• 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


Over 4,000 Employees with the Los Angeles County Sheriff May be Fired after Board of Supervisors Vote

By Eric Lendrum at American Greatness:

February 9, 2022

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a resolution that could see the unilateral termination of over 4,000 employees with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office due to their unvaccinated status.

Fox News reports that Sheriff Alex Villanueva took to Twitter to criticize the board’s vote later that same night, denouncing it as “nothing more than another politically motivated stunt by the Board, which has no bearing on public health, but will definitely harm public safety.”

The measure, which passed unanimously 4-0, would alter the current rules of civil service and give more authority to the county personnel director to fire sheriff’s office employees who are not following the county’s arbitrary vaccine guidelines. Los Angeles County’s mandate was first implemented in August, with an October 1st deadline to show any proof of vaccination.

The vote comes amidst both a decrease in Coronavirus cases and an increase in crime. Villanueva further pointed out that a hiring freeze has already stunted the ability of the sheriff’s office to deal with public safety, and that the county has seen a 94 percent increase in murders.

Villanueva said that the board of supervisors is now preparing to “fire the very same personnel who were forced to work in person, exposing themselves to the COVID-19 virus when there was no vaccine, while the Supervisors and most of the workforce were telecommuting from the comfort and safety of their own homes.”

“It is important to remember Department personnel who chose not to vaccinate are required to submit to weekly COVID testing, and have committed no administrative offense,” Villanueva’s statement continued.

The board will reconvene on March 15th to review the motion once again ahead of a final vote to approve it.


CNN: A fallen idol, a suppurating stew of bawl-babies, and high-school schemers

By Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

It’s been nearly a week since CNN’s top executive, Jeff Zucker, got the boot, supposedly over a longtime affair with a subordinate, and the bawling through the ranks hasn’t stopped. 

Here’s how bad it is, according to website Puck, apparently an industry-insider blog, spotted by Ace at Ace of Spades:

Five days after Jeff Zucker’s dramatic and still-stunning ouster from CNN, network insiders remain vexed by WarnerMedia C.E.O. Jason Kilar’s refusal to elaborate about the circumstances that led to their former leader’s resignation. On Monday morning, Kilar held yet another Q&A session with CNN’s top producers and on-air talent in New York—this time over video conference, from his office in California, not in person, mercifully. But it went just as poorly as his in-person meetings had last week in New York, Washington, and Atlanta.

The hour-long meeting, a recording of which I obtained from a source, once again highlighted the profound sense of loyalty that CNN’s on-air talent have expressed toward Zucker and the overwhelming sense of grief that they feel in his absence, especially as they head toward the impending WarnerMedia-Discovery merger. Many spoke in grave terms, emphasizing their own grieving process, and in heavy-handed metaphors. “I think that what you’re hearing, and what we’re all experiencing, is just a huge shockwave to all of our mental health,” Alisyn Camerota, the CNN host, said during one of the most poignant moments of the meeting. “This has been incredibly destabilizing and unsettling. One of the secrets to mental health is understanding, and the way that happens is getting some answers and some closure. And we don’t have that. We don’t understand why the death penalty was necessary.”

Grieving process?  Shockwave?  Mental health?  Incredibly destabilizing and unsettling?  Death penalty?  Throw in “threat to democracy,” as has been stated elsewhere, and this is starting to sound like the apocalypse to these clowns.

Ace reports that Jake Tapper has held a “wake” for these bawl-babies, while Brian Stelter, the lowest-ranked of the network bunch, and the biggest suck-up among them, is begging the suits for “emotional healing.”

He’s so out of touch that he reads public distrust in the media like this:

Had enough?

Obviously, this guy Zucker, the big fallen Goomba-Goomba cult idol, wasn’t this bottom-ranked network’s boss or leader; he was really their best friend forever.

Ace has some trenchant observations about what that amounted to:

For context, I’ve heard it reported that Jeff Zucker was very buddy-buddy with all of his “talent” (what an inappropriate word in this context), constantly texting them all like they were eighth grade girls, which actually sounds about right, psychologically speaking.

Also, bear in mind that the network is absolute s— and in a merger you get rid of all of the low-performing “talent” (lol) and at CNN, that means pretty much every single one of them. Because they all apparently though [sic] they were Bestest Fwendz with Jeff Zucker, they were almost all certainly relying on that Very Deep Superficial Friendship to protect them from the coming bloodbath.

That explains a lot about their strange coverage over the past few years — the Russia hoax, the Trump impeachment, the false attack on the Covington kids, the “fiery but peaceful” protests, and other insane left-wingery that could not by any standard be called “journalism.”  It was all Zucker whispering into his suggestible little minions’ ears about what kind of left-wing narrative he wanted to project and watching them “go fetch” for him like the dogs they are.  The whole network was truly his, and these characters were his arms.

Now that he’s gone, along with an assorted collection of perverts (this was some place we are talking about), the remaining minions are lost, the walking dead, in shock, and like any Goomba-Goomba cult, fearful because their idol has fallen.

As Ace notes, they’re afraid they’ll be fired, too.  Big shakedowns have been in the works for months, what with CNN having another owner rolling in.  Apparently, these clowns, who made their once-respected network fall to the bottom of the rankings, all thought that was irrelevant and they were protected by the godlike protective wing of Zucker, so if Zucker has been knocked out, what hope is there for them?

That’s a burnt bridge for them because there’s no going back now.  They’ve shot their journalistic credibility by scrapping journalistic standards and reporting phony and fake news as “yes” cretins, which limits their employability elsewhere.  The big networks like at least some appearance of objectivity and the occasional straying from party lines, though CBS’s 60 Minutes, NBC’s Lester Holt, and all of MSNBC are notable exceptions.  They no longer have that.

The CNN eminento who understands this best is Jake Tapper, who’s paddling as fast as he can to produce the old real journalism, of the kind he did in his long-ago, before the Clinton Foundation and all that.

Now he’s playing objective journalist.

Another one who had some of that objectivity appearance is Chris Wallace, who reportedly bitterly rues jumping ship from his excellent perch at Fox News over to the sinking ship at CNN.  Zucker was his protector, and he’s new around there.  He still didn’t have staff in place, nobody from Fox followed him to CNN, and now Zucker is gone.  It’s all gone to mud for him, and to make matters more painful, the well-entrenched Tapper hates his guts.  Playing objective is all he has now if they allow it, but he probably wanted to go Full Zucker biased as he left Fox.

The big issue looming is that of Chris Cuomo, the fired CNN anchor who was the only one who drew some traffic for the network.  He’s bitter about his ousting, which came as a result of his using his journalistic contacts to dig up dirt on women who accused his pervy governor-brother of sexual assault and the like, and now that his governor brother is fallen, he’s dispensable, too.  He is reportedly blackmailing the network for a large settlement after his disgraceful exit from the network.  He knows where the bodies are buried, apparently, and since he’s not employable elsewhere, his bridges are burnt, so by his logic, he’s got to stand up on his hind legs and fight it, especially since he’s got nothing better to do.

Ace notes this:

Per this report, Zucker did resign, but as part of a package deal in which AT&T would spend a lot of money to protect Zucker (and itself). So it’s a resignation, yes, in exchange for protection.

I’m not sure that Cuomo’s information would all be about Zucker. It has been reported that Fredo claimed that there was zero distance between himself and Zucker, and if Zucker knew it, then Fredo knew it — so he’s got a lot more blackmail material. Maybe about other CNN executives and “talent.”

Maybe Alysin and the rest of the broke-brains should pause a moment to wonder what Fredo might have on their fellow Preening Moralists at CNN.

It’s the behavior of a cult with a fallen idol.  Like the Heaven’s Gate cult, they’ve castrated themselves, and now that the Big Guy is off to outer space and has left the corpses rotting, they don’t know what to do with themselves.

Their professionalism is gone.  The king is dead.  The reaper is coming.  They’ve sold themselves out to become left-wing mouthpieces and now have nothing to show for it.

Instead of carrying professionalism to get themselves through, they’ve forgotten what professionalism is.  They are lost without their gang leader.  So now they are bawling about it.  This is gross.

I Don’t Think It’s Trump’s Fault….DO YOU?

China completely ignored the trade deal they made with Trump

JAZZ SHAW Feb 09, 2022 at HotAir:

Back in January of 2020, shortly before the pandemic hit, Donald Trump concluded a series of negotiations with China and inked a deal in which the Chinese would purchase an extra $200 billion worth of United States exports over the coming two years. It was, at the time, viewed as a serious coup for Trump who was still hustling to grow the economy as rapidly as possible, and cutting down our trade deficit with China was seen as an important part of that formula. Now the two years have ended, so how did we make out as a result of that arrangement? As it turns out, China failed to purchase the full $200 billion in U.S. exports. The number was significantly lower. In fact… the number was zero. China actually purchased fewer U.S. exports than they had been buying prior to the arrangement, coming in at roughly 57% of the previous levels. (piie.com)

Two years ago, President Donald Trump signed what he called a “historical trade deal” with China that committed China to purchase $200 billion of additional US exports before December 31, 2021. Today the only undisputed “historical” aspect of that agreement is its failure. One lesson is not to make deals that cannot be fulfilled when unforeseen events inevitably occur—in this case, a pandemic and a recession. Another is not to forget the complementary policies needed to give an agreement a chance to succeed.

In the end, China bought only 57 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war.[1] Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump’s deal had promised.

Trump’s “phase one” agreement with his “very, very good friend” President Xi Jinping was not a total washout. The deal did halt his spiraling trade war. And several of its elements should be kept, notably China’s commitments to remove technical barriers to US farm exports, respect intellectual property, and open up its financial services sector.

If we’re going to be fair here, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that the deal was made before we knew about the gigantic crapstorm that was heading our way thanks to the novel coronavirus. (That’s one “export” from China that we could clearly have done without.) Once the economies of both nations essentially shut down, production levels plummeted. Travel and transportation restrictions added to the downward pressure being exerted on both imports and exports.

It wasn’t just durable goods that were affected, either. A lot of that international economic activity revolved around tourism and business travel. Those sectors were also crushed for all of 2020 and most of 2021. So in the end, the deal was well-intentioned, at least on our part, but it completely failed to bear fruit for reasons beyond our control.

At the same time, we should remember that we’re dealing with a different sort of China than Trump was first talking to in 2017. There is no doubt that the Chinese Communist Party was already quite a ways along with their long-range plans to dominate the global supply chain and expand their international influence. But back then they were still at least making an effort to paint a happy face on the situation and act as of they were still eager trading partners who just wanted to see business flourish.

Now the mask has been fully pulled from China’s face. They have solidified their alliance with America’s largest adversaries and are using much of the money they made from us and others to extend their reach through the Belt and Road initiative, along with buying influence in troubled regions of the world like Afghanistan. They have invested heavily in expanding their military and still seem intent on subduing Taiwan, a traditional ally of the west.

This is the new China, though all of this unpleasantness was no doubt bubbling below the surface long before it became obvious. Perhaps the failure of a trade deal with them isn’t what we should really be worried about. Any modern approach to the China problem should focus on moving the production of goods and services back to the United States and our western allies and away from the Chinese. Giving them the keys to the global supply chain in the hope that enough capitalism would lure them toward a more fair and open society was one of the west’s worst collective blunders in a very long time. And we’ll likely be paying the price for it for many years or decades to come.

Whatever Happened To Verbal Skill?

What’s the Deal With Mike Pence?

By Andrew W. Coy at American Thinker:

 What in God’s name is Mike Pence doing?  And for Pence, I do mean in God’s name. 

Is Mike Pence a traitor to conservatives?  Is Pence trying to become the next John Dean, the Watergate traitor?  Is Pence trying to be just like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger?  Is Pence really a part of the Deep State?  Has Pence sold out President Trump for 30 pieces of silver?  Unfortunately, it appears that some of the answers to these questions could be “yes.”   

Unbelievable.  Mike Pence has apparently sold out President Trump, MAGA Nation, and the America First agenda.  Why is it that Democrats never turn on Democrats, but Republicans often times turn on Republicans?  Is it the money, or the D.C. acceptance, or the power, or is it the blackmail that causes Republicans to flip on their own? Pence has flipped on his own people.

Mike Pence was speaking to the Federalist Society in Orlando, Florida.  During the speech, Pence went full RINO, full Deep State, and full Biden/Pelosi/Kamala.  Pence told this Federalist Society that “President Trump is wrong.  I have no right to overturn the election.” 

Pence went on to state: “The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone.” Pence went on to suggest that Biden won the election fair and square.  As vice president, Pence has a constitutional requirement not to accept a fraudulent election that was stolen.  It was Pence’s constitutional duty not to accept voter fraud.  And to keep history as history, elected representatives of the Senate and House were only asking for a 10-day delay.  Just 10 days to make sure the 2020 was on the “up and up.”  Trump’s former political strategist Steve Bannon said Pence’s speech shows that Pence is a “stone cold coward” and it will be forever a “mark of shame” on Pence.  At the same time, CNN anchor and chief domestic correspondent Jim Acosta praised Pence for the speech.  So, Pence has chosen the side of Jim Acosta over Steve Bannon. Telling. 

There is no question in regards to the presidential election of 2020 that election laws were broken. 

There is no question that some of the individual state legislated laws were ignored.  There is no question that absentee ballots were abused.  There is no question that “drop boxes” were rife with fraud.  There is no question that in the seven battleground (purple) states, that something illegal happened; according to those individual seven states’ legal codes,  laws were broken.  There is no question that ballot-harvesting, illegal and otherwise, occurred.   

In all of these individual state election counts, President Trump was ahead at some point on election night.  President Trump was ahead.  But, when election officials stopped counting votes for the night (which had never ever happened before, never ever), when Americans woke up the next morning, somehow Biden pulls ahead in these states.  What are the chances, that if election fraud did not occur, that Biden would have legitimately pulled ahead of President Trump in all of these states? 

Yet, Mike Pence now says nothing happened wrong here, nothing to look at, just move along.  Pence insists he did not have the constitutional authority to wait and gather information for 10 days. That is wrong.

Two things.  First, If Pence had absolutely no authority, why was he even there to begin with, if he had no authority to act?  Second, why now are the likes of Sen. Susan Collins, other RINO Republicans, and Democrats now writing legislation stating that a vice president has no power in the counting of Electoral College votes.  They are writing this now, because on Jan. 6, 2021, Mike Pence did have the authority at that time not to accept some of the Electoral College votes!

Wonder if Pence forgot what he told a Georgia audience on Jan. 4, 2021?  In his speech to the Georgians, Pence told the audience that he really has deep concerns on the honesty and reliability of the 2020 election. 

Pence told that audience that he felt there were way too many laws broken, way too many election  irregularities, and just too many questions to believe for certain that Biden won the election fair and square.  Pence said he was not convinced the election 2020 results were what the American people voted for.  So on Jan. 4, Pence is fighting the good fight and running the good race.  Two days later, Pence folds like…a RINO, and Deep State operative.  And now in speaking to the Federalist Society, Pence publicly calls out President Trump, says Biden won fair and square, and the Election 2020 was legit. 

What should come as no surprise — because of what we have witnessed the last two years — is that there is now speculation that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, and/or their associates helped to pay for this speech that Pence gave.  If true, that would be the very same Zuckerberg/Facebook that gave millions and millions of dollars to “help” with the 2020 election.  The very same group that bragged “democracy won” in Molly Ball’s Time magazine cover story titled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Election” was instrumental in instituting mail-in balloting, a practice that is illegal in most of the civilized world.  To the Scribes and Pharisees at the Federalist Society, did Pence kiss President Trump on the cheek?  Wonder what Pence was promised for doing a complete 180 turn against President Trump.  Wonder what Pence has been promised by the Deep State in DC.  Wonder if Pence can now sit at the “cool table at lunchtime” with Cheney and Kinzinger.  Wonder if Pence’s children and grandchildren  now get to go to Harvard and Yale.

Maybe now, Pence gets to buddy up with Paul Ryan at FOX.  Maybe now, Pence gets to have lunch with Joe and Mika.  Maybe now, Pence will be a permanent political analyzer for CNN.  Maybe now, Pence can co-author editorials with Never-Trumper George Will.  Maybe now, Pence can sit on the editorial board of the “Washington Post.”  Maybe now, Pence makes millions in lobbying for China. 

But what won’t happen is Mike Pence being the GOP nominee for president…ever.  What won’t happen is Pence winning the Republican primaries and representing the America First agenda against the progressives in November of 2024.  What won’t happen is Pence displacing President Trump as leader of the Patriots and MAGA Nation.  I’m sure most Hoosiers cannot believe what Pence has just done to America, President Trump, to the election of 2020, and now possibly to the elections of 2022 and 2024. 

During the Chicago Black Sox scandal, when it appeared the players had taken a bribe to throw the games, and a weeping young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson, “say it ain’t so Joe, say it isn’t so.”  We must now ask Pence, “say it ain’t so Mike, say it ain’t so.”  Pence is right that the “presidency belongs to the American people”, but the American people have good cause to now believe that the election of 2020 did not belong to them.  And on Jan. 6, 2021, Mike Pence chose not to be the vice president of the United States.  

Fats Christie Should Lose Some Weight Before His Mouth Goes Wild Again!

Christie: “Inexperienced” Ron DeSantis should give straight answers about boosters and January 6

ALLAHPUNDIT Feb 08, 2022 at HotAir: 

(AP Photo/Mel Evans, File)

A leftover from yesterday that leads to an irresistible conclusion: A DeSantis/Christie 2024 primary fight would be fun.

Not “fun” in the sense of being competitive. DeSantis would roll over him.

But “fun” in the sense that Christie has nothing left to lose in his political career and can be a skilled attack dog when he wants to be, as Marco Rubio might tell us. He can say anything on a debate stage without fear that he’ll be denied some future office or cabinet position for doing so because he’s not getting that office or cabinet position anyway. He’s playing with house money at this point.

If he wants to call Ron DeSantis “gutless,” to borrow a word, there’d be nothing stopping him. He’s an incorrigible bully, but watching him try to bully a guy who’s positioned himself as the second-most alpha of the GOP’s alpha males would be amusing.

This response to Guy Benson yesterday reminds me a bit of his famous exchange with Rubio at the 2016 New Hampshire debate in that both were aimed at exposing a rival politician’s overly cautious tactical machinations. Christie needled Rubio about resorting to canned, scripted talking points when criticizing Barack Obama. He’s needling DeSantis here for refusing to forthrightly say whether he’s been boosted and whether Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6. This is the brand Christie’s cultivated and continues to cultivate: He’s the guy who’ll call BS on other politicians’ nonsense.

Except when that politician is Donald Trump circa 2016 to January 6, 2021, I mean.

On Gov. DeSantis avoiding questions on Trump, Vaccines Christie said the following:

“Well, look, I just think when you’re a public like, you have an obligation to answer questions when the answers are obvious. I mean, this is also a Governor DeSantis not being willing to answer whether he got the booster shot or not. I understand people have medical privacy issues, but you’re a leader who’s attempting to encourage people, which I assume the governor is and he has, and he has right. So why not answer that question? I think sometimes people who are inexperienced in politics get themselves a little bit too wound up in trying to overthink this stuff. I think the best policy has always been use common sense and tell the truth. And the truth of the matter is that, of course, Mike Pence is right. He does not have the authority to have overturn the election as the vice president. You don’t have to get into whether you think all the voting was perfect or whether even if, whether you thought the election was fair or not. In the question that he was asked, just who’s right? Well, Pence is obviously legally, constitutionally correct. Why did you have a hard time answering that question? And when you try to be too cute on this stuff, my experience has been over the last decade and a half. I’ve been in national public life. It almost always comes back to bite you.

Is DeSantis “inexperienced” relative to Christie? Christie served eight years as governor. DeSantis served almost six years in the House and has spent the last three as governor.

Anyway, I’m trying to imagine Trump’s reaction to a Christie/DeSantis feud. On the one hand, he hates Christie for having spent the last year criticizing him for the “stop the steal” campaign. On the other hand, by attacking Trump’s only semi-plausible rival for the 2024 nomination, Christie is doing Trump’s dirty work for him. In fact, Christie’s only saying here in more polite terms what Trump himself accused DeSantis of (indirectly) last month.

If Christie wants to start jabbing at DeSantis for stooping to pander to anti-vaxxers, I’m thinking Trump can live with that. Maybe it’ll even lead to some hot takes about Christie operating as a stalking horse for him, weakening the up-and-comer at Trump’s secret behest, when clearly what he’s really doing is trying to position himself as some sort of alternative to DeSantis in 2024 for Republican voters who are tired of MAGA-style populism whether it’s championed by Trump or someone else carrying the banner. That must be, what? Six percent of the party?

In defense of DeSantis, his no-comment on what Pence should have done on January 6 was more elegant than the pitiful mess below. Watch Nikki Haley’s soul leave her body as she’s forced to fault Pence for very mildly rebuking a guy who demanded that he overturn a presidential election and has spent the past 13 months calling his Republican critics every name in the book:


Go figure that Pence might have a critical word about a guy whose fans chased him through the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”

I admire Haley’s sheer grit in continuing to grasp for a way forward politically that doesn’t somehow simultaneously irritate MAGAs and anti-Trumpers at every turn. But like Chris Christie, she’s never going to be president. The sooner she accepts that and concludes that she also has nothing left to lose in her political career by speaking candidly, the happier she and everyone else will be.

Here’s DeSantis this morning accusing Liz Cheney of engaging in “nonsense” and a “vendetta” against Trump by working on the January 6 committee. Why is she constantly bringing this up, he wonders? Because, Ron: Trump is constantly bringing it up. If you want the party to focus on inflation and COVID restrictions and Biden’s failures, have the guy who’s in charge of the GOP pretend to care more about those things than he does about stolen elections, pardoning rioters, and settling grudges with the GOPers who rightly voted to impeach him. Maybe Christie will have something to say about that too.





What if we have a booming economy and nobody shows up?

By John Horvat II at American Thinker:

The labor market is tight as employers scramble to find workers.  Too many jobs are chasing too few workers.  The official narrative is that the crisis is caused by the “Great Resignation,” a move in which workers are resigning in record numbers to seek more lucrative employment elsewhere.  With the economy roaring back from the pandemic, companies are trying to lure them back with higher wages and benefits.  Thus, the whole affair can be reduced to an economic problem of labor supply and demand.

The left proposes a major stimulus package to provide better jobs and benefits.  New infrastructure projects will bring back more people and resolve the labor crisis.  

Jobs are not a problem now.  The present labor market consists of some ten million job openings, two jobs for every job-seeker.  All people have to do is show up.  The most urgent issue is those who are not showing up.  Vast numbers of Americans are not even interested in participating.  This problem is beyond economics.  It’s a moral problem of those who have disconnected themselves from society and the economy.

Plunging Labor-Force Participation Rates

Already before the COVID crisis, the labor market suffered from a huge sector of workers who refused to show up.  The unemployment statistics reflect only those who are actively looking for work.  Those who have given up the search or made other arrangements do not count.

That is why the present unemployment rate is so low, and the number who don’t work is so high.  Since August 2020, the labor force participation rate has been stuck at a stubborn 62% of the population.  It is 1.5 points below pre-pandemic levels and also below Great Depression rates.  People are not showing up to work!

Economists are apprehensive about the vast number of able-bodied men in their prime working age dropping out and weighing down the economy and society.  The exodus is straining social services and harming family life.

Why Men Are Absent

It’s not the quality of the work but the will to labor that is at stake.  It involves the character-strengthening effect of work upon individuals.  All the stimulus money in the world would not be enough to fix the problem.  In fact, it can make the situation worse.

Nicholas Eberstadt is a political economist at the American Enterprise Institute who has long studied the waning of the labor market.  His 2016 book, Men Without Work, looks at the causes behind the drastic decline in labor force participation, which peaked at 67 percent in 2000.

His findings do not reflect well upon this nonworking public, especially men.

Men are dropping out of the workforce in great numbers.  In his book, Dr. Eberstadt estimated that a veritable army of ten million able-bodied men is absent from duty.  These men are casualties of a cultural shift that has hit them hard and steered them away from their traditional role of providers.  

Some reasons for the diminishing ranks include the opioid crisis, a videogame slacker culture, and the stigmatization of traditionally male jobs like construction.  Others rely on parents, wives, and friends to keep them afloat.  Eberstadt also notes the suspicious rise in the number of working-age Americans receiving federal disability payments, which doubled from 2.2% in 1977 to 4.3% in 2020.

What Do They Do With Their Time?

Instead of working, many men simply stay home and do nothing.  One government report claims that the idlers spend a lot of time “watching.”  They watch lots and lots of hours on screens of every size and shape.  Some spend as many as 2,000 hours a year, almost like a full-time job.  Streaming movies, videogames, and social media fill their days.

COVID has made matters worse by facilitating sitting around and watching. Before COVID, some of these men at least had menial part-time jobs.  The flood of benefits and transfer payments from COVID aid packages gave many an excuse to do nothing.

“We did a limited dress rehearsal for a universal basic income,” Eberstadt reports on the 18 months of COVID benefits that discouraged working.  People got the idea that government has infinite resources to sustain them in their idleness.

Dropping Out of Civil Society

Even worse, workless men are not engaged in civil society, thus not contributing to the common good.  This workless sector is narcissistically self-absorbed.  Rarely are these working-age men involved in volunteer work, religious worship, family activities, or public forums.

“By and large, nonworking men don’t ‘do’ civil society,” Eberstadt says in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.  “Their time spent helping in the home, their time spent in worship — a whole range of activities, they just aren’t doing.”

Had America maintained labor participation rates of the early part of the century, Eberstadt believes that thirteen million more jobs would be filled today.  There would be no labor shortage, and the economy would be much healthier.

The sad fact is that once people are paid to do nothing, it is difficult to get them working again. 

Are Our American Schools So Fascistic Left TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE HAS DISAPPEARED?

Weingarten: Maybe the CDC should give us an off-ramp for school masking

ED MORRISSEY Feb 08, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

Has the American Federation of Teachers thrown in the towel — er, masks? Not exactly, although Randi Weingarten argues today that she and the teachers unions have wanted a CDC “off ramp” all along on mask mandates for children based on science. A couple of clips from this conversation on Morning Joe have made the rounds on Twitter, but Weingarten’s argument is a bit more nuanced than advertised.

Not a lot more nuanced, though. Willie Geist immediately responds to Weingarten that we already have a lot of “science” on COVID-19, children, and masks, and none of it supports mask mandates in the classroom:

“I think we have to be talking about the off-ramp for masks,” Weingarten said during an appearance on MSNBC. “No one wants masks in schools,” she added some moments later. “Not teachers, not students.”

Weingarten added that she was waiting for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue new guidance. She wrote to the agency, and to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in November, asking them to “start a transparent process and work with educators and parents on the metrics and standards for easing indoor mask requirements without sacrificing safety.”

Weingarten’s letter has received no response from the Biden administration. … The CDC did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did the National Education Association, another powerful teachers’ union. Its head, Becky Pringle, has generally taken a cautious approach to schools’ reopening.

The problem with this argument is that there’s no science for imposing masking on children in the first place. This isn’t a CDC issue; it’s a political issue that AFT, the NEA, and Weingarten herself have driven in an attempt to keep teachers out of classrooms altogether. And that’s not for the benefit of students, as Weingarten concedes later, but for adults — adults who had priority access to vaccines during the initial rationing, and who can easily get vaccinated and boosted now. On top of that, the adults can wear masks in classrooms if they so desire.

Johns Hopkins internist Dr. Lucy McBride makes the lack of scientific support for classroom mask mandates perfectly clear. “Here’s the plain truth,” McBride tells the Morning Joe panel, “there’s no convincing evidence in the real world that masking children in schools makes a significant difference in transmission in schools.” In fact, studies out of the UK showed as early as 2020 that schools did not increase community transmission, and that children themselves were not good vectors for COVID-19.

As David Leonhardt notes at the New York Times today, the arguments for masking children in schools are faith-based rather than scientific, and also ignore the real costs imposed on children with forced masking:

Some experts still favor masks in schools, saying they likely have an effect, even if few studies have yet shown it. A lot of other evidence suggests masking matters. Until the Omicron wave ends and both hospitalizations and deaths fall much further, masks should stay on, these experts say.

Other experts believe mandated school masking is almost worthless. “It doesn’t work,” Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota epidemiologist, told me. Among the reasons: Medical masks are designed for adults, not children, Osterholm notes. Even masks designed for children slip off their faces. Children take off their masks to eat. Add in Omicron’s intense contagiousness, and the benefits of mandates may be tiny.

It’s also relevant that teachers and students who want to continue wearing masks can do so. One-way masking, with medical masks, provides protection, experts note.

Of course, the costs of mandates may also be small for many children, especially older ones. For others, though, the costs seem larger. NPR’s Anya Kamenetz has cataloged them: Students can’t always understand teachers; young children, unable to see faces in classrooms, may not be developing emotional skills; and children of all ages are having a harder time making connections.

“They’re not developing empathy,” Stephanie Avanessian, a Los Angeles mother, told NPR. “It’s taken six months for my fifth grader to make friends because it’s so hard to tell what people are doing.”

Even the argument that masking matters to which Leonhardt links is entirely focused on adults. It’s also based on levels of mitigation, not absolute protection, and requires diligence in maintaining mask position and proper handling. For children whose risks are “infinitesimal,” as Geist puts it, and who don’t generally transmit the virus well anyway, and who would have difficulty with mask discipline, and with transmission entirely disconnected from vaccinations anyway … where’s the benefit to anyone? What benefit do children receive from this that would balance out the burdens and damage extended masking creates?

That’s what makes Weingarten’s supposed support for an “off ramp” so disingenuous. We shouldn’t have implemented classroom mask mandates in the first place. The science we have shows how unnecessary it is, and it has no connection to community vaccination rates. In fact, vaccinations don’t prevent transmission anyway, as we have seen with both Delta and especially Omicron.  Weingarten has been on the wrong side of this issue all along, and the disruption to education will have ripple effects on children for years to come — all for no purpose at all. On top of that, Weingarten suggests a guarantee of “no transmission” in schools, which is an impossible standard with an endemic disease. Weingarten may as well demand zero transmission of the flu as a condition for unmasking too, which at least does vector through schools and children … as well as everywhere else, too. Just like COVID-19.

Nearly All Of America’s Newspaper Industries Are Lefty Fascistic Like The New York Times! Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etcetera! etcetera!



I detect an emerging trend in the anti-conservative mainstream media — using conservatives to attack other conservatives. The New York Times is leading the charge.

How else does one explain the Times publishing the op-ed by “common good conservative” Adrian Vermuele attacking originalism? Or an op-ed by three leading common good (or national) conservatives attacking the Republican foreign policy establishment?

The publication of the two pieces can partially be explained by the Times’ contempt for originalism and by its foreign policy dovishness. But the spectacle of conservative-on-conservative clash is surely the main selling point.

I’m not unhappy the op-eds were published. Though both seem flawed (the foreign policy piece is perhaps most noteworthy for its acknowledgement that many conservatives whom the authors view as their followers don’t agree with them on foreign policy, a point Damon Linker makes here), both contribute to the debate.

But does anyone suppose that Vermuele or the team of Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, and Gladden Pappin could publish a Times op-ed that simply stated their views on the Constitution or foreign policy and omitted criticism of other conservatives? I hope no one is that naïve.

The Washington Post gets into the act with a “pass the popcorn” article about the Heritage Foundation. The report focuses on conservative discontent with this D.C. institution as it was run by former head, Kay Coles James. She became the target of severe criticism from Donald Trump supporters such as Tucker Carlson.

James has been replaced by Kevin Roberts whom the Post describes as a “Texas firebrand.” Roberts certainly comes from Texas. He was head of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Is he a “firebrand”? I don’t know, but nothing in the Post’s article shows him to be.

As evidence that Roberts is, the Post reports that he reopened his Foundation two weeks after the Wuhan coronavirus “first hit.” In addition, he believes that shutdowns were “awful” — “worse than the disease itself.”

This view went against the grain in the first half of 2020. However, it is widely held now, especially if one refines it to say the harm inflicted by shutdowns has exceeded their health benefits. A thorough and fair study of the costs and benefits of shutdowns — if there’s anyone around who would conduct one — might well support this position. I think it would.

Questions about the pandemic response are important, obviously. However, I don’t think they will be central to an institution like Heritage. Issues like education, crime, trade, spending, and China seem more important to a full-purpose conservative think tank going forward.

I would love to see Heritage shift on some, though not all, of these matters.

According to the Post, Roberts’ is all about education. Without getting into the details, I think there’s lots of room for improvement at Heritage on this set of issues. It will be interesting to see how effectively Heritage fights against the teaching of what falls under the rubric of Critical Race Theory in K-12 education.

The issue of crime goes unmentioned by the Post. However, this is where I’d love to see a major reversal by Heritage.

Backed by the Kochs, Heritage helped lead the charge for leniency towards criminals, especially the federal felons favored by the First Step Act of 2018. Once a frequent visitor to Heritage, I don’t think I’ve set foot in the place since the enactment of that legislation.

The landscape of the debate over crime has changed dramatically since 2018. Maybe Heritage, under Roberts, will return to a more traditionally conservative approach — the one that was so effective against crime in the 1990s and early part of this century. More likely, it will retreat to the fringe of the debate. That, itself, would be welcome.

The Post notes that “Heritage experts criticized Trump’s attacks on China.” There is room for criticism of Trump on this issue. However, I believe Trump had the right on line China. If Heritage aligns itself more closely with Trump’s position, I will welcome that, too.

I’m happy, however, that Heritage has held fast to its views on government spending and debt. During the Obama years, Power Line was a constant critic of the debt the U.S. was running up. This didn’t cease to be a major concern just because, after Obama, it was Trump’s spending that added to the debt.

Heritage has always supported free trade. This stance, too, created discontent among many Trump supporters. I’d like to see a synthesis of support for free trade and aspects of the Trumpian critique. Maybe Heritage will help develop such a synthesis. Maybe not.

Clearly, there are major tensions in the conservative movement, including but not limited to the ones the Times has been highlighting and the ones I discuss here. Roberts says he’s not that bothered by them because he believes in “creative conflict.”

I believe in it too, up to a point. My hope is that the outcome of creative conflict at Heritage isn’t determined by fundraising concerns.

In any case, we can count of the Times and the Post to enjoy the conflict.

Are Dem’s Leftist Fem Fascists At Universities STILL PROGRAMMING OUR AMERICAN TEACHERS?



A better question might be, who is teaching the people who teach our children?

But first, this observation–as I have written before, the liberal position on Critical Race Theory is: “It doesn’t exist. And it’s awesome!” The first line of defense is always to claim that CRT is a bogeyman invented by the right; there is no such thing in our schools. But that claim, which usually is easily proved false, soon gives way to the backup position that anyone who questions CRT must be a racist.

If anyone is in doubt about whether liberal teachers are introducing poisonous, racist and anti-American doctrines into our schools, all you have to do is look at New Business Item 39, which was adopted during last Summer’s annual meeting of the National Education Association, the corrupt teachers’ union that dominates public education in the U.S.

Or you could look at the latest job offering at the University of Minnesota:

The University of Minnesota is seeking an assistant professor of elementary literacy education who has “knowledge of and commitment to” Critical Race Theory.

The assistant professor will work in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education and Human Development and will be responsible for teaching and advising graduate students — including teacher candidates and practicing teachers — in elementary literacy education.

So the poison will spread.

Minimum qualifications include:

Knowledge of and commitment to critical perspectives and traditions in education and literacy education, including (but not limited to) eco- and climate literacy, indigenous and decolonizing pedagogies and methodologies, racial literacy, critical race theory, and anti-racist and anti-oppressive approaches.

This is where the left wants to take education. The professional formation of teachers includes embracing a harmful and divisive ideology that explicitly rejects rationality and objectivity. The theory has moved from an obscure academic concept to very troubling practices that focus on race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation. All of which violate the most basic principles of equality and justice.

It is long past time for the Left to emerge from hiding and publicly defend its commitment to the racist, anti-American doctrines of Critical Race Theory. Let’s hope we can have the debate before it is too late. Our children are being indoctrinated in racist hate, right now.


The Atlantic

The Atlantic

The Fight for Democracy Will Be a Long, Long Haul

Opinion by Linda Hirshman – 13h ago

The fault lines of today’s political chasm go back to the decades that preceded the Civil War. One can see them in our geography—most of the states that will recriminalize abortion, for example, are in the old Confederacy and the rural or deindustrialized regions it influenced—and in our racial division, which continues to render the country into, more or less, two camps.              

A democratic society might resolve its conflicts by counting heads. But the rigid Constitution, written to protect the regressive elements of the past, still thwarts majority rule. The Senate and the Electoral College favor rural states, often producing minority rule in the Senate and the White House, which together select the Supreme Court. In the House of Representatives, the constitutional provision to count enslaved people as three-fifths of a person long supercharged the power of southern slaveholders; now gerrymandering and voter suppression, left to the unchecked will of state legislatures, thwart the principle of one man, one vote. No wonder the abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison called the founding charter a pact with the devil. When, finally, a serious political force—the Republican Party—arose in the 1850s to address enslavement, the Supreme Court tried to freeze out abolitionism forever with the hateful Dred Scott decision.


Continue reading


Join the conversation37

Topics for you

Beginner WordPress Course – WordPress For Begin…



Beginner WordPress Course – Enroll Now for a Sp…