• 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


 FEBRUARY 16, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:  


The Russia hoax must be the biggest political story of the past five years. I certainly have treated it as such. The details added by Special Counsel John Durham in his filing last week in the case of Michael Sussman add slightly to the story and to the questions surrounding it. The unnamed “tech executive” at the heart of the filing is Alex Joffe.

On Monday Joffe released a statement responding to the filing. The statement is quoted in this NBC News story on the latest developments in the Sussman case. The Wall Street Journal breaks it down in its related editorial as follows:

Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.

“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement. And since there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” Mr. Joffe and “cyber-security researchers” prepared a “report of their findings,” which they gave to the CIA.

The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.

But according to Mr. Durham’s filing, Mr. Joffe took his information to others—namely, lawyers for the Clinton campaign, who also brought in the oppo-research hit squad Fusion GPS. This partisan team spent months writing anti-Trump white papers full of unproven claims that they spread to the media. We doubt government contracts include: “In case of threats, first call Democrats.”

There is more to come, but it would be foolish to hold out hope that the Durham investigation will administer justice in the outrages committed on American citizens by Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign, the involved Perkins Coie attorneys, GPS Fusion, the FBI, the press and others in their pursuit of Donald Trump before and after the election.

It would certainly be nice to have all the perpetrators brought to justice. Short of that, it would be nice to have a full account of the relevant facts.


Why Putin Won’t Wage a Big War in Ukraine

Putin won’t start a major war if he thinks he has a chance to force Ukrainians to surrender. For that, he needs the Western leaders to help.

By Andrei Illarionov and J. Michael Waller at American Greatness:

February 15, 2022

Russia’s months of military movements and Biden’s “strategic communications campaign” are psychological operations intended to intimidate Ukraine, Europe, and the rest of the world. 

There won’t be a big war any time soon. The Kremlin’s low-cost, high-impact campaign might succeed if some Western leaders, especially in the United States, can help Putin. 

Since October 30, American news outlets, fueled by leaks, have warned of an upcoming, full-scale Russian offensive to take Ukraine whole or in pieces. 

Last month, Joe Biden threatened devastating retaliation against Russia before making an exception for any “minor incursions” Moscow might make. Biden’s gaffe alarmed Ukrainians far more than anything Putin said or did. 

Then the State Department folded, telling American citizens to leave Ukraine immediately and that they’d have to find their own way. The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv sent most of its personnel packing and moved its consulate to temporary exile to Lviv.

Following the U.S. call, nearly 20 other countries pulled out their people. Biden warned NATO allies that a world war could start as early as February 16. The panic caused insurance companies to stop covering commercial aircraft, shutting down air travel to Ukraine by February 14. 

For the price of fuel for the mobilization, setting aside the Russian military’s fixed costs, Putin was able to leverage Biden to tank Ukraine’s struggling economy in weeks. 

Moscow’s Objectives 

The Kremlin’s main goal is to intimidate Ukraine to surrender preemptively to Putin by agreeing to execute the Minsk Agreements of 2015. Ukraine considers the Minsk process a Trojan Horse that would end up exploding the country. 

Moscow and Washington are trying to force the Ukrainian leaders to avoid would-be destruction from Putin’s incursion by agreeing to a Minsk “compromise” with relatively “small” losses. 

Psychological Warfare 

Even if Ukraine holds its ground, there will be no big war. At least not for now. 

Provocations on the line of contact and on the border, of which there have been many since 2014, are practically inevitable. So are local hostilities. 

But in the foreseeable future there will be no large-scale war of Russia against Ukraine, let alone a European war or World War III. 

It’s all a psychological campaign. How do we know? 

First, U.S. intelligence doesn’t understand Putin’s logic. Western services failed to see Russia’s preparation to attack Georgia in 2008 or occupy Crimea in 2014, or to attack Ukrainian positions near Ilovaisk and Debaltseve in 2014-15. 

For all its investments in collection, the U.S. intelligence community has a poor analytical track record. It failed to anticipate the Soviet collapse and the 9/11 attacks. It misinterpreted the intentions of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It failed to foresee the aggressive rise of China. And then there’s Afghanistan. 

Second, Putin has made no attempts to conceal his troop movements over the past three months. To the contrary, he readied his earlier attacks on Georgia and Ukraine in secret. When Putin acts openly, he is not preparing a real attack. He is running psychological operations of bluff, blackmail, and intimidation. 

Third, simply because Russian forces are “concentrated against Ukraine” does not mean they are poised to invade. Posture does not indicate readiness. 

Fourth, the greatest estimate of Russian troop strength concentrated near Ukraine has declined since September, from 200,000 during the Zapad-2021 joint maneuvers with Belarus to 147,800 this month. 

Fifth, those 200,000 aroused no international alarm. One is hard-pressed to find an article then about a Russian threat to invade Ukraine. Yet since October 30, several hundred stories about an “imminent” Russian attack have appeared in English alone.  

Sixth, maps of the supposed, predicted hostilities in Western news outlets appear designed to create an emotional impact without hard factual bases. 

For example, a November 21, 2021 map published in the Military Times shows two Russian formations aimed at capturing the cities of Kyiv and Kharkiv. The map would have readers believe that Russia could capture or encircle cities of 1.5 million and 3 million people, respectively, with a combined 12,000 troops at most. This is laughable. 

The 1943 Soviet offensives against Kharkiv required 980,000 troops, and Kyiv another 671,000. Plus occupation forces for large areas in the overall theaters of operations. Technology might have reduced the number of troops needed for an operation, but nowhere near the suggested scale. 

Seventh, Russia has an insufficient minimal troop size concentrated “near Ukraine” to defeat Ukrainian fighters and capture significant territory of the country. Those amount to 148,000 Russian troops and 32,000 pro-Russian separatists, or 180,000 soldiers. It is not enough to capture the most important military, political, administrative, transport, and industrial targets. 

The Ukrainian military has extensive combat experience, definitely not less than Russians and pro-Russian separatists. In the eight-year eastern Ukraine war, 100 Ukrainian combatants died for every 138 Russians/pro-Russian separatists. 

Ukraine has 261,000 soldiers and officers, with an anticipated increase of 100,000, plus 200,000 in active reserve, plus 400,000 veterans of the war in Donbass. Ukraine’s civilian population is ready to fight for freedom and independence of their country. 

Putin knows all this. He won’t start a major war if he thinks he has a chance to force Ukrainians to surrender. For that, he needs the Western leaders to help. 


Share onTwitterFacebookParler

About Andrei Illarionov and J. Michael Waller

Andrei Illarionov is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and a former Economic Advisor to the Russian President. J. Michael Waller is Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy.

An Important Rerun!


How It Might End, Act I

It seems to be that we have alarm bells going off all around us. The oddity is that so few people seem to hear them. 

By Roger Kimball at American Greatness:

September 25, 2021

Acouple of years ago, I had the honor of publishing American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup by Frank Buckley, a prolific author and law professor at George Mason University. Buckley began by noting the obvious: that we in America are more divided now than at any time since the 1850s. We know how that Disunited States of America worked out, and the horror of the Civil War—what Buckley calls Secession 1.0—has led many of us to conclude that we’d put up with almost anything rather than risk a repeat of that disaster. 

“Almost” anything. 

Buckley does not predict a second American secession, exactly, but he shows, convincingly, I think, how it might come about. “The bitterness” of our life together, “the contempt for opponents, the growing tolerance of violence, all invite us to think that we’d all be happier were we two different countries.” There is something to that. And something to Buckley’s admonitory conclusion: “In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we are already divided into two nations, just as much as in 1861.”

I hesitate to spoil the ending, but it is probably worth noting that in the end, despite his warnings and various scenarios of how the divorce might happen, Buckley turns out, again like most (but not all of us) to be a unionist. The United States may be too big and too powerful for its own or anyone else’s good, but might, while it doesn’t make right, does or at least conduce to stability. 

And consider the alternative world orders on offer: Communist China? Islamic fundamentalism? European socialism? 

No thank you. 

At the same time, some current events lead me to suspect that some of the scenarios Buckley imagines have a lot of divisive life left in them. At one point, he observes, “A state that uses every means at its disposal to neuter a federal law might render it unenforceable within its jurisdiction, at least until the Supreme Court is able to rule on the matter. That might be years later, however, and that may be all it takes, if during the interim a new president has been elected and the new administration takes the state’s view of the question.” about:blankabout:blank

But that’s not the only eventuality. What is happening right now, today, in Texas with respect to the Southern border makes me wonder whether even the Supreme Court will have the final say if the volume and the animosity there increase. A recent news story tells us that the Texas attorney general has asked a judge to intervene against the Department of Homeland Security’s refusal to enforce the “remain in Mexico,” Trump era policy that allowed immigration to return “newly arrived illegal immigrants back across the border into Mexico to await their immigration court proceedings.” 

But imagine this. Imagine that the Supreme Court rules for the Biden Administration and Texas ignores the ruling. What then? Would Biden then seek to send federal troops to Texas to enforce the order? How do you suppose that would go down? (And how many troops do you suppose would obey the order?)

I do not expect it to come to that. I am not in favor of secession; but I do think we are rapidly approaching the situation described by those overused lines from Yeats’s “Second Coming”: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, . . .” 

And then? 

The Improved Science of Politics

Thinking about our situation puts me in mind of Walter Bagehot’s cheery but clear-eyed masterpiece Physics and Politics (1872), a copiously annotated edition of which I edited and published some years ago. Bagehot traces the evolution of civilization from its rude and violent beginnings to his age, what he calls “the age of discussion,” when making a point typically counted for more in political life than the point of one’s sword. 

The many centrifugal forces contending in our society today prompts me to reprise some thoughts about Bagehot’s recommendations for the preservation and extension of social comity. 

By “discussion,” it should go without saying, Bagehot did not mean idle chitchat but robust, untrammeled inquiry about what Aristotle called “the good life for man.” What sort of regime is most likely to nurture the human attributes we value? How should we lead our lives? Where do our fundamental allegiances lie? 

Serious talk—and serious thought—about such matters is integral to the metabolism of a free society. It provides the space where choice can blossom. Which is why strategies to quash discussion are inimical to freedom. 

Given the astonishing recrudescence of multifarious efforts to disrupt the free flow of discussion—from the astringencies of political correctness to the minatory dicta of woke ideologues—it is worth stepping back to ponder the career of this subtle but enlivening pillar of liberty.

Let me start with the mouthful that is Bagehot’s subtitle for Physics and Politics: Thoughts on the Application of the Principles of “Natural Selection” and “Inheritance” to Political Society. By “physics” Bagehot meant not “physics” in our contemporary sense, but something closer to what the Germans mean by Wissenschaft: science, inquiry in its broadest sense. (Classicist that he was, he doubtless also had in mind the Greek word φύσις, “nature.”) By “politics,” Bagehot meant not only partisan politics in the modern sense but also, more broadly, the arrangements men make in order to live together with a modicum of peace. 

Liberty, Bagehot points out, is not a static endowment. What we mean by it changes or evolves over time. The notion that human beings—and, by analogy, that advanced human societies—developed out of more primitive forms had been in the air for decades by the time Bagehot wrote Physics and Politics. Evolution—often called “descent with modification” or simply “development” in the early 19th century—was part of the mental furniture of the age long before Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The point to bear in mind is that, despite his talk about “natural selection” and “inheritance,” Bagehot was writing not as a biologist but rather as a sort of rhetorical tuning fork, vibrating to ideas that were “in the air.” He was, as he observes early on in the book, merely “searching out and following up an analogy.” It was clear that one generation of organisms both resembled but also differed from the parent stock: It seemed clear that the same was true of human societies as well. Bagehot’s subject was not “natural selection” in any technical sense but rather “the political prerequisites of progress, and especially of early progress,” where by “progress” Bagehot meant both advancement in knowledge and technical know-how and advancements in the institution of liberty.

Accordingly, a lot of Physics and Politics is concerned with beginnings: with the slow, hard first chapters of civilization. It is difficult for us, the beneficiaries of many centuries of political ingenuity, to imagine with what difficulty a polity of any sort was forged and maintained. In early times, Bagehot wrote,

the quantity of government is much more important than its quality. What you want is a comprehensive rule binding men together. . . . What this rule is does not matter so much. A good rule is better than a bad one, but any rule is better than none. . . . How to get the obedience of men is the hard problem; what you do with that obedience is less critical.

This first step—inaugurating law, custom, and habit—is the hardest, but history proper begins with the next step: “What is most evident,” Bagehot observes, “is not the difficulty of getting fixed law, but getting out of a fixed law; not of cementing . . . a cake of custom, but of breaking the cake of custom; not of making the first preservative habit, but of breaking through it, and reaching something better.”

Bagehot traces the vicissitudes of this dialectic between stasis and innovation through various stages from “The Preliminary Age”—that is, the rude time of prehistory when “the strongest killed out the weakest as they could”—to modern times and “The Age of Discussion.”

Necessity and War

Along the way, he has many politically incorrect things to say about the civilizing—or at least order-inducing—effects of violence and the hard road any population faces in forging a national identity. The perennial problem—and the admonitory theme of Physics and Politics—is that man, the strongest and smartest of the animals, “was obliged to be his own domesticator; he had to tame himself.” Consequently, Bagehot says in an observation that I often quote and that ought to make us pause and think, “history is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.” This was an insight that Kipling expanded upon in his great poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.”

            . . . They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons,

         that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed They sold us and

          delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings

          said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

Bagehot is a mild and companionable writer. But as his observation about the perils of progressivism suggests, there is a great deal in Physics and Politics to shock readers inclined to a pacific view of human development or a politically correct understanding of life. “Let us consider,” he writes in a famous passage,

in what sense a village of English colonists is superior to a tribe of Australian natives who roam about them. Indisputably in one, and that a main sense, they are superior. They can beat the Australians in war when they like; they can take from them anything they like, and kill any of them they choose. As a rule, in all the outlying and uncontested districts of the world, the aboriginal native lies at the mercy of the intruding European. Nor is this all. Indisputably in the English village there are more means of happiness, a greater accumulation of the instruments of enjoyment, than in the Australian tribe. The English have all manner of books, utensils, and machines which the others do not use, value, or understand. And in addition . . . there is a general strength which is capable of being used in conquering a thousand difficulties, and is an abiding source of happiness.

In fact, the importance of military prowess in binding a population into a society is a leitmotif in Physics and Politics. Bagehot notes that the progress of military art is the “most conspicuous, I was about to say the most showy,” fact in human history. “All through the earliest times,” he writes,

martial merit is a token of real merit: the nation that wins is the nation that ought to win. The simple virtues of such ages mostly make a man a soldier if they make him anything. No doubt the brute force of number may be too potent even then (as so often it is afterwards): civilization may be thrown back by the conquest of many very rude men over a few less rude men. But the first elements of civilization are great military advantages, and, roughly, it is a rule of the first times that you can infer merit from conquest, and that progress is promoted by the competitive examination of constant war.

Bagehot was undeceived about the exigencies that face a nation at war. “So long as war is the main business of nations, temporary despotism—despotism during the campaign—is indispensable.”

The point is, Bagehot argues, that “war both needs and generates certain virtues; not the highest, but what may be called the preliminary virtues, as valor, veracity, the spirit of obedience, the habit of discipline.” That is to say, war, and the martial virtues it requires, makes certain valuable things possible, including civilization itself: “Civilization begins,” Bagehot writes, “because the beginning of civilization is a military advantage”—an unflattering thought that many will find shocking.

Above all, Bagehot was writing against “the old idea which still here creeps out in conversation, and sometimes in writing” that

politics are simply a subdivision of immutable ethics; that there are certain rights of men in all places and all times, which are the sole and sufficient foundation of all government, and that accordingly a single stereotype government is to make the tour of the world—and you have no more right to deprive a Dyak of his vote in a ‘possible’ Polynesian Parliament, than you have to steal his mat.

The difficult insight that Bagehot is everywhere at pains to communicate is that not all things are possible at all times and all places. If political liberty is a precious possession, it is forged in a long, painful development of civilization, much of which is distinctly, and necessarily, illiberal. Hence the advantage of binocular vision, which allowed the young Bagehot, even as he was extolling Louis Napoleon’s coup in 1851, to risk his life helping the republicans build barricades to resist him. This was not an expression of irony or inconstancy on Bagehot’s part; it was an expression of political realism. As he put it elsewhere, Louis Napoleon’s Second Empire was “an admirable government for present and coarse purposes, but a detestable government for future and refined purposes.” One must live in the present; one can help prepare for the future.

All such “hard” observations constitute the strophe of Bagehot’s argument. The antistrophe, the opposite movement—the movement toward which Physics and Politics as a whole tends—is that “the whole history of civilization is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards.” Slavery is one such institution. And ultimately, he suggests, the widespread dissemination of the martial sensibility may be as well.

Bagehot had some equally piquant observations about the moral limitations of the unbridled philanthropic impulse. “The most melancholy of human reflections,” he writes,

is that, on the whole, it is a question whether the benevolence of mankind does most good or harm. Great good, no doubt, philanthropy does, but then it also does great evil. It augments so much vice, it multiplies so much suffering, it brings to life such great populations to suffer and to be vicious, that it is open to argument whether it be or be not an evil to the world, and this is entirely because excellent people fancy they can do much by rapid action—that they will most benefit the world when they most relieve their own feelings.

There are two things to note about this passage. One is Bagehot’s observation about those “excellent people” who believe, mistakenly, that they benefit the world most when they flatter their own feelings of virtue. How much pain and misery this spirit of do-goodism has spread throughout the world! And the second, an important theme throughout Bagehot’s writings, concerns the advantages of what he calls elsewhere “slow government.” It was the American socialist Norman Thomas, I think, who cheerfully described communism as “democracy in a hurry.” Socialism’s velocity, Thomas thought, was a major part of what recommended it. Bagehot disagreed. “The essence of civilization,” he wrote in an essay on Matthew Arnold, “is dullness.”

In an ultimate analysis, it is only an elaborate invention . . . for abolishing the fierce passions, the unchastened enjoyments, the awakening dangers, the desperate conflicts, . . . the excitements of a barbarous age, and to substitute for them indoor pleasures, placid feelings, and rational amusements. That a grown man should be found to write reviews is in itself a striking fact. Suppose you asked Achilles to do such a thing, do you imagine he would consent?

Bagehot’s point was that, in an advanced civilization, deliberateness, circumspection, and adherence to process are virtues that save us from the myopia of impulsiveness.

A Government by Discussion

He is not, I hasten to add, advocating quietism or inaction. If the English had mastered the art of slow, deliberate government, that mastery did not hinder their energetic pursuit of their own interests. The achievement was moderation, yes, but it was what Bagehot called animated moderation, moderation chastened by deliberateness but underwritten by energy. “When we have a definite end in view,” Bagehot writes, “we can act well enough. The campaigns of our soldiers are as energetic as any campaigns ever were; the speculations of our merchants have greater promptitude, greater audacity, greater vigor than any such speculations ever had before.” But all that action takes place in a framework of circumspection.

Bagehot’s insight is something that Daniel Hannan echoed in his book The New Road to Serfdom. In 2008, when the Great Recession was just beginning, Rahm Emanuel, then Barack Obama’s chief of staff, gleefully said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” What he meant was that a crisis makes people anxious and therefore vulnerable, and that it is easier in periods of crisis to exploit that vulnerability and push through initiatives to enlarge government and usurp freedom. Which is why, Hannan cautions, in periods of crisis one should, if one is prudent, exercise double diligence about acting hastily. “Most disastrous policies,” Hannan observed, “have been introduced at times of emergency.” How often have you heard a politician or government bureaucrat tell you that “Doing nothing is not an option”? In fact, as Hannan rightly observes, “Doing nothing is always an option, and often it is the best option.” This was something that Calvin Coolidge, one of my favorite presidents, acknowledged when he said to a busybody aide: “Don’t just do something; stand there!”

Bagehot would have liked Coolidge. Born into a banking family, Bagehot is said to have stolen down from his apartments above the bank when he was anxious, to run his hands through piles of gold sovereigns. He found the contact soothing, and he would, I think, have approved of Coolidge’s habits of fiscal restraint as well as his wary view of hyperactive government.about:blank

Bagehot’s contention is that, for us, progress in civilization is measured by increasing deliberateness. Parliamentary government is valuable not only because it facilitates action but also, and increasingly, because it retards it. “If you want to stop instant and immediate action,” Bagehot advises, “always make it a condition that the action shall not begin till a considerable number of persons have talked over it, and have agreed on it. If those persons be people of different temperaments, different ideas, and different educations, you have an almost infallible security that nothing, or almost nothing, will be done with excessive rapidity.”

The habit of discussion is the handmaiden of this process. In this sense, the spirit of free discussion is not only a condition of scientific inquiry, it is also an adjunct to the virtue of tolerance and guarantor of intellectual freedom. Bertrand Russell once made the sad observation that “people can only agree about what they’re not really interested in.” (What I think that really meant is that Bertrand Russell couldn’t really agree about anything that interested him.) Some favored nations—preeminently, perhaps, some nations that are part of what James Bennett calls the Anglosphere—have had a more beneficent experience of discussion. A look at our history shows that Bagehot was right: If we ask what has nurtured liberty where it has prospered and what has denied it where it has failed to prosper, a large part of the answer is talk—not idle chatter but rather a situation in which government was “to a great and a growing extent a government by discussion, and where the subjects of that discussion were in some degree abstract, or, as we should say, matters of principle. . . . A free state—a state with liberty—means a state . . . in which the sovereign power is divided between many persons, and in which there is a discussion among those persons.”

Alarm Bells

There are two sides to Bagehot’s argument in Physics and Politics. One side is celebratory. The story of civilization’s rise is a success story, all the more bracing because the road was hard. At first, progress was slow. There were many failures along the way. At last, though, liberty, undergirt by the “slow government” of discussion, won out in lucky polities like the U.K., the United States, and Australia.

That is not the end of the story, however, for, as Bagehot notes, if government by discussion is “a principal organ for improving mankind,” it is also “a plant of singular delicacy.” The question of how best to nurture this delicate plant is Bagehot’s final problem. Part of the answer is in facing up to the unpalatable realities about power that make civilization possible. The other part lies in embracing that “animated moderation,” that “union of life with measure, of spirit with reasonableness,” which assures that discussion will continue without descending into violence or anarchy. It seems like a small thing. But then achieved order always does—until it is lost.

As we look around at the many assaults on free discussion today, the prospects for the continuation of our regime of liberty seems up for grabs in a more fundamental way than at any time since World War II. It was only a few years ago that the United Nations pondered an international law against blasphemy—against blasphemy!—to defend Islam against its detractors. A bit later, representatives of the United States met in London with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to discuss whether speaking about religion can violate international law. Yes, that’s right. Around the same time, Egypt convicted eight Americans in absentia for blasphemy; if apprehended, they could face the death penalty. Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taliban has just announced that it is reintroducing barbaric punishments like stoning and amputation for offices against the faith.

I think Bagehot was right: free discussion is an integral ingredient, a veritable pillar of liberty. But that freedom is under serious threat today by religious fanatics, overweening government bureaucrats, and a complacent populace. David Hume once observed: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” It seems to be that we have alarm bells going off all around us. The oddity is that so few people seem to hear them. No wonder secession is once again in the air. 

Share this:

Joe Biden’s “truths” Have Been Blowing Out Of His Brain CROOKED For Fifty Years! It’s Why Dems USE HIM!

Yowza: Joe Biden Reaches Blowout Territory in New Poll

Guy Benson

Guy Benson

Posted: Feb 16, 2022 10:20 AM, at TOWNHALL:

We’ll review some of the state-level numbers in a moment, but first, a look at President Biden’s overall standing nationally – and my goodness, the results are grim for Democrats. Take all of this with grains of salt, per usual. It’s just one poll, the subsamples in each state are relatively small (though the survey was quite large), margins of error, etc. But if these data points are generally in the ballpark, the party in power could be looking at a beatdown of historic proportions later this year: 


Brutal. He’s (-22) overall, hitting a floor in the mid-30’s. That’s blowout territory. Among independents, who swing battleground elections, fully two-thirds disapprove, while less than one-in-four approve of his performance. And that net swing within the Hispanic demographic is both dreadful for Biden personally, but another worrisome sign for the Democratic Party, which has suffered erosion with Latinos in recent years. As for the state-by-state numbers, this outcome isn’t really much of a surprise: 


How does one earn a rating that dreadful in any state? By garnering less than 70 percent support within his own party, and polling at 12 percent among independents. That’s how. Does anyone think Sen. Joe Manchin is the least bit intimidated by pressure campaigns from outside leftists demanding that he vote the Biden line? Meanwhile, let’s look at the president’s standing in some crucial Senate states in the 2022 cycle: 

Arizona: (32/61)

Georgia: (31/59)

Nevada: (35/58)

New Hampshire: (41/51)

North Carolina: (33/58)

Pennsylvania: (36/57) 

Wisconsin: (36/56)

Biden’s “best” showing within this group is being underwater by ten points in New Hampshire, which he carried by nearly eight points in 2020. I’m honestly skeptical that the numbers are truly this bleak across the board. If they are, Republicans could pick up seats in “reach” races, and should be taking recruitment very seriously. But even if you spot Biden ten net points in all of these places, it’s still pretty dark stuff for his party. It’s true that disapproving of Biden does not automatically translate into voting GOP. But it’s also true that presidential approval is a key benchmark for predicting midterm election outcomes. History is already cutting against Democrats’ chances this year. Biden’s approval being in the toilet is an aggravating factor that could morph modest losses into disastrous losses. Republicans could really improve their chances of achieving major gains by attracting A-list names to compete. Their record of doing so thus far is…less than stellar on the Senate side, largely thanks to grievance-mongering and score-settling by Donald Trump. If things tighten, that could be the difference. But if Biden is still sucking wind this fall, it may not matter much who the GOP puts on the ballot in a lot of these places – in which case, Katy, bar the door.

Meanwhile, here’s a separate poll out of America’s largest and most diverse swing state. Florida may be trending red lately, but recall that Obama won it twice, and just four years ago, Republicans won statewide races by less than one percentage point. Yowza



This is the second Florida survey out this month showing Gov. DeSantis at (+10) favorability, and leading his would-be Democratic challengers by big margins (especially for Florida, where five points is a landslide). He’s up eight on Charlie Crist, and up 11 on Nikki Fried. That’s what happens when 61 percent of independent voters have a favorable view of you, as do a majority of Sunshine State Hispanics. It’s data like this that make me take a second look at the state-by-state numbers above and wonder where the bottom might be for the president and his party. If DeSantis (and likely Rubio) have a real chance of winning by high single digits or higher in Florida, then you factor in Glenn Youngkin’s victory in Virginia, it’s not much of a stretch to start to think about widespread losses for Democrats in the fall. And the likelihood of that eventuality only increases with every painful development like this: 


Fauci Threatens ‘Future Requirement for Another Booster’

Spencer Brown


On that front, I’ll leave you with this. Does anyone have confidence that this man understands the problem, let alone the solution? 


“We Should All Consider Ourselves Warned” TO DEFEAT Canada’s Fascist Emperor TRUDEAU!

FEBRUARY 16, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


This past Monday Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared an emergency under Canada’s Emergencies Act of 1988. Its predecessor was the War Measures Act of 1914. Roger Kimball provides a link to the text of the Act in his Spectator column on the declaration.

Trudeau’s emergency is the first such emergency since the enactment of the law. The declaration of emergency was occasioned by the truckers protesting in Ottawa and elsewhere. The truckers don’t like the government’s vaccine mandates for truckers and other restrictions. Their opposition undoubtedly extends in some cases to Trudeau’s Liberal government generally. The truckers present themselves to the public under the rubric of the Freedom Convoy. Surely this cannot stand.

The declaration of emergency authorizes the government to take the kind of actions we associate with martial law. Trudeau’s disclaimer of patently totalitarian measures does not appear to be necessitated by the power with which he is endowed under the Act. Such rights as the protesters retain are more or less at Trudeau’s sufferance.

The Act’s section on orders and regulations, for example, concludes with the power to impose “(i) on summary conviction….a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or (ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment, for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.”

Elliot Kaufman addresses the question of Trudeau’s powers by virtue of the declaration in his Wall Street Journal column on the trucker emergency. Kaufman notes:

This broad authority [under the Act] doesn’t junk the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does, however, include the power to prohibit travel, public assemblies and use of any specified property, to force people or companies to render essential services, to impose fines and imprisonment for violating any of the emergency rules, and to use the military as police, though Mr. Trudeau suggests he won’t do that last one. He says the powers will be used for 30 days, strengthening the federal police, beefing up penalties, dragooning private tow-truck companies and, incredibly, directing financial institutions, without court orders, to freeze personal and corporate bank accounts connected to the protests. Without due process, and used against despised and often caricatured protesters, these powers invite further abuse.

That’s what I’m talking about. The BBC backgrounder on the Emergencies Act reports: “Pressed by reporters about how far he would go in response to the crisis, Pierre Trudeau responded with the famous phrase: ‘Just watch me.’”

The New York Post quotes Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland: “Consider yourselves warned. 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, who is also the finance minister, said the government will also target crowd-funding sites that are being used to support the blockades. Freeland added that the government will use anti-money-laundering regulations to target crowd-funding sites that are being used to support the trucker blockades.

The Biden administration is of course on board with the Trudeau government. We should all consider ourselves warned.


Why Nearly 40 Percent of Gen Z Identify as LGBTQ?

By Vince Coyner at American Thinker:

I was shocked not long ago when I read a piece on the Newsweek website. The headline read “Nearly 40 Percent of U.S. Gen Zs, 30 Percent of Young Christians Identify as LGBTQ, Poll Shows.” That, aside from Joe Biden providing free crack pipes to help address racial inequality, is the most absurd thing I may have ever read. Not so much for the data itself per se, but rather, an illustration of exactly how malleable (and lost) young Americans are.

Whatever the natural percentage of LGBTQwhatever people in the United States is, it’s sure as hell not 40%. It’s probably closer to low single digits. Whatever it actually is, somehow with the left’s championing the of the rainbow, magically 40% of young people identify with it… not tolerate it, not say no problem with it, not even say, good for them, but against the tide of tens of thousands of years of human history, are now, or at least “identify” as, LBGTQwhatever.  That tells you a lot about the state of America today.

That so many young adults are so confused about sexual attraction, one of the most basic and important elements of life, one that most people never even have to question because it’s largely written in our genes, tells you quite a bit about how absurd America has become.

It’s guaranteed that you won’t find this absurdity in nations where people struggle for food, water, shelter and freedom. Guaranteed you won’t find this absurdity in nations where war or terrorism or narco violence is an everyday concern. But you do here, because the United States had done such a spectacular – albeit imperfect – job of meeting the basic needs of life and providing unprecedented prosperity for most Americans that we have 40 million or more young people who have the luxury of navel gazing themselves out of the most basic of biological truths. And just to be clear, these aren’t children, they’re young adults born between 1984 & 2002, or between 20 & 38 years old.

How exactly does that happen?

The first prerequisite is fulfillment of life’s basic needs. While we hear stories of poverty and desperation daily in the media, the reality is that most Americans do not struggle to attain the basic needs of life, food, water, shelter, and based on the birthrates of the poorest Americans, companionship. While there are no doubt exceptions to that – as there always are about virtually everything – the reality is that even the poor in the United States have more material goods than the average European.

But once those needs are met, there are myriad opportunities for folly, and in America there is a great deal of that. Much of it is driven by the media / academia / high tech cabal that passes for the intelligentsia in America and it is increasingly abetted by big business.

My favorite aphorism of all time is Voltaire who said “Perfect is the enemy of the good.” Twenty First Century America is that quote incarnate. Rather than reinforcing the basic principles that laid the foundation for American success, things like Christianity, limited government, individual liberty & responsibility, and capitalism, today the intelligentsia cabal spend their time attacking those things in the name of “doing better” or “diversity” or “inclusion,” Online and off they showcase everything in opposition to those values.

It’s never enough to welcome “marginalized” groups into the narrative; rather the culture that built America and the 70% of America that is still white must be demolished: whites are racist. Capitalism rewards the rich at the expense of the poor. Women earn $.77 to men’s $1.00. The Founding Fathers were racists and so were frontier settlers too. Systemic racism keeps minorities in poverty. Republicans hate blacks, immigrants, the poor and the elderly. America was founded to protect slavery, the flag is a symbol of racism and the Pledge of Allegiance is indoctrination into the cult. And of course, Aunt Jemima was a symbol of racism, and a Dr. Seuss book too. Virtually anything traditional in American history is in the crosshairs.

The list of complaints never stops as the victim classes continue to grow, to the point that – no doubt taking their cue from Senator Pocahontas – a third of white students lied about being part of a minority group to improve their chances of acceptance into or gaining financial aid for college!

It is this swamp of equity, “anti-racism,” inclusion and infinite pronouns that today’s young people have grown up. From fake news and safe spaces to woke Madison Avenue and endless Kardashians, it’s no wonder they’re confused. With proto-CRT movements evolving everywhere from schools and the Pentagon to the Boy Scouts and corporate boardrooms, questioning pretty much everything about life seems almost normal. Gone from sight are “toxic” masculinity, “feminine” beauty, nuclear families and much of what defined America for more than two centuries. In their place are messages that men can get pregnant, hard work and math are racist and human activity is destroying the planet.

While these anti-American and anti-science messages have taken off recently, utterly devoid of common sense as they might be, the vapid culture they dominate today has been in the making for decades, going back to participation trophies, gay scout masters, unisex dorms and welfare programs that ballooned broken families.

And so today we find ourselves in a place where almost half of America’s young people question something almost as fundamental as gravity. They look in the mirror and are not sure who is looking back at them… a boy, a girl or somehow someone in between. That is neither normal nor healthy, for the individuals or society. But of course, we’re not allowed to say that… because it’s nature, everyone is different and everyone has the right to decide who they want to be. While ostensibly that is true, in practice just because something happens in nature doesn’t make it normal. Siamese twins happen in nature as do serial killers, but neither is what we would consider normal or desirable.

For years young people have been getting the message in the media and in schools that there are no objective truths, that everything is up for debate, from free speech and capitalism to which gender they are. For ideas, such debates make sense and can help strengthen convictions or prompt evolution, which is the whole point. For biology, sexual attraction and the sense of self, for almost everyone, such debates are absurd and introduce unnecessary confusion where none really exists.

The world is a complex place with literally millions of stimuli impacting us every day. Handling the intricacies of daily life as a young person is a challenge in the best of circumstances. Our foundations of biology and puberty and sexual attraction both add to those challenges and help us deal with them. From desire and anticipation to risk and rejection, at the critical years of adolescence few things are more important than having a firm grip on one’s sense of self and attraction. It’s into this maelstrom of youth that the left has introduced a malignant, unnecessary confusion that has 40% of America’s young adults unsure about exactly who they are. When you don’t know who’s looking back at you in the morning mirror, it’s hard to deal with the challenges of life, never mind persevere and overcome them. That confusion will have extraordinary consequences for these young people and for society, and none of them will be good.

Does Bill Gates Own China, Or China Own Bill Gates?


Bill Gates’ ‘deeply troubling’ ties to China: excerpt from ‘Red-Handed’ by Peter Schweizer

Microsoft founder has whitewashed Chinese censorship of the internet and invested in industries essential to the Chinese military-industrial complex, from AI to nuclear power, according to new book.

Bill Gates is one of the world’s richest men, rightly recognized as a visionary who helped build a massive technology industry. He has moved into the world of philanthropy to pursue support for some notable causes. He also has a deeply troubling relationship with the Chinese regime. 

No one can blame a corporate executive for being enticed by the Chinese market’s opportunities. From the earliest days of the internet, China, with approximately four times the population of the United States, has been seen as a lucrative market for the tech industry. You can bet Bill Gates saw it, too. 

But Gates has cooperated with the regime in ways that other tech titans have not. He has lent credence to the claims of the Chinese Communist Party and been rewarded with access, favors, and titles. He has done the bidding of the regime in the tech world and has apologized or made excuses for its aberrant activities. On top of all that, he has invested in companies attached to Beijing’s military-industrial complex.

Gates appears to have always underestimated the repressive nature of the CCP. His relentless techno-optimism has made him an easy mark. He has expressed naive attitudes about the role of technology in that repression. In 1995, at the dawn of the broader internet age, he suggested that Chinese efforts to censor the web would fail. Gates claimed that Chinese officials would literally need to have someone looking over everyone’s shoulder to implement full internet access and maintain censorship.

Of course, Beijing had a censorship system in place just two years later. Even after China erected what came to be known as the “Great Firewall,” Gates still insisted that censorship was too hard to erect and would not work. In 2008, he told students at Stanford University: “I don’t see any risk in the world at large that someone will restrict free content flow on the internet,” he told them. “You cannot control the internet.”

It was a bold statement that proved both inaccurate and disingenuous. At that point, Microsoft had already been helping the regime censor content for several years.

In June 2005, Microsoft launched a blogging software program called MSN Spaces in China, just as blogging was taking off. But the program censored words including “democracy,” “human rights,” and “freedom of expression.” If you typed in those words or phrases, the blogger would receive an error message. The system also blocked or limited results of searches for specific names or phrases like “Tibet independence,” “Falun Gong,” and “Tiananmen Square.” On December 30, 2005, when a Chinese blogger and journalist named Zhao Jing criticized the censorship on his MSN Spaces blog, Microsoft shut him down, “following a request from Chinese authorities,” according to Amnesty International. The problem extends even to today.

In early June 2021, users of Microsoft’s Bing search engine in the United States, Europe, and Asia reported that they could not pull up images and information concerning the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on their laptops. Microsoft blamed it on “human error,” but did not specify what error would have caused images of “tank man” and others to disappear.

The controversy over the regime’s censorship on the internet finally boiled over in 2010, when Google went to battle over search engine restrictions. When the dispute became public, Gates actually sided with Beijing and against Google, arguing that companies need to follow local laws. His position even prompted the Chinese embassy to run an approving story titled “Bill Gates Bats for China.”

Gates tried to sound principled, but this simply did not conform to the realities of his participation in censorship. In 2010, he claimed that China’s restrictions were minimal and expressed confidence that technology would overcome it. “Chinese efforts to censor the internet have been very limited,” he said. “It’s easy to go around it, so I think keeping the internet thriving there is very important.” 

Steve Ballmer, the Microsoft CEO at the time, echoed that sentiment. “If the Chinese government gives us proper legal notice, we’ll take that piece of information out of the Bing search engine.” Ballmer added that countries like the United States with “extreme” free speech laws also censor some material.

While Gates was attempting to explain away Chinese censorship, he was actively helping the regime accomplish it. Meanwhile, he was critical of any censorship in the United States. Gates was quick to criticize efforts he saw to restrict internet access unnecessarily. One example was his view of legislation that would curb children’s access to pornography. As Gates put it:

“Microsoft and others in industry and non-profit organizations were deeply involved in trying to block language that would put chilling restrictions on the use of the Internet for the free publication of information. The language, ostensibly aimed at keeping pornography out of the hands of children, goes much too far in restricting freedom of expression. … Let’s not undermine the world-wide trend toward free expression by setting a bad example when it comes to free speech on a computer network.”

Clearly, Gates did not want children to have easy access to pornography. Yet, while the vagueness of language concerning that law bothered him, China’s censorship apparently did not, given his frequent defense of it.

Beyond the issue of apologizing for Beijing’s censorship, Gates continued to appease the Chinese government. Microsoft promised Beijing that it would begin outsourcing jobs from the United States to China — it was an explicit promise. By the early 2000s, Microsoft was on track to have outsourced a thousand jobs. When the Chinese government criticized the company for not keeping pace, Microsoft said they would work harder to ship more jobs more quickly to the Chinese mainland.

Gates’ efforts to support the regime’s policies have been rewarded over the years. In 2006, the state-run People’s Daily Online named Gates among “50 foreigners shaping China’s modern development.” Joining him on the list were Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, and Joseph Stalin. Gates was the only person from the world of technology on the list. Earlier that year, when Chinese president Hu Jintao made his first official visit to the United States, he stopped in Seattle for a visit with Gates at his “palatial home” before heading to Washington, D.C. ABC News declared, “Chinese President Meets Bill Gates First.”

The relationship between Microsoft and Beijing improved. By 2010, Microsoft had taken another step in its tightening association with the Chinese government. The company set up a research laboratory in China to work on artificial intelligence (AI) with a Chinese military university, an essential area of research that would have huge implications for the economy and on the battlefield. Microsoft even started taking in interns from the People’s Liberation Army at its Asian research facility.

Microsoft worked with the Beijing regime in other ways. The company allowed the PLA to access communications on Skype, the company’s online videoconferencing platform. Communist officials were monitoring chats that might include organizing protests or other activities that might displease the regime. When asked about it, Microsoft simply said, “Skype’s mission is to break down barriers to communications and enable conversations worldwide.”

Microsoft later formed a partnership with the state-owned military conglomerate China Electronics Technology Group (CETC) to make Windows available to government officials in Beijing. The agreement would provide “operating system technology and services for Chinese users in specialized fields in government institutions and critical infrastructure state-owned enterprises.” The decision by Microsoft to work with CETC raised plenty of eyebrows in the tech world. As Computerworld noted, “CETC manages scores of research institutes and more than 180 commercial subsidiaries, most of them involved in defense-related research and development, the production of defense and dual-use electronics, or supplying the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and government agencies and state-run companies with technology products.” CETC’s labs designed the electronic guts for China’s first nuclear bomb, as well as its guided missiles and satellites. There are “very blurred lines” between what is civilian and military at CETC, the publication noted. The specifics of the deal were mysterious. Microsoft said that it made “changes” to Windows for the Chinese government but would not explain what they were. 

Gates’ budding relationship with the Chinese government opened the door to other opportunities. In 2014, when Gates stepped down as chairman of Microsoft, he remained on the board as a technical advisor. He wanted to spend time on his nonprofit foundation, but it is clear that he still had other interests related to technology. With a fascination with nuclear power, he had cofounded a company called TerraPower in 2008, with hopes to build nuclear reactors in China. He started working with Beijing on a project in 2011. 

As TerraPower technical adviser Roger Reynolds explained in an interview, they were collaborating with the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) to build a “next-generation” reactor. The technology involves something called a “traveling wave reactor,” which is based on a molten-salt reactor conceived initially by American scientists more than 50 years earlier.

Gates seemed oblivious to national security concerns about the project. By working with the communist regime, he was providing the government a strategic leg up in its competition with the United States for control over global nuclear markets. As the U.S. State Department has repeatedly explained, China uses “its large, rapidly-growing, state-sponsored nuclear industry as a strategic tool with which to augment China’s ‘comprehensive national power’ — both through development in the civilian sector and in support of a military buildup.” Furthermore, his partner, CNNC, has also come under fire from the Nuclear Threat Initiative because it is “involved in the development of China’s nuclear energy program, both civilian and military.”

Gates’ project also helped the communist regime in its military competition with the United States. These “new generation” reactors are incredibly effective at propelling ships at sea, including military vessels. Beijing already had an active thorium molten-salt reactor program itself, and the PLA is planning to use the technology to propel aircraft carriers and military drones.

In 2018, Gates’ plans to build nuclear reactors with the Chinese government came to a halt when “policy changes” in Washington made the project difficult to achieve. Later, the U.S. Department of Defense released a list of 20 Chinese companies linked to the PLA. His Chinese partner was on the list. This forced Gates to shelve his joint deal with CNNC. But it was not for a lack of trying.

He has pledged to continue seeking efforts to cooperate with Beijing on nuclear power projects. “The TerraPower thing, that was a setback, but there are ways to come back and engage China in a fairly deep way later in the project,” he told Chinese state media. 

Gates is also an investor in a Chinese electric vehicle company with the uplifting name Build Your Dreams (BYD) and has praised the company’s product. (His good friend Warren Buffett also owns a stake.) BYD also has deep ties to, and cooperates with, the Chinese military. According to a study sponsored by the Alliance for American Manufacturing, BYD grants military enterprises access to its technologies and research data. In 2018, for example, BYD announced that it would conduct “strategic cooperation” with the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology — a PLA entity — which is the “largest research and production base of missile weapons and launch vehicles in China.” At the same time, BYD works with military institutions to shape its products. For good measure, the company’s founder and CEO is a Communist Party official.

Beyond the deals, Gates has gone out of his way to personally praise President Xi. During an interview with the Communist Party’s People’s Daily in 2017, Gates talked about his relationship with Xi and the fact that the Chinese leader took so much time to speak with him. They discussed “the area of science, where China is now leading a lot of ways and willing to invest, that’s been something I discussed with President Xi.” He added: “And I am impressed of how hard President Xi works. Now he is involved in the committee that are looking at this problem and that problem. He’s quite amazing that he’s able to contribute in a number of ways.” 

What does this mean? It means that one of the richest men in the world was praising the leadership of a man who runs ethno-political prison camps.

This is more than idle chatter. Gates is now an adviser of sorts to the Chinese government. In 2017, the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) honored Gates with a lifetime membership. The CAE is under the direct supervision of the Chinese State Council, Beijing’s top governing body. This elite body, whose name sounds relatively harmless, is actually at the center of Chinese government power and plays a central role in the Chinese military-industrial complex.

Membership in the CAE requires “strict political clearance.” Foreigners can join only if they have contributed to China’s development. As the state-run People’s Daily reported, “Election as a foreign member of CAE is a lifelong honor that is expected to build up the institution, promote international cooperation and exchanges, and improve CAE’s status in the field of engineering.”

The CAE has a formal responsibility to advise the government, and on its website, it has numerous political articles extolling Xi and the Chinese Communist Party. 

The founder of the Chinese Academy of Engineering was Zhu Guangya, China’s “leading scientist in the country’s research and development of nuclear weaponry.” On the anniversary of his death in 2011, the current academy president, Zhou Ji, “pledged to follow his example and urged all Chinese scientists to contribute to ‘the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.'”

None of this seems to have bothered or concerned Gates as he joined the organization. Indeed, it was Zhou Ji who granted Gates his membership in the academy.

One of the most critical roles for the CAE is to adapt civilian technologies to military use. These are so-called “dual-use” technologies. Zhou Ji has noted on other occasions that artificial intelligence “will be the most important dual-use technology in the coming decades.” The Chinese Academy of Engineering sees that AI has a role in boosting the Chinese military. In October 2012, the CAE signed a partnership agreement with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) “to strengthen cooperation and push forward the military-civilian integration and innovative development of the PLA Navy and the CAE.”

Microsoft continues to work closely with military researchers in China, particularly in the area of AI. In 2018, Microsoft researchers wrote three research papers on AI in cooperation with China’s National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). The Central Military Commission has authority over the school. Microsoft research enjoys “long-running links to Chinese military-funded academia.” This includes running “tech clubs” at several universities known to have military connections.

Microsoft, despite this close work with Beijing, is not immune to cyberattacks launched with the support of the Chinese government. In 2021, the Biden administration pointed a finger at Beijing regarding a massive breach of Microsoft. But Microsoft has given no indication that they will be scaling back their work with the government that is targeting them.

Gates has continued to praise Beijing — even its handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Ignoring the fact that the regime has “disappeared” Chinese doctors, journalists, and others trying to alert the world about the virus, Gates has misrepresented what they knew about it and falsely blamed the U.S. military for the virus, explaining that Beijing “did a lot of things right.”


Exclusive: Systemic Voting Issues In Pennsylvania County Even More Extensive Than Previously Known

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

FEBRUARY 15, 2022

The newest recordings provide some of the frankest discussion on how bad the behind-the-scenes situation was in Pennsylvania’s 2020 election.

Author Margot Cleveland profile


he video (and audio) hits just keep on coming from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, where a whistleblower secretly taped the aftermath of the chaos from the 2020 presidential election. Two recent recordings exclusively obtained by The Federalist from a source with knowledge of the recordings provide further evidence that systemic problems plague the large Pennsylvania county.

The newest recordings provide some of the frankest discussion on how bad the behind-the-scenes situation was, with one election worker describing a part of the post-election situation as “abominable” and the attempt to do the impossible—reconcile some precincts’ voter sheets—as “a nightmare.”

The whistleblower, Regina Miller, began recording conversations involving Delaware County officials after she became concerned with what she saw as a contract worker assisting election employees. A source familiar with the videos explained that Miller made the recordings as election workers scrambled to find—and in some cases create—documentation in response to a “Right to Know” request that sought copies of the paperwork that would confirm the accuracy of the vote tallies certified for the 2020 election.

To date, the videos have exposed a wide array of problems with election integrity, including on-tape admissions that the election laws were not complied with, that 80 percent of provisional ballots lacked a proper chain-of-custody, that there were missing removable drives for some of the voting machines, and that election workers “recreated” new drives to response to the Right to Know request.

The most recent video, however, reveals a new area of concern related to the reconciliation of the voting totals in the precincts. Captured on film in this video was a conversation between one election worker and the whistleblower. With boxes of voting sheets lining the basement floor of a Delaware County building, the election worker tells Miller, “There were six precincts in one location and all of the machines were, all of the scanners were, programmed to accept any ballot of those six precincts.”

“It was a nightmare,” the Delaware County official explained, adding that “you couldn’t, there’s no way you could reconcile” the results.

The Pennsylvania Department of State checklist for the November 2020 election explained how the reconciliation process was to proceed. According to the Department of State, each precinct was required to compare the numbered list of voters created at the poll on election day to the number of votes recorded on the voting machines that appeared on the result tapes from the machines at the close of the polls.

But with ballots from one precinct scanned into the voting machine of another precinct, as the Delaware County official noted happened, it would “be impossible to reconcile.”

The Pennsylvania election code required the election board to investigate any discrepancies or irregularities among the records. But, again, an investigation could not resolve any discrepancies because the ballots of six separate precincts were improperly comingled.

More detail on the widespread problem of missing and comingled machine tapes was also revealed in a second conversation, with this discussion captured only on audio. That discussion began with the whistleblower again noting the chain-of-custody issues previously reported, where provisional ballots were transferred in unlocked bags.

This conversation added more insight to the potential risk caused by the lack of a chain of custody by exposing the number of hands the unsecured ballots passed through, each time providing a new opportunity for fraud. The unsecured ballots went from the “poll workers’ hands, then to return locations, then to the police officers, and then to us,” the whistleblower explained.

Miller then moved on to the issue of the machine tapes and inquired on the best way to have them returned to the county from each precinct. In response, an election worker is heard saying, “They have to be attached to the return sheet and they weren’t.” “We literally have two boxes that we got from the county of tapes,” the unnamed county official continued, “but they didn’t go with any ballot sheet.”

Other machine tapes never made their way into the box, however, with the Delaware County official exclaiming: “It was abominable.” “When the community service people cleaned out the cages, they were finding tapes in there because someone just didn’t know what to do,” the election official noted in reference to the locked areas where the election machines are stored after the election. Then “we all panic, is that the fifth tape or the first tape?” he added.

Some precinct workers thought if they just sent the tapes back, we’d figure out where they went, the recording continued. “You know, we couldn’t,” he told the whistleblower.

When the whistleblower asked if it is a legal requirement or just the practice to staple the tapes to the return sheet, the election official said, “I think it’s a combination of both.”

He’s right. Under Pennsylvania’s election code, the return board must carefully review the tally papers and machine tapes and reconcile them with the general return sheets, but if the tapes are missing, such a reconciliation is impossible.

That wasn’t the only reconciliation problem, however, as the undercover recording made clear. “We haven’t even talked about reconciling used and unused ballots,” the election worker noted, which Pennsylvania law also requires to be reconciled.


So now, added to the previous evidence of systemic defects in the 2020 Delaware County Pennsylvania election, we have additional details indicating the county’s mishandling of the last presidential election made it impossible for the county to fully reconcile the recorded votes to the number of votes cast and the number of ballots used and unused. Yet the county certified the election results.

What other counties in what other states likewise certified their election results notwithstanding similar, or worse, problems? We may never know, because what goes on in the canvasing of elections apparently stays in the basements and warehouses dotting every county in our country.

Without video evidence confirming cases of election malfeasance or fraud, politicians on both sides of the aisle will continue to put allegations—even from insiders—down as mere conspiracy theories. Sadly, even when there is video evidence such as here, the story is largely ignored by the corrupt press—or it will be until Democrats next take a beating at the polls.

Given the disaster Joe Biden has been, that is likely imminent.

More About The Evil Biden, Obama, And Rice

Kellyanne: Biden, Obama, Rice were trying to “perfume the pig”, concocting Trump-Russia connection during transition

by KAREN TOWNSEND Feb 15, 2022 at HotAir:

The bombshell story coming from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation is accelerating because more people are coming forward and cooperating with the federal grand jury. Fox News reports that “a source familiar with the probe” says much more activity has been going on in the investigation than the public is aware of because there are no leaks coming from Durham’s office. That is in sharp contrast to Mueller’s investigation. “Durham does this right and keeps it a secret,” the source said.

The response to the developing story of Durham’s recent federal court filing that the Clinton campaign lawyers paid a tech executive to work with the campaign to “assemble the purported data and white papers” on its bogus Russiagate narrative against Trump has been predictable. It’s important to remember that the findings from Durham’s investigation must be proven in a court of law. If allegations prove true by those cooperating with Durham, Hillary’s campaign was actively trying to overturn a presidential election using data illegally collected from Trump’s residence, his office in Trump Tower, and also in the White House. Democrats are ignoring the story, NeverTrump conservatives are pooh-poohing the importance of the story, and Trump supporters are feeling vindicated. Trump often said he was being spied on by his opposition. Primetime shows on CNN and MSNBC completely ignored Durham’s filing. Jake Tapper, to his credit, did bring up the story during his show, The Lead, ” but he only devoted a measly two minutes and forty-seven seconds to it over halfway through the second hour of his show.”

Trump supporters were guests on FNC last night to talk about their observations during the transition period between the Obama-Biden administration and Team Trump. Kellyanne Conway spoke of Obama, Biden, and Susan Rice being briefed on what was happening. Clinton’s people were “perfuming the pig” (Hillary), making her something she is not.

Kellyanne Conway attempted to shed some light on the situation having been there during Trump’s campaign and subsequent election win in 2016.

‘It’s really bad. I was there for all of it, on the campaign in Trump Tower and certainly the white house,’ she began. ‘I was at the White House, the Obama White House, for a transition lunch and while I was there, upstairs they were cooking this out. Biden, Suzanne rice and Barack Obama.

‘They were being briefed on what was going to happen. Guess what I learned today. The Clinton people had no faith in her. No confidence in her competence. They had to cut corners and cheat and lie. They had to perfume the pig. They had to make the candidate something she is not. We had tremendous faith in our candidate to get the job done. To go out there and connect with people Let’s at least have our due and dig a little bit deeper and see where this takes us.’

Former White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows and former Trump campaign consultant Paul Manafort gave their opinions, too. The spying was real, they say.

‘It’s payback time,’ said Manafort. ‘What you see now with what Durham is doing, are the facts that Mueller couldn’t find. He’s got the evidence Mueller couldn’t get to. He is proving the case that with the Democrats accused Republicans of is a good forecast of what they’re doing. That’s what you see. It’s outrageous. It’s outrageous.’

Next up was Mark Meadows who said that he believed that Durham had uncovered one of the worst spying scandals of all time.

‘We know that when Donald Trump said that they were spying on his campaign, he got all kinds of pushback. When Jim Jordan [U.S. Rep for Ohio-R] and myself said that they were spying on his campaign, we were ridiculed. This particular allegation in the filings that have been made by the special prosecutor is really starting to connect the dots for the first time. I’ve never seen anything this bad in my entire life politically.’

John Ratcliffe, former Director of National Intelligence under President Trump, says that Hillary attempted to frame Trump under a false Russian narrative. He points his finger at the likes of James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper who all admitted under oath that there was no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. He reminds television viewers that he declassified John Brennan’s hand written notes of the scheme and that both Biden and Obama knew Hillary’s campaign was trying to hack into Trump’s servers.
‘When I became the DNI, the first thing I wanted to see was all of the intelligence we have on Trump-Russia collusion. The answer was, “well, we don’t have any.”,’ Ratcliffe began.
‘That’s why [Former FBI director] Jim Comey and [Former CIA director] John Brennan and [Former DNI director] James clapper when all pressed under oath, and asked if there was evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, they all said, “no there isn’t.”‘
‘What I found was interesting was that we had a lot of intelligence of fake Trump-Russia collusion. We had information that Hillary Clinton had a plan to create this narrative. John Brennan’s handwritten notes showed he briefed President Obama and Vice-President Biden about that plan.
‘The public found out about this when I declassified the information in John Brennan’s hand written notes in September 2020. No member of congress was aware of this intelligence until I declassified it.’
Ratcliffe also said that then-Vice President Joe Biden and Barack Obama knew Hillary Clinton’s campaign was trying to hack into Trump’s servers to try and find links to the Kremlin.

Michael Sussman is pushing back on Durham’s filing. Sussman has pleaded not guilty to lying to then-FBI general counsel James Baker. He lied about being hired by the Clinton campaign.
‘Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest. Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial and false allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool,’ Sussman wrote in filing a cross-motion to strike with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
There is plenty to this story and there’s no doubt that much more will come out as Durham continues his work. We’ll see how long the media can ignore covering it. They were fully invested in Russiagate, as were Democrats on Capitol Hill. Russiagate brought in big ratings and nothing was too outlandish for them to state as though it was fact. This is the kind of comeuppance they deserve. Will any of the press ask Jen Psaki about the Biden connection to this story during the White House press briefing today? The deputy press secretary passed the question off by telling the reporter to ask the DOJ for comment. Remember that Psaki was a part of the Obama administration. We’ll see what she has to say.

America’s Fascist State’s LONG TIME Drive TO BURY PRESIDENT TRUMP!

February 15, 2022

The Silent Coup

By Andrew W. Coy at American Thinker:

Ever since President Trump came down the golden escalators to announce his candidacy for president of the United States, many professional and even casual observers of politics and history have wondered just what was going on in the events that followed. 

Many historians and folks who just read the newspaper every morning and watch the news at night felt that something quite different and very odd was occurring. 

Where were all the leaks coming from? Why all the Russia Russia Russia talk? What was all this 25th Amendment talk about? Why was there immediate talk of impeachment?  What was with the quick firing of Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn by Vice President Mike Pence? Why did the progressive liberal media obviously show that they had a favorite? Why the criminality in the 2020 election? Why the Jan. 6 roundup of citizens who only wanted free and fair elections? 

Now it is clear for all to see, the Deep State was running a coup against Donald Trump.  A coup against candidate Trump.  A coup against President-elect Trump. And a coup against President Trump while in office.  The Deep State, including the Fourth Branch of government (the intelligence apparatus), went after Trump from the moment he came down the escalators.  Not a military coup that we once thought of from a banana republic. No rifle fire, hand grenades, or mortar launchers.  But a soft and silent, yet deadly coup done by people with suits and ties and dresses and skirts in law firms and executive offices. 

One must wonder why the Deep State/Fourth Branch went after Trump immediately once he announced.  It never made sense.  Most early observers thought that Trump would govern as a moderate Republican. Possibly a Nelson Rockefeller-type governance.  But the enemies of choice and freedom and democracy went after Trump right away.  Maybe it was because Trump was not a part of the club.  Not a part of the governmental elite.  Maybe it was because they knew they could not control him. Maybe they knew a billionaire could not be bought off and bullied by the military-industrial complex.  Maybe they knew Trump would not play the game.  Or.  Maybe it was because he did put America First.  Maybe it was because he did believe in nationalism, borders, and America’s sovereignty.  Maybe it was because he did not believe in and would not succumb to a One World governance.  Maybe, it was because President Trump did not believe the answers to climate change, global warming, health care, wars, starvation, poverty, and Covid all rested in the arms of a One World entity.  Maybe, Trump was not going to allow a One World government on his watch.  Therefore, the silent coup.

This was not just typical dirty politics.  This was very much a coup-d’etat though, and Special Counsel John Durham appears to be uncovering it.

With the bombshell release over the weekend by Durham revealing that the Hillary Clinton campaign contracted out with third parties to not only spy on candidate Trump’s emails and computer usage but to hack into and spy on President-elect Trump and then President Trump’s computer/email/online usage.  A non-government group and non-government people, including the Hillary Clinton campaign, appear to have illegally spied on the president of the United States by breaking into his computer servers.  That is a felony. They did this, the Fourth Branch of government knew it, and nobody did anything about this crime.  The Deep State, running wild and free, with cover from the Fourth Branch, ran a coup-d’etat against a rightfully elected President Trump during his entire presidency.  Some would call this treason; some would call this an insurrection.  Most would call this a felony.  Admiral Rodgers told President-elect Trump at Trump Towers that he was being spied on by government officials (the Fourth Branch). President-elect Trump immediately moved his team out of Trump Towers.  Trump could not call on the intelligence agencies to catch and arrest the criminals and culprits; because Hillary’s campaign and the Fourth Branch were the criminals.  Durham is trying to figure out how to proceed in this Deep State when the referees are the crooks.

I’m sure that Durham remembers when Sen. Charles Schumer warned Trump, that if you mess with the intelligence agencies, “they will screw you six ways to Sunday.”  And Durham himself does not want to be “screwed six ways to Sunday.”

The Fourth Branch of government is the “surveillance state.”  The surveillance state is made up of the FBI/DOJ/DHS/NSA/CIA.  This new Fourth Branch does not simply believe that they are equal to the other three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive.  This new Fourth Branch, made up of the surveillance and spying communities, now believes that they are above the original three branches.  They are a “first” among equals.  It’s truly something that George Orwell has written about — in 1984 and in Animal Farm.  For those who dismiss this as conspiracy theories, the political prisoners in the D.C. gulags from the Jan. 6 riot might have a different point of view.  The J-6 political prisoners know firsthand what the Deep State can do now that they are targeting Americans who might have a different political point of view.  The Deep State surveillance entities have used and abused the 9/11 terrorist attack.  They have used and abused the Patriot Act by turning the guns inward towards American citizens.  Now they are using and abusing the American citizens with a different political ideology.  Civil libertarians once warned of the dangers of the Patriot Act.  Now, the ACLU is deaf-dumb-blind when it comes to the abusive tactics of the Fourth Branch.  This is the first time since the Patriot Act was passed that the Fourth Branch turned all of its weight and power, not after a foreign adversary nor terrorists, but after a fellow American citizen and his supporters whose only sin was having a different political ideology. 

As Special Counsel Durham is now beginning to show, there were a great many felonies committed during the 2016 election, during the Trump presidency, during the election of 2020, and now after the placement of Biden in office.  President Trump said that “In another time, it would have been punishable by death.”  This is not just vitriol nor hyperbolic language.  What would have happened to Americans if they would have spied on FDR during WW II and given this information to the Nazis?  What would have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis if Americans would have spied on JFK and given this information to Castro?  What would have happened if Americans would have spied on Ronald Reagan and given this information to Gorbachev?  Either death or life in prison would be sure to follow.  Well, President Trump was illegally spied on by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and by others; so what should happen to them? This is much worse than Watergate, much worse.   Durham is getting in dangerous territory and he knows it.

The great problem with which Durham will have a very difficult time is that the entities that are supposed to be neutral, supposed to be fair referees, and supposed to be demanding innocent standards of truth…are in on the crime, in on the coup. The Justice Department was anything but just when it came to Donald Trump. This silent coup could not have been done without the help of the Deep State and/or Fourth Branch.  This felonious attack by Hillary’s campaign on Trump/MAGA Nation, and the America First agenda had to have already have been known about by the supposed neutral arbitrators of justice.  Yet not only did they do nothing, but some were also accomplices. It appears that Durham will find out that some were accomplices before-during-after the crime.   John Durham certainly has his work cut out for him.  Durham, if he did not know then, he surely knows now, has a tiger by the tail.  He does not know whether it is more dangerous to just hold on or to just let go.  I am sure hoping Durham does not commit “suicide” as such things can go.

Senior government officials need to be brought in under oath for questioning.  The likes of James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Eric Holder, Christopher Wray, James Baker, Christopher Steele, Susan Rice, and Valerie Jarrett need to testify under oath as to “what did you do and when did you do it.”  A democratic republic only works when the people trust their government.  Right now a great percentage of Americans, just do not trust the government.  From truckers to churchgoers to moms at school board meetings, the American people are believing the Deep State government of Biden is out to get them. 

Sure looks like Durham is bringing this unfortunate fact to light. There is a Silent Coup.