Columnist.
The left's reactions to the terror attack on Paris are in keeping with its tradition of getting almost everything wrong. Take Bernie Sanders, for example. At the Democratic presidential debate, one day after the Paris attack, the democratic socialist candidate made this observation about al-Qaida: "I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely, and led to the rise of al-Qaida and to ISIS."
I want to explain why I am in Israel. I am in here with 450 American (and a German and a Canadian) listeners to my radio show. About 400 are non-Jews. We are here on a "Stand with Israel" tour organized by the syndicator of my radio show, the Salem Radio Network, and I am accompanied by my wife, my producer Allen Estrin and his wife, and my radio colleague Mike Gallagher.
"Both women and men have flawed natures. ... That is one reason men need women and women need men."
Last week, The New York Times published an article, "Sweeping Away Gender-Specific Toys and Labels," that contained three sentences that explain one of the most important phenomena in American life.
If you want to understand today's Democratic Party, a word search of the Democrats' debate last week provides a pretty clear picture.
The invective against Dr. Ben Carson coming from the left is extraordinary, even for the left. Now that Carson, one of the pre-eminent brain surgeons in America, has become a viable candidate for president, the left has labelled him everything awful it can come up with. One left-wing columnist, Charles Blow of The New York Times, even disparaged his intelligence.
"The right tends to ask, 'Does it do good?' The left is more likely to ask, 'Does it feel good?'"
On the assumption that there are good and bad people on both the right and the left and that everyone is horrified by mass shootings, how is one to explain the great divide between right and left on the gun issue as it relates to these mass murders? Why does the left focus on more gun control laws, and why doesn't the right?
Is a National Identity Necessary?
Allowing millions of Syrians and others from the Muslim Middle East into Europe will end up a catastrophe for Europe, and therefore for the West. This may be the most difficult sentence I have ever written. Little seems more obviously moral than to allow these benighted Syrians, Iraqis and others to flee from hell into heaven. Therefore, arguing against allowing large numbers of them into Europe (and the United States) seems to be advocating for something that is heartless and just morally wrong.
Why the Left Loves 'Change'
In the past week, two television reporters in Roanoke, Va. — Alison Parker and Adam Ward — were murdered by a black man who hated whites, and a white police officer in Houston — Darren Goforth — was murdered by a black man. Neither crime has been labeled a hate crime. And no mainstream media reporting of the murders attributes either to race-based hate. For the mainstream media, the Roanoke murders were committed by "a disgruntled former employee," and regarding the Houston policeman, the media report that, in the words of The New York Times, "a motive for the shooting remained unclear."
The more one knows about the Iran deal, the more obvious it becomes that it is not a deal so much as it is a fraud. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a fraud is "something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people." That precisely describes the Iran deal. Virtually every claim made for it is either not true or insignificant. There are no "anytime, anywhere" inspections, as Americans were promised during the negotiations.
How can we determine what is morally right? The answer to this question — the most important question human beings need to answer — is a major difference between Left and Right. For conservatives, the answer is, and has always been, that there are moral truths — objective moral standards — to which every person is accountable. In America, this has meant accountability to the Creator, the God of the Bible, and to Judeo-Christian values.
At American University last week, President Barack Obama gave a vigorous defense of the Iran nuclear agreement. In the belief that every student who was present — indeed, all Americans — should hear the other side, here are responses to claims the president made. (For the information of my readers, I made a Prager University video on the agreement released last week that has about five million views on YouTube and Facebook — found at www.prageruniversity.com. Americans obviously want clarity on this issue.)
The uproar over the killing of a lion named Cecil in Zimbabwe by an American dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer, is further proof that secular society inevitably produces moral confusion. In saying that, I do not in any way defend the killing of a protected animal. First, I do not hunt for sport (among other reasons, my religion, Judaism, opposes it). Second, if the lion suffered for a prolonged period, that would add to my condemnation. Third, if Palmer knowingly killed a protected animal, he should be prosecuted. Having said that, most of the reactions to what he did are more frightening than what Palmer did. Since I began writing and lecturing, I have been warning about the breakdown of the distinction between humans and animals (or, as the secular nearly always put it, "other animals"). For decades I have asked high school students: "If your dog or cat (or hamster or other beloved pet) and a stranger were drowning, which would you try to save first?"
This past week, one of the greatest differences between the Left and Right — both around the world and in America — once again came to light: how each views America. Every year for the past 67 years, the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner has been the major fundraising event for the Connecticut State Democratic Party. Not anymore. The party unanimously voted to drop the two Democratic presidents' names because they were slaveholders. That is the way the Left sees American history.
We say that evil is dark. But this metaphor is imprecise. Evil is actually intensely bright, so painfully bright that people look away from it. Many even deny its existence.
Last week the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo Morales, presented Pope Francis with a gift: a carved wooden hammer and sickle cross on which the figure of Christ is crucified. The Vatican announced that the pope had not been informed in advance about the gift. And some commentators said photos of the pope and Morales show that the pope was actually offended. That was a false — probably wishful — interpretation. The pope himself later announced that he was keeping the hammer and sickle crucifix and taking it home, saying, "I understand this work. For me it wasn't an offense." And as reported by The Guardian, "Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said he personally wasn't offended by Morales' gift."
It's All About Big Government
