• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Is America Beginning To Understand TRUTH Again?

Another leftist gets red-pilled by the truth

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

Several honest leftists have been red-pilled — that is, their eyes have been opened politically — because of the Democrats’ tyrannical moves in 2020/2021.  That list includes Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Naomi Wolf, Tulsi Gabbard, and Bill Maher.  They’re not Republicans, by any means, but their disgust with their party is growing.  The most recent addition to this cavalcade of honest leftists may be British comedian Russell Brand, who just discovered the truth about Russiagate.

Brand started as a stand-up comedian and then moved into TV and movie stints in Britain and America.  Many Americans came to know about him because of his two-year-long marriage to Katy Perry, which ended when his self-admitted drug, pornography, and sex addictions came to the fore.  (If you read about his early life, you can see how he ended up with those problems.)  He’s a relatively bright guy and can be very funny.

Politically, Brand is a man of the left.  In 2009, along with every other leftist, he attacked Israel for the Gaza incursion.  By 2013, Brand had pretty much given up comedy in favor of political activism and commentary…always from the left.  He’s all about climate change, sought a socialist revolution in England, advocates for decriminalizing drugs, opposed Brexit, and supports just about any other leftist cause du jour.

For seven years now, Brand has done a one-man video podcast that looks at news and social issues from his self-admitted leftist viewpoint.  He’s got almost 4 million subscribers, so he has a bully pulpit for his ideas.  The problem for Brand of late is that, while he may be a leftist, in his own way, he’s intellectually honest.  In the crazy world of 2021, that’s making it difficult for him to maintain a pure leftist attitude.  He’s discovering that the people he admired and supported don’t just have feet of clay, but are also truly terrible people.

Six days ago, Brand had his mind blown (call it swallowing a red pill) when he discovered that the entire Russiagate scandal that ran for most of Trump’s presidency and seriously damaged his ability to govern was a Clinton hoax.  The video is only 15 minutes long.  Brand leads with his conclusion: he’s a leftist and no fan of Trump, but he just had his mind blown.  He is “in awe, gobsmacked, flabbergasted, and startled” by what he learned.  Continue to listen to him, and you’ll see a man in the beginning stages of disillusionment, long may it continue:

(Incidentally, have you noticed that the leftists’ problem isn’t that Russia is totalitarian, because it’s always been totalitarian?  Their real problem is that Putin is a garden-variety oligarch rather than a communist.  They liked the Soviet Union.)

I’ve long believed that the only way to change people’s minds politically is for them to have a moment when they realize that their political party or team is lying to them.  I had my epiphany when I realized that NPR, in the 1990s, routinely lied about Israel.  My mother, who was very stylish, had her political epiphany when the media tried to tell her that Michelle Obama was, in terms of fashion, a second Jackie Kennedy.  (Remember the banana dress?  Jackie O wouldn’t have worn that.)

Everybody has his truth.  Show people they’ve been tricked, and they will push back.  Russell Brand is going to cling to his leftist values, but he’s going to continue to turn on the Biden administration because he’ll realize that the American Democrat party, behind the wall of words about diversity, equality, equity, and tolerance, is just another totalitarian movement bent on taking away the freedoms that Brand depends upon for his political activism.

Image: Russell Grand red-pilled about Russiagate.  YouTube screen grab.

What’s Evil, Deadly, Coordinated Globalist Attacks, “besides joe biden”?

The Coordinated Attack on Ivermectin Is a Crime Against Humanity

Make no mistake, the evil, deadly, coordinated globalist attacks we are currently witnessing on ivermectin will go down in history as a vicious crime against humanity.

By Louie Gohmert at American Greatness:

About Louie Gohmert

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has been representing Texas’ first congressional district since 2005.

September 29, 2021

Just as we saw with hydroxychloroquine last summer, government alphabet agencies, the medical industrial complex, and their willing accomplices in the media have recently made it clear that there is yet another safe, effective treatment for COVID-19 they wish to torpedo. It’s the latest naughty word which will get you censored on social media and mocked and belittled by late-night “comedians”: ivermectin.

While ivermectin has been used by certain brave doctors around the world to treat COVID-19 for over a year now, it only recently became the target of a multi-pronged attack, with the U.S. government, the media, and Big Pharma all playing important roles in the deadly dystopian disinformation campaign against the drug. As more Americans became aware of ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19, like clockwork the government and its propaganda arm in the press jumped in to discredit it, referring to the drug snidely as a “horse dewormer.” 

We watched the FDA embarrass itself with its ridiculing tweet telling people “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” while linking to an agency article on why people should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent the China Virus. We saw Rolling Stone magazine forced to admit that its recent story about Oklahoma hospitals being overwhelmed by patients who overdosed on ivermectin was completely false. 

Pharmaceutical company Merck, which produces ivermectin, discredited its use for COVID by irresponsibly stating, “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.” It is worth noting that Merck and Pfizer are developing their own oral antivirals that would directly compete with the cheap and effective ivermectin. These antivirals, unlike ivermectin, would be patented, creating the potential for pharmaceutical companies to rake in billions of dollars from their use.

What the globalist elites and the medical establishment won’t tell you is that those who discovered ivermectin and its use to treat parasitic diseases won a Nobel Prize in 2015—it was the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine’s only award for treatments of infectious diseases in six decades. 

Almost 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been prescribed for humans, not horses, over the past 40 years. In fact, the CDC recommends all refugees coming to the U.S. from the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean receive this so-called dangerous horse medicine as a preemptive therapy. Ivermectin is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be an “essential medicine.” The Department of Homeland Security’s “quick reference” tool on COVID-19 mentioned how this life-saving drug reduced viral shedding duration in a clinical trial. 

To date, there are at least 63 trials and 31 randomized controlled trials showing benefits to the use of ivermectin to fight COVID-19 prophylactically as well as for early and late-stage treatment. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. It has strong anti-inflammatory properties and prevents transmission of COVID-19 when taken either before or after exposure to the virus. about:blank

Ivermectin also speeds up recovery and decreases hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19 patients. It has been FDA approved for decades and has very few and mild side effects. It has an average of 160 adverse events reported every year, which indicates ivermectin has a better safety record than several vitamins. In short, there is no humane, logical reason why it should not be widely used to fight against the China Virus should a patient and doctor decide it is appropriate to try in that patient’s case. 

Critics argue that ivermectin hasn’t been approved for use in the fight against COVID-19 and therefore should not be prescribed to patients. Doctors, however, often prescribe drugs to help patients that aren’t necessarily approved for their particular ailments—it’s called “off-label” prescription and according to the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 10-20 percent of all prescriptions are prescribed in this fashion.

Make no mistake, the evil, deadly, coordinated globalist attacks we are currently witnessing on ivermectin will go down in history as a vicious crime against humanity; a grievous public health policy error that can only be explained by following the money. Many top doctors agree that hundreds of thousands of American lives could have been saved had early treatment protocols such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine not been so maliciously vilified by authority figures, some pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare providers who just so happen to have financial incentives to suppress the truth about these cheap, effective drugs. 

“Ms. Omarova thinks asset prices, pay scales, capital and credit should be dictated by the federal government”. (Biden’s Soviet Gal to be CONTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY!)



Joe Biden has nominated Saule Omarova to be Comptroller of the Currency. It is an important position. According to the Comptroller’s web site:

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

So who is Ms. Omarova, whom Joe Biden wants to “charter, regulate and supervise all national banks”? She is not a banker, but a professor at Cornell Law School. Sadly, these days being a law school professor is rarely a positive recommendation. (Sorry, Glenn and Bill.) The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote about the Omarova nomination today:

She graduated from Moscow State University in 1989 on the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship.

You can’t make this stuff up. And she still yearns for the USSR, which you can get away with as a law professor–although, to be fair, she also has a PhD from the University of Wisconsin, which might be a worse black mark:

Thirty years later, she still believes the Soviet economic system was superior, and that U.S. banking should be remade in the Gosbank’s image.

“Until I came to the US, I couldn’t imagine that things like gender pay gap still existed in today’s world. Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best,’” she tweeted in 2019.

Just the person we want regulating our banking system! To which she applies views consistent with her Lenin Scholarship:

Ms. Omarova thinks asset prices, pay scales, capital and credit should be dictated by the federal government. In two papers, she has advocated expanding the Federal Reserve’s mandate to include the price levels of “systemically important financial assets” as well as worker wages. …

In a recent paper “The People’s Ledger,” she proposed that the Federal Reserve take over consumer bank deposits, “effectively ‘end banking,’ as we know it,” and become “the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a modern economy.”

All right then! Has anyone told Ms. Omarova that the Soviet Union lost the cold war, and fell apart? I suppose she knows that, having departed the USSR in 1991 when it collapsed, for what are undoubtedly greener pastures. But, living a cushy academic life in the U.S., she is not only free to advocate for Leninist banking policies, she can actually be appointed to regulate American banks! Is this a great country, or what?

The woman, to be blunt, is an idiot:

Ms. Omarova believes capital and credit should be directed by an unaccountable bureaucracy and intelligentsia. She has recommended a “National Investment Authority,” with members overseen by an advisory board of academics, to finance a “big and bold” climate agenda. Sounds like the green infrastructure bank the Senate rejected.

She’d also like a politically and structurally independent “Public Interest Council” of “highly paid” academics with broad subpoena power to supervise financial regulatory agencies, including the Fed. The Council, she explained, would not be subject to the “constraints and requirements of the administrative process.” Ivy League professors know best.

More “highly paid” academics who are not subject to “constraints and requirements”–just what we need!

Is this some kind of joke? One is tempted to think so, but sadly, it isn’t. The Democratic Party really has descended to the level of insanity where it wants to import Soviet ideas into the American banking system. Because they have been so successful, presumably. It will be interesting to see how many Senate Democrats vote against confirming a Lenin Scholarship winner to regulate American banking.

But Joe Biden’s Been A Political Thug For 40 Years….THANK YOU DEM DELAWARE!

A Marine’s Reflection on Afghanistan

By Daniel Duffy at American Thinker:

When I was 19, I met a giant among men.  Sgt Major Ellis was a Marine’s Marine that stood as proud as the uniform he wore.  He knew everyone in the battalion by name (all 1,000, or so) and could outrun most Marines a decade younger than him.  He was killed by a suicide bomber.  His story is not unique. 

The white graves that mark Arlington, and countless other cemeteries across America represent a story like his.  That is why veterans feel bitter, angry, and betrayed after the slipshod pullout of Afghanistan.  Not only because of the way it was conducted, but because this was a war we could have and should have won. 

The takeaways from Afghanistan might be horrendous.  Consider if we draw the lesson: “the military does not work.” Coupled with China’s aggressive imperialistic designs, this could be existentially fatal.  That is why it is imperative to get this issue right. 

Wars are won by breaking an enemy’s will to fight.  Not by making them like you, but by making them fear you.  This was the case in WWII.  Almost every major city in Germany and Japan was pulverized.  This had the effect of not only crippling their ability to wage war, but also sapping their will to take up arms. 

The Civil War is another example.  Sherman’s march to the sea destroyed the confederacy supply chain and demoralized Lee’s troops.  This is not a phenomenon of a past age.  The Afghan army, after losing American support, folded in days to the Taliban after realizing their cause was futile.  Victory in war is achievable.

After 9/11 we choose a different path.  Not doing his best impression of Churchill, President Bush once said: “I don’t think you can win it…I don’t have any…definite end (for the war).”[1]  This defeatist attitude set the tone for the campaign.  First, we refused to name the enemy — a political movement that sought to impose a radical form of Islam on the world.  Bush called it a “war on terrorism.”  Terrorism is a tactic.  This would be like declaring war on Kamikaze missions during WWII.  This made it almost impossible to think about 9/11 clearly. 

Moreover, we refused to use whatever force was necessary to break the will of that movement.  Self-effacing rules of engagement hampered our military.  Soldiers could not return fire from mosques.  Levels of force had to be authorized by bureaucrats and lawyers.  A Pentagon study reported, “every group of soldiers and Marines interviewed reported that they felt the existing ROEs (rules of engagement) tied their hands, preventing them from doing what needed to be done to win the war.”[2] 

During the battle of Tora Bora, we allowed Al Qaida leaders (including Osama Bin Laden) to escape for fear of civilian casualties, and many times gave the Taliban advance notice of attacks.[3]  In Iraq, we allowed fighters to leave the city before the battle of Fallujah, and then Marines were ordered to halt their attack.[4]

This strategy was influenced by “just war theory.”  In the WestPoint popular book “Just and Unjust Wars,” Michael Walzer, explains in no uncertain terms that his view is that the chief aim of militaries is for humanitarian crises.  Not self-defense.  He writes: “the chief dilemma of international politics is whether people in danger should be rescued by military forces from outside.”[5]  Or consider this head-scratcher: “In our judgment of the fighting, we abstract from all consideration of the justice of the cause.  We do this because the moral status of individual soldiers on both sides is very much the same….  They face one another as moral equals”[6] This raises so many questions.  First and foremost: why are you fighting a war against people who are your moral equal?

On a political level, American policy attempted to promote democracy in the Middle East, even if that meant allowing countries to vote our enemies into power. Once when Bush was asked if the U.S. would accept a theocratic, militant regime in Iraq, he said yes.  “Democracy is democracy… if that’s what the people choose, that’s what the people choose.”[7] 

This mindset emboldened the enemy.  It is essentially saying: “what you did on 9/11…what you do to women and gays, and everyone who does not share your faith…that is all okay so long as a majority voted for it.”  In fact, they did vote in warlords who were not much different than the people who attacked us.  Failure was not owned by one administration.  Obama surged the level of troops in Afghanistan.  Not as a new strategy that resembled victory, but as a way to double down on Bush’s legacy.  Trump even invited the Taliban to Camp David to broker a peace deal. 

Why did we choose this path?  The simple answer is that Americans do not believe we have the right to stand up for ourselves.  Consciously or unconsciously, we have absorbed the rhetoric (with varying degrees) that all cultures and governments are equal.  We desperately need to shed ourselves from this neuroticism.  A culture that stones unveiled women or throws gays off of buildings is not the moral equivalent of one that protects peoples’ freedoms.  What would a rational foreign policy look like?  For our military, it means destroying threats as swiftly as possible.  Not just the immediate threat, but defeating him thoroughly enough so that we have drained his motivation to fight.  Our military should not be treated as fodder to go on dangerous missions to safeguard elections or supervise the construction of sewers.

Pundits sometimes argue this type of war will create more enemies.  This is groundless and ahistorical.  If this were true, Japan would be an enemy after WWII.  Ditto for Germany, and the Confederacy.  When an enemy is thoroughly defeated, materially and spiritually; he realizes that his cause was futile and misguided. 

Oftentimes, former addicts talk about hitting “rock bottom.”  This often involves a rejection from another person.  A spouse leaving them, fired from their job, or getting arrested.  What the former addict finally realizes at this moment is that it is the result of their actions alone that caused this.  Even in the cognitive fog of addiction, they see this. 

A similar revelation happens on a cultural scale to a defeated army.  They grasp that they were in the wrong and deluded by irrational ideologies.  That is why the Japanese navy minister Yonai Mitsumasa called the atomic bombs “gifts from heaven.”[8]  That is not to say every city that harbors a threat needs to be flattened.  But it is to say that every legitimate threat should be met with whatever force is necessary to defeat it.  Civilian casualties, while tragic, are crimes of the aggressing actor.

As easy as it is to become bitter about Afghanistan, there is a comforting thought that assuages it.  The men and women who fought never wavered in their tenacity.  In two decades of fighting their ferocity and skill was every bit as present on the tarmacs of Kabul as it was on September 12th,  2001.  It is this fighting spirit that gives me hope for America.  The same cannot be said about their leaders.  They do not deserve the men and women that serve under them. 

Undoubtedly, the Afghanistan fiasco will result in more terrorism, more bloodshed, and emboldened adversaries.  With the equal vigor that our fighting men and women displayed on the battlefield, the promise of American exceptionalism must be intellectually fought for.  It is the dissemination of this knowledge that will nurture our sense of life, and help us grow to become a people with an upright and proud self-esteem.  That — and only that — will stop the bleeding and ensure a free and prosperous future- one that our fallen comrades would be proud of.

Photo credit: Petr Kratochvil Public Domain Pictures

Elan Journo “An Unwinnable war?” in Winning the Unwinnable War, (Lexington Books, 2009). 

 John David Lewis “Gifts From Heaven” in Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014). 

Thank God Trump IS TRUMP!!

Choosing Senility Over Substance

By Edward R. Zuckerbrod at American Thinker:

At the height of the COVID-19 scare — say, around March and April 2020 — when the virus and its accompanying hysteria were at their apex, Democrats scored their most effective and damaging hits upon public confidence in President Trump’s pandemic leadership, the effects of which persisted clear through to the November election.

Their cynical, hurtful strategy was simple enough: Heap as much ridicule as necessary upon his determined efforts to produce safe and effective vaccines, while reserving special scorn for his attempts to identify as many viable therapeutic treatments as possible to serve as stopgaps until the vaccines were ready and beyond.

Admittedly, Mr. Trump sometimes aided those ignoble efforts at political derision by his undisciplined, stream-of-consciousness ruminations over how certain substances might work in the human body, or his inexplicable willingness to be sucked into pointless rows with the biased, partisan press corps. Also clearly counterproductive was his undisguised disdain for mask-wearing, despite the legitimate, if overblown fears of ordinary people.

But Trump is Trump and he’ll always do it his way — come what may. And those instances where Trump stepped on his own message or created a verbal shroud over his considerable managerial skill nevertheless can’t erase how much better off we all were with #45 calling the signals in comparison to today’s sclerotic leadership.

And lo and behold, despite the predictable Dem misdirection, the vaccines arrived just as Trump predicted, and the wisdom of concurrently pursuing effective treatments became crystal clear to anyone, subsequently vaccinated or not, who later contracted COVID.

So it’s only now, when Trump’s careful thought processes and sound judgments have been replaced by Joe Biden’s blinkered cart-horse rigidity and petulant obstinacy, that some — but not all — can begin to appreciate the flexibility and foresight that sometimes laid hidden behind Trump’s overly combative, off-putting style.

Sadly, it appears that here in the U.S. we’ve finally reached a critical mass of people who can only learn their lessons the hard way — and best believe, it won’t get much harder than enduring the remainder of Joe Biden’s already disastrous term.

Observing Biden’s single-track, my-way-or-the-highway insistence upon vaccinating anyone and everyone no matter their personal history or medical circumstances, one can’t help but long for Trump’s far more nuanced and sophisticated approach. Over the lengthening course of this China-born plague, the person the Democrats tried to paint as a would-be Mussolini was in fact scrupulously respectful of both individual liberties and the constitutionally- prescribed prerogatives of the several States. The emerging autocrat Biden’s pandemic fighting inclinations in stark contrast seem more aligned with those of Xi-Xin Ping than any American leader in memory. 

In the midst of an election year, no official ever staked more reputation or political capital than did Donald Trump, squarely on the efficacy of the then-nascent COVID vaccines. Any serious setback or time-consuming obstacle affecting their development would have been blared to the heavens by the skeptical, failure-seeking Dems and their media lackeys, and probably would have meant a sure landslide defeat for Trump.

Yet Trump’s confidence in their timely arrival never wavered; even going so far as to assume the still greater risk of guaranteeing payment for millions of doses of the as yet widely untried drugs (another action the second-guessing Dems would have blasted had it backfired.)

Of course the drug companies, thus beneficiaries of guaranteed billions in revenue, rewarded Trump’s confidence by delaying the announcement of the impending readiness of the vaccines until after the election, helping Biden immeasurably. Now there’s gratitude for you!

Under such circumstances, given the risks he’d run without apparent appreciation, in his last few months in office Trump might have been forgiven for taking the coercive approach to vaccination that Biden has mindlessly embraced.  But he didn’t — sticking to the more reasonable two-track strategy of providing enough vaccines for those who want it, while still seeking effective treatments for the sick among the arsenal of tried-and-true (but alas, less profitable) medicines. Unlike Biden, Trump knew that a successful track record worked more effectively to persuade the vaccine-hesitant than the bludgeoning hand of government.

Despite Joe’s typically grandiose, gruel-for-dummies pronouncements about “shutting down the virus,” Trump’s overall framework for combating COVID has remained in place among those actually on the frontlines. However, now that they’re fully in power, the Democrats still insist upon continuing to denigrate traditional, off-patent medicines. Ivermectin has now joined Hydroxychloroquine on the wanted poster of cheap medicinal outlaws unfit for enlightened society.

Diminished capacity and questionable judgment have not though dulled the Biden feel for exploiting the nexus between government procurement and regulation, and the needs of deep-pocketed businesses. Whereas Trump, while guaranteeing federal payment for the coming vaccines, nevertheless earned Big Pharma’s ire by insisting that all Americans be first in line when they were finally ready for delivery, Biden now curries favor by attempting to sidestep his own FDA. His premature announcement of boosters for all before justifying data is fully compiled was meant to hurry the federal purchase of hundreds of millions more doses, for Americans and millions abroad.

He may forget the Aussie Prime Minister’s name, but Joe needs no index card to recall how political bread is buttered. Somewhere down the road, you can count on drug companies once again rewarding Biden, this time for accelerating their sales and boosting near-term profits.

I suppose sucking up to giant industries (see also: credit cards) is much akin to riding that proverbial bicycle — once you learn …….

Whether the issue is the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the hemorrhaging border, or the stubbornly persistent COVID pandemic, uninformed inflexibility is the hallmark of the Biden style of leadership.  Creating a crisis by short-sighted, incompetent actions, and then pretending that the resulting damage is merely a consequence of bad luck or extraneous circumstances, is another infuriating feature of the Biden style

But I predict what we’ll ultimately miss most about the Trump years will be his compulsive, almost obscene transparency. He made sure you knew what he thought about everyone and everything — even facts you devoutly wished not to know. So many revelations coming at you, it almost made you feel like a public affairs voyeur.

Biden, by necessity, can’t help but be the polar opposite. His severe limitations dictate that he must attempt to govern mainly through secrecy and obfuscation, often relying upon outright lies to cover his tracks. So he employs underlings practiced — if not entirely skilled — at those deceptive arts. Big liars don’t necessarily make good ones, and that unsettling lack of candor explains why confidence in his leadership has plummeted so precipitously as his errors mount.

What we’re left with is a burned-out front man for the extreme left-wing who traded what little soul he possessed for the honor of finally being called “Mr. President.”

Thus is an “adult” back in charge.




Senator Marsha Blackburn asked Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley about the books in which he is quoted to inflammatory effect. He acknowledged that he had sat for interviews with the authors of each of the books she specified. In his Washington Examiner Daily Memo yesterday, Byron York cited them and extracted a few of the quotes:

Three of the biggest such books, all bestsellers, were Peril, by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa; I Alone Can Fix It, by the Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker; and Frankly, We Did Win This Election, by the Wall Street Journal’s Michael Bender. All featured quotes and information that appeared to come directly from Milley.

At Tuesday’s hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked Milley whether he had spoken to the authors. “Did you talk to Bob Woodward or Robert Costa for their book, Peril?” asked Blackburn. “Woodward, yes, Costa, no,” answered Milley. “Did you talk to Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker for their book, I Alone Can Fix It?” “Yes,” said Milley. “Did you talk to Michael Bender for his book, Frankly, We Did Win This Election?” “Yes,” said Milley.

What did Milley have to say?

Milley told Leonnig and Rucker that he feared Trump might try to stage a coup after losing the 2020 election. “This is a Reichstag moment,” the authors quote Milley telling aides. “The gospel of the Fuhrer.” And more: “They may try, but they’re not going to f—ing succeed,” the authors quote Milley telling his deputies. “You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”

Then the coup never came. “Thank God Almighty we landed the ship safely,” Milley told Leonnig and Rucker. The authors described a scene at the inauguration of President Joe Biden in which Milley expressed relief to former first lady Michelle Obama. “No one has a bigger smile today than I do,” Milley told Obama. “You can’t see it under my mask, but I do.”

Where does such dishing fit in the job description of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? At Tuesday’s hearing, Republican Sen. Rick Scott asked, “Why would you as the sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talk to a reporter who is writing a book about a prior administration? Why would that be part of your job description?”

Milley said he talks to the media regularly, multiple times a week. “I think it’s very important that senior officials talk to the media, in all its various forms, in order to explain what we’re doing,” he said.

But Scott wanted to know why Milley was dishing about a former president. “Why would you … talk to a reporter who is writing a book about a prior administration? Why would that be part of your job description?”

“I think it’s important to make sure that the American people are transparent with what our government does, is all,” Milley said. “Nothing more complicated than that.”

Byron comments:

Milley’s talks with Woodward, Leonnig, Rucker, Bender — and possibly other authors as well — clearly went beyond ensuring “transparency” about the Joint Chiefs’ activities. The general’s “Reichstag moment” quote spoke volumes about the statement he wanted to make for the books that would describe the Trump administration’s final days.

And then Milley got burned by Woodward’s and Costa’s sensational portrayal of his conversations with a top Chinese general, which led to some critics accusing Milley of “treason.” As it turned out, the critics were not being fair, and events did not transpire exactly as the book said. Milley suffered some unjustified criticism. But that’s the lesson for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Live by the media, die by the media.

I think we need more information about Milley’s interviews with Woodward, but I think we know enough to infer that in each of these interviews Milley was promoting himself in a most unsavory and unprofessional manner.

At the House hearing yesterday Rep. Jim Banks homed in on another aspect of Milley’s effusions to Woodward. He is a man of poor judgment, perhaps about himself most of all. In addition to providing what he believed to be a heroic self-portrait to Woodward and other media friends, he appears be a patently untrustworthy witness.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=powerlineUS&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3NwYWNlX2NhcmQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib2ZmIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1443265567511781376&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2021%2F09%2Fmilley-promotes-himself.php&sessionId=aad82d245ba12775f6515c3d0ac12ead3d6160a2&siteScreenName=powerlineUS&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1890d59c%3A1627936082797&width=550px

Andy Ngô @MrAndyNgoGen. Mark Milley is asked by Congressman @Jim_Banks if he referred to Epoch Times, a paper founded by Chinese critics of the Chinese Communist Party, & Newsmax “domestic terrorist” organizations. The general said he doesn’t recall.

Dems Burned Minnesota, Dems Imprison Innocent Cops, Dems Create Loony Tune Governor Tim Walz! How Are Your Dems Doing?

 BY JOHN HINDERAKER  in Democrats, Liberals, Minnesota at PowerLine


We (Scott, mostly) have chronicled the inept and destructive reaction to covid by Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz. That response began with a campaign to scare the daylights out of Minnesotans that was second, perhaps, only to what has happened in Australia. A key element of the campaign of fear was the “Minnesota model,” touted by Walz and his minions as the “scientific” basis for the extreme actions they took. Never mind that, as it later developed, the model was constructed by a couple of students over a weekend. If it was made in Minnesota, it must be superior!

The Minnesota model projected that without a draconian shutdown, 74,000 Minnesotans would die from covid. With an extreme shutdown, 50,000 would die. Those projections were the basis for the radical restrictions on our lives imposed by Walz under a never-ending “emergency.” (The emergency finally stopped when even Democrats in the Minnesota House had had enough, and voted to end it.) Of course, it turned out that the model was wildly off the mark, and, having gone through versions 2.0 and 3.0, it has now been quietly shelved and forgotten.

As part of the Walz administration’s campaign to scare Minnesotans into compliance, the state spent millions on a refrigerated fruit warehouse. Why? To turn it into a morgue. Because there wouldn’t be room in the state’s mortuaries for the thousands of bodies that would pile up on account of covid, we needed a facility to house the corpses while they awaited a backlogged burial.

It quickly became apparent that the Minnesota model’s fatality projections were ridiculous, and the morgue, despite having been renovated and prepared for its intended use at considerable expense, would remain idle. Thus, Tim Walz’s refrigerated fruit warehouse won the first-ever Golden Turkey Award. It represented $6.9 million down the drain, and was quietly forgotten–with, needless to say, the complicity of the local, monolithically-liberal press.

Now the Walz administration has thrown in the towel and put the refrigerated fruit warehouse/morgue up for sale. Incredibly, it has tried to spin its desired transaction as a success, since the sale price, if the state gets it, would be a bit larger than the amount initially paid for the warehouse, before the additional dollars the state poured into the facility. The local press has, sheeplike, gone along with the administration’s spin. As though the morgue had been bought as a real estate speculation!

In truth, the state will lose around $1.25 million on the morgue at the listed sale price, as my colleague Bill Walsh reports:

This week the Walz administration announced they are looking to sell the morgue. If you take them at their word, the sale of the morgue means the pandemic is over, with a Walz administration spokesperson saying last year:

At a minimum, the State of Minnesota will keep the building until the pandemic ends. This disease is unpredictable, so it’s prudent to maintain the ability to stand up a temporary morgue until the danger passes.

This would be breaking news if words actually had meaning in this administration. Nonetheless, the building is for sale and taxpayers stand to lose money on our ill-fated purchase.

The $6.9 million cost was outlined in a StarTribune article on May 20, 2020:

In a deal that closed Monday, the state paid $5.5 million for the grocery distribution warehouse and land; operating costs and improvements to ready the building for its new purpose will bring the total to $6.9 million.

With a proposed sale price of $5,650,000, the state stands to lose over a million dollars when the dust settles. But what price should we put on the fear needed to convince Minnesotans to give up our freedoms, close down businesses and schools and force children to wear masks?

The Walz morgue will go down in history as a monument to both stupid spending and poor leadership in a crisis.

In hindsight, the loss on the real estate transaction is the least part of the fruit warehouse scandal. As Bill asks, what price can we put on the fear, the catastrophic shutdown, the tyranny that Walz’s emergency order–which literally directed Minnesotans not to leave their homes without his permission (Emergency Executive Order 20-20: Directing Minnesotans to Stay at Home)–asserted over our lives?




Last night Virginina watched a debate between former Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe, who is trying for a second turn in office (Virginia has a single-term limit, but you are still eligible to run again after another governor serves), and Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin. Polls show it to be a close race.

I’ve never thought McAuliffe an especially talented politician, and he let fly with two howlers in the debate, captured in these two tweets:

Yes—he really said both of these things. (Sorry, Bill, old pal—you’re not the “leading conservative” in America any more; only in the Potemkin Village constructed in the minds of liberals.)

But there was one other more subtle point. When asked about Biden’s “Build Back Better” blowout spending plans, McAuliffe allowed as how he thought the total $3.5 trillion price tag is “too high.”  This suggests some awareness that maybe this kind of profligate spending might not be popular with Americans. No wonder the Bidenites are attempting the absurd line that their spending plans won’t actually cost anything because Jeff Bezos is going to pay for it with spare change from his couch cushions.

In other words, Biden and the Democrats may have painted themselves into a corner in which they are doomed if they don’t pass a big bill, and doomed if they do. Here’s to hoping the country manages to escape the doom loop they have shoved us onto.

Chaser— Nancy Pelosi this morning: “It’s not about a dollar amount…the dollar amount, as the president said, is zero.”

UPDATE: The Youngkin campaign is out with an ad capitalizing on McAuliffe’s gaffe:


Hugh Hewitt grills Fauci: Don’t you think you’re doing more harm than good at this point?

ALLAHPUNDIT Sep 29, 2021 at HotAir:

Others have made the point that Fauci is more of a liability than an asset at this stage of the pandemic in trying to bring right-wing holdouts along on vaccination.

But I don’t think I’d ever seen an interviewer confront Fauci himself about it, as Hugh Hewitt does in the clip below.

For 10 full minutes.

I’m not exaggerating. Take the time to watch if you can spare it. If you can’t, skip ahead to 14:43 of the clip, when Fauci begins to scoff openly at the suggestion. Or read the transcript at Hewitt’s website for a taste. He came with receipts:

HH: Now Dr., your specialty is medicine and public health. Mine is Constitutional law. I’ve taught it and practiced it for 25 years. And what they are doing is going outside of their lane when they inject the equity discussion into a scientific discussion. That leads me to my next question. This is difficult for me, but I want to run down for your benefit. The controversies since the virus started include the botched testing at the beginning, no research on masks for children in primary care, the J & J pause, the controversy over the use or non-use of Ivermectin, and there was no study yet completed. Dr. Collins told me it’s not done, yet. The no discussion of natural immunity which exists and ought to be out there, the discussion of herd immunity which has switched back and forth, the mask discussion at the begging, don’t wear masks, the noble lie and then wear masks, now equity issues in the FDA panel’s scientific discussion. I’ve lost confidence in the CDC and the FDA. And I actually believe a lot of Americans, a significant part of America, now have lost confidence in you, Dr. Fauci. Is there a point where you will say I do more harm than good because people don’t listen to me anymore and step aside?

Fauci responded to that with what he usually says about how he changed when the data changed, but Hewitt doesn’t let him go. You’ll see what I mean.

The truth about Fauci quitting now is that it wouldn’t change anything. The well is poisoned. Hewitt complains to him at one point that some conservatives are simply changing the channel when they see him come on and might not do that if presented with a fresher face, but I’m skeptical. Masks, lockdowns, and to some extent vaccination have become culture-war litmus tests. Swapping in Tom Frieden for Fauci on CNN might lead to fewer changings of the channel but I can’t imagine it leading to appreciably more people masking up or getting vaxxed. It’s not a matter of persuasion at this stage since most of the persuadables have already taken the plunge, leaving only the diehard refuseniks. The remaining holdouts will do it only if they’re coerced.

Which Fauci or Hewitt might have acknowledged here. With the announcement of Biden’s federal employer vaccine mandate a few weeks ago and more companies beginning to squeeze workers on getting their shots, we’ve arrived at the coercion stage of vaccination. One which Fauci supports, by the way. Put him on TV or don’t: Whether the needle moves on immunity from this point on depends on businesses twisting arms, not bureaucrats explaining the science of vaccination for the 8,000th time. So far, so good:

United Airlines is touting the success of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, saying that more than 99% of its U.S.-based employees have met the company’s requirement to get vaccinated, or have applied for a religious or medical exemption…

United announced August 6 that the Chicago-based airline was requiring all 67,000 of its U.S.-based employees to be vaccinated. At the time, the airline said about 90% of pilots and 80% of flight attendants had already been vaccinated.

Seven weeks later, United says about 2,000 workers, less than 3% of the U.S.-based workforce, have applied for a religious or medical accommodation. Those workers had faced being put on an unpaid leave of absence Oct. 2, but the airline has pushed back that date while a federal lawsuit challenging that policy works its way through the courts.

Fewer than 600 employees haven’t had their shots or sought an exemption. They’re headed for unemployment. Jim Geraghty wondered this morning if it’s really necessary for a business to fire the remaining unvaccinated once it’s reached upwards of 100 percent compliance. I take his point, but how do you gain compliance in the first place if workers have reason to believe that a business will simply drop its mandate once it gets close to its target? That would create a collective action problem in which most of the unvaccinated would continue to hold out in the mistaken belief that their comrades will get vaccinated instead. The only way to get employees to take a mandate seriously is to prove that there are consequences for ignoring it.

One other thing Fauci might have mentioned here when Hewitt says he’s no longer persuading anyone to get vaccinated is that Big Tech is scrambling to make it harder for anti-vaxxers to persuade people to the contrary. YouTube announced today that it will deplatform prominent anti-vax accounts and ban misinformation about commonly used vaccines (not just COVID vaccines). Fauci doesn’t have to be as convincing if anti-vax propaganda is harder to access, I suppose. Although I think Hewitt would say that Fauci himself, by dint of his numerous reversals and his agency’s dubious funding of the Wuhan lab, is a form of anti-vax propaganda at this point. If you don’t trust him, why wouldn’t you bristle at his advice to get vaccinated even if there are no anti-vaxxers whispering in your ear?https://www.youtube.com/embed/mCiC60JWC0g?start=524 Share Tweet

Common Sense, Popular Star American Female State Governor Faces A Popular Political, Cultural Problem!

Kristi Noem Shows Why Republicans Can’t Have Nice Things

Exclusive: Sources reveal the South Dakota governor and potential 2024 VP candidate is having an extramarital affair with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

By Pedro Gonzalez at American Greatness:

September 28, 2021

Multiple sources have informed American Greatness that South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is having an extramarital affair with adviser Corey Lewandowski, who previously served as a campaign manager for Donald Trump. The alleged fling reportedly has continued for months, sources say. 

Lewandowski accompanied Noem across the country as she stumped for Trump’s reelection last year. According to South Dakota Republicans, former Noem chief of staff Joshua Shields left, in part, because of Lewandowski’s butting in. Lewandowski, who is married with four children, still has the former president’s ear, which he reportedly uses to Noem’s advantage. 

American Greatness contacted Noem’s office for comment on Tuesday. No comment had been received at the time of publication.

Noem, a married mother of three, has been eyed as a possible running mate for a Trump presidential bid in 2024. Bloomberg reported in March that Trump’s closest advisors are pushing either for a black or female vice presidential candidate. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Noem have both been named among the favorites by members of Trump’s inner circle. 

On March 5, Donald Trump, Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle hosted a fundraiser for Noem at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and home in Palm Beach. Noem was invited to a second fundraiser there in April. Lewandowski has played a key role in boosting Noem’s clout with Trump. 

In a brief interview with the New York Times, Lewandowski praised Noem as having “a huge future in Republican politics.” But these recent revelations, in combination with other challenges, threaten her chances of winning a ticket to the White House.

“There are members of Congress close to Mar-a-Lago who have called the affair ‘an open secret’ and worried that about Noem’s viability as a national candidate and within the movement,” a source familiar with the matter told American Greatness.about:blankabout:blank

The governor has recently been on the defensive against Republicans upset with her handling of issues ranging from transgenderism to corporate vaccine mandates in her state. Critics have described her supposed “conservative principles” as hollow. 

Noem has a habit of saying one thing from the saddle of a high horse and doing another.

After South Dakota Republicans brought a bill to Noem’s desk to ban biological males from competing in women’s sports, the governor killed the legislation with a “style and form” veto. Republican Representative Rhonda Milstead denounced the move to local reporter Robert Mercer. “It is overreaching by trying to legislate law as the executive branch,” she said. Noem subsequently issued diluted, face-saving executive orders in lieu of legislation. 

Noem attempted to defend herself by making a bizarre and incoherent appeal to Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” But detractors pointed out her connections to interest groups that oppose anti-transgender legislation, namely, Amazon and the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce.

In April, Noem appointed her chief of staff, Tony Venhuizen, to the South Dakota Board of Regents. He currently sits on the board of directors for the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce, where Amazon had been planning to build a fulfillment center that lawmakers worried would be axed in response to Noem signing the transgender sports bill.about:blank

In August, Noem found herself on the ropes again. This time, for refusing to prevent private companies from imposing vaccine mandates on employees. “You can’t be a constitutional conservative only when it suits you,” she wrote in the Washington Times. “Since when did the Republican Party become the party of big government and social engineering using government power to force behavior?”

Noem’s message to Americans was that her “conservative principles” relegated her to inaction. Further, anyone upset about corporate vaccine mandates could always just quit their job: “Our robust economy and job market gives them the option to find a new employer that values personal choice and responsibility, and doesn’t force mandates on their employees,” she said.

In practice, however, Noem’s fidelity to principle is plastic.

The Associated Press reported this week that after a South Dakota state agency denied her daughter’s application to become a certified real estate appraiser, Noem met with the state employee who ran the agency, the woman’s direct supervisor, the state labor secretary, and her daughter. Four months later, Noem’s daughter received her certification. Shortly after that, the labor secretary demanded the retirement of Sherry Bren, the agency head, according to a complaint reviewed by the Associated Press. South Dakota’s attorney general announced Tuesday that he is looking into the matter.

Noem appears to be fine with being on the side of “big government and social engineering using government power to force behavior” when it comes to landing her daughter a job and advancing corporate interests. The reports of an affair with Lewandowski and strong-arming nepotism represent personal duplicity in a woman who has already proven politically hypocritical. 

Noem wears the skin of a principled politician to deflect criticism and thus tarnishes what it actually means to be one. She preaches virtue yet has proven utterly venal. Noem appeals to constitutional fidelity to excuse inaction and graft but has no such fidelity herself. To understand why political cynicism abounds, look to the likes of the governor of the Mount Rushmore State.TwitterFacebookParlerShare onTwitterFacebookParler

About Pedro Gonzalez

Pedro Gonzalez is associate editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and an adjunct fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He publishes the weekly Contra newsletter. Follow him on Twitter @emeriticus.