• 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

Small Town American Hero Stephen Willeford!

What an American Hero Looks Like

by Ben Shapiro at Jewish World Review:

“This week, a discharged Air Force officer with a criminal record of domestic abuse, including cracking the skull of his infant stepson, stepped into a church in rural Texas and murdered 26 people, at least a dozen of them children.

Americans broke out into their usual arguments over gun control and whether “thoughts and prayers” are helpful; we argued over politicizing tragedy and legislating away rights.

But each time an evil human being decides to attack innocents, it isn’t the Twitter battles that stand between the monsters and children. It’s heroes.

It’s men like Stephen Willeford.

In a vacuum, Willeford would be despised by the media. He’s a former NRA instructor — you know, the National Rifle Association, a “domestic terror group” devoted to allowing bloodbaths, according to the left. He probably voted for President Trump. His family has lived in Sutherland Springs for four generations. He’s parochial enough to attend church regularly. You know, he’s a typical bitter clinger.

But when the gunman opened fire, it was Willeford who ran toward the danger.

According to Willeford, his daughter told him someone had opened fire at the church half a block away from his home. Willeford immediately ran to his safe and removed his rifle, precisely the type of firearm so many on the left want to legislate out of existence.

“I kept hearing the shots, one after another, very rapid shots,” Willeford said later, “just ‘Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop!’ and I knew every one of those shots represented someone, that it was aimed at someone, that they weren’t just random shots.”

Willeford ran outside with his gun and loaded the magazine.

He didn’t even bother to put on shoes.

And when he saw the piece of human debris responsible for the massacre, he opened fire.

“I know I hit him,” said Willeford. “He got into his vehicle, and he fired another couple rounds through his window.”

The shooter sped away. Willeford hailed another vehicle, and he and the driver began chasing him. That’s correct: Civilians chased a shooter through the streets and called 911 on the way.

The shooter ended up crashing his car.

Willeford didn’t pretend he wasn’t afraid. He explained: “I was scared for me. I was scared for every one of them, and I was scared for my own family that just lived less than a block away. I am no hero. I am not. I think my G0D, my Lord, protected me and gave me the skills to do what needed to be done.”

This humble man is an American hero. He’s what America looks like: people in small towns; churchgoers who quietly raise families and make their communities better; people who have so much to lose because they’ve built so much without fanfare or reward; people who go running to help their neighbors when they must; men who run toward danger; men with the training and means necessary to stop bad men.

These people have always stood between good and evil. They always will. It won’t be laws. It won’t be regulations. Laws and regulations failed. Americans — innocent Americans — were murdered because of those failures. More would have died if not for the heroism of Stephen Willeford. Thank G0D for him.

 

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1117/shapiro110817.php3

Advertisements

NRA Man Tells His Story Pursuing Texas Murderer

SELF-HELP, TEXAS STYLE: STEPHEN WILLEFORD EDITION

by Scott Johnson at PowerLine:

To learn the lessons of the Sutherland Springs massacre we must take into account the examples of Johnnie Longendorff and Stephen Willeford. In his column today, Rich Lowry calls them “two bystanders who refused to stand by.” Thank God, Willeford was within the sound of the massacre: “When Stephen Willeford, 55, heard of the shooting, he left his house barefoot with his AR-15 and started exchanging fire with Kelley outside the church. An expert shot, Willeford hit Kelley and reportedly aimed for the gaps on his body armor.”

I couldn’t find an interview with Willeford yesterday, but Steven Crowder tracked him down to get the story from the man himself (video below). It is instructive, inspirational and humbling all at the same time. More here.

Please view the entire interview below:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/self-help-texas-style-stephen-willeford-edition.php

Rand Paul Assaulted by Disturbed Socialist Neighbor

MORE ON THE DEMOCRAT’S ASSAULT ON RAND PAUL

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

“The Washington Post has an update on the apparently-unprovoked attack on Senator Rand Paul by his neighbor, Rene Boucher. Paul’s injuries were initially described as “minor,” but that is not the case. Boucher broke five ribs, and Paul suffered lung contusions and facial injuries as well. Apparently Boucher blind-sided the senator while Paul was mowing his lawn, or had just completed mowing his lawn. Paul’s staff says his ability to return to his Senate duties is unknown. Hopefully his recovery will not be as difficult or as prolonged as Steve Scalise’s.

The Post says that “[a] motive is not known, and there is no indication that the attack was political in nature.” But the paper’s own reporting negates that claim:

Jeff Jones, a registered nurse who worked with Boucher at the Bowling Green Medical Center, described Boucher’s politics as “liberal.”

“He was active on social media and said some negative things about the Republican agenda,” Jones said.

“I think it was unfortunate that they lived so close together,” he added.

A Facebook page that appeared to be Boucher’s included links to articles and memes critical of President Trump and a news article about a Montana Republican congressional candidate who attacked a reporter the day before winning his seat. …

Jim Bullington, a former member of the city commission, knows both men. He said Sunday that Boucher is divorced and lives alone. Bullington described Boucher as a socialist.

“He’s pretty much the opposite of Rand Paul in every way,” Bullington said in an interview.

The neighbors had been known to have “heated discussions” about health care, Bullington said, adding that Boucher is an advocate of a national health system.

Maybe new facts will emerge. Maybe there is some other reason why Boucher assaulted Senator Paul, like a boundary dispute or an argument over a barking dog. But that seems unlikely. At present, it appears that Boucher’s assault of the Republican senator is another instance of political violence prompted by the climate of hate that has been fostered by the Democratic Party. Where will it end?…….”

UZBEK Terrorist Entered US Through “Toss Up” Visa Program

Leftist Americans, Islamist fanatics,  Communists everywhere welcome “Odd Balls” into their midst as long as the “Odd Balls”  do as they are told….or taught.

Our American Democrat Leftists established that very concept when it featured America’s diversity visa program…..a program the American citizens know nothing about, don’t you think?  After all, leftist Democrats of today dream of an American society on the par with Mexico….where everyone is equally poor except for those Fascists who count!…..like those at our American socialist universities,  the core of today’s  Democrat Party and its fake news American media world and its censors, the ONE PARTY PEOPLE.

UZBEK NYC TERROR SUSPECT ENTERED U.S. UNDER DIVERSITY VISA PROGRAM

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“ABC-7 in New York reports that Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, the truck driving, ISIS supporting terrorist who killed at least eight people in New York City today, came to the U.S. seven years ago from Uzbekistan under what is called the Diversity Visa Program. The program offers a lottery for people from countries with few immigrants in America.

The idea behind this program, which I became aware of only when Tom Cotton proposed to abolish it, is badly misguided. The U.S. isn’t Noah’s Ark. We don’t need immigrants from every country, and certainly not extra immigrants from Uzbekistan whose population is 80 percent Muslim, and thus is more likely than most countries to produce terrorists and future terrorists in the current environment.

According to Newsweek, an Uzbek citizen was arrested in Sweden in April when he ran a truck into a crowd in Stockholm and killed four people. He had expressed sympathy for the ISIS. Two Uzbeks and a Kazakh were arrested in Brooklyn in 2015 and charged with conspiring to support ISIS.

Following today’s attack, Newsweek ran an article called “Why young men from [Uzbekistan] keep threatening the U.S. and Europe.” An expert on Central Asia addressed the question — one that doesn’t seem terribly mysterious.

Frankly, I don’t care why. We should not have a program that brings extra Uzbeks to the U.S. in the name of “diversity” or for any other purpose.

Daniel Horowitz reports that 1.83 million green cards were issued to nationals of predominantly Muslim countries from 2001-2015, including almost 60,000 to Uzbeks. The dates are significant because they reflect post-9/11 immigration policy. After 9/11, we should have known better.

In addition to the 1.83 million green card holders, we let in roughly 155,000 foreign students every year from predominantly Muslim countries, according to Horowitz. In effect, we are asking for more domestic terrorism.

Meanwhile, as Horowitz observes, when the president proposes a modest moratorium on just a few of the countries – not even the primary drivers of our immigration from the Middle East – a single leftist district judge blocks the moratorium. The “resistors in robes” on the Ninth Circuit will surely back that judge, as they have in the past on this issue, and we will have to wait for the Supreme Court to uphold common sense and a decent regard for the power of the president with regard to who can enter the U.S.

Even thereafter, we can count on more obstruction from lower courts whenever the administration continues its efforts to protect America from an influx of terrorists and future terrorists.

Horowitz concludes:

Congress must clamp down on immigration, weaken the jurisdiction of lower courts to get involved in immigration cases, and further bolster Homeland Security efforts to identify the thousands of threats we already have in our country as a result of masochistic immigration policies.

If, as seems certain, congressional Democrats resist, they need to be called out. In this regard, it’s worth noting that the Diversity Visa Program, through which the terrorist who slayed New Yorkers today came to America, was formulated by New York’s own Chuck Schumer when he was in the House.

By contrast, President Trump and, as noted above, Sen. Tom Cotton have called for an end to the program…..”

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/uzbek-nyc-terror-suspect-entered-u-s-under-diversity-visa-program.php

Obama’s Socialist, Feminized and Racist Politicians NOT on Trump List for Court of Appeals Nominees

MCCONNELL’S “CONFIRMATION FRENZY”

by Paul Mirengoff  at  PowerLine:

“Senate Majority Leader McConnell today filed cloture motions to advance the confirmation of four of President Trump’s court of appeals nominees. The nominees are Allison Eid (10th Circuit); Stephanos Bibas (3rd Circuit); Joan Larsen (6th Circuit); and Amy Coney Barrett (7th Circuit). Eid and Larsen were on the list of potential Supreme Court nominees then-candidate Trump came up with during the campaign. Barrett is the nominee attacked by Democrats as too Catholic.

The filing of the motions means that these nominees will be voted on, and surely confirmed, next week. More votes on nominees are expected soon, in what Politico chooses to call “a confirmation frenzy.”

McConnell and GOP Senate Republicans have received criticism from some on the right for not confirming judges quickly enough. However, Politico says “Trump already has gotten more judges installed at this point in his presidency than his predecessor.” I’m told, moreover, that when the dust clears, Trump is virtually certain to deliver more Court of Appeals judges during his first year than any of his five predecessors.

Credit belongs to Trump, McConnell, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley. It’s also worth noting that Trump’s nominees are being confirmed via the votes of the entire GOP caucus. This includes the much maligned Senators Corker and Flake — the latter a member of the Judiciary Committee — who, for that matter, have voted with the rest of the majority, and with Trump, on virtually everything that’s come up in the Senate.”

Glenn’s comment…..”Thank God!”

Jewish Leftist Senator Feinstein Allergic to Roman Catholics, Christians in the Judiciary?

Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein’s paternal grandparents were Jewishimmigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia.

2 Democrat Senators Show Hostility to Religion in Questions for Judicial Nominee

article by Tiffany Bates at the Daily Signal:        (article sent by Lisa Rich)

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” is an unusual and inappropriate question for a senator to ask a judicial nominee. In fact, the Constitution forbids it.

But that didn’t stop Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., from probing Notre Dame Law professor Amy Coney Barrett about her faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. D-Calif., also chided Barrett for being a practicing Catholic, proclaiming, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Both senators appear to have forgotten Article VI’s admonition that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.”

The senators’ hostility to religion was loudly on display as Barrett and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, having been nominated by the president to fill two federal appellate vacancies.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

President Donald Trump nominated Larsen for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan and Barrett for the 7th Circuit in Indiana. Both women have faced bitter scrutiny from the left. This makes sense, as both are brilliant, young, conservative, and female, making them serious contenders for a future Supreme Court vacancy.

After a delay, Democratic senators from both Michigan and Indiana have returned the nominees’ blue slips, allowing their nominations to move forward.

But just who are Larsen and Barrett?

Joan Larsen

It came as no surprise when Trump tapped Larsen for a seat on the 6th Circuit. She was one of 21 individuals on the list of judicial rock stars he used to fill the last Supreme Court vacancy.

A graduate of Northwestern University Law School, Larsen clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. When asked what it was like to be a woman clerking for Scalia, she has often quipped, “Much like being a man clerking for him.”

In 1998, Larsen became an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan Law School, where she taught constitutional law, criminal procedure, presidential power, and statutory interpretation.

Her academic career was interrupted by brief stints in private practice and as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

In September 2015, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed her to the state Supreme Court. Although Larsen has a relatively thin judicial record due to her short tenure on the court, she has made her views about judging very clear.

When Snyder appointed her, she stated, “I believe in enforcing the laws as written by the legislature and signed by the governor. I don’t think judges are a policy-making branch of the government.”

This is right in line with how her former boss, Scalia, viewed judging. Shortly after Scalia’s death, she penned an op-ed for The New York Times in which she wrote: “Justice Scalia believed in one simple principle: That law came to the court as an is not an ought. Statutes, cases, and the Constitution were to be read for what they said, not for what the judges wished they would say.”

In her 2016 retention election, she again made her views clear, writing:

Judges are supposed to interpret the laws; they are not supposed to make them. The separation of powers, enshrined in both our national and state constitutions, protects the people’s right to self-governance by allowing the elected representatives of the people to make the laws. Judges, like everyone else, are bound by those laws and must faithfully interpret them rather than re-writing them from the bench. Judges, after all, are the public’s servants, not the public’s masters.

Larsen has received an outpouring of support for her nomination, including endorsement letters from 32 University of Michigan law professors and former colleagues and 29 former government officials and colleagues.

During the hearing, she faced questions about her time at the Department of Justice and about a controversial memo that set forth a justification for enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. But Larsen was not involved in researching or drafting that memo.

She also faced questions from senators about the role of legal precedents, as well as a 2004 law review article in which she criticized the use of foreign and international law in interpreting our Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett

Like Larsen, Barrett has a sterling resume. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and for Scalia on the Supreme Court.

She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.

She teaches constitutional law, federal courts, statutory interpretation, civil procedure, and evidence. Notre Dame twice recognized her as distinguished professor of the year.

Barrett is also a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.

In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.

Barrett has robust bipartisan support from the legal community. Shortly after her nomination, endorsement letters poured in to the Judiciary Committee from lawyers across the political spectrum, including 450 former students49 Notre Dame law colleagues, and every fellow Supreme Court clerk that served with her.

The Judiciary Committee also received an endorsement letter from 73 law professors from across the country who called Barrett’s qualifications “first-rate,” including Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Barrett faced numerous questions about her writings, including her criticism of stare decisis or the role of precedent in judicial decision-making in certain circumstances.

For example, she has questioned the practice of judges relying on precedent when it conflicts with the original meaning of the Constitution’s text. Justice Clarence Thomas has also questioned the role of precedent in these circumstances.

She assured the committee, however, that as an appellate judge, she would follow all Supreme Court precedents, which are binding upon all lower court judges.

She also faced questions about a 1998 article that she co-authored as a law student, discussing Catholic judges participating in death penalty cases. In that article she considered situations in which the law and a judge’s religious faith conflict.

Senate Democrats attempted to distort her article, claiming she would put religious beliefs above the law. But in fact, she wrote, “The legal system has a solution for this dilemma—it allows (indeed it requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.”

Barrett is not the first to broach this subject. Many Catholic judges have considered and written on this issue, including Judge William Pryor, who sits on the 11th Circuit, and Scalia.

Despite the tough questions they received, these two polished and accomplished women answered intelligently and gracefully. They both subscribed to the view that judges should not, under the guise of statutory or constitutional interpretation, impose their own policy preferences on the rest of society.

To date, the Senate has confirmed only six of Trump’s judicial nominees (including Justice Neil Gorsuch). But hearings are starting to pick up. Counting Larsen and Barrett, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings for six nominees this week.

With a stunning 162 current and known future vacancies and 32 nominees pending, let’s hope the Senate keeps it up.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/06/two-democrat-senators-show-hostility-to-religion-in-questions-for-judicial-nominee/?utm_source=TDS_Email

PRAGER U: The Leftist American’s War against Autos

Click above or here to watch this video

Cars are a symbol of American freedom. If you have a car, you decide where you go and when you go. But progressives want to make car ownership more difficult by making driving as expensive as possible, swapping out roads with bike lanes, and pushing drivers onto buses and trains. Why should Americans do everything they can to stop this grand theft of our car culture? Lauren Fix, The Car Coach, explains in this week’s new video.

In honor of Dennis Prager’s birthday, August is PragerU’s annual fundraising month. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation so that we can continue to bring Dennis’s ideas to the next generation.
WE STAND FOR AMERICA’S FOUNDING VALUES