• 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

Donald Trump: The American Savior Clarifies the Task of MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Renouncing Fatalism: Trump and Tocqueville in Poland

Trump did well in Poland to eschew all talk of “the wrong side of history” and instead to emphasize the real power, for good and ill, that we have over our own destiny. By doing so he defended our dignity and upheld our humanity.

Donald Trump says a lot of striking things. This tendency has been the theme of a good deal of commentary over the last two years. Less noticed, but no less interesting, are his striking omissions: Trump says many things that a normal politician would not say, but he also sometimes omits things that a normal politician would say. And sometimes those omissions are not to be regretted but praised. Such is the case with President Trump’s recent address to the people of Poland.

Speaking in Warsaw, Trump warned his listeners that civilization is threatened by extremism and terrorism. He then reassured his listeners that the enemies of civilization would be defeated. So far, the president had said nothing that many other modern, western political leaders might also have said in a speech about international affairs—although the commonplace character of his warnings and reassurances might have been somewhat obscured by the combative tone for which he is so famous.

Then came the remarkable and significant omission. Trump did not rest his reassurance on the same ground as the typical politician would. The kind of contemporary political leader to which we are accustomed would have told his audience that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because they are “on the wrong side of history.”

Trump said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, he said, in effect, that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because the defenders of civilization are determined to defeat them. “Our adversaries,” Trump said, “are doomed because we will never forget who we are,” and we, accordingly, will not fail to do what is necessary to preserve the blessings we have inherited.

This rhetorical change makes all the difference in the world. The typical formulation reassures us that goodness will prevail because History—understood as a superhuman, impersonal force—tends of its own accord in the direction of goodness. This is history as it is understood by the ideology of progress, moving of necessity toward greater enlightenment, freedom, and justice for all human beings.

Trump’s formulation, in contrast, holds that goodness will prevail because the good will exert themselves. On his view, the outcome rests on us—not on any impersonal, superhuman forces but on personal and human ones. Trump hammered this point home by raising the possibility that civilization would be destroyed if civilized people fail to do their part to defend it. The failure of the enemies of civilization, he suggested, is conditional: they are “doomed to fail ifwe want them to fail.” And if we do not do our duty, this civilization, which is unlike any that has existed before, will pass away and “will never, ever exist again.”

In framing the issue in this way, Trump performed an important service—at least according to the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville. It is unlikely that Trump has ever studied Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Perhaps, then, it was by what Machiavelli would have called a “fortunate astuteness” that the president addressed a democratic people in precisely the way that a responsible democratic statesman should address them.

For Tocqueville, one of the great dangers to human dignity in democratic times is that human beings will lose the belief in the efficacy of their own wills, that they will conclude that they have no control over their own fate. To some extent, a decline in belief in the power of the individual is inevitable in democracies. It is, after all, a fact evident to everyone that individuals have less power to control events in democracies than in aristocracies. In an aristocracy, some men are born into powerful families and raised automatically into positions of authority, able to direct vast social forces by their mere commands. In a democracy, in contrast, individuals are all equal, and are therefore all equally weak in comparison to the body of society itself. There, individuals can only hope to exert influence on the course of events by uniting themselves into associations. As a result, democratic peoples are much more inclined to understand their own histories as the outcome of large social movements rather than as the result of the decisions of key individuals.

The danger, however, is that the citizens of a democracy will take these ideas too far and reach the conclusion that even peoples and nations have no control over their fates. “Once the trace of the influence of individuals on the nations has been lost,” Tocqueville warns, “we are often left with the sight of the world moving without anyone moving it.” Then “one is tempted to believe that this movement is not voluntary and that societies unconsciously obey some superior dominating force.” This kind of thinking must be resisted, Tocqueville teaches, because it degrades human beings by teaching them that they have nothing serious to do, nothing important for which to strive, nothing of vital consequence for which they can be held responsible. Therefore, it is the part of enlightened democratic leaders to emphasize the real power that nations have over their own fates, “for we need to raise men’s souls, not complete their prostration.” The doctrine of historical progress, so popular among modern democratic peoples, and so often affirmed by democratic statesmen, teaches precisely the kind of fatalism against which Tocqueville warns.

A similar fatalism animates some of President Trump’s political enemies—those proponents of globalization who contend that it is a force beyond the power of any nation to control. These people are for the most part well intentioned. They want things to turn out well, and they therefore want to believe that History will ensure that they turn out well. But such reassurances, however well meant, in fact diminish us by denying us any control over our own future. This is why, from a Tocquevillian perspective, Trump did well in Poland to eschew all talk of “the wrong side of history” and instead to emphasize the real power, for good and ill, that we have over our own destiny. By doing so he defended our dignity and upheld our humanity.

President Trump’s rhetorical choices in Poland possessed another virtue worth noting in this context. It is not only more edifying to teach our responsibility for preserving civilization. It is also more realistic.

Those who believe in History as Progress tend to assume that civilization is indestructible. After all, for civilization to decline or fall would be the opposite of Progress, and it would call into question the progressives’ most cherished beliefs. The possibility must therefore not be admitted. As progressives always insist, “you can’t turn back the clock.”

This belief may be comforting, but there is no serious reason to believe that it is anything other than a comforting—and dangerous—illusion. Civilizations can regress as well as progress, and they can even fall apart. A little more than one hundred years ago, most enlightened Europeans believed in progress with as much certainty as many do today. Nevertheless, they were on the verge of a century that would see barbarities of a severity and on a scale never before encountered in human history. A long time before that, many people believed that the Roman imperium was a divine dispensation, as unshakable as the order of nature itself. It nevertheless collapsed………Please read on!

 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/07/19741/

American Citizenship and the OBAMA PROBLEM

Dual Citizenship and the Strange Case of the Election of Barack Obama

By Mark A. Hewitt at American Thinker:

“Jus sanguinis (Latinright of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins.  Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship.  This principle contrasts with jus soli.

Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.  As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere.  Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli.

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen.  Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act.

Some argue that the phrase “natural born citizen” describes a category of citizenship distinct from that described by the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and this was discussed during the constitutional convention of 1787.  While it is true that “natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Supreme Court decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.

An April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase “natural born citizen” as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

Judge Pryor (she was nominated to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Obama safely in office in 2012, and confirmed by the Senate in 2014 )is correct in one regard, “that a person born…of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved,” presumably in a court of law.  That is because just as “persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization” do not qualify as natural born, neither should a person born of one American and one alien parent, qualifiy as natural born.  This latter circumstance is the definition and the qualifications of a person having the rights of nationality in two countries, or dual citizenship.

On the issue of dual citizenship, based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.  The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other”, Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952).  In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it.  There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists.

Although the U.S. government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens.  In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other.

Barack Obama was born a dual national, with dual citizenship with rights of nationality in two countries.  As such, he may well have been disqualified as a natural born citizen and ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States, per Article Two of the United States Constitution. Senator Ted Cruz, aware of the hazards of dual citizenship, renounced any claim to Canadian citizenship owing to his birth there in the 2008 election cycle.  Barack Obama’s failure to do so in 2008 could well have been because he knew that the issue would never be aggressively pursued.

The media and Washington Democrats extensively colluded to interfere in the 2008 Presidential Election by supporting a likely ineligible candidate, one with obvious dual citizenship rights of nationality in two countries.  By ignoring his rights of dual citizenship, the media never fully vetted the U.S. constitutional qualifications of candidate Obama but rather redefined jus soli — born in the United States — as natural born.  It was on all the networks, therefore, it must have been the truth.

The media and Washington Democrats knew this was the critical issue of the election, that it should have been adjudicated in the courts, not on the nine o‘clock news or the front page of the Times or the Post.  Hundreds of Americans were maliciously branded as “racist” for questioning the obvious questionable credentials of the candidate and dual national Barack Obama……..”   There’s more.  Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/dual_citizenship_and_the_strange_case_of_the_election_of_barack_obama.html

Obama’s Comey is Out. “If I Were Hillary Clinton, I’d be Afraid!”

Comey’s Out. Who’s Next for Rosenstein?

by Roger L. Simon at PJMedia:

“If I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be afraid.  I’d be very afraid.

Something has happened that has drastically changed her position in the world and that is the advent of Rod Rosenstein as deputy attorney general, a name not well known by many until now, although he has had quite an illustrious career at the Department of Justice and elsewhere.

Confirmed only April 25, 2017, Rosenstein wrote the well-crafted “Memorandum to the Attorney General” on the subject of “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.”  The contents of this memorandum are what many are assuming impelled Donald Trump to take an action he was hesitant to do, but probably should have done, on taking office  — firing FBI director James Comey before the reputation of the FBI was even more tarnished than it was.

Of course the left exploded, claiming a cover-up of the endless Russia investigation. But no matter when Donald Trump had fired Comey, day one or day one hundred and one, it would have created a conflagration.  Chuck Schumer would have yelled and screamed and waved his bloody shoe even though he himself had previously called for the same thing only months before. That’s what Schumers do, as does much of the rest of the not-so-loyal opposition.

Interestingly, a great deal of the minority leader’s immediate fulminations after the defenestration of Comey centered not on Trump but on Rosenstein, who is apparently that most terrifying of all things — a by-the-book straight shooter who espouses equal justice for all under the law.  Schumer demanded the deputy AG immediately appoint a special investigator to get to the bottom of the supposed Russia allegations.  Rosenstein may just make such an appointment, but for another purpose not as salutary to Schumer. From the deputy AG’s memorandum:

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016 and announce his conclusion that the [Clinton email] case should be closed without prosecution.  It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement.  At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.  There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General.  On July 5, however, the Director announced his views on the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation [bold mine], without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Rosenstein goes on to quote numerous statements from attorneys general and deputy attorneys general of both parties concurring with his view, but this is a memorandum all should read in its entirety for themselves. Besides being an impressive brief for the firing of James Comey, it also appears to open the door for something else, for that “well-established process for other officials to step in” to lead to something yet more dramatic — the renewed investigation of Hillary Clinton.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/09/comeys-out-whos-next-for-rosenstein/

FBI MAN, COMEY, TRUMPED

I admit I love Our Donald.   That he loves his country above all is obvious and powerful….just the man needed to Clean the Swamp and Make America Great Again.

James Comey seems to have been a righteous, decent kind of guy living and working in Washington, DC. where the corruption of the soul is particularly rank among Leftists of any American political party these days.   Think Hillary!

Perhaps he is in reality a decent guy in a swamp of indecency politics.  Many, who speek of former FBI Director Comey seem to think so.

Yes, Hillary should be charged with her dozens of crimes against the American people on a number of fronts, her frequent lying, conning and claims of  fraudulent business dealings to her arrogant disregard for laws  protecting  America’s most private international political and/or economic affairs at the highest echelons.

But, who is to lead the legal fight against Hillary Clinton crimes against our America any citizen less  Hillary would be widely disgraced or even   imprisoned for  years for performing the same acts of violation in law of America’s vital  secrets?  I don’t see President Trump interested in exposing this episode of Washington miasma.

Please read the following article by John Sexton at HotAir to learn more about the matter.

President Trump fires FBI Director Comey

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/09/trump-fires-fbi-director-comey/

Yes, Slippery Comey, but Where are the Indictments against CROOKED HILLARY?

How many crimes has Crooked Hillary committed, Mr. FBI man?  Where are the indictments against her that any noted Republican or common citizen would have received for the same crimes and put to jail?    You sounded  terrific self-serving on television today when your Democrats were play- investigating their Russian connection against Our Donald.

How many times did you remind your television audience that Anthony Wiener had no right to even one rather than thousands of classified emails from Hillary’s server?

You seemed clever, but sleazy today Mr. FBI man!   Where are these indictments?

Comey: Loretta Lynch’s Tarmac Meeting With Bill Clinton Forced Me To Go Public About Clinton Investigation

by Tim Hains   at realclearpolitics:

“At an annual FBI oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committe on Wednesday, FBI director James Comey said that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to meet with Bill Clinton on an airplane in Arizona forced his hand on his decision about whether or not to go public with the details about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton.

His decision to tell the public, he said “Offered us the best chance of the American people believing in the system, that it was done in a credible way.”

Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Plane Discussion “A Short, Chance Meeting” That “Was Purely Social

“I’m not picking on the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who I like very much,” Comey said. “But her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me. [After that], I then said, you know what, the [Justice Department] cannot by itself credibly end this.”

He continued: “The best chance we have as a justice system is if I do something I never imagined before, step away from them and tell the American people, look, here’s what the FBI did, here’s what we found, here’s what we think. And that that offered us the best chance of the American people believing in the system, that it was done in a credible way.”

JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: And I — I — I’ve lived my whole life caring about the credibility and the integrity of the criminal justice process, that the American people believe it to be and that it be in fact fair, independent and honest. And so what I struggled with in the spring of last year was how do we credibly complete the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails if we conclude there’s no case there?

Please read on…..Crooked Hillary’s rapacious husband meets with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac for a chat, or did they play tinker toys?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/03/comey_loretta_lynchs_tarmac_meeting_with_bill_clinton_forced_me_to_go_public_about_clinton_investigation.html

 

Joe McCarthy Schumer Leads 40 Joe McCarthy Senators to Keep Ideal Judge Neil Gorsuch off the Supreme Court. Will These Devils Succeed?

Sen. Chuck Grassley: The truth about Schumer, Democrats and Gorsuch

from Fox News:

“It was just a year ago when we first began hearing chants of “we need nine,” from former President Obama and Vice President Biden, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups.

To many of us, it appeared to be a simple case of amnesia. They obviously had simply forgotten that both Senator Reid and Senator Schumer had declared that George W. Bush would get no Supreme Court nominees through the Democratic Senate more than 18 months before the end of his term.

Or, even in 1992 when then-Senator Biden made clear his intentions in a long, detailed speech on the Senate floor outlining the reasons why the Senate wouldn’t consider a Supreme Court nominee of George H.W. Bush in his final year.

Despite this precedent, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups continued to demand—even after the election—that “we need nine.”

It’s become abundantly clear that if the Democrats are willing to filibuster somebody with the credentials, judicial temperament and independence of Judge Gorsuch, it’s obvious they would filibuster anybody………”  Please continue reading:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/03/sen-chuck-grassley-truth-about-schumer-democrats-and-gorsuch.html

Gorsuch an Ideal Judge of the Supreme Court

There are certain Truths, realities in our America’s current condition of national politics.    Democrat voters are overwhelmingly “feminine”  regardless  of sex, color,  shape and size by political indoctrination for whom feelings, not TRUTH excite their being, their drive, and so politics.  TRUTH is so male, so cold, so truthful, so involved with problem solving  the characteristic so essential in the souls and minds  of the ideal ‘masculine’.

So many, if not most  Leftists  hate TRUTH  for TRUTH  interferes with their right to express feelings in order to dictate  and  guide where to aim their hate arrows.

American conservatives, both male and female, are overwhelmingly aware of, but sometimes interfere with TRUTH.   Most are Godfearing regarding their rules of proper JudeoChristian  behavior and strive to abide by what they learn.  Please read the following article from the chronically  agnostic-atheist sheet, the Washington Post:

DO DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO PROVOKE AN UNPRECEDENTED SHOWDOWN OVER GORSUCH? Democrats really want to provoke an unprecedented showdown over Gorsuch?

Something unprecedented could happen this week when the Senate votes on Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court — but it won’t be Republicans triggering the so-called nuclear option to confirm him a by simple-majority vote.No, what would be historically unprecedented would be for Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch.There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic — and the idea that Gorsuch should be the first is patently absurd. By any reasonable standard, President Trump nominated a jurist of impeccable temperament, character and intellect who has won plaudits from across the political spectrum. Liberal Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has declared that “Gorsuch is a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the Court’s work with distinction.” Former Obama acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, who introduced Gorsuch at his confirmation hearings as a “wonderfully humane and decent person,” penned a New York Times op-ed in which he suggested that “liberals should back Neil Gorsuch” because he would “stand up for the rule of law and say no to a president or Congress that strays beyond the Constitution and laws.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-democrats-really-want-to-provoke-an-unprecedented-showdown-over-gorsuch/2017/04/03/04361ebc-1876-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.f96876376707