• 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

Isn’t Fascist Putin’s War Just Beginning? Is His Nation Too SMALL!?

Unlike Past Conflicts With Russia, Escalation In Ukraine Risks Pulling The West Into War

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON at the Federalist:

MARCH 11, 2022

US tanks

Policymakers in Washington need to think carefully about whether we can escalate our involvement in Ukraine without plunging the West into war.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile



There’s a growing chorus of voices, mostly in Washington and among the corporate press, arguing the United States and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies need to do more to assist Ukraine against Russia. Providing the Ukrainians Javelin antitank missiles and Stinger antiaircraft missiles, as well as small arms and munitions, we’re told, isn’t enough. Nor are the unprecedented and devastating economic sanctions we’ve leveled against Russia, which arguably amount to a declaration of war.

They say we need to send warplanes, tanks, and advanced weapons systems. Some particularly enthusiastic neocons are even arguing that NATO should impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, directly engaging Russian fighter jets and targets on the ground in a tactical air campaign against the Russians. But, at the very least, NATO allies should send Ukraine some MiG-29 fighter jets, and maybe even U.S. Patriot missile-defense systems.

These arguments tend to gloss over whether the United States and our allies can safely do any of this without embroiling NATO in a war with Russia. Even setting aside the question of a no-fly zone, which the Biden administration has for now ruled out, we are nevertheless trying to get as close to the line of belligerence without crossing over it. It very likely won’t be possible. On our current course, whether our leaders realize it or not, we’re mindlessly marching toward war with Russia.

Proponents of escalation wave this possibility away with appeals to history. Our experience over the past 70 years, they say, shows that Moscow will back down in the face of aggressive measures by the West. Look at the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Look at the U.S. strategic airlift operation to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, even as the Soviet Union was resupplying Egypt and Syria. Much more recently, look at the 2018 Battle of Khasham, in which hundreds of Russian soldiers were killed when they attacked U.S. special forces in Syria.

These historical examples are often paired with others that purport to show a pattern of Russian and American tolerance for the arming and training of one another’s battlefield enemies. The Russians have tolerated the West arming their enemies before, so why should this be any different?

Consider Washington’s intensive support of the Afghan mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. On the Russian side, consider the Soviet advisors stationed in North Vietnam during the war, training and in some cases actively fighting alongside the enemy.

My friend Chuck DeVore cited this example in these pages recently, noting that some 3,000 Soviet advisors were stationed in Vietnam during the war, and that starting in 1964 they were training North Vietnamese fighter pilots and anti-aircraft crews, as well as actively manning anti-aircraft batteries themselves and shooting down American pilots.

Other historical examples along these lines abound, and together they form a rough, two-pronged thesis: Russia will back down when challenged by American power, and Russia will tolerate the arming of its battlefield enemies by the West so long as American soldiers are not the ones pulling the trigger or flying the warplanes. In all of these cases, war never erupted between the Soviet Union and the United States, so why should Ukraine be any different?

To this, one might reply that Ukraine represents a fundamentally different kind of conflict than those cited above. This is not Cuba in 1962, Israel in 1973, or Afghanistan in the 1980s. It is not Vietnam or Syria. All those conflicts, at least on the Russian side, were peripheral. (Cuba was not peripheral for the United States, but its usefulness as an historical precedent in the Ukraine war is rather limited.)

For Russia, the fate of Ukraine is a matter of national security. Its status is of paramount strategic importance for Moscow. One need not agree that it should be to acknowledge that as far as the Kremlin is concerned, it is.

So as the war in Ukraine drags on, and Russian and Ukrainian losses mount, we should not assume that Moscow will react as it has to more peripheral conflicts in the past. We should not take it for granted that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who seems to have staked his regime on the successful invasion and subjugation of Ukraine, will simply cut his losses and neatly withdraw the way Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989.

Awareness of all this should also inform policymaking in Washington about whether to encourage and materially support a prolonged Ukrainian insurgency if Russian forces destroy Ukraine’s military, as they likely will. Is the Biden administration willing to risk war with Russia on the assumption that Moscow will be as tolerant of American sponsorship of Ukrainian guerillas as it was of anti-Soviet Afghan guerillas? 

So too, on the question of economic sanctions. Is it the policy of the United States and our NATO allies that Russia’s economy should be destroyed utterly and its people plunged into generations-long poverty over the invasion of Ukraine? Do they think a policy of prolonged economic warfare can be maintained without Putin at some point deciding that it constitutes an act of war? Are we making plans and preparations in the event he does?

More immediately, are we exploring off-ramps with Ukraine and Russia? Does the Biden administration have in mind post-war scenarios or negotiated settlements that it would not only accept but actively broker?

Or is the only vision of the war’s end the maximalist one that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken articulated earlier this month, in which a humiliated and defeated Russia withdraws completely from a totally independent and territorially intact Ukraine? If that’s the case, then it seems almost certain the war is going to widen beyond Ukraine, and perhaps, to avoid the end-state that Blinken describes, involve the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. 

None of this is to advocate for the kind of isolationism propounded by some on the so-called New Right. Nor is it to foreswear any and all foreign intervention in the name of our national interest. But it is simply to recognize that this particular war is not easily explained by examples from the Cold War, when everything turned out alright, or by appeals to past events and conflicts on Russia’s periphery.

Rather, it is to acknowledge bluntly that if the West is not willing to back a negotiated compromise in Ukraine, then our continued military assistance to the Ukrainians, as well as our sanctions regime against Moscow, risks setting in motion a chain of events that we won’t be able to control and that could easily lead us into a war with Russia.


Vatican, US, EU churches to Kirill: For the love of God, demand Putin end this war

ED MORRISSEY Mar 12, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

(Mikhail Klimentyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP, File)

If Russian Orthodox patriarch Kirill had the love of God in mind, he might not have endorsed Vladimir Putin in the first place. Nevertheless, Christian leaders from around the world rebuked Kirill for increasingly strident homilies endorsing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and urged him to return to his proper role of seeking peace. Dozens of leaders across the ecumenical spectrum in the US signed onto an open letter demanding that Kirill “intervene” to end hostilities immediately:

The open letter signed by the heads of denominations and charities, as well as prominent writers and activists, is an “earnest plea” that Kirill, who is believed to be close to President Vladimir Putin, use his “voice and profound influence to call for an end to the hostilities and war in Ukraine and intervene with” Russian authorities to do so.

During a sermon on March 5, Kirill echoed Putin’s propaganda that Ukraine was engaged in the “extermination” of Russian loyalists and described the war as a spiritual struggle against the West’s “so-called values,” including LGBT indoctrination, Georgetown University and Center on Faith + Justice noted in a statement announcing the letter.

In response, the statement said, Christian leaders told Kirill, “We are in the season of Lent. In that Lenten spirit, we ask you to prayerfully reconsider the support you have given to this war because of the horrendous human suffering it has unleashed.” …

The signatories include: the Rev. Walter Kim, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Sister Donna Markham, president and CEO of Catholic Charities USA; Bishop Teresa Jefferson-Snorton, president of Churches Uniting in Christ of board chair of the National Council of Churches; and the Rev. Teresa Hord Owens, president of Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S. and Canada.

In another sermon on Wednesday, Kirill doubled down on the “mission from God” explanation and insisted that the West was attacking Russia rather than the other way around:

On March 6, when the Russian Orthodox Church observed “Forgiveness Sunday” before the beginning of their Lent, Kirill backed separatists in Ukraine’s eastern Donbass region and suggested that an unnamed western body of nations is organizing genocide campaigns against countries that refuse to hold gay pride parades.

On March 9, during the Lenten Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, Kirill delivered another sermon in which he referred to Russians and Ukrainians as “one people” and accused the West of supplying Ukraine with weapons in a bid to weaken Russia out of a growing fear of how powerful Russia had become.

It doesn’t appear that Kirill’s too concerned about the peace of Christ at the moment. It doesn’t appear that way to European church organizations, either, which followed up with a demand letter of their own. Those demands came from fellow Russian Orthodox clerics as well as Catholics and others, reports Crux’ Inés San Martin:

According to the Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, “our very unity is threatened” by the situation that arose following Russia’s “military intervention” and “violent attack” on Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the president of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) said Kirill should take to heart his own remarks: “The Church can be a peacemaking force.” …

In a similar vein, Metropolitan John of Dubna, Archbishop of the Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, on Thursday asked Kirill to intervene in favor of peace. …

He then criticized Kirill’s March 6 homily in the Patriarchal Cathedral of Christ the Savior. During his remarks, the patriarch implied that this “war of cruel and murderous aggression” is justified as a “metaphysical battle,” in the name of “the right to stand on the side of the light, on the side of God’s truth, of what the light of Christ reveals to us, his word, his Gospel.”

With all the respect “due to you, and from which I do not depart,” but also “with infinite pain,” the metropolitan writes, “ I must bring to your attention that I cannot subscribe to such a reading of the Gospel.”

Those are harsh words, which come at the same time that Kirill faces an unprecedented revolt in the ranks of his own church.

That choice has not gone unnoticed at The Vatican, either. The second-ranking official at the Holy See publicly scolded Kirill on Thursday, in a rare criticism of another ecumenical partner. Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin also rebuked Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov:

Francis’ No. 2 at the Vatican, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, spoke candidly about the repercussion of Kirill’s remarks. “Kirill’s words do not favor or promote an agreement. Instead, they risk heightening spirits toward an escalation and not solve the crisis peacefully,” Parolin, who heads the Vatican Secretariat of State, said at an event in Rome on Wednesday.

Asked about the possibility of a meeting between Francis and Kirill, the cardinal said that “the situation is complicated by the tensions that exist between the churches, so at the moment there hasn’t been the opportunity” to plan a meeting.

Parolin spoke to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier this week but said he “was given no reassurance” by Moscow concerning the protection of civilians in Ukraine and seemed to express doubts about the possibility of a peaceful solution to the conflict.

That’s not the only signal coming out of the Vatican. Pope Francis made a special point of demonstrating solidarity with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which technically remains subsidiary to Kirill but will likely demand recognition as an independent entity as a result of this war. The pontiff might be tipping his hand in that direction, which the Patriarch of Constantinople has already endorsed:

With ecumenical and diplomatic channels seemingly exhausted, Francis sent two Vatican officials, Cardinal Michael Czerny and Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, to the border with Ukraine as representatives of the pope with the mission to help immigrants, promote peace and rekindle dialogue with the local churches.

Krajewski, the papal almoner, spoke with the head of the autocephalus church of Ukraine, Epiphanius, online on Tuesday and expressed the closeness of the Vatican and Pope Francis with the suffering people of Ukraine.

The Vatican’s outreach to Moscow has been complicated by its warming relations with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, archbishop of Constantinople, who is considered the “first among equals” of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and who has visited the Vatican repeatedly and attended Catholic events. In 2019, Bartholomew recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as an independent entity, formalizing its split from Moscow and creating a breach with Kirill.

Vatican and Russian Orthodox officials had wanted to bring Kirill and Francis back together again soon in an attempt to bring the two churches closer together. Now they couldn’t possibly be farther apart. The net result of Kirill’s endorsement for Putin’s war crimes will most likely be a dismembering of the Russian Orthodox Church, split between those loyal to the Gospels and those loyal to Kirill’s personal savior in Vladimir Putin. If and when the Russians seize Ukraine, expect retaliation against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church on a massive scale — a return to martyrdom, most likely, because Kirill wasn’t courageous enough to make a stand against Putin’s imperial ambitions.

Who Can STOP Fascist Putin’s Invasions?

March 12, 2022

NATO’s Emerging Ukraine Strategy

By Steven Kopits at American Thinker:

The war is not going well for Russian President Vladimir Putin. An invasion that should have been wrapped up in a few days is now entering its third week. The Russians still hold a preponderance of military force on the ground but the Ukrainians have been standing firm.

For NATO, the calculus is changing. Russian military might has been exposed as far weaker than thought, and the Ukrainians have shown themselves to be fierce and committed fighters. This has emboldened western powers to provide a laundry list of armaments and other support to Kyiv.

Even more importantly, the European and American public has now seen two weeks of fighting, suffering, and dying in Ukraine. While Ukraine was perceived as a far away, dispensable country before the war, it has now become the staple of the nightly news. The public is growing familiar with the country and, in particular, with the bravery and determination of Ukrainian forces and the suffering of its civilians.

The stakes are also becoming more apparent. President Putin is increasingly seen as a mad dictator waving nuclear weapons and hell-bent on taking over eastern Europe. He is viewed as threatening the global security order and the war is morphing in the public mind from something happening to ‘them’ into one happening to ‘us.’ Losing in Ukraine is beginning to look like an unaffordable luxury. As Gerard Baker writes in a Wall Street Journal editorial: “We cannot let Mr. Putin win.”

Nevertheless, Baker cautions: “We can’t risk pushing him to the brink.

This, then, is the context of NATO’s emerging strategy. Ukraine cannot fall, but we cannot push Putin over the edge. Part of this strategy is already apparent in the provision of defensive weapons like the anti-tank Javelin and NLAW missiles, the Stinger shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles which gave the Soviets endless heartburn in Afghanistan, and garden-variety infantry weapons like guns and RPGs. The assortment and lethality of these weapons are likely to increase over time. Similarly, a No-Fly Zone has been rejected over and over again, but it keeps popping up on the agenda.

Most important is the view that Ukraine must not fall. If this belief fully takes root, NATO will stand in the background but lean on the scales if events in the field turn against the Ukrainians.

NATO’s passive-aggressive strategy augers a war of attrition, one reminiscent of Soviet strategy in the Vietnam war against the Americans. NATO and Ukraine do not need to win outright, at least in the medium term. They can simply hold the Russians in the field and bleed them out.

This is no idle threat. Cut off from his funding, President Putin has limited resources to fight the war. He can announce tax increases and spending cuts to pensions and other services, or print money to cover costs. All of these are likely to prove disastrous. Expect money printing, with all the inflation that implies.

Putin may also be short of troops. Almost all the 190,000 troops the White House estimated massed on Ukraine’s borders have been deployed. Many of these spent the Russian winter huddled in tents on the Ukrainian border and have been fighting non-stop for the last two weeks.

Putin may need reinforcements to augment his professional army. On paper, Russian conscripts are not to be used outside the homeland. In practice, they appear to have been deployed in Ukraine, according to NBC News. Nevertheless, if Putin needs to widen conscription or call up reservists, the political risks multiply.

Image: Putin. YouTube screen grab.

Under the circumstances, Putin lacks good options. Russia can fight and possibly win, but if the European and American public is willing to sacrifice to prevent that outcome, the odds of success become more remote.

Alternatively, the Russians can stop fighting and try to hold their current lines, just as they did in Donbas and Crimea. Will the Ukrainians stop in return or will NATO stop arming them? Given the public mood, that would seem unlikely.

Finally, the Russians could withdraw to their pre-war lines and continue to hold Donbas and Crimea. This would mean that Putin had lost the war. Nor would it end sanctions on the regime.

On balance, therefore, the logic would seem to call for Putin to persist with the offensive war for a while to see if Russia can achieve a strategic breakthrough. If that fails, one might expect the Russians to dig in and try to hold recently acquired territory and hope to consolidate these gains at the negotiating table. Russia could then try to leverage limited land give-backs in return for sanctions relief. All this will take time to play out. In the meanwhile, the war will grind on.

Before the war, I had suggested that territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine could be resolved if Russia paid a large sum to Ukraine to acquire the Donbas and Crimea in a voluntary transaction. On paper, such an arrangement could still work. But will anyone be willing to negotiate with President Putin when the time comes? Will the West sit down to talk with a leader who threatened them with nuclear annihilation? Or will Putin’s departure be a precondition for talks regarding a removal of sanctions or a resolution of disputed territories?

A week ago, Putin would have been a viable counterparty. Today, I am not so sure. By the end of March, will anyone be willing to negotiate with Putin?

The war in Ukraine is a disaster on every front, not only for that country but also for Russia, which deserves a better fate. As a consultant and investment banker, I have spent my professional career developing and negotiating transactions and arrangements that serve the interests of the involved parties. One could see a negotiated settlement for Ukraine, but the Russians are pinned in a trap of their own making, and they will be forced to try to fight their way out of it. For now, the men with guns will write the story.

Those Fascist Evils of the World Causing Trouble: Russia, China, and Iran!

March 11, 2022

The War in Ukraine has Exposed the Perils of 21st Century Globalism

By Steve McCann at American Thinker:

The unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed the folly, peril, and incoherence of 21st Century Globalism.  Unlike the economic globalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries that focused on the concept of free trade of goods for goods, this iteration can be characterized by allegiance to irrational environmentalism and the creation of elitist global institutions determined to mold mankind and impose regimentation on countries and their populations to ostensibly “save the planet.”

The operational underpinning of 21st Century Globalism is the extortion and intimidation of nations throughout the planet to acquiesce to radical “green” policies whose true objective is not to “save the planet” but the elimination of national identity and de facto global governance by unaccountable institutions.

The populations of many countries (such as the United States and much of Europe) have accordingly been coerced into altering their traditional national lifestyles and have marginalized their manufacturing and energy bases by voluntarily becoming reliant on other nations for basic goods and energy.

The Ukraine War has revealed the insanity of naïve voluntary dependence on manufactured products and/or natural resources from despotic countries, such as Russia, Iran, and China, who are jointly and clandestinely setting up their own version of autocratic globalism.

These authoritarian nations are openly and single-mindedly pursuing regional and global hegemony while ignoring the edicts and “green” policies of global institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Economic Forum (WEF) as well as the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

The unfathomable level of hypocrisy and naivete of the leaders of these global organizations and the nations who promote them is breathtaking.  They have long believed that dependence upon despotic nations will not only transform them into bastions of “democracy” but also into being reliable trading partners that would bow at the altar of environmentalism and never do what the global elites are in essence are doing — extorting or intimidating other nations for political gain. 

In reality, as it has been for the entirety of human history, megalomaniacal authoritarians and dictators are inevitably emboldened to believe that dependence so marginalizes the dependent that they will cower in the face of naked aggression and meekly acquiesce to any demands.  More often than not this tactic has been overwhelmingly successful.

Beginning in 2000 much of Europe and in particular, Germany, gradually succumbed to the siren song of radical environmentalism and the elimination of fossil fuels.  In 2011 Germany decided to phase out the coal-burning plants that generated 50% of their electrical needs, close all 26 of its nuclear plants that generated over 35% of their electrical needs, and depend on unreliable renewables and natural gas from Russia.  Other European countries followed suit in buying virtually all their oil and natural gas from Russia. 

Eleven years later, Putin was sufficiently emboldened to invade Ukraine because he thought, based on the lack of any substantive European response in 2014 to his illegal occupation of Crimea (reminiscent of Hitler’s illegal occupation of the Rhineland in 1936), there would be little pushback from the European countries.  He was convinced that they would be easily intimidated, in particular Germany, due to their dependence on Russian oil and gas. 

Further, he believed that the United States, because of its feckless left-wing leadership, obsession with a radical green agenda, and drastic and deliberate diminution of its fossil fuel production, would not commit to crippling sanctions or substantially arm and logistically support the Ukrainians prior to any military incursion by Russia.

The invasion of Ukraine is the bitter fruit of radical environmentalism and 21st Century Globalism.  While Putin may have been obsessed with reconstituting the old Russian empire and marginalizing NATO, he would not have undertaken military action if his potential European adversaries had not deliberately derogated and compromised themselves.  After all, the combined annual GDP of the European Union ($16.2 Trillion) is ten times greater than Russia’s ($1.6 Trillion), and its population is nearly three times larger.

China, Russia’s partner in the new axis of evil, is thumbing its nose at these same “woke” global institutions, as they are planning to build 43 new coal-fired plants this year, they have reneged on previous commitments to cut carbon emissions by 2030, and have entered into a long-term agreement to import vast quantities oil and gas from Russia. 

Confident in their status as the manufacturer to the world, a status the United States foolishly surrendered in the 1990s, China is no longer concealing its determination to annex, by military action, if necessary, Taiwan.  As Xi Jinping like Putin believes far too many nations are so dependent upon products that China manufactures as well as their financial clout that these nations, in particular the United States, can be easily cowed and will not militarily or financially contest any takeover.

The United States can, in fact, be easily intimidated, as the agendas of the globalists and the agenda of the American left, which now controls the Democrat party and thus the corridors of power in Washington, grow increasingly intertwined. 

  1. The globalists want to dismantle traditional Western societies and institutions; so does the American left. 
  2. Globalists want to dictate economic growth and policies through carbon control and climate change fear-mongering; so does the American left. 
  3. Globalists want to effectively eliminate private property and replace it with communal property; so does the American left. 
  4. Globalists are determined to control the world banking system and institute arbitrary parameters to finance corporations and governments; so is the American left.
  5. Globalists have allied themselves with like-minded major multinational corporations to promote censorship and global governance; so has the American left.
  6. The globalists want to transform the world through global “inclusivity,” aggressive “sustainability” and racial and gender “equity”; so does the American left.

Globalism in the 19th and early 20th century, with its emphasis on government within a nation getting out of the way and promoting the freedom to innovate, trade, and associate freely with others, brought about wealth and liberal democracy throughout the world.  On the other hand, 21st Century Globalism is about control, rules, central planning, coercion, and dependence —  which spawns poverty, societal upheaval, the unleashing of authoritarianism, and inevitable military conflict.  This scenario now playing out in Ukraine.


Rolling Stone: How ousted CNN execs acted like Gov. Cuomo’s publicist

JOHN SEXTON Mar 11, 2022 at HotAir:


AP Photo/Ron Harris

Some of this has been relayed before but Rolling Stone spelled out in much more detail how one particular CNN interview with Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2020 was helped along by his former publicist Allison Gollust.

On the rainy morning of March 28, 2020, President Trump addressed a phalanx of journalists outside the White House following a call with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. “There’s a possibility that sometime today, we’ll do a quarantine — short-term, two weeks — of New York, probably New Jersey, and certain parts of Connecticut,” he said while clutching his umbrella. “This would be an enforceable quarantine. You know, I’d rather not do it, but we may need it.”

Hours later, Cuomo was asked during his daily press conference about Trump’s comments. “From a medical point of view, I don’t know what you’d be accomplishing,” he offered with a shrug.

But as sunset approached, the governor appeared on CNN with a much more forceful assessment, predicting that a quarantine would unleash “chaos and mayhem” in the tristate area, and homing in on the financial implications of such a move. “I think it would paralyze the economy,” he said. “I think it would shock the economic markets in a way we’ve never seen before.”

How Cuomo got a 2nd bite at this apple is a story that involved Allison Gollust working behind the scenes to coordinate Cuomo’s appearance with a possible assist from Jeff Zucker. Zucker denies having spoken to Cuomo prior to the appearance but we know from text messages that Cuomo asked to speak to him.

In the hours between Cuomo’s Albany press conference and his CNN dinner-hour appearance, he corresponded directly with CNN leadership. Firing off a text to the network’s top marketing and communications executive, Allison Gollust — who had also been his own publicist a few years prior — Cuomo wrote, in an apparent reference to CNN President Jeff Zucker, “Ask Jeff to call me plz.” Zucker’s representatives say he has “no record” of speaking to Cuomo that day. Regardless, Cuomo landed on a talking point sure to grab Trump’s attention. And Zucker certainly knew exactly which levers to pull when it came to the president, given their long and lucrative relationship via the reality show The Apprentice.

About 30 minutes before Cuomo appeared on CNN by remote feed, Gollust emailed a programing staffer, cc’ing Zucker, and offered the governor as a last-minute guest to talk about Trump’s proposed quarantine. She then told Zucker that the governor would like to speak with him. When the segment ended, Gollust texted Cuomo: “Well done . . . Cuomo-W. Trump-L.”…

When a rumor circulated that Trump was about to shut down New York City, Gollust invited the governor to come on CNN’s New Day the next morning and “squash it.” She quipped to her former boss, “I’m pretty sure I stopped being your publicist 8 years ago, but apparently I still am.”

The NY Times reported last month that Gollust passed along the specific topics Cuomo wanted to be asked about. That Times report was apparently about the same CNN interview described above:

On a Saturday in March 2020, as Covid-19 was invading the United States, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo went on CNN for a live interview. Among other topics, he was asked about a possible government-enforced quarantine of New York that had been floated by President Donald J. Trump…

Before the interview, Governor Cuomo had told a senior CNN executive, Allison Gollust, about subjects that he’d like to be asked about on air, according to several people familiar with the matter. Ms. Gollust, CNN’s longtime chief of communications and marketing and a former top aide of the governor, passed along the topics to CNN producers and then reported back to the governor.

“Done,” she wrote…

The Cravath lawyers reviewed broadcast transcripts that showed that the anchor asked about the subjects that Ms. Gollust had put forward, the people said.

So what’s happening here is Cuomo is getting a big boost to his growing reputation as the hero of the pandemic through some connections at CNN. They are passing on Cuomo’s preferred topics and patting him on the back for notching a media win over President Trump. And maybe it’s even worse than that because maybe Zucker and Cuomo did talk and strategize Cuomo’s talking points prior to the appearance.

A spokesperson for Gollust and Zucker denied “laundering advice” to Gov. Cuomo but Rolling Stone, which had 36 sources for the story, reports observers inside and outside the network think this smells to high heaven.

To observers both outside and inside CNN, the network brass’s interactions with the governor represented the worst kind of journalistic lapse — “one of the most clear-cut ethical breaches you could think of,” says University of Missouri journalism professor Ryan Thomas. News outlets are supposed to expose the wrongdoings of politicians, not serve as their publicists…

“It was clear that she leveraged the relationship [with Andrew Cuomo],” says the Democratic operative. “There was a consistent exchange of favors between them.”

There’s a lot more to the Rolling Stone story including Zucker’s relationship with Matt Lauer and with Trump himself. But the portion about his and Gollust’s interactions with Cuomo are clearly indefensible. It makes me wonder what more Chris Cuomo might have had to say about it if Zucker and Gollust hadn’t been fired.

Note by Glenn: Happened to check out the quality of news at CORRUPT NEWS CNN yesterday, and it had faded for more than an hour….News was civil, believable, truthful in its message and without clowns and fascists! It seemed to be returning to our America the Beautiful again.

Hero Of The Century Told To Surrender!?

Israeli prime minister to Zelensky: Surrender

ALLAHPUNDIT Mar 11, 2022

Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP

“If I were you, I would think about the lives of my people and take [Putin’s] offer,” Naftali Bennett reportedly told the Ukrainian president in a phone call today. If anyone should be able to sympathize with a small country determined to resist the bloodthirsty irredentists across its border, one would think the prime minister of Israel should.

“A fascist aggressor invaded a sovereign nation and is running a propaganda campaign to ‘denazify,’ and Israel’s PM told the Jewish president ‘yeah you should just give the fascists what they want,’” a Twitter pal sniffed at the news of the call.

The claim that Bennett urged Zelensky to capitulate comes from sources on the Ukrainian side speaking to the Israeli press. Bennett’s office denies it, insisting that he couldn’t have urged Zelensky to accept Russia’s offer since he doesn’t know what Russia’s offer is. But we all know what Russia’s offer is; Putin’s spokesman announced it four days ago. The Kremlin wants Ukraine to relinquish its claims to Crimea and the Donbas and to formally adopt neutrality with respect to Russia, i.e. pledge not to join NATO.

Not just yet, say the Ukrainians.

The source claimed that the phone call was initiated by Bennett. “If I were you, I would think about the lives of my people and take the offer,” Bennett reportedly said.

Zelenksy’s response was short. “I hear you,” he said.

According to the report, Zelenksy and his people did not like the advice.

“Bennett told us to surrender,” said the official. “We have no intention of doing so. We know Putin’s offer is only the beginning.”

Land for peace, Ukrainian style?

Zelensky has been unhappy with Israel’s neutrality on the war since the start. Bennett was thrust into the role of mediator because Israel has good relations with both Russia and Ukraine, each of which has a large Jewish population. European powers hoped he could leverage those relations to bring the two sides together for talks but Zelensky appears to resent that Israel hasn’t supported Ukraine as ardently as most western nations have. “I saw a beautiful picture today. Jews wrapped in Ukrainian flags by the Western Wall in Jerusalem. They prayed and I thank them for it,” he said last week before adding, “I don’t feel the Israeli prime minister has wrapped himself in the Ukrainian flag.”

Specifically, the Ukrainians believe Bennett is using his status as a mediator as an excuse to avoid taking sides by supplying Ukraine with weapons, something figures like Emmanuel Macron have been willing to do despite their own efforts to mediate with Putin. They’ve also grumbled that Bennett isn’t proactively “mediating” so much as he’s just passing messages back and forth between Russia and Ukraine. One important difference between Israel and, say, France, however, is that Israel has Russian forces across its own border in Syria and would be loathe to antagonize Moscow knowing the trouble that could be made. So they’ve tried to walk a fine line diplomatically, declining to endorse the UN Security Council’s resolution condemning Russia’s war on February 25 but then joining the condemnation of the General Assembly on March 2.

The problem with Bennett’s request at this stage of the war is simple, actually: Zelensky and his country aren’t sure yet that they’re going to lose.


They’re probably going to lose, and even “victory” would involve many more Ukrainian deaths. But there’s a scenario out there in which Russia’s army just can’t keep functioning in the field for much longer due to meager funding, poor tactics and training, and shocking logistical snafus. The fact that Moscow is already hunting for foreign reinforcements when we’re all of two weeks into this augurs poorly for Russia’s staying power:

In late February, [the Russian-backed mercenary] Wagner group appeared to be gunning for a surge in hiring in an attempt to bring in more mercenaries to help Russian forces invade Ukraine, Vera Mironova, a Russian-American academic and visiting Research Fellow at Harvard University, told The Daily Beast.

The mad dash to recruit for Wagner is just the latest sign Russia is reaching a point of desperation, lacking the manpower it needs to run its invasion in Ukraine, Mironova said.

“That’s how in a predicament their resources are,” Mironova, who is on the ground in Kyiv, told The Daily Beast. “It means that Russia is running out of troops to fight. They are basically getting everybody they can get possibly.”

Given the state of play, it’s understandable that Zelensky wants to hold out a bit longer and give western sanctions a chance to bleed Russia’s military dry. And simply on a human level, it’s far more rewarding to be the national hero leading the people in a glorious resistance than the politician who has to sign away some measure of Ukrainian sovereignty in the interest of peace. Michael Brendan Dougherty compares Zelensky’s predicament to that of the Irish nationalist Michael Collins, who grudgingly supported a treaty with the British and ultimately paid for it with his life: “Like Collins, Zelensky will move very quickly from being the man who stood up to Vladimir Putin to the man who negotiated with him — who signed what was presented to him, or faced being responsible for yet more ‘immediate and terrible war.’”

The time for earnest negotiation is coming. But not just yet.

Our Veep’s Head and Mouth Reached Poland?

MARCH 11, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine


The Biden administration called on the talents of Vice President Kamala Harris to work their wonders in the Ukraine crisis. What were the parties responsible for her mission to Poland President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw yesterday “thinking”? I’ll have to circle back to you on that.

Harris responded with a bout of fake laughter when asked about Ukrainian refugees (video below). The New York Post quotes the comment of Iulia Mendel, a former spokesman for Ukraine President Zelensky: “It would be a tragedy if this woman won the presidency.” The post adds that Mendel later deleted the post. I would only add this comment of my own. It is a tragedy that Joe Biden won the presidency.


The White House has posted a corrected transcript of the press conference here. Harris located her press conference in terms of Poland’s geographical position in NATO (video below). As the gentlemen of Firesign Theater might ask, how can you be on two flanks at once when you’re not anywhere at all?. The Daily Caller does not explore that particular question in its story here. What is at stake here?

KAMALA HARRIS: “I am here, standing here on the northern flank, on the eastern flank, talking about what we have in terms of the eastern flank and our NATO allies, and what is at stake at this very moment, what is at stake this very moment are some of the guiding principles…”

Has Anything Changed In Our American Air In The Past Three Years?

February 04, 2019:

Dennis Prager was at his best today.   So often he is an advertiser selling his treasures and “ointments”…and I love to hear them.   Same voice, same tones, same words, same levels of selling the more pleasant parts of today contemporary conservatism with pleasant musical tones.

Verbal trumpets, tubas, and drums were his vocal instruments of American social, political, and religious combat today.   Even when he loses his cool, Dennis Prager remains rational.   The score reminded me of the first day I found him on radio when he was so accurately dressing (down)  the shallow,  crooked, sleazy, slippery political phony, Vietnam war playboy, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, early November, 2004.

Today’s America is in deep trouble.  It’s leftist evil is at war with Honesty and honesty’s Truth seems to be losing.   The once honorable Democrat Party has been overwhelmed by the left’s fascists, the fascists who now own the American university, the American schools, the American newspapers,  from the Atlantic to the Pacific with rare exception.

Although our American Christian community voted 70% for their American Presidential hero, freedom  saving, Donald J. Trump in 2016, there are still large numbers of  parishes, synods, sects of this once freedom loving  Godfearing nation who  advance the horrors of fascism.

Dennis is scheduled to speak at the University of California at Irvine tomorrow evening stirring the hanky pank  leftists who rule the school and grounds there.  It is  commonplace in today’s Hillary-Barrack fascist-conned  university America from coast to coast to play games to cripple the crowds of any Americans who still believe in  freedom  the American way.

The program moved to review goings on at Grand Canyon University….a fascistic college advertising its kind of leftier Christianity, one which had just kicked young conservative truth man, Ben Shapiro, a still young, persuasive, polished mile-per-minute speaker off the speakers’ list.  Nothing quite like leftist Christian groups  showing tolerance these days.

The current lefty white Democrat Governor of Virginia is being attacked by current Virginia state Democrats of many shapes and colors,  not for other political mischief  he’s caused recently, but  something untoward he did thirty years ago starring vulgarly as a white racist  in a college picture.   Today’s Democrats there and around are screaming, even drooling at the mouth for vengeance……. in order to win votes, of course.

Leftism always stretches its beliefs and work from  the devious to the evil. Its major followers have no respect for Truth, no energy to seek Truth, because they are so clever in the deceit they sell.

What’s Going On Here? UP or DOWN?

Hmmm: EU calls for “pause” in Iran nuclear talks over … “external factors”

ED MORRISSEY Mar 11, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

Which “external factors” might have spooked the European Union from the return of the Iran deal they pushed over the last five years? Vladimir Putin certainly counts among them. But does Joe Biden as well?

Whatever the cause, the sudden stop in momentum toward an agreement came as a surprise:

The European Union foreign policy chief has said that talks in Vienna to resurrect the 2015 nuclear accord between Iran and global powers should be paused because of “external factors”.

“A pause in #ViennaTalks is needed, due to external factors,” said Josep Borrell on Twitter on Friday at the end of a week in which western officials had hoped a deal would be announced. The Islamic republic has been in indirect talks with the US, brokered by the EU, for the past 11 months.

“A final text is essentially ready and on the table,” added Borrell. “As coordinator, I will, with my team, continue to be in touch with all . . . participants and the US to overcome the current situation and to close the agreement.”

The fact that this pause came out of the EU seems rather significant, especially since it looked as though Biden and his team were sprinting toward a complete capitulation. Former State Department official Gabriel Noronha has tried to get Congress involved by publishing leaks from within the negotiations passed along by his career contacts at Foggy Bottom in an effort to stall the surrender. It was going so well for Russia, Iran, and China that Putin’s interlocutor openly bragged about it last week to reporters:


“Iran got much more than it could expect. Much more … Our Chinese friends were also very efficient and useful as co-negotiators.”

Remarkably, though, the EU didn’t balk at Ulyanov’s brag. Instead, the issue is likely Sergei Lavrov’s eleventh-hour demand that the new Iran deal allow Russia to sell and purchase oil through Tehran. At that, the EU and the US finally said nyet:

Eleven months of talks to restore the deal which lifted sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on its nuclear programme have reached their final stages.

But last Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov unexpectedly demanded sweeping guarantees that Russian trade with Iran would not be affected by sanctions imposed on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine – a demand Western powers say is unacceptable and Washington has insisted it will not agree to. …

Tehran on Thursday suggested there were new obstacles to reviving the deal. Washington underlined that it had no intention of accommodating Russia’s demands, which it has said have nothing to do with the Iran talks.

Why did Lavrov toss this wrench into the works at the last minute? Putin likely foresaw oil-related sanctions coming down the pike at some point and thought the Iran deal would be too valuable to scuttle for the EU and Biden. Instead, the West started to squeeze on oil, albeit incrementally at first, and made it clear that it wouldn’t provide Russia with an escape valve even to get the really bad deal with Iran that Western nations want for some reason.

However, one has to wonder whether the EU might have lost some confidence in Biden’s negotiating team after the Ulyanov brag a week ago. Robert Malley leads the US team, a notoriously anti-Israel figure that has circled around Democratic administrations since the 1990s. Alert readers will recall that Barack Obama had to fire Malley from the 2008 campaign after his meetings with Hamas came to light, only to formally rehire him in 2014 to handle Middle East relations … including, presumably, the negotiations that led to the first Iran deal in 2015. And we already know that Malley’s work on this deal had produced not just no results before now but also a resignation in apparent protest to Malley’s approach to the Iranians in 2021.

The EU wants trade with Iran, but they don’t want a nuclear Iran as a result. One has to wonder whether the US might have already given away too much. Scratch that — Noronha’s contacts already establish that point. The question is whether it’s too much even for the EU to swallow — and whether they’re worried that Biden’s desperate enough for the Iran deal that he might capitulate on Russia’s sanctions evasion as well as Iran’s.