Category: Dennis Prager

An Orthodox Rabbi Writes That People Are Basically Good — Judaism Is in Trouble

The Algemeiner, a Jewish publication I highly respect, published a column about Judaism that is not merely wrong; it actually advances a thesis that is the opposite of what Judaism teaches.
That fact alone would not have prompted me to write a rebuttal. What prompts me is that the column was written by an Orthodox rabbi. It is sad enough that many non-Orthodox rabbis have been influenced more by their secular/Left educations than by the Torah. But when a rabbi identified as “centrist Orthodox” distorts one of the most important and normative ideas in Judaism, and is published in a major Jewish journal, we might be in trouble. Of course, he might be an outlier. But I don’t think he is unique. Though certainly not yet dominant, secular values have entered parts of modern Orthodox life just as they have traditional Catholic and Protestant Christian life.
With regard to mainstream Christianity — both Catholicism and Protestantism — and non-Orthodox Judaism, we are indeed in trouble. The secular and leftist influence on these denominations has been disastrous.
I should note that I am not mentioning the rabbi’s name as I have no desire to make this issue personal, let alone engage in an ad hominem attack. I know that the curious can identify the rabbi by searching the internet, but I cannot control that. I can only control what I write. And since I assume that this rabbi is a sincere individual, I want to restrict my response to what he wrote.
The rabbi wrote that Judaism posits that people are basically good, that human nature is good.
This is one of the most foolish and dangerous ideas of the secular world. No Abrahamic religion — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam — asserts that people are basically good. This notion is a product of the secular age and a major reason for the moral confusion that characterizes our era.
With regard to Judaism, the Torah completely rejects the notion that man is basically good. God Himself states that “the will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21) and that “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5).
For a rabbi to assert that man is basically good is to assert that God was wrong. I am used to secular people saying that, not Orthodox rabbis.
In addition, the Torah — and the rest of the Bible — repeatedly warns us not to follow our hearts. In fact, Orthodox Jews cite this admonition from the Torah three times every day: “Do not follow your hearts and your eyes after which you prostitute yourselves” (Numbers 15:39).
If the human heart is basically good, why does the Bible repeatedly warn us not to follow it?
The rabbi never cites any of these verses. For good reason: They would simply invalidate his argument. This secular belief in the inherent goodness of man is not only not Jewish; as noted, it is foolish and dangerous.
How foolish? It is not possible to be aware of human history and to rationally maintain that people are basically good. For a Jew to believe such nonsense after the Holocaust is simply breathtaking. Apparently, basically good people murdered six million Jews.
But we don’t need references to the Holocaust to make our case.
In the 20th century alone, more than a hundred million people — civilians, not soldiers — were murdered by vile regimes and their vile followers. These include the approximately 20 million killed in the Gulag Archipelago; the slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda; the genocidal murder of Armenians; the deliberate starvation of about 60 million Chinese; the Japanese mass rape of Korean “comfort women” and hideous medical experiments on Chinese civilians; and the torture and murder of approximately one out of four Cambodians.
And that is only a partial list.
Virtually every serious thinker in history knew people were not basically good. They knew about the universality of slavery and the tortures and rapes that accompanied slavery. They knew how men behaved in wartime.
Were all the people who engaged in these evils aberrations? In fact, most were quite normal. The aberrations in history have been the truly good individuals. To cite the Holocaust, the Germans, French, Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians and others who aided the Holocaust, let alone those who did nothing, were normal people. The handful who aided Jews were the aberrations.
And what about childhood bullying? Are fat, or slow, or unattractive boys and girls generally treated with kindness and empathy? The question is rhetorical.
And what about child sexual abuse? The WHO in 2002 estimated that 73 million boys and 150 million girls under the age of 18 years had experienced various forms of sexual violence. Quite remarkable for a world of basically good people.
So much for the foolishness of the belief that people are basically good. Now let’s deal with why it is dangerous.
One reason is that the most important, and most difficult, task of parents and of society is to raise good human beings. Yet, those who believe we are born good will not concentrate on making good people. Why bother if we’re already good?
A second reason the belief is dangerous is that those who believe it blame the evil that people do on outside forces, not on the individual who committed the evil. Belief in the basic goodness of human nature is the major reason people claim that poverty, or guns, or racism causes crime. Anything except the perpetrator.
The rabbi cites a Yale study that purports to show that babies are not only moral agents but are actually moral beings. Such studies are one reason so many Americans have come to hold universities in increasing contempt. The idea that babies know right and wrong is preposterous. The idea that babies are moral is even more preposterous. Babies are neither moral nor immoral since they have no more free will than your family dog.
Babies are selfish — as they have to be to survive. And babies are innocent. But innocent is not the same as good. The rabbi conflates “innocent” with “good.”
He also conflates “in God’s image” with “good.” He writes: “the Torah stating that human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) (is) a statement that underscored humanity’s inherent goodness.”
Not so. Created “in God’s image” has never meant man is basically good. Rather, it means that human beings, like God (and unlike animals), know good from evil and have moral free will. In Genesis 1:27, Rashi, author of the most influential Jewish Bible commentary ever written, explains “in God’s image” as “the power to comprehend and to discern.” Second, it means that human life (again, unlike animal life) is infinitely precious.
Finally, if people are basically good, what is the Torah for? What are all the commandments for? If people are basically good, why would God need to command us not to murder? Don’t basically good creatures know this?
It is very troubling that an Orthodox rabbi would teach the opposite of what the Torah and Judaism teach concerning one of the most fundamental issues of life. As more and more modern Orthodox Jews attend college and graduate school, it is imperative that Jewish schools teach the distinctiveness of Jewish values.
Increasingly, they do not.
This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

As of This Moment, America Is Still a Beacon of Liberty

Under the pretext of public health, the soul of what is known as the Free West has left most Western countries. Looking at the government overreach and abuses of power in virtually every other Western nation, one can only conclude that America truly is the last free man standing.
Here is a rundown of the suppression of liberty in major Western countries.
CANADA
Let’s start with our neighbor to the north.
Canada is one of the least free countries in the Western world. In some ways it is the least free. In every area of life, including freedom of speech, Canada severely restricts its citizens’ rights. Canada is one of the only countries in the world that bans the unvaccinated from all public transportation — airplanes, trains and buses. And no Canadian home can entertain more than three non-household visitors — a ban that prevented families and friends from getting together for Christmas.
Canada is a moral embarrassment. But apparently most Canadians are perfectly content to live in a country moving toward dictatorship.
They should replace the maple leaf on the Canadian flag with a sheep.
EUROPE
In the summer of 2021, most European countries introduced the so-called health pass or “European COVID-19 Pass.” This digital pass, in the form of a QR code, is a prerequisite to access cafes, bars, restaurants, theaters and even long-distance transport. Only the naive can now deny that the real goal of the EU has long been a digital identity system for all European citizens.
NETHERLANDS
The Netherlands is among the least free countries in the West.
From Dec. 19 “until at least” Jan. 14, 2022, the Dutch must:
Stay at home as much as possible; receive no more than two visitors per day; be with no more than one other person outdoors; and work from home.
In addition, restaurants, cafes and bars and nonessential shops are all closed.
Nor do the Dutch have the right to protest these draconian restrictions. Two days ago, an anti-lockdown protest was banned by the leftist mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, because people would “not be adhering to social distancing rules.” Thousands of people nevertheless showed up. They were met with drones, water cannons and huge numbers of police. Footage capturing a police dog biting down on a peaceful protester’s arm has gone viral.
FRANCE
Starting next week, working from home will become compulsory for those who can.
French Prime Minister Jean Castex said, “Even if we do not yet see hospitals as overloaded by omicron, the contagiousness of the variant and the speed at which it is spreading require us to go further.”
And the country has had a “health pass” since last summer, which only allows the vaccinated, those who have a negative COVID-19 test result from within 24 hours, or who had COVID-19 to enter cafes, restaurants, museums, cinemas and other public places. So, too, wearing a mask is compulsory throughout the country for everyone aged 11 and over in enclosed spaces and on public transport, on pain of a fine. Accordingly, consumption of food and drink is banned on public transport — including long-distance trains.

In schools, wearing a mask is compulsory from the age of 6, including in outdoor areas of the school.

AUSTRIA
Austria competes with the Netherlands for the title of Western Europe’s least free country.
From Nov. 22 to Dec. 12 no one was allowed to leave their home except for specific reasons such as buying groceries, going to the doctor or exercising. The lockdown has continued for the more than 30% of Austrians who remain unvaccinated.
In other words, nearly a third of all Austrians have not been allowed to leave their homes since Nov. 22 and will not be allowed to do so for the foreseeable future.
It is about to get much worse. Austria is about to become the first country in the world that will make the COVID-19 vaccine compulsory. It will be illegal to be unvaccinated. Beginning Feb. 1, unvaccinated Austrians will be fined 200 euros every month, and the fine will be increased every time they are caught in any activity outside of their house. Germany has already stated it wants to follow suit.
AUSTRALIA
Australia placed most of its citizens under house arrest for much of 2021. Sydney, Australia’s most populous city, was locked down for 106 days, ending only on Nov. 15. And Melbourne, the country’s second largest city, described by the Voice of America on Oct. 21 as “officially the world’s most locked down city,” was locked down 260 days. Residents were prohibited from traveling more than five kilometers from their homes, visiting family or friends, entering supermarkets except for pickup, and attending funerals. Schools were, and remain, still closed, and international travel was, and remains, prohibited. Needless to say, all shops, bars, and restaurants were closed. Essentially, people were prohibited from leaving their homes for a third of a year.
NEW ZEALAND
The lockdowns in New Zealand rendered that formerly free country essentially a totalitarian state in 2021. Befitting a totalitarian state, New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, actually said at one point regarding COVID-19 information, “Unless you hear it from the government, it is not true.” The woman, a bona fide fanatic, locked down her entire country because one person had the delta variant. Even pro-lockdown CNN seemed to find this a bit over-the-top. It headlined on Aug. 17: “New Zealand announces it’s locking down the entire country … over one Covid case”.
GERMANY
At the beginning of December, Germany announced a lockdown on the unvaccinated. They were banned from restaurants and bars, movie theaters, gyms, nonessential shops, and Christmas markets. About a quarter of all Germans are unvaccinated.
UNITED KINGDOM
Scotland has banned spectators, even if vaccinated, from attending sporting events. Masks must be worn indoors at public venues such as nightclubs, and one must show a health pass to enter nightclubs and other venues.
Wales went even further, allowing a maximum of six people to meet in pubs, cinemas and restaurants. Nightclubs were simply closed as of Dec. 27. Mandatory six-feet social distancing came into effect in offices from the same date. People must work from home unless it is impossible to do so.
While England does not yet have the same lockdown rules as Wales and Scotland, throughout the U.K. one must show a health pass certifying vaccination — or had a negative COVID-19 test within the past 72 hours or had COVID-19 under six months earlier — in order to enter most public locations.
THE UNITED STATES
And then there is the United States of America. With states like Florida and most other Republican-governed states, we have the freest places in the Western world. Going from Canada or Western Europe to Florida is like going from Romania or Poland to Western Europe during the Cold War. Indeed, going from most Democrat-run cities to most Republican-run cities is also like passing through the Iron Curtain.
Thanks to its conservative half and thanks to the Founders’ genius of defanging the national government by giving states great power, America remains the beacon of liberty it was when Lincoln said, “America is the last best hope of Earth” and when France gave us the Statue of Liberty. If it were up to the Left, America would be as unfree as Canada or Austria. That’s why fighting the Left is the most important thing any American who cherishes liberty can do.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Trans Swimmer Lia Thomas Is a Cheat — Period

If you want one exemplar of the moral and intellectual chaos that characterizes the age in which we live, there are a number of candidates:
“Having fewer police leads to a decrease in violent crime” is one.
“Men give birth” is another.
But perhaps the most obvious moral and intellectual absurdity of all is the notion that Lia Thomas, a member of the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s swim team, won fairly in the team’s recent meet against the Cornell University women’s swim team.
You see, Lia Thomas was a man until two years ago, when he announced that she is really a woman.
Now, neither I nor most fair-minded people care if Lia Thomas considers herself a woman. Many of us are even prepared to refer to Lia as “she” — especially if she dresses, acts and looks like a woman. (For the record, most people who watch Lia’s interview online and did not know that Lia claims to be a woman would assume that they are watching a man.)
But no fair-minded person can accept that Lia should be allowed to join a women’s swim team and compete against female teammates and against other women’s swim teams.
That Lia wishes to be considered a woman is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it is at all fair for this individual to compete against women. As far as sports are concerned, one’s biology, not one’s gender identity, is all that matters.
If Lia or any other biological male is allowed to compete against biological women, women’s sports are rendered pointless and therefore unnecessary. The entire reason women’s sports exist is to enable women to compete only against other women — because males have innate physical advantages in virtually every sport.
Needless to say, Lia Thomas has broken numerous University of Pennsylvania women’s swim records. In her 1650-meter freestyle win, Thomas beat second-place finisher and teammate Anna Kalandadze by more than 38 seconds.
That means that the women who had held those records no longer hold them. They have been stripped of their records because the University of Pennsylvania, like other universities, allows biological men to join women’s swim teams. That is the ruling of the woke cowards of the NCAA, who have decreed that all women’s teams, in all sports, must allow men to compete in women’s sports. All a man has to do to compete against women is announce that he is a woman and take testosterone suppressors for a year.
It is revolting that LGBTQ activists, virtually all sports writers (a band of sheep, if there ever was one) and just about the entire Left claim this is fair.
Headline in the left-wing Independent:
“Lia Thomas: LGBT-plus rights campaigners defend swimming champion amid transphobic abuse.”
The left-wing activists who run the Human Rights Campaign defended Thomas:
“Living your truth is an incredible and powerful feeling … We’re in solidarity with Lia and all athletes who compete in the sports they love and on teams consistent with their gender identity.”
Headline of an article by The Hill left-wing staff-writer, Brooke Migdon:
“College swimming champion Lia Thomas targeted by transphobic rhetoric.”
“The assumption that being born with a male body automatically gives transgender women a leg up when competing against cisgender women is not well founded,” Migdon writes, quoting the NCAA.
The ability of people to lie to themselves is a depressing fact of life.
The fact is this issue has nothing to do with trans acceptance or “transphobia.” It is purely a moral question: Is it fair?
As John Lohn, the rare honest editor of Swimming World magazine, wrote on Sunday:
“Despite the hormone suppressants she has taken, in accordance with NCAA guidelines, Thomas’ male-puberty advantage has not been rolled back an adequate amount…
“The fact is, for nearly 20 years, she built muscle and benefited from the testosterone naturally produced by her body. That strength does not disappear overnight, nor with a year’s worth of suppressants…
“What we are stating is this: The effects of being born a biological male, as they relate to the sport of swimming, offer Thomas a clear-cut edge over the biological females against whom she is competing. She is stronger. It is that simple. And this strength is beneficial to her stroke, on turns and to her endurance. Doping has the same effect.”
“Doping has the same effect.” Read that a few times and let the unfairness sink in.
Because of the Left, we are living — no, drowning — in an ocean of lies.
If you ever wonder why your kind, sweet friends on the Left differ with you, here is a big part of the answer: They do not know what we know. Google “Lia Thomas” and you will not find a single result in any mainstream media. For example, no reader of The New York Times or The Washington Post knows about this.
But those who know understand that Lia Thomas is a cheat.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Differences Between a Secular and a Religious — Jewish or Christian — Upbringing

Anyone who thinks about the current civil war in America comes to realize that it is, in large measure, a war between the religious and the anti-religious. The Left has contempt for evangelical Protestants, traditional Catholics and Orthodox Jews for good reason: They represent everything the Left loathes; and while there are, of course, secular conservatives who fight the Left, the largest and most effective opposition comes from conservative Christians and Jews.
The differences begin in childhood. Most religious kids — especially those who attend traditional Christian and Jewish schools — are raised with different values than most secular kids.
Here are some examples:
No. 1: Religious upbringing: Fight yourself. Secular upbringing: Fight society.
I studied in yeshiva (Orthodox Jewish school, where half the day I studied Bible and other religious subjects in Hebrew, and half the day I studied secular subjects in English) from kindergarten to 12th grade. I learned early on that the biggest problem in Dennis Prager’s life was Dennis Prager. In nearly all secular schools and in liberal religious schools, kids learn that the biggest problem in their lives is American society — in fact, everything other than themselves.
Which do you think produces a more self-critical, more self-controlled and overall better human being?
Which do you think produces an angrier and less happy human being?
No. 2: Religious Upbringing: Learn wisdom. Secular Upbringing: Nobody of wisdom conveyed.

No. 3: Religious Upbringing: People are not basically good. Secular Upbringing: People are basically good.
“Wisdom begins,” both Psalms and Proverbs teach, “with fear of God.” In other words, no God, no wisdom. But there is another way of asserting how and where wisdom begins. Wisdom begins with acknowledging how flawed human nature is. Or, to put it as succinctly as possible, you cannot be wise if you think people are basically good. You can be a sweet, kind and well-intentioned person if you believe people are basically good, but you cannot be wise. Indeed, you are more likely to be a naive fool.
The belief that people are basically good, a belief that neither Judaism nor Christianity has ever held, is a major obstacle to making a good society. For one thing, parents who believe this will not discipline their children as much as they need to. They will assume, as three generations of American parents now have, that all a child needs is love. And for another, people who believe human nature is good are much less inclined to punish criminals because they will blame murder, theft, rape and other evils on economic circumstances, parents and society — on anything but the criminal’s failure to control his flawed nature.
No. 4: Religious Upbringing: Holy days. Secular Upbringing: No holy days.
Religious children celebrate holy days — the Sabbath each week and other holy days in their respective religious calendars. Regular times devoted to the Transcendent have a major impact on the development of a child. The secular child has secular holidays, but they mean little to most American young people. July Fourth is a day off with a barbecue. Meaningless Halloween has come to have more significance than meaningful Christmas. Presidents’ Day means nothing. And Thanksgiving is increasingly declared Indigenous Peoples’ Genocide Day.
No. 5: Religious Upbringing: Friends plus community. Secular Upbringing: Friends, but no community.
Loneliness is a greater pandemic in the modern world than COVID-19, so much so that the U.K. now has a Minister of Loneliness to try to combat the problem.
This is, in large measure, another consequence of secularism. Religious Jewish and Christian (including Mormon) kids grow up with an abundance of friends and a whole religious community thanks to religious school and thanks to their synagogue or church. What is the communal secular equivalent of the church, synagogue and religious school? Other than sports (which, in any event, is available to only the handful of young people who play on a team), there isn’t any.

No. 6: Religious Upbringing: The obligation to honor parents. Secular Upbringing: No such obligation.

Religious Jewish and Christian children are taught the Ten Commandments, one of which is “Honor your father and mother.” It goes without saying that many secular children honor their parents, but they do so only if they want to. Religious children are told to honor parents whether they feel like it or not — which is important because very few children always feel like honoring their mother and father.
There is another pandemic in America — that of adult children who have decided never to talk to one or both of their parents. I would wager a serious sum of money that few of those adult children are religious Jews or Christians.
There’s a lot more that distinguishes religious and secular upbringings. But one stands out: Religious kids are generally happier.
Is one upbringing better than the other? You decide.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Why You Should Come Out of the Closet With Your Conservative Values

I received a phone call on my radio show from a man who said, “Dennis, I’m a gay conservative actor in Hollywood, and it is far easier to come out of the closet as gay than as a conservative.”
That call was in the 1980s.
While the current cancel culture — the firing, humiliation, disparagement and smearing — of conservatives is exponentially worse today than 30 years ago, it is not new.
As a result, the great majority of Americans who are conservative — that is, about half the country — hide their true beliefs. They fear saying anything that differs with the Left. This would include such reprehensible sentiments as:
With all its flaws, America is the finest country ever made.
Men do not give birth.
There are only two sexes.
A person’s color is the least important thing about them.
The greatest problem in black life is not whites but a lack of fathers.
A man who becomes a woman and then competes in women’s sports is cheating.
Posting to social media a video by a renowned epidemiologist, virologist or medical doctor who asserts that ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine with zinc, when used early enough, almost always prevents hospitalization for COVID-19.
The list is far longer than this. But if you think even this list overstates the problem, put any of these statements on any mainstream social media platform and see what happens. See if any relatives drop you from Facebook or even from their lives. See what your employer says or does. See what Twitter or Facebook does to your account.
There are valid reasons to fear publicly differing with the Left.
So, then, what arguments can be offered on behalf of coming out of the closet?
The first is this: For every person you alienate, you will likely bring at least one new, wonderful person into your life.
Putting aside issues of courage, of standing for what is right, of saving America from those working to destroy it, there is a great selfish reason to come out of the closet: kindred spirits, i.e., good people, will discover you.
In 2020, I received an email from a young woman in her second year at Harvard who told me that my book that explains the Left and America, “Still the Best Hope,” had changed her from liberal to conservative. Needless to say, I was intrigued to learn more about her and, as it happened, she lives — as I do — in Los Angeles. So, I invited her to sit in on my radio show.
While speaking to her during commercial breaks, I was impressed enough to ask if she would be willing to describe her political and moral metamorphosis on the radio. I warned her that appearing on “The Dennis Prager Show” and talking about her conservative views would likely lead to some lost friends, angry, if not alienated, relatives, and attacks back at Harvard. I made that case persuasively enough to give her pause and ask, “May I call my mother?”
She stepped out to make the call. When she returned to the studio, she announced, “I’m coming on.”
About half a year later, she made another appearance on my show, and I asked her what happened after her initial appearance.
“I went through two weeks of hell,” she responded.
As predicted, she lost friends she had had since elementary school, some relatives limited their contact with her, and some students back at Harvard regarded her as an indecipherable sellout.
“Then what happened?” I asked.
“Then I entered heaven,” she responded.
She offered two big reasons.
One was that she began to sleep better than she had in years. The other was the number of kindred spirits, all quality people, who reached out to her, some of whom became friends.
Regarding reason one — sleeping better — staying in the closet exacts a serious mental price on a person. One should not think only coming out of the closet exacts a price.
As for the second reason, virtually no price paid for coming out of the closet is comparable to the rewards of doing so. There is little as happiness-inducing as having kindred spirits in your life.
Now, is that worth losing one’s job? If you are sure you will lose your job and no other job paying a comparable salary will be available, only you can answer that question. Similarly, if one of your children will stop talking to you because you are not “woke,” it is not for me to advise you what to do. But there are no other compelling arguments not to come out of the closet.
And there are at least two other arguments for coming out.
One is that you will respect yourself more. And so will others — including, quite possibly, one or more of your children (and your grandchildren, if you have any).
And two: You will help save this country from tyranny. For some, that should suffice.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

A Brief Guide to Leftist Destruction

To understand the modern world, perhaps the most important rule one needs to know is this: Everything the Left touches it ruins.
This first became clear to me years ago during my radio show. I was talking about the Left’s war on the Boy Scouts (for not accepting announced gay people). It was becoming clear that this would ultimately lead to the decline of the Boy Scouts, which led me to ask: “Will the left replace the Boy Scouts with a left-wing Boy Scouts?”
Then I answered my own question: Of course not. Because the Left only destroys; it doesn’t build anything (other than government).
In support of that observation, here is a list of many of the things the Left ruins and often destroys.
No. 1: Art.
The Left long ago conquered the art world. Consequently, since the 20th century, most modern art has been ugly, meaningless and nihilistic — the opposite of what Western art had always been.
No. 2: Music.
What the Left did to the eyes in art, it did to the ears in music. As a part-time conductor, I can say with some knowledge that since the invention of atonal music (an oxymoron if there ever was one), most contemporary classical music is also ugly, meaningless and uninspiring. The people who like such music are almost all music critics and, of course, music professors. Most lovers of classical music never listen to the stuff.
No. 3: Journalism.
Journalists were once highly respected. Unless a piece was listed as “opinion,” people generally believed they were getting, to the best of a journalist’s ability, as truthful a report as possible — “just the facts.” Today, on virtually any controversial issue, they are getting opinion, not truth. The purpose of nearly every major newspaper and other “news” outlet is the same purpose Pravda had in the Soviet Union: to transmit the party line.
No. 4: Colleges and universities.
The Left has destroyed universities as places of learning devoted to seeking truth and therefore welcoming, even cultivating, diverse opinions. Virtually every left-wing idea was born at a university.
No. 5: High schools and elementary schools.
Most schools in America — private as much as public — teach children that America is systemically racist and that they are not born male or female, but at a later age will choose whether to be one or the other — or neither. And increasingly, American educational institutions deny objective truth exists, even in mathematics.
No. 6: Happiness.
You can meet happy and unhappy liberals and happy and unhappy conservatives, but you are unlikely to ever meet a happy leftist. The only question is whether the unhappy gravitate to leftism or whether leftism makes people unhappy. Both are probably true.
No. 7: The family.
People on the Left increasingly choose not to get married and not to have children — in other words, not to make families. And their welfare policies serve to disincentivize the creation of families.
No. 8: Women.
The rates of depression among young people, especially young women, are higher than ever recorded in American history. One reason is that for half a century, women have been told, as one famous feminist saw put it, “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” But the fact is that the vast majority of (heterosexual) women need a man to be fulfilled, just as the vast majority of (heterosexual) men need a woman to be fulfilled.
No. 9: Childhood.
One reason young people on the Left don’t want children is that the Left doesn’t particularly like children. The teachers unions’ adamant refusal to open schools for over a year has opened many Americans’ eyes to this fact. So has the war on children’s innocence – like prematurely talking to them about sex and having schools introduce them to drag queens from the age of five.
No. 10: Black life.
Like the Democratic Party historically, the left is racist. And it is so in precisely the way the word was always used — the Left believes in black inferiority. That is why leftists advocate lowering standards for blacks. That is why they advocate policies that always result in more blacks dying at the hands of other blacks. That is why they believe the state must take care of blacks more than any other group. That is why left-wing policies, from the Great Society to today, have destroyed so much of black life, especially its family life — and they don’t care.
No. 11: Black-white relations.
According to polls and according to just about every American who remembers life from about a decade ago, black-white relations were far superior then and both groups were optimistic about relations other continuing to improve. The Left shattered that with its anti-white, “America is systemically racist” propaganda shouted from almost every major media and relentlessly pushed in almost every school and big business. The Left knows that when blacks and whites feel good about one another, the Left loses its appeal and loses elections.
No. 12: The military.
As the military gets more and more woke– recall the testimony of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testifying before Congress about the need to teach the military about white racism — soldier morale declines. Add to this the utterly gratuitous and cruel mandate that every member of the military get vaccinated or be discharged and you understand why military morale is in steep decline.
No. 13: Late-night television.
Americans who remember the titans of late-night comedy — Johnny Carson and Jay Leno — remember how their sole aim was to bring some smiles and laughter to Americans before they went to sleep. Few people had any inkling of the political views of either host. That is now history. The Left has destroyed late night comedy. It now consists of little more than angry rants against conservatives.
No. 14: Superman.
Superman was an iconic American hero. Thanks to the Left, he is no more. About a decade ago, Superman stood in front of the United Nations to announce he was renouncing his American citizenship to become a “citizen of the world.” And the Left has now changed his motto from “Truth, Justice, and the American way” to “Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow.”
No. 15: Free speech.
Never before has freedom of speech been threatened as it is today. As has been true since the communist revolution in Russia, everywhere the Left has gained power — from Russia in 1917 to the university and social media today — it has suppressed free speech. There is no exception.
No. 16: Sports.
Until last year, sports was a great American unifier. It was one place Americans could go and, leaving politics behind, Left and Right, Democrat and Republican could root for the same team. No longer. The Left has ruined it by radically politicizing baseball, football and basketball.
The great American tragedy is just about every liberal knows the above is true, but nearly everyone will still vote for the Left.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Gay Pariahs, Unvaccinated Pariahs, the Left, and the Truth

Last week in an interview on Newsmax, I said:
“During the AIDS crisis, can you imagine if gay men and intravenous drug users, who were the vast majority of the people with AIDS, had they been pariahs the way the non-vaccinated are? But it would have been inconceivable. And it should have been inconceivable; they should not have been made pariahs. But this (banning those not vaccinated from bars, restaurants, salons, etc.) is kosher, this is OK.” The reason I raised the comparison of gay men and IV drug users as pariahs to the current-day unvaccinated is that I took for granted that those two groups, were, in fact, made pariahs at that time. My whole point was they were not made pariahs in the same way the unvaccinated are today. No AIDS-infected people were the subject of government-issue edicts to bar them from private businesses such as restaurants, bars and hair salons.
Had gay men and IV drug users never been made pariahs in the beginning of the AIDS crisis, there would have been no point in raising them as a point of comparison. To any honest person hearing or reading that statement, it is therefore clear that I did not say gays were not pariahs during the AIDS crisis. I said the opposite: I said that they should not have been made pariahs and that it should have been inconceivable to make them pariahs. I compared gays as pariahs then to the unvaccinated as pariahs today. I said they were not pariahs “like the unvaccinated are today.” There’s a reason people use qualifiers.
The Left went into its standard mode of operation — lie, smear, get hysterical and incite the mob.
Some examples:
MSNBC devoted a segment to what I said. They played the Newsmax video of me — but, tellingly, they played only part of what I said. They dropped, “And it should have been inconceivable; they (gays) should not have been made pariahs.” If you watch the video of me speaking as played on MSNBC, you actually see me mouthing those words, but MSNBC made sure you can’t hear me say them. Dropping those words changes the entire meaning of what I said.
And change the meaning of what I said is precisely what The Independent, Slate, Politifact, the Advocate, Media Matters, The Bulwark writers and every other left-wing individual and organization that covered this story did.
Gays with AIDS were indeed pariahs, and some awful things were done to and said about them. This was especially true in the first years of the AIDS outbreak, and especially after Dr. Anthony Fauci announced that AIDS may be transmittable through casual household contact (rather than solely by the exchange of body fluids), and most especially after the media hyped the myth that AIDS was as easily transmitted and common among heterosexuals as it was among gay men and intravenous drug users. As a result, many Americans panicked.
Consequently, almost everyone with AIDS — not only gay men — were rendered pariahs. One of the most famous examples was Ryan White, a 10-year-old boy who was not gay (to anyone’s knowledge), who was kicked out of school in 1986 because he had contracted AIDS from a tainted blood transfusion.
Now let’s compare that pariah status to that of the unvaccinated today.
Were there government mandates to fire every gay man with AIDS, as there are today for every company in America with 100-plus employees?
Did government edicts deprive AIDS patients of their incomes and pensions? Were gay policemen, nurses and firefighters fired?
Was there a ban on gay men (with or without AIDS) entering movie theaters, restaurants, hair salons, etc., unless they could prove they did not have AIDS? Such bans exist at this moment on the unvaccinated.
Was there any talk about banning anyone with AIDS from using all public transportation? Such a ban on the unvaccinated exists in Canada and is being seriously discussed by the Biden administration. Last week, Austria barred unvaccinated people who do not have natural immunity from restaurants, hotels, hair salons and large public events.
Here’s more on the treatment of the unvaccinated:
The former premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, has called on the Australian government to follow Singapore’s decision to discontinue free COVID-19 treatment for unvaccinated patients. He said it was time unvaccinated Australians should be forced to “pay for your willful stupidity.”
Howard Stern said: “I’m really of mind to say, ‘Look, if you didn’t get vaccinated and you got Covid, you don’t get into a hospital.’”
MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan supports segregating the unvaccinated and denying them access to basic goods and services.
Noam Chomsky said that the unvaccinated should be pushed into isolation. When asked how the unvaccinated would then be able to get food, Chomsky responded, “How can we get food to them? Well, that’s actually their problem.”
“Noam Chomsky is trending because he wants to get tough on people who choose to stay unvaccinated,” Mehdi Hasan said on MSNBC. “Good for him.”
Leana Wen, a visiting professor of health policy at George Washington University, Washington Post columnist, and medical analyst for CNN, told Chris Cuomo on CNN:
“We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated the same as we look at driving while intoxicated. You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want, but then you can’t go out in public.”
Jimmy Kimmel said this:
“Dr. Fauci said that if hospitals get any more overcrowded, they’re going to have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bed. That choice doesn’t seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right on in, we’ll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy.”
My comments were about the government-imposed pariah status of the unvaccinated today; they in no way denied the social pariah status of gays with AIDS in the 1980s. But facts do not matter to the angry and the hate-filled.
Tim Miller, writer-at-large for the Bulwark, said on the MSNBC program that featured my Newsmax interview:
“His (Prager’s) revisionist history is a central tenet of right-wing victimhood. They love the victim status … and to pretend like the suffering of people didn’t exist.”
Miller simply lied about what I said. I never pretended the suffering of people didn’t exist. I compared the pariah status of the unvaccinated today to the pariah status of gays during the AIDS epidemic and said the former is worse. That is demonstrably true: Not one of these commentators cited an example of government or commentators calling for banning AIDS victims from working, from eating out, from getting a haircut or a plane ticket or from receiving medical care.
As noted above, every left-wing outlet that covered the issue lied:
The Independent: “Right-wing radio host claims gay men weren’t ‘pariahs’ during Aids crisis — but unvaccinated are now.”
Poynter Institute for Media Studies: “Dennis Prager’s claim that it was ‘inconceivable’ that gay men were seen as ‘pariahs’ in the 1980s is extraordinarily inaccurate.”
Politifact (a so-called fact-checker): “To suggest that gay men and intravenous drug users were not considered pariahs during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s is entirely inaccurate … We rate the statement Pants on Fire.”
The Advocate (perhaps the most long-standing and prominent gay site): Like MSNBC, it dropped the last two sentences when it quoted me.
Tampa Bay Times headline: “The Pants on Fire claim that it was ‘inconceivable’ gay men were seen as ‘pariahs.’”
Another writer at The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last, asked: “Is Dennis Prager Stupid or Evil?” To support this, he printed the truncated quote of what I said, just like MSNBC and the others.
Why did the Left lie about what I said?
For two reasons.
The first is something I have known and written about since I studied communism in graduate school: Neither liberty nor truth is, or has ever been, a left-wing value. Both are liberal values, and both are conservative values. But neither is a left-wing value.
The second is that on the Left, victim status is everything. Only left-wing approved groups can be deemed victims, and gays are, of course, one of those groups. Whatever the price — including truth — the Left must maintain its monopoly on victimhood.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Natural Immunity Versus Vaccine Immunity

You never know when something you say will go viral. It has happened a number of times in my career, the latest being comments I made on my national radio talk show a few weeks ago when I had COVID-19. I said that I had hoped I would attain natural immunity, since science — evidenced, for example, in a major study from Israel, one of the most pro-vaccine and highly vaccinated societies in the world — strongly suggests that natural immunity provides more robust and durable protection against COVID-19 than the current COVID-19 vaccines have proven to provide.
Specifically, I said that I had hugged and taken photos with thousands of people from the beginning of the pandemic. I had two reasons for doing this: 1) I decided very early on that I would not live my life in fear, but instead live normally; and 2) if I did get the virus I had confidence that the prophylactic therapeutics and nutrients I had been taking for more than a year — ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, megadoses of vitamin D, vitamin C and selenium (and a monoclonal antibody infusion once I tested positive for COVID-19) — would protect me from serious consequences. Most importantly, I repeatedly said from the beginning of 2020 that I chose to live normally, not hide in my house. As much as I want to live a long life, I have always believed that the purpose of life is to live fully, not necessarily long (though, of course, I want that too — just not at the expense of normal living).
My COVID-19 symptoms consisted of chills for three days, a cough and fatigue for about a week and loss of taste for a day. I missed three days of radio but did not miss a speech (I flew from California to Florida to deliver a speech five days after testing negative).
From CNN to the Washington Post, I was mocked by much of the national mainstream media. Needless to say, not one of them bothered to interview me or invite me to respond either in writing or in person. That is how things now work in America: the media attack and mock those with whom they differ but offer no opportunity for the attacked party to respond. On the basis of a few sentences provided by a lie-based attack site (Media Matters), the Washington Post, for example, wrote an entire article on me and those comments. More on that in the next column.
Let’s begin with my premise — that natural immunity is more robust than a vaccine (or at least the vaccines we currently have). That is what a large study out of Israel — one of the most pro-vaccine and highly vaccinated countries in the world — reported.
On August 25, 2021, medRxiv published a “preprint” study by ten Israeli scientists, all associated with an Israeli research institute, Maccabitech, in Tel Aviv. Among the 10 are three MDs, three professors of epidemiology, two professors at the Tel Aviv University School of Public Health and an adjunct researcher at the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. The study’s conclusion: “This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity …”
On August 26, 2021, Science, one of the world’s most widely cited science magazines, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published an article on the Israeli study. Its opening sentence reads: “The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study …”
Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, confirmed the Israel study: “In Israel, vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease … ”
A Cleveland clinic study came to the same conclusion. Published on June 5, 2021, also on medRxiv, it concluded that “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination … ”
Even before the Israeli and Cleveland Clinic studies, a New York University study comparing vaccine immunity to natural immunity concluded that people who had had COVID-19 were better protected against the virus: “In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients.”
A Rockefeller University study published on August 24, 2021, concluded, as the Israel study did, that “a natural infection may induce maturation of antibodies with broader activity than a vaccine does.” The study immediately added that getting natural immunity entails contracting COVID-19, and “a natural infection can also kill you.” But that valid warning does not negate its conclusion in favor of natural immunity. Nor does the study warn that getting the vaccine may also induce harmful consequences. To its everlasting shame, that is a taboo subject in America’s medical community despite the fact that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists over 700,000 cases of suspected injury and more than 17,000 otherwise unexpected deaths temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccines.
Last week, the media reported that the CDC announced that vaccines provided greater immunity than natural immunity. But the way in which the CDC came to this conclusion is all but indecipherable, if not simply dishonest.
Here’s how Dr. Peter Hotez, a pro-vaccine spokesman and co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, summarized the Kentucky study:
“The Centers for Disease Control in their ‘MMWR’ (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) published a very interesting study out of Kentucky comparing individuals who were infected and recovered and chose not to get vaccinated versus those who are infected and recovered and then got vaccinated in addition. And clearly, those who chose not to get vaccinated were reinfected at much higher rates, several times higher, than those who were infected and recovered and vaccinated.”
Those comments are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The comparison I and others make is between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. The CDC-Kentucky study is not a comparison between natural immunity and vaccine immunity; it is a comparison between those who received a vaccine after natural immunity and those who did not receive a vaccine after attaining natural immunity.
NIH director Francis Collins also used the Kentucky study to avoid the question of COVID-recovered immunity versus vaccine immunity. On August 12, 2021, he said on Fox News: “There was a study published by CDC just ten days ago in Kentucky … So, what was the protection level? It was more than two-fold better for the people who had had the vaccine in terms of protection than people who had had natural infection. That’s very clear in that Kentucky study. You know that surprises people. Kind of surprised me that the vaccine would actually be better than natural infection …”
This CDC report and deliberate conflation by Dr. Peter Hotez and NIH director Collins of two completely different groups — COVID-recovered (with or without vaccine) and vaccinated who never had COVID-19 — are among the many reasons so many Americans no longer trust the American medical establishment.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Is Stealing Wrong? Not on the Left

To most readers of this column, the question is absurd. The reason is not because the question is, in fact, absurd; it is because most readers of this column are conservative, and many are religious.
Am I implying that most leftists do not believe stealing is wrong?
Yes, I am.
As incredible as this assertion is to just about all religious people and virtually all conservatives, most leftists do not believe stealing is wrong. Since I always draw a distinction between those on the Left and liberals, let me add that I suspect most liberals think stealing is wrong. But it almost doesn’t matter because they vote for people who do not think it is.
One proof is the passage of Proposition 47, a California ballot initiative passed in 2014, under which theft of less than $950 in goods is treated as a nonviolent misdemeanor and rarely prosecuted. As a result, in Democrat-run California cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, retail theft has soared.
Walgreens stores in San Francisco are racking up four times the average amount of theft in Walgreens stores across the country; spending on security guards in San Francisco is 35 times more than the chain’s average in other cities. Walgreens has been forced to close 22 stores in the city since 2016.
As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle: “The Safeway located in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood … was a longstanding, 24-hour fixture in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood. But as of last week, the store’s hours have been cut back to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m … A Safeway spokesperson (said) that the cutbacks are ‘due to an increasing amount of theft at the store.’”

Further proof that the Left doesn’t consider theft wrong — at least when committed by a person of color — was an interview broadcast on NPR last year with the author of a book titled “In Defense of Looting.” The NPR interviewer threw only softball questions to the author.

In the last election, Los Angeles voters elected San Francisco’s previous district attorney, George Gascon, as Los Angeles’s district attorney. It was Los Angeles’s way of declaring that stealing is not wrong. And it is worth noting that it is not only racial minorities and the poor who make these elections possible; it is also prosperous whites. The Los Angeles DA is a wealthy white, and he was supported by a white billionaire, George Soros.
It is hard to believe that millions of Americans do not deem stealing from stores morally wrong, so let’s try to explain how this has come about.
Reason No. 1 is moral relativism. For as long as there has been a Left, it has rejected moral absolutes. As the great British historian, Paul Johnson, pointed out a half-century ago in his magnum opus, “Modern Times,” the secular world applied the relativism of the natural sciences to morality.
Reason No. 2 is the reason for reason number one: the collapse of the Judeo-Christian value system and the accompanying abandonment of, and often disdain for, biblical ethics. Biblical morality posits moral absolutes — meaning that stealing is wrong for everyone, certainly people of every color. Yes, one can offer a biblical defense of a starving man stealing food for his starving family. But that is hardly what is happening in San Francisco and other American cities.
Reason No. 3 is Marxist morality. From Marx to the present, Marxism has divided the world not between right and wrong, but between economic classes. Therefore, it is morally acceptable for members of the poorer classes to steal from members of the more affluent classes. This notion has made its way into young people’s minds for decades. About 30 years ago, I spoke to students from four Cleveland high schools. I asked them to raise their hand if they would steal something they really wanted from a department store if they were certain they would not get caught. Nearly all the students raised their hands. When I asked some of them to justify their reasoning, they all said the same thing: they wouldn’t steal from a mom-and-pop store, but they would steal from a department store. It is OK to steal from “the rich.”
Reason No. 4 is leftists’ view of nonwhites, especially blacks, a view that conservatives have never shared. Leftists truly believe that blacks are intellectually and morally inferior to whites. The evidence? They do not believe blacks should be held to the same intellectual and moral standards to which leftists hold whites. Leftists do not defend whites who steal, and they hold whites to higher intellectual standards. Leftists do not argue for lowering math standards for whites, only for blacks.
The bottom line is the Left is immoral. That is why it defends stealing.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Someone Must Go to Prison for the Killing of Halyna Hutchins

If no one goes to prison for actor Alec Baldwin’s accidental killing of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, our society will have failed a crucial moral test.
We will be saying human life is not sacred; that it, in effect, is of little or no consequence.
The killing was, we presume, unintentional (though we do not know for sure, as the possibility remains that someone had motive to load the gun with real ammunition). But that does not mean that no one should be held culpable and punished. Society must regard the taking of human life — even when unintentional — as something terrible.
I learned this principle from the Bible, which was, until the last century, the source of America’s and the Western world’s moral values.
This principle is repeated over and over in the Bible’s first five books (the Torah), the source of all biblical laws. This repetition strongly indicates how seriously the Bible takes this issue.
Example one:
Exodus 21:28: “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned …”
The obvious question is: Why would the ox be put to death? It is surely not guilty of murder; oxen have no free will. The reason it is put to death is that the killing of a human being cannot go unpunished.
The Jewish Bible scholar, professor Nahum Sarna, wrote:
“The execution of the ox was carried out in the presence, and with the participation, of the entire community (the animal was stoned, not merely killed) — implying the killing of a human being is a source of mass pollution and the proceedings had an expiatory function. The killing of a homicidal beast is ordained in Genesis 9:5-6: ‘For your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast … Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in His image did God make man.’ The sanctity of human life is such as to make bloodshed the consummate offense, one viewed with unspeakable horror. Both man and beast that destroy human life are thereafter tainted by bloodguilt.”
Example two:
Deuteronomy 19:5: “(If) a man goes with his neighbor into a grove to cut wood; and as his hand swings the ax to cut down a tree, the ax-head flies off the handle and strikes the other so that he dies, that man shall flee to one of these cities and live.”
Again, the Bible describes a homicide that is entirely accidental. But the person who accidentally committed the homicide is not free to live a normal life. (SET ITAL) He cannot go on with life as if nothing happened. (END ITAL) While he is not to be executed, he must flee to one of three “cities of refuge” in ancient Israel. There he may not be killed or otherwise hurt by a member of the killed man’s family. But he is not a completely free man.
In my Bible commentary, “The Rational Bible,” I quote Leeor Gottlieb, a professor of Bible at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University: “The Torah is morally ahead of some modern societies, in which people’s lives go on nearly uninterrupted if they killed unintentionally.”
As the Bible explains five verses later:
“Thus blood of the innocent will not be shed, bringing bloodguilt upon you in the land that the Lord your God is allotting to you.”
Human bloodshed brings bloodguilt upon the land.
Example three:
Deuteronomy 21:1-4 and 7: “If, in the land that the Lord your God is assigning you to possess, someone slain is found lying in the open, the identity of the slayer not being known, your elders and magistrates shall go out and measure the distances from the corpse to the nearby towns … And they shall make this declaration: ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve, O Lord, Your people Israel whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among Your people Israel.’ And they will be absolved of bloodguilt.”
Unlike the previous instance, in which the (unintentional) killer is known, the killer of the slain man found “in the open” is not known. Nevertheless, the community is still held accountable and must ask for forgiveness for not preventing a homicide.
Example four:
The final example is not biblical but from my radio show. Many years ago, a woman called to tell me about an ostrich raised on her family’s ostrich farm. One day, this ostrich kicked her father to death. I asked the woman what was done to the ostrich. “Nothing,” she replied.
Given my biblical background, I was taken aback.
“So you tell people who visit your farm, ‘This is the ostrich that killed my father’?”
“Yes,” she responded.
In my view, that cheapened her father’s life and death.
How much more so will Halyna Hutchins’ life and death be cheapened if no one pays a steep price — for a death that was entirely preventable had proper precautions been followed?
But given how little the Bible means to most Americans today, I would not be surprised if no one goes to prison.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

The Left is Evil — and Liberals Keep Voting for Them

As I have noted repeatedly, liberalism and leftism have virtually nothing in common. In fact, leftism is the enemy of liberalism — as a handful of liberals such as former New York Times writer Bari Weiss, former Young Turk Dave Rubin, and others have come to recognize.
The left has never believed in free speech and has suppressed dissent wherever it has assumed power. Free speech is a pillar of liberalism, and it has always embraced dissent.
The left rejects the anti-racist ideal of color-blindness. Colorblind is the liberal racial ideal.
The left supports racial segregation — such as all-black dorms and separate black graduations. Liberals have always advocated racial integration.
The left has always loathed capitalism. Liberals were always major advocates of capitalism — recognizing that only capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty.
The left has always been anti-Israel. Liberals have always been fervent supporters of Israel.
The left has always held America in contempt. Liberals loved this country. A liberal wrote, “God bless America.” No leftist would write such a song.
Leftists want to defund the police. No liberal does.
The list of liberal-left differences is as long as the list of left-wing positions.
Yet, it is liberals who keep the left in power. Were it not for the liberal vote, the left would have no power.
Why do liberals vote left? Why do liberals vote for those who have contempt for virtually everything they, the liberals, hold dear?
The question is all the more apt given that it is conservatives who protect virtually every liberal value. It is conservatives who seek to preserve free speech, racial integration, love of America, a strong Israel, and capitalism.
So why do liberals vote for the left, for the very people who hold liberals and their values in contempt?
There are two primary reasons.
One is brainwash. Liberals are brainwashed from childhood into believing that the right is their enemy and that pas d’ennemis a gauche (there are “no enemies on the left”). That is why there is no left-wing position, no matter how destructive or vile, that could move a liberal to vote Republican or identify with conservatives.
The second reason is fear. Liberals fear they will lose friends and even family if they do not vote Democrat or if they publicly criticize the left. And this is not an irrational fear.
America and the West are being destroyed by the left. But this destruction of the universities, the high schools, art and music, journalism, and of freedom itself could not take place were it not for liberals.
The fate of America and the West lies largely in the hands of liberals. There are simply not enough leftists to destroy our most revered institutions. They need liberals to serve as fellow travelers to accomplish their ends.
Should the American experiment fail — and it may — that profile in lack of courage, the liberal, will have made it possible.
This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

And Jews Will Still Vote Democrat

There is almost nothing Democrats can do to damage America, or Israel, that would change most American Jews’ political leanings.
The latest example took place just last week. A college student speaking to the vice president of the United States, a Democrat, condemned America for supporting Israel, and charged Israel with committing “ethnic genocide” against Palestinians.
Harris’s response?
“Your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard.”
It was indeed the student’s truth — which means it was a lie. “Your truth” always means “a lie.” When a person says something that is true, people don’t say, “that is your truth.” They say, “that’s true.”
And indeed, what the girl said to the vice president was a complete lie. Not a partial lie, a complete lie. As a rule — except on the Left with regard to Israel — groups that are victims of genocide decrease in number. Yet the Palestinians have had one of the highest population growth rates in the world. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, in 1991, there were 2,783,084 Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. In 2021, there were 5,227,193. This number does not include another 2 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. How many other national or ethnic groups have doubled in size in the last 30 years?
Yet, despite this revealing incident, it is hard to imagine that one American Jew will in any way rethink his or her commitment to Biden-Harris.
One reason is that few Jewish Democrats even know it occurred. I Googled “new york times kamala harris george mason university” and the following results came up (in this order): New York Post, Politico, Times of Israel, JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency). Next came the New York Times — an article from 2020: “Kamala Harris Makes History as First Woman and Woman of Color as Vice President.”
I could find nothing about the incident in the news sections of the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times either.
Some of the most powerful forces in the Democratic Party (the reason for the $3.5 trillion spending bill) are indistinguishable in their hatred for Israel from Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. Does this disturb American Jewish Democrats?
Not nearly as much as Donald Trump disturbed them. Most American Jews loathed Trump despite the facts that he was the most pro-Israel president since Harry Truman; that his daughter and grandchildren are religious Jews; and that he engineered the Abraham Accords, a peace agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and Israel, which was followed by normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel and between Morocco and Israel.
Most American Jews believe the Democratic Party is a good and moral party and that the Republican Party is immoral and perhaps even evil.
This view is entirely emotional, which is why it is difficult to imagine it changing.
Most American Jews identify Republicans with the right and they assume “the right” means “fascist” or even “Nazi.”
Most American Jews identify Republicans with the rich and powerful and the Democratic Party with the poor and downtrodden, even though the rich and powerful are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Most American Jews identify the Democratic Party with secularism and the Republican Party with religion (religious Christians and Orthodox Jews). And they are as committed to secularism as Christians are to Christ.
Most American Jews have signed on to just about every secular substitute for Judeo-Christian religions: feminism, environmentalism, “anti-racism,” humanism, socialism. Jews, I have often noted, may well be the most religious people in the world — but for the great majority of them, Judaism is not their religion. And the Democratic Party is the party of all these secular religions.
This is all a great tragedy — not just for America but especially for American Jews.
America has always been the best country Jews have ever lived in outside of Israel. That is why a Jew wrote “God Bless America” (and did so at a time when antisemitism was much more prevalent and accepted in American society than it is today). That is why the most influential religious Jew of the 20th century, the Chabad leader, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, described America as a (SET ITAL) medina shel chesed (END ITAL), a “country of kindness.” Coming from Europe, he did not compare America to Utopia but to all the other countries Jews lived in.
Yet, something happened to American Jews after World War II. They veered more and more left — becoming able to support America-hating movements (like the Black Panthers, for whom Leonard Bernstein and other prominent Jews in music and Broadway threw an infamous fundraiser).
And why did that happen? Because Jews became less and less committed to Judaism, substituted the New York Times for the Torah and went to college in greater proportions than any other ethnic or religious group in America. Colleges corrupt most students’ values. Jews are no exception.
That helps explain why a Democratic vice president could praise a student who just told her that Israel commits ethnic genocide — and have it mean nothing to most American Jews.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More
Loading

Subscribe to Clarion News

Treat yourself to current Conservative News and Commentary conveniently delivered all in one site, right to your computer doorstep.