• 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

Canada’s Fascist Prime Minister IS NOT A PROBLEM SOLVING WINNER



Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asserted emergency powers to try to shut down the trucker protests that have embarrassed his administration and interrupted trade across the bridge between Detroit and Windsor. (One of the ironies here is that truckers are protesting against, among other things, Canadian edicts that impaired trade between the U.S. and Canada. The Babylon Bee headlined, “Trudeau Demands Protesters Stop Shutting Down City So That He Can Shut Down City.”)

Trudeau and the Canadian and American press have tried to demonize the truckers by calling them racists, white supremacists, etc. This litany is so old, so tired, and so obviously inapplicable to the truckers that I didn’t think it would have any impact. And it hasn’t. On the contrary, Rasmussen finds that a clear majority of Americans support the protesters:

Canada’s prime minister has invoked emergency powers in an attempt to shut down a protest by truckers seeking an end to COVID-19 restrictions, but most American voters support the so-called “Freedom Convoy” – and think a similar protest here would be a good idea.

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports finds that 59% of Likely U.S. voters support the Canadian trucker protest, including 42% who Strongly Support the “Freedom Convoy.” Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters oppose the trucker protest against Canada’s COVID-19 restrictions, including 21% who Strongly Oppose the protest.

So: 59% support the truckers’ protest, while 33% oppose it. This is partly because most voters think Canada should do away with its covid restrictions:

Fifty-one percent (51%) say Trudeau should end Canada’s COVID-19 restrictions, while 35% don’t think Trudeau should concede to protest leaders by ending the restriction. Another 14% are not sure.

Many have said that it would be great if America’s truckers followed the Canadian example. Rasmussen finds that sentiment to be widespread:

There have been suggestions that American truckers should stage protests like Canada’s “Freedom Convoy.” Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say they would support trucker protests against COVID-19 restrictions in the United States, including 36% who would Strongly Support such protests. Thirty-eight percent (38%) would oppose U.S. trucker protests against COVID-19 restrictions, including 27% who would Strongly Oppose such protests in the United States.

I assume the Democratic Party is seeing similar numbers in its polling, which explains why so many Democratic governors are scrambling to end covid shutdowns or disassociate themselves from such policies.

But liberals are fighting a spirited rear-guard action. GoFundMe first said they would confiscate at least some of the money donated to the truckers and give it to someone else. When it was pointed out that this clearly would be illegal, they settled for kicking the truckers off their platform and refunding the donors’ money. The truckers moved to GiveSendGo, which so far has stood firm.

However, leftists have evidently hacked into GiveSendGo and have published personal information about those who have supported the truckers–i.e., those who represent the majority. A friend of mine was among the donors, and received this communication from a reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Company:

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:22 AM
To: ________
Subject: CBC News Query – Freedom Convoy Donation

Hi _________,

My name is Joseph Loiero, I’m a journalist with CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) based in Washington, D.C.

I’m emailing hoping you have some time to chat about a donation made to the Freedom Convoy in Canada in your name.

I don’t want to take up too much of your time, but let me know if you have a few minutes to connect today. You can reach me at this email address or on my cell at 202-841-0030. Or if you like, let me know if there’s a number I can reach you and and I can give you a ring.

Thank you very much.



I don’t know, it is possible that Mr. Loiero might have written a fair story about those–the majority–who support the truckers’ protest. But given the tight connection between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian left, that seems unlikely. My friend declined to be interviewed.

I Used To Be A Teacher Of Russian! ghr

February 15, 2022

Are the JFK assassination lies finally coming apart?

By Thomas Lifson at American Thinker:

We are closing in on 60 years since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, and in that time, there have been endless independent investigations disputing, or occasionally endorsing, the conclusions of the Warren Commission.  If I were reading instead of writing this blog post, at this point, I would be worrying that yet another boring recitation of arcana from the mountains of evidence was about to be presented to me.

But excerpts from a new book about to be published on the assassination blew my socks off.  It contains what looks like solid evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and that Kennedy was killed by a bullet fired from in front of his limousine, one that entered the car through the windshield.  Lee Harvey Oswald’s purported location in the Texas School Book Depository was to the side of and behind the car, so he could not have fired a bullet that entered the car through the windshield.

I am so old that I watched the assassination of Oswald on live television and heard him say, “I’m just a patsy” right before he died, words that have haunted me ever since.  Those are not the words of an entirely innocent man, who would have said, “I didn’t do it,” or similar words of denial.  No, Oswald’s words suggested knowledge of larger forces that participated and his realization that he had been played.  And a desire to tell his story.  A desire that Jack Ruby thwarted seconds later.

Emerald Robinson has published on Substack a fascinating excerpt from a book manuscript titled The Oswald Letter, written by Thomas Lipscomb with Jerome Koch.  Full disclosure: I have been corresponding with Tom Lipscomb for many years, though we have never met.  He has authored two articles for AT.  But more importantly, Tom has shared his vast experience in journalism and publishing with me.  So I am inclined to grant him the presumption of integrity.

But read the excerpt for yourself and see what you think of the testimonial and photographic evidence.  It’s not a very long read, and it is engaging.

“A NOTE FROM GLENN”…. I was teaching four classes of Russian at the University of Minnesota HIGH SCHOOL that November of 1961. Near noon’s lunch while in my office, there was sudden turmoil out in the hall which began to sound like several halls echoing loud chatters at a time kids were supposed to be in their classes. One of the students, Tony Gelfand, who was a neighbor of mine before I was in the army and returned to go into teaching Russian, banged open my door and shouted, “Mr. Ray, Mr. Ray, President Kennedy’s been shot! Tony was a champion jokester whom I knew well and so responded in a shout, “Tony, That’s Not Funny!” He told me, “No, Mr. Ray! It’s True”!

I then understood the noises above and below my floor! An hour later radio news noted, “President, John F. Kennedy”, was dead!

I think it was the coming Sunday when I was watching television and saw the President’s shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald shot to death as if in some dumb movie.

It was becoming clear in the later 1960s that our United States of America was no longer the beautiful, civil, peaceful America trying to straighten out its civics and racism in our South!. It was only ten years earlier that Sundays were required by practice in Minnesota and North Dakota to be closed, very closed, except for drug stores and small food shops. Churches’ decencies used to be cherished in those days.

We had sisters and brothers then…..Mothers …..Fathers who had sisters and brothers then….lots of them!

So Christian folks went to crowded Churches on Sundays! Jewish folks went to Synagogues on Saturday’s!

I never heard any swearing….we kids never heard anything beyond “darn” or “damn” which only adults allowed for use, but we’d be punished if we kids ever said such vulgar words!


Justin Trudeau’s DICTATORSHIP Rules Canada!?

Canada PM Justin Trudeau slammed for invoking emergency powers to stop protests

By Yaron Steinbuch at the New York Post:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been criticized by several civil liberties groups and politicians for invoking emergency powers to stop the protests across the country against COVID-19 restrictions.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has argued that the protests, which have snarled traffic in cities and at the border, did not meet the standard to have invoked the Emergencies Act.

“The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation ‘seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada’ & when the situation ‘cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada,’” it said on Twitter.

“Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties,” the association added.

Trudeau on Monday invoked Canada’s Emergencies Act, which gives the federal government broad powers to restore order.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Trudeau has been criticized by several civil liberties groups and politicians for invoking emergency powers.

It threatened to tow away vehicles to keep essential services running; freeze truckers’ personal and corporate bank accounts; and take further action to strike at their livelihoods and the sources of their financial support.

“Consider yourselves warned,” Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland told the “Freedom Convoy” members.

“If your truck is used in these blockades, your corporate accounts will be frozen. The insurance on your vehicle will be suspended. Send your rigs home,” Freeland added.

Some groups have approved of the measure, calling it “responsible” and “a good strategy,” but others have condemned it as government overreach, Fox News reported.

A demonstrators cheers during a protest by truck drivers over pandemic health rules and the Trudeau government,
Canada’s Emergencies Act can be used to freeze truckers’ personal and corporate bank accounts.

Lori Williams, a politics professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, told Reuters that “there’s the danger this could create more problems,” adding: “That’s why this has to be done with the cooperation of premiers and if they don’t want help, then the federal government needs to hang back.

“It has to be very targeted, very strategic and very restrained, because these are enormous powers that are being implemented,” she said.

A woman swalks before vehicles blocking a road during a protest by truck drivers over pandemic health rules and the Trudeau government,
For more than two weeks, hundreds and sometimes thousands of protesters in trucks have clogged the streets of Ottawa, railing against vaccine mandates.

Leah West, an assistant professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, said: “The federal government must consult with provinces and Cabinet must believe the protests rise to the level of a national emergency.

“Can it truly be said the security of Canada is threatened by largely non-violent protests? Certainly, our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not at risk,” she said in a tweet.

Quebec Premier Francois Legault said that imposing the act risks putting “oil on the fire” by further polarizing the population and argued that local authorities in the province have the situation under control.

truckers protest Canada
Protesters have condemned Trudeau’s Liberal government.

“I was very clear with the prime minister that the federal emergency act must not apply in Quebec. I think we don’t need it. I think that at this moment it would not help the social climate,” Legault told reporters, according to Reuters.

“There’s a lot of pressure right now and I think we have to be careful. So it’s about time we put all Quebecers together. But I can understand that enough is enough in Ottawa. You can protest but you cannot do what they are doing since two weeks,” he said.

In Manitoba, Premier Heather Stefanson said she believed that “the sweeping effects and signals associated with the never-before-used Emergencies Act are not constructive here in Manitoba, where caution must be taken against overreach and unintended negative consequences.

Parliament of Canada in Ottawa
Protesters take to the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa to voice their displeasure.

“While the situation is very different in Ontario, this ultimate federal legislation should only be considered on a measured and proportional basis, in locations where it is truly needed,” Stefanson told reporters.

Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said: “I’ll support the federal government and any proposals they have to bring law and order back to our province, to make sure we stabilize our businesses and trade around the world as the world is watching us right now, wondering if it’s a stable environment to open up businesses and expand businesses.

“These occupiers, they’re doing the total opposite what they say they’re there to do. They’re hurting hundreds of thousands of families, millions of jobs across the province,” he told reporters.

Goldy Hyder, CEO of the Business Council of Canada, told Reuters: “We recognize the gravity of the federal government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. Having called on the federal government to show national leadership, we welcome this as a step toward ending illegal blockades across the country and upholding the rule of law.”

Phil Boyle, associate chair for legal studies at the University of Waterloo, called it “an interesting strategic move there to go after the money. That seems appropriate.


Canada’s Trudeau invokes emergency powers to quell trucker COVID protests

“One of the things that worked in Windsor, with the Ambassador Bridge, was the threat of taking away their licenses. If your livelihood depends on license, you’re going to think twice before putting that at risk. So that might very well work with the case of Ottawa,” Boyle told Reuters.

“No doubt there will be some litigation to come of this, considering it’s never been done before … If these emergency measures are targeted within a particular province … Trudeau would only do it if he had the relevant province on board. Maybe that would lessen the potential for litigation,” he said.

“I wonder, how does this federal emergencies order square with the (Ontario) provincial emergencies order that was just ordered on Friday? I don’t think we’ve ever been in a situation where both the provincial and the federal government have, at the same time, invoked extraordinary emergency measures,” Boyle added.

For more than two weeks, hundreds and sometimes thousands of protesters in trucks and other vehicles have clogged the streets of Ottawa, the nation’s capital, and besieged Parliament Hill, railing against vaccine mandates for truckers and other COVID-19 precautions and condemning Trudeau’s Liberal government.




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.


Trump: ‘I Was Proven Right About the Spying, and I Will Be Proven Right About 2020!’

By Debra Heine at American Greatness:

February 14, 2022

In a court filing on Friday, Special Council John Durham revealed that in July 2016, a tech executive worked with the Clinton campaign’s law firm Perkins Coie to mine secret internet data in search of information that could be used to claim a corrupt Trump-Russia connection. According to Durham, Clinton’s team “exploited” data in internet traffic from Trump Tower, from Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and from the Executive Office of the President of the United States after Trump was elected.

For an October surprise, Clinton famously tweeted about a “secret server” in Trump Tower that was communicating with Russia.


The tech exec, Rodney Joffe, “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement” (government contract) to provide tech services, according to Durham.

According to a Fox News source, Durham’s investigation has “accelerated,” and “cooperating” witnesses are increasingly coming before the federal grand jury.

The source told Fox News Monday that Durham has run his investigation “very professionally,” and, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, his activities, and witness information and cooperation status are rarely, if ever, leaked.

“Durham does this right and keeps it a secret,” the source said, adding that there has been “much more activity” in Durham’s investigation “than has been visible to the public.”

In April of 2019, former Attorney General Willian Barr assigned Durham to investigate the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.

It was well established by that time that the Clinton Campaign was behind the discredited Steele dossier, and the FBI used the dossier to obtain approval from the FISA Court to wiretap Carter Page, a low-level former Trump campaign adviser. In 2016, the FBI also used confidential informant Professor Stefan Halper to spy on Page and George Papadopoulos, another low-level Trump adviser, and used a female undercover agent to secretly record conversations with Papadopoulos.

In October of 2020, Barr quietly appointed Durham to be special counsel for the Department of Justice, a position he still holds.

At this point, Durham has indicted three people as part of his investigation: Igor Danchenko on Nov. 4, 2021, Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020, and Michael Sussmann in September 2021.

Ratcliffe told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” on Nov. 8, 2021, that he was expecting “many indictments” out of Durham’s special counsel investigation.

Danchenko was charged with making a false statement and is accused of lying to the FBI about the source of information that he provided to Christopher Steele for the anti-Trump dossier. Kevin Clinesmith was also charged with making a false statement. Clinesmith had been referred for potential prosecution by the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office, which conducted its own review of the Russia investigation.

Specifically, the inspector general accused Clinesmith, though not by name, of altering an email about Page to say that he was “not a source” for another government agency. Page has said he was a source for the CIA. The DOJ relied on that assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Trump campaign aide Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Durham also charged former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.

The indictment against Sussmann says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work “for any client” when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

Fox News, this weekend, first reported on Durham’s filing on Feb. 11. In a section titled “Factual Background,” Durham reveals that Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”

Durham’s filing said Sussmann’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”

Sussmann’s attorneys on Monday filed a scathing response to Durham’s motion, accusing him of making prejudicial and false allegations.

According to Fox News, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, who served as a U.S. congressman and as the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, said he believes more people will be indicted.

Former President Trump reacted to the news on Saturday evening, saying 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.”

For years, Trump was mercilessly mocked and chastised by the corporate media every time he correctly noted that he’d been improperly spied on.

Trump on Monday linked the bombshell revelation that the Clinton campaign infiltrated Trump White House servers with the intelligence community’s blessing to the rigged 2020 election.

“I was proven right about the spying, and I will be proven right about 2020!” Trump wrote in an official statement.

According to Newsbusters,  the Sunday morning talk shows, including Face The Nation (CBS), State of the Union (CNN), and This Week (ABC), completely ignored the bombshell news.

Instead of covering this story, the Sunday shows decided to focus on a different Russia story: what Russian President Vladimir Putin might or might not do in regards to Ukraine, as well as obsessing over the January 6 Capitol Riots that happened over a year ago. Both CBS & CNN had the opportunity to ask Biden Administration National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan about the Durham news but they both failed to consider it.

On Monday, the former president released another statement blasting the corporate media for refusing to cover the massive story.

Can you imagine that, what should be the biggest story of our time, bigger than Watergate, is getting absolutely no mention, ZERO, in the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC Fake News, NBC Fake News, CBS Fake News, ratings-dead CNN, and MSDNC. This in itself is a scandal, the fact that a story so big, so powerful, and so important for the future of our Nation is getting zero coverage from LameStream, is being talked about all over the world. Just like they wouldn’t talk about the many Biden corruption scandals prior to the Election, (or for that matter now!), they won’t talk about this, which is potentially even bigger. It shows how totally corrupt and shameless the media is. Can you imagine if the roles were reversed and the Republicans, in particular President Donald Trump, got caught illegally spying into the Office of the President? All hell would break loose and the electric chair would immediately come out of retirement. The good news is, everybody is talking about not only this atrocity against our Nation, but that the press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place.


Share onTwitterFacebookParler

About Debra Heine

Debra Heine is a conservative Catholic mom of six and longtime political pundit. She has written for several conservative news websites over the years, including Breitbart and PJ Media.




I wrote about the riots on Lake Street in Minneapolis this past Friday night here over the weekend. The Star Tribune hasn’t reported or editorialized on the riots. Instead they have published a brief op-ed column by Andy Brehm. Andy is a corporate attorney and former press secretary to then Senator Norm Coleman. To top it off, Andy lives in St. Paul.

Andy’s column appears under the heading “Anarchy in Minneapolis goes unchallenged.” Subhead: “This crisis of criminality cannot continue to be ignored.” This must come as something of a shock to readers who get their news from the Star Tribune:

Last Friday night, lawbreaking activists marched on Uptown’s Lake Street and illegally barricaded traffic for two hours, graffitied local businesses and terrorized the few people still willing to patronize that dangerous neighborhood at night. All without any — I repeat any — pushback from the Minneapolis Police Department.

What was equally disturbing was that the Star Tribune did not devote a single drop of ink to writing about this hellish episode in the hell world that has become Minneapolis at dusk. Nor was there a peep of protest from Mayor Jacob Frey.

What a slap in the face to weary Uptown residents and businesses that have bravely refused to give up on their neighborhood.

Have things become so bad in Minneapolis that this kind of infernal Friday night — unthinkable just a few years ago — is now not worth the attention of Star Tribune readers? Has law and order been so soundly surrendered that such dangerous disorder does not warrant any response from police nor the attention of the mayor?

I love Minneapolis. Despite its sad state, I go out of my way to support its restaurants and retailers. My parents still call downtown Minneapolis home even though their neighborhood looks and feels nothing like it did when they moved in. It breaks my heart to see the deterioration of our once-great city in such a short span of time.

But what’s most disturbing is the seeming hopeless acceptance of the current state of things. When something like last Friday night’s Uptown chaos garners no attention from politicians, the police nor this paper, the message to lawbreakers is clear: “Do whatever you want. We don’t care.” How feckless and foolish.

The problem with accepting decline is that the downturn will continue. These things don’t just fix themselves — and matters in Minneapolis can and will get worse if coddled criminals continue to have their hands held.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Minneapolis can be a functional city again — and its residents and businesses surely deserve that. But that will never happen if it remains so dangerous. Minneapolis leaders and this newspaper need to give the crisis of criminality the attention and seriousness it deserves so it can be dealt with instead of ignored. Then and only then will Minneapolis have a shot at better days.

One might think that the story here would have cracked the paper’s pages and merited the attention of the paper’s editors. Indeed, the dissolution of civic order in Minneapolis merits their attention in some form every day. The city is in critical condition. The nonfeasance of the Star Tribune illustrates how a newspaper can contribute to the decline of a major American city.

“She (A DEM) doesn’t have a good track record”.

DOE: There is no time to respond to questions of Granholm’s ethics violations because… global warming

KAREN TOWNSEND Feb 14, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

Stefani Reynolds/Pool via AP

There is simply no time for answering questions about the ethics violations lodged against Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. The reason given by her spokeswoman is that the department is preoccupied with rising temperatures and “extreme weather events.” Yes, really.

We’ve heard some pretty silly claims about global warming from the loony left in recent years. Along with racism, global warming is blamed for just about everything. The fossil fuel industry is under attack by environmental extremists and the United States is no longer energy independent. Yet, Secretary Granholm has some ‘splaining to do and her office appears to be less than cooperative. Remember on their very first day in office Press Secretary Jen Psaki held a press conference at the White House to show how open they would be to the press? Biden promised the most transparent administration ever, though his administration has turned out to be one of the least transparent in recent history. Psaki said that Biden would “bring transparency and truth back to the government to share the truth, even when it’s hard to hear.” Good time, good times.

Last week Granholm was at the center of a growing storm of ethics complaints about her personal financial transactions. When the Washington Free Beacon reached out to her office for comment, a spokesperson said there isn’t time to handle such frivolous matters. They are completely bogged down with the whole global warming crisis. I’d like to say this person was joking, but, sadly, no. Welcome to Biden’s America.

A Department of Energy spokeswoman said the agency has no time to respond to questions about Granholm’s ethics violations because it is preoccupied with rising temperatures and “extreme weather events.”

“The planet is warming faster than ever, the cost and impact of extreme weather events are intensifying, and yet what some people are spending their time on is a $400 late fee that was already paid on a clerical oversight,” spokeswoman Charisma Troiano told the Free Beacon. “As we do every day, DOE and the Secretary remain focused on tackling the existing climate crisis and delivering an equitable clean energy future that will bring cheaper power, cleaner air and good-paying jobs for more Americans.”

The planet is warming so quickly that they can’t keep up with it, or something. And, of course, there is weather every day. While I can appreciate that her job is to spin for Granholm when these pesky questions arise, to brush it off as a “$400 late fee” is a bit much. And, why do government staffers act like hundreds of dollars in personal fines for violating codes of ethics is no big deal? Ok, that’s a rhetorical question.

Troiano is referencing the fines Granholm incurred under the STOCK Act for failing to disclose financial transactions within the mandated 45 days. The secretary’s delayed filings were at the center of a complaint that the Foundation for Accountability and Public Trust (FACT) filed on Feb. 11 with the department’s inspector general. Earlier that day, watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) sued the Department of Energy over the department’s failure to disclose information about Granholm’s family business following the group’s request to do so last year.

Granholm has faced increased scrutiny since the Free Beacon reported that she owned millions of dollars of stock in the renewable car battery manufacturer Proterra, which the Biden administration has repeatedly promoted. After Granholm sold her non-public shares of Proterra to an undisclosed buyer for a $1.6 million profit, she handed out tens of millions of dollars of government contracts to Proterra-tied companies, prompting further criticisms from watchdog groups such as PPT.

I suppose $400 isn’t any big deal when a profit is $1.6M. Nonetheless, Granholm is subject to the same disclosure rules as everyone else. Watchdog groups have questions and though DOE is busy, they would like some answers. Granholm isn’t a newbie on answering about her personal finances – she is a former two-term governor. She doesn’t have a good track record.

Jennifer Granholm is the current Secretary of Energy. She was previously a two-term governor of Michigan, a CNN political commentator, and held several profitable board memberships and consulting roles. One such board membership is Proterra Inc., – dubbed the “Tesla of electric buses” – which is currently being promoted by President Biden himself as a likely beneficiary of his renewable energy agenda. Fortunately for Granholm, another former client is Media Matters, a non-profit organization that has since defended her continued ownership of Proterra investments in the face of media scrutiny and Capitol Hill demands for investigation.

Granholm served as Governor of Michigan from 2003-2011. During her tenure, she led efforts to provide state taxpayer funds to selected companies in the electric vehicle and other renewable energy sectors. One company, Renewable and Sustainable Cos., was headed by a paroled convict who had previously gone to prison for embezzlement but was able to join then-Governor Granholm on stage to tout the supposed benefits his company would provide. Ultimately the company failed and the founder was sent back to prison after receiving over $9 million in tax benefits from Michigan. Many other companies that received investments under Granholm’s administration also went bankrupt and failed to provide either the jobs or revenue they and Grandholm promised the taxpayers.

Sounds like the bad old days of the Obama-Biden administration and such stories as Solyndra, right? Too bad she received Republican votes during her confirmation. Granholm is incompetent and it looks like she’s as corrupt as Biden, Inc. The Big Guy always gets 10%.

From a press release by Protect the Public’s Trust, a second FOIA lawsuit has been filed against DOE.

When officials are pursuing what they believe to be righteous agendas, ethics concerns can be the most important guardrails on misconduct. This statement, combined with the volume of complaints, indicates legal and ethics compliance may not be prioritized at DOE. With trust in its government already at an all-time low, the American public has legitimate concerns if the lack of commitment to legal and ethics obligations is what they can expect from DOE as long as Jennifer Granholm is leading the Department. This is especially troubling at an agency that has been far from immune to high-profile boondoggles and which is poised to receive significant increases in funding.

The Department’s budget was more than $39.5 billion in fiscal year 2021 and DOE requested nearly $46.2 billion for 2022, a 16.66% increase. With ever more billions of taxpayer dollars committed to the agency, the necessity for those in charge of setting policy and overseeing the expenditure of those funds to adhere to the ethics guidelines put in place to protect the interests of the American public has even greater importance.

Apparently DOE thinks the laws are for little people, not them, since they have such important work to do, or something. It’s more arrogance coming from the Biden administration. Admitting that answering questions about the secretary’s ethics behavior is a low priority is a bad look for any office. Taxpayers deserve answers.


Both the left and the right are seeing Justin Trudeau as a pure tyrant

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

For those who, like me, value freedom, the valiant protest in which the Canadian truckers are engaged is inspiring.  We’ve also been thrilled to see the thousands of Canadians who turned out to support the truckers.  Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response (running away, name-calling, huge threats) is beginning to disgust people across the political spectrum.  Polls show, however, that even though a bare majority of Canadians dislike mandates, most of them are still inert.

In the conservative blogosphere, writers have made no secret of how much Trudeau repulses them.  Douglas Murray sums up the feelings of lots of people when he writes (behind a Telegraph paywall):

As time goes on it becomes clear that Trudeau really is the worst leader in the democratic world. His principal qualifications for the role were that he had been a primary school teacher and that his father had been prime minister before him.

Other than that, he simply promised to do things differently, to be more empathetic, to emote more, to be more feminine and more understanding.

Unfortunately, if you do not happen to agree with the silken-haired premier, he will have zero time for you. In recent months, as the rest of the world has adapted to Covid, Trudeau seems to have boxed himself into a corner on the matter.
In an effort to persuade the population to get vaccinated, Trudeau did everything he could to defame those who disagreed with him. This extended to him dismissing anyone hesitant about taking the vaccine as being (guess what?) racist, mysogynistic [sic] and more. Trudeau had no evidence for any of this, but this is the modern way of excommunicating any person or group of people. Say that they are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobes and you have successfully un-personed such people.
John Nolte, another conservative, compares Trudeau to George Wallace:
By any measure, Trudeau’s vaccine mandates are indefensible. Trudeau’s dehumanizing rhetoric against the unvaccinated (or those who support the vaccine and oppose mandates) is monstrous. Trudeau’s willingness to practice open segregation against people over personal medical choices is tyrannical.
What Democrat Gov. George Wallace was to the civil rights movement, Justin Trudeau is to the Freedom Convoy.

Trudeau is the villain fighting an unjust cause.

Trudeau is the fascist willing to destroy innocent people’s livelihoods to enforce immoral laws.

Trudeau is the gangster ready to commit violence rather than admit he is wrong.

Well, sure.  That’s what we’d expect conservatives to say.  What’s interesting, though, is that this dripping disdain is beginning to come from people on the left, too.

Matt Taibbi has compared Trudeau to Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceaușescu.  This isn’t because Trudeau is the despot Ceaușescu was (yet).  It’s because Trudeau, like Ceaușescu, is so immured in his sense of tyrannical rightness that he is unable to see that the people have turned against him.  (Although maybe Trudeau’s right.  More on that in a minute.)

Image: Justin Trudeau, North American tyrant (edited).  YouTube screen grab.

And Bill Maher, of all people, compared Trudeau to Hitler for an insightful reason: Trudeau, going beyond just otherizing unvaccinated people by calling them racist and misogynistic, said, “They take up space and, with that, we have to make a choice — in terms of a leader in a country — do we tolerate these people?”

Maher was offended.  “No, they’re not.  Tolerate these—?  Now you do sound like Hitler.”

Yes, Trudeau is bad.  But it’s sadly possible the Canadian people just don’t care.  David Solway, a Canadian, points out something ugly:

The problem is that fully two-thirds of the electorate rejects or is indifferent to the trucker revolt against unscrupulous and demagogic power. According to an Angus Reid poll, 54% of Canadians would like to see the COVID-19 mandates lifted, yet they are not interested in standing up for the Freedom Convoy that carries their banner. The trucker unions jealous of their perquisites and the bought-and-paid-for national press have also sided with the wielders of tyrannical authority.

A supine and compliant majority population, even more than a corrupt and imperious governing elite, will determine whether the nation survives or not. The truckers are battling not only a prime minister who admires Communist China and Castroite Cuba, or a banausic troglodyte like Ontario premier Doug Ford, but a majority citizenry that cares little for democratic freedoms and wishes only to get on with things as they were, fully vaccinated and content to go about masked and docile like a Costco herd of narcotized zombies.

No matter the insults one levels at Trudeau, it appears that the Canadian people got the leader they deserve.  I pity those who seek liberty there just as, here in America, I pity those Americans stuck with Biden. 

Crooked Hillary…..HER GREATEST TALENT!

Special Counsel: Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was President

The details John Durham sprinkled throughout his filings suggest even more bombshells are to come.

MARGOT CLEVELAND of the Federalist:

Enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge.

A tangential filing on Friday in the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann revealed these new details uncovered by Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation. The revelation came in the middle of a 13-page motion Durham’s prosecutors filed in the criminal case against Sussmann. The special counsel’s office charged Sussmann in September 2021, in a one-count indictment of lying to James Baker during a meeting Sussmann had with the then-FBI general counsel in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election.

During Sussmann’s September 19, 2016 meeting with Baker, Sussmann allegedly provided the FBI general counsel information that purported to show the existence of a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russian Alfa Bank. The indictment charged that Sussmann told Baker during that meeting that he was not working on behalf of any client, when, according to the indictment, Sussmann was actually acting on behalf of “a U.S. technology industry executive at a U.S. Internet company”—later identified as Rodney Joffe—and “the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.”

While the special counsel’s indictment of the Clinton campaign lawyer was, by itself, huge news, the details Durham sprinkled throughout the 27 pages of the talking indictment suggest even more bombshells are to come. Those allegations suggested “a scandal much deeper than merely Sussmann’s role in a second Russian hoax — a scandal that entangles the Clinton campaign, multiple internet companies, two federally-funded university researchers, and a complicit media.”

The Details Are Starting to Come Out

The talking indictment filed against Sussmann soon proved to be the first of many “talking” legal documents Durham’s team filed with the court. A little more than a month after charging Sussman, Durham filed a response to Sussmann’s “Motion for a Bill of Particulars”—a motion that asked the court to order Durham to provide more details about his alleged crime. That response revealed more details about Durham’s investigation.

A “discovery update” filed in late January added even more texture to the charge against Sussmann and the broader investigation. Durham exposed even more intrigue in the “clarification” to the discovery update he filed a few days later. In Friday’s motion, formally a “Motion to Inquire into Potential Conflicts of Interest,” Durham continued providing the public an update on select portions of the special counsel’s probe.

The special counsel’s office opened the motion by explaining that it believes Sussmann’s current counsel of Latham and Watkins, LLP may have potential conflicts of interests that could affect its representation of Sussmann. Those “potential conflicts likely could be addressed with a knowing and voluntary waiver by the defendant upon consultation with conflict-free counsel,” Durham’s team explained. But such a waiver, Durham requested, should be made “on the record” before trial.

Obtaining an on-the-record waiver by Sussmann of any such conflict of interest would limit Sussmann’s ability to later challenge any conviction, whether following a plea agreement or a jury verdict. The court will likely grant that motion to ensure both that any waiver of the conflict is knowing and voluntary and to ensure Sussmann cannot later attempt to overturn any conviction based on the conflict.

It is what followed in the next 12 pages, however, and not the mundane minutia of this motion, that proved explosive. In explaining the potential conflicts-of-interests Sussmann’s Lathan and Watkins attorneys possibly had, Durham explained much more of the get-Trump plot.

Yes, They Spied on Trump

To explain the potential conflicts, Durham began with the charge, noting as “factual background” that Sussmann, while serving as counsel to the Clinton campaign, met with FBI General Counsel Baker at FBI headquarters and provided Baker “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank.”

The motion then reiterated the indictment’s allegations that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Joffe worked with Sussmann, the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and “numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers.” “In connection with these efforts,” the motion continued, Joffe “exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data.”

Joffe would then “task” researchers at Georgia Tech “to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” the motion read, with Joffe indicating “that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals with the Clinton Campaign and Sussmann’s law firm at the time, Perkins Coie.”

Friday’s motion then, for the first time, revealed that the Internet data Joffe and his associates exploited “was domain name system (‘DNS’) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

The motion further stressed that Joffe’s internet company “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.” Joffe and his associates, the motion claimed, “exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

According to the motion, Joffe did more than have his associates mine internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, and the executive office of the president of the United States—he gave that data to Sussmann, who provided it to the CIA during a February 9, 2017 meeting. During that meeting, Sussmann gave the CIA “data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, the EOP, and a healthcare provider, of internet protocol or IP addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provided.”

According to Friday’s motion, Sussmann told the CIA during this meeting “that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”

Not only was there “no support for these allegations,” the motion explained, but the special counsel’s office obtained “more complete DNS data” from the company that assisted Joffe. It discovered that Joffe and his associates had gathered data showing that between 2014 and 2017 there were more than 3 million lookups of the Russian phone-provider’s IP address, but fewer than 1,000 originated with IPS addresses affiliated with Trump Tower.

Additionally, the data assembled by Joffe and his associates showed the DNS look-ups involving the EOP and the Russian cellphone provider “began at least as earlier as 2014 i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office.”

The data Sussmann shared with the CIA, however, omitted both these details. Sussmann also allegedly told the CIA he was not acting on behalf of any client when, according to Durham, Sussmann was, in fact, working for Joffe.

This Means Joffe Knew Sussman Was Lying to the CIA

This revelation is huge. It means Joffe had data that disproved the very theory Sussman peddled to the CIA about Trump or his associates “using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Further, the CIA received only the misleading data and not the full analysis Joffe had commissioned.

Two added details confirm the significance of this revelation. First, shortly after news of the Sussmann indictment broke and while the press remained hyper-focused on the Alfa Bank angle, The New York Times gave Sussmann’s team an assist in getting ahead of the news by causally reporting about the targeting of Trump with DNS look-ups.

“The Alfa Bank suspicions were only half of what the researchers sought to bring to the government’s attention, according to several people familiar with the matter,” Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman reported for the Times in a September 30, 2021 article.

“Their other set of concerns centered on data suggesting that a YotaPhone — a Russian-made smartphone rarely seen in the United States — had been used from networks serving the White House, Trump Tower and Spectrum Health, a Michigan hospital company whose server had also interacted with the Trump server,” according to the Times article headlined “Trump Server Mystery Produces Fresh Conflict.” That article continued:

Mr. Sussmann relayed their YotaPhone findings to counterintelligence officials at the C.I.A. in February 2017, the people said. It is not clear whether the government ever investigated them.

The involvement of the researchers traces back to the spring of 2016. DARPA, the Pentagon’s research funding agency, wanted to commission data scientists to develop the use of so-called DNS logs, records of when servers have prepared to communicate with other servers over the internet, as a tool for hacking investigations.

DARPA identified Georgia Tech as a potential recipient of funding and encouraged researchers there to develop examples. Mr. Antonakakis and Mr. Dagon reached out to Mr. Joffe to gain access to Neustar’s repository of DNS logs, people familiar with the matter said, and began sifting them.

That “people familiar with the matter” would provide these details to the Times months before this angle of the investigation became public shows they knew it was huge and wanted the left-friendly press to frame this as a legitimate national-security issue, as opposed to the targeting of Trump.

‘Biggest Threat to American Democracy’

The second confirmation of the significance of Friday’s revelation comes from the response by those in the know, such as John Ratcliffe, who served as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Within hours of #Durham trending on Twitter, Ratcliffe seemed to confirm the importance of these revelations, tweeting: “And now you’re finding out why. . .” along with a link to an article revealing Ratcliffe had directed the DNI to provide nearly 1,000 pages of material to the Department of Justice in response to a request by Durham for relevant documents. Ratcliffe further stated at the time that he believed those documents could support additional charges in the criminal probe into the Russian investigation.

Richard Grenell, who served as acting director of national intelligence for Trump, chimed in, noting that “some Democrats knew” Joffe was monitoring Trump’s internet traffic while he was president.

Mark Meadows, a former congressman who also served as chief of staff for Trump, soon joined the fray, tweeting out, “They didn’t just spy on Donald Trump’s campaign. They spied on Donald Trump as sitting President of the United States. It was all even worse than we thought.”

Kash Patel, who served as lead investigator for then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, added that the motion “shows that 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.”

Nunes concurred, telling The Federalist on Sunday, “There was no limit to the brazenness and vindictiveness of the Democrats’ illegal spying operation.” “In all my years as a member, ranking member, and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,” Nunes added, “this is the single biggest threat to American democracy I’ve ever seen.”

By day’s end on Friday, Trump joined the fray, issuing a statement declaring “the latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham 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,” Trump continued, adding that “those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution.”

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Is Biden’s Crooked Popularity Still Able To Steal Another Election?

February 14, 2022

Biden’s Popularity is Sinking Like the Titanic

By Brian C. Joondeph at American Thinker:

President Job Biden is beginning his second year in office. Just over a year ago when he was elected, or selected, tears of joy flowed in blue cities. Political experts like Taylor Swift expressed, “Quiet, cautious elation and relief.” ABC News, a major player in the Biden campaign, proclaimed through their own tears of joy, “A new day of hope for America.”

Is the rest of America thrilled that Biden is in the White House? Was such optimism due Biden’s election, or was this just a sense of relief that the tweeting orange man was on his way out the door?

Joe Biden was never a force of intellect, statesmanship, or wisdom, during his decades in the U.S. Senate, eight years as vice president, or his first year in the Oval Office. A recent example is how Biden, who now wants a black female on the U.S. Supreme Court, blocked the first black woman nominee to the court, Janice Rogers Brown in 2003, an inconvenient fact the corporate media and Biden’s dwindling supporters choose to gloss over.

Even his predecessor and teammate for eight years, President Barack Obama, famously noted, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.” As we look at the landscape today, Obama’s words are prophetic.

Domestically we have inflation hitting a 40-year high, which along with rising unemployment, is reminding older Americans of a blast from the past called the misery index, a relic of the Jimmy Carter presidency. Our southern border is wide open to anyone and everyone from around the world, along with rising crime, homelessness, and squalor in American cities.

Biden promised to “Beat COVID,” yet more Americans died of COVID in 2021, during Biden’s presidency, compared to 2020 when Trump was in the White House. Foreign affairs are faring no better.

Biden’s Afghanistan surrender to the Taliban, a force we have been fighting for 20 years, left China smiling as we left billions of dollars of weapons and infrastructure behind, along with many Americans which the media are incurious about. Biden is sending mixed messages to Ukraine and Russia, leaving Putin a pathway to gobble up more territory and fracture a feckless NATO.

America at home is in a civil war, pitting Americans against each other based on everything from skin color to vaccination status to mask-wearing, destroying families and friendships in the process. But as America slides toward the edge of the cliff, it is not just Joe and the Democrats falling, but the entire country and much of the world, given the importance of the Office of the President of the United States.

Rasmussen Reports is one of the leading and most accurate pollsters, surveying not simply whoever answers the phone or responds to an internet poll, but likely voters, those individuals who express their opinions at the ballot box, potentially making course corrections through elections.

Their Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, compares the total approval of Presidents Trump and Biden at identical points in their respective presidencies. On Feb. 10, Biden’s total approval was 43% compared to Trump exactly four years ago at 49%, a significant 6-point difference. Biden generally polled better than Trump until late summer 2021, when after the Afghanistan debacle, buyer’s remorse slapped many Biden voters.

Approval numbers can be fickle and influenced by other factors. Four years ago during Trump’s presidency, things were definitely better. COVID didn’t exist, the economy was strong, and Trump was keeping our foreign adversaries – Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran – in check. By comparison, Biden strives to be an anti-Trump president, doing the opposite of Trump, regardless of necessity or consequences, a “cutting off your nose to spite your face” approach to governance.

Pollsters could also ask if the country is heading in the right or wrong direction. Rasmussen recently asked that question. By a two-to-one margin, likely voters believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction, 64% wrong versus 30% right direction.

Voters have turned off the Biden presidency after only one year, based on another Rasmussen survey seeking opinions on the best and worst presidents in recent history. Voters, only a quarter of the way through Biden’s first term, have their answer. They found, “54% of Likely U.S. voters think Biden will be remembered as one of the worst presidents in American history. Only 15% believe Biden will rank in history as one of America’s best presidents.”

How many of those 15% are members of teachers’ unions or the Washington D.C. press corps? We know which group NeverTrump Rep Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) falls into. He recently told a CNN host, “Trump was the worst president the United States of America ever had.”

Talk about being out of touch with America. It is no wonder Kinzinger has chosen to not run for reelection, instead perhaps hoping for a gig at CNN or MSNBC, an echo chamber where he will feel far more comfortable.

Trump scored much better than Biden in the best and worst presidents survey, “41% think Trump will be remembered as one of America’s best presidents, compared to 43% who believe Trump will rank as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” This an even split between best and worst for Trump whereas Biden was viewed as worst by an almost four to one margin. Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Another Rasmussen survey sums this all up, finding 60% of Americans believing that Biden’s first year was somewhat or very unsuccessful, 50% in the latter category.

For those who are skeptical of Rasmussen surveys, take instead the latest Quinnipiac University survey measuring Biden’s job approval at only 35 percent. The lowest number they ever had for Trump, who consistently had over 90 percent negative media coverage, was 33 percent approval. Biden’s media coverage has been overwhelmingly positive, and he is at Trump’s approval level.

The Real Clear Politics average of national surveys found Biden’s job approval dropping below 40 percent for the first time last week. As the New York Post observes, “The abysmal rating comes as the White House continues to grapple with soaring inflation and rising gas prices, the COVID-19 pandemic and surging crime in big cities.” None of which are showing any signs of improvement either.

Finally Pew Research Center confirms Joe’s sinking fortunes with a poll that found: “Overall, 20% of American adults say Biden will be a successful president, while roughly twice that share (43%) say he will be unsuccessful.”

As the midterm elections approach, with a potential Democrat bloodbath putting Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and essentially neutering Biden’s floundering agenda, how will this sinking ship be raised from the ocean depths? Perhaps some new crisis, as in a war, cyberattack, or another coronavirus variant to lock down the country and create new election rules and procedures for “public safety.”

For those who voted for Biden because Trump annoyed them, congratulations. Hope they are all getting what they wanted, pleased with a disaster, rather than an effective and competent loudmouth in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, Biden’s second year as president is off to a horrific start and, in retrospect, this may be his high point. Expect a further decline as inflation, crime, and chaos crawl out of the swamp, eager to drag Biden and the rest of the country into a socioeconomic sinkhole. It may take a decade for America to climb out, adding further carnage to a country already beaten down by two years of COVID restrictions which did “more harm than good” and left America in a genuine state of malaise.

Elections have consequences and those who voted for Biden, offended by Trump’s demeanor and behavior, can now pat themselves on the back for their “principles” while Biden is sinking like the Titanic, dragging the country with him into the depths of national decline and despair.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer. On Twitter as @retinaldoctor.