And Jews Will Still Vote Democrat

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 medina shel chesed , 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.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host
and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May
2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of
Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home
entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the
founder of Prager University and may be contacted at
dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Oct 04, 2021 18:30:33 -0700

Beware, the Pronoun
With sincere apologies to Jesus, there       are some people I
cannot abide by. I do believe we are all    God’s children, but
certain folks I have encountered need       to go to boarding
school. Forever. So I don’t have to deal    with them.

UnChristian? Certainly.       Intolerant, all day long.   I hope
the deity forgives me.

My judgmental attitude really kicked into gear during the late
1960s.   That was the time when young people actually said
things like: “It’s far out, man. Groovy, not a drag at all.
Know what I’m sayin’? Right on!”

Right back.    Then I disappeared faster than a muffin on a
cruise ship.

Cliches drive me insane but using words to fill the air with

foolish garbage is far worse. So, now, I would like to warn
you about contemporary words and phrases that signal danger.

Let’s begin with “cisgender.” This word is almost always used
by leftists who flunked biology. It means “a person whose
sense of identity corresponds with birth sex.” So, if you’re
born a male you act like a boy and later a man.       That’s
cisgender.

However, woke people object and I guess they also despise the
Spencer Davis Group who once loudly wailed: “I’m a man, yes I
am, and I can’t help but love you so!”

If you hear a person lamenting “cisgender” behavior, run fast.

Next up is ” empower.” This word is mostly used by folks who
believe they are victims and want to arrange some payback.
Don’t wait around.

Then there are people who demand “safe spaces.”    Once again,
they are often among the victim crew who are constantly
offended by “micro-aggressions.” If you are near someone
seeking a “safe space,” follow Paul Simon’s simple philosophy:
“just slip out the back, Jack…”

And finally, people who object to “cultural appropriation.”
Those folks amuse me from a distance because I won’t get
anywhere near them. There is a big list of banned Halloween
costumes because of CA.

Let’s see.   Want to dress up as Cochise, the great Apache
chief? Are you freakin’ kidding? Sociology students from
Yale will burn down your house.

How about wearing a Mexican sombrero? Uh, no.      But you can
dress up like a leprechaun on St. Patrick’s Day.   Can’t figure
that one out.

Back to the Eve of All Hallows. Mrs. Doubtfire? No. Dustin
Hoffman as Tootsie, don’t even think about it.      George

Washington? Slaveowner.   General Patton, way too many micro-
aggressions!

Peter Pan?    Watch it.  Cinderella?  Too dependent on the
prince and cisgender to boot. Pinnochio, the nose might make
some feel bad.

The list of banned costumes and words is endless. The entire
cultural madness we are seeing is right out of “One Flew Over
the Cuckoo’s Nest”. About the only thing sane people can do
is employ another phrase from the 1960s.

Beat feet.

Regional Political Anecdotes,
Part 2

In my last column, I described how politics had found their
way into back-to-back trips I took earlier this month, the

first being to Las Vegas. There, my brother and I celebrated
his 50th birthday with some sight-seeing and shows, and picked
up some interesting theories and media philosophies from a
couple of local cabbies. Today, I’ll be writing about the
other trip, which included what I thought was a really good
conversation with a distant family member who holds political
views that are quite a bit different than mine.

It came in Port Republic, New Jersey during a Daly family
reunion with over 20 relatives. I flew out there with my
father just a couple days after returning from Vegas.

My dad had been looking forward to the event for quite a
while. No one on his side of the family lives anywhere close
to our home-state of Colorado; they all reside in the eastern
half of the country, and have most of their lives. So, he
hadn’t seen his brothers, his sister, and their families for
quite some time.

It had been much longer for me. I hadn’t shared space with any
of my Daly uncles since my wedding day nearly 20 years
earlier. And believe it or not, it had been almost 40 years
for most of my cousins. My last memory of them was when we
were children, playing croquet and jarring up lighting bugs in
my Grandma Daly’s front yard in a little-known Ohio village
(where my father and his siblings all grew up). I was eager to
catch up with everyone.

We hung out on an uncle’s and aunt’s porch for most of our
three-day stay, telling old stories and talking about our
families and careers. I had a lot of fun, and it was neat to
discover some unexpected parallels with some of my cousins.
Again, regrettably, most of these people were virtual
strangers to me — and I them.

One thing I did know about the eastern Daly contingent was
that they’re all true-blue, liberal Democrats. I’d gathered
this from offhanded comments my parents had made over the

years (not in a disparagingly way, but rather as a simple
matter of fact). And it had been confirmed through the
occasional Christmas letter or social media post.

Of course, stuff like that makes no difference to me. As I’ve
written in the past, I may be a small-government conservative,
but my friends run the political and ideological spectrum. In
fact, some of my favorite people happen to be liberals.
Frankly, when it comes to what intrigues me about an
individual, their personal politics rank pretty much near the
bottom. I’m much more interested in who people are than how
they identify.

I don’t think that’s a popular philosophy these days. We’re so
divided and tribal as a country, and so inclined to judge the
“other side” by its worst examples, that political tolerance
just isn’t as easy or as natural as it once was. Sadly, lots
of families have been torn apart by this division in recent
years, and a lot of it has to do with sharply conflicting
feelings toward a single individual: Donald J. Trump.

Well, it was a cinch that Trump wasn’t going to be a major
point of contention at the Daly family reunion. As I’m sure
you’ve all gathered from my writing, I’m no more inclined to
defend Trump’s honor than I am President Biden’s. What was
interesting, however, was that very few people on that porch
even knew where I stood politically, nor were they aware that
I’ve been writing political commentary for national platforms
for the last decade. That was fine with me. I don’t normally
like discussing politics outside of my writing anyway.

But in today’s environment, when you’re gabbing in a big
circle for hours on end, politics are inevitably going to come
up. And they certainly did over those three days, including
lots of talk about climate change, corporate greed, Trump’s
continued influence over the GOP and its base, Fox News
pundits’ bizarre pandering to the anti-vaccine crowd, and the
January 6th solidarity march that was slated for that weekend

in Washington (I hadn’t even heard of it until others brought
it up).

I eventually did weigh in on some of the talk, explaining that
I’m a former Republican but enduring conservative who left the
GOP back in 2016 over the party’s embrace of Trump. I spoke of
how much the base and platform had changed from when I’d
joined the party at the turn of the century. But it was on our
last night in town, in the back of a restaurant, that I got
into that pretty meaty political discussion. One of my
cousins, an accomplished doctor who had missed my earlier
ideological reveal, found out that I was a conservative
political writer. And over dinner at our table in the back
corner, she had lots of questions for me.

She admitted to being quite liberal herself — an Elizabeth
Warren and MSNBC fan. And she was sort of fascinated to learn
that within her large, extended family of committed, life-long
Democrats, there was an unapologetic conservative outlier.

(To be clear, my parents and brother aren’t Democrats either,
but I’m the only one among us with any history with the
Republican party and conservative movement, and I’m by far the
most politically engaged.)

Of course, political views and political identity aren’t
genetic. They come from experiences. Many people’s politics
are ingrained in them early in life from sensibilities picked
up from their parents. In other cases, they’re developed
through events and life lessons in adulthood. It’s usually a
combination of both.

So, in that regard, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that
I’m the oddball. My father is a bit of an oddball himself.

A multi-sport athlete in his youth, my dad’s last stint with
academia was his senior year of high school. He then headed
off to the U.S. Navy for four years, and when he returned from
traveling the world aboard ships, he went into construction.

He eventually started a family, and moved them west to the
mountains of Colorado. There, he worked as a pipe-fitter at a
large brewery, making a modest wage from crawling through
metal ducts, welding alongside guys with names like “Mongo”
and “Snake,” and coming home every night smelling like yeast
and sweat. He did that all the way until retirement — a blue-
collar man his entire life.

And to an extent, I’m a product of that life.

My father’s siblings went a different route. They all went to
college, earned postgraduate degrees, and had highly
impressive careers. A lawyer. An engineer. Two university
professors. A renowned laser scientist! And my dad couldn’t be
prouder of them all.

I’m only describing this to make the point that with different
experiences come different perspectives. In a number of ways,
I grew up much differently than my cousins.

Anyway,   the   doctor   cousin   was   genuinely   interested   in
exploring the mindset of the modern right. A lot of it didn’t
make sense to her, from the persistent devotion to Donald
Trump (even in failure), to the refusal to accept the results
of the last election, to the hostility toward the COVID-19
vaccines and Dr. Fauci.

She also wondered whether or not the talking heads on Fox
News, and a number of Republican leaders who regularly appear
on their shows, actually believe what they’re saying when they
fuel such sentiment.

“Do they know better?” she bluntly asked me.

That particular question was an easy one to answer. “Yes,” I
told her. “They do know better. What they’re doing is
pandering to viewers and constituents for ratings and votes.”

I’ve written a lot about this topic over the years, but I

think my most effective piece was the one in which I compared
today’s cable news industry to yesterday’s pro-wrestling
industry. As I told my cousin, “cable-news is to news what
professional wresting is to sports.”

There may be a Venn diagram of common attributes, and not
everyone on those networks is a phony, but for the most part,
the sentiments are scripted and the pundits are simply
performers playing a part. And though Fox News is as guilty of
it as anyone, they’re far from the only culprit.

Case in point, in a recent spot on Jonah Goldberg’s podcast,
conservative writer Kevin Williamson told a story about the
guest appearances he used to do with Howard Dean on Larry
Kudlow’s old CNBC show.

“He’s a really smart, interesting guy,” Williamson said of
Dean. “He’s kind of been around, and knows everything, and had
really interesting political insights… in the green room. And
then, the little red light comes on, and he calls you a Nazi
for two minutes. And the light goes off. And he literally said
to me [after a segment], ‘Do you believe the shit that just
came out of my mouth?'”

Goldberg revealed that he’d had similar experiences with
Democratic strategist, Lanny Davis, who’d express certain
views off-camera, and then do a condescending 180 once things
got rolling.

I’ve personally come to know a number of Fox News commentators
over the years (current and former), and I’ve heard some of
them tell very similar stories (both publicly and privately)
that went on behind the scenes in 2016, once their colleagues
at the network figured out that Trumpism had become the new
direction of the Republican Party.

Off-air, these co-workers would describe how abhorrent and
destructive they found Trump; they viewed him as a cancer to
the Republican party. But the moment the cameras flipped on,

they would transform into unabashed defenders of the man, and
even go as far as trashing his conservative critics as “RINOs”
and “elitist” members of “the establishment.” Once the segment
would end, and the cameras were off, these people would
sometimes hang their heads in shame, with one even saying, “I
need to take a shower now.”

Williamson explained the phenomenon: “That paycheck and that
camera, and the power that comes from being a celebrity is
really enormously influential, and in many cases a destructive
thing in our politics.”

To this day, I don’t think a lot of people fully realize just
how horrified many in the world of professional conservative
commentary felt by mid 2016, having witnessed the audience
they had long written for, spoken to, and thought they
understood, pulled right out from under them by Donald Trump
and his cult of personality. In no time at all, much of the
conservative base had abandoned the issues and principles they
had loudly championed for years, and had no tolerance left for
people on their “side” who held critical (or even skeptical)
views of Trump.

Those who hopped aboard the Trump Train saw their ratings,
readership, and listenership jump. Those who didn’t watched
them steadily decline. And if they were network contributors
(as opposed to hosts), their invitations to appear on various
shows became less and less frequent. The message was clear:
Get with the new program, or else…

While I’m sure some of the less scrupulous pundits saw the sea
change as a rebranding opportunity to increase their celebrity
profile, I think most who eventually sold out (including some
older, established names) were just trying to hang onto their
jobs.

Not everyone played ball, of course. Some stuck to their
principles, and remained intellectually honest and consistent

in their commentary. By doing that, they ran a very real risk
of committing career suicide, and unfortunately, a number of
them suffered that very fate. Others managed to hang in there,
and continue to contribute — what is in my view — some of the
best political content out there. My cousin was interested in
hearing from such people to better understand principled
conservative arguments (since they’re much harder to find than
they used to be), and I was happy to pass some names along.

My cousin did push back a bit on my broad assertion of cable-
news disingenuousness, arguing that she enjoys Rachel Maddow
and Joy Reid, and believes (even if people disagree with them)
that they’re expressing they’re honest views.

She may be right, but I think Reid in particular is such a
bomb-thrower and so hopelessly partisan that I’m not sure it
matters. Controversy grabs attention. Attention drives
ratings. And ratings — not journalism — are what the cable-
news model lives and breathes for.

Another question from cousin: What happened to all of the
“smart” Republicans?

“Dick Cheney may have been evil, but he was smart,” she said.
She added John McCain and Steve Schmidt to the “smart” list,
the latter of which a drew a cringe from me.

To be clear, I think all three of those men are/were indeed
smart. But I don’t think Cheney is evil, and I don’t think
very highly of Schmidt, mostly for reasons described by my
friend, Jay Caruso. I suspect Schmidt came to my cousin’s mind
because he used to be a regular on MSNBC where he’d routinely
bash not only Donald Trump, but pretty much every other
“fellow Republican” who wasn’t part of his Lincoln Project.

Still, I understood her larger point, and I used to dwell on
the same thing in regard to Democratic leaders and supposed
liberal-media intellectuals. I even wrote a column on the
topic back in 2013.

“I think liberals sometimes have some interesting points to
make when it comes to social issues,” I said at the time, “but
when the topic is the economy, federal spending, foreign
policy, energy, or any other of the major challenges our
country faces, it’s an entirely different story. There is an
inexplicable, intellectual laziness on the left that seems to
prevent these people from identifying the very real costs
associated with any benefit.”

I generally still believe that, and there’s been ample
evidence — especially lately — to support that thesis, from
the unforced crises in Afghanistan and at the Mexican border,
to the insanely-sized spending bills that Democrats keep
trying to push through (even as our national debt races toward
$29 trillion). The Republicans have unfortunately followed a
similar path in recent years, but prior to the Trump era, I
still took a certain amount of pride in my side’s group of
thinkers.

In that 2013 piece, I added, “I realize that there are several
one-dimensional hacks in the conservative media as well, but
there is also a surplus of brilliant, independent-minded
voices from the right who seem to have no liberal
counterparts.” I pointed to people like Charles Krauthammer,
George Will, and Thomas Sowell (which may have been a bit
unfair to the left, being that those three really were the
cream of the crop).

But truth be told, I felt that most Republican leaders in
Washington were also pretty smart, and believe it or not, I
think the same is true today. The difference now is that many
of them pretend not to be. The reason goes back to that need
for celebrity, and the job security that comes with exciting
the base.

In lots of states and congressional districts, the big
election battles are no longer in November, but rather weeks
earlier in the primaries. The political tilt in many

constituencies is significant enough that if a candidate wins
his or her party’s primary, he or she is pretty much a shoo-in
to also win the general. So, dazzling the base has become job
one, and what dazzles today’s Republicans aren’t the things
that used to do the trick: fiscal responsibility, limited
government, free markets and free trade, “peace through
strength” foreign policy, etc. Not even traditional social
stances like a pro-life position are regarded in the way they
once were.

What now gets the base excited are social grievances,
rhetorical culture battles, a “fighting” spirit, and
unconditional loyalty to one Donald J. Trump (who they believe
is the ultimate champion of those first three items).

A platform of that depth doesn’t exactly lend itself to high-
end intellectual discourse. It’s why performative clowns like
Marjorie Taylor Greene bring in more donor money that just
about anyone else in her party, despite not having any
legislative achievements to speak of. It’s why so many
Republican leaders tried to stop the November election from
being certified, and still dance around conceding that Biden
lawfully won. It’s why Ohio Republican Senate candidates Josh
Mandel and J.D. Vance spend an inordinate amount of time on
Twitter trying to figure out which one of them can sound more
like he belongs on an FBI watch-list.

These people aren’t stupid (well, Greene might be)… They just
know what sells with today’s base. And again, the same is true
of a number of people on the left. It wasn’t so long ago,
after all, that President Biden himself was shamelessly
labeling relatively mundane voter restrictions “Jim Crow.”

As one would expect, President Biden also became a topic of
the dinner conversation. I was curious if my cousin believed,
as many liberals do, that Biden has governed like the moderate
he ran as. She did (I think to her frustration), and I
explained that I didn’t feel that way at all. I pointed to the

obscene spending initiatives and the debacle in Afghanistan,
and was surprised to learn that she put stock in Biden’s
excuse that he had been left with no other choice but to honor
the withdrawal deal his predecessor had made with the Taliban.

The truth is that he was under no such obligation. Biden has
overturned all kinds of Trump’s executive decisions since
taking office, and he could have scrapped the Taliban “deal”
just as easily. Heck, the Taliban wasn’t even upholding their
end of that deal — a tidbit that didn’t seem to matter to
either Trump or Biden. I explained this, as well as my belief
that we should have just kept our limited deployment of troops
there (altering the number if necessary) to maintain a status
quo that had been beneficial to both America and the
Afghanistan citizens.

My cousin’s husband wondered if I thought, as he did, that
Trump will run again in 2024. At this point, I think he
probably will. And if that happens, I suspect he’ll win the
GOP primary (pretty easily) and lose again in the general
election (for the same reasons he lost last time). I explained
that, contrary to popular believe, there are a number of
Republican hopefuls that would make a good president. The
problem is that they don’t stand a chance of getting the
party’s nomination with Trump still so controlling of the base
and party establishment.

What I surprised them with, however, was my prediction that
Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee. I don’t think
he’s going to run again, and as I said to them, I think Biden
is already pretty much “checked out.”

“You think Kamala Harris, then?” one of them asked.

My answer was no, and I explained that I don’t think she’s a
strong enough candidate to win the Democratic primary (as was
the case last time).

What I particularly enjoyed about the conversation is that we

were able to talk and listen to each other, in a respectful,
productive manner. We weren’t talking over each other with
political slogans, and ignoring what the other was saying
(which is pretty much today’s default approach). There was a
genuine curiosity and exchange of perspectives. Sure, it
helped that we’re family (not everyone coming into a political
discussion carries that level of affection), but it also helps
to be able to concede that our “side” isn’t always worthy of a
defense.

Blind partisanship and tribalism have become downright
poisonous to our politics, so being able to set them aside is
always going to open the door for a more honest and productive
discussion.

And I was thankful to be able to have one that day.

Next week, I’ll get back to my regular format of writing about
things going on in the news. I hope some of you enjoyed this
little two-week diversion.

Sean Coleman is back in John A. Daly’s upcoming thriller
novel, “Restitution.” Click here to pre-order.

Who Would Hide a Jew if Nazis
Took Over America?
There is something about most Jews that few non-Jews know: We
Jews often ask ourselves if a non-Jew in our lives would hide

us in the event of a Nazi-like outbreak.

I don’t know if young Jews think about this, but nearly all
Jews who grew up in the decades following the Holocaust often
wondered: Would this non-Jew hide me?

I have thought about this all my life because the question,
“Who hid Jews?” is one of the most important questions anyone
— Jew or non-Jew — needs to think about. That question is far
more important than “Who didn’t hide Jews?” because great
goodness is rarer than great evil and even rarer than simple
moral cowardice. Yet, a vast number of books have been written
attempting to understand evil, while relatively few have been
written attempting to explain good.

The reason for this is simple: Since the Enlightenment, i.e.,
since the decline of Judeo-Christian thought, most secular
people have believed, and nearly all secular thought has been
predicated on, the reality-denying idea that human nature is
essentially good. As a result, scholars regard good as the
norm and evil as the aberration. So, they study evil far more
than good.

That is why the question, “Who rescued Jews?” should be of
overwhelming importance to humanity as a whole. If people are
interested in increasing good and in decreasing evil, what
question could be more important?

A lifetime of study of this question has led me to the
following answers:

No. 1: Sam and Pearl Oliner, two professors of sociology at
California State University at Humboldt, were the authors of
one of the most highly regarded works on altruism, “The
Altruistic Personality.” The book was the product of the
Oliners’ lifetime of study of non-Jewish rescuers of Jews
during the Holocaust. They themselves had been hidden by non-
Jews in Poland, and I had the privilege of interviewing them.

I asked Sam Oliner, “Knowing all you now know about who
rescued Jews during the Holocaust, if you had to return as a
Jew to Poland and you could knock on the door of only one
person in the hope that they would rescue you, would you knock
on the door of a Polish lawyer, a Polish doctor, a Polish
artist or a Polish priest?”

Without hesitation, he responded, “Polish priest.” And his
wife immediately added, “I would prefer a Polish nun.”

I should note that neither had a religious agenda, as both
were secular Jews.

Of course, most Christians in Europe failed the moral test of
the Holocaust, but so did nearly all secular intellectuals.
And few Christians today deny this. But any honest person
would still bet on a priest before a doctor, artist, lawyer or
professor. It is one reason I believe that the decline of
Judeo-Christian religions is a calamity: We will produce fewer
people who will do great good.

No. 2: Another study of rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust
offered four characteristics of rescuers. I read this book
about 40 years ago and I do not remember the name of the book
or three of the four characteristics. But I remember one of
them because it struck me as an original insight and because
it made so much sense. According to this study, individuals
who were considered “eccentric” prior to the war were
disproportionately represented among those who hid Jews.

Now, why would that be? Why would people regarded as eccentric
be more likely to risk torture and death to hide a member of a
persecuted group they weren’t part of?

The answer is obvious: Eccentrics are, by definition, people
who march to the beat of their own drummer, who are
nonconformists, and who don’t seek social approval.

That should give us some major insights into who would save

Jews — or any other group targeted for death (such as
landowners in communist countries) — if our society were taken
over by Nazis or communists.

If this theory about eccentrics is correct, it should give us
pause.

When I observe Americans, Canadians, Australians, New
Zealanders, and, for that matter, the citizens of most
countries at this time, this observation about who would risk
their lives to hide a Jew leaves me pessimistic with regard to
how any of these groups would act under a Nazi or communist
regime.

We have seen herdlike behavior and an unquestioning obedience
to authority that few expected to witness in previously free
countries such as the English-speaking ones. Worse, we have
seen unquestioning obedience to irrational authority.

Wearing masks outdoors is irrational. Yet a vast number of
Americans have, sheeplike, obeyed irrational government
demands to wear them. Telling people who have had COVID-19 to
take a vaccine against COVID-19, when natural antibodies are
longer lasting and more effective, not to mention safer, than
a vaccine is irrational. Telling people who have been
vaccinated or had COVID-19 to wear masks is irrational.
Prolonged lockdowns of healthy people are irrational.

Yet tens of millions of Americans are unquestioningly obeying
irrational orders and castigating those resisting or even
questioning them.

It was “eccentric” Christian pastors who kept their churches
open and an “eccentric” Catholic priest who sued the state of
California for denying him his constitutional right to
minister to his flock — and who prevailed against the state.
Except for these clergymen and a handful of eccentric
restaurant owners, almost all other Americans obeyed the
state’s irrational orders.

That is frightening because people who obey irrational orders
and despise those who do not are precisely the type of people
who didn’t hide Jews.

So, then, here are two questions for American Jews to ponder:

If a Nazi-like doctrine took over America, and you could knock
on the door of someone who obeyed all government orders
regarding masks, regardless of their rationality, or someone
who questioned government authority and obeyed few or none of
its mask orders — on whose door would you knock? If you were
given the choice between knocking on the door of an atheist
professor and the door of an Evangelical pastor or a Catholic
priest — on whose door would knock?

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host
and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May
2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of
Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home
entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the
founder of Prager    University   and   may   be   contacted   at
dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Sep 27, 2021 20:16:59 -0700

The Rules

Man, it’s not easy to be a woke progressive these days. So
many controversies, so little time to think up ways to justify
a far-left lifestyle. It’s crazy. So, I am here to help.
Here are some rules to lighten the burden of woke Americans.

No criticism of minority communities. Don’t do it, ever. The
CDC says only about 30 percent of African-Americans have
accepted Covid vaccinations. A very low number. Blacks have
a reason to be suspicious of authority but, again, ignore the
situation.   Concentrate on demonizing Trump voters who are
anti-vax.

Sometimes you will have to shake your head when President
Biden comes up in conversation. But never, ever concede that
he may be incompetent. Just deflect back to Trump. The best
way to protect your guy Joe is to despise Donald. Easy one,
right?

On the collapse of the southern border always play the
“compassion card.”   That makes you noble and then you can
dismiss those who would like to see immigration laws enforced
as horrible, mean individuals. Have a quote handy from Pope
Francis to do this.

But never use the Pope on abortion. He called it “homicide”
last week. How dare he? That’s an outrage. Fetal heartbeat
– doesn’t matter. Make it clear that you, the progressive,
worship at the altar of reproductive rights.        Play the
“women’s rights” card because you’ll draw a straight flush.

Do not, I repeat do not – say you’re a socialist. Even if you
are. Bernie Sanders has it covered so you don’t need to be
Leon Trotsky.   If someone asks you point-blank ‘are you a
socialist?’     you   immediately     quote   John   Belushi
…”nooooooooooo!”

However, you should always point out that billionaires and
corporations aren’t paying their “fair share.”         Now, I
understand that mantra may be vastly overused but so what? It
shuts up those greedy capitalists, right?

Finally, the most important progressive rule is to find
offense. This is your daily chore. You must be offended at
least five times a day so you can lash out on Twitter against
the oppressors. This rule has been very effective on college
campuses and is perfect for shutting down opposing points of
view. Simply say “I don’t feel safe.” Then point out who is
scaring you and demand they be punished.

This is the core woke rule: no opposition will be tolerated
under any circumstances because you are frightened of “micro-
aggressions” and have a perfect right to be.

Summing up, I hope all of you progressives feel better, safer,
and more “empowered” after hearing these rules. And one more
thing. Forget about the Golden Rule that says treat others as
you would like to be treated. That’s obsolete. Today, it’s my
way or we bury you under the highway.

An excellent progressive rule for the road, so to speak.