• 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

Biden Couldn’t Be Less Coherent!

MARCH 7, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


The Biden administration’s energy policies could not possibly be less coherent. The administration, from its first day in office, moved aggressively to suppress fossil fuel production in the U.S. The inevitable result has been a sharp rise in the prices of oil and gas. Having caused the problem, the administration has now set out to remedy it by buying gas and oil wherever it can be found–from Russia, notwithstanding the Ukraine invasion; from Saudi Arabia; and most recently from Venezuela.

Via InstaPundit, Bryan Dean White sums up succinctly:


And the Babylon Bee has a modest proposal that makes sense in the bizarre world of Joe Biden: “Biden Sells Alaska Back To Russia So We Can Start Drilling For Oil There Again.”

No discussion of incoherence would be complete without a contribution from Kamala Harris. She explains that $4 a gallon gas is part of a grand plan to “transition” transportation–a plan that has now reached a “turning point.” As always, the Democrats want expensive gas but don’t want to take political responsibility for expensive gas:


Chaos Against Chaos In The Assaulted Ukraine!

‘Something Must Be Wrong’: Why Hasn’t the 40-Mile Russian Convoy Outside Kyiv Moved in Days?

Matt Vespa

by Matt Vespa at Townhall:

Posted: Mar 07, 2022 12:25 PM

  Share   Tweet'Something Must Be Wrong': Why Hasn't the 40-Mile Russian Convoy Outside Kyiv Moved in Days?

Source: AP Photo/Darko Bandic

What are they waiting for outside of Kyiv? I’m talking about the massive Russian military convoy that hasn’t moved in days. It’s poised to strike the death blow. It very well could be the push that fully encircles Kyiv, leading to a hellacious and bloody end to the siege on the Ukrainian capital. So, what gives? They’re burning through fuel, keeping the vehicles heated. Are they literally out of gas? Is there a section of the column that is out of gas that would prevent an efficient rollout? Everyone is wondering what is going on. Pentagon officials zeroed in on the absence of Russian soldiers. 


It’s been three days since Pentagon first called the long Russian military convoy outside Ukraine’s capital ‘stalled.’ Many now wondering where the Russian soldiers are. U.S. officials think ‘something must be wrong.’— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) March 5, 2022

“Something must be wrong,” says Pentagon officials. We all know the logistics of this Russian invasion of Ukraine were not thought through by Moscow. Russia was expecting a push-over campaign, with mass desertions from the Ukrainian military and civilians kowtowing to Russian rule en masse. Instead, Putin got the Ukrainian military doing its best to kill as many Russians as possible, an entire able-bodied population that’s mustered, grandmothers making Molotov cocktails, and Russian troops being killed everywhere. Russian tanks are running out of fuel. Ukrainian farmers are hooking these gas-depleted vehicles to their tractors and driving off (via BBC): 

Several reasons could explain why the huge column, which includes armoured vehicles, tanks, and towed artillery, has stopped its advance on the capital. They include logistical problems, unexpected Ukrainian resistance, and low morale among Russian troops.

Mechanical breakdown and congestion are causing problems, according to the UK government. Food and fuel are said to be in short supply, and there are reports that poor quality and badly maintained tyres may also be an issue.

“There’s a massive logistical failure to provide fuel, food, spare parts and tyres… they got stuck in the mud in a way that makes it difficult to move vehicles out,” General Sir Richard Barrons, former Commander of the UK Joint Forces Command, told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme.

However, he said that command and control issues – for example faulty radio networks and communicating on open networks – are likely to be causing bigger problems.

The Pentagon also said Russia was having logistical issues and had taken the decision to deliberately regroup and reassess the “progress they have not made and how to make up the lost time”.


Ukraine does have some air capability, and has been using powerful Turkish-made drones to destroy other Russian convoys. But according to Gen Barrons, Kyiv simply does not have the military force necessary to destroy a column of this size.

“They’ve been good at attacking the convoy from the front and sides,” he said, but any damage inflicted from the air would be too localised.

Russia will also have air defences around the convoy which could bring down Ukrainian targets, Gen Barrons added. So an air attack on the convoy would risk losing more of Ukraine’s already limited air force.

Either way, this is a good thing that this convoy is all gummed up. It buys much-needed time. The longer the Russians are bogged down, the more time the European Union, and us, have to resupply Ukraine with much-needed arms and ammunition. 


Desperation: Biden woos Venezuela, Saudis for oil … while clinging to climate-change restrictions at home

ED MORRISSEY Mar 07, 2022 at Hot Air:

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

If the Joe Biden administration has any strategy at all on energy, it appears to be of the rotating-despot variety. It seems Biden would desperately like any country other than his own to step up its production. That desperation has led the White House to send envoys to Nicolas Maduro, hoping to convince the Venezuelan tyrant to turn on the Russian tyrant to get more of the dirtiest oil available:

A group of senior U.S. officials flew to Venezuela on Saturday for a meeting with President Nicolás Maduro’s government to discuss the possibility of easing sanctions on Venezuelan oil exports as the Biden administration weighs a ban on imports of Russian oil and gas, according to two people familiar with the situation.

The trip is the highest-level U.S. visit to the socialist state in years and comes as the United States is seeking to isolate Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Venezuela, the Kremlin’s most important ally in South America, used to be a significant supplier of crude to the United States before exports were hobbled by domestic mismanagement and crippling sanctions from Washington. …

The trip comes just days after Maduro and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke over the phone about boosting the partnership between their countries.

This is quite a change in American policy toward Maduro, who violently suppressed an uprising in the national assembly and has oppressed dissent for years in a starving Venezuela. Not only is he the same kind of tyrant as Putin (only less effective), Maduro is still holding a half-dozen American oil executives on bogus corruption charges. The Citgo Six got lured to Venezuela in 2017 and have been captives of Maduro ever since:

The men known as the Citgo 6 — for the Houston oil company where they worked — were lured to Caracas around Thanksgiving in 2017 to attend a meeting at the headquarters of Citgo’s parent, state-run oil giant PDVSA. Once there, heavily armed masked security officers stormed the conference room where they were gathered and hauled them away. Later they were charged with corruption in connection to a never-executed plan to refinance billions in bonds.

The executives appeared in November before a three-judge appeals panel in the same week as the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention took up the case of Tomeu Vadell, one of the six detainees. Five of the men are dual Venezuelan-American nationals who had lived in the U.S. for many years, while one, former Citgo president Jose Pereira, is a permanent U.S. resident. …

A court in Venezuela has upheld long prison sentences for six American oil executives detained in the South American country on corruption charges for more than four years.

Venezuela’s supreme court announced the ruling late Friday, disappointing family members who had hoped the surprise decision last fall to hear the appeal, and a recent jailhouse visit by a top State Department official, signified President Nicolas Maduro’s government was looking to release the men as part of a gesture to engage the Biden administration in talks over U.S. sanctions.

That was a month ago, by the way. Maduro’s reward for keeping the men in prison will apparently be a new agreement to sell the US enough oil to keep prices down at the pump. Let’s not forget, by the way, that Venezuelan oil is particularly hard to refine thanks to its level of impurities, which means it will be even worse on the environment than the oil we pump in North America — worse even than the supposedly over-bituminous oil from the Alberta sands that would have come to our refineries over the Keystone XL pipeline.

Maduro’s not the only potentate Biden now wants to woo. Despite having castigated the Saudis during his presidential campaign and promising to turn them into “pariah(s),” Biden may make a personal visit to their kingdom in an effort to get their production increased:

President Biden’s advisers are discussing a possible visit to Saudi Arabia this spring to help repair relations and convince the Kingdom to pump more oil, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: A hat-in-hand trip would illustrate the gravity of the global energy crisis driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden has chastised Saudi Arabia, and the CIA believes its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was involved in the dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Jim Geraghty points out the hypocrisy:

So much for “making Saudi Arabia a pariah!” There’s “very little social redeeming value the present government in Saudi Arabia”… but Biden’s going to go them, “hat in hand.” (Recall that the U.S. was a net energy exporter in 2019 and 2020.) Then again, one of Biden’s first foreign policy decisions was to severely water down his promised punishment of Saudi Arabia, limiting but not eliminating arms sales to the kingdom.

That’s our president. Tough talk on the campaign trail, a pushover in the Oval Office.

It’s more than just a hypocritical failing, though. This is a strategic collapse, demonstrated by the nature of the people to whom Biden has to go begging. American oil and natural gas production can be unleashed to ensure that such regimes remain as marginalized as possible, including Vladimir Putin’s. That was the strategic position Biden inherited from Trump in January 2021, with oil around all-time lows and Putin’s income too low for such aggressive military adventures. Instead of strengthening that strategic position, Biden immediately squandered it by pandering to the climate-change radicals and signing EOs that sent signals of declining American production. Futures markets reacted rationally to those signals, especially the anti-fossil-fuel rhetoric coming from Washington, and prices skyrocketed as the US lost that strategic edge.

Even now, when that strategic position would be fairly easy and quick to regain, Biden still wants to pursue his climate-change agenda at home. In fact, Biden clings to it so closely that he wants to become even more beholden to despots for our energy needs — just changing out the despots depending on the situation. The US needs a strategy that we can control to sideline Putin and Maduro, as well as keep the pressure on the Saudis for modernization and security agreements with Israel.

In short, the US needs strategic leadership rather than the entirely reactive and benighted leadership we elected in 2020. It’s gonna be a long 32 months.

What Has Happened To Our America?

March 7, 2022

COVID Vaccines – What Happened to ‘Safe and Effective’?

By Brian C. Joondeph, M.D. at American Thinker:

COVID vaccines were developed in record time, one might say at “warp speed,” the name of the operation instituted by President Trump in 2020. We were assured by those in whom we place trust that these vaccines were “safe and effective.”

In August 2021, President Biden told us, “After a strict process, the FDA has reaffirmed its findings that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, and the FDA has given its full and final approval.”

The CDC said the same, and confirmed just days ago that, “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” Dr. Anthony Fauci received his first dose of the Moderna vaccine a few days before Christmas in 2020, the same time I received my first dose of the same vaccine.

YouTube screen grab

According to ABC News, “The event was shown live on national television as part of an effort to reassure Americans that the vaccine was safe and effective.” Dr. Fauci felt “extreme confidence” in the vaccine science and wanted to get vaccinated publicly as a symbolic gesture for the rest of the country.

Major medical institutions such as Johns Hopkins University echoed Dr. Fauci and the CDC saying, “The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are strongly recommended as safe and effective at preventing serious illness or death from COVID-19.”

How are vaccines developed? The College of Physicians of Philadelphia explains, “Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement.”

Johns Hopkins agrees, “A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution.”

Normally, it’s a step-wise process,

Each clinical trial phase follows completion of the prior phase

Can take a long time to accumulate cases to assess vaccine efficacy outside pandemic

Manufacturing capacity is scaled-up after phase III trial and regulatory approval

But this may be accelerated during a pandemic:

Some clinical trial phases are combined

Cases accumulate rapidly to assess vaccine efficacy because of the pandemic

Manufacturing capacity is scaled up during the clinical trials but at financial risk

For COVID, this process was definitely accelerated. It was in March 2020 that COVID went from an interesting news item to a battering ram pounding the entire world. And just 9 months later, not 5 to 10 years later, Dr. Fauci, myself, and many others received their first vaccine doses.

The mission of the FDA is to protect public health by, “ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices,” and vaccines certainly fall into this category. Many bemoan the process when it is slow. How often do patients suffering from currently untreatable or inadequately treatable diseases wish the approval process was faster, hoping they don’t die waiting for the next wonder drug to be approved?

How has this played out with the COVID vaccines? I must add the standard and necessary disclaimer that I am not anti-vaccine, having been personally fully vaccinated. Nor am I offering medical advice, only an analysis of where we are with COVID vaccines now two years into this current pandemic. Any vaccine decisions should be between you and your physician based on a thoughtful analysis of risks and benefits, as is standard for any medical intervention.

Several reports are worthy of analysis regarding the “safe and effective” assertions made by regulatory authorities and leaders. Start with safety.

Last week, as reported by Yahoo! Finance, the FDA released, under orders from a U.S. District Judge, 55,000 pages of clinical trial documents which Pfizer submitted to the FDA as part of the approval process. Originally the FDA wanted to suppress this data for 75 years as they had “limited resources” to prepare this data for release, yet they took approximately 75 days to review and analyze this same data before granting approval.

In the appendix is a “List of adverse events of special interest,” noting 1,291 different adverse events post-vaccination, running 9 pages. There is always the issue of association versus causation, but the fact that Pfizer submitted this data to the FDA and the FDA fought to prevent its release raises red flags.

Aside from the FDA submission, there is the VAERS database that specially tracks vaccine-related adverse effects. As Yahoo! Finance reported:

From mid-December, 2020 through February 18, 2022, the U.S. government’s database, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), has received 1,134,984 reports of adverse events, including 24,402 deaths, following COVID vaccination. Additionally, there have been 4,021 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in the U.S. with 2,475 cases associated with Pfizer, 1,364 cases with Moderna and 171 cases with J&J’s COVID vaccine. These include 643 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in children aged 12 to 17.

The U.S. Department of Defense also reported, “Sharp spikes in miscarriages, myocarditis, cancer diagnoses, Bell’s palsy, female infertility” post-vaccination. Yet this is deemed unnewsworthy and the media’s so-called “fact checkers” are always trying to “add context” rather than encourage further analysis and discussion.

Then there is efficacy. British independent new site, The Expose, reported last week:

The latest data published by the UK Health Security Agency confirms deaths are rising dramatically among the triple vaccinated population whilst declining steadily among the not-vaccinated population in England.

With the most recent figures showing the fully vaccinated accounted for 9 in every 10 Covid-19 deaths over the past month; and the triple vaccinated accounted for 4 in every 5 of them.

The data are from an official government website which reports 70 percent of individuals in England receiving at least one vaccine dose, 65 percent getting two doses, and 50 percent boosted, meaning three doses. They also found vaccine effectiveness for the AstraZeneca vaccine dropping “to almost no effect from 20 weeks after the second dose.” For Pfizer and Moderna, the effectiveness dropped “to around 10% by 25 weeks after the second dose.”

They note that booster efficacy also quickly wanes, “Vaccine effectiveness estimates for the booster dose are very similar, irrespective of the primary course received.”

This is just one bit of data and as the U.K. government points out, “This raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness.” But it’s also noteworthy, as are similar reports from other countries. NPR reported last summer, “Highly vaccinated Israel is seeing a dramatic surge in new COVID cases.”

These reports raise questions of both safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines. This does not require a knee-jerk response of no vaccines for anyone or the opposite of how-dare-you-question the vaccines. Instead, why not a middle ground of asking questions, analyzing, and honestly reporting the data?

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky last admitted that the CDC dropped the ball on honesty saying, the CDC mislead the public about long-term effectiveness with “too little caution and too much optimism.” She went further, “Nobody said ‘waning’ when this vaccine is going to work, oh, maybe it will wear off or not be as potent against the new variant.”

By necessity, we as a society need to have a basic level of trust in our medical and government institutions, regulatory or leadership. We are told one thing repeatedly, and threatened, shamed, or chastised if we ask questions or challenge the narrative. Then when news or data are released that contradicts the narrative, trust in our institutions diminishes.

We have seen this numerous times with COVID, over subjects like natural immunity, off-label therapeutics, lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing, where discussion or disagreement is not allowed. Going further, many political issues became verboten to question or discuss, including Trump-Russia collusion, Hunter Biden’s laptop, election integrity, and so on. Those who dared question the establishment narrative were banned from social media and polite society.

Businesses and lives were ruined by COVID and the resulting restrictions and mandates. Given the world’s collective sacrifice, aren’t we entitled to honesty and transparency from those who create these rules and hold the fates of so many individuals in their hands? Or has everything about COVID been simply a means to an end, replacing freedom and liberty with top-down control?

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

When Did Our Americana Become Such Idiots….Invaded? Feminized? Made Stupid By Schools? Losing Church And Synagogue? The Loss of Family? Everything Put Together?



No city matches Seattle for electing lunatic socialists to the city council as well as Congress (i.e., Rep. Pramila Jayapal). So having demonized police and letting the city descend into anarchic chaos, Seattle is now surprised and “rattled” by a sharp rise in crime, according to the Wall Street Journal this morning:

Long one of America’s safest cities, Seattle had 612 shootings and shots-fired incidents last year, nearly double its average before the pandemic. The city has just experienced its two worst years for homicides since the 1990s, when murder rates were at all-time highs. Gunfire has erupted all across surrounding King County, not just in neighborhoods plagued by violence. . .

Officials around the country are struggling to understand why.

Maybe “officials around the country” are officially idiots. There are come clues:

Nightly protests in the summer of 2020 after the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer pulled Mr. Diaz’s officers away from their focus on gun violence, he said. The city council responded by cutting millions from the police department’s budget, including cutting the salary of then-chief Carmen Best, part of a national push to reallocate police funds to social programs.

Demoralized officers have since left in droves, similar to other cities, said Travis Hill, a recently departed police sergeant who spent 14 years on the force. Letting protesters take over a precinct during the city’s unrest in 2020 was particularly disheartening, he said. “When you don’t feel the city has your back, your proactive work goes down,” Mr. Hill said.

About 360 officers left Seattle’s force in the past two years, leaving about 950 in the department to battle the rise in shootings. At the beginning of the pandemic, Seattle had 1,305 officers.

Stops and other activity initiated by officers dropped by 27% in 2021, and police response times reached historic highs, according to the department.

I’m sure another tax increase and more social workers will fix everything.

Putin thinks he still can win ugly!? So Did Hitler and Mussolini!

Vladimir Putin, the Latest of the Failed Irredentists

In response to Putin’s irredentist schemes, the surreal Left has alternately appeased him and angrily denounced the critics of their appeasement. 

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

March 6, 2022

Irredentism—the romance of reclaiming “unredeemed” old lands—is a symptom of messianic presidents and premiers, and national paranoia and insecurity. Leaders demagogue about the recovery of ancient territories that previously had weakened the nation’s imperial grandeur and power. 

Supposedly long-scattered and oppressed peoples with common linguistic, religious, and cultural affinities are recombined—usually by violently overthrowing their contemporary governments and forcing them into a new ethnic super state. Yet irredentism is often a one-way street. Supposedly homeless expatriates—the Greeks of Constantinople, Italians in Malta, Germans in the Sudetenland, Serbs in Bosnia, and Russians in Ukraine—are said to be even more zealous nationalists than their kindred in the motherland. But just as often the territory to be reunited in a grand imperial scheme can be more reluctant than the would-be uniter. 

Early 20th-century Greek romantics fancied resurrecting the old Μεγάλη Ιδέα or “Great Idea.” That was the dreamy recreation of a panhellenic Eastern Mediterranean. The New Byzantium was to be ringed by Greek-speakers in the motherland, Asia Minor, the Aegean Islands, Cyprus, and northern Egypt.  

Yet, like most irredentists, the Greeks never had the manpower or material wherewithal to reestablish such a modern Byzantine Empire. The restored 15th century image rested entirely on the opportunistic implosion of the Ottoman Empire, the 1918 defeat of the Central Powers, especially in Asia Minor, the Middle East, and the Balkans, the international chaos following World War I—and the pledges of the victorious allies. 

But soon a new Turkish secular government emerged to undermine the quixotic Greek effort. The Great Idea’s British sponsors betrayed the project. It ended tragically with thousands of stranded Greeks savagely butchered throughout Asian Minor.


Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini had wilder dreams in the 1920s and ’30s of recreating the Roman Empire. In his irredentist fantasies, anywhere Italian was spoken—or where Latin once had been—there would follow the new Italian empire. Mussolini discounted the wide-scale poverty in southern Italy and Sicily and endlessly harangued about the fetters of British Suez and Gibraltar that unfairly had boxed in the new Rome.

Mussolini’s Mare Nostrum—“Our Sea”—would at least remake the Mediterranean into an Italian lake. A reborn Rome would be flanked by an Italian-speaking southern Europe, an Italian North and East Africa, an Italian Aegean, and an Italian Dalmatia and Balkans. 

Mussolini could only achieve his dreams through a host of “ifs”—if France and Britain appeased him, if their Mediterranean navies disappeared or would not fight, if Nazi Germany threatened Mussolini’s common enemies, if the so-called international community, like the League of Nations, failed to deter him, and if ultimately Germany won World War II. 

So, Mussolini sequentially grabbed Ethiopia, expanded out from his Libyan colonies, invaded Egypt, Albania, and Greece—until finally Britain and America destroyed Mussolini and his fascist fantasies.

Adolf Hitler was the 20th century’s most ambitious and most barbaric irredentist. He came to power by screaming about a drawn-and-quartered German Reich, carved up by the Versailles Treaty, with millions of German speakers and lands scattered and lost to his native Austria, to Poland, to France, and to Czechoslovakia. In Hitler’s mind, these were all “unredeemed” lands that he alone in his genius would reclaim for the German Volk. He even included the ancient Volga Germans in the distant domains of the Soviet Union as legitimate claimants on a new Third Reich. 

Unlike Italy, Hitler had the military, the economy, and the population for a brief moment to bully his way into reclaiming almost every German-speaking minority in Europe and blowing up the borders of the continent. Finally, Hitler engulfed the world in a war that cost 70 million dead, by invading all of Europe, the Soviet Union, North Africa and encouraging Japan to do the same in Asia and the Pacific. By 1941, the expanded Third Reich numbered over 80 million Germans. It had obliterated Poland and Czechoslovakia. And Berlin ruled over an area larger in population and territory than the current European Union. Only Britain was left to be destroyed. 

But in truth Germany had already overreached, drunk on easy victories and blind to the resources and manpower of his new enemies, the Soviet Union, and the United States. By 1944, the United States alone had produced a military larger than all the Axis militaries combined, a GDP larger than those of all the combatants, friend and foe put together, and a navy larger than all the aggregate navies of the world.

When the wreckage of the war cleared, Hitler’s dream was a satanic irony, as millions of Germans were dead, and millions more expelled from once annexed nations and forced to walk back into a vastly shrunken Germany. 

With the 1990s breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Serbian strongman Slobodan Milošević dreamed of a new Greater Serbia. He sought to force neighboring Montenegro, Northern Albania, Bosnia, and Herzegovina into a new version of the 14th century Serbian Empire. Serbia’s near decade-long modern Balkan Wars cost 140,000 dead, earned global denunciation of Serbia, made Milošević a hated pariah, and ended with the independence of all his would-be new conquests.

A Woke West?

Putin is history’s most recent and first nuclear irredentist. He believes any group of Russian speakers anywhere, or former residents of imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, or Russian orthodox worshipers, all belong to Putin’s new Russian Empire. Even if Russian speakers are independent or happy as minorities in other countries, Putin has a grandiose plan toforce them into his new mother Russia. 

Only that way can a huge new Russia of 270-300 million people, with a vast area comparable to the old Soviet Union, become again a player on the superpower stage to rival China and the United States.  

In Putin’s mind, he has already forced Georgia, Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine back into the Russian fold. Many of the old Soviet Republics are already his de facto satellites or puppets. If he can get back all of Ukraine, the crown jewel of the old Soviet Union and Mother Russia—41 million people, 230,000 square miles of territory, the best farmland in Europe, rich in oil and minerals—Putin feels he would achieve his irredentist goal. The remaining few lost Russian territories then will either be easily absorbed, or their puppet governments will obey Russian orders. Then, he believes, the former Warsaw Pact nations, in terror, will supposedly shed their NATO alliance or at least become no-fly-zones. 

Putin may have initially underestimated the Ukrainian heroic resistance. He foolishly discounted any chance of NATO defiance. He had no idea how much the supposedly decadent West still controls the levers and wheels of the international financial and commercial system now directed at Russia. He was clueless that new weapons such as cheap drone planes and improved model Javelins and Stingers put into the hands of relative amateur shooters could allow them to blow up multimillion-dollar tanks, and huge trucks full of soldiers—all with a good chance of the shooter escaping with his life, and the destruction videoed for global social media consumption. 

Now shamed by prior inaction, emboldened by the unexpected Ukrainian resistance, and egged on by the Churchillian emergence of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, European Union countries like Germany have suddenly all but apologized for their former appeasement, nihilist cutbacks of oil and gas production, and virtual disarmament. 

In the United States, the public is ebullient at the scenes of defiant Ukrainians and hopeful that Putin has at last met his irredentist Waterloo. The point is not that Putin is stopped for good but that in theory he could be stopped. And that is something, given the odds against the Ukrainians and the declinist postmodern West. 

In truth, Ukraine is vastly outnumbered, out equipped, and outmanned. It was armed by the West far too late. It should have received tens of thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles months ago. Last summer, the United States should have increased daily oil and gas output, not cut it back. The EastMed pipeline into Italy should have had the full support of the Biden Administration. Joe Biden should have stopped with the gratuitous “killer” and “bully” Corn Pop rhetoric, spoken softly, and instead upped targeted defense spending and stopped the commissariatization of the Pentagon. Ukraine should have kept out of U.S. politics and impeachment psychodramas—and especially kept clear of the toxic Biden family grifting syndicate

But for now, all those “shoulds” and “coulds” must be considered after Putin is stopped. He believes he can and will eventually swallow Ukraine, regardless of the costs in Russian blood and treasure or the barbaric killing of innocent Ukrainian civilians. He has pivoted from the failed “easy” Georgia-Crimea model to the messy Chechnya fallback plan—and thus is going medieval in Ukraine.  

Worse still, Putin thinks he still can win ugly—maybe even the uglier the better. Then months from now a supposedly galvanized West will fear him even more and remember even less the fate of Ukraine. He assumes Europeans will pivot back and only recall that by hook or crook the Napoleonic Putin had swallowed Ukraine—and in the future could do the same anywhere he wished in his neighborhood.

 The leaders of the European Union and NATO are now giving Churchillian speeches. They promise to retract their prior green nihilism. They pledge to pump oil and extract more natural gas. They claim they are through with the appeasing Nord Stream 2 pipeline. They say they will now welcome a Greek-Cypriot-Israeli EastMed pipeline into southern Europe. They soar in rhetoric about a new NATO armed to the teeth by Europeans, shocked by the fate of Ukraine.  

Quieter with a Bigger Stick 

Yet Putin, our century’s first irredentist, smiles at all this. He is not yet deterred even by catastrophic financial losses inflicted by the sanctions of the Western world. He ignores his military casualties and the brutal savagery he inflicts on others. He rants about using nuclear weapons and spreading ruin worldwide to any who defy him. He attacks nuclear power plants. 

In other words, he is a typical 20th-century irredentist.

Remember, all of these irredentists of the last 100 years have failed—and imploded in suicidal fashion. History suggests that Putin will not find a happy solution either. The West woke up and discovered that Europe and the United States are slowly learning a new paradigm to check aggressions like Putin’s: crippling new global financial and commercial sanctions; a new confidence in sophisticated asymmetrical weapons that can nullify tanks, planes, and helicopters; a new attitude that the United States and Europe can remain closer than they had thought; and a new ability to inflict international psychological and cultural ostracism that can range from the loss of oligarchic yachts to the use of ATMs.

China is watching the fate of Ukraine. If it is crushed and Putin reasserts his power abroad, then Beijing sees a pathway to absorbing what would be left of a much smaller Taiwan. But if a larger Ukraine survives and Putin is permanently crippled, then Xi Jinping may worry that the Taiwanese could fight like Ukrainians, that China might be sanctioned and ostracized like Russia, that new deadly weapons will be airdropped into Taiwan. He may recall that unlike Russia and Ukraine there is a sea between China and Taiwan—and that a moonscaped Taiwan would not be worth the cost that Putin may pay for Ukraine.

Finally, despite U.S. lethargy last autumn, Putin can still at this 11th hour be stymied without a U.S. “no-fly zone,” without sending American A-10 Warthogs to Ukraine, and without using NATO “volunteers.” 

How surreal the Left has become. From Hillary Clinton’s 2009 “reset” to Barack Obama’s hot mic buffoonery, to blankets for Ukraine  and applause for Biden’s recent request that Russia pump more oil and hack only approved U.S. companies and institutions, the Left repeatedly has appeased Putin. Yet now the Left accuses its critics of pro-Putin pacifist sympathies! It is almost as if after spending a decade ensuring a Russian invasion of Ukraine and refusing to pump more oil and gas, the schizophrenic Left now wishes to risk a pre-midterm nuclear showdown.

It would be far wiser to quietly send far more weapons, to produce far more oil, to enact far more sanctions—and to stop the loud assassination and NATO interventionist tough talk.

from ghr: I was a child of the second world war. Its door opened to me during the battle of Midway. No television in those days….but lots of newsprint.

We received two newspapers in those days…a morning and an afternoon. I was born a questioner and it drove my Mother wild. “If you ask me one more question YOU’RE GOING TO THE WALL….DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?”

I had cousins in the navy on the Asian front. I was dyslexic. I couldn’t read. Yet, I could get glued to pictures, maps, and questions about countries, cousins, the War, on both fronts. I preferred to draw Europe! Too many islands in the Pacific!

But, I could draw America’s forty eight states best. After the war when my folks went North to fish, whenever we’d stop for gas I’d get a free map of various varieties of states….about 150 of them from 1939 to about 1950….and play games with them besides drawing……in order to be quiet, and so, pleasing Mom, and being able to write articles like this eighty years later.

Moms hardly exist anymore, do they? Do dads? Do families?


March 6, 2022

In Wisconsin, a fight over whether children belong to the state or the parents

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

In 1991, the European release of Zero Wing, a Sega video game, contained a now-classic badly translated phrase: “All your base are belong to us.” In the massive battle shaping up across America, public school districts are metaphorically carrying a banner saying “All your children are belong to us” in their battle against parents over children’s gender (not to mention racial issues). What’s happening in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, exemplifies this battle and can be summed up in a sentence from a staff training session: “[P]arents are not entitled to know their kids’ [gender] identities. That knowledge must be earned.”

That arrogant message came from a “professional development facilitator guide” that was used in the school district at a staff development session:

“Teachers are often straddling this complex situation. In ECASD, our priority is supporting the student,” the professional development facilitator guide states. Teachers were encouraged to “Talk amongst yourselves!”

The lesson — that teachers know better than parents about what is best for their kids — is not sitting well with some community members.

“We are appalled that ECASD would display such blatant disregard for the parents and guardians of our community’s children. We are equally dismayed that current school district leadership would pressure teachers into breaking a social contract that we all know and understand—that parents and guardians hold primary responsibility and decision making for the welfare and care of their children,” said parents and school board candidates, Nicole Everson, Corey Cronrath and Melissa Winter in a joint statement.

The same article linked above explains that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has before it a case out of Madison, Wisconsin, that saw similar staff training in the public schools. The policies before the Court include the following language:

  • Children of any age can transition to a different gender identity at school, by changing their name and pronouns, without parental notice or consent.
  • District employees are prohibited from notifying parents, without the child’s consent, that their child has or wants to change gender identity at school, or that their child may be dealing with gender dysphoria.
  • District employees are even instructed to deceive parents by using the child’s legal name and pronouns with family, while using the different name and pronouns adopted by the child in the school setting.

All of this—the teachers’ actions and the parents’ response—revolves around a single question: Do parents or the state have the ultimate say regarding a child’s development?

The state has an interest in child welfare, as demonstrated by the existence of Child Protective Services agencies that can intervene when a child is being abused (and that can be abusive). The Roe v. Wade opinion holds that the state has an interest in preserving a child’s life, with that interest divided up by trimester: a minimal interest in the first trimester when the fetus is not viable outside the mother; a moderate interest in the second trimester when the fetus approaches viability; and a strong interest in the third trimester when infants are all potentially viable.

The teachers’ unstated argument is that, because parents are unforgiving, rigid, discriminatory troglodytes who might interfere with a child’s search for his, her, or its natural gender development, when they withhold that information from parents, they are acting on the same principle that sees the state rescue a child from a physically abusive home.

Parents, however, consider that it’s teachers who go beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic to force their bizarre gender beliefs on children who are the abusers—with their policy of hiding those efforts from appalled parents standing as proof of their nefarious goals. Moreover, these teachers always have the full backing of the radicals who have populated so many American school boards.

The state has an interest in child welfare, as demonstrated by the existence of Child Protective Services agencies that can intervene when a child is being abused (and that can be abusive). The Roe v. Wade opinion holds that the state has an interest in preserving a child’s life, with that interest divided up by trimester: a minimal interest in the first trimester when the fetus is not viable outside the mother; a moderate interest in the second trimester when the fetus approaches viability; and a strong interest in the third trimester when infants are all potentially viable.

The teachers’ unstated argument is that, because parents are unforgiving, rigid, discriminatory troglodytes who might interfere with a child’s search for his, her, or its natural gender development, when they withhold that information from parents, they are acting on the same principle that sees the state rescue a child from a physically abusive home.

Parents, however, consider that it’s teachers who go beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic to force their bizarre gender beliefs on children who are the abusers—with their policy of hiding those efforts from appalled parents standing as proof of their nefarious goals. Moreover, these teachers always have the full backing of the radicals who have populated so many American school boards.


If Western Leaders Will Not Stop Putin By Force, They Should Help Negotiate Peace


MARCH 04, 2022


If there is an off-ramp that might prevent what now appears to be the inevitable reduction of Ukraine to rubble, then Western leaders should not block it with bellicose talk and weak half-measures.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

by JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON at the Federalist:

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine stretches into its second week, and Moscow’s tactics shift to the direct targeting of urban centers and civilian populations, the United States and our European allies are facing tough questions about how much assistance to give the Ukrainians without becoming belligerents — or being considered belligerents by Russia — and thus widening the war.

As I write, Russian forces are laying siege to cities across Ukraine, contesting vital ports, and targeting civilians and critical infrastructure. The bombardment of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, has left at least dozens dead and hundreds more injured. Russian troops are now in control of Kherson, a major city in the south. The southern port city of Mariupol has been encircled, and the Russian attack there has cut power, water, and heat. Kyiv is under attack, and there are reports that Russia is preparing a major amphibious assault on Odessa.

Meanwhile, our leaders appear to be living in a fantasyland where their expressions of solidarity with Ukraine mean something tangible. Economic sanctions, the banning of Russian products from store shelves, the exclusion of Russian cats from cat shows, and the seizure of mega-yachts owned by Russian oligarchs, among other weak and inchoate responses from the West, are not going to stop Russian artillery and missiles from reducing Ukrainian cities to rubble in the coming days and weeks. The Ukrainians have fought bravely and inspired the world with their valor, but a new phase of the war is beginning, and Western leaders need to think seriously about what’s coming, and how this will end.

To stop the Russian invasion, the Ukrainians need more from the West than economic sanctions and bans on Russian products. They need heavy weapons, munitions, air support, and real-time intelligence from Western powers, and they need these things right now. The NATO allies understand this, on some level, and are pouring weapons into Ukraine — rocket launchers, Javelin antitank missiles, Stinger surface-to-air missiles, along with machine guns, sniper rifles, and ammunition.

But they are not sending military aircraft, and they are not sending troops. The United States will not even impose sanctions on Russian oil or entertain the idea of ramping up domestic oil production to offset Russian imports. A White House flack told reporters aboard Air Force One this week: “We don’t have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy.” So that’s that. 

The West, it seems, is trying to go right up to the line of belligerence without crossing it. Helping Ukraine, but not helping too much. For example, it appears that the U.S. is sharing some targeting intelligence with Ukraine but not real-time targeting of the kind that would enable Ukraine to take out individual Russian units.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who said Thursday morning on MSNBC that “we are providing some intelligence” to Ukraine, also said that real-time targeting would cross a line “to marking us participating in the war.” Hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki implied that we were not giving any targeting intelligence to Ukraine, which prompted pushback from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who called Psaki’s comments “truthy” and that they do not “capture the full reality.”

Most likely, we are indeed providing targeting intelligence to Ukraine, but giving them the information only after a delay, so Russia cannot accuse us of assisting in the direct targeting of their forces.

That’s just one example of the needle Western powers are trying to thread. As the war goes on, and the fighting intensifies in and around Ukraine’s urban centers, the eye of that needle, so to speak, will get smaller and smaller. That means our leaders need to get serious about what they are prepared to do, and not do, in the defense of Ukraine. And they need to be clear with Ukraine and Russia about their intentions.

Right now, there is a galling lack of seriousness and clarity among them. On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took to Twitter to call for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as if that’s a realistic option to end the crisis and avert catastrophe in Ukraine.


His comment follows other reckless comments in recent days from U.S. lawmakers and former generals calling for NATO to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. A no-fly zone would mean NATO warplanes shooting down Russian warplanes. It would mean open war with Russia. That’s precisely what some neocons in Washington want, for reasons of their own, but it’s not something the vast majority of Americans want.

Here is the hard truth: If the West is not going to send warplanes and troops, if we are not going to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by force of arms, and by our inaction allow the bombardment of Ukrainian cities to proceed, then we need to be honest with the Ukrainians about that. We owe it to them to give them a realistic picture of what they can expect from us, and what they cannot expect. Indeed, we owe them a great deal more, but we at least owe them that.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is understandably trying to get NATO involved in the war. He is doing what any leader should do in his position, and he will likely go down in history for his courage and bravery in the face of the enemy. But if there is an off-ramp that might prevent what now appears to be the inevitable reduction of Ukraine to rubble, then Western leaders should not block it with bellicose talk and weak half-measures. We have had quite enough of both. Indeed, there were opportunities for the West to prevent this war, to persuade Moscow and Kyiv to negotiate a settlement, going back years. But in our fecklessness, we chose not to and instead kept talking tough and hoping for the best.

Now that Russia has entered this new phase of the war, the worst thing we could do for the Ukrainians would be to give them false hope as Russian forces close in, and then do nothing while their cities burn. If we will not do what’s necessary to stop Russia by force, then we should do what we can, right now, to broker a negotiated peace.

What If These Fascist Russians Invade Sweden?

MARCH 6, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


The world has cheered Ukraine’s determined resistance to Russian aggression, and even liberals have no problem with Ukraine’s government passing out automatic rifles to citizens. But some argue that Ukraine hasn’t gone far enough, that its government should not have waited for an invasion to arm its populace and encourage resistance to an invader. The example of the Finns’ armed and effective defense against Russia’s 1939 invasion has been cited in this regard.

And, in fact, some European countries have institutionalized the idea of a guerrilla citizenry. Take Sweden, for example. Americans tend to think of Swedes as rather wimpy and perhaps pacifistic. But, while the glory days of Gustavus Adolphus have receded into the dim past, Swedes are more patriotic than you might assume:

Sweden, like Ukraine, Switzerland, and several other countries, has a ‘total defence’ strategy. This means that it is not only members of the Swedish Armed Forces who are responsible for defending the country in the event of an invasion, but every individual adult and every institution in society.
All government agencies, municipalities, voluntary organisations, regional councils, businesses, unions, trade bodies, and religious organisations are required to prepare for and, in the event of an invasion, take part in Sweden’s defence.

The idea is that a strong pre-prepared resistance movement will act as a deterrent. An invader might be able to conquer large parts of the country, but maintaining an occupation will be difficult and costly.

I think that is what we are seeing in Ukraine. Russia presumably can win the war eventually, but it has little chance of pacifying the population or benefiting from its purported victory.

Sweden decided to begin rebuilding its system of Total Defence in 2015, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Since then, every public authority once again became responsible for taking part in defence and preparing and planning for a possible attack. Sweden reintroduced military conscription in January 2018.

Interesting that Sweden has a draft, while we don’t.

Who has a duty to defend Sweden in the event of an attack?


According to If Crisis or War Comes, a brochure sent to 4,8m households in Sweden by the Civil Contingencies Agency in 2018, “Everyone is obliged to contribute and everyone is needed.”

Under Sweden’s 1994 law on Total Defence, “every Swedish citizen has a duty to take part in total defence from the start of the calendar year in which he or she turns 16 until the end of the calendar year where they turn 70”.
Even if you have had no formal training and have not volunteered to be part of the Home Guard or Hemvärnet, you might still be conscripted to fight in the event of an attack.

You might also be conscripted into other government organisations, or posted by the Swedish Public Employment Service to do any job at all, from digging defensive trenches, to working as a driver, cook, or cleaner.
Even if you are not called up, it is still your duty to resist the invader in any way that you can.

“If Sweden is attacked, resistance is required,” the brochure states and this continues to be the case even if all state agencies are overrun and Sweden’s leaders announce a surrender.

How effectively would Swedes be able to resist? Gun ownership is surprisingly common, at 23 firearms per 100 residents.

I especially like this part:

“If Sweden is attacked by another country, we will never give up,” the brochure asserts. “All information to the effect that resistance is to cease is false.”

The Swedish government also encourages citizens to stock up on food and water as further preparation for a possible invasion.

If invaded by Russia, would Swedes really carry on the fight with rifles and kitchen knives so as to make their country ungovernable? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Meanwhile, even Germany, the sleeping giant of Europe in military terms since World War II, is awakening to the need for self-defense. It seems that the Europeans have taken to heart President Trump’s urging to take more responsibility for their own defense. Whatever the cause, it is all to the good.

Russians Are Civilized, but THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT!?

Paranoia strikes deep: Russian police stop pedestrians, demand to read their text messages

ALLAHPUNDIT Mar 06, 2022 at HotAir:

“This, even in Russia, is illegal as hell,” says Meduza editor Kevin Rothrock of the clip below. Technically, perhaps, but the state of Russian law right now is as fluid as the state of the Russian economy and the state of the Russian military. What used to be legal no longer is. Go figure that what used to be illegal is suddenly fair game.


Police officers in Moscow today are stopping people, demanding to see their phones, READING THEIR MESSAGES, and refusing to release them if they refuse. This from Kommersant journalist Ana Vasilyeva. https://t.me/Crexcrexcrex/3059…

Zelensky appealed to the Russian people in a new video to make their voices heard: “If you keep silent now, only your poverty will speak for you later. And only repression will answer.” Some heeded that call. Per Reuters, around 3,500 people were arrested in Russia today for protesting the war:


Examples are being made of women protesters to signal zero tolerance for dissent: