• 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

Putin’s Drive?



What follows is pure speculation, but I have had a sneaking suspicion for a while that the Ukraine crisis is ready-made for an international “solution” that benefits a number of leaders politically while avoiding any serious down-side. Like a war, for example.

That suspicion is strengthened by the positive turn that reporting on Ukraine has suddenly taken. Thus, the London Times headlines: “Diplomacy with Russia can still save Ukraine, insists Johnson.” Subhead: “Britain and US talk of ‘crucial window’ as Moscow hints at peaceful solution.”

You can see it coming:

Boris Johnson and President Biden have said that there remains a “crucial window” to avoid a Russian invasion of Ukraine as Moscow hints that it is still open to a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

In a marked change of tone the two western leaders agreed there was an opportunity to avert conflict as international efforts to ease tensions increased. The Russian foreign minister used a televised meeting with President Putin to hold the door open to peace.

“It seems to me that our possibilities [of diplomacy] are far from being exhausted,” Sergey Lavrov said. “[Talks] certainly should not continue indefinitely, but at this stage I would suggest that they continue and be intensified.”

Separately the Russian defence minister said that some military drills, which have fanned fears of invasion, had ended or were coming to a close.

So why might war fever suddenly be subsiding? U.S. officials warned that Russia planned an invasion for Wednesday, preceded by a “false flag” operation to serve as a pretext. Then Joe Biden had a long phone conversation with Vladimir Putin in which Biden supposedly conveyed stern warnings. If war is now called off, who benefits? Joe Biden.

The U.K. jumped into the fray on Ukraine’s side, asserting British standing in world affairs and coming to Ukraine’s defense, including, I believe sending some troops to the area. So if the Russian invasion is called off, who benefits? Someone who needs a boost almost as badly as Joe Biden: Boris Johnson.

Emmanuel Macron, following in the footsteps of Charles DeGaulle, charted his own course independent of NATO and tried to be a broker via independent conversations with the Russians. He is engaged in a tough re-election race; if the Ukraine crisis dissipates, he will take credit for it.

And Vladimir Putin, by far the most secure of these four leaders, will benefit as long as Russia gets something out of its mobilization of troops at the Ukraine border. Putin is popular because he is seen as a strong leader, but no leader’s popularity is enhanced by soldiers being killed. So Putin gets the best of both worlds if he takes an aggressive position, mobilizes troops and threatens war, but then achieves Russia’s ends by peaceful means. And, of course, he avoids sanctions that could threaten Russia’s creaky economy.

Are the Western powers prepared to sell Ukraine down the river? The answer, I think, is how far down the river Putin has in mind. Some concessions are easy:

The developments came after Kyiv’s ambassador to London had signalled that Ukraine may be prepared to suspend its efforts to join Nato to avert war.

No voter in the U.S., the U.K. or France will care that Ukraine has agreed to stay out of NATO. This is an easy win-win.

It seems to me that the question is, what does Putin need in addition to Ukraine staying out of NATO? He annexed Crimea and obviously wants to annex eastern Ukraine, which is mostly Russian speaking and largely pro-Russia, as well. My guess–and it is purely a guess–is that this is what is now being negotiated. How much of Ukraine will the Western powers be willing to sever from that country, perhaps by plebiscite, over the heated objections of Ukraine’s government?

Call me cynical, but I think we may soon know the answer to that question. Or possibly some seemingly unrelated concession to Putin is on the table. But I think the congruence of political interests among the relevant leaders is too strong for war to be the most likely option.




Did you know that meat-eating is the direct result of a white-supremacist world view? This will come as confounding news to cannibals I expect, but apparently some people at the storied Oxford Political Union take it seriously.

The Oxford Union recently held a formal debate on the resolution that we should move “beyond meat,” and the closing speaker for the motion, Carol Adams, has clearly established her pole position as the greatest nutcase in Britain. (This video is 12 minutes long, but you need only take in the first 60 seconds or so to figure it out. The rest is just bonus entertainment.)

A clever Canadian passes along this nice piece of work:


Finally, here’s Justin True-Dough from when he was 18 years old, arguing against the Quebec separatist referendum some years back. He was against the referendum, which you can think of as Quebec’s version of Brexit. Too bad it didn’t win. True-Dough here ends by saying he’s never been affected by “peer pressure”—a clear preview of his contempt for the working class in Canada. (And yeah, he does come across here by Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate.)

Finally, I forgot this one in yesterday’s TWiP:


Where Would Today’s America Be WITHOUT OUR DENNIS PRAGER?



February 04, 2019:

“Dennis Prager was at his best today.   So often he is an advertiser selling his treasures and “ointments”…and I love to hear them.   Same voice, same tones, same words, same levels of selling the more pleasant parts of today contemporary conservatism with pleasant musical tones.

Verbal trumpets, tubas, and drums were his vocal instruments of American social, political, and religious combat today.   Even when he loses his cool, Dennis Prager remains rational.   The score reminded me of the first day I found him on radio when he was so accurately dressing (down)  the shallow,  crooked, sleazy, slippery political phony, Vietnam war playboy, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, early November, 2004.

Today’s America is in deep trouble.  It’s leftist evil is at war with Honesty and honesty’s Truth seems to be losing.   The once honorable Democrat Party has been overwhelmed by the left’s fascists, the fascists who now own the American university, the American schools, the American newspapers,  from the Atlantic to the Pacific with rare exception.

Although our American Christian community voted 70% for their American Presidential hero, freedom  saving, Donald J. Trump in 2016, there are still large numbers of  parishes, synods, sects of this once freedom loving  Godfearing nation who  advance the horrors of fascism.

Dennis is scheduled to speak at the University of California at Irvine tomorrow evening stirring the hanky pank  leftists who rule the school and grounds there.  It is  commonplace in today’s Hillary-Barrack fascist-conned  university America from coast to coast to play games to cripple the crowds of any Americans who still believe in  freedom  the American way.

The program moved to review goings on at Grand Canyon University….a fascistic college advertising its kind of leftier Christianity, one which had just kicked young conservative truth man, Ben Shapiro, a still young, persuasive, polished mile-per-minute speaker off the speakers’ list.  Nothing quite like leftist Christian groups  showing tolerance these days.

The current lefty white Democrat Governor of Virginia is being attacked by current Virginia state Democrats of many shapes and colors,  not for other political mischief  he’s caused recently, but  something untoward he did thirty years ago starring vulgarly as a white racist  in a college picture.   Today’s Democrats there and around are screaming, even drooling at the mouth for vengeance……. in order to win votes, of course.

Leftism always stretches its beliefs and work from  the devious to the evil. Its major followers have no respect for Truth, no energy to seek Truth, because they are so clever in the deceit they sell.”

Despite his human ups and downs in today’s Dem fascist America, DENNIS PRAGER and his FOLLOWERS have been among the most achieving human animals in our AMERICA’S ATTEMPT TO RETURN TO JUDEOCHRISTIAN HONESTY AND CIVILIZATION once again. from GHR, 2-4-19!







Washington’s COVID Scam Killed Medical Freedom, and Americans

By Deane Waldman, M.D. at American Thinker:

Medical freedom or autonomy gives people the right to choose with respect to their bodies; physicians the freedom to do what is best for a patient; and bio-scientists the freedom to communicate with, well, everyone. 

Washington has denied Americans their medical freedom in this COVID crisis, causing economic devastation and needless deaths.

Regardless of dire, fear-inducing life-or-death warnings emanating from Washington about COVID, it is simply a new flu.

Implying that COVID is an existential threat comparable to the bubonic plague is ludicrous medical hyperbole.

COVID is simply a new flu. The risk of COVID death for the general population is approximately 0.17% and even lower for children. Only the small percentage of the population with multiple, life-threatening, pre-existing conditions, is at significant medical risk from COVID. Comparing CDC COVID data on case rates, hospitalizations, and deaths with the seasonal flu in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 confirms that COVID is merely a new flu.   

Claiming to protect all Americans from “deadly” COVID (SARS-CoV-2), the Biden administration took away medical autonomy with their tyrannical medical mandates for masks, lockdowns, and coerced injections. The Biden administration went against our Constitution, our laws, accepted moral codes, and proper public health policy.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans the right “to be secure in their persons.”

Only licensed physicians can practice medicine, yet that is what federal bureaucrats did by repudiating clinical physicians’ judgment, while also rejecting patients’ medical freedom.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines mandated by Washington are different from all other vaccines, such as polio, DPT, and MMR. COVID shots, based on a never-before-used-as-vaccine mRNA gene therapy technology. The safety and efficacy studies required for all vaccines were not done for the Washington “jab,” and therefore, there are no long-term outcome results or even moderate-term data. By any definition, the jab is experimental.

The Nuremberg Code (1947) says individuals must be free to participate or not in medical experimentation. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, colloquially called the “jab,” are experimental gene (mRNA) therapy technology, never before used as a vaccine. The usual safety and efficacy studies were skipped: there are no long-term outcome data. Since the vaccines are experimental, no patient should be forced to take them.  

Doctors are expected to provide the best care possible for their patients. Physicians cannot do this when a hospital, following orders from the FDA, refuses to allow the use of a therapeutic such as ivermectin, or when a medical board penalizes a doctor’s license for doing his best for patients.

Good medical science leading to good care requires free speech among bio-scientists, clinical physicians, and the public. Washington’s censorship makes good medical care impossible. Only two voices are free to speak about COVID: Dr. Anthony Fauci (“I represent science”) and Dr. Joe Biden.

When three eminent clinicians produced an accurate science-based approach to COVID that was counter to the Biden/Fauci anti-science tyrannical narrative, the Washington establishment went nuclear. NIH Director Francis Collins wrote to NIAID Director Fauci the following.  “This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway?”  The proposal was the Great Barrington Declaration and the “fringe epidemiologists” are faculty from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford.

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is supposed to track harmful complications after vaccination. When Jessica Rose, Ph.D., found that VAERS was under-counting and Washington was under-reporting adverse even fatal complications from mRNA vaccination, she assumed others would be interested. She submitted her findings as a research paper to an academic medical journal. The publisher, not peer reviewers, “declined to publish” her work with no explanation. Censorship keeps clinical physicians in the dark.

In addition to suppressing dialogue among researchers, Washington stifles communication between bio-scientists and the public. When physicians tried to publicize natural immunity acquired after COVID infection, Washington censored reports that would counter the official narrative.

When physicians started to use ivermectin, Washington feared this would detract from people’s willingness to comply with the vaccine mandate. A campaign was launched to suppress drugs like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and monoclonal antibodies as treatments.

Washington’s censorship and the media’s negative press are intended to prevent physicians from using drugs that work to treat sick COVID patients in lieu of government-touted vaccine prevention with mRNA experimental gene therapy.

Washington killed medical freedom and created medical tyranny with edicts such as mandatory face masks (that don’t protect), lockdowns that don’t prevent death, and mandatory injections with experimental gene treatment. 

Dr. Scott Atlas repeatedly warned the COVID Task Force — and Fauci repeatedly ignored — the warning that good public health policy always requires evaluation of risk-reward or cost/benefit. The COVID Task Force never considered the devastating costs of their mandates.

They killed more than 200,000 small businesses and all the associated jobs. People died needlessly from delayed care, increased substance abuse, more suicides (especially teens), elderly deaths from loneliness as well as Cuomo’s disastrous nursing home return policies, and of course, withholding medications from sick patients.

Getting good medical care requires medical freedom, not medical tyranny. Apparently, the extension of federal power is more important to Washington than the health of Americans. 

Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology, and Decision Science; former director of the Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; and author of Curing the Cancer in U.S. HealthcareStatesCare and Market-Based Medicine


Durham claims Clinton campaign paid tech company to hack Trump residence and the White House, too

KAREN TOWNSEND Feb 13, 2022 at HotAir:

AP Photo/Bob Child, File

If his claims prove true, the filing made yesterday by Special Counsel John Durham is the kind of material that produces a best-selling spy thriller. Durham’s court filing claims that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid a tech company to hack into Donald Trump’s servers in his residence and in Trump Tower during the presidential campaign. The surveillance continued on into the White House when he became president.

While everyone else is focused on Russia invading Ukraine, trying to find extra money in their budgets to pay for food and gas, and ignoring the Olympic coverage in protest of China’s genocide of religious minorities, Special Counsel John Durham pops up and says, “Hey, look at this!” Talk about it being out of the blue. You’d be like most Americans to have forgotten Durham is still investigating because the information is so rare coming out of his investigation. Not to mention that it happened on a Saturday.

Durham claims that he has evidence that an unnamed tech executive, referred to as “Tech Executive-1”, exploited an arrangement with the government to monitor Trump’s internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his Central Park West apartment, and continued with surveillance in the Trump White House. There is also surveillance alleged of an unnamed healthcare provider. From previous filings, it is assumed that Tech Executive-1 is Rodney Joffe. Joffe is an internet entrepreneur and data expert.

Let all that sink in for a minute. Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for surveillance of Trump after he became president and was in the White House. Look, I put nothing past the Clintons. I’ve followed their careers since Bill was the governor of Arkansas and a rising star in Democrat politics. Their corruption is decades long and deep. However, even for them, spying on the President of the United States in the White House is shocking.

“Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the [Executive Office of the President] for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” Mr. Durham writes.

We know that Michael Sussman, a cybersecurity lawyer, has been charged with making false statements to the FBI about a secret communication channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. Those claims have been debunked. Sussman is a former federal prosecutor and former partner at the law firm Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie works closely with the DNC and Democrats. Sussman tried to share information with the FBI showing a link between the Trump Organization and Kremlin-connected Alfa Bank. That alleged link has been debunked. The whole Russiagate story was made up by Team Clinton and the media lapped it up.

According to the filing from Durham, the aim was to try and smear Trump by linking him to Russia, which had been accused of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Durham’s filing also points to potential conflicts of interest for Sussman. Sussman originally claimed he was not working for a specific client when he presented his alleged findings of a connection between Trump and a Russian bank. Billing to the Clinton campaign by Sussman has been uncovered, though, which disproves his claim.

Durham’s motion that was filed on Friday looked a potential conflicts of interest with regards to former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussman has pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee under Republican Devin Nunes, Kash Patel, said Friday’s filing ‘definitively showed the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia,’ reports Fox News.

‘Per Durham, this arrangement was put in motion in July of 2016, meaning the Hillary Clinton campaign and her lawyers masterminded the most intricate and coordinated conspiracy against Trump when he was both a candidate and later President of the United States while simultaneously perpetuating the bogus Steele Dossier hoax,’ Patel told Fox.

In Durham’s filing on Friday, he revealed how Sussman ‘had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1), named as Rodney Joffe, at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.’

Sussman’s own ‘billing records’ show he ‘repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.’

It also states how Sussman and the Tech Executive (Joffe) met to speak with another lawyer working as General Counsel to the Clinton campaign, who Fox identify as Marc Elias from Perkins Coie law firm.

The filing also reveals how Josse worked with Sussman at the instruction of the Clinton campaign to ‘assemble the purported data and white papers’ – essentially to gather information that would tie Trump to Russia.

Durham tells how Tech Executive-1 said he was trying to please certain ‘VIPs,’ which is said to have been a reference to the Clinton campaign.

What a web the Clinton campaign wove, right? Trump claimed all along that he was being spied on. It looks as though he will be vindicated on this. He released a statement

‘Durham’s filing provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.

‘This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution,’ Trump said.

‘In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death.

‘In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this,’ Trump added.

One claim by Sussman was that he had data from websites he said included Russian mobile phone companies. He claimed Trump and others around him were using “rare, Russian-made wireless phones” in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. Durham’s report shows this claim to be false. There isn’t anything unusual with looking up Russian cellphone companies.

‘The Special Counsel’s Office has identified no support for these allegations,’ Durham wrote noting the ‘lookups were far from rare in the United States.’

‘For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered–but did not provide to Agency 2–reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Prover 1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses,’ Durham stated.

‘Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower.

Some of the lookups occurred as early as 2014 when the Obama administration was still at the White House.

Durham’s investigation has passed its 1,000 day milestone. He works quietly and there has been an absence of leaks coming from his investigation that is rarely seen these days in Washington. Hillary’s name has been floated as a potential presidential candidate in 2024, as unlikely as I think that is, so this bombshell filing by Durham isn’t helpful to that idea. The real story is the level of corruption that can be traced back to Hillary’s campaign now and the fact that the FBI must have known about the phoniness of things like the Steele dossier all along and just turned a blind eye because of their hatred of Trump. Trump calls Durham’s latest findings treasonous behavior. Ironically, a young Hillary was a part of the Watergate hearings on Capitol Hill as a staffer. Rumor was at the time that she was fired from her position because of a lack of ethics. The Clintons have a long history and most of it isn’t good. That makes this kind of story seem believable. Even for Hillary Clinton, though, this filing is bad news.


Fascists Active At Georgetown Law School?

Georgetown Law School Protects Racist Comments, Punishes Anti-Racist Ones

BY: MARK PAOLETTA at the Federalist:

FEBRUARY 11, 2022

t would be the height of employing a double standard if Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor took any additional adverse action against Ilya Shapiro.

onstitutional law scholar Ilya Shapiro is on administrative leave from Georgetown Law School amid being investigated for criticizing President Biden’s choice to select a Supreme Court nominee on the bases of sex and race. His suspension is outrageously hypocritical in light of many law professors’ ugly, racist attacks heaped upon conservative judges, especially Justice Clarence Thomas, that received little or no criticism in the legal academic community.

Shapiro is being investigated for tweeting: “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. . . . But alas doesn’t fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman.” Yes, Shapiro used the inartful phrase “lesser black woman” because President Biden announced he would only consider black women candidates to be his nominee. In the context of his tweet, however, Ilya was clearly not saying that a black woman nominee could not be an excellent choice.

In contrast to Shapiro’s opposition to racism, many law professors have engaged in openly racist attacks on justices, with little to no professional repercussions. Such criticism of Thomas is an especially clear example of this double standard in the profession and at Georgetown.

Many law professors, including at Georgetown Law, have been unapologetically vicious in their racism towards Thomas. According to a review by Georgetown Law Professor Charles Abernathy of the book, “We Won’t Go Back: Making The Case For Affirmative Action” (1997) by then Georgetown Law professors Charles R. Lawrence III & Mari J. Matsuda:

[Justice Thomas] is said to be “a ‘handkerchief head’ and ‘a chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.’ While these slurs against Justice Clarence Thomas are quoted as the words of others, Lawrence reports them — repeatedly — with the same mixture of glee and anger common in epithet calling. Finally, in the author’s own words, Justice Thomas is lashed for the ‘extremity of his betrayal’ of blacks. [footnotes omitted]

That is what racism actually looks like, in full bloom. Proper outrage over such sentiments ought to far exceed the faux uproar over Ilya’s opposition to racial and sexual preferences in hiring. Yet I am unaware of Lawrence being publicly chastised or put on administrative leave by the dean of Georgetown Law School, or of anyone at Georgetown, other than Abernathy, saying a word of public criticism about his statements.

The phenomenal Bari Weiss uncovered a real gem of hateful speech from Georgetown Law Professor Carol Christine Fair, who tweeted during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation: “Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”

In stark contrast to its treatment of Shapiro regarding his poorly worded tweet, for which he has already apologized, Georgetown Law School came to Fair’s defense, saying: “Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable.” To her credit, Fair would have Georgetown give Shapiro the same broad latitude to speak his mind that she received for her far more incendiary comments.

Beyond the selectively sensitive faculty at Georgetown, many others in the legal academy have gleefully, and without apparent consequence, expressed racist contempt for Thomas. Since working on Justice Thomas’s confirmation as a lawyer in the White House counsel’s office, I have been appalled by the frequency and vehemence of the ad hominem, racist attacks on him.

A few others, such as Professor Tomiko Brown-Nagin, have laudably objected to such attacks on Justice Thomas, as reflected in this article on a speech she gave in 2005 at the University of Virginia:

Brown-Nagin said she disagrees with Thomas on many issues. . . . Nevertheless, she chose to take a contrarian position because much of the rhetoric about Thomas’s jurisprudence is exaggerated and intellectually dishonest. Thomas has been called ‘someone who looks black, but thinks white,’ she said, and an ‘Uncle Tom’ who ‘obeys’ Justice Antonin Scalia. A recent article by a legal academic called Thomas even worse — he was a ‘Sambo’ for cultivating good relations with whites for his own advantage and to the disadvantage of other blacks.

‘I think the rhetoric is inhumane…It’s dehumanizing to Thomas as well as to all of us,’ Brown-Nagin said. ‘In my view, it’s well beyond what anyone needs to do to make their point.’

Yet, apart from a few criticisms from within the legal academy, I do not recall a single law professor being rebuked by his faculty or dean, suspended, or fired for such intemperate and baseless comments. I do not think they should be, any more than Shapiro should be punished. The remedy for speech you dislike, or even despise, is more speech, not economic intimidation or cancellation.

Perhaps the reason Ilya’s statement is being treated differently than the attacks on Justice Thomas is because legal academics frequently agree that race should be a factor in both public and private decision making and even in assigning the views people are expected to hold. But much of the public, across all races, thinks otherwise. That is precisely why it is important to have a robust debate over President Biden’s (or any other president’s) reliance on race and sex as a selection criteria.

For example, polling on affirmative action in college admissions indicates that a significant majority of black Americans agree with Thomas’s and Ilya’s opposition to racial preferences and to racializing all aspects of American life. According to a Pew Research poll in 2019, 62 percent of blacks opposed having race be a factor at all in college admission criteria.

On other issues, such as voter ID laws and defund the police, the liberal and academic elite clearly do not represent the views of the majority of black Americans. A 2021 poll shows that 69 percent of blacks support voter ID requirements to vote. A 2021 poll showed only 28 percent of black Americans supported the defund the police movement.

But holding the “wrong” views on these issues will get you branded a racist on college and law school campuses. That the legal academy is so out of step with the sentiment of ordinary Americans even across racial boundaries makes it all the clearer that scholars like Ilya should have a place at Georgetown to challenge the received wisdom in academia on these questions without being accused of, let alone disciplined or fired for, “racial insensitivity.”

Shapiro’s tweet did not disparage anyone, including any potential Supreme Court nominee, on account of his or her race or sex. It would be the height of employing a double standard if Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor took any additional adverse action against Shapiro for this tweet when many law professors continue to smear Justice Thomas as unqualified or a traitor to his race and are celebrated in the academic community.

Shapiro is a good man, an excellent scholar, and has a much-needed alternative point of view to contribute to the Georgetown Law community. Let’s see if Treanor has the integrity to live up to his professed “respect for diversity” and keep Shapiro.


Media rebrands Ottawa truckers as the “Canadian far right.”

JAZZ SHAW at HotAir:


Photo by Arthur Mola/Invision/AP

One of the interesting aspects of the ongoing Freedom Convoy protests in Canada, aside from the underlying complaints of the protesters, is the curious way that the media in both that nation and the United States have chosen to construct a narrative around the protesters. This is something that others like Tucker Carlson have been noticing and pushing back against. One of the most recent examples can be found in this “explainer” from NBC News published on Thursday evening. They have clearly chosen to lump all of the protesters together as some sort of Trumpesque, Canadian “far right-wing” splinter group of extremists. Unfortunately for NBC’s dogged reporters, examples of any sort of right-wing extremism are few and far between. Also, the poster child they selected to showcase the “harm” that the truckers are causing (a 26-year-old gay Russian immigrant) leaves much to be desired in terms of the impact the protesters are actually having on his life.

When Justin Romanov fled to Canada from Russia nearly a decade ago, he found a safe haven. As a refugee who had been repeatedly beaten by police in Moscow for protesting in support of LGBTQ rights, he felt safe enough to build a life — finding a partner and buying a house just outside Ottawa.

But over the past two weeks, Romanov, 26, said he has seen a different side of Canada, with an unprecedented demonstration in the country’s capital. The hundreds of truckers and protesters rallying outside Ottawa’s Parliament Hill and demanding an end to Covid-19 vaccine mandates have made him and many others in the city afraid.

“I just don’t feel safe to be there,” Romanov, who travels downtown every day to work as a food delivery driver, told NBC News. “I do not feel safe in downtown Ottawa right now because I have a feeling if people will learn that I’m a refugee and a gay, I’m afraid of some trouble there and to be honest, I am a little bit disappointed that this protest (is) still happening across Canada.”

That heartstring-plucking tale is a perfect fit for the MSM because it exactly parallels the media’s characterization of the “harm” caused to liberals by conservative speech in the United States. Mr. Romanov “doesn’t feel safe” with all of these protests going on. He doesn’t even suggest that anyone has attacked him or even verbally confronted him. He’s just “afraid” that someone will find out he’s gay and presumably come to beat him up or whatever.

There are a couple of problems with this line of attack by NBC News. First of all, nobody is out there protesting against gays or lesbians. Nor are they protesting legal immigrants like Romanov being in the country. They’re protesting the COVID mandates. Now, if he had complained that he was losing work in his delivery driver job because the convoy has shut off deliveries of products that he carries or that the store shelves were bare because cross-border commerce has ground to a halt, he would have a legitimate complaint worth airing. But that angle isn’t good enough for the narrative. There has to be some fear of “harm” from the far-right wing.

As far as all the talk of malevolent forces infiltrating the convoy goes, NBC makes a spirited effort to find examples. They point to “the rare, but still disturbing, presence of Confederate flags and flags bearing swastikas.” I’ve been poring through all of the pictures and videos coming out of Ottawa and I’ve seen precisely two idiots with those types of flags. Even NBC is forced to include the word “rare” in the description, but it still received prominent billing.

Another “frightened” resident is quoted as saying that the protests definitely have a “far-right underbelly.” Returning to Romanov, he describes the protests as, “a small minority of white people who have radical ideas.” I suppose we can just ignore for the moment the fact that Romanov himself is almost painfully white.

So that’s the characterization that most of the media have chosen to run with. The original protests against the vaccine mandates have been coopted by right-wing radicals and underneath it all, Donald Trump must surely be to blame for this somehow. Meanwhile, a Canadian judge has now ordered the truckers to go home.

Dozens protesting Covid-19 rules continued to block the entrance to the Ambassador Bridge between the United States and Canada late Friday, hours after a judge ordered them to leave…

After the judge’s order, police warned that anyone blocking streets or helping to block streets could be arrested. It was not immediately clear when or if law enforcement officers would be sent in to remove the demonstrators.

The protesters are still there. This was obviously a bluff. They don’t have enough jail cells or even enough police in the province to arrest that many people. But the response by the government at both the federal and provincial levels has become increasingly threatening and caustic. People are starting to notice this. It’s gotten bad enough that even Bill Maher went on the air and compared Justin Trudeau to HitlerI know, right?

Getting To Know Today’s Red Canada BETTER!

by Karen Leibowitcz

Jul 15, 2020

Article sent by a Minnesota RETIRED PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, Mark Waldeland:

Of Course Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s Dad. Nobody Has ‘Debunked’ Anything

In the age of sloppy journalism, few authors are sloppier than those who claim they ‘debunked’ the story that Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s biological father. They recite the Canadian governments’ official travel dates to Cuba and painfully avoid the Trudeaus’ extensive personal trip to the Caribbean trip in Spring 1971. It is a fact the Trudeaus were in the Caribbean in Spring 1971. It is a fact they adored Castro. It is a fact the Trudeaus were swingers. This is what you need to know.

First, Margaret Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau, and Fidel Castro were all notoriously sexually promiscuous. Margaret Trudeau was a partier who unquestionably had sex with men while married to Pierre. Nobody knows if Pierre objected. They met when he was 48 and she was 18. They got married when he was 53 and she was 23. Their marriage surprised Canada because Pierre had been a lifelong playboy with no wife or children. He would be turning 60 when she was barely out of her 20’s. She publicly states today she suffered from bipolar disorder and self-control issues. She smuggled drugs in the Prime Minister’s official government luggage. She sneaked away from official functions to get high. She partied scantily clad at Studio 54. She became embroiled in a scandal for having sex with Ted Kennedy (gross). According to Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, Pierre broke up with her while she was having an affair with Ronnie Wood. The list goes on.

Pierre Trudeau slept around too. According to a 2009 Globe and Mail article by Margaret Wente, actress Margot Kidder (Superman, Superman II), classical guitarist Liona Boyd, and actress Kim Cattrall all claimed to have slept with him at some time. Pierre Trudeau biographer John English states the “evidence is overwhelming” that he slept with Barbara Streisand. The record is not immediately clear how much of that happened before the couple was separated, but before she moved out of the house he was entertaining three women downstairs at a time:

He often invited two girlfriends to the same event. Allan Gotlieb, his ambassador to Washington, complained about one dinner he hosted for Mr. Trudeau because he had three girlfriends there…he carried on downstairs even though Margaret [while separated] was still in residence upstairs.

Fidel Castro put them both to shame. His sexual appetite was so legendary this article cannot efficiently capture it. Suffice it to say, he endeavored to have sex with two new women every day and sent aides to fetch them. He fathered 11 acknowledged children and rumors are he has multiple times that many bastards.

Second, the Trudeaus adored Castro. They, their aides and friends all said so. According to John English’s “Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1968–2000” they were charmed by Castro and made several trips to embargo-era Cuba just to see him. In 2000, Castro made a rare appearance out of Cuba to attend Pierre’s funeral in Canada. On his visit, Margaret welcomed the leader at his hotel on behalf of the Trudeaus. They demonstrated a striking level of familiarity before even getting off the tarmac of their 1976 trip. They all took photographs together. The Trudeaus introduced Castro to their children. And when Castro died, Justin Trudeau was the only leader of the Western World to give him an overwhelmingly positive eulogy without addressing his misdeeds.

1976 Fidel Castro holding Michael Trudeau next to an adoring Mararet while still on the tarmac of their first official visit.

Third, the timing is uncanny. This is the part about which ‘debunkers’ intentionally mislead readers. Justin Trudeau was born on Christmas day, 1971. In order for his father to be Fidel Castro, his mother would have to be somewhere close to Cuba in March and April 1971.

She was.

In April 1971, the Trudeaus took a long “second honeymoon” all around the Caribbean. According to Wikipedia, they visited one island they declined to disclose. It is the only island they did not disclose. From Wikipedia:


Footnote 19 of the same Wikipedia article cites to a April 13, 1971 article from The Ottawa Journal. The article states that the Trudeaus were visiting an unidentified island in the Caribbean and wanted the press to give them privacy:

To be clear: they disclosed all the other locations they visited but asked the press for privacy when they went to the “unidentified” island. Come on.

Justin Trudeau was born 8 1/2 months later. In 1976, Pierre eagerly became the first NATO leader to travel to Cuba. He brought his wife. Before even leaving the tarmac, both Trudeaus were showing an unusual amount of familiarity with Fidel considering he was a national leader they just allegedly met. Within hours of their first official meeting, Margaret was photographed intimately touching and holding Fidel Castro with both arms. The Trudeaus announced they had become besties with the dictator and sang his praises during the height of his human rights violations.

Due to his age and lack of previous children, rumors began to spread that Pierre was infertile and that Castro and others were the biological fathers of his children. Perhaps that was unfair at the time. But then Justin Trudeau improbably grew up to look like this:

And this:

And this: