• 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

Senator Lindsey Graham Seems REGULARLY CONFUSED!

JANUARY 30, 2022 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF at Power Line:


Sen. Lindsey Graham has long believed that a president’s judicial nominees should receive great deference from the Senate. He has made this clear over and over, both for nominees of Democrats and nominees of Republicans. For example, he defended his vote to confirm Justice Sotomayor on that basis.

Graham’s view on the matter used to be shared by the vast majority of Senators. Today, almost no Senator really holds it, not when the nominee is a member of the opposite party.

My view is that with Democrats constantly voting against well-qualified conservative nominees, Republicans should routinely vote against liberal nominees, regardless of qualification. But Graham doesn’t see it that way. I give him credit for standing by his principles.

However, giving deference to the president doesn’t require making bad arguments on his behalf. If you want to vote for a nominee, just say the nominee is qualified and cast the “yes” vote.

Lindsey Graham has never been a minimalist, though. He likes to preen and pontificate, and that’s what he’s doing now regarding the impending nomination by Joe Biden of a black female Supreme Court Justice.

For example, Graham insists that setting aside a Supreme Court slot for a black female is not affirmative action. He states:

Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America. You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America.

Affirmative action is picking somebody not as well qualified for past wrongs.

But picking people for jobs to make an organization “look more like America” is a form of affirmative action. More importantly, it’s a form of race discrimination because it entails favoring one candidate over another out of a desire to achieve racial balance — i.e., because of race. And when, as in Biden’s case, people of certain races are excluded from even being considered for the job, the affirmative action is a particularly egregious form of race discrimination.

I’m not sure what Graham means by his statement that “affirmative action is picking somebody not as well qualified for past wrongs.” It’s true that rejecting a white or Asian candidate in favor of a less qualified black candidate to atone for “past wrongs” is a form of affirmative action. But it’s not the only form.

The motive for favoring someone due to race — be it atoning for past wrongs, making a workforce “look like America,” or something else — has no bearing on whether the favoritism is affirmative action. It’s affirmative action, regardless.

“Picking someone not as qualified” because of her race is affirmative action, but so is refusing even to consider the qualifications of candidates of certain races and a certain gender. That’s what Biden has decided to do.

Graham made his comment in the course of touting a black South Carolina judge — J. Michelle Childs — who reportedly is under consideration for the Supreme Court. Graham is indulging in home state boosterism. He probably figures Biden’s black female nominee will be confirmed, and the spot might as well go to a South Carolinian.

Childs’ qualifications don’t leap off the page. She is a district court judge, not a U.S. court of appeals judge, like all current Supreme Court members other than Justice Kagan were before they joined the Court. She lacks Kagan’s stellar background as an academic and high-ranking Justice Department lawyer.

I see no credible argument that Childs is as qualified as, say, Sri Srinivasan. But Srinivasan has been ruled out because of his race and gender. He’s an Asian-American male, not a black female. As an Asian-American, his nomination would be “historic,” but that’s not the history Biden promised to make when he was hunting the endorsement of black politicians and leftists.

I don’t know whether the Childs boomlet will lead to her nomination, but if it does she will definitely be an affirmative action nominee.


JANUARY 31, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


Last week I wrote in part 2 of this series:

Whenever I write about these cases I am instructed that George Floyd killed himself by a fentanyl overdose. I wasn’t persuaded of that by the evidence introduced at the trial of Derek Chauvin, not even to the level of a reasonable doubt. It is not clear to me that the defendants in this case even raise an issue of fact regarding the cause of Floyd’s death.

In any event, the cause of death is a matter of evidence (including expert opinion) beyond comment at the level of barroom banter. The prosecutors representing the United States here will draw on the identical evidence introduced by the prosecutors representing the State of Minnesota in the case against Derek Chauvin.

It is not at all obvious to me that Floyd might not have been saved if the officers had understood that Floyd was dying. If they had understood (or did understand), they certainly would (or should) have undertaken remedial measures in addition to calling for EMS Code 2 and 3.

One of the difficulties in the defense of these cases is that everyone witnessing Floyd’s detention seemed to know Floyd was dying under the three officers except the three officers and Tou Thao, who held off the crowd and interacted with some of the observers….

In response I heard from two readers whose comments are worthy of note. First, from a reader in law enforcement:

Every time I’ve tried to weigh in, the armchair law enforcement experts all know better. Sometimes, I’d rather pick up after the dogs then offer an opinion.

What do I know? I spent 35 years as a police officer, 20 years of which as a line supervisor. I spend several years as an attorney, and consequently got pulled into academy instruction for 27 years. The last 5 years of my career I supervised a regional academy.

You are spot on. The role of law enforcement officer is to be prepared for situations like the one presented by Mr. Floyd in their totality, and to do the proper, professional thing under the circumstances. A person having trouble breathing, especially someone Mr. Floyd’s size, is never left face down, handcuffed, with someone pressing on their back. Everyone, including Mr. Chauvin, is taught about positional asphyxia, and what to do when it becomes apparent. One of the officers on scene reminded Mr. Chauvin, to no avail. If indeed the fentanyl ended up killing him (for the sake of argument), he needed more timely medical intervention for a chance to save him.

What would have happened had Mr. Floyd been rolled on his side, reassured that help was on the way and still died? My guess is Mr. Chauvin might not be in prison. Oh… A totally uneducated guess – Mr. Thao didn’t know what to do, so he chose to do something he knew, which was to turn his back on the whole thing and restrain the crowd.

What do I know.

And then from a Minnesota physician who does not want to be identified:

I am a physician. You are right that fentanyl had essentially nothing to do with George Floyd’s death. Fentanyl kills by depressing the CNS, causing progressive lethargy and depression of breathing that eventually results in a degree of hypoxemia that creates a fatal arrhythmia. In a chronic a narcotic user, the blood levels of fentanyl don’t necessarily tell you what the effects on the individual are(you see the similar development of tolerance in alcohol abuse). The videos did NOT exhibit this scenario. Instead of CNS depression, he exhibited CNS excitation.

As you know, at the time of a previous arrest, he had a degree of hypertension that concerned the EMS so much that he was sent to the hospital [on a previous occasion]. This was probably related to methamphetamine use, although whatever the cause, that put him at risk of stroke or cardiac ischemia/arrest. Fortunately, he did not suffer such a tragic event, but methamphetamine use is like Russian roulette and you don’t want to pull the trigger too many times!

The post-mortem tox screen, based on methamphetamine and it’s metabolites, showed that he had recently ingested significant methamphetamine. The post also showed that he had significant multi-vessel coronary disease, including, as I recall, a 90 percent right coronary artery occlusion. The symptoms of malignant hypertension include anxiety, confusion, restlessness, shortness of breath and chest pain, sometimes a crushing chest pressure. He was exhibiting all of these. With the crushing chest pain of severe myocardial ischemia, people sometimes get a sense of impending doom. This leads to the clinical sequence of events.

He had no claustrophobia sitting in his vehicle, but several minutes later he did have claustrophobia when the officers tried to place him in the squad car. He kept saying “I’m not that kind of guy” as they tried to put him in the squad. Once in the squad car, you can hear him say “I’m gonna die” twice (impending doom). Listen to it carefully, it is a little hard to hear, but count the syllables. It is NOT a repeat of what he said before going into the squad!

Once on the ground, only one officer was on his torso/chest, not enough weight to cause significant restriction of breathing in such a large and very muscular man. One officer was on his legs, which had no effect on breathing. The officer on his neck did not cause significant obstruction of breathing, as evidenced by no trauma being found to Floyd’s trachea, larynx or hyoid bone. Also, there was no edema fluid in the trachea or bronchi that would be indicative of upper airway obstruction (remember, he was an extremely muscular man), i.e. negative pressure pulmonary edema. “I can’t breathe” was from his evolving cardiac event.

In essence, Floyd died of a cardiac arrest related to his methamphetamine use, his coronary disease and his physical struggling. This is the same etiology as the death of Eric Garner… also no damage to his neck structures and significant co-morbidities.

I cannot comment as a physician as to at what point the officers should have checked on Floyd as to whether he was faking compliance or actually in distress. I would imagine that cops always have to be aware of their environment and the very real threat of assassination. It does not appear that the crowd distracting the cops was helpful, even though they turned out to be correct in their observations.

I don’t believe that cops can get a fair trial when there is the kind of mob outside the courthouse as occurred with Chauvin and Potter and others in past years. I certainly understand why the defense has trouble getting good witnesses and why physician witnesses for the prosecutors massaged their testimony in order to protect their families.

I am not a hero or a fool. If I were a juror in the Chauvin or Potter trial, it would have been very difficult for me to vote not guilty, knowing what the lynch mob did on Lake Street in 2020 and knowing that they even vandalized a house in California that was previously owned by a defense witness.

I appreciate your work to make Minnesota and our whole country a better place. If you feel that this will be useful to the officers, please share it. Just knowing this sequence of events and cross-examining a defense witness who is honest should result in an admission that the above is very plausible and should generate significant doubt in the minds of a jury.

I myself want to be totally anonymous.


Concerned Anonymous Physician

There is no mob outside the courthouse in St. Paul where the three officers are on trial and “very plausible” is different from persuasive. Indeed, I don’t find the concededly speculative analysis persuasive, but I offer it for the consideration of interested readers.

Those Dem Lefties And Their PHONY 2020 Presidential “Victory”

Why The Wall Street Journal Is Wrong About The 2020 Election

BY: WILLIAM DOYLE JANUARY 28, 2022 at the Federalist:

Wisconsin voting booths in 2020

The problem is not ‘mass voter fraud,’ but a privately funded ‘shadow campaign’ for Joe Biden within the formal structure of the election system.

A Wall Street Journal editorial appeared on Tuesday entitled, “The Best Summary of the 2020 Election: Rules were bent, GOP voters defected, and real fraud hasn’t turned up.” This conveys the position of many establishment conservatives concerning the 2020 election: There were some slight “problems” with the election that were overshadowed by normal political phenomena such as controversies about Donald Trump and GOP voters switching sides.

The Wall Street Journal begins with the expected anti-Trump admonishment: “At his first big political rally of 2022, President Trump was again focused on 2020. ‘We had a rigged election, and the proof is all over the place,’ [Trump] said. “But Mr. Trump was apparently too busy over Christmas to read a 136-page report by a conservative group in Wisconsin, whose review shows ‘no evidence of widespread voter fraud.’”

This is a lengthy report into allegations of literal “voter fraud” by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), for which they find little corroboration. But there is another side of the argument regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election that The Wall Street Journal has relentlessly ignored.

The hypothesis is that a deeply corrupted corporate media, Big Tech censorship, legally questionable intervention by the courts, and infiltration of key election offices by lavishly funded Democratic activists resulted in “heavy-handed election interference of a kind we have never seen before” that decisively “rigged” the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden.

The WSJ editorial board would know this if they had read thisthisthisthisthisthis, or our work on the role of Big Tech money in Wisconsin’s 2020 election. All of these studies present indisputable evidence of a “rigged election” in Wisconsin and in other key swing states, where the highly partisan distribution of big Center for Tech and Civic Life money, and obvious election interference by CTCL-funded election offices, was more than sufficient to flip those states toward Biden.

Stop Chasing Red Herrings

The WSJ then opines “the stolen-election theory doesn’t hold up [according to the WILL Report]. President Biden won Wisconsin by 20,682 votes, and mass fraud would likely have resulted in some discernible anomaly.” But this is a perfect example of the “red herring” fallacy. The problem is not “mass voter fraud,” but a very “discernible anomaly” involving a highly coordinated and privately funded “shadow campaign” for Biden that took place within the formal structure of the election system.

By injecting more than $419 million of Mark Zuckerberg’s money, laundered through the CTCL and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), the professional left presided over a targeted, historically unprecedented takeover of government election offices by demonstrably ideological activists and nonprofit organizations in key areas of these swing states. Nothing like this has happened in at least the last 150 years of American elections.

Treating CTCL spending as if it were just another example of one campaign outspending another, or the insidious role of “dark money” in the 2020 election, misses the point entirely. Big CTCL and CEIR money had nothing to do with traditional campaign finance, media buys, lobbying, or Citizens United v. FEC-related campaign finance issues.

It had to do with financing the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by Democrat activists and using those offices as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, ballot harvesting efforts, and data sharing agreements, as well as to launch intensive multi-media outreach campaigns and surgically targeted, door-to-door get-out-the-vote efforts in areas heavy with Democratic voters.

In Wisconsin and other swing states, big CTCL money introduced structural bias in favor of Biden into the entire 2020 election. This involved favoring certain voters and voting practices over others and disfavoring other classes of voters and voting practices, giving CTCL’s preferred voting methods—especially no-ID absentee ballots—and “New American Majority” voters and voting methods an outsized effect on the final election results. CTCL targeted heavily Democratic jurisdictions for heavy spending, and provided little or no funding to election offices in more Republican-leaning cities and counties.

What’s Wrong With WILL’s Analysis

The WSJ then goes on to cite WILL’s deeply flawed estimate of CTCL’s effects on Wisconsin’s election results in an earlier, self-published study. The editors note: “A nonprofit tied to Mark Zuckerberg gave $10 million to help Wisconsin elections, mostly in five cities, a skewed distribution that WILL finds ‘troubling.’ A statistical analysis suggests it [may have] lifted Mr. Biden’s turnout by 8,000.”

The fundamental problem with WILL’s quantitative analysis is that it is entirely based on the assumption that any “anomalies” in Wisconsin were randomly distributed. They therefore derive their estimates by treating all counties in Wisconsin as if they were all equally affected by CTCL spending, when we know a priori that any such anomalies were limited to a very small set of Wisconsin’s counties, and were the result of deliberate selection of election offices to be heavily funded by the data analysts who determined where big CTCL money would go.

WILL’s estimate of the impact of CTCL activity on Wisconsin’s vote total is therefore based on an inappropriate methodology. It gives rise to the astonishing claim that “In those cities [that received CTCL funding], President Biden received approximately 41 more votes on average.”

But this is absurd on the face of it when excess Biden votes (over Hillary Clinton in 2016) in Brown, Dane, and Milwaukee counties alone were more than 83,000, only about 13,000 of which (at most) can be attributed to population growth or general statewide increases in voter turnout. Are we expected to believe that the effect of CTCL’s $4.79 million spending on Biden’s vote totals in Madison and Milwaukee was “41 votes on average (which would amount to 82 votes in total),” when between Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee counties Biden beat Trump by 364,372 votes? Obviously not.

These two counties alone were responsible for more than 15 times Biden’s margin of victory in Wisconsin, which means Trump won the vote in non-CTCL funded counties by well more than 300,000 votes.

Without CTCL involvement in Wisconsin in 2020, Wisconsin would be a solidly red state. We estimate that CTCL’s investment in seven Wisconsin counties resulted in 65,222 votes for Biden that would not have occurred in CTCL’s absence. That’s more than three times as big as the final 20,800-vote margin between Biden and Trump in 2002. That CTCL-funded election interference so obviously flipped Wisconsin for Biden in 2020 is not merely “troubling,” as WILL alleges. It is outrageous.

The merger of public election offices with partisan private funding that we witnessed in 2020 involved an unprecedented type of election interference that poses an acute threat to the perceived legitimacy of elections. It should be one of the primary focuses of election reform efforts moving forward.

Credible claims supported by growing mountains of evidence of a “rigged election” have largely been ignored by the corporate media in favor of the occasional report that seeks to exonerate an election system that radically failed in November 2020. The 2020 election was not even remotely “fair,” and mainstream conservatives should not be afraid to say so.

William Doyle, Ph.D., is principal researcher at Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas. He specializes in economic history and the private funding of American elections. Previously, he was associate professor and chair in the Department of Economics at the University of Dallas. He can be contacted at doyle@rodneyinstitute.org.

Who Are The DEMS INVADING Across Our Rio Grande ?

Large spike in Russian, Ukrainian illegal immigrants at southern border

JAZZ SHAW Jan 31, 2022 at Hot Air:

AP Photo/Julio Cortez

It’s no secret that we’ve been seeing record numbers of illegal aliens crossing the border over the past year, with many of them going on to be shipped around to various parts of the nation’s interior courtesy of the Air Joe Biden illegal entry flight program. But our understanding of the source(s) of this human wave have been changing in recent months. We typically think of the majority of the migrants violating our southern border during the Biden border crisis as to be coming from Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. And it’s true that we still see plenty of border jumpers coming from those nations. But during the second half of 2021, CBP began reporting a steep increase in the number of migrants coming from much further away. Disturbingly, near the top of that list of countries of origin are Russia and Ukraine. In fact, the total number of illegal aliens making those much longer trips in December was more than those from Mexico and the Northern Triangle combined. (Axios)

Why it matters: For years, most migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border have come from Mexico or the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. But last month, they were outnumbered by those making an even longer and more complicated trek to the United States.

By the numbers: The migrants making their way to the border included more than 2,000 Russians and 300 Ukrainians. Most arrived or were discovered at a legal port of entry in San Diego, California, according to the data.

In mid-December, 18 Russian migrants were discovered in two vehicles that collided after a Border officer fired his gun to stop them from speeding through an inspection station at the San Diego port of entry, according to a release from Customs and Border Protection.

Some of these numbers are still estimates based on reports released by CBP. That’s because Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security is still refusing to release the official annual report from ICE. (Which is mandated by law.) But the numbers we do have thus far tell a disturbing tale.

Why would that many people be coming here illegally from Russia and Ukraine? Sure, if you follow the news regarding what’s going on between those two nations there are probably plenty of people who wouldn’t mind clearing out before the shooting starts in earnest. But it traditionally hasn’t been that hard for people from either country to qualify for a visa and come here legally.

We can’t ignore the possibility that some of those migrants are not simply here to escape unrest in their homelands. It’s not crazy to suspect that some of them are coming here to act as spies or even commit acts of violence. (Just what we need at this point, eh?)

If you ask the Border Patrol, they’re blaming the coyotes who are looking to “grow their customer base” and “expand into new markets.” I suppose that could account for some of the surge being observed. But the “customers” would still need a motivation to seek them out. It’s easy enough to understand how people might want to flee the poverty, violence and corruption of the Northern Triangle countries. But are things really that bad in Russia and Ukraine? (Assuming you’re willing to set aside concerns of the military conflicts unfolding there today, of course.)

If Joe Biden was willing to spend one percent of the effort he claims to demand in ensuring the integrity of Ukraine’s borders to doing the same for our own, we might be able to get a handle on both of those problems. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be in the cards any time soon. Joe Biden refuses to return to the successful border security measures of the previous administration while growing curiously obsessed with Ukraine’s border situation.

That Loony NOONAN Tune At The Wall Street Journal So Jealous Of TALENTED DONALD!

JANUARY 30, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


It is difficult to keep up with the many moods of Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. She vibrates like a tuning fork locked in to the the moment’s wavelength and wishful thinking, occasionally with a little field research courtesy of a friend who repairs shoes on Manhattan’s East Side (featured in one of her classic Pulitzer Prize-winning 2016 columns). What the taxi driver is to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, the shoe repair guy is to Noonan. I took a whack at her, most recently, in “High Noonan: Return to Kamala edition.”

Yesterday’s letters to the editor of the Journal included a good one under a headline addressed to Noonan: “Missing Donald Trump yet?” The Journal reader wrote:

Several recent Peggy Noonan columns, including “Biden’s Woes Seem Like Old Times” (Declarations, Jan. 22), have pointed out the failures of President Biden. Previously, Ms. Noonan had ridiculed President Trump for his behavior. Did political correctness lead her to policy error?

While we prefer dignity in the White House, it is more important to have secure borders, a nonnuclear Iran, a docile Russia, low inflation and energy independence—all destroyed in a year by negating Trump policy, and still without dignity in the White House. Our president publicly called a reporter a “son of a b—.” Mr. Biden is as rude as any president, and without the success to compensate.

Kurt Erickson


I give Erickson bonus points for concision. He makes his point in less than 1/10th the length of an average Noonan column.

Republicans! WHERE ARE THEY?

JANUARY 31, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


My wife is a naturalized American citizen who seethes over illegal immigration. When we see the stories on FOX News that highlight the cancellation of our border under the Biden administration, she always asks why the GOP isn’t doing a blessed thing about it. Drawing on the recent news that we have followed on Power Line, Miranda Devine channels and amplifies my wife’s thoughts in the New York Post column “GOP can’t complain about Biden’s migrants when they’re not stepping in.” She writes:

It’s all very well for Kevin McCarthy and other GOP members of Congress to rant on Fox News about how terrible the border crisis is, but what are they doing about it?

At least 2 million illegal migrants crossed the border last year, and all we heard from Congress was hot air.

Republicans in Washington will tell you they are powerless to do anything about illegal migration until after they regain control in November, assuming they do.

But one lone New York gubernatorial candidate did more to inform the public about the Biden administration’s partnership with people-smuggling cartels than did members of Congress with vastly more resources.

Rob Astorino didn’t rest on empty rhetoric. The former Westchester County executive took action.

Despite being slandered by Democrats as a racist, he has exposed the deliberate subterfuge of the Biden administration as it flies illegal migrants around the country and secretes them in unsuspecting communities.

And so on. Bring the heat, Miranda! Devine foregoes tormenting McCarthy with questions about what he would do when he wields the Speaker’s gavel, but I doubt she would be impressed with whatever he might have to say.


Our American Dem Leaders Have Become Fascists! Our Democrats Have Disappeared?

January 30, 2022

The Democrats Make Their Own Racism Explicit

By Clarice Feldman at American Thinker:

This week the Democratic National Committee gave Justice Steven Breyer the hook, announcing that he was retiring before he’d firmly decided to do so. When he finally responded, he made clear his intention to remain on the bench until Biden’s nominee was confirmed, which at best likely will be sometime this summer if ever. As part of a deal he made with congressman and House majority whip Jim Clyburn when he was on the ropes in the primaries, President Biden promised to nominate to this significant position a black woman, and three candidates’ names — a weak bench if the suppositions are correct — have been bandied about in the press. How odd to admit you are selecting a nominee on the basis of race and sex just as the Supreme Court is about to hear serious challenges to affirmative action in college admissions. Moreover, he asserts this will be an “historic” nomination, but it won’t be. (Picking an Asian-American would be.)

It Appears That Joe Biden STIRRED LIFE FROM THE DEAD In That 2020 Presidential Election!

Did over 100,000 people older than 124 years vote in Wisconsin?

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

If you’ve been wondering about the extent of voter fraud in America, we may be seeing a staggering amount of either fraud or grotesque negligence in Wisconsin voter rolls. A review of the state’s voter roles showed that 569,277 voters registered on January 1, 1918. Of that number, 20% of these people, all of whom must be at least 124 years old, voted last November. Biden “won” in Wisconsin by 20,682 votes….

For regular American Thinker readers, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Roughly two weeks ago, Jay Valentine wrote about the extent of fraud he and his team have discovered as they’ve uploaded voter rolls (which often had corrupted data that seemed deliberately intended to keep information opaque) into Valentine’s system. Once the information for any given state was loaded and sorted, it invariably revealed rather surprising information in both red and blue states. Among other things, in one red state, there were “4,300 people over 100 years old on their rolls.  Some were 121.  Those were the kids.  The really old ones were almost 2,000 years old, and there were a bunch of them – and they voted.”

(For those wondering, my understanding is that Valentine did not identify specific states because it’s important for the volunteer canvassers to have complete anonymity. Naming states could make the officials who are being exposed as corrupt or inept start looking for canvassers.)

The revelations out of Wisconsin (and I have no idea whether Jay Valentine has been part of the Wisconsin analysis) are staggering. It turns out that at least one out of every 14 voters in Wisconsin is at least 124 years old. Thus, to register in 1918, a person would have had to have been 21 or older. That means that one out of every 14 Wisconsin residents is older than 124 years. Even more amazing, 115,252 of those ancient people made the effort to vote in November. It’s certain that some of them provided the votes that gave Biden that 20,682-vote lead.

Wisconsin has tried to explain away the problem by saying that smaller precincts had technical problems when they tried to merge their data into the state’s system. The system responded to those problems by giving the people on those lists a default registration date of January 1, 1918.

In the video below, you can see an expert, Wisconsin Assembly Attorney Dean O’Donnell, an expert on the election integrity team, explaining to the Wisconsin Elections Commission how unlikely that explanation is. That one out of fourteen people had a grossly inaccurate date of registration would wreak havoc with the integrity of the voter rolls, making it highly unlikely that a Secretary of State would allow such a technical error to stand.


Ultimately, there are three ways to account for the fact that 20% of people who registered to vote on January 1, 1918, showed up to vote in November 2020, none of which is good for election integrity:

1. All these registrations are fraudulent and exist for the purpose of adding votes to one candidate or another. (And yes, I’m assuming they were votes added to Biden’s column.)

2. All these registrations are computer glitches and the Secretary of State’s office is either too inept or corrupt to have corrected them. Even if they appeared accidentally on the rolls, they became the perfect vehicle for voter fraud.

3. Wisconsin is such a healthy place to live that over 500,000 residents are 124 years or older and, of that number, 20% are still so spry and engaged with the world that they filled out ballots (and, I’m sure, mostly voted for Biden).

As a point of interest, last week, Thelma Sutcliffe of Omaha, Nebraska, died. Her death was noteworthy because she was 115 ¾ years old, making her the oldest woman in America. Apparently, though, large numbers of Wisconsites have put her record to shame.

The Constitution is a legal document, for it is a contract between the federal government and the American people. In the context of a contract, if one party commits fraud, everything flowing from that fraud is reversed. Or as the law states, “fraud vitiates everything.” In this case, if fraud is proven in the key states, their certifications of the votes are undone. And if enough states had this fraud, the Senate’s certification of the Biden victory should be undone too.

This undoing won’t happen with Congress under Democrat control but there’s no reason it cannot happen if conservative voters turn out in such numbers in November 2022 and 2024 that no amount of fraud can defeat the red wave headed for Congress. 

Truckers Battling Fascist Vaccinators In That Northland!

JANUARY 30, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


You no doubt are aware of the protest being staged by thousands of Canadian truck drivers who have now converged on Ottawa. The truckers began by protesting against a vaccination mandate for truckers crossing the U.S. border, but it has grown into a movement opposing extreme and irrational anti-covid measures, and promoting freedom generally.

Naturally, the liberal press is horrified. You likely have seen this bizarre editorial cartoon that appeared in–where else–the Washington Post:

When I first saw the cartoon, I literally did not understand it. Someone had to explain that the Post’s cartoonist is calling the truckers who are demonstrating on behalf of freedom fascists. Freedom is slavery, after all.

Liberals have hoped for the protest to turn violent, but it hasn’t happened, as the New York Times grudgingly acknowledges:

Despite fears that the demonstration could turn violent, by Saturday evening the police said there had been no significant incidents.

This is how the Times describes the crowd:

Thousands of protesters on foot, many carrying handmade signs on hockey sticks, wandered through the parked vehicles and the slow-moving traffic or gathered on the lawn in front of Parliament. Some of them carried Canadian flags upside down; at least one flag had swastikas drawn on it.

Liberals always try to imply that if someone draws a swastika it means that person is pro-Nazi. Actually, it means (in this context, at least) that the person is accusing the Canadian government of using Nazi-like tactics. I don’t agree, but let’s not smear the protesters by inverting the intent behind their signs.

The London Times does the same thing, a little more blatantly:

There were chaotic scenes over the weekend as scores of articulated lorries began to roll in on Friday, joined by hundreds of pick-ups and cars, paralysing a large chunk of downtown Ottawa near the parliament building and filling the air with honks. Yesterday Canadian flags, “F*** Trudeau” banners and messages about tyranny mingled with Confederate flags, swastikas and the emblems of far-right groups.

The Times story includes a video of the protest that I can’t embed here. You see hundreds, maybe thousands of Canadian flags. No Confederate flags that I could spot. No swastikas. No “far right” emblems that I recognized. Just a sea of Canadian flags. But misrepresenting the right is the principal business of the left.

The press is making a big deal out of the fact that Justin Trudeau and his family were moved from their residence as a precaution. I have no problem with that, although given the total lack of violence–you might have thought they were expecting a George Floyd riot–it was an unnecessary precaution. But I would note that there was no similar outpouring of press angst when the Secret Service moved President Trump and his family out of the White House during a violent George Floyd riot. The AP headlined, “Trump took shelter in White House bunker as protests raged.” But there was no sign of sympathy or concern about the propriety of the protesters’ violence:

Trump continued his effort to project strength, using a series of inflammatory tweets and delivering partisan attacks during a time of national crisis.

Here is more on the truckers’ protest from the BBC.

Defence Minister Anita Anand said the incidents were “beyond reprehensible”.

No incident described was even remotely violent. This one is darkly humorous:

Ottawa police said in a Twitter post that “several” investigations were now under way into the “desecration” of a number monuments in the capital city….

So now the Left is against desecrating monuments! I thought it had become more or less compulsory.

Putting aside whatever you may think about vaccination mandates, the hostility of the press’s response to any movement that expresses a desire for freedom is striking.

Shall Civil America Recover From Biden’s Fascist Dems?

NYC teacher calls for vehicular attack on mourning NYPD officers

JAZZ SHAW Jan 30, 2022 11:01 AM ET at Hot Air:

AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura

In case you missed it, the funeral for slain NYPD Detective Jason Rivera was held on Friday. The procession route for the funeral was lined with thousands upon thousands of police officers and other first responders. They created a type of human wave as the hearse passed by, all raising their hands to salute their fallen comrade. Some of the aerial views of the tribute were truly stunning.