• 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

Why the Swamp Hates Trump

by Bob Weir  at American Thinker:

“Imagine that you were elected to a federal office several years ago and had a safe seat with all the perks attached, including salary, expense account, and influence with corporate CEOs and other titans of industry.  Suppose further that you knew that the future would be prosperous when you left office because the connections you made would make you a fortune as a lobbyist.  Moreover, since unseating an incumbent is a herculean task, you felt that you were set for life.  In fact, as soon as you got elected, you began raising money and preparing for re-election.  Governing and legislating became an afterthought – something you might engage in after your next campaign was carefully planned.

Suddenly, a guy runs for office with a lot of ideas about “draining the swamp” and making rules that include a prohibition on lobbying for at least five years after leaving office.  As if that’s not enough, he criticizes the “establishment” of which you are a significant part.  To add insult to injury, this upstart comes from the private sector with no record of elective office, yet he has the audacity to run for the highest office in the land.  You, and most of your colleagues, got where you are by starting in local elections, from city councils to mayor to state rep, and on to your currents spots at the national level.

You didn’t take him seriously throughout his long and vociferous campaign, often refusing to endorse what he said and what he stood for.  When he shocked the world with a strong win against a candidate the polls said would win easily, all you could do was feign approval and acceptance.  You didn’t dare speak publicly about your disdain for the man who was elected to actually make America great again!

Not only did this newcomer speak bluntly, eschewing politically correct tap-dancing around issues, but he spoke forcefully about the venal nature of politics and those who use it for personal aggrandizement.  He didn’t use lofty rhetoric and eloquent phrases like his predecessor.  Instead, he spoke in a language rarely heard in a country weaned on Pied Piper-style oratory.  He merely told the truth in plain words that would resonate with the proletariat, the people who made this country the envy of the world.  The voters were thrilled to finally have a leader who uses common sense, rather than a wet finger in the air before making decisions.

However, those who have been entrenched in their private little fiefdoms in the nation’s capital began to wonder how they were going to deal with this brilliant maverick who had captured the imagination of millions of Americans who had given up on government.

Democrats hate him with a ferocious intensity that comes from seeing their plans for party dominance collapse under the weight of this new spirit of patriotism.  Republicans hate him for beating all their veteran politicians and for proving how ineffective they’ve been at improving the lives of their constituents.  After all, if neither party can win with the customary bromides, spewing from the mouths of the usual suspects, they must have lost touch with the people who once lapped up their verbal vacuity, believing that it was the only pabulum on the shelf.  Why would voters reject prominent names like Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, et al., political veterans all, in favor of a neophyte?

Those questions continue to haunt the inhabitants of that sewer on the Potomac.  They don’t appreciate being forced out of the darkness, where greedy deals are made and concern for the people gets thrown under the grinding wheels of political expediency.  These are not exactly profiles in courage.  With rare exceptions, these are people who arrived at the “shining city upon a hill” with the intention of making a career, and if that meant going along to get along, it was fine with them.  They weren’t about to step out of their comfort zones by addressing controversial topics that might make them unpopular during the next plebiscite.

Hence, when an intrepid leader emerges and abandons caution in favor of keeping his campaign promises, he’s treated like an anomaly.  The fact that he’s fighting for the principles voters elected him to fight for is lost on those who got elected with one thought in mind: to feather their own nests.

President Trump is reminiscent of the Founding Fathers – the type of statesmen who surmounts incredible odds to build the greatest country in the world.  Now, after many years of being led by a man who apologized for our country, we have a leader working indefatigably to make America great again.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/why_the_swamp_hates_trump.html

Lesson at Prager University: COLLEGE MADE ME A CONSERVATIVE

I do admit that if I were still teaching “Modern Problems” to seniors in high school fifty years ago, I would have required students to ‘attend’ Prager University ‘classes’, whether or not  the political, social, religious, mental, moral  conditions were then as they are now.   Although today’s eastern leftist establishment, then already considered righteously modern and Godless,  already was gaining control of local Minneapolis education, parents of teenagers attending public school were still Godfearing.   Truth still mattered.

The public in our community then, was still aware of the virtues of classic right versus classic wrong,  that is, most adults:    truly conservative Jews, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Protestants in general (other than gobs of  Presbyterians).     Devoted atheists  and Leftist Jews had already become exempt,   free from  such primitive, out-of-date ‘prudish’ religious expressions, teachings, and understandings of the cultural battle in the conflict of right versus wrong .

Today’s American universities (and/or college) are programmed to create clones of a single sex and mind.  If everyone thinks the same, they will act the same for the sake of peace and order.   To create the drone world, others, thinkers, truth seekers are ignored…expelled……imprisoned….or killed…..for the sake of PEACE IN OUR TIME determined by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Minneapolis Strib, Boston Globe, etc, etc etc….NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc, etc, including the “not business” Fox more than half of the time, the ones who hate Our Donald’s style  so much…..the Jonah Goldbergs, for instance.

I became conservative when I discovered being human and  male,  a conservative is what a human male is supposed to become:….inquisitive, creative, a builder, explorer, a problem solver, a questioner, a protector. a counselor of some kind….and the  God fearer as Dennis Prager describes the term in the human male’s native drive to reach wisdom….the ability to discern and share ones strengths and limits….AS AN ADULT MALE IS GENETICALLY SUPPOSED TO DO……(“by the Grace of God”, my Religion told me!)

The universities I attended those many decades ago seemed to be quite aware of the basic human male drive to expose the unknown…..Adult human females, then as now, have recognized these native ‘expectations’ of the male drive.    But, then there arrived in the culture feminists, and feminazis of all sexes, colors, shapes, and sizes to CHALLENGE THE NORM!

An American lady of college age shares her experiences in a five minute review at Prager University which  unexpectedly changed her political devotions away from feminist leftism:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/life-studies/college-made-me-conservative

Fake American Obama’s Legal Lady Lynch Hid Behind Fake Identity

OBAMA’S ATTORNEY GENERAL USED FAKE IDENTITY TO HIDE CLINTON INVESTIGATION E-MAILS

“Former President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, used a fake name to cover up an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, indicates an admission from Lynch’s attorney.

Lynch was caught conducting a secret meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a private plane on a tarmac in Phoenix last year as Clinton’s wife pursued the presidency and amid an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecured email server, which she illegally used during her tenure as secretary of State. Soon afterward, the former attorney general reportedly used a pseudonym to coordinate a narrative about the meeting with Department of Justice officials, Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller reports. 

Also shortly after the private plane meeting, former FBI director James Comey announced that agency would not pursue a case against Clinton, despite admitting he had enough evidence to do so. A month later, Lynch announced the DOJ would not investigate the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with the State Department during Hillary’s tenure, despite the FBI’s reccommendation to do so. The chain of events caused many to question Lynch’s motives, as it was also widely reported that Hillary planned to keep Lynch as attorney general had Clinton won the election.

Using an email account under a fake name, Lynch (a.k.a. “Elizabeth Carlisle”) coordinated with DOJ officials to respond to queries about the secretive meeting with the former president. Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, confirmed her use of an alias on Monday and said she used an email account under a fake identity to prevent “inundation of mailboxes.”

Using fake names was a common tactic among Obama administration officials to evade accountability.  AG Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson all did so when serving in public offices during Obama’s tenure. Lois Lerner, an IRS official who has been suspected of using the tax-collecting agency to target conservative nonprofit organizations, is also thought tohave used an email address registered to a pseudonym to conduct official business.

Reporters at The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and ABC News were hesitant to cover Lynch’s secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, according to emails between journalists and DOJ officials the American Center for Law and Justice recently obtained.

“My editors are still pretty interested in it and I’m hoping to put it to rest by answering just a few more questions about how the meeting came about,” wrote Matt Zapotosky, a reporter for the Post — which recently changed its motto to “Democracy dies in darkness” — in an email to a DOJ official.”

 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/07/obamas-attorney-general-used-fake-identity-hide-clinton-investigation-e-mails/

Rush Review’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Dilemma

Rush Limbaugh has an interesting theory on Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s fate after IT aide’s arrest

by Sarah Taylor
“Rush Limbaugh on Friday took on the scandal that rocked Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office — the July arrest of her former IT aide, Imran Awan.
Pakistani-born Awan, who was a longtime IT aide to former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, was arrested at Washington, D.C.’s Dulles International Airport while trying to flee the country.
He was charged with multiple counts of bank fraud which stemmed from an investigation of an information technology procurement scandal in the U.S. House.
Awan was the lead suspect in an ongoing criminal probe into security breaches within the House of Representatives that was launched on Feb. 2. He allegedly doubled charged the U.S. House for IT equipment and may have exposed sensitive House members’ information online. According to previous reports, Wasserman Schultz kept Awan on her payroll, even though he had been banned from House servers by Capitol Hill security.
Additionally, it was reported that Awan was still on the House payroll under Wasserman Schultz at the time of his arrest.
Limbaugh, for his part, questioned Wasserman Schultz’s explanation that she felt that Awan’s arrest was the result of Islamophobia.
“We are gonna get into a little bit more about Debbie ‘Blabbermouth’ Schultz and her IT staffer,” Limbaugh said during the Friday airing of his nationally syndicated radio show. “She gave an interview … and the way this reads, she went out of her way to keep this guy on the staff, and she goes so far as to say, ‘I really felt that he was becoming a victim of anti-Muslim bias.’”
He continued, “Now, this is the guy that performed all kinds of trickery when her own computer network system at the Democrat National Committee. The guy should have been fired long ago. Not only she didn’t fire him, she kept him on the payroll and kept him close. This reads … Well, I don’t want to go there, but it reads like there was something else going between these two than just a work relationship. That’s the way I’ll put this. ‘Cause this doesn’t make any sense, holding onto this guy knowing full well what he did, ’cause these flimsy excuses here that she is offering really don’t hold any water.”
A listener called in during the segment about Wasserman Schultz, and told Limbaugh she wondered if the former DNC chair would get away with a cover-up.
Limbaugh answered, “The Debbie ‘Blabbermouth’ Schultz thing is interesting. Your overall question, is she gonna get away with it? Traditionally Democrats do get away. Hillary has gotten away with whatever she did with her emails. And Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch appear to get away with what should have been an illegal meeting on her airport on the tarmac in Phoenix while a supposed investigation of her emails was being conducted by the FBI. All of these various nefarious activities never seem to be called upon.”
“Debbie ‘Blabbermouth’ Schultz finally broke her silence on this staffer of hers that was arrested, Imran Awan,” the radio host continued. “She says that she has no regrets about keeping him on the payroll after he was blocked from working on Capitol Hill. This guy and his brothers may actually have stolen and hacked all kinds of data from the DNC servers. They are Pakistani. They wired $236,000 back to Pakistan. They were allowed to keep it. Debbie ‘Blabbermouth’ Schultz said, ‘I did the right thing keeping him on, and I would do it again. It would have been easier for me to just fire him.’”
Limbaugh added, “But she says she kept him on because she felt that he was being discriminated against because of his Islamic or Muslim religion. Now, folks, this guy was a thief. This guy had stolen, hacked, who knows what — part of the IT firm that they had hired to protect their data. I mean, it’s a royal mess. And this guy was attempting to flee the country when he was caught and arrested, and Debbie Schultz is saying, ‘I woulda kept him on, I don’t care.’ There’s something between these two beyond the work relationship, because this doesn’t make any sense. Whether she gets away with this or not? I don’t see any evidence that she won’t.”……”

Democrat Money Bag, George Soros, Fascist? Obamaist?, or merely Communist?

Freedom-loving democrat Dinesh D’Souza analyzes Notorious Communist George Soros, American leftism’s major financier:

The ‘Anti-Fascist’ Fascist

Photo of Dinesh D

by   DINESH D’SOUZA

“The so-called “antifascist” movement in America today bears a strange resemblance to the very fascism it purports to combat. When we see masked Antifa protesters in black, carrying weapons, disrupting public events and blocking speakers from campus, this looks more like fascism than its opposite. The close relationship between self-styled antifascism and fascism itself can be seen in some little-known aspects of one of Antifa’s main financial sponsors, George Soros.

The Hungarian-born Soros became a billionaire through shrewd global investments and currency manipulation; his Quantum Fund is one of the world’s first private hedge funds. Soros is the main funder of some 200 leftist groups, including Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, and Black Lives Matter.

Soros also backs self-proclaimed antifascist groups—this year the Soros-backed group Alliance for Global Justice gave $50,000 to the militant thugs associated with the group Refuse Fascism.

Soros doesn’t merely fund activism; he also funds disruptive violence.  Essentially his costumed baton-wielding squadrons amount to a private army: he has created a militia of paid thugs similar to the Italian Blackshirts and the Nazi Brownshirts.  Soros’ strategy is to launch dozens, even hundreds, of groups and then see which ones deliver the goods.  Borrowing from the field of venture capitalism, my term for what Soros does is venture thuggery, operating through paid protesters.

The paid protester is something of a new phenomenon in American politics. In the 1960s we had protesters on the left, even violent ones, but they weren’t being rented out by the hour. Soros’ groups, by contrast, advertise for disrupters and looters. On one ad I saw on Craigslist, protesters are promised $15 an hour to cause trouble.  This way leftists can not only indulge their violent streaks in the fantasy they are fighting Hitler; they can also be paid for their Brownshirt thuggery.

It may seem crude, even insensitive, for me to use such language in talking about Soros, who is Jewish and who was after all a refugee from Nazism.  Soros loves to play the Nazi card, as when in the aftermath of 9/11 he flayed President Bush’s attorney general John Ashcroft for questioning the patriotism of its critics—a tactic that Soros likened to the Nazis.  “It reminded me of Germany under the Nazis,” Soros said.  “It was the kind of talk that Goebbels used to use to line the Germans up. I remember, I was thirteen or fourteen.  It was the same kind of propaganda.”

This reference to his youth makes the transcript of a 1998 CBS Sixty Minutes interview with Soros especially revealing.  Here is what Soros told interviewer Steve Kroft about those fateful days in Hitler’s Germany…..”  Please continue reading:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/the-anti-fascist-fascist/

Transgendered in Military A RACKET or merely STUPID?

Progressives’ arguments in favor of transgender soldiers are drenched in self-righteousness—but they are also inane and dangerous.
6 RIDICULOUS ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF TRANSGENDER SOLDIERS
“Donald Trump was elected because he says things everyone else is thinking but is afraid to say. He did that very thing when he tweeted that openly transgender individuals don’t belong in the U.S. military.

After the ensuing explosion of vitriol on (mostly) the Left, you would have thought the president had been cleared of collusion with Russia. Since the vitriol comes with a heaping helping of self-righteousness and a side of fanaticism, the arguments in favor of transgender soldiers are drenched in both. They are also inane and dangerous. Here’s a random selection.

‘Transgender soldiers are already serving openly without any issues.’

The Department of Defense lifted the ban on transgender soldiers serving openly only a year ago. It’s hard to believe we have accurate data on the results because we can’t even agree on how many transgender military we have. The DoD calculates up to 7,000; the RAND Corporation says somewhere around 2,500; The Palm Center, a research institute in San Francisco, calculates 12,600; the OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says 16,000; and Kristen Beck, a former Navy Seal who served for 20 years as Christopher Beck before coming out as a transgender woman, estimates there are 75,000 to 100,000 transgender personnel in uniform.

‘Any individual who is qualified and willing to serve should be allowed to serve.’

This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. An individual’s qualifications and willingness to serve are the least important basis for assembling a military unit of maximum combat effectiveness. No one serves in isolation. Soldiers work together, eat together, shower together, and sleep together, all in very close proximity.

The Marines would know. They don’t play, the Marines. They research. Before the ban on women in combat was lifted, they studied the potential impact of gender-integrated units. Every Marine they looked at was both qualified and willing to serve, but it was how the qualified and willing Marines were constituted in units that made all the difference.

All-male squads demonstrated higher performance levels, exhibited more speed and focus, had better accuracy, and engaged targets quicker than mixed male-female units. Is that because men are smarter and stronger than women? Is it because men are more focused when women aren’t around? It doesn’t matter. All that matters—obviously—is that qualifications and willingness to serve are only part of the story.

If an XX individual identifies as male, but requires hormone injections to attain maleness, that’s a soldier who requires regular injections. If regular injections are no big deal, why are Type I diabetics barred from serving because they require insulin?

What happens on a Forward Operating Base if medical supplies are delayed? Or if a soldier is cut off from the base for any length of time? What happens to that soldier’s mental and emotional functioning without the needed hormone injections? If the discomfort with one’s biological sex is so great that one is willing to receive hormone injections to ease it, we can assume that not receiving the injections would be detrimental to one’s well-being and therefore combat effectiveness.

Not to mention the combat effectiveness of one’s unit.

 A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong. [emphasis added]

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

‘It makes our country less safe.’

How are we safer because men who identify as women and women who identify as men are serving openly? How are we safer when we pay for expensive hormones and surgeries instead of bombers and aircraft carriers? At a time when we’ve been forced into sequestration and are struggling to provide the basics, how does it make us safer to divert resources away from ensuring that safety to transgender sensitivity training, mental health services for transgender soldiers who are victims of harassment, facilities upgrades, retrofit showers, and other accommodations within communal living spaces?

We can’t even agree on which bathrooms trans people can use, but somehow we’re safer if we’re all in the shower together? No distraction there.

‘This is legalized discrimination, no different than when the Armed Forces were segregated.’

If race and sex are equivalent, why does the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have rules for transgender athletes but not for black athletes?

For a transgender woman (XY chromosomes) athlete to compete in the female category, the athlete must:

  • Declare female gender identity and live consistent with this identity for at least four years.
  • Demonstrate that total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to first competition. Evaluation on a case-by-case basis will determine whether 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition.
  • Demonstrate that total testosterone level in serum remains below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.

There are no such rules for black athletes to be able to compete with white athletes or vice versa because there is no difference between black and white athletes.

‘Anyone who opposes transgender soldiers in the military is a bigot.’

There are a lot of reasons besides bigotry that someone might object to transgender soldiers, such as diverting funds from winning wars to pay for surgeries and hormones; reducing combat effectiveness due to distractions or tensions; difficulty integrating pre-transition and in-process transition transgender soldiers with the unit as a whole; and understanding scientifically, medically, and socially what it means to be transgender. One of the objections might even be that the presence of transgender soldiers in a unit makes the unit less effective and therefore the transgender soldiers themselves less safe.

‘We would lose soldiers like Kristen Beck.’

No, we wouldn’t. Kristen Beck didn’t serve in the military. Christopher Beck did. Christopher Beck was part of the elite SEAL Team 6 and was deployed 13 times, including to Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, and Africa. Christopher Beck received the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star with valor, and 50 other medals during his 20-year career. He retired from the Navy in 2011. In 2013, Kristen Beck published a memoir: “Warrior Princess: A U.S. Navy SEAL’s Journey to Coming out Transgender.”

It is disingenuous to say Beck is the first female Navy SEAL when that career ended two years before Christopher—who was known for his beard—transitioned to Kristen. There has never been a female Navy SEAL, only a male Navy SEAL who retired and took feminizing hormones.”

 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/28/6-ridiculous-arguments-favor-transgender-soldiers/

Transgenders in the Military? Let Them Be Segregated!! Why Not Female-Only Battalions!

AN ATTACK BY TRUMP “ON THE WHOLE LGBT COMMUNITY”?

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

“That’s how (minus the question mark) Steven Petrow, a gay Washington Post columnist, characterizes President Trump’s decision to reinstate the ban on transgender people in the military. This characterization tells us plenty about what’s wrong with leftist identity-politics.

The question of whether transgender people should serve in the military is first and foremost a decision about how best to defend America militarily. The purpose of our armed forces is not to promote or reject the LGBT agenda. Its purpose is not to serve as a model for tolerance of transgender and other LGBT people, or to afford them employment opportunities, or even to treat them fairly as individuals. The purpose of our armed forces is to defend the country from its enemies.

Does a ban on services by transgender people serve this purpose? I don’t know.

Petrow cites a 2016 Rand Corporation study, commissioned by the Pentagon, that led the Obama administration to lift the ban. That’s one important piece of evidence. However, it was pretty clear the direction in which Obama wanted to go, so I can’t help but wonder whether the results of the study were preordained. (For a discussion of the manipulation associated with Obama’s decision to ditch “don’t ask, don’t tell,” see this post I wrote in 2010).

Dan McLaughlin at NRO offers countervailing evidence. He cites a 2015 study by the National Center for Transgender Equality. It found:

Fifty three percent (53%) of [transgender] respondents aged 18 to 25 reported experiencing current serious psychological distress [compared to 10% of the general population] . . . Forty percent (40%) of respondents have attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6% in the U.S. population.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year, compared to 4% of the U.S. population, and 82% have had serious thoughts about killing themselves at some point in their life . . .

29% of respondents reported illicit drug use, marijuana consumption, and/or nonmedical prescription drug use in the past month, nearly three times the rate in the U.S. population (10%)

Military veteran and Bronze Star recipient David French, also at NRO, argues that the military is justified in making decisions based on group characteristics:

Do people with certain kinds of criminal backgrounds tend to be more trouble than they’re worth? They’re out. How about folks with medical conditions that have a tendency to flare up in the field. They’re out also.

It’s foolish to create a force that contains numbers of people who are disproportionately likely to have substantial problems. Increased injuries lead to manpower shortages in the field. Prolonged absences create training gaps. Physical weakness leads to poor performance.

It may well be true that military service is one way that transgender people can feel more accepted in society. Again, however, that’s not the purpose of the military.

French concludes:

The military has to make hard choices on the basis of odds, probabilities, and centuries of hard-earned experience. Our national existence – ultimately, our very civilization – depends on getting those answers right. And if there’s one thing that any person learns in war, “fairness” has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.

The battlefield is the most unjust place on earth.

Again, I don’t know what the correct answer is on transgender people serving in the military. But I submit that French’s mode of analysis is the correct one. Focusing on whether a ban amounts to “an attack on the LBGT community” is the wrong mode.”

Glenn Ray wonders if Paul Mirengoff was ever in military service.   I wonder if Paul Mirengoff recognizes there are tremendous differences between the human male and the human female animal (despite the lies, the deceit, the corruption of our nation’s feminized colleges and universities?

I am a child of the second world war.   War was the event of every day even on the home front.   We boys played war games at home.  We went to war movies.  Girls played paper dolls and jumped rope.   From early on I wondered whether I’d have the courage to expose myself to death to save my buddies when I ‘grew up’ .  Did I have that animal drive in me?  I was certain I did.  I would serve my country in any way I could.

One of the main reasons I entered the army was the hope I would have the opportunity to do so.   I can’t imagine an army with females running around pretending to be men.   How could they be trusted in a fox hole.  When would they break and scream which is their nature, an animal  message to the nearby human male they need help?

In those days when adults were adults, men men and women women, the human male was made well aware of his duties in life.   Why would anyone go to war relying on  Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, or Madame Hillary in ones fox hole?