Category: Dennis Prager

Why My Friends and I Had More Wisdom When We Were 12 Than College Students and Faculty Have Today

The average 12-year-old student at a yeshiva has more wisdom than almost any student at Harvard or most other universities. (A yeshiva is an Orthodox Jewish school with an emphasis on religious studies. About half the school day is devoted to religious studies — taught from the original Hebrew sources.)
This is probably true for many 12-year-olds in traditional Christian schools as well.
College students do have more knowledge than almost any 12-year-old in religious school. But they have much less wisdom.
I know this because I was a yeshiva student from the age of 5 until 19. To appreciate how much wisdom I was taught is to appreciate the root of our society’s present crisis: Secular life doesn’t teach wisdom (nor, it should be noted, do many schools that call themselves “Christian” or “Jewish”). Generations of Americans have not been taught wisdom; instead, they have been told that it is sufficient to rely on their feelings to understand life and to determine right from wrong.
Here are just three examples of basic insights into life that most 12-year-old yeshiva students know and that few secular students — or, for that matter, secular professors — know.
No. 1: I knew well before the age of 12 that people are not basically good. Any young person who studies the Bible — and believes in it — knows that God says, “The will of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (Genesis 8:21).
Aside from the issue of God’s existence, this is probably the most important issue in life. It might be said that wisdom begins with this realization about human nature. It is hard to imagine any person who believes human nature is good attaining wisdom.
To be clear, the message of the Bible is not that human nature is basically bad. What matters is that we acknowledge the reality, noted in the Bible and affirmed by all of human history, that human nature is not inherently good.
No. 2: Precisely because human nature isn’t good, the preoccupation of my religious education was how to work on myself to make me a better person. Every yeshiva student in the world memorizes the Talmudic aphorism, “Who is the strong man? The one who conquers his urge(s).”
The great difference between a religious and secular education can be summarized thus: I was taught that the greatest problem in my life is me. In the secular world, students are taught that the greatest problems in their lives are others.
That is the genesis of the current American tragedy. Vast numbers of young people blame others — and/or America generally — for their problems and their overall unhappiness. Few are taught to struggle with their own nature. Blacks are told to struggle with whites, America and systemic racism. Women are not taught to first work on themselves but to blame men and fight misogyny, patriarchy and America for their unhappiness.
No. 3: People are to be judged by the standards and behavior of the generation in which they lived.
Ask any yeshiva student — even one in elementary school — to explain the verse in Genesis, “And Noah was a righteous man in his generations.” (6:9) He or she will tell you what I first learned in fourth grade: that the ancient rabbis debated what the words “in his generations” were meant to teach. Some rabbis argued that they were inserted to teach that Noah was a particularly righteous man only in comparison to the (awful) generations in which he lived. Other rabbis argued that these words were there to make the point that if Noah was a righteous man in the awful generation in which he lived, he must have been a particularly righteous man, since it is very difficult to be good when all those around you are bad.
Whichever interpretation one agreed with, it was clear that people are to be judged according to the time in which they lived, not by the present time.
In the present Age of No Wisdom, the best educated — usually the same people who most lack wisdom — dismiss the unique moral accomplishment of America’s Founders because most of them owned slaves. Fools — the term for people who lack wisdom — judge the Founders by our time, not by their time — a time when slavery was universal.
Wisdom can sometimes be a product of aging but given how many old fools there are and how many young people have some degree of wisdom, it should be clear that wisdom, like math, a foreign language and any other discipline, must be taught. Only then is one likely to become wiser with age. Otherwise, a young person without wisdom is most likely to become an old person without wisdom.
When America was more religious, wisdom was taught to young people. This is another reason to fear a thoroughly secularized America — we are producing a nation of fools. The proof lies in our universities. The most secularized institution in America is the most foolish institution in America.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

The Banner on Boston’s Church of the Covenant and the Decline of Christianity

On the front of one of the oldest and most beautiful churches in the country, the Church of the Covenant in Boston, hangs a large banner on which is written:
“And God said…“Protect Abortion Access 4 All
“Ensure Black Lives Matter
“Honor Bodily Autonomy
“Defend LGBTQ+ Rights
“End Voter Suppression
“Turn Guns into Plows
“Abandon Fossil Fuels
“Provide Sanctuary
“Abolish Prisons
“Disarm Hate
“Speak Truth
“Breathe
“In other words…
“Love”
If you needed one example of how destructive leftism has been to mainstream Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, and to non-Orthodox Judaism, this banner would suffice.
God says, “Protect Abortion Access For All”? Where? Why? Terminating innocent life, that’s God’s will? Does this include abortions of viable babies undergone by healthy mothers? Is that, too, God’s will?
“Ensure black lives matter”? Blacks, like every other racial, ethnic and national grouping of human beings are created in God’s image. But if this banner implies support for the group Black Lives Matter, that is another matter. God abhors groups that affirm racism. Unlike the Left, the Bible knows that anyone, black or white, can be racist.
As regards LGBTQ+, the Bible goes out of its way to uphold divine distinctions such as good and evil, God and human, human and animal, and male and female. When God creates the human being, the Bible asserts this last distinction as clearly as possible: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
“Turn guns into plows” is, of course, taken from the Prophet Isaiah’s call to “Beat your swords into plows” (Isaiah 2:4). Unfortunately for the Church of the Covenant, another biblical prophet says the very opposite: “Beat your plows into swords… let the weak say, I am strong” (Joel 4:10). Unlike the Left, the Bible understands that while the ultimate dream is that human beings have no need for swords, until that messianic age, the weak must have swords.
As for abandoning fossil fuels, these ubiquitous sources of energy have been one of God’s gifts to humanity. Without them, the modern world would not have been possible. No hospitals, no reliable heat in the winter (not to mention cold in the summer), no transportation beyond riding animals. No modern medicine. Nothing in the way of modern technology. Just a primitive life — and a short and painful one at that. God would say before abandoning these fuels, make sure you have a reliable substitute. (We do: nuclear power.) Until then, thank God for His gift of fossil fuels.
As regards sanctuary, if the meaning is sanctuaries for illegal aliens, on the basis of what biblical idea does the Church of the Covenant infer that God wants America — or any other country — to have open borders?
“Abolishing prisons” alone is an idea that should alienate any rational and moral human being from the Left. Abolishing prisons means allowing an enormous number of innocent people to be murdered and beaten, of women to be raped, of shops to be looted, and of children to be molested. Nothing exemplifies the moral idiocy at the heart of leftism as well as “abolish prisons.”

Perhaps some prominent conservative Christian church should put up a banner addressing the same subjects:

“God said…
“Protect The Life Of Mothers — And Their Unborn Babies
“Human Worth Is Not Related To Race
“Honor Bodily Autonomy — End Vaccine Mandates
“There Are Only Two Sexes: Male And Female
“Protect Voting Integrity
“Defend Yourself And Others — Get A Gun
“I Have Blessed Mankind With Energy
“Protect Your Citizens by Protecting Your Borders
“Imprison the Guilty To Protect The Innocent
“If You Love Me, Hate Evil (Psalms 97:10)
“Speak Truth — Because There is Only One Truth
“In other words…
“Love”
If a traditional church did put up such a banner, it would make national news and its leaders would be dismissed as right-wing religious zealots for putting words into God’s mouth. Only left-wing churches and synagogues are allowed to speak for the Almighty.
Of all the Ten Commandments, only one states that its violation cannot be forgiven. It is the Third Commandment: “Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain because He will not forgive whoever takes His name in vain.”
Nearly everyone familiar with the Commandment thinks the Commandment prohibits saying the word “God” outside of prayer or Bible study. But it cannot mean that. What kind of God would forgive a murderer but not someone who said, “God, did I have a tough day at work today”?
Clearly, the Third Commandment must mean something else. And it does. As I explain in my Bible commentary, “The Rational Bible,” the Hebrew actually says, “Do not (SET ITAL) carry (END ITAL) the name of the Lord thy God in vain…”
“Carry,” not “take.”
Doing evil in God’s name or attaching God’s name to false or immoral ideas is the one sin God will not forgive.
And that is the sin of left-wing churches and synagogues. They carry God’s name in vain. Indeed, they desecrate it.
What is happening to Christianity and Judaism provides yet another example of the most important principle of modern life: Whatever the Left touches it destroys.

Read More

You’re a Scientist? So What?

A caller to my radio show yesterday, a physician, took strong issue with me regarding COVID-19 therapeutics. He accused me of not believing in science. His last words before we had to go to a commercial break were, “I’m a scientist.”
Given that I am not a scientist, he assumed that comment would persuade me — or at least persuade many listeners — that I was not qualified to disagree with him.
If that was his assumption, he was wrong.
“I don’t care,” I responded. “It’s irrelevant. Scientists have given science a bad name.”
I would not have said that as recently as three years ago.
But in recent years, and especially in the past two years, some basic suppositions of mine have changed.
I no longer assume when I read a statement by a scientist that the statement is based on science. In fact, I believe I am more committed to scientific truth than are many scientists.
The American Medical Association advocates the removal of sex designation from birth certificates. If many doctors or other scientists have issued a dissent, I am not aware of it.
“Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity.” Those are the words of the author of the AMA report, Willie Underwood III, M.D.
Sarah Mae Smith, M.D., an AMA delegate from California, speaking on behalf of the Women Physicians Section, said, “We need to recognize gender is not a binary but a spectrum.”
When the American Medical Association and a plethora of physicians tell us that human beings, unlike every other animal above some reptilian species, are “not binary,” i.e., neither male nor female, the assertion “I am a scientist” becomes meaningless.
In mid-2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the medical community was demanding physical distancing, mask wearing and the lockdown of businesses and schools, more than a thousand health care professionals announced that the protests against racism then taking place — events with no social distancing, often no masks, plenty of yelling, and people “coughing uncontrollably” (New York Times description) — were medically necessary.
Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted, “We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus. In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
Over 1,000 health care professionals signed an “open letter advocating for an anti-racist public health response to demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The letter said, among other things, “Do not disband protests under the guise of maintaining public health for COVID-19 restrictions” and labeled “pervasive racism … the paramount public health problem.” That’s a left-wing cant, not science.
Now you can better appreciate why “I am a scientist” no longer means what it once did.
How about the cruelty of not allowing the dying to be visited by loved ones — even if they wore a hospital mask, even if they agreed to wear a hazmat suit? Did that enhance your view of scientists’ medical judgment?
Then there was the American medical community’s opposition to therapeutics, dismissing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (both used with zinc) as frauds despite the testimony of numerous physicians that they saved COVID-19 patients’ lives when used appropriately. State medical boards around the country threatened to revoke the medical license of any physician who prescribed these drugs to treat COVID-19 — despite these drugs being among the safest prescription drugs available.
As early as July 2020, Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, wrote in Newsweek:
“I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.”
As a result of the American medical community’s opposition to therapeutics, Risch wrote, “tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily.”
Doctors throughout America were essentially telling COVID-19 patients, “Go home, get rest, and wait to see if your COVID-19 gets worse. If you can’t breathe, come to the hospital where we can put you on a ventilator.” Ventilators, it quickly became clear, were a virtual death sentence for COVID-19 patients. And then they died alone.
Another example of the decline of seriousness about science among scientists was National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins urging his colleagues to boycott any “high-level” scientific conference that doesn’t have women and underrepresented minorities in marquee speaking slots.
And another: Heather Mac Donald reported that in 2020, “The NIH announced a new round of ‘Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research.’ Academic science labs could get additional federal money if they hire ‘diverse’ researchers; no mention was made of relevant scientific qualifications (italics added).”
How many scientists protested the shutting down of schools for nearly two years? Some did, like those who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, but for the most part the scientific community was silent. In other words, scientists helped ruin millions of American children’s educations, not to mention abetted the unprecedented increase in depression, drug use and suicide among young people.
These are only a few of the reasons not to take “I am a scientist” as seriously as we once did.
But there may be two consolations:
One is that the same rule now applies to ‘I am a professor,’ ‘I am a teacher,’ ‘I am a rabbi,’ ‘I am a priest,’ ‘I am a pastor,’ ‘I am a journalist,’ and ‘I am a doctor.’
The other is that there are exceptions. Thank God.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

You’re a Scientist? So What?

A caller to my radio show yesterday, a physician, took strong issue with me regarding COVID-19 therapeutics. He accused me of not believing in science. His last words before we had to go to a commercial break were, “I’m a scientist.”
Given that I am not a scientist, he assumed that comment would persuade me — or at least persuade many listeners — that I was not qualified to disagree with him.
If that was his assumption, he was wrong.
“I don’t care,” I responded. “It’s irrelevant. Scientists have given science a bad name.”
I would not have said that as recently as three years ago.
But in recent years, and especially in the past two years, some basic suppositions of mine have changed.
I no longer assume when I read a statement by a scientist that the statement is based on science. In fact, I believe I am more committed to scientific truth than are many scientists.
The American Medical Association advocates the removal of sex designation from birth certificates. If many doctors or other scientists have issued a dissent, I am not aware of it.
“Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity.” Those are the words of the author of the AMA report, Willie Underwood III, M.D.
Sarah Mae Smith, M.D., an AMA delegate from California, speaking on behalf of the Women Physicians Section, said, “We need to recognize gender is not a binary but a spectrum.”
When the American Medical Association and a plethora of physicians tell us that human beings, unlike every other animal above some reptilian species, are “not binary,” i.e., neither male nor female, the assertion “I am a scientist” becomes meaningless.
In mid-2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the medical community was demanding physical distancing, mask wearing and the lockdown of businesses and schools, more than a thousand health care professionals announced that the protests against racism then taking place — events with no social distancing, often no masks, plenty of yelling, and people “coughing uncontrollably” (New York Times description) — were medically necessary.
Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted, “We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus. In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
Over 1,000 health care professionals signed an “open letter advocating for an anti-racist public health response to demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The letter said, among other things, “Do not disband protests under the guise of maintaining public health for COVID-19 restrictions” and labeled “pervasive racism … the paramount public health problem.” That’s a left-wing cant, not science.
Now you can better appreciate why “I am a scientist” no longer means what it once did.
How about the cruelty of not allowing the dying to be visited by loved ones — even if they wore a hospital mask, even if they agreed to wear a hazmat suit? Did that enhance your view of scientists’ medical judgment?
Then there was the American medical community’s opposition to therapeutics, dismissing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (both used with zinc) as frauds despite the testimony of numerous physicians that they saved COVID-19 patients’ lives when used appropriately. State medical boards around the country threatened to revoke the medical license of any physician who prescribed these drugs to treat COVID-19 — despite these drugs being among the safest prescription drugs available.
As early as July 2020, Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, wrote in Newsweek:
“I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.”
As a result of the American medical community’s opposition to therapeutics, Risch wrote, “tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily.”
Doctors throughout America were essentially telling COVID-19 patients, “Go home, get rest, and wait to see if your COVID-19 gets worse. If you can’t breathe, come to the hospital where we can put you on a ventilator.” Ventilators, it quickly became clear, were a virtual death sentence for COVID-19 patients. And then they died alone.
Another example of the decline of seriousness about science among scientists was National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins urging his colleagues to boycott any “high-level” scientific conference that doesn’t have women and underrepresented minorities in marquee speaking slots.
And another: Heather Mac Donald reported that in 2020, “The NIH announced a new round of ‘Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research.’ Academic science labs could get additional federal money if they hire ‘diverse’ researchers; no mention was made of relevant scientific qualifications (italics added).”
How many scientists protested the shutting down of schools for nearly two years? Some did, like those who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, but for the most part the scientific community was silent. In other words, scientists helped ruin millions of American children’s educations, not to mention abetted the unprecedented increase in depression, drug use and suicide among young people.
These are only a few of the reasons not to take “I am a scientist” as seriously as we once did.
But there may be two consolations:
One is that the same rule now applies to ‘I am a professor,’ ‘I am a teacher,’ ‘I am a rabbi,’ ‘I am a priest,’ ‘I am a pastor,’ ‘I am a journalist,’ and ‘I am a doctor.’
The other is that there are exceptions. Thank God.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

What Do ‘Men Give Birth’ and ‘Defund the Police’ Have in Common?

Unless you are brainwashed, you regard the statements “men give birth” and “defund the police” as absurd.
Why, then, do leftists (as opposed to liberals and conservatives) say these things and even believe them?
I think there are two — related — explanations.
One is that the Left seeks to tear down every normative institution. If men give birth, “man” and “woman” no longer mean anything. “Men give birth” means the end of the male-female distinction, the most basic distinction in the human race. Racial distinctions pale in comparison. So do national distinctions.
Marxists support the obliteration of the male-female distinction because the only distinction that matters to Marxists is that of class.
The other explanation is that the endgame of leftism is chaos. It is related to the first explanation, since the obliteration of all distinctions is chaos. Distinctions mean order. Having no distinctions means chaos.
I came to realize the significance of distinctions when writing my commentary on the first five books of the Bible (“The Rational Bible”). The Bible’s moral order is dependent on distinctions. Among them are:
Man and God
Good and evil
Human and animal
Holy and profane
Parent and child
Man and woman
Beautiful and ugly
Distinctions are so important to the Judeo-Christian moral order and weltanschauung that making distinctions is what God did for the Six Days. While they are known as the Six Days of Creation, the fact is that after creating the “heavens and the earth,” God does little creating. After Genesis 1:1 the only things God creates are the animals listed in 1:21 and the human being (1:27).
So, then, what did God do for the remainder of the Six Days? He created order out of chaos.
That’s why the second verse of Genesis may well be the second-most important verse in the Bible (Genesis 1:1 is the most important because if you don’t accept its premise, none of what follows matters): “And all was null and void,” meaning all was chaos.
Chaos is the natural state of the world. The transformation of chaos into order necessitated God.
Order is composed of distinctions. Natural order was dependent on the distinction between night and day and land and sea, and moral and social order was dependent upon the distinctions listed above. And while they are all dependent upon God, the Bible describes only one of them as “created” by God — the human being as male and female.
The Left seeks to obliterate these biblical distinctions:
The Left denies the distinction between man and God. As Marx said, “Man is God.” The idea that there is a transcendent Being to which man owes moral obedience is anathema to the Left. Man is to answer only to himself (and ultimately to a left-wing state).
The Left denies the distinction between good and evil. On the Left, there is no objective morality. Good and evil are subjective, determined by the individual and the community.
The Left denies the distinction between human and animal. According to the largest animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), for example, there is no moral difference between a chicken and a human being. They are equally valuable — so much so that, according to PETA, there is no moral difference between a barbecued chicken in America and a cremated Jew in the Holocaust.
The Left denies the difference between the beautiful and the ugly in art. That explains the ugly music and architecture and the meaningless art the art world, led by the Left, has produced for a century.
And now the Left denies the difference between man and woman.
What is this all about? It is all about rejecting the divine order which made civilization possible and returning to chaos. That why “men give birth” is related to “defund the police.” Both lead to chaos.
If you ask those who claim that men give birth or who seek to defund the police, “Do you believe in chaos?” most won’t know what you’re talking about. On a conscious level, chaos is not what the Left seeks.
But it is what the Left creates. The war against Western civilization is a war against distinctions and order. That’s why the Left loathes talk about Judeo-Christian and biblical values. These values represent the divine moral and social distinctions and subsequent order that constitute Western civilization.
That’s why “men give birth” and “defund the police” are related. Both represent disorder.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Feminism Has Weakened Women

Here’s a joke:
“Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.”
This joke was retweeted last week by Dave Weigel, a Washington Post reporter.
He retweeted it because he thought it was funny.
He thought it was funny because it is.
But, of course, unless a joke is at the expense of straight, white males, such humor is banned by the Left.
A real brouhaha at the newspaper started when a colleague of Weigel’s, Felicia Sonmez, complained that the tweet was misogynistic. On The Washington Post’s internal website, she wrote that Weigel’s retweet sent “a confusing message about what the Post’s values are.”
The Post’s chief spokesperson, Kris Coratti, then issued a statement condemning Weigel: “Editors have made clear to the staff that the tweet was reprehensible and demeaning language or actions like that will not be tolerated.”
The newspaper’s national editor, Matea Gold, wrote, “I just want to assure all of you that The Post is committed to maintaining a respectful workplace for everyone. We do not tolerate demeaning language or actions.”
The Post’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee, added: “The Washington Post is committed to an inclusive and respectful environment free of harassment, discrimination or bias of any sort.”
Post video technician Breanna Muir supported Sonmez for “speaking out against harassment, discrimination and sexism… These tweets/rts not only hurt women in our newsroom but make it extremely difficult to do our best work. Ultimately, it creates a toxic work environment.”
Another Post reporter, Jose A. Del Real, tweeted that Weigel’s retweet was “terrible and unacceptable.” However, Del Real added that because Weigel apologized — Weigel had immediately tweeted, “I just removed a retweet of an offensive joke. I apologize and did not mean to cause any harm” — Sonmez and others should stop attacking him. As a result, Del Real was attacked — so much so that he temporarily deactivated his Twitter account. When he reactivated it, he posted a statement saying he had faced “an unrelenting series of attacks intended to tarnish my professional and personal reputation.” He also accused Sonmez of “repeated and targeted public harassment of a colleague (Weigel).”
Apparently, additional Post employees began criticizing one another over the issue, and according to CNN, “By Monday morning, tension at The Post was still high.” Another left-wing site, the Daily Beast, put it this way: “a multi-front war within WaPo is raging.”
Sonmez, who had previously sued the Washington Post for sexism — a suit she lost — has been let go by the paper. (The Post had suspended Weigel for a month without pay.)
In addition to providing the nation with another example of the Left’s meanness, hypersensitivity and war on humor (unless directed at white males), this episode also reveals something important about feminism.
In the true Orwellian spirit of the Left, the overriding claim of feminists that feminism empowers women is the opposite of the truth. Over the past half-century, modern feminism has not strengthened women, but weakened them.
It is worthy to note that, except for Del Real, who called for civility and compassion toward Weigel, every Washington Post actor named in this story — Felicia Sonmez, Matea Gold, Kris Coratti, Breanna Muir — is a woman.
That’s why they were horrified by the joke. Few men — despite the fact that feminist activism has also rendered a great many American men weak — would find a similar joke about men offensive. Most men would find it funny.
For the record, every man I know is married to a strong woman. The notion that men are not attracted to (or are threatened or intimidated by) strong women is a feminist myth. While undoubtedly some men seek weak women, most men find weakness in women (as in men) unappealing.
In feminist Newspeak (Orwell’s term for the totalitarian redefining of language), when applied to women, “strong” means “easily offended,” and “perceiving oneself as a victim.”
Tragically, many women, especially young women, have come to accept those definitions of “strong.”
No wonder the depression rates among young American women are the highest ever measured.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Joe Biden’s Buffalo Speech Was the Speech of an Indecent Man

If an American president has ever given as mendacious, anti-American and hate-filled a speech as President Joe Biden did in Buffalo, New York, last week, I am not familiar with it. Nor are you.
Biden used the terrible mass shooting of black people in a Buffalo grocery store to smear America, divide Americans and foment race-based hatred. A decent man would have given an entirely different speech.
A decent man would have gone to Buffalo and said something like this:
“My fellow Americans, what happened here in Buffalo was pure evil. Let there be no equivocating about this moral fact. If evil exists, what happened here was evil. But, my fellow Americans, this young man and his race-based homicidal hatred represents an infinitesimally small number of Americans, white or otherwise. The overwhelming majority of Americans of every race, ethnicity, and religion get along with each other beautifully. We work alongside each other, date each other, socialize with one another and marry one another. We are the most successful experiment in creating a multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious country in world history. The actions of a deranged teenager do not change this fact.”
Instead, the hater-in-chief went to Buffalo and said:
“What happened here is simple and straightforward: terrorism. Terrorism. Domestic terrorism. Violence inflicted in the service of hate and the vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group. A hate that, through the media and politics, the internet, has radicalized angry, alienated and lost individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced. That’s the word. Replaced by ‘the other.’ By people who don’t look like them.
“Look, we’ve seen the mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina; El Paso, Texas; in Pittsburgh. Last year, in Atlanta. This week, in Dallas, Texas, and now in Buffalo. In Buffalo, New York. White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison. It really is. Running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes. No more. I mean, no more. We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America. None …
“Look, the American experiment in democracy is in a danger like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. It’s in danger this hour. Hate and fear are being given too much oxygen by those who pretend to love America, but who don’t understand America. …
“Now is the time for the people of all races, from every background, to speak up as a majority in America and reject white supremacy …
“We have to refuse to live in a country where black people going about a weekly grocery shopping can be gunned down by weapons of war deployed in a racist cause …”
As noted earlier, this was not only a hate-filled speech; it was a speech of the Big Lie. The Big Lie of white supremacy as a major threat to America generally and to black America specifically.
Let’s examine each of the examples of white supremacist mass shootings he gave:
“Charleston, South Carolina”
Seven years ago, Dylann Roof killed nine black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
“El Paso, Texas”
In 2019, a 21-year-old white racist, Patrick Wood Crusius, killed 23 people and wounded 21 others at a Walmart store. The great majority of his victims were Hispanic.
“Pittsburgh”
In 2018, a white antisemite, Robert Gregory Bowers, murdered 11 Jews attending Sabbath services at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. As was the case with the Buffalo shooter, Bowers was a deeply troubled man. His father, while on trial for rape, committed suicide when Bowers was 7 years old, and like all the examples Biden cited, he was a troubled loner. Neither he nor any of these other shooters worked in concert with any hate group or co-conspirators.
“Last year in Atlanta”
In 2021, 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long killed eight people at three massage parlors. The killings were motivated by his sex addiction and his religious conviction that those who tempted him should be killed. Race had nothing to do with it.
“This week in Dallas, Texas”
Last week in Dallas, Jeremy Smith shot and wounded three women of Asian descent.
Jeremy Smith is a black man.
Why Biden included this shooting as an example of white supremacy is a puzzle. Why no mainstream media I could find noted and condemned this lie is not puzzling.
So, then, our hate-fomenting president mentioned six examples of “white supremacist” shootings. A total of two, one of them seven years ago, involved a white racist shooting black people. One involved a sex addict killing sex workers. One involved a black man shooting Asian people. One involved an antisemite targeting Jews. And one was a black man who shot Asian-Americans.
With these examples, Biden went to a grieving black community to lie to them in order to stir up anger in them about the alleged scourge of white supremacist violence in this country.
At least half of this country knows why Biden did this:
First, to focus Americans’ attention on “white supremacy” rather than on the inflation, looming recession, food crisis and energy crisis he and his party have created with their policies.
Second, to keep black Americans voting Democrat by saying to them, in effect: “You need protection from your fellow hate-filled Americans; we Democrats are your protectors.”
Meanwhile, 9,941 black Americans were killed in 2020. Nearly all were killed by other black people. But to Joe Biden, his party, and the mainstream, i.e., left-wing, media, those black lives don’t matter. At all. Why not? Because they weren’t killed by white supremacists, and they therefore don’t serve the Democrats’ deliberately divisive narrative.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

PolitiFact Is to Fact What Pravda Was to Truth

During a recent broadcast, I said that once Elon Musk takes control of Twitter, “Twitter will be flooded with hate, and a lot of it will come from people on the Left who want to show how hate-filled it is. It’s like their race-hoax industry. If you see a noose on a college dorm of a black student, the odds are overwhelming that the noose was put there by a black student. If you see the N-word on a dormitory building, the odds are overwhelming that a black student actually did that. We’re filled with race hoaxes.”
One of the better-known self-proclaimed fact-checkers, PolitiFact, declared my claim “false.”
They offered no refutation of what I said and provided no examples of nooses or the N-word on campuses perpetrated by white supremacists. Instead, they made a self-defeating argument: “Experts who track hate crimes told PolitiFact that there isn’t even a nationwide data source that Prager could have used to pin down the number of incidents — real or fake — that specifically involved hanging a noose or scrawling the racist insult on college buildings or grounds.”
So, if there is no such database, how could PolitiFact declare what I said “false”? At most, they could say “maybe true, maybe false.”
Then they quote a man who devotes his professional life to lying about how racist America is: Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. “Mr. Prager is long on hyperbole and bigotry and short on facts,” said Levin. “What Prager claimed ‘is a lie.’”
The very fact that PolitiFact cites Levin proves how unserious PolitiFact is about pursuing truth.
PolitiFact cites FBI statistics — about “all hate crimes,” not about campus nooses or N-word graffiti on dormitories, which is specifically what I spoke about. That was another dishonest ploy on PolitiFact’s part. Moreover, if you look up all the examples of “hate crimes” on the FBI list, the list is completely irrelevant to what I said — it lists hate crimes regarding “gender,” “gender identity,” “disability,” “commerce violations,” “drug offenses,” “gambling offenses,” and many more examples of hate crimes having nothing to do with racism, let alone racism on campuses. It was fraudulent of PolitiFact to cite the FBI stats.
So, then, here are just a few examples of race hoaxes concerning graffiti and nooses on campuses over the last 15 years. If PolitiFact can show that these examples are not in fact hoaxes or, alternatively, provide an equal number of verified examples, PolitiFact’s assessment of my claim may be valid. If PolitiFact cannot do so, it lied.
In 2007, Madonna G. Constantine, a psychology and education professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, claimed she found a noose at her door. ABC News described her as “a respected professor at Columbia University Teachers College… This incident is the latest in a growing number of noose incidents in the United States, since the one that punctuated the racially charged controversy in Jena, LA.”
The subsequent investigation revealed that Constantine made it all up. And it also turned out that the racial controversy about a “noose incident” in Jena, Louisiana, had nothing to do with a noose.
In 2013, Oberlin College shut down classes after a series of purported hate crimes. According to The Oberlin Review… anti-black and anti-gay vandalism/”hate speech” have plagued the campus. “Whites Only” was written above a water fountain, “N—– Oven” was written inside the elevator, and “No N—–s” was written on a dormitory bathroom door. Activists implied the incidents were tied to Black History Month, as was a menacing person on campus who allegedly donned a “KKK hood and robe” near a black dormitory known as “Afrikan Heritage House.”
It was all a hoax. No one wore a KKK hood and robe. It was a woman wearing a coat. Cornell University law professor William Jacobson, who tracked the Oberlin story on his blog, Legal Insurrection, said the fraudulent incidents “may be the greatest race hoax since Tawana Brawley.”
In 2013, at Vassar College, messages such as “Avoid Being B—–s,” “F— N—–s,” and “Hey Tranny. Know Your Place” were all a hoax carried out by the left-wing leader of the school’s official “Bias Incident Response Team.”
In 2013, at the University of Iowa, a black student claimed he was beaten up at a bar, prompting massive campus outrage. But police later determined the alleged victim was actually “an active participant and even an instigator” in the bar brawl.
In 2013, at Clemson University, administrators accused white students of a “hate-crime” — banana peels hanging from a tree branch — they knew was a hoax. The incident was dubbed “bananagate.”
“Why are phony ‘hate crimes’ so common, especially on college campuses?” James Taranto asked in The Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2013. Why didn’t PolitiFact, which has been around since 2007, rate Taranto?
In 2014, a University of Chicago student who claimed his Facebook page was hacked and filled with racist and violent messages against him and another student faked the attack. He was a white leftist.
In 2015, a Muslim University of Texas student claimed she was stalked and threatened by an anti-Muslim man with a gun. She later confessed she made up the incident.
In 2015, University of Delaware students discovered three “nooses” near the hall where the Black Lives Matter group had protested conservative commentator Katie Pavlich the day before. It turned out the objects were “remnants of paper lanterns” leftover from a previous event.
In 2015, a bag of poop was found on the doorstep of Vanderbilt University’s Black Cultural Center. Most of the school initially believed it was put there due to racism. It turned out that a blind female student walking her dog could not find a trash can to throw away the guide dog’s excrement.
In 2015, at Kean University, the person behind the “i will kill every black male and female at kean university” tweet and other similar ones was a black female activist, a former president of its Pan-African Student Union.
In 2015, at Delta College in Michigan, a social media post read, “I’m going to shoot every black person I can on campus. Starting tomorrow morning.” It was posted by a black student.
In 2014, a Grand Valley State University student who found racist graffiti — “black b—- die” and “f— black history month” — on her dorm room door’s whiteboard in mid-February was the person who put it there, the Grand Valley Police Department announced.
In 2016, at Elon University in North Carolina, a scribbled “Bye Bye Latinos Hasta La Vista” after the 2016 election turned out to be written by a Latino student.
In 2016, three black SUNY-Albany students fabricated a racial hate crime. They alleged they were the targets of racial slurs and attacked by a group of white men on a bus. But video evidence and 911 audio showed the women were the instigators.
In 2016, ABC News reported that Bowling Green University “police say student lied about politically driven attack.” Eleesha Long (a black student) said she was assaulted and called a racial slur, but she made the story up.”
In 2016, a female Muslim Baruch College student who claimed she was assaulted on a New York subway train by “three drunk white men” shouting “Donald Trump!” was arrested for making up the whole thing.
In 2017, The College Fix chronicled 17 race hoaxes on campuses.
One example: “The University of Southern California’s Department of Public Safety confirmed that the person who had adhered a sign reading ‘No Black People Allowed’ that featured a makeshift confederate flag and ‘#MAGA’ on a gate of a campus residence was African American.”
Another example: “Some black Air Force Academy cadets discovered racial slurs written on their dorm doors, including ‘Go home n—–.’” Two months later, a black student was determined to have written the slurs.
In 2017, a black man filed a false police report about graffiti containing the N-word and a threat he painted on his own car near Kansas State University.
In 2018, The College Fix determined the student responsible for racially charged graffiti found at the University of Maryland was black.
In 2018, a threat on social media that had targeted African American students at Chesapeake High School in Maryland was written by a black student.
In 2018, a black student at Goucher College was charged with malicious destruction of property after investigators determined he was responsible for graffiti that targeted specific individuals — including himself.
In 2021, The College Fix “identified eleven confirmed hoaxes (and) six likely hoaxes.”
In 2022, Illinois law enforcement announced that a black female student at Southern Illinois University would be charged with filing a false police report claiming she received notes saying, “DIE B—-” and “BLACK PEOPLE DON’T BELONG.”
PolitiFact is owned by the Poynter Institute, a left-wing organization funded in part by George Soros. The primary purpose of Poynter and PolitiFact is to malign conservatives, just as they did me. But the real punk in this story is Brian Levin, director of the hate center known by its Orwellian name, the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. Let him provide an equal or greater number of true examples of N-word graffiti and nooses on campuses placed by white supremacists. If he doesn’t, he is lying. Which would not be surprising. As I’ve said all of my life, truth is a liberal value and it is a conservative value. It is not a left-wing value.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

The Age of the Absurd

The West has gone through many eras — the so-called Dark Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age and the Post-Modern. The present era is the Age of the Absurd.
In terms of the absurdities the cultural elites believe, and have convinced masses of people to believe, there has never been a time like today.
Here is a list of the most ridiculous that immediately come to mind.
No. 1: Men give birth.
Heading the list has to be the radical redefinition — indeed, denial of — sex and gender, leading to such reality-defying statements as “men give birth,” “men menstruate,” “birthing person” instead of “mother,” and to the Disney theme parks no longer greeting visitors as “ladies and gentlemen” or “boys and girls.”
No. 2: It is fair to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports.
We are supposed to believe that biological men do not have an innate physical advantage in competing against women. This is asserted as truth by every Ivy League university, virtually every other university, most high schools and by virtually all the elite media.
No. 3: Defund police and crime will decrease.
We are supposed to believe that with fewer police we will have less violent crime. Any 10-year-old recognizes the sentiment as absurd.
No. 4: Racial segregation is antiracist. Opposition to racial segregation is racist.
Columbia University and many other universities have all-black dormitories and all-black graduations. They maintain that race-based segregation is not racist. Opposition to it is.
No. 5: “Latinx.”
Because human sexuality is “not binary,” languages with gendered nouns must be neutered, leading to labeling Latinos “Latinx.” That virtually no one from or living in Latin America uses this absurd word does not faze The New York Times or your local university.
No. 6: Your race matters.
One of the least important aspects of human beings is the color of their skin. It is no more important than the color of their shoes.
Its insignificance is easily demonstrated. If you know the color of a person’s skin, do you know anything about the person? The answer, of course, is, no. If I know your race, I know nothing else about you. And if I think I can determine anything about you on the basis of your race, I am a racist.
No. 7: Diversity is strength — and the happiest countries in the world are Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.
It is an axiom of the woke, the home of the absurd, that “diversity is our greatest strength.” Yet, The New York Times, the leading media voice of the Age of the Absurd, featured an opinion piece about the happiest countries in the world. The second paragraph began, “Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland led the 2018 ranking of the World Happiness Report.”
Not once did the Times or the writer note that the four “happiest” countries in the world are not at all diverse. In fact, they are among the least diverse countries in the Western world. They are almost entirely white, almost entirely Protestant Christian (or from a Protestant Christian background) and all their citizens speak the same language. America, on the other hand, is by far the most radical experiment in racial, religious and ethnic diversity.
No. 8: Free speech does not allow for hate speech.
“I’m for free speech, but not for hate speech” is the view of almost half of America’s young people and virtually all its elites. So widespread is belief in the absurd that these people do not understand that the statement is self-contradictory. It renders the words “free speech” meaningless. By definition, free speech allows for hate speech. If it doesn’t, “free speech” means nothing more than speech with which one agrees.
No. 9: You’re not a human being until you’re born.
There is no need to believe in God or in any religion to understand the absurdity of this assertion. If we are not human beings until birth, what are we five minutes — or five months — prior to birth, when we have a heartbeat and brain waves? Nonhuman?
No. 10: Capitalism is evil.
Abject poverty has been the norm for nearly all people throughout history. Yet, in the last century alone, billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. And there is only one reason: capitalism.
No. 11: America is systemically racist.
The manifest absurdity of this claim is easily demonstrated. In the past decades, more than three million black people have immigrated to America from Africa and the Caribbean. And probably tens of millions more would like to. Are all these people fools — choosing to move to a systemically racist country? Are they ignorant — unaware that America is systemically racist?
The non-absurd know the answers: all these blacks are neither fools nor ignorant. They know how lucky they are to move to America — because this country is so tolerant and so overwhelmingly non-racist. People don’t move to countries that hate them. No Jews moved to Germany in the 1930s.
We live in the Age of the Absurd. The only question is, why? I think I know the answer and will discuss it in a future column. In the meantime, share these 11 absurdities with friends and relatives, especially with those who actually think they make sense.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

A Chabad House, the Disney Concert Hall, and Free Speech

A few months ago, for the first time in the history of La Cañada, California, a city just west of Pasadena and the home of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a new branch of a renowned Jewish institution opened. La Cañada had previously lacked a synagogue or any other Jewish institution for a simple reason: few Jews live there.
But that never stops the Jewish organization known as Chabad. They open their famous “Chabad Houses” all over the country (they are in all 50 states) and all over the world. Some years ago, my wife and I visited Chabad of Cambodia — a country in which there are no Jews other than visiting businessmen and tourists. Chabad, composed of ultra-Orthodox, but worldly, Jews, is the most dynamic Jewish movement in the world.
So when a Chabad House opened in La Cañada last year, and its young Chabad rabbi, Mendy Grossbaum, invited me to lecture, I immediately accepted. I was happy to help a new Chabad House and especially one so close to where I live.
I will be giving a talk on Mothers’ Day titled, “Creating Moral Leaders in Children.” Rabbi Grossbaum deliberately chose a nonpolitical topic — first, in order to draw the largest and broadest crowd possible and second, because Chabad is nonpolitical.
The furthest thing from either of our minds was that this speech would be controversial.
We were wrong.
The largest La Cañada Facebook group, the La Cañada Parents Facebook Group, took down Chabad’s post announcing my speech.
When Rabbi Grossbaum contacted the group’s administrators, one of the three, a woman named Brenda, responded on Facebook that she could not allow the rabbi to promote the lecture because it “was by Dennis Prager who runs hateful disinformation campaigns… I will not support any event that is hosted by anyone who is well-known for hatred content.”
Brenda sent the rabbi three links to prove I run “hateful disinformation campaigns” against Muslims: One was from an article published 16 years ago by the Islamist organization CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations); one was from Sludge, a left-wing site I had never before encountered; and one was a letter from the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) to National Review responding to a column I wrote in 2017 titled “Remember the Hysteria about Trump-Induced Anti-Semitism.” In it, I defended then-President Donald Trump against charges of antisemitism. The column had nothing to do with Islam.
Stacy, another administrator, wrote to Rabbi Grossbaum: “We don’t allow political/ propaganda or disinformation. The speaker is flagged in Wikipedia (and many other fact and bias checking sites) for both.”
When the rabbi responded by asking, “Do you have a moment to chat on the phone?” Stacy responded, “No. I do not believe there is anything further to discuss.”
Regarding me and Islam, I should note that in 2017 I had a public dialogue at Claremont Graduate University titled, “Reform in 21st-Century Islam and Beyond” with Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Marayati would not have publicly dialogued with a Muslim-hater. Anyone interested can watch the debate on YouTube. Try to find a single “Islamophobic” sentiment. The charge is a radical Islamist/left-wing lie.
As all the Left’s charges against me are lies. Nothing I have said in 40 years of broadcasting and speaking and not one of PragerU’s 500 videos contains “hate” or “misinformation.” These charges are made to shut down dissent.
The same thing happened almost four years ago when I was invited to conduct a Haydn symphony with the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra at the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. The Left went hysterical. A former mayor of Santa Monica, one of America’s most left-wing cities, actually called on the citizens of his city — and the members of the orchestra — to boycott me. That the event ended up raising an entire year’s budget for the orchestra didn’t matter — better that the orchestra suffer financially than allow a conservative to conduct it.
A well-known conservative conducting the orchestra of a very liberal city became a national story when the New York Times wrote about it. Yet all this left-wing hostility had a wholly positive effect. People, including more than a few who never heard of Haydn, came in the thousands, and for the first time in the history of the Disney Concert Hall, a concert given by a regional orchestra sold out.
There is one overriding lesson here.
There is no example in history of the Left allowing dissent. From Vladimir Lenin to your local university to Facebook, everywhere the Left assumes control, it squashes dissent and free speech.
The great irony in this instance is that the Left labels as an act of hate a man giving a speech titled “Creating Moral Leaders in Children” at a religious Jewish institution. From the perspective of the Left (not liberals, as I am always careful to add), that topic may well qualify as hate. The more moral leaders we raise, the fewer leftists we will raise.
I appeal to readers in the Los Angeles area to come to the lecture on Mothers’ Day evening. For information and tickets — or to contribute to this newest Chabad House — go to dennisprager.com/wheres-dennis/ or search for “Chabad of the Crescenta Valley.”
If people turn out as they did for my Disney Concert Hall concert, they will have a great time with hundreds of kindred spirits, and they will have handed the petty totalitarians who run a local Facebook group a resounding and well-deserved defeat.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

New York Times Chooses Passover and Easter to Mock God and the Bible

On the eve of Passover, on Good Friday, The New York Times published an opinion piece on God, the Bible and Passover. This would not be noteworthy except for the fact that the piece mocked all three.
The two titles of the piece (one in the print edition and one for the Times’ digital edition) will give you a good idea of the tenor of the piece: “Let’s pass over God” and “In this time of war, I propose we give up God.”
The column was written by Shalom Auslander, a Jew who is bitter over his ultra-Orthodox upbringing in Brooklyn. He is also the author of a similarly bitter book titled “Foreskin’s Lament.”
Here are some of the column’s highlights:
Auslander begins his column with a brief explanation of the name “Passover” — God passed over the homes of the Israelites on His way through Egypt, slaying all firstborns. The author follows that introduction with a proposal: “In this time of war and violence, of oppression and suffering, I propose we pass over something else: God.”
He then proceeds to depict the rabbi at his yeshiva as a sadist who reveled in the suffering of the Egyptians, “young and old, innocent and guilty.” This rabbi, he claimed, even told his yeshiva class that during the first plague — which caused the waters of Egypt to turn into blood — “Mothers nursing their babies…found their breast milk had turned to blood.”
Auslander then adds: “‘Yay!’ my classmates cheered.”
They were learning to be sadists like their rabbi.
As it happens, having studied in a yeshiva until the age of 19, having written three volumes of a five-volume commentary on the Torah (“The Rational Bible”) and most recently having written the bestselling Haggadah in America (according to Amazon), “The Rational Passover Haggadah,” I know a fair amount about this subject.
I never heard a Jew say that Egyptian mothers’ milk turned into blood. I’m not accusing Auslander of lying, but if what he wrote is true, it is highly irresponsible to represent something so bizarre as normative Jewish teaching.
As for his classmates cheering, “Yay!” this is the very opposite of how Jews have been taught to relate to the sufferings of the ancient Egyptians.
Three examples:
First, according to the Talmud — the holiest Jewish work after the Hebrew Bible, written nearly 2,000 years ago — with regard to the Egyptians drowning in the sea after God split it to enable the Jews to cross it, God admonished his angels who sang a song of rejoicing: “My handiwork is drowning in the sea and you are singing before me?!”
Every Jew who attends yeshiva is taught that. Every.
Second, also nearly 2,000 years ago, the Midrash (a collection of stories and commentary that interpret the Hebrew scriptures) explained why Jews are to recite only half of the Hallel (psalms of thanksgiving) during the days of Passover following the Seder: “We cannot sing a full song of thanksgiving for the salvation of our people, which was purchased so dearly with the sinking of the pursuers into the Red Sea.”
Third, for at least 100 years, and some say many more, the reason Jews have given for the symbolic spilling of wine from their cups while reciting the ten plagues during the Seder is that we are to symbolically diminish our joy when retelling the Egyptians’ suffering.
Yay, indeed.
More from Auslander:
“If he were mortal, the God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims would be dragged to The Hague. And yet we praise him. We emulate him. We implore our children to be like him…Perhaps now is a good time to teach our children to pass over God — to be as unlike him as possible.”
Auslander looks forward to the day when children will be taught to be as unlike God as possible. Then, when they hear biblical stories about God, “‘Boo!’ the children will jeer.”
Two conclusions:
To begin with the last quote, that children will boo God, is the hope not only of Shalom Auslander, but also of The New York Times. People need to understand the loathing of traditional Western religions and of Bible-based (i.e., “Judeo-Christian”) values that has permeated leftism since Marx and, later, Lenin. Many liberals affirm religion, but the Left hates it. The Left understands that the only viable opposition to it consists of Orthodox Jews, traditional Catholics, evangelical Protestants and traditional Mormons.
The second conclusion concerns cowardice.
It is close to inconceivable that The New York Times would publish a column mocking Allah, Muhammad and the Quran during the month of Ramadan (or, for that matter, at any time of the year). It is now Ramadan, and the only articles I could find in The New York Times about the Muslim holy month are about food: “15 Recipes for Observing Ramadan,” and “Where Breaking the Ramadan Fast Includes Caribou,” an article about Muslims in Anchorage.
Why is there no New York Times piece mocking Allah or Islam? There are, after all, plenty of disaffected Muslims like Auslander, the disaffected Jew, who could write one. The answer is The New York Times is deathly afraid of incurring Muslims’ wrath, but it has no fear of incurring the wrath of Jews or Christians. For good reason.
The Auslander column tells you nothing about Judaism or the Bible. But it tells you a great deal about The New York Times and the Left.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

What the Left Has Done to Women

As I have documented on a number of occasions, the Left ruins everything it touches. There is no exception. From universities to high schools and now including even elementary schools, to late-night TV, to sports, to the arts and, increasingly, science, the Left is a destruction machine.
And nowhere is this damage more evident or tragic than with regard to women.
In fact, nothing demonstrates the power of left-wing ideology as much as what this ideology has done to women. So powerful is leftist ideology, it is more powerful than women’s nature.
Here are five examples:
No. 1: The Desire to Bond with a Man
For all of recorded history, virtually all women sought a man with whom to bond. Of course, a progressive would argue that this was true only because all societies implanted this desire in women or because societal pressure gave women little choice about the matter. It is not, progressives would argue, innate to female nature to yearn for a man.
But whatever the reason — innate nature or societal expectation — it is a fact that women desiring a man was virtually universal.
Then along came modern left-wing feminism, which communicated to generations of young women through almost every influence in their lives — most especially teachers and the media — that a woman doesn’t need a man. In the witty words of one feminist aphorism, “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”
Unfortunately, however, the reality is most women need a man just as most men need a woman. Most men don’t fully grow up without a woman, and most women don’t fully grow up without a man (I am, of course, referring to heterosexual women and men). If you need proof, ask almost any married person, man or woman, if marriage matured them.
No. 2: The Desire to Marry
Along with wanting a man, the vast majority of women wanted to marry. It was assumed that wanting that public commitment to and from a man was part of female nature. Yet, the Left has successfully undone that part of women’s nature, too.
As a result of feminist and other left-wing indoctrination, the belief that a woman doesn’t need a man led to the inevitable upshot: marriage isn’t necessary. And it might even be a tool of oppression. And as a result of that, a smaller percentage of American women are marrying than ever before.
This has serious social consequences. We have long known that single men perpetrate most of the violent crime in society. Single men are a societal problem. What we have not acknowledged — and perhaps not even known — are the deleterious effects of women not marrying.
While single women don’t commit nearly as much violent crime as single men do (though they may be starting to catch up), single women are increasingly a societal problem. The most obvious problem is that women who have children without ever marrying their children’s father — or another man — produce a highly disproportionate percentage of social misfits. But many women who never give birth nor marry also constitute a societal problem. They are more likely to be angry and to express that anger in support of radical causes that undermine society. As Barron’s reported, while overall a mere 14.2% of the population contributed to “racial justice causes” such as Black Lives Matter in 2020, “nearly half of single women in the U.S. — a larger percentage than single men or married couples — supported or were actively involved in racial justice protests.”
As reported by one women’s activist organization, Women’s Voices Women Vote, already in the 2012 election, “the marriage gap dwarfed the gender gap…”
No. 3: The Desire to Have Children
At least as much as wanting to bond with a man and wanting to get married were deemed a part of women’s nature, the desire to have children was regarded as even more embedded in female nature. Yet, incredibly, leftist ideology is even succeeding in eliminating that part of women’s makeup. More women than ever before — abroad as well as in America — are choosing not to have children. See, for example, the article, “More women like me are choosing to be childfree. Is this the age of opting out?” published, appropriately, in The Guardian. The author ends her piece this way: “I’ll say it plain: I don’t want children, I never have, and it doesn’t feel like any kind of lack. To me, it just feels like being alive.” She speaks for an increasing number of women.
No. 4: The Desire to Have Sex with Commitment
Another part of women’s nature that the Left has undermined is the desire of women to have sexual relations with a man who might commit to her. Or, at the very least, to have sex only with a man to whom she has some emotional attachment. Left-wing feminist ideology has even been able to undermine that. Three generations of American women have been indoctrinated into believing that their sexual nature is the same as that of a man. Therefore, she can have “hookups,” i.e., non-emotional, non-committal sex, just like men can with no emotional fallout. And so, many young women do. But a far greater percentage of them experience regret or even depression than do young men who engage in “hookup” sex, a form of sex that is indeed part of male nature.
No. 5: The Desire to Protect Children’s Innocence
Perhaps the most amazing thing progressive ideology has done to women is to subvert the innate female desire to protect children, specifically children’s sexual innocence. The movement to teach very young children about sex, about “gender fluidity,” expose them to “Drag Queen Story Hours,” etc., is overwhelmingly led by and composed of women.
Leftism would appear to demonstrate that ideology can trump human nature. Such is the power of social indoctrination. One inevitable result is a generation of more depressed young women and more regretful middle-aged women than ever before in American history.
The Left ruins everything it touches. You can add women to the list.

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.