• 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


How Trump flushed the presidential honor system down the toilet

JACK SHAFER Feb 11, 2022 4:40 PM ET

It’s no wonder Trump ran amok during his presidency, and it’s a small wonder he didn’t crown himself king. Electing Trump president was like appointing a mob boss the chief of police. As for his recent paper transgression, he’ll probably walk free on that, too. In order to stick Trump with having violating the Presidential Records Act, you’d have to prove criminal intent, a challenging barrier for prosecutors to clear. Today, the New York Times reported that possible classified documents were in the 15-box haul he took back to Florida. He’ll probably avoid legal exposure there, too.

The anecdotes about shredded and flushed pieces of White House paper resonate so grandly because, at one level, ink markings on sheets of paper is all the law really is. If you violate the law, the piece of paper doesn’t come after you. It takes an investigator, a prosecutor and potentially even a jury for the wheels of justice to punish you for defying what was written. Over Trump’s entire career, what’s written on bits of papers has been only a nuisance to him. A law, a regulation, a bank loan, a finely drawn business contract, or even a marriage contract is just a piece of paper to Trump, something he can disregard at will. There’s a price to be paid for ignoring what these papers say, of course. But in Trump’s mind, that’s what lawyers are for: To file bits of paper of his own, false though they might be, to battle other bits of paper.



Mitch McConnell Shouldn’t Promote Media Lies About RNC Censure Of Cheney


FEBRUARY 11, 2022

Republican voters would like their leaders to meet the simple test of not calling them terrorists for engaging in peaceful political protest.

Author Mollie Hemingway profile


It’s no surprise that the corporate media are defending Liz Cheney in her campaign to help Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hurt Republicans, but why is Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, joining them in their efforts?

Last week, the Republican National Committee formally censured Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for serving as tools of Pelosi as she weaponizes the January 6 events for Democrats’ political gain.

Last year, Pelosi blew up the commission to investigate the security breaches and events of January 6 by removing the Republican Party’s picks from the committee. Since then, no Republican-appointed members serve on the committee and it has been used to seize private communications of political opponents of the committee. Even prior to kicking off Republican-appointed members, Pelosi chose rabid anti-Trump extremist Cheney to serve her on the committee.

Cheney had already been ousted from her Republican leadership position. Absolutely obsessed with opposition to Donald Trump and his supporters, Cheney had convinced her colleagues she was unable to perform her actual duties and they took the unusual step of removing her.

Republicans in Wyoming, the state she purports to represent from her home base in Northern Virginia, took the unusual step of voting to no longer recognize Cheney as a Republican. The New York Times even admitted that Cheney has for years snubbed Republican voters in her home state, including a recent decision to instead hang out with the liberal reporters who love her.

Even before her ouster, Cheney — an advocate of unending interventionist wars — had been known for spreading anti-Trump disinformation, such as the false claim that Russians had paid Afghans to kill American soldiers and that Trump knew this and did nothing about it.


The resolution passed by the Republican National Committee last week noted that the primary mission of the Republican Party is to elect Republicans and support their values and that Republicans have an obligation to fight Biden and Pelosi’s agenda, not serve as handmaidens to it. It specifically noted that Cheney and Kinzinger were helping Pelosi obliterate Republican Party rights, traditional checks and balances, due process, and other protocols.

It also noted the committee was going after not just those people who rioted on January 6 but law-abiding Americans who were practicing their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and express themselves. “Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes,” the resolution read.

It’s true. Cheney and her colleagues on the committee have been persecuting people who aren’t in any way accused of having anything whatsoever to do with the riot or any political violence. They’ve seized texts, emails, and other communications from hundreds of people who were simply practicing First Amendment rights. In one case, Cheney went after a person nowhere near the riot who had committed the crime of running a Super PAC to unseat her.

Republican voters are eager for Republicans in positions of authority to fight Cheney and other servants of Pelosi. But that runs in direct contrast to a major effort from corporate media and other Democrats to use Republicans who support the Democrats’ agenda against other Republicans.

Corrupt corporate media figures desperately need to portray Cheney and those like her as having a large constituency of voters. So they lied about what the resolution — very popular among actual Republicans — said. They falsely claimed the resolution said riots were “legitimate political discourse.” Then they went around and asked Republican leaders if they agreed that riots were legitimate political discourse.

All of this is to be expected from the same exact media that spent years lying about the 2016 election, falsely claiming that Trump stole it by colluding with Russia. It’s the same media that smeared Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as a serial gang rapist. It’s the media that falsely claimed that accurate news regarding the lucrative Biden family business of making deals with foreign oligarchs and agents of Communist governments was “disinformation.”

But what is disappointing is that Senate Republican leader McConnell — after years of such lies from corporate media — did not fight these lies but accepted them and denounced the resolution to censure Cheney.

“Mitch McConnell denounced the RNC for calling the Jan. 6 riot ‘legitimate political discourse’,” wrote leftist outlet The New York Times.

For crying out loud. The RNC did not call any riot “legitimate political discourse.” Why would McConnell accept that obvious lie and say that they did? It is no surprise that McConnell is the least popular politician in the country, somehow even less popular than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Far better was House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s response when MSNBC activist Garrett Haake regurgitated the groupthink mantra that Republicans thought riots were legitimate political discourse. With the misleading chyron “”McCarthy Responds To RNC Calling Jan. 6 ‘Legitimate Political Discourse,’” on the screen, McCarthy nicely and knowledgeably pushed back against the propaganda.

Biden-Joe Will Continue To Devastate Our Economy!

The bad inflation numbers are even worse than the government says

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

You couldn’t miss the headlines: the annual percentage increase in inflation clocked in at 7.5%, making it the worst increase in 40 years.  For anyone on a fixed income, living off savings, or in a low-paying job, this is a disaster.  Rich people don’t feel it (much), but ordinary people do.  But here’s the kicker: inflation is almost certainly worse than it was 40 and more years ago.  Moreover, because the government is in thrall to Modern Monetary Theory, it’s going to get worse, lots worse.  And all the while, China is sitting there, watching and waiting.

Inflation destroys wealth.  People’s salaries never keep up with the inflation rate, and the elderly aren’t earning more money, so their savings can only lose purchasing power.  It also hits the poorest people the hardest, making it completely regressive.  That’s why a news report like this one strikes terror in the hearts of both citizens and the political party in charge:

A relentless surge in U.S. inflation reached another four-decade high last month, accelerating to a 7.5% annual rate as strong consumer demand collided with pandemic-related supply disruptions.

The Labor Department on Thursday said the consumer-price index — which measures what consumers pay for goods and services — in January reached its highest level since February 1982, when compared with the same month a year ago. That put inflation above December’s 7% annual rate and well above the 1.8% annual rate for inflation in 2019 ahead of the pandemic.

The so-called core price index, which excludes the often volatile categories of food and energy, climbed 6% in January from a year earlier. That was a sharper rise than December’s 5.5% increase and the highest rate in nearly 40 years.

That “40-year” number, though, is misleading.  Certainly, inflation has shot up with incredible speed, as happened in 1982, but real inflation is probably even worse than the accelerated rate suggests.  That’s because, in 1990, the government changed how it calculated inflation (something it also did in 1980).  John Williams’s Shadow Government Statistics calculates inflation as it would have been calculated before 1980 and before 1990.  According to his numbers, inflation would have been over 15% using pre-1980 metrics and over 10% using pre-1990 metrics.

You don’t need the numbers, though, to tell you what you already know.  It’s getting increasingly hard to afford life’s necessities.

Image: Hundred-dollar bills by jannoon028.  Freepik license. 

Moreover, it’s going to get worse because there’s no indication that the government intends to stop printing money.  It’s currently in thrall to “Modern Monetary Theory” (MMT).

MMT, beloved of leftists like Bernie and AOC, holds that a government with fiat money — that is, money that has value only because the government gives it value (e.g., paper money as opposed to gold coins) — can print money indefinitely because it makes up the value as it goes along.  In other words, money really does grow on trees in the world of MMT.

But that’s nonsense.  Ultimately, fiat money must represent the actual wealth of a nation.  As I used to tell my kids, a candy bar is always just a candy bar, whether it’s priced at 5 cents in pre-inflation money or $5 in post-inflation money.  The only real thing in that equation is the candy bar.  But once you start printing money like crazy, so that there are so many dollars floating around that the candy bar is priced at $5,000, while the candy bar hasn’t changed, you’ve bankrupted everyone in the country.

“We Don’t Have To Wear Masks Anymore!”

Feelgood video of the day: Las Vegas kids celebrate lifting of school mask mandate

ALLAHPUNDIT Feb 11, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

I haven’t felt joy like this since I heard “The Walking Dead” was ending this year.

Nevada’s Democratic governor, Steve Sisolak, surprised his constituents by abruptly announcing yesterday that the state mask mandate would be lifted — for everyone, adults and kids, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. Go figure that with thousands of gamblers expected in Vegas this weekend for the Super Bowl, the governor didn’t want anyone who’s prepared to throw money around turned away from casinos or restaurants due to a mask policy,

Lifting the state mask mandate didn’t mean local mask mandates would also lift, though. On the contrary, like Phil Murphy in New Jersey, Sisolak made a point of saying that school boards are free to impose their own rules. The Clark County School District soon followed his announcement by announcing that they’d drop their mandate too, though, setting off this scene worthy of a Super Bowl victory.


Sisolak’s up for reelection in less than nine months in a state Biden won by less than three points. Not that that had anything to do with his calculations about mandates, of course.

Some parents in Clark County grumbled about the decision. “It feels like we’re loosening the reins at the wrong time when we’re not in the clear,” said one whose daughter got sick with COVID after Christmas. Really? Here’s the case curve in Nevada. If not now, when?

Biden was asked by Lester Holt in his new interview with NBC whether he supports Democratic governors like Sisolak who dropped mandates this past week. That’s a tricky question for him because it traps him between his duties to two different constituencies. On the one hand, he wants to maximize his party’s chances of winning this fall, which means responding to the public’s COVID fatigue by loosening restrictions. On the other hand, he’s the head of the federal science bureaucracy and his bureaucrats aren’t ready to pull the plug on mask mandates. What answer should he give?

It’s America’s Greatest President’s Birthday TODAY! (Are We Too Ignorant To Know That?…with today’s fascist fem teachers?)



Abraham Lincoln stands not only as America’s greatest president but also as its greatest lawyer. At the time of his election to the presidency in 1860 he was the most prominent practicing lawyer in the state of Illinois. As a politician and as president, Lincoln was a profound student of the Constitution and constitutional history.

Perhaps most important, Lincoln was America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its “ancient faith” that all men are created equal. How can it be that lawyers know so little of the giant of their profession?

Former federal judge Herbert Stern is himself a prominent practicing attorney who has found much to learn from Lincoln’s legal career. As a teacher of practice skills to trial lawyers he frequently asks a rhetorical question: would you rather have an edge in the facts of a case, an edge in the law of a case, or Abraham Lincoln for your lawyer? In his view, the practitioner who can learn to emulate Lincoln as a lawyer holds the key to greatness in the profession.

But Lincoln is such an imposing figure that his stature obscures the man. As we view him historically, from the end of his life to the beginning of his career, he remains a figure whose greatness makes him difficult to know or understand. If we can follow him as a young man, as he finds his vocation and his calling, he may become a more familiar and accessible if no less admirable man.

The young Lincoln

In 1831 Lincoln left home at age 22 to strike out on his own in the struggling frontier town of New Salem, Illinois. He had no trade and few prospects. The single most striking fact about him as a young man is his genius for friendship. As one of his New Salem contemporaries recalled (as recorded in the interview notes of William Herndon quoted by David Herbert Donald), “Lincoln had nothing[,] only plenty of friends.” He was obviously one of the most likable men who ever lived, a man who radiated decency. Moreover, the better his acquaintances got to know him, the more they liked him. Those who got to know him best, such as the acquaintances with whom he shared boarding rooms as an impoverished young man, became lifelong friends. The student of Lincoln who can see him through the eyes of these friends will have a similar experience.

His genius for friendship manifested itself in memorable ways. As a young man, for example, Lincoln’s physical stature and strength made him a formidable wrestler. He made friends by wrestling, although this was not the kind of wrestling that is a branch of show business or in which the outcome of the match is agreed upon by the contestants in advance.

Upon his arrival in New Salem, he was challenged to a match by Jack Armstrong, the leader of a gang called Clary’s Grove Boys. The match is famous in the annals of Lincoln lore and was examined in extraordinary detail by Lincoln scholar Douglas Wilson in the first chapter of his book Honor’s Voice. Although several conflicting eyewitness accounts of the match exist, the accounts generally agree that Armstrong narrowly escaped losing to Lincoln by some sort of sharp practice. The match ended in rancor, but Lincoln and Armstrong immediately became fast friends. Their friendship had momentous consequences in Lincoln’s legal career.

Lincoln joined the Illinois militia to fight in the Black Hawk War in 1832. He later claimed only to have been bloodied in the course of his service by a few mosquitoes. In his militia company, Lincoln apparently made friends by wrestling and was elected the captain of the company (the first election he ever won). Armstrong served as a sergeant in Lincoln’s company.

Candidate for office

Discharged later in the year, Lincoln returned to New Salem and ran for the state legislature at age 23. He lost the race while receiving an enormous vote of confidence from his fellow townsmen who knew him best. In the town of New Salem, Lincoln won an astounding 92 percent of the vote, receiving 277 of the 300 votes cast.

It was the only direct election that Lincoln ever lost. Lincoln proceeded to win every succeeding election (eight in all, including two for president) in which he stood for office before the public. The only races he lost (closely) were those for the Senate in 1854 and 1858, in which he sought election by the state legislature.

Following his 1832 loss, Lincoln ran again for the state legislature in 1834 and won. He was reelected in 1836, 1838, 1840 and 1854. In the legislature Lincoln was a ferociously partisan Whig who quickly became a skilled debater and party leader. During his service in the legislature, Lincoln studied law and became a lawyer. Upon leaving the legislature in 1842, Lincoln devoted himself to legal practice full time and rapidly became recognized as an accomplished practitioner.

While practicing law he remained active in politics. In 1846 he was elected to Congress. Although Lincoln wanted to run for reelection to Congress, he did not do so. He felt bound to honor an informal agreement among the Whigs in his district to serve only one term and he therefore stood down.

In 1854, Lincoln reentered politics to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the handiwork of Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas. Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act in his great Peoria Speech of 1854, making a comprehensive case against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the expansion of slavery into the territories. He resigned the seat in the state legislature that he won that fall to seek Illinois’ open Senate seat, but narrowly lost to anti-Nebraska Act Democrat Lyman Trumbull when Lincoln threw his support to Trumbull in the last round of balloting.

Friend in need

Lincoln’s law practice grew apace with the national political crisis of the 1850’s. In 1857, immediately prior to Lincoln’s ascent to the national political stage by virtue of his epic battle with Senator Stephen Douglas in the senate race the following year, Lincoln’s friendship with his former wrestling foe Jack Armstrong led to the most famous trial of Lincoln’s legal career.

On the evening of August 29, 1857, in a moonlit grove in central Illinois, two assailants beat James Metzger in what seems to have been a drunken brawl. He died two days later and his attackers — James Norris and William “Duff” Armstrong — were charged with murder. According to the charge, Norris and Armstrong had assaulted Metzger in concert and inflicted fatal blows to the head, Norris from behind with a wooden piece of a wagon frame and Armstrong from the front or the side with a slung-shot (a lead ball encased in leather with a cord attached for swinging).

Following the indictment Armstrong’s lawyer moved for a change of venue (Norris’s did not). Armstrong’s motion was granted and venue was transferred from Mason to Cass County.

Tried first, on November 7, 1857, Norris was promptly convicted of manslaughter after a one-day trial. Four eyewitnesses at the trial placed the time of the attack at 11:00 p.m. and claimed to have observed the attack under the light of a bright moon high in the sky. Medical testimony established that the blow to the back of the head by Norris had been fatal.

Armstrong’s father — Lincoln’s old friend Jack Armstrong — died shortly thereafter. It was said to have been his dying wish that his wife Hannah do whatever was necessary, including selling the family farm, to secure their son a defense.

Hannah Armstrong wrote Lincoln, now practicing in Springfield and the most prominent lawyer in the state. She sought his representation in the defense of Duff Armstrong. Lincoln immediately undertook the defense as a token of his old friendship and declined all offers of compensation.

Friend in deed

When the case was called for trial in Cass County’s courthouse in Beardstown, Illinois, Lincoln made his first courtroom appearance for Armstrong. The prosecution moved for a continuance. This motion too was granted and the case was not called for trial again until May 1858.

Historian John Evangelist Walsh has now gathered virtually every scrap of evidence regarding the trial in his book Moonlight: Abraham Lincoln and the Almanac Trial. The book wildly charges that Lincoln committed misconduct in connection with the trial. Perhaps because of the familiarity of the trial story Walsh felt compelled to wring a new charge of scandal out of evidence that simply does not support it.

More notably, however, reliable evidence also provided by Walsh on the contrary demonstrates Lincoln’s utter probity as a trial lawyer. Immediately before the trial, for example, Armstrong’s brothers arranged for the disappearance of Charles Allen, the prosecution’s critical eyewitness; Lincoln promptly ascertained the circumstances of Allen’s disappearance together with his whereabouts and assured his attendance at the trial.

Walsh also establishes Lincoln’s sheer doggedness in the preparation of Armstrong’s defense. Following his retention, and with the time afforded by the continuance until May, Lincoln carefully investigated the case the prosecution had introduced against Norris and calculated how best to use it to his advantage.

He procured expert medical testimony establishing that Norris’s blows to the back of Metzger’s head by themselves could account for all Metzger’s traumatic injuries. He interviewed witnesses including the owner of the weapon with which Armstrong had allegedly attacked Metzger. In what seems to constitute a fine piece of detective work, he ascertained that the owner would testify that the weapon remained in his possession at the time of the murder. He found eyewitnesses who would testify that, although Armstrong had attacked Metzger, he had done so harmlessly with his bare hands. And Lincoln did not rest in his efforts until he discovered how he could raise reasonable doubts about the credibility of the critical eyewitness testimony of Charles Allen.


At trial the prosecution introduced eyewitness and medical testimony supporting the charge against Armstrong, climaxing in Allen’s testimony. As the closest observer of the assault, Allen was the star witness in the prosecution’s case. Allen testified that in the moonlight overhead he had seen Armstrong attack Metzger frontally with the slung-shot and in the conclusion of the direct examination dramatically demonstrated the manner of Armstrong’s attack.

In Armstrong’s defense Lincoln introduced the eyewitness and medical testimony of the witnesses he had found to rebut the prosecution’s case. He called the owner of the alleged murder weapon to testify that the weapon had been in his possession at the time of the murder. In unorthodox fashion Lincoln concluded his defense of Armstrong by recalling Charles Allen, the prosecution’s star witness, for cross examination.

Lincoln’s cross examination of Allen is the stuff of legend. Lincoln elicited Allen’s distance from the assault — 50 to 60 feet or upwards — and focused on Allen’s ability to see what he had described, questioning him repeatedly about the location of the moon at the time of the attack. Allen steadfastly responded that the moon was bright and just past its highest point overhead at the time of the attack.

With Allen emphatically committed to the location of the moon at the time of the attack, Lincoln pulled a copy of the Jayne’s Medical Almanac for 1857 from his briefcase showing the time of moonset in central Illinois on August 29, 1857. Lincoln showed that according to the almanac moonset that evening had occurred at 12:03 a.m., just one hour after the time Allen testified he had seen the assault under a high moon.

Courtroom observers exploded in laughter. As Allen was reduced to a laughingstock, Lincoln passed the almanac to the jurors. (Walsh includes a copy of the relevant almanac page in the book’s illustrations.) The jury concluded its deliberations in an hour with a verdict of acquittal. (Lincoln sat for the photograph at the top immediately after the jury returned its verdict. It is the only photograph of Lincoln wearing a white coat.)

Into history

The following month Lincoln returned to politics. On June 16 he stood before the state Republican convention in Springfield and accepted its nomination to run for the Senate against Stephen Douglas. In his famous speech accepting the nomination, Lincoln electrified the convention, asserting that the institution of slavery had made the United States a house divided against itself. Slavery would either be extirpated or become lawful nationwide, Lincoln predicted, provocatively quoting scriptural authority to the effect that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Having fulfilled the offices of friendship as an attorney in the trial of Duff Armstrong, Lincoln stepped straight into history as the hero of America’s freedom and the martyr of its ancient faith.

(First published in slightly different form in the September 2000 issue of Bench & Bar of Minnesota. Posted annually in honor of Lincoln’s birthday.)


February 11, 2022

If DC Fears Trump, He Deserves Four More Years

By J.B. Shurk at American Thinker:

I do try not to get angry when government actors confirm my belief that they are lowly human beings not worthy of respect.  With age and experience, most people eventually come face to face with enough instances of injustice or straight-up barbarity in the world to understand that life is no bed of roses wherein the righteous triumph effortlessly over the wicked.  You see a few things that make it impossible to deny evil’s grip on human nature, and it is no longer practicable to be upset by every instance of government corruption or ineptitude.  Living life in a constant state of anger only serves evil’s own machinations by handing it your soul.

Still, there are things that boil my blood faster than I can tend to my passions and mediate my hatred.  And one of those instances came this week when Mitch McConnell pushed the D.C. Leviathan’s lie that January 6 was a “violent insurrection” in his clear attempt to set the stage for a time in the near future when the power-mad monsters of Washington declare to the country that President Donald Trump will not be “permitted” to run for election in 2024.

I could write an avalanche of essays explaining how important I believe Trump’s presidency has been for this country.  But that seems secondary to the need to roll up six years of government-orchestrated hoaxes, crimes, and propaganda used to undermine the 2016 (and, in my opinion, 2020) election(s) and shove all of Washington’s corruption right down its collective throat.  Even if I did not like Donald Trump, the Uniparty’s and Deep State’s relentless efforts to prevent his 2016 election, sabotage his presidency, undermine 2020 ballot security, censor evidence of election fraud, criminalize his supporters as “domestic terrorists,” and now put Trump in legal jeopardy by framing him as having attempted to overthrow the federal government are more than enough to ensure that I would walk through fire to vote for him again.  In my mind, justice demands it.  The D.C. denizens have just gone too far to ever be forgiven or for their treachery to ever be forgotten.

I know we are living in communist cuckoo land now, where “The Science” is always right, Dementia Joe is always lucid, printing money creates prosperity, and men can break women’s records in sports, but at what point do the Deep State despots crafting one fanciful lie after the next finally step back and say, “Nah, nobody will ever believe this nonsense”?  The Russian collusion hoax is now understood by everyone but the most brainwashed (or those invested in the lies because they were doing the brainwashing) to have been an elaborate conspiracy involving Hillary Clinton’s political campaign, Barack Obama’s FBI and CIA, and a propagandistic press laundering their disinformation as the gospel truth.  Four years of Establishment Republicans (in the majority in the House until 2018 and in the Senate until 2020) giving Democrats carte blanche to legitimize conspiracy theories in Congress with outrageous claims the Republican president was a Russian spy only opened up the eyes of Republican voters to how insidiously the Uniparty in D.C. operates.  A bogus Mueller “witch hunt” (ostensibly led by a man struggling, like Joe Biden, from cognitive decline but really led by a pack of raving Democrat partisans seeking blood) helped shackle the Trump presidency with constant threats of criminal indictments hanging over the White House.  And a ludicrous impeachment of President Trump for having the audacity to bring to the public’s attention the Biden family’s egregious quid pro quo corruption involving the trading of political favors for wealth (and criminal impunity) around the world, including Ukraine, served to prove that too many Uniparty congresscritters were either likewise pigging out at Ukraine’s pecuniary trough or terrified that the Biden scandal would ensure a Trump re-election.  

A helpless public watched in real-time as the ruling class used the ruse of a COVID-1984 pandemic to usher in anonymous and unsecured mass mail-in balloting in battleground states (often in explicit violation of state statutory law) just in time for the 2020 election.  When that same helpless public found it unfathomably difficult to believe that a sitting president could win over ten million new votes during re-election yet somehow still lose (a feat never before seen in American history, save for President Grover Cleveland, who lost re-election in 1888 amid allegations of fraud against his opponent, Benjamin Harrison, and who subsequently returned to the White House four years later in a landslide) or that a lifetime Washington relic who campaigned from his basement in Delaware could legitimately receive more votes than Obama, Trump, or any other past president with an energetic and loyal army of voters, those doubters were ridiculed as “sore losers” and “conspiracy theorists.”  When they refused to quietly withdraw into irrelevance and submit to 2020’s questionable outcome, however, the Leviathan moved quickly to designate them all “domestic terrorists” involved in “insurrection” and deserving of solitary incarceration and vindictive punishment.  

It has been one of the most nakedly authoritarian attacks on a group of ordinary and relatively powerless Americans for their political beliefs in recent memory.  The partisanship and rule by fiat emanating from the swamp is so repugnant to the nostrils of Americans living outside Washington that nobody not already part of its foul-smelling rot sees the January 6 Committee as anything other than a vehicle to prevent Trump’s return to power.  Is there really no point when some minimally moral human cog charged with enforcing the brute machinery of the bureaucratic State steps back from harassing and arresting political protesters for exercising their free speech, right to assemble, and right to petition their government for redress of grievances and says to himself, “Wow, we have really become quite tyrannical here in D.C., haven’t we?”  Apparently not.

Now those same Americans who have been unjustly painted as “extremists” and “terrorists” by the wide brushstrokes of a frantic and increasingly fascist federal government are watching as Mitch McConnell and his Uniparty lackeys get ready to drop the coup de grâce of their years-long coup d’état against a man whose chief crime seems to have been his desire to “Make America Great Again” at the expense of the ruling class’s vampiric draining of natural rights and liberties from the American people and Washington’s vise-grip over illegitimate power, unearned wealth, and infernal corruption.  As much as I desire an end to Biden’s Marxist regime, its unconstitutional mandates, and its imperious bullying, watching McConnell and his power bloc genuflect in support of Democrat and Deep State lies, so they can return to power without deigning to respect Donald Trump or his political movement, is equally revolting.  

I cannot see how a future Majority Leader McConnell rights the sinking ship of American governance.  I also wonder if he and the Uniparty he represents have fully considered the consequences of denying American voters the chance to democratically elect Donald Trump again in 2024.  Should they so pierce the veil of our last remaining civic norms, there will be no going back.  And who is to say that what comes after that won’t make a Trump presidency look downright docile by comparison?