• 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


One of the most spectacular miracles in American sports took place forty two years before today’s February 22, 2022.

Today’s majority of Americans have no understanding, no knowledge, and little care about our American yesterdays. They have been poorly educated, poorly raised. Hence, the arrival of a presidential crook poorly taught, poor thinking, chronic liar for the past 48 years of CONGRESSIONAL ‘SERVICE’, today the senile, Joe Biden as president.

Many, perhaps most of our major cities have become Dem and Black Lives Matter gangsters, robbing, burning, and violating over the past couple years….for summer fun, apparently, for a revolution by others!

The fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was the name of the civil world’s GREATEST ENEMY last century. As a nation it actually became somewhat civil for a decade or two last century until fascist cop, Vladimir Putin, took over. Today, as dictator without the Soviet name, he has begun this fascist Russian invasion of the Ukraine to return to world power….

USSR strangely came to my mind about an hour ago…..and February 22, 1980 suddenly took control of my memory.

Forty two years ago today, our Minnesota ridden Hockey Team Defeated the USSR’s professional hockey champions 4-3 in one of the most spectacular sports upsets in modern history. Star coach, Herbie Brooks, a star hockey graduate from Johnson High School in Minnesota’s St. Paul, and coach of University of Minnesota’s Hockey Team was able to train and control and conquer with his teaching talent!



Canadian Fascist Mayor Interested In Profiteering!

Ottawa Mayor wants to sell off the Freedom Convoy trucks

JAZZ SHAW Feb 22, 2022 at HotAir:  

Photo by Arthur Mola/Invision/AP

Most of the action we’ve been seeing in Canada as part of Justin Trudeau’s almost unbelievable “Emergencies Act” declaration has come from the Prime Minister himself. He’s been ordering financial institutions to freeze people’s assets and block their transactions (or at least trying to) and allowing the arrest and confinement of people who have committed no acts of violence or property damage. But Trudeau isn’t the only one getting in on the emergency power game. As our Redstate colleague Madeline Leesman reported today, the Mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, has clearly seen the benefits of exerting some totalitarian power of his own. He plans on confiscating and selling off the trucks that took part in the convoy. But to put a little bit of positive spin on the situation, he’s at least consulting with the Parliament before doing it.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson said on Saturday that he wants to sell the trucks confiscated from the protesters who took part in the “Freedom Convoy” against vaccine mandates.

Watson made the remarks in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). He claimed that Canada’s “Emergencies Act,” which gives the government more power to respond to 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,” gives the city of Ottawa the authority to sell the trucks.

In the interview, Watson also said that the Freedom Convoy hurt small businesses in the nation’s capital and “disrupted the city.”

And what excuse does he have for this sort of robbery? Why, the Emergencies Act, of course! It’s almost magical in its ability to allow elected officials to do virtually anything that comes to mind. In this case, he claims that the taxpayers have had to shoulder the burden of the costs incurred as a result of the Freedom Convoy and those costs should be “recouped.”

You won’t need to break out an encyclopedia to figure out what “recoup” means in this context. The money won’t be going directly to benefit anyone who has hypothetically been “harmed” by the protest. It will go into the government’s coffers and they’ll simply keep it. That’s why he worked the word “taxpayers” into the statement instead of saying “the city” or “the province.”



In an even more ironic twist, the Mayor additionally claimed that the truckers had “hurt small businesses” in Ottawa, so this action was required. Do you know how else small businesses are hurt? When independent truck drivers have their rigs stolen and sold off they go out of business. Those trucks cost a vast amount of money, not to mention the fees associated with all of the insurance they require and the huge amounts of diesel they have to burn through. (Which is getting more expensive by the week.)

Even the larger companies that employ some of the truckers can’t afford to lose too many rigs before they go under. And while we’re on the subject, these Canadian officials keep talking about all of the disruptions to the supply chain and how goods weren’t being transported over the border as needed. After you steal all of these truckers’ vehicles and sell them off for a municipal profit, who is going to replace them in transporting all of that commerce? Gee… it almost sounds as if somebody didn’t think this through very well, doesn’t it?

The entire premise of the Emergencies Act was founded on the premise that the government might have to act quickly and sharply in the event that an actual emergency arose posing a threat to the people and infrastructure of the country. It was never intended to be permanent. Nor was it put in place to be used because some citizens spoke up and disagreed with various policies of their government. This is a disgrace. And rather than tamping down the protests, it should create even more of them.

Like Black Lives Matter Turning America Into Savagery?

The Democrats Are Turning America into the New Venezuela

By Karina Schmitt at American Thinker:

The Bill of Rights is very clear and does not have any stipulations pertaining to the Second Amendment.  There are no conditions attached to the Second Amendment, such as the type of firearm, number of bullets in the magazine, caliber size, manufacturer, or how many firearms you can have on you or in your home.  The Second Amendment clearly states that the citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms.  It’s that simple.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

The Democrats use every opportunity, no matter how minuscule the connection might be, to oppose the right to keep and bear arms for law-abiding citizens.  Pro-gun organizations are attacked and insulted for any reason if it gives the gun controllers an angle to push their agenda to strip almost all Americans of their God-given right to protect themselves against aggressors, private or governmental ones.  Social media giants help the cause by making invisible or banning posts they disagree with.

Our constitutional rights are disappearing at the combined hands of government and giant corporations.  Stripping the people of their right to protect themselves is a slippery slope toward the downfall of a free country.  It can rapidly turn a beautiful, resourceful, and free country into a living hell for its citizens. The radical Democrats are on a path to dismantle the United States, the way Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez have destroyed Venezuela in a matter of a decade.

This year in June, it will be ten years since Venezuela banned private gun ownership.  The new law banned all commercial sales of firearms and ammunition to private gun owners.  President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro had succeeded Hugo Chavez, who had already installed a socialist regime.

Maduro’s ultimate goal was to disarm all civilians to keep the Marxists in power no matter what.  The only people who could buy firearms and ammunition since June 2012 have been the military, police, certain groups like security, and let’s not forget, the supporters of Nicolas Maduro’s regime.

Their excuse was that more had to be done to combat the more than 18,000 murders that Venezuela had had the year before in 2011.  That was the excuse and one that lots of Venezuelans bought.  Many didn’t yet realize what it would mean for their own safety against a radical leftist government that was out to impose iron-fisted control over its people and prevent the people from fighting back against a brutal regime.

It’s scary.  It’s very scary, because it did not stop there, and violence and murder rates were not reduced, much less eliminated. The Maduro dictatorship dismantled the Venezuelan constitution and now fully dominates the people by force.

Political violence continues in Venezuela

For years, and with intensive pressure by the Obama Administration, the Democrats in the United States have also encouraged Americans to give up their firearms, while the politicians become better protected by armed guards themselves, paid for by the taxpayers.  The very same people who tell you to hand over your firearms and ammunition are those who spend your tax dollars for their personal protection.  It’s funny how that works.

In many places, state governments – the liberal-run states – have encouraged people to engage in buy-backs.  The Obama Administration most assuredly encouraged this brutal attack on our Second Amendment.  Like Nicolas Maduro, Obama’s objective was to disarm all Americans and make them vulnerable to iron-fist rule.  Surely, you remember when he thundered out to millions of Americans that change was on its way, but did he explain to you what kind of change he wanted?  No, not in detail, because he knew, and the Democrats know, that no one would have voted for him had he been honest and transparently disclosed that “fundamental change” meant discarding the Constitution’s “negative liberties” – the limits on what government can do to you.

The Democrats are sly.  They snake their way into your life piece by piece and infiltrate all aspects of American life.  They encourage you, bribe you with money.  If you give up your guns out of your own volition, you are the only one to be blamed.  You know that, right?  You took the bait, and now they got you under control because you have no firearms to protect yourself and your family if ever there’s a need. 

And in socialist regimes, there will be a need.

Less than a decade after Maduro banned all gun and ammunition sales to private Venezuelans, reports started to emerge about how Venezuelans regretted terribly that they had let their dictator take their guns.  Venezuela has become a living hell for its people.  Their radical leftist government has descended into a cruel socialist nightmare.

Today, the Venezuelan people are starving to death.  Millions are out of work.  Buildings are deteriorating.  Violence erupts in the streets.  The shelves are empty.  Inflation is through the roof.  Their votes do not count anymore.  Freedom of speech has been criminalized.  Their right to own property without worrying that the government can take it any minute is ever-present.  They do not have the right to defend themselves under the socialist government, and the future of the Venezuelan children is looking bleak.

It sounds like Venezuela’s just a little further down the path Democrat-run cities across America are on, doesn’t it?

The Maduro regime called for a gun-free Venezuela, but what the people got was a prison.  That’s something that the American people must consider when they foolishly give up their rights, whether it’s the right to freedom of speech or the right to keep and bear arms.  Once you give up your rights, there is no turning back without bloodshed.

In 2017, the Venezuelan government armed 400,000 Loyalists.  Only those who are loyal to Dictator Maduro’s iron-fist rule are allowed to keep and bear arms.  In 2018, many Venezuelans had by then realized their mistake and called the gun ban “a declaration of war” against the people.  They were right to feel that way.

The disarmament of any nation makes its people defenseless against tyrants.  Only the oppressors have guns.  It’s about social control backed by force.

It’s not about security.  It’s about a monopoly on gun control, mind-control, violence, and money.  Let’s not forget the role of money.  Money is the number one motivator in robbing the people, as the government itself produces almost nothing.  Venezuela is a perfect example of that.

All dictatorships start this way: take control away from the people, make them defenseless, own them.   It’s modern-day slavery.  It’s not slavery as in a private master and slave.  It’s the state owning its people.

Gun control is people control and the taxpayers pay for it.  This is the truth and it’s up to you what you do with it but demand your God-given right to keep and bear arms and to freedom of speech.

Photo credit: YouTube screengrab (cropped)

America’s Twit Biden, “A SMASHED FIDDLE OF THE WORLD”!

February 22, 2022

Putin is Playing Biden like a Fiddle

By J. Robert Smith at the Thinker

Vlad Putin, the evil though very calculating chief oligarch of the shriveled nation of Russia (when stacked against its predecessor, the Soviet Union), is playing chess over the fate of Ukraine, while our figurehead president and his gaggle of administration mediocrities (here being charitable) and Pentagon toadies play checkers.  I’ll venture this wager — though with modest reservations: Putin will bring Ukraine into his orbit without sending his troops en masse into said country. 

On Monday, Putin recognized Russian-dominated regions of the Ukraine, followed by a minor incursion of “peacekeepers,” travelling by bus, not APC.    

Putin doesn’t need a full-scale invasion, I believe, because his approach is strategic.  His eye is on the prize: take Ukraine in some shape or form (as he took parts on Monday).  He’s open to the means, no doubt, and if an invasion — likely surgical in nature — is his only route to achieve his ends, he’ll take the gamble.  The U.S. declared that it won’t send troops to defend Ukraine.  NATO is in tow.  Speaking of which, that woeful collection of nations called “NATO” (including the now Russia-compromised Germany, which sorely needs Russian natural gas), is in no position to stop him, short of major war. 

Sanctions after-the-fact, as our addled president is pushing, will not deter Putin.  He sees weakness and irresolution among western leaders, Biden first and foremost.  Chances are he’ll make the assumption that sanctions would be short-lived, anyway.  Always follow the money, which corrupt Western elites are hooked on worse than crack.         

Make no mistake, a major land war in Eastern Europe would not only result in significant death and destruction, but risks escalation — a broadening that can be somewhat gamed but not fully predicted.  Russia, despite its diminution, is still a nuclear power, which is rarely acknowledged by those inexhaustible talking heads on cable news, by members of Congress, and, of course, at State Department and Pentagon podiums. 

What do we know about war?  It’s unpredictable as hell, and anyone who tells you otherwise has snake oil coursing through his veins.         

Paying Putin short shrift is foolish; underestimating any enemy is.  But if you live on a steady diet of U.S. media, Putin is a one-dimensional man, a cardboard cutout, made to fit the biases that the media and Biden administration project on him.  “Vlad the Invader,” goes the 24/7 drone.  Putin, we’re lectured, has only one song in his playbook: outright force.  Putin, goes the cliché, intends to recreate the old Soviet Empire.  Maybe in Putin’s dreams, but no talking head ever stops to ask, “How?” 

Do the cliché spewers think that Putin intends to unleash columns of Russian tanks and troops west in a mad dash to recapture Berlin?  West of Ukraine are NATO countries.  War, then, becomes automatic.  The U.S. is all-in, and Putin would reckon that with trepidation.  Even today’s Western European Chamberlains and decadents would have to rouse themselves to oppose so great a threat.

Ah, say the chattering class, Putin could resort to subversion and chicanery to recapture those former Soviet satraps.  Yet that suggests a sophistication of approach not now acknowledged in Putin.  But remember this: subversion is a double-edged sword.  Russia isn’t the colossus that Cold War fixated think-tank blatherers and congressional hacks present it as.  Russia has weaknesses — exploitable vulnerabilities.  Two can play the game of subversion.  Not to mention the many coordinated external pressures that can be brought to bear.    

We can say with button-popping confidence that Putin never — never — would be attempting to recapture Ukraine with Donald J. Trump occupying the Oval Office.  A strong man — an apex predator, which Putin is — takes the measure of adversaries.  For Putin, Biden is prey.  Trump was — and may well again be — a steely adversary crossed at great peril.      

Biden’s intermediaries now seek talks for Biden with Putin.  Biden has assented, provided Russia hasn’t invaded Ukraine.  Biden may have just boxed himself in. 

How does Putin regard such a gambit?  Does he regard Biden as coming from a position of strength or weakness?  Putin has at least 150,000 troops, weaponry, and equipment deployed along Ukraine’s borders.  (Another cliché is that Putin must invade because he’s assembled this fighting force.  Really?  But if he’s a strategist focused on the prize, the pressure of massed troops and weaponry may alone induce the capitulations he needs to achieve his goal.)            

Biden and his handlers brazenly and stupidly threw away the U.S.’s greatest leverage in stopping Putin: American energy independence, our ability to furnish much of Western Europe’s energy needs (Germany’s in particular), and Biden’s reckless approval of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which solidifies Germany’s dependence on Russia. 

So, if Putin and Biden meet, what cards does Biden hold, other than deuces?  From the file: “Who trusts Biden as commander-in-chief?” this speculation: In talks, Biden will grant de facto control of Ukraine to Putin.  Biden will stoutly deny doing so.  In exchange, Putin will “deescalate” along Ukraine’s borders.  Jen Psaki and the establishment media will spin Biden as a glorious leader whose jawboning averted war.  Nobel Peace Prize worthy, without a doubt.  Of course, Putin, the chess player, captures his king.  Putin gains real estate and resources, as well as acing NATO out of Ukraine, while Biden champions a lie. 

While Putin plays Biden, isn’t it as true that our president is trying to play us, the American people?  No, the dog isn’t being wagged here, not strictly.  Biden’s handlers found a crisis not to waste.  We’re witnessing full diversion mode as American news outlets happily obsess on Ukraine. 

Never mind that the U.S.-Mexican border has been dissolved (not breached, but eliminated).  Forget that energy prices continue to climb, further fueling inflation, which is the bastard child of profligate federal spending and an obscene volume of money-printing that’s simply indefensible.  Democrat-run cities are trending toward eventual collapse as lawlessness pushes these metropolises toward some primitive state.  Biden renews a state of emergency under the guise of the increasingly phonied-up COVID pandemic.  Affluent white progressives ceaselessly pimp racial hatred, trying to divide Americans to feed their voracious appetites for power.  Illicit drug deaths reached 100,000 last year.  But let’s stop.  The list is too dreary to continue. 

A massive diversion is underway.  Putin has nothing to do with it.  The nation is a cauldron of troubles, anyone of which could erupt in crisis, or simultaneous crises that could result in systemic failure.  In the 2020s, the nation is confronting the greatest threats to its welfare and being since the 1850s and 1860s.  But no matter, Putin may invade Ukraine. 

Trust Biden?  Given his awful destructive tendencies, I don’t think Hunter trusts Joe.  Trust Biden after his Afghanistan fiasco?  Trust our intelligence agencies, like the CIA, which is implicated in the most dangerous political scandal in American history — the Russia Collusion Hoax?  Trust that buffoon, Mark Milley, who skirted sedition when he went behind Trump’s back after the 2020 elections to assure his PRC counterpart that Trump would be prevented from launching a nuclear attack on China as, one supposes, the ultimate diversion. 

What about the oily Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton campaign flunky, who may be enmeshed in the Clinton campaign’s alleged efforts to destroy candidate and then president Trump?  The same Jake Sullivan who assured us that Kabul would stand.

I’m convinced we have the greatest collection of gross incompetents and most corrupted people in positions of power and authority in our nation’s long history. 

Putin the chess player sees all this, and he’s playing Biden and the entire rotted establishment that undergirds Biden’s presidency like a fiddle.    

J. Robert Smith can be found regularly at Gab @JRobertSmith.  He also blogs at Flyover




…belongs to Alexander Vindman. He is the former National Security Council staffer who played a role in the first Trump impeachment charade, and since then has made a modest television career bashing Republicans. Think of him as the Michael Avenatti of the national security establishment.

Yesterday, as a guest on the Rachel Maddow show, Vindman tried to blame Russia’s Ukraine incursion on conservative pundits in the U.S.:

Guest host Ali Velshi asked, “Are you a little bit puzzled at the responses coming from some right-wing American media, and now members of the Republican Party that seem to be implying that maybe this isn’t all that bad. There may not be a clear reason why we should be wary of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.”

Vindman said, “I think these folks, these right-wing pundits, the head of the GOP that is supportive of it really frankly have blood on their hands because they’re encouraging and enticing this kind of opportunism from Putin. It’s not just plain rhetoric that you can say something without consequences like too often happens in the United States. This has real consequences. People are going to die because of this.”

I don’t know of anyone on the right who has “supported” or “encouraged” Putin’s Ukraine adventurism. I think opinion on the right is divided between those who take a hawkish view and stress the importance of blunting Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe, and those who emphasize the reality that we aren’t going to war over Ukraine; certainly not over the eastern regions that Putin has so far “recognized.” And if some think that what Russia has done so far “isn’t all that bad,” it may be because “the [breakaway areas were] already controlled by Russian-backed separatists and Moscow in practice.”

In any event, Vindman’s suggestion that Vladimir Putin takes his foreign policy cues from conservative pundits in the U.S., when our President is a Democrat and the entire Executive Branch is staffed by Democrats, is risible. The only takeaway here is that there is no depth to which MSNBC will not sink.

February 22….

It’s Not Presidents’ Day – It’s Washington’s Birthday

Issue: American Civics

By Richard Lim
February 22, 2022:

You probably know that George Washington was America’s first president, but do you know about his enduring impact on people around the world? I did not until I visited Hainan, China in 2007.

At a family reunion, I struck up a conversation with one of my cousins, a Chinese citizen, and discovered we had a mutual love of politics and history. Although he criticized many recent American foreign policy decisions, he also revealed his intense admiration for George Washington.

He was astonished that after defeating Great Britain and winning American independence, Washington relinquished all his power to the people’s representatives and returned home to his farm. As a citizen of a country where the founding leader, Mao Zedong, entrenched himself in a lifelong dictatorship, my cousin found Washington’s resignation incomprehensible.

I realized then that for those who live under oppression, Washington’s deeds have served to make him a timeless rebuke to all oppressors. Unlike most victorious generals in history, he was able to resist the allure of power, allowing his fellow citizens to live in the freedom for which they had fought. He changed the course of history by proving that leaders ultimately could and ought to entrust power to the people.

Several years ago, I served as a historic interpreter at Washington’s estate, Mount Vernon. I took visitors through Washington’s home and explained that he gave up public office twice in his life: once after the Revolutionary War and again after serving two terms as president. Countless times, I saw people marvel at the idea that a man who lived in an era of kings and emperors relegated himself to the role of a humble citizen rather than embrace the trappings of authority. The most amazed guests were usually from foreign countries, particularly those where dictatorship was the rule. Although these visitors learned that Washington had real flaws, such as being a slaveholder, they understood that greatness, though imperfect, is still greatness.

In recent years, many Americans have lost that perspective. Some, tying Washington to modern-day racism, have even vandalized his statues and magnified his flaws to be his defining characteristics – despite the fact he was one of the most progressive founders on the issue of race. Meanwhile, countless people around the world continue to recognize his accomplishments.

We Americans used to recognize them as well. After Congress made his birthday (Feb. 22) an official federal holiday in 1879, we paid homage to Washington every year with parades and ceremonies. Starting in 1971, however, the significance of that day began diminishing. The Uniform Monday Holiday Act shifted observation of his birthday from the 22nd to the third Monday of February. One motivation for this date change was to move it closer to Abraham Lincoln’s birthday (Feb. 12) so that both events could be combined into “Presidents’ Day.” During the ensuing congressional debate, Tennessee Congressman Dan Kuykendall warned, “If we do this, 10 years from now our schoolchildren will not know or care when George Washington was born.” That’s exactly what happened, even though Congress had not changed the name of “Washington’s Birthday.”

After noticing the day occasionally fell closer to Lincoln’s birthday, car and mattress salesmen dubbed it the snappier “Presidents’ Day,” and it stuck. As a result, most people today are unaware that the federal holiday on the third Monday of February is still officially named “Washington’s Birthday.” While many cities and states still refer to the holiday by its official name, most Americans call it “Presidents’ Day.”

My birth country, the Philippines, honors its national hero José Rizal each year. Turkey has a holiday to remember its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Latin America has Simón Bolívar Day, India has Gandhi Jayanti, and Mexico has El Día de Benito Juárez. These countries celebrate these figures even though they, like Washington, reflected the times in which they lived. While these other countries remember their leaders, year after year in America, we ignore our greatest Founding Father on his birthday.

Other than Washington, we Americans honor only one other person’s birthday as a holiday: Martin Luther King, Jr. We don’t have a “Civil Rights Leaders’ Day.” Instead, we’ve chosen specifically to remember the most prominent American civil rights leader by his actual name. Yet, by celebrating “Presidents’ Day,” we’ve combined Washington with less esteemed chief executives such as Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson.

The “Father of Our Country” deserves better. His story has the power to inspire people of all backgrounds to demand more from their leaders. As beneficiaries of Washington’s legacy, we Americans can showcase that story to a world where tyrants still abound. We can start by remembering that it isn’t “Presidents’ Day” – it’s Washington’s Birthday.

Richard Lim hosts the This American President podcast.

Canada’s twit fascist IN ACTION!

Hmmm: Canadian parliament endorses Trudeau’s Emergencies Act invocation

ED MORRISSEY Feb 22, 2022 at Hot Air:

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Domenico Stinellis

Last week, I wondered whether Canada’s parliamentarians would go on the record in backing Justin Trudeau’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act to deal with a non-violent political protest. The act requires parliamentary approval within seven days, and in a party-line vote, the legislature upheld Trudeau’s decision.

Shameful, but thus far legal and largely predictable:

Canada’s Parliament has backed the government’s decision to impose emergency powers to deal with weeks-long protest blockades against Covid restrictions.

The motion passed with 185 votes to 151 on Monday, with the support of the Liberals and the left-leaning NDP.

But didn’t Ottawa police finally clear the trucks out of the way? Trudeau claims he won’t keep his emergency powers for long, but that the danger of more non-violent protests still remains:

Earlier on Monday, the Liberal prime minister defended the continued use of the temporary emergency measures, saying that the situation across the country “is still fragile” and they are needed to prevent new blockades.

He said the powers would not be kept in place for “a single day longer than necessary”.

So what’s “necessary”? Expect that definition to be as elastic as Trudeau’s moral consistency on non-violent protests:

Asked whether the wide-spanning national emergency powers are still required, given that blockades at border crossings have been alleviated and downtown Ottawa is quiet and largely free from trucks or convoy protesters after a weekend of massive police operations, Trudeau said that the situation prompting the use of the Act has not entirely been resolved.

There are still people and trucks who are affiliated with anti-COVID-19 mandates and anti-government protests gathered in Arnprior and Embrun, two towns on either side of Ottawa, that have indicated an interest in resuming blockades, Trudeau said.

“We will re-evaluate every single day, but right now, when the situation is still of people prepositioning, people being out there indicating that they are ready to blockade, to continue their illegal occupations, to disrupt Canadians’ lives, we feel that this measure needs to remain in place,” he said. “We hope to only keep it in place for a number more days.”

As of Monday morning, there have been 196 arrests of “Freedom Convoy” participants in Ottawa, and 115 vehicles have been towed. Nearly 400 charges have been laid so far, ranging from mischief and obstruction, to assaulting a police officer. Checkpoints remain active around the downtown core, with only those who work, live or have a lawful reason to be in the area allowed to enter, as and crews continue to collect garbage and debris left in the streets.

How free people in Ottawa must feel today!

As expected, Trudeau’s Liberal party linked arms with the New Democrats on this vote. The Conservatives and Bloc Quebeçois opposed it. The unanimity on this point, especially considering the extreme nature of Trudeau’s move — and its utter hypocrisy, let’s not forget — reveals something about the dynamic in Ottawa at the moment. Trudeau’s speech on the matter made it a de facto confidence vote, and it seems that Liberals and New Democrats don’t want an election:

Leading up to the vote, there were signs the government had decided to make it a confidence vote, meaning that if it failed, the minority Liberal government could have fallen, which would have triggered an election.

Trudeau had not officially designated the vote as such, but he opened the door to that interpretation by likening the decision to a vote on a throne speech, which lays out the government’s agenda.

“I can’t imagine that anyone who votes ‘no’ tonight is doing anything other than indicating that they don’t trust the government to make incredibly momentous and important decisions at a very difficult time,” he said at a news conference earlier in the day. …

Toronto Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who voted in favour, said in the debate he might have voted against continuing to use the act now that the blockades had ended. He said he would vote yes because he had no interest in helping trigger an election.

Joël Lightbound, a Liberal MP who has criticized the government over its handling of the crisis, said invoking the act was “a slippery slope.” He said he would be inclined to vote against the measures if it were not a vote of confidence, and asked for clarification from ministers. He also voted in favour of the motion Monday night.

Go figure that Trudeau’s party doesn’t want to face voters in the next few weeks. I wonder why. They’re probably betting that the pandemic’s evolution into an endemic issue will allow the government to curtail the mandates and dial down the political tension by the time the Emergencies Act powers expire in mid-March. At that point, the Liberals and NDP must hope, the controversial nature of Trudeau’s assumption of wartime powers to deal with political dissent will fade from memory, or at least from the top of the priority list for Canadian voters.

Perhaps they’re right, but I’d be skeptical about that. Canadians have lived with Trudeau’s hypocrisies and high-handed tactics for years even before last week’s assumption of war powers. Parliament’s acquiescence may well make a lasting and populist mark on Canada’s electorate. As they proved in Adscam, Canadians are pleasant but they’re not happy to be played for suckers.

Update: My Twitter pal Aaron Walker points out that the Canadian senate has to also ratify Trudeau’s actions. That’s expected to happen shortly, but we’ll update if anything changes. A rejection by the senate wouldn’t trigger an election, I believe!


The Centers For Disease Control’s Lies Have Destroyed Its Legitimacy

BY: GREGG SCHMEDES at the Federalist:

FEBRUARY 22, 2022

By refusing to acknowledge the harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination, the Centers for Disease Control has brought everlasting shame to itself.

n August 6, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that the agency claimed showed “Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection.” This assertion came amidst a public battle with Sen. Rand Paul, as the CDC released this data from Kentucky, Paul’s home state.

Yet after indisputable scientific evidence continued to pile up in favor of natural immunity, the CDC finally capitulated on January 19, 2022, recognizing the superiority of natural immunity over vaccination alone: “Between May and November 2021, people who were unvaccinated and did not have a prior COVID-19 infection remained at the highest risk of infection and hospitalization, while those who were previously infected, both with or without prior vaccination, had the greatest protection.”

The CDC’s reversal came after its previous discounting of natural immunity caused mass layoffs, nursing home resident isolation, and hospital staffing shortages. It must not be forgotten or overlooked, and the CDC must be held accountable.


Last summer, guided by the CDC, President Biden claimed, “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” Biden also spread misinformation about vaccinations preventing the spread of Covid-19 by stating, “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.” 

Who is harmed the most by health misinformation produced by our president and his agencies? Those with low health literacy. Our rich-poor gap is growing in this country, and lying about health issues only exacerbates it.

A Positive Test Doesn’t Always Mean Infectiousness

A deeper dive into the August natural immunity study reveals methodology that can be recognized as illogical, even to those without medical experience. The CDC researchers created two groups. The case group included people who tested positive in 2020 and then tested positive again during a two-month window in 2021. The control group included people who had a positive test in 2020 without another positive test during this artificial two-month window.

The study observed that non-vaccinated group registered a positive test 34.4 percent of the time, compared to 20.3 percent of fully vaccinated individuals. The CDC falsely defined the case group’s second positive test as a “reinfection.” This is the central lie of the study. This data conveniently omitted data on people actually becoming symptomatic or what a common person would call “reinfected.”

To illustrate this point, consider if a Covid-recovered person comes into contact with Sars-Cov-2 in their community. They might test positive on a PCR test. Their body can remember the virus, fight it off, and the person never becomes ill.

However, shortly after the exposure, a PCR swab can detect bits of genetic material (even if it’s unviable virus). Therefore, this study could be more of a reflection of people’s likelihood of re-exposure to Sars-Cov-2, not reinfection, as the CDC claimed.

By conflating exposure and reinfection, the CDC misled the public. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated, “This study shows you were twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

This guidance came when mounting evidence indicated Covid vaccines quickly lose their effectiveness against infection and transmission, which the CDC loathed to admit. Unfortunately, Walensky’s guidance undermined the credibility of the CDC for generations to come.

As a physician, it’s frightening that a public health official made a policy recommendation based on such a flawed study. We should encourage critical thinking and scientific skepticism, but such a blatantly flawed study design should not be tolerated in our leading health institutions.

Not an Isolated Incident for the CDC

This isn’t the only time the CDC has been caught misleading the public. Drawing ire from the medical community, the was an uncontrolled study of students in Arizona that Walensky referred to in discussing the CDC’s mask guidance for schools. This study defined a “covid outbreak” as “two or more” positive lab tests among students or staff. So if your school had two asymptomatic third graders, you’ve got a “covid outbreak” on your hands.

Even worse, the study weighted such an “outbreak” equally to a school with dozens of symptomatic teachers or students. According to the CDC, two equals 50—at least for “covid outbreaks.”

In a Georgia study that actually had a sufficient control arm, the CDC minimized the fact that there was no statistically significant difference between masked and unmasked student groups. They’ve also minimized the importance of diet and exercise during the pandemic. They failed to effectively communicate evidence-based, life-saving outpatient treatment protocols. The list goes on.

Why This Matters So Much

How does minimizing natural immunity cause harm in the real world? There are at least three deadly repercussions.

First, many hospitals following the CDC’s guidance mandated that only vaccinated health-care workers be allowed to work at their facilities. This means naturally immune health-care workers were wrongly excluded from the workforce. Based on a toxic lie fabricated by the CDC, hospitals continue to experience staffing shortages, contributing to the hospitalization overcapacity narrative they’ve used to demonize the unvaccinated.

Second, the same problem arose for nursing homes, where seniors were denied visitation rights from unvaccinated, naturally immune family and friends, even though less protected vaccinated people were allowed in. Lack of care workers also prevents patients from being discharged from hospitals to care facilities.

Third, the natural immunity lie also stripped countless Americans of their health coverage and livelihoods. During the delta wave, for example, a worker at Los Alamos National Laboratories was fired from his job for religiously objecting to vaccination, despite working entirely from home and having recovered from a previous Covid infection.

The CDC now admits this worker’s immunity provides protection superior to that of his co-workers who had merely vaccine-induced immunity at that time. He lost his job while the less protected did not. By denying natural immunity’s superiority to vaccine-induced immunity, how many others have been fired and lost health-care access the moment we need our population to be at its healthiest?

Punishing People We Should Have Praised

Naturally immune people should have been identified early in the pandemic as the most protected, ushered into hospitals and nursing homes to serve our vulnerable, and certainly should have been allowed to keep their jobs.

By refusing to acknowledge the harms of lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination, the CDC has brought everlasting shame to itself. There is clear evidence these types of interventions carry measurable risk.

A better approach would have been to honestly discuss the risks and benefits with the public, much like I discuss surgical risks and benefits with my patients. This is the very tenet of informed consent, and better communication always results in a better relationship.

Americans need an unbiased, incorruptible, and credible CDC that provides reliable and scientifically sound public health guidance. These lies have de-legitimized and undermined public confidence in the institution of the CDC itself.

The consequences of lying about Covid-19 will spill into other areas of health care. Millions of Americans have lost trust in our hospitals and institutions and are now resorting to “under the table” health care. In health care, loss of trust equals lack of access. The CDC must return to the basics of evidence-based medicine to overcome its crisis of legitimacy.

Wax Veep Kamala Becomes More Wax

FEBRUARY 22, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


Let us pause once more over the appearance of Vice President Kamala Harris at the Munich Security Conference this pasts weekend. Her prepared remarks at the conference over the weekend weren’t enough. She felt compelled to speak extemporaneously in a question and answer session that went on for 16 minutes on her way out the door yesterday.

It may be somewhat unfair to highlight one quotable quote that displays her Valley Girl vacuity. The White House has posted a transcript of her remarks at the press gaggle she held at the Westin Grand Munich. The transcript is posted here.

Before she took questions, Harris announced: “At stake is the NATO Alliance, in terms of our unity, joining together — through, sometimes, compromise; certainly always through collaboration — to be a unified voice, especially when these very founding principles of our relationship are being compromised, if not attacked.”

Emergency! Call the speech doctor.

In its story on the quotable quote emanating from the gaggle, the New York Post captions the accompanying photograph: “Kamala Harris seemed to be unprepared for questions regarding the Ukraine crisis.” I think that is both fair and understated. Analyze this: “And within the context then of the fact that that window is still opening, altho- — open, although it is absolutely narrowing — but within the context of a diplomatic path still being open, the deterrence effect, we believe, has merit.” And this: “We’re going to take this one moment at a time in terms of what might need to happen in the future in terms of escalation. But right now, we’ve made our position clear.”

The Post documents the quotable quote Harris unleashed in response to a question from Bloomberg’s Jennifer Jacobs and reports a few responses:

“I mean, listen, guys, we’re talking about the potential for war in Europe,” Harris said at one point Sunday in response to a question about how the Biden administration saw the situation’s “endgame” playing out.

“I mean, let’s really take a moment to understand the significance of what we’re talking about,” the veep went on. “It’s been over 70 years. And through those 70 years … there has been peace and security. We are talking about the real possibility of war in Europe.”

Twitter user Jon Will Chambers summed up the thoughts of many by asking: “Did I just watch Kamala Harris claim there has been peace in Europe for 70 years?”

Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy pointed out on Twitter that those 70 years of “peace and security” included the Yugoslavian civil wars of the 1990s, “as well as Russia’s attacks on Georgia & Ukraine.”

“Also, Berlin Wall only came down three decades ago so I’d quibble with 70 years,” he added before emphasizing in a second tweet that “it is not true there have been no wars in Europe for 70 years, nor do I consider the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe ‘peace & security.’”

I would say that Harris is a walking illustration of the adage that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt, but Harris long ago passed the point of no return.