to be built.
Really to understand why Schlesinger fils could write that “little went well in 2017,” you have to understand that the tax-reform bill that Trump signed last week was “the worst bill since the Fugitive Slave Act” of 1850. Nancy Pelosi was not so cautious or understated in her assessment. The bill, according to her, is “the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress,” “Armageddon,” “ the end of the world.” Former Obama functionary Larry Summers, noting that the bill repeals Obamacare’s provision that forces people to buy insurance or pay a fine, predicted that 10,000 people a year would die because of the bill. In fact, the bill, by cutting corporate taxes from 35 to 21 percent, will spur economic growth which will create jobs, which will increase America’s prosperity.  America’s middle class are the chief beneficiaries. The new plan doubles the standard deduction to $12,000—$24,000 for families—and also doubles the child tax credit from $1000 to $2000 per sprog. While the new act keeps seven individual tax categories—Trump wanted to reduce it to 4—it lowers the rate of all seven, maxing out now at 37 percent instead of 39.6 as before.  Look at your paycheck in February: you’ll see the difference.
“Little went well in 2017,” except that the United States now has an ardently pro-American president who puts the country’s interests, not the interests of the permanent bureaucracy and its media and academic echo chambers, first….. “
How does that work on the ground? Donald Trump, in fulfillment of a campaign promise, announces that the United States will move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The United Nations goes into full snit mode. The Security Council votes against the plan, and the United States vetoes that resolution. Then the General Assembly votes to declare the plan “null and void” by a margin of 128 to 9 (with 35 abstentions).  The votes, like most things the UN does, is utterly meaningless, but Nikki Haley, our ambassador to the UN, warned that the United States would be taking note of who voted against us. The first fallout was just announced: the United States will be cutting its contribution to the UN by $285 million. “We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” she said.  Good for her.  Surely that’s one little thing that went well in 2017.  I expect a lot more of the same in 2018, though I don’t expect senile politicians like Nancy Pelosi or wimpy commentators like Robert Schlesinger to notice.”

Holiday Shopping Illustrates a Happier, Merrier Citizenry



by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

The Wall Street Journal reports on holiday shopping:

Fueled by high consumer confidence and a robust job market, U.S. retail sales in the holiday period rose at their best pace since 2011, according to MastercardSpendingPulse, which tracks both online and in-store spending.

Sales, excluding automobiles, rose 4.9% from Nov. 1 through Christmas Eve, compared with a 3.7% gain in the same period last year.
Unlike in past years, when spending was driven by high-income shoppers, this holiday a broader swath of the population opened their wallets, encouraged by rising wages and low unemployment, analysts and economists said.

“Fewer people are living paycheck to paycheck,” said Chris Christopher, executive director of economic research firm IHS Markit. “There is a lot more spending from the lower- and middle-income groups, while the upper-income groups are splurging.”

Emphasis added.

In next November’s elections, the Democrats won’t just be running against Republicans. They will be running against reality. Take the tax cut. I won’t rehash all of the crazy things Democrats have said about it; they have been compiled at many locations. But simply put, it is insane for Democrats to allege that a tax cut will raise most people’s taxes, or that cutting corporate income taxes to an internationally-normal level will destroy the economy.

The Democrats could have argued that the tax reform bill will add ruinously to the national debt, but having cheered on the $10 trillion that was added to the debt during the Obama years, that option wasn’t open to them. In any event, the tax reform’s pro-growth elements will likely make any impact on the debt minimal.

Lacking that argument, and lacking any coherent explanation of why people shouldn’t be happy about having their taxes cut and the companies they work for more profitable, the Democrats have been reduced to…Robert Strong.

For the Democrats, 2018 will be a race against time. They think they can take the House, and then impeach President Trump. They may be right. But keeping the hysteria dialed up to 12 while distracting voters from the facts–a growing economy, higher wages, lower taxes, a pro-America foreign policy, a return to the rule of law–won’t be easy. It is never easy to run against reality.

DeBlasio Forces New York City Elites to Flee!

Wealthy NYC Elites Prepare to Flee the City Under De Blasio’s Tax Burden

by Robert Donachie   at the Stream        (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

“Wealthy New York City elites are preparing to flee the state because the Republican tax bill is going to make them face the full brunt of Mayor Bill de Blasio and Democratic state leadership’s tax rates.

“Everybody I speak to brings this up. Every NYC resident I speak to asks about the feasibility involved in doing it,” Wall Street tax expert Robert Willens told Yahoo Finance. “I’ve been doing this more than 40 years, and never heard more discussion about relocating than recently.”

Wealthy New Yorkers can currently lower their federal taxable income by more than $100,000 through a provision of the tax code known as the State and Local Tax Deduction, or SALT. The average SALT deduction in the Manhattan area is at least $60,000.

The Republican bill will cap the deduction amount at $10,000, meaning wealthy New Yorkers who currently write off expensive real estate could face an extra six figures in taxable income.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill into law by Christmas, which is why many hedge fund and private equity managers are seriously considering getting out of New York.

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

New York is a state run by Democrats and one that taxes its citizens at a higher rate than any other state in the nation. The state’s combined state and local income tax burden tops California’s at 12.7 percent. That amounts to roughly $6,993.42 per New York taxpayer.

For the first time, many wealthy Manhattanites will finally feel the full burden that their state legislators and city leadership have put on them.

De Blasio is actually trying to increase millionaire New York City taxpayers’ loads as Republicans put the finishing touches on their bill.

The mayor is trying to levy a 14 percent tax increase on the city’s millionaires to pay for improvements to the city’s subway system. The governor-elect of New Jersey is looking to pull a similar tactic to raise money for public schools in the state…”


Leftist Tribes must understand… Christians Also Have Rights in a Free Society!

Equal Property Rights for All, Including Christian Wedding Cake Bakers


Introductory comment by ghr:   Are all Americangays and lesbians these days practicing bigots?  I don’t believe so, but it may be true.  Consider the following Supreme Court Case regarding a Christian bakery owner’s decision to refrain from baking a marriage cake for a gay couple …..who seem to be demanding this Christian obey their demand or be jailed or closing his bakery.

Most gays, nearly all lesbians, are very active fascisti  these days.  After eight years of Obama rule, they have become embraced with countless other dictatorial  leftist  groups of Obama-gathered Christian haters in  Sanctuary City zones where they can hate and sabotage traditional American values folks all they want without interference and with full support of the leftist ruling classes.

Nevertheless, there is a problem for democracy here…..What if all bakers throughout a community refuse to make desserts or other meals for  gay persons’ marriage ceremonies?    In America the healthy…..an opportunity arises for a baker shop to specialize in serving gay marriage requirements.   Please take a read of the article below:

Just as governors, abortionists, and sexual-identity activists enjoy legal protection for their property rights, so do religious business owners.

The Alabama Governor’s mansion in Montgomery (the city where I live) teaches a visual lesson in private property rights. Surrounded by a high fence and conspicuous police patrol cars, the buildings and gardens on the grounds project a clear message: You are not welcome in here. Within, Governor Ivey, her staff, and guests—the most powerful people in the state of Alabama—are secure from outside interference as they conduct the state’s business. Yet each year during Advent, the mansion opens to the public, its elaborate Christmas decorations on display. This event reminds us that the mansion belongs to the people; the governor is our tenant. The mansion remains exclusive the rest of the year because it must. The governor could not do her work if she were not free to discriminate and exclude, and if officers of the law did not have the power and duty to enforce her decisions about whom to include and whom to exclude from the mansion grounds.

Just three blocks away, on South Perry Street, stands another monument to private property. This monument is also conspicuous, and for similar reasons. Two adjacent buildings stand neatly maintained, surrounded by fences, and adorned with multiple signs reading, “PRIVATE PROPERTY. NO TRESPASSING! VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED!,” “Private Medical Decisions. NO TRESPASSING!,” and “STOP. DOOR IS LOCKED AT ALL TIMES.” The buildings are festooned with rainbow flags and signs bearing equal signs and slogans such as, “Keep Abortion Legal.” Every few months seasonal signs also appear expressing opposition to former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and support for Moore’s political opponent of the moment. (At present, that’s the Democratic Senate nominee, Doug Jones.)

One of these buildings houses Montgomery’s only abortion clinic. The other, called “P.O.W.E.R. House,” is home to an organization that facilitates abortionsand promotes various political causes of the sexual revolution. Public records show that the two buildings are owned by different entities. But of course, property owners of a feather flock together. Judging from the stated activities of Power House, which include escorting women into the abortion clinic and hosting their (other) children while they obtain abortion-related services, it seems that the residents of each parcel have standing licenses to enter the other parcel. A sign in the alley between the two buildings warns motorists to watch for adults and children crossing from one building to the other.

Within the close of this compound, formed on the basis of ancient property rights to use, exclude, and license entry, Americans exercise their fundamental rights of association and expression. Abortionists and sexual-identity activists are free to pursue their activities and express their political views because they are free to discriminate and exclude others from their private property. They are secure in their freedom because the people of Alabama stand prepared to protect their property rights, even though a majority of Alabamians disapprove of how they exercise their freedom.

On December 5, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in  Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case presents the issue (among others) whether conscientious business owners who understand marriage to be a man-woman union will be deprived of their ancient property rights, the same rights enjoyed and exercised by governors, attorneys general, abortionists, and sexual-identity activists to carry out their activities consistent with their beliefs and duties.

Masterpiece Cakeshop is one of three in which state courts—in New MexicoColorado, and Washington—have recently abrogated centuries-old common-law rights in order to require conscientious business owners to participate in same-sex weddings. Governors, state attorneys general, discrimination commissioners, and other state officials have thrown the weight of their offices against the business owners. In none of the three cases were the business owners discriminating against people because of sexual orientation. All willingly served, and one employed, people known to have same-sex attractions. They simply were not willing to use their property, labor, and talents to communicate what they understand to be a falsehood about the nature of marriage.

Property rights secure all the other fundamental rights and liberties of common law and American constitutionalism. And, not surprisingly, these cases implicate freedom of conscience, religious liberty, and rights of expression and association. Most of the briefs in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case have focused on one or more of those fundamental rights. I have submitted amicus curiae briefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop and a related caseArlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington, reminding the Court that important property rights are also at stake, and encouraging the Court to adhere to its precedents upholding property rights in cases involving moral and political controversies.

My argument is simple. Just as governors, abortionists, and sexual-identity activists enjoy legal protection for their property rights, so do religious business owners. Property rights have always served as important securities for pluralism and ordered liberty in the United States, from a time long before the American founding. Our fundamental rights grow out of the common law, which we inherited from England, the historic basis of which is the protection of property rights against absolutist claims by rulers. Private property rights are not just means of providing for oneself and one’s family. They also stand guard around millions of little dominions, zones of liberty in which groups and associations pursue their own common goods, which others might not share or value, free from outside interference.

This liberty entails the right to choose whom to include and exclude, and for what purposes. Just as governors and political activists must have the power to discriminate when licensing entry to the property under their dominion and control, so too must property owners who have no political ambitions but are simply trying to earn a living by doing something good, beautiful, and economically valuable.

State officials and prominent law professors counter that an owner relinquishes many of its property rights, especially the right to exclude, when it opens its private property to the public for commercial purposes. Tellingly, they have shown no interest in applying the logic of their arguments to abortion clinics, despite ample opportunity to demonstrate that their argument is sincere.

Anyway, they misstate the law of public accommodations. As I explain in one of my briefs (citations omitted),

As the [Supreme] Court observed [in Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston], at common law those who profess to be employed by the public on their private property grant to the public a license to enter for the purpose of acquiring the goods or services on offer. That license can be refused or terminated for a “good reason.” This means that business owners have a limited nondiscrimination duty; they can refuse service but must have a valid reason for that refusal.

This case falls in the broad category of public accommodations where the business owner has neither a general duty to serve nor a liberty to deny service arbitrarily. The strength and contours of the nondiscrimination duty vary according to the source of the public’s license to enter. Where the customer’s license is created by contract, such as a ticket to a sporting event, the license is a mere privilege terminable at the will of the venue owner. At the other end of the spectrum, where the business is chartered as a common carrier, utility, or other public monopoly, the owner has a general (though not unlimited) duty to serve all on equal terms. In between those two poles are cases, such as this one, in which private property is held open for a particular business purpose. In these cases, the public’s license to enter and conduct business is neither terminable at will nor a vested right to be served. It is a license carved out of the owner’s estate by the owner’s purpose for opening to the public.

Where the business owner is religious, those valid purposes for serving and refusing to serve may lawfully include religious purposes.

The property professors who oppose property rights in these cases overlook those important distinctions. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has not. Instead, the Court has correctly restated the law of property and public accommodations on several occasions.

Indeed, the Court has gone so far as to rule that state universities who own their campuses may exclude from their private property groups whose religious beliefs are inconsistent with the universities’ educational and political goals, even where such exclusion burdens the religious groups’ First Amendment rights, as long as the burden on religious liberty is an effect, and not the purpose, of the discrimination. Writing for the majority in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, Justice Ginsburg affirmed “a State’s right to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated,” the basis of the University of California’s power to exclude the Christian Legal Society from official recognition on its law school campuses. This is why the governor of Alabama, like the governors and attorneys general of New Mexico, Colorado, and Washington, has the power and duty to exclude from private property owned by the state.

Like abortionists, LGBT political activists, and the University of California, religious business owners who refuse to participate in same-sex ceremonies are not acting for a prohibited, discriminatory reason. Though the effects of their business judgments fall differently on same-sex couples than on natural marriages, they do not exclude LGBT people from their businesses.

Property rights are for everyone. The Supreme Court should admonish state supreme courts to follow its precedents and restore the foundations of ordered liberty.

Adam MacLeod is an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law.