• 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


Who Are Those ‘Techies’ Who Spied on Trump?

‘Benevolent posse’ or partisans for Hillary Clinton? John Durham has the answer.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Feb. 17, 2022 6:36 pm ET

The usual suspects are already circling the wagons around the techie “experts” who spied on Donald Trump. If their defense feels tired, it’s because we’ve been through it before. It’s Christopher Steele all over again.

Special counsel John Durham destroyed the last shreds of Mr. Steele’s credibility last year, proving that the paid-for-hire spook had relied on fabrications for the infamous dossier the Federal Bureau of Investigation used in its Trump probe. The special counsel is now dismantling that other big claim of Trump-Russia “collusion”—the Alfa Bank narrative. The wonder is that the press and others are stepping up for another humiliation—when the disturbing actions of the creators of the Alfa narrative are already so easy to document, and in their own words.


Trump, Russia and 2016 Data Mining

The Alfa story came to life in October 2016, when Franklin Foer of Slate was gulled into writing that a largely anonymous “benevolent posse” of “computer scientists,” “spurred by a sense of shared idealism,” had discovered data showing secret communications between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank. Cybersecurity professionals instantly ridiculed the data as nonsense, and the FBI dismissed it, but the liberal media kept it alive. In October 2018, the New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins devoted a 7,600-word panegyric to the “self-appointed guardians of the Internet” who continued to flog the claims.

In recent court filings, Mr. Durham explains that these tech experts—including Rodney Joffe, formerly of Neustar, Inc.—were in cahoots with the same crew as Mr. Steele, using the same playbook. They worked with Democratic lawyers at Perkins Coie and opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, with the goal of dredging up “derogatory” information on Mr. Trump that would please “VIPs” in the Clinton campaign. The techies did so, the Durham indictment says, in part by mining protected internet data that had been supplied to a government contractor—allowing them to snoop on the White House as well as Trump Tower and Mr. Trump’s Manhattan apartment


Opinion: Morning Editorial Report

Mr. Joffe’s legal team continues to insist he is “apolitical” and wasn’t aware his lawyer, Michael Sussmann, was billing Team Clinton. (A grand jury impaneled by Mr. Durham indicted Mr. Sussmann in September on a charge of making a false statement to the FBI. Mr. Sussmann pleaded not guilty.) The press initially tried to ignore the story, then resorted to parsing the definition of “spying,” justifying the accused, and trashing Mr. Durham.

The problem for the last-gaspers is that the techies they seek to defend have already put too much on the record that suggests their real concern was a President Trump, not national security. Start with the company that the “apolitical” Mr. Joffe kept. One of his colleagues involved in the project and referenced in the Sussmann indictment is Paul Vixie, whose Twitter feed sports a long record of liberal, anti-Trump sentiments. Another member of the circle—who took on the job of publishing the Joffe data—is L. Jean Camp, an Indiana University computer-science professor and Clinton supporter who called on Americans to join the “resistance” against Mr. Trump. So much for the media’s description of a gang of politically innocent nerds.

The researchers claim that by July 2016 they were alarmed by the security implications of their data, mined from government information. Yet they didn’t go to the government. Mr. Joffe instead went to Democrats—namely Mr. Sussmann, the Perkins Coie lawyer who in the summer of 2016 was regularly identified in the press as an attorney for the Democratic National Committee. The Sussmann indictment notes a meeting Mr. Joffe had with Marc Elias, the Perkins Coie attorney for the Clinton campaign. And a deposition by a Fusion GPS staffer as part of continuing Alfa Bank litigation says Mr. Joffe attended a meeting with Peter Fritsch, a co-founder of Fusion GPS. Was he still confused about the partisan nature of this project?

He certainly couldn’t have been two years later. By that point, the roles Perkins Coie and Fusion played in funneling information to the FBI for Clinton were well known, while Fusion had gone on to team up with former Democratic staffer Dan Jones to keep advancing the claims. Mr. Joffe sat for that October 2018 New Yorker piece that pushed the Alfa claims, anonymously calling himself “Max” and admitting in the piece that he’d continued to help that effort long after the election, providing Mr. Jones’s team with 37 million internet records to examine. (A deposition in the Alfa litigation identified Mr. Joffe as Max.)

Here’s the most revealing bit: “Max” also explained to the New Yorker how vitally important it was in 2016 to make sure the threat his team discovered was “known before the election.” Which was why he and his lawyer first went with their information to the press. The Sussmann indictment says Mr. Sussmann tried peddling the data to the New York Times in late August 2016. He didn’t approach the FBI until the middle of September. Mr. Joffe’s spokesperson declined to comment.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Does Our Human Female Animal Prefer The Power Of Fascism TO TAKE CARE OF HER?

February 18, 2022

Chinese Strategy and Identity Politics

By William R. Hawkins at American Thinker:

The decision of Olympic gold medalist Eileen Gu to join the Chinese national team, though born and raised in the U.S., had drawn criticism even before Nikki Haley called her out. The former governor of South Carolina declared, “You’ve got to pick a side because you’re either American or you’re Chinese, and they are two very different countries.” Gu is reportedly worth $15 million from lucrative deals with capitalist enterprises like Tiffany, Louis Vuitton, and Victoria’s Secret, as well as Chinese firms that are celebrating her shift of allegiance from the U.S. to the PRC. Gu, however, still prefers to live in America, where she attended an expensive private school in San Francisco and is set to start college at Stanford. Her mother immigrated from China for the benefits of American life but did not transfer her loyalty. She is thought to be the driving force behind her daughter’s choices, though Eileen Gu has also dabbled in radical left-wing politics by embracing Black Lives Matter, another vehicle for asserting the primacy of race over national identity.

In noble contrast is Nathan Chen, a gold medal U.S. skater who was proud to receive his awards under the American flag. His criticism came from Chinese fans and social media posts who proclaimed him a “traitor” to China who insulted his heritage by being “too white” and Americanized. He played for the country in which he lives, which makes him a nationalist, not a racist.

Part of Beijing’s strategy is calling home the Chinese diaspora that fled harsh communist rule. Haley pointed out that the choice is still about freedom and that Beijing is still a dictatorship, although a wealthy despotism that can back its racist propaganda with money. President Xi Jinping combines his campaign of “common prosperity” with the glorification of China’s imperial past when it dominated East Asia as the world’s most advanced civilization before the spectacular rise of the West half a millennium ago. Xi’s “Make China Great Again” appeal to Chinese pride can resonate globally.

China has not just recruited athletes by stressing racial identity over national loyalty, but also men of science and business. These “talent plans” may be legal, yet at the same time undoubtedly subversive. According to the FBI, “China’s talent plans have successfully recruited participants around the world to work on key programs like military technologies, nuclear energy, wind tunnel design, and advanced lasers” and “Talent plan participants are offered multiple financial, personal, and professional benefits in exchange for their efforts.” Though recruitment is not limited to those of Chinese heritage, it is a factor that can add to the appeal. It does not feel like treason if you think you are working within your chosen identity to further a “higher cause.”

We have run into this kind of problem before. We interned a great many Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Yet, this was an overreaction that exaggerated the racialist threat. We were able to enlist Japanese-American combat troops and intelligence officers who fought with valor for the country they lived in.

Before both world wars, Berlin tried to appeal to the German-American community, then the second largest in the U.S. behind the Anglo-Americans. But the man who led our forces against the Third Reich was named Eisenhower (German for “iron worker”). We are an “empire” of people from all over the world who have formed a nation because our “melting pot” philosophy used identity politics in a positive way.

The problem is that process has been weakened and a divisive form of identity politics has arisen. On the Left, nationalism is anathema to their core theme of class warfare which thinks of society as being in constant strife of all against all, a truly dystopian vision. There is no national interest in growth and opportunity, only special interests grabbing and exploiting each other to redistribute wealth. Unfortunately, some Establishment Republicans think in the same terms, accepting the left-wing vision, only choosing different groups to champion. Haley assailed this in regard to those business firms that have become global in outlook and are eager to follow Gu to Beijing for a fast buck. For too long, the GOP listened to such voices in Corporate America and turned their backs on the U.S. as an integrated society that needed to protect its economic base as well as its traditional values and security.

The Left’s inherently divisive program has initiated a dangerous revival of racism in its pursuit of power. It has been fifty years since the Left’s last reign of ruin which inflicted defeat overseas and chaos as home. The reaction that brought in President Ronald Reagan to put things right gave the country a long run of economic growth, innovation, and victory in the Cold War. From 1980 to 2019, the country’s real GDP nearly tripled, and technology exploded. All sectors of American society benefitted from this stellar performance, which posed a grave problem for the Left. The continued rise of black and Hispanic middle classes in a prosperous capitalist economy made a hash of the Left’s claim that socialism was the way forward. The Left had to find a way to dismiss the nation’s actual progress. Appeals to race took precedence over class. The argument has become: even if you benefit from Republican-conservative-capitalist policies, you can’t vote for them because they are racists.

This demagoguery hit its peak regarding Donald Trump, whose avowed nationalism posed an existential threat to the entire leftist program. His economic reforms on taxes and regulation pumped prosperity into minority communities which have since been decimated by the crime-ridden lockdowns imposed by Democrat mayors and governors. The only counter is to charge racism to discredit both President Trump and his record. Yet, there is no basis for this charge against a leader who in his Inaugural Address proclaimed an explicitly anti-racist definition of America. “A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag. And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.” This last recalls the Declaration of Independence’s principle that “all men are created equal.”

No wonder the Left went insane with a hatred that is poisoning the land. Identity politics based on race or any other subdivision of society that tears us apart rather than provides building blocks upward does more than just open the door for foreign subversion. It cripples us at home as well. In the world of Great Power competition, the battle of ideas over what constitutes identity and engenders loyalty will determine who holds the high ground. Beijing may be able to use race to build unity, but it is a deadly notion in a United States whose motto is “from many, one.” Martin Luther King said it best. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This is the key to the fusion of individualism and nationalism at the core of conservatism. The former is developed and rewarded for serving the higher and wider advancement of the latter. And we will all be better for it.

William R. Hawkins is President of the Hamilton Center for National Strategy. A former economics professor, he has written widely on defense and foreign policy issues for a variety of scholarly and popular publications. He has also served on the staff on the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Perhaps DEM President Joe Was Still In Bed?

Thanks, Joe! Texas received border wall supplies worth $6M despite Biden’s halt to its construction

KAREN TOWNSEND Feb 18, 2022 2:41 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

Katie Pavlich/Townhall

Joe Biden put a halt to border wall construction in the first days of his presidency. Texas Governor Greg Abbott made the decision that Texas would continue to build a wall on its border with Mexico using Texas taxpayers’ dollars. Texans have to do the job that Biden refuses to do – protect Texas and America from the continuing flood of illegal migrants coming across the southern border.

It is painfully obvious that the Biden administration’s idea of transforming America includes an open border with Mexico. There is no end in sight to the constant daily stream of people demanding to enter the United States, legally or illegally. DHS Secretary Mayorkas refuses to acknowledge the gravity of the Biden border crisis. It has been only in recent weeks, with Biden’s polling numbers on issues like illegal immigration way underwater, that Mayorkas has bothered to meet with Border Patrol officers to hear them out. Morale is at all-time lows and border law enforcement personnel are overwhelmed. Border communities have limited resources and they, too, are unable to keep up with the increase of people entering their towns.

Biden promised to bring back normalcy to America, whatever that means. Apparently he thinks that controlling America’s borders goes against American values. That’s the excuse he uses when he puts a stop to any of the actions Trump took to secure the border. So, here we are. When Biden stopped construction on the border wall, there were millions of dollars worth of supplies left on the ground being wasted. Taxpayer money being wasted. Texas officials found a way to get those supplies and put them to good use.

An article published in The Texan brought this to my attention. The Texas Facilities Commission (TFC) received the supplies from the U.S. government’s surplus federal property donation program. An update released from the Texas Facilities Commission confirms the acquisition.

Texas Facility Commission’s Federal Surplus Program acquired prefabricated Federal border panels through the General Service Administration (GSA) in late November 2021. As of Monday, February 7, 2022, we have the panels in our possession for use in the near term. Posillico Civil, Inc. provided logistical support transporting the panels.

TFC on Monday, February 7, 2022, received the final shipment of approximately 1,700 metal surplus panels, acquired through the General Service Administration (GSA), Federal Surplus Program (FSP). TFC applied and qualified through the FSP to receive the donated panels. TFC was responsible for the costs of transporting the panels to Texas. Posillico Civil, Inc. provided logistical support transporting the panels from California to Texas for approximately $2 million for the 246 truckloads of panels.

The panels are secured temporarily in Maverick County, Texas, for logistical efficiency and are under the control of the Texas National Guard and for use in the near term.

TFC continues its progress in acquiring the right of way of property through easement agreements. TFC continues to accomplish our mission directed by Governor Greg Abbott to construct the Border Wall.

According to the Department of Defense, there was an estimated $265M in border wall materials left near the border when Biden canceled the Trump administration project. Most of the supplies are being stored at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson and in locations in California.

Lt. Col. Chris Mitchell, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), indicated that an estimated $6 million worth of supplies, including 1,757 bollard panels, had been transferred to the State of Texas, the Arizona Daily Star reported on Sunday.

According to the Star, the amount of property donated to Texas is the most so far and Mitchell stated that hundreds of truckloads of supplies have been sent to Davis-Monthan.

Other federal agencies will reportedly receive some of the materials as well, including for border wall “remediation” efforts by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The state didn’t have to disclose its intention for the materials to be used in continuing to build the wall. Lt. Col. Mitchell said that the 32-foot-tall steel bollard panels acquired by Texas were at a storage site in San Diego. Francoise Luca, a spokesperson for the Facilities Commission, said the state followed the surplus program’s rules. So, Biden was going to allow millions of dollars of building material already paid for with taxpayer dollars to be stored instead of allowing it to be used as appropriated. The building material ended up in a federal surplus program and is now being “donated” back to Texas where it was intended to be used from the start. Good Lord. Do not underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to screw things up. He is so Trump-deranged that he’ll allow the border to remain porous out of spite.

The building material is temporarily stored in Maverick County, Texas. The Texas National Guard is in charge of securing the location, according to Luca.

Since Biden’s bone-headed move to shut down border wall construction, his administration has walked a little bit back about a border wall.

Despite canceling the U.S. border wall, the federal government announced plans in December to begin “closing small gaps that remain open from prior construction activities and remediating incomplete gates.”

In addition, Chris Magnus, the recently appointed commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, stated at his confirmation hearing in October that he was open to continuing border wall construction under certain circumstances.

Now Biden is coming under criticism by environmental activists who oppose the border wall.

Scott Nicol, a McAllen-based environmental activist, said Biden has broken his pledge not to use taxpayer money to build a wall, pointing to one project in the Rio Grande Valley where crews erected 15-foot concrete panels near the border that the federal government calls levees.

And now “the Biden administration is saying, ‘We won’t build these border walls, but if Abbott wants to build them, we will give him free bollards,’” he said. “The problem with border walls isn’t who is building them, it is the devastation that comes when they are built.”

Nicol said regardless of who is building border barriers, the wall will block the movement of endangered species like ocelots and could cause dangerous flooding.

Somehow I think the ocelots will figure it out. I’m more concerned about the survival of Texas and other border states who are under siege from more than two million illegal migrants over the course of the last year up to now. This story is yet another one of Biden’s ineptness and inability to govern. Protecting the homeland is his number one duty and he is failing miserably.

” This ought to be the political earthquake that shakes the foundation of progressivism!”



If you roll back the timeline to 1978, you’ll recall that the “tax revolt” began with the landslide passage of Proposition 13 in California, which cut property taxes by more than half, severely limited their future increase, and imposed a 2/3rds requirement on the state legislature for all future tax increases. The tax revolt spread quickly around the country, with Michigan and even Massachusetts (!) cutting property taxes significantly. It was a milestone in the supply-side revolution that culminated two years later with Reagan’s election, and his income tax rate reductions shortly spread around the world. Even those Scandahoovian “social democracies” cut their income tax rates (and some even abolished their capital gains taxes entirely) by the mid-1980s.

The left didn’t take it well. I think my favorite example of a liberal freak out was New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, who ran a column attacking the voters of California under the headline “How To Spit in Your Own Face.” Because high taxes are good for you, you lowly peasants. The left in California has dreamed for years of overturning Prop. 13. As late as 1994 I was debating liberals (like Richard Reeves once in Santa Barbara) about their mania that everything wrong with California could be attributed to Proposition 13.

This week California delivered another mortal blow to progressivism with the vote in San Francisco to recall three far-left school board members by a 3 – 1 margin. I think that qualifies as a landslide. In San Francisco. Where Republican voters can fit in a phone booth. The crazy three were behind the risible idea of stripping the names of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and even Dianne Feinstein from schools, and with one member saying that Asian success came from their embrace and practice of “white supremacy.” This is the face of so-called “anti-racism.”

You’d think that, like Prop. 13, the left might learn a lesson. This ought to be the political earthquake that shakes the foundations of progressivism. Smart liberals like James Carville have been saying this for several years now. I think his phrase is that Democrats need to stop taking their politics from the faculty lounge and go back to taking their cues from union halls (most of which will tell Biden to build the Keystone Pipeline). But of course not. Since the core value of progressivism is the fixed belief in your own moral superiority, changing one’s mind is not permitted.

The left is not taking this result well. The prize for the most unhinged reaction so far comes from—wait for it!—CNN’s Nicole Hemmer. You couldn’t see that coming!

San Francisco school board recall sends a dangerous message

Let’s just linger with this headline for a moment. It’s amusing how progressives say they want to hear the voice of the people (and have more people voting, several times if  convenient), but then deplore the people when they produce the “wrong” result. And “wrong” often jumps to “dangerous.” Those dangerous voters in San Francisco!

Anyway, the rest of this long, lugubrious article fully lives up to the headline. As I like to say, you have to read it, not to believe it. A few short samples:

But while the results in San Francisco may resist simple analysis, the politics swirling around the recall tell us something important about a process underway across the country. In San Francisco, deep-pocketed, right-leaning donors shoveled money into the recall, while activists and media outlets began using language that lashed together the disparate dissatisfactions into a coherent message.

OMG—a “coherent message.” What a thing. Behold the power of San Franciso’s right-leaning donors, whose success in generating a “coherent message” has reduced the left to incoherence.

From here the article wanders through a potted history of public education controversies going back to the 1990s (the controversy over “Ebonics” even shows up for duty), in a transparent effort to change the subject and distract the reader, as none of those older controversies have any connection to the issues that rightly enraged even most left-of-center voters in SF.

Political organizing around schools is nearly as old as compulsory schooling itself, sparking battles over access, the teaching of subjects like evolution and sex and mandatory prayer and pledges of allegiance. Parents played a role on both sides of all these issues, advocating for the school rules that they felt aligned with their own values.

Yet because so many of these issues would ultimately be settled in state legislatures, Congress and the courts, the right successfully framed school politics as concerned parents having their rights infringed by politicians, bureaucrats and judges.

Perhaps the right “successfully framed” school politics as being an infringement by bureaucrats and judges because it is true? Perish the thought.

Memo to the left: please please stay in denial. We’ll see you in November.


Democrats’ internal polling shows swing voters believe party went ‘too far’ on COVID

How’s The COVID Racket Going?

Who’s Best Situated to Figure Out the Truth about COVID?

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

Is COVID truly a threat to life on Earth, comparable to bubonic plague?  Are school closures and lockdowns really necessary? Will vaccines protect us, and what about side-effects?  If this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” how are vaccinated people spreading COVID?  Boosters?  Really?

What is the truth?  Why is COVID so confusing?

First, there are ever-changing messages.  No mask, yes mask, two masks, avoid cloth masks.  Vaccination will stop COVID, except maybe not — we need boosters, several.  There is no natural immunity…well, maybe there is, but it won’t protect you.  Except that real physicians say it will.

No wonder people don’t trust Fauci or Biden.

Words are critical when seeking truth.  Since the outbreak of COVID, the meaning of common words has been spun and distorted.  Positive COVID tests are reported as “cases,” implying symptomatic patients.  The vast majority of positive tests are people not sick at all.  

More than 918,000 Americans are listed as “COVID deaths,” even though only 12 percent to 23 percent of COVID deaths were actually due to the virus.

Uncovering truth requires the scientific method.  One idea is tested against other opposing ideas.  Truth is revealed through mental trial by combat.

Censorship suppresses information unacceptable to the censor.  It imposes a single perspective and prevents dissemination of differing ideas.  Censorship is mandatory one-idea-fits-all groupthink.  Censorship is the enemy of truth.

To advance Washington’s COVID “truth,” people and ideas are censored by unelected third parties: bureaucrat M.D.s, viz., Fauci and Walensky; agencies like the FDA and OHSA; complicit news media such as the New York Times and the Washington Post; social media like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube; and search engines, viz., Google.

Questioning Fauci’s pronouncements or Washington’s actions is punishable by loss of status, character assassination, loss of federal funding, and loss of employment.

The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) was written Oct. 4, 2020 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts and signed by three medical faculty members at Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard.  It countered Washington’s draconian measures — lockdowns, PPE, mandatory vaccination, and suspension of the Bill of Rights — with a true science-based plan called “focused protection.”  This approach would have minimized the devastating socialmedical, and economic effects of Biden’s mandates.

The GBD had to be censored!  No one should be allowed to question federal policy!

So, on Oct. 8, 2020, then–NIH director Francis Collins wrote to NIAID director Anthony Fauci the following. “This proposal [the GBD] from the three fringe [Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard?!] epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention — and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises. I don’t see anything like that on line yet — is it underway?”

A campaign commenced to delegitimize the GBD.  For months, Google searches for the GBD produced, “This site cannot be found.”  A host of hit pieces were placed online and in academic journals claiming to discredit the not-searchable GBD.

The dire consequences the GBD warned against did, in fact, occur.  Experience proved we should have been using focused protection all along.  Too bad the GBD was censored.

Robert Malone, M.D. is a virologist and immunologist instrumental in developing mRNA technology, the experimental gene therapy used in mandated vaccines and boosters.  When Malone tried to raise concerns about effectiveness, safety, and necessity of mRNA vaccination, he was demeaned, canceled, and censored.  The Atlantic described Dr. Malone as “The Vaccine Scientist Spreading Vaccine Misinformation.”  Wikipedia played the same tune: “Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.”

The definition of misinformation is that which doesn’t agree with Washington.

Dr. Angelique Coetzee, the South African physician who first identified the omicron variant, says she was pressured by government censors to suppress (censor) how mild the illness is caused by omicron.

In January 2022, I experienced censorship when interviewed for the podcast Tipping Point.  Based on research data, I proved that public service announcements assuring parents that vaccination was “safe, effective, and doctor-approved” were false.  Like Dr. Malone, I advised parents, “Do not vaccinate your children” using mRNA technology.

Until that interview, Tipping Point had been viewable on YouTube.  My interview was banned because I was “spreading misinformation, with statements inconsistent with WHO (World Health Organization) recommendations.”  The podcast is available on Rumble.

Washington claims to have a monopoly on the truth, and Fauci speaks it.  If you disagree or even question the federal narrative, you are wrong, dangerous, spreading “misinformation,” and you must be stopped, canceled, censored.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government.”  Well-informed means an electorate that hears all the facts and all sides of an issue, not limited to one side, false facts, and denied access to censored “misinformation.”

The saga of Jessica Rose epitomizes how Biden’s enforced orthodoxy stifles a search for truth.  With her brand-new Ph.D. in computational biology, Dr. Rose looked for a project to test her skills and decided to study the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database.  She had no medical preconceptions or political agenda.

Rose found that reports of adverse events had increased from 40,000 per year to more than one million after mRNA vaccination became mandatory.  Deaths also increased from a few hundred per year to more than 21,000 following mandatory mRNA vaccination.  Dr. Rose submitted a paper with her statistical analysis to an academic journal.  The publisher, Elsevier, withdrew the paper.  It was rejected not by peer reviewers, but by the publisher, with no explanation.

As someone who has published more than 150 academic research papers over 45 years, including in Elsevier publications, I have never had a paper rejected by a publisher or even heard of this happening.  

For a truly frightening insider view of Washington groupthink, enforced orthodoxy, and strict censorship, read Scott Atlas’s book, A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America.

The reason for COVID censorship is obvious: to justify a federal power-grab.  If the public knew the truth about COVID rather than the greatly exaggerated threat touted by Washington, Americans would never tolerate Biden’s nullifying the Bill of Rights.

The solution is equally obvious: Americans should deploy their ballots and their dollars.  Vote only for politicians who follow the Constitution and who appoint judges who do the same.  Elect only those officials who defend personal freedom, especially medical autonomy.  We the People demand the freedom to decide for themselves; we reject tyranny by those to whom we elect to (temporary) power.  

Americans should cease financial support of censors such as YouTube, Twitter, Google, CNN, and the New York Times.  They need to feel pain in the pocket nerve.  Transfer attention, content, and dollars to platforms, news venues, and social media that encourage open discussion of differing opinions and data, and who eschew censorship.

The only people who should decide what is COVID truth and what is misinformation are We the People.   

Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is professor emeritus of pediatrics, pathology, and decision science; former director of the Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; and author of the multi-award-winning book Curing the Cancer in U.S. HealthcareStatesCare and Market-Based Medicine

That Daunte Wright Criminal of the Twin Cities….yes or no?

Three of the four major Minnesota’s major Twin City television news industries gave PERFORMANCES of a half hour and more, among some, suggesting the innocence of a “colored” city gangster who, as I remember the case, was attempting to commit a robbery here in Twin Cities’ Brooklyn Center, but got shot by a female police officer….white, unfortunately, during an attempt to arrest him. It seemed clear by Truth, that the shooting was by mistake…..except the she police officer was white….HER MISTAKE!

It was announced today that the innocent female police officer was a criminal, and so must spend a couple years in jail…..because, IF TRUTH COULD BE TOLD, she is, was white involved in attempting to arrest a criminal who happened to be colored.

TRUTH ACCORDING TO TRUTH, for I wasn’t there: Criminal Daunte Wright had multiple criminal charges on his record when he was pulled over and fatally shot by police. Wright, the 20-year-old black man who was shot by in an apparent accidental discharge, had previously been charged with first-degree aggravated robbery, fleeing from police, and possession of a handgun without a permit.

Loved ones of Daunte Wright and George Floyd gathered on Tuesday to call for action to be taken against the now-former Brooklyn Center police officer Kim Potter.

The Wright and Floyd families joined prominent civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump and others on Tuesday afternoon in front of Minnesota’s Hennepin County Courthouse, where former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is standing trial on murder and manslaughter charges in connection with the May 2020 death of Floyd.

Wright, a 20-year-old man, was fatally shot by a police officer who allegedly mistook her firearm for her Taser.

“Because this time last year – almost a year ago – they were facing the unimaginable, they were facing the unbelievable, they were facing the agony of losing a family member to police excessive force,” Crump said. “And it is unbelievable. It is just something I could not fathom that in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a suburb 10 miles from where the Chauvin trial regarding George Floyd was taking place, that a police officer would shoot and kill another unarmed Black man.”

Dear America….Is it okay if you are a male black that you should be a protected gangster…..protected by our police officers even within the case of the crime itself…..if you possess the correct color?

IS THAT WHY Black Lives Matter and Antifa murdering IS JUST FINE IF YOU ARE COLORED AND DEM?


February 17, 2022

Know Your Black History

By Sloan Oliver at American Thinker:

February is Black History Month, which means it’s important to know black history. Our media, leftists, and Democrats (I repeat myself) such as Biden, Hillary, LeBron James, Jesse Smollet, CNN, Lori Lightfoot, Stacey Abrams, and countless others would have you believe that America was founded on racism, is a racist nation, and has always been a racist nation. Are those Democrats correct? History’s important, so let’s exam some history. 

In the past, America has had racial problems. At first, all colonies allowed slavery. However, by the early 1800s, the northern states had outlawed it. Nevertheless, southern Democrats refused to free their slaves. When Abe Lincoln, a Republican, was elected, southern Democrats fought the Civil War to keep their blacks enslaved. Then, after Reconstruction, southern Democrats implemented Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. “Jim Crow” was the name given to numerous laws passed by Democrats, throughout the South, designed to keep blacks “in their place.” These laws existed from the 1870s to the 1960s. They effectively disenfranchised blacks from the vote via poll taxes, literacy tests, and residency restrictions. Jim Crow laws made blacks second-class citizens who couldn’t vote, serve on juries, or run for office. Other laws created “separate but equal” institutions that segregated blacks from society; and established separate black schools, hospitals, water fountains, restrooms, railroad cars, and sports leagues. If segregation wasn’t bad enough, other businesses simply refused to serve blacks; hence the need for The Negro Motorist Green Book which listed businesses that would serve black travelers. Not only were the Jim Crow laws humiliating, the separate facilities were not equal. Black schools were fewer in number, had few books, and were in terrible condition. Black hospitals left blacks with unequal health care. Democrat president Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) segregated all federal agencies. In the 1920s, the KKK reappeared nationwide. The Democrats’ Jim Crow laws effectively kept the country segregated until civil rights laws were passed in the 1960s.

Since the 1960s, the basis for blacks’ advancement was Martin Luther King Jr’s charge to the nation “to judge one on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin.” MLK’s charge was one of the greatest challenges to any nation, and has benefited more Americans (regardless of skin color) in the ensuing years than any government program could ever hope. His words caused all Americans to look inward, do some soul searching; and ask if we (individually and as a nation) were truly living up to the principle that “all men are created equal.” The result was the 1960s civil rights laws.  

Over the next 30-40 years, blacks made tremendous strides. For example, in 1958, 44% of whites said they would relocate if a black family moved next door; by 1998, that figure was 1%. In 1964, 18% of whites claimed to have a black friend; by 1998, 86% did and 87% of blacks claimed a white friend. Economically, black gains were just as dramatic: in 1940, 60% of employed black women were domestic servants; by 1998 that number was 2.2%, while 60% held white-collar jobs. In 1944 only 5% of black men were employed in non-manual, white-collar work; by 1998, 30% of black men held white-collar jobs. Largely by the late 1990s and early 2000s accusations of racism were no longer heard. Why? Because, thanks to the Civil Rights Laws and the realization that discrimination was wrong, racism had been defeated. Blacks had (and still have) opportunities to excel in any field they desire.

Then, in the early 21st century came our Obamas (Barack and Michelle) and you’d have thought we were back in the 1950s and the Civil Rights Movement had never occurred. Michelle claimed she had never been proud to be an American because of racism. Suddenly, everything became racial. Disagree with Obama, it’s because of racism. (So claimed Jimmy Carter.) A policeman mistakenly arrests a black homeowner for breaking into his own house (2009), it’s because all cops are racist. A black youth tries to grab a policeman’s weapon and gets killed in the process (Michael Brown, Ferguson, MO, in 2014), again, it’s because all cops are racist — burn down the city. Since Obama, chants of racism have only gotten louder and more frequent. Trump got elected because of racism. Stacey Abrams didn’t get elected because of racism. Black COVID deaths exceed white deaths because of racism. Even Canadians aren’t safe. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attacked the Canadian truckers protesting vaccine mandates, he called them — you guessed it — racists and misogynists. The accusations of racism are endless and always one way — conservatives are the racists. Doesn’t matter if the conservative is black or white, he’s racist. So, Senator Tim Scott, Justice Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Allen West, and the late Herman Cain are all racist (despite being black themselves) because they know their history, escaped from Plantation Democrat, and refuse to accept their victim status.

Actually, in America, apart from the constant accusations of racism, there’s so little racism that racial incidents must be trumped up. Based on a 30-second video, Nick Sandman, the Covington Catholic kid, was accused of racially accosting a Native American. After viewing the entire 30-minute video, it was clear that the Indian had confronted Sandman. Jussie Smollet (a Trump hater) couldn’t find any racist white guys, so he hired two black Nigerians to beat him up so he could claim a racial attack. Bubba Wallace (an anti-Trumper) claimed a pull-rope in his NASCAR garage was a noose placed there to intimidate him. The FBI sent 15 agents to investigate and determined that it was a pull-rope. Last September, racist graffiti at a Missouri high school led 1,000 students to walk out in protest. Turns out a black student admitted he wrote “HOPE ALL BLACK PEOPLE DIE” and wrote the N-word on the bathroom wall. A comment, to the report summed it up very well: “The demand for racist incidents is outstripping supply! Therefore, fraudulent incidents are being dreamt up to bridge the gap!” 

In the past 15 years, almost every single claim of racial hatred and bigotry has been a rush to judgement by Democrats and their media darlings. Beginning before the Civil War and continuing to this day, the most racist group in American history is, and continues to be, the Democrat Party and its voters. So, yes, Obama, CNN, LeBron, and Biden are correct about racism. However, it’s Democrats who are guilty of the systemic racism, and why it’s important to know your black history.

A note to remember……I went to high school in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1948-1952 when St. Paul had ten public high schools, seven of them with “Negro” populations mixed into the classes. Christianity was “in control” in the Twin Cities in those days. Churches were filled with memberships in every district of populations. Adults were in total control at home and in the neighborhoods. Fathers labored, whether Negro or white…..Mothers mothered in equal value. No one in public would ever be caught shouting “damn”.

Best of all was the quality of teachers I had….Mostly women very skilled and knowledgeable in their fields….and Negroes owned their own shops near downtown or worked in the railroad businesses, service and repair.

I worked a paper route in St. Paul, beginning in 1946 when I was twelve years old…..We didn’t have any colored students at our new elementary school built just before the War began. But at the movies on Saturdays for kids, we’d often view comedies staring white and colored kids together. I was born very curious. During the week after my after school paper route I’d sneak downtown on a St. Paul street car costing ten cents simply to see what colored kids were doing…..over a dozen times….and never got caught! My mother worked at my dad’s drug store.

Poverty was tough in those days….whether among most white or black folk. We kids at home played in the streets, kicking the can or playing tag or hide and seek daily when there was time.

What Country do you live in? WAKE UP AMERICA! YOUR BEING SWIPED?



No charges have been brought (sealed or unsealed) and no arrests have been made in the massive free lunch fraud that exploded into the local news last month. In previous posts, I embedded copies of the three search warrants whose unsealing made the story public. Based on the warrants, I infer the charges will come.

The search warrants also established the existence of assets — “real estate, cars, and other luxury items” — that can be seized and liquidated to mitigate the fraud. The government cannot let it ride. Indeed, the FBI seized certain of Feeding Our Future principal Aimee Bock’s assets in the course of its January 20 search of her residence. According to her attorney, Bock has been advised that she is a target of the investigation, but she denies wrongdoing and seems to say that she’s a victim of racism (all the other possible fraudsters appear to be Somali).

The government has in fact commenced a civil forfeiture action to take possession of 14 real properties around the Twin Cities area. The government filed the complaint on January 20. Courtesy of Tasha Zerna of the United States Attorney’s office, I have obtained a PDF of the complaint (embedded below).

Having reviewed the complaint, Joey Peters noted allegations involving Abdi Nur Salah, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey’s senior policy aide. When Peters called to ask about it on behalf of Sahan Journal — story here — he got results:

Sahan Journal called a spokesperson for Frey at 1 p.m. on Thursday to ask about the allegations against the mayor’s senior policy aide. At 5 p.m, the spokesperson emailed Sahan Journal with a statement: “Abdi Salah is no longer an employee of Mayor Frey’s office. His last date of employment was today.”

The Star Tribune obscures the obvious cause and effect in “Former aide to Minneapolis Mayor Frey named in forfeiture lawsuit over alleged fraud in meals program.” Salah told the Star Tribune he was moving on because he is taking paternity leave. Maybe he is, but readers who rely on the Star Tribune story aren’t given much of a chance to make up their own mind about what’s going down. Peter’s story fills out the picture.

The Center of the American Experiment’s Bill Glahn reviewed the story to date in his February 17 post “The alleged Feeding Our Future scandal, four weeks in.” More to come.

Civil Complaint by Scott Johnson on Scribd .


Case No. 22-cv-____________ 


15418 Hampshire Lane, Savage, Minnesota,2.

5594 Candy Cove Trail SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota,3.

5604 Candy Cove Trail SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota,4.

3847 Cane Run Road, Louisville, Kentucky,5.

6200 South 3rd Street, Louisville. Kentucky,6.

2722 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota,7.

2742 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota,8.

5150 Alvarado Lane in Plymouth, Minnesota,9.

2529 12th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota,10.

301-309 (odd addresses) East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota,11.

311-319 (odd addresses) East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota,12.

3018 3rd Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota,13.

8432 Noble Ave N., Brooklyn Park, Minnesota,14.

13825 Edgewood Avenue South, Savage, Minnesota,Defendants.



 The plaintiff, United States of America, through its attorneys Charles J. Kovats, Jr.,Acting United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Craig Baune, AssistantUnited States Attorney, in a civil cause of action for forfeiture, alleges as follows inaccordance with Supplemental Rule G(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:



This is an action to forfeit and condemn the defendants

in rem

 to the use and benefit of the United States of America pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A) and(a)(1)(C) for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1349, 1956 and 1957.


Why Not Quit Wasting Time Watching Football ON SUNDAYS OR ANY OTHER DAY?



The National Football League has enlisted former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to defend it in the class action race discrimination suit filed by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores. I wrote about Flores’ case here. It strikes me as weak, at least as to his individual claim.

Lynch is a partner at Paul Weiss, the prestigious New York law firm. Paul Weiss frequently represents the NFL in lawsuits, including the high profile concussion litigation.

It’s not unusual in a major race discrimination case for the defense team to include a big-name African-American partner. Lynch will take on that role in this case.

There’s irony it, though. Civil rights group routinely bash Republican presidential nominees for representing employers accused of race and/or gender discrimination. My friend Eric Dreiband received this treatment when President Trump nominated him to be an Assistant Attorney General.

Now, the rot seems to have spread to potential Democrat nominees. The major stated objection to Judge J. Michelle Childs, who is under consideration for the Supreme Court, is that she once was part of a labor and employment law practice that defends employers.

The trick, I guess, is to secure that high-level government or judicial post and then, once this itch is scratched and the credential established, move on to a big law firm. At that point, you can give a well-deserved finger to left-wing idiots who object to your client list.



Fascist Trudeau Goes Violent!?

Trudeau Does Not Want To End The Protests Peacefully. He Wants Violence

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON at the Federalist:

FEBRUARY 17, 2022


Everything Justin Trudeau has done since the protests began has made a confrontation between protesters and police all but inevitable.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile


he only way to understand the actions of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the past two weeks is that he wants the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, which so far have been entirely peaceful, to descend into a violent confrontation between protesters and police.

Everything Trudeau has done, from his initial dismissive remarks about the protesters being a “small, fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” to his ongoing refusal to meet with them, to the unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act this week, has served to escalate the situation in Ottawa and increase the likelihood that it ends in some kind of violence.l

Consider the draconian measures Trudeau’s government is now pursuing. The protests, while certainly inconvenient and even onerous to the residents of Ottawa, are obviously not an existential threat to Canada. They are not even a national emergency according to the Emergencies Act’s own definition: an “urgent and critical situation” that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.”

No reasonable person thinks that’s what the protests in Ottawa are. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has said the federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act, and that invoking it “threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.” According to some recent polls, a not insignificant number of Canadians agree.

Yet Trudeau is bringing down the full force of the federal government to quash the Freedom Convoy. Under the Emergencies Act, protesters can have their bank accounts frozen, and so can people who simply donate to protesters. Crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers must cease all services to anyone they suspect might be participating in “illegal blockades,” and report it to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Truckers can have their commercial and private drivers’ licenses revoked, and can lose their insurance and their vehicles.

Even more ominously, Canadian government officials are now warning parents who bring their children to “illegal assemblies,” or even provide food or fuel to protesters, that they could not only face jail time and steep fines, they could lose custody of their children. On Wednesday, the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa put out a statement urging parents at the demonstrations to make alternate care arrangements, “should they become unable to care for their children following potential police action.”

The threat here is obvious: if you protest, we’ll arrest you and take your children away. Trudeau has effectively weaponized Canada’s version of child protective services to suppress legitimate political dissent. What do you think is going to happen when the police start trying to remove children from their parents? If it were your child, what would you do?

All of this could come to a head in the coming days. Police in Ottawa have begun handing out notices to protesters that they must “leave the area now” or face arrest. According to some reports, if police want to clear the streets of Ottawa, they’re going to have to get it done in the next 48 hours, because thousands more protesters are expected to arrive in the Canadian capital this coming weekend in what could be the largest demonstration yet.

But it’s unclear how exactly the authorities are going to clear the trucks. Towing these semi-trailers is going to take heavy equipment, and so far local towing companies have refused government requests to tow the Freedom Convoy trucks. The military would be able to move them, and Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act enables the use of the military for such an operation. But that would create a disturbing spectacle at the least, and at worst provoke a confrontation that could turn violent. 

If that happens, Trudeau will bear the blame. He has set up a situation where violence, or at least some kind of forcible crackdown by Canadian law enforcement against protesters, is becoming inevitable. Indeed, how else are we to understand Trudeau’s statement earlier this week that the protests, which have so far been totally peaceful, are in his judgment no longer “non-violent”?

At no point, even after drawing widespread criticism for his mishandling of the situation, has Trudeau shown any sign of compromise, or done anything to give the protesters an off-ramp. Even as provincial governments have eased or rescinded Covid mandates and restrictions in the face of sharply declining case numbers and hospitalizations, Trudeau is holding fast. As Eric Kaufman noted this week in the Telegraph, Trudeau’s hypocrisy in these matters is blatant:

Contrast his combative posture towards the truckers with his gentle approach to protesters who would seem to share his philosophy. When Left-wing arsonists burned some 30 Catholic churches over a false claim that mass graves had been discovered near a former residential school for indigenous Canadians, Trudeau called the violence ‘understandable’. When indigenous protesters and their allies blocked rail lines and pipelines over a longer period than the trucker convoy, Trudeau patiently called for ‘dialogue and mutual respect’.

The Canadian prime minister’s reactions to these events tell us that he condones actual political violence and disruptive blockades, as long he agrees with the people who are doing it. The truckers, though, have gotten neither dialogue nor respect from Trudeau and his administration. After all, to Trudeau they’re just a bunch of racists and misogynists with “unacceptable views.”

On Wednesday, he doubled down on the name-calling, responding to a conservative Jewish MP that Conservative Party members “stand with people who wave swastikas,” and “stand with people who wave the Confederate flag…” (For that quip, Trudeau earned a rebuke from the speaker of the House of Commons, who reminded him “to use words that are not inflammatory.”)

The Post Millennial


Trudeau responds to Jewish Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman: “Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas, they can stand with people who wave the confederate flag…”

At this point, if you’re a protester in Canada, or someone who supports the protests, or even someone who thinks the protesters are wrong but the government has gone too far, the message from Trudeau is clear: We will not listen to you, we will not compromise with you, and if you don’t comply with our orders, we will ruin you.

That is a recipe for violence, and Trudeau knows it. He wants to make an example out of these truckers because deep down he is an illiberal man with an intolerant worldview.

These protesters have the wrong views, so they don’t deserve the “dialogue and mutual respect” afforded to left-wing protesters. For all his virtue-signaling about diversity, Trudeau doesn’t really believe in Canada as a pluralistic society where people of different views and ways of life can live together in peace. He believes in a society where the little people, the people with the wrong views, do as they’re told.

The thing is, most of these protesters have done just that. The vast majority of the truckers are vaccinated. They have complied with some of the most severe Covid mandates and restrictions in the western world for two years now. They did all that was asked of them, and when they finally got fed up with it they organized a peaceful protest.

And for that, Trudeau is trying to crush them.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist.