• 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

What If The Damage Done In The Ukraine IS OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS Caused By The Russian Fascists?

Is Ukraine winning? And are people afraid to say so?

ALLAHPUNDIT Mar 21, 2022 at HotAir: 

AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky

Eliot Cohen is right that westerners are reluctant to jinx the Ukrainians by projecting victory but it’s not because “we have become accustomed over the past 20 years to think of our side as being stymied, ineffective, or incompetent,” as he says. It’s true after Afghanistan and Iraq that Americans have come to treat stalemate as the best-case scenario in war, but disappointment over a stalemate isn’t why people are being cautious about Ukraine. No one expected the Ukrainians to impose their will on a larger, supposedly superior Russian force, after all. Because they’re fighting defensively, on their own land, stymieing the Russians in a war of attrition was the most the world could have hoped for. They’ve achieved that, against all odds. Even Mariupol, battered and starved, has yet to fall. No one but no one thinks they’ve been “ineffective or incompetent.”

The reason it’s difficult to believe that Ukraine is “winning” is that this war will almost certainly end with Zelensky making concessions to Putin, including territorial concessions. Ukraine “wins” only if Putin gets nothing, or at least nothing more than vaporous rhetorical promises. For instance, Ukraine might pledge not to join NATO. And so what if they do? They weren’t going to join NATO anyway. If their consolation prize for being excluded from NATO are NATO-esque security guarantees from western powers that prevent Russia from ever trying this again, they’ll have improved their position from before the war.

The same goes for Russia’s demands for “demilitarization” and “denazification.” If all that means in practice is Ukraine agreeing not to host foreign bases and to formally condemn neo-Nazism, fine. Those concessions are so minor that they’re as embarrassing for Putin as no concessions at all. It’d be like a mugger trying to rob a man, getting his ass kicked, and then the victim shoving a dollar bill in his mouth before leaving him crumpled on the street. The “concession” in that case is more of a humiliation than a reward for bad behavior.

Putin’s going to want more than rhetorical concessions, though, and he’s probably going to get it. The Russians took Khersov weeks ago and they’re inside Mariupol as I write this. The “land bridge” between Crimea and the Donbas is within reach. Once Putin takes Mariupol and demands that Zelensky concede that territory to him, what does Zelensky say?

How does this end without Russia carving off chunks of Ukraine in the south and possibly the east?

Cohen looks on the bright side, at Russian incompetence:

Add to this the repeated tactical blundering visible on videos even to amateurs: vehicles bunched up on roads, no infantry covering the flanks, no closely coordinated artillery fire, no overhead support from helicopters, and panicky reactions to ambushes. The 1-to-1 ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight. Russia’s inability to concentrate its forces on one or two axes of attack, or to take a major city, is striking. So, too, are its massive problems in logistics and maintenance, carefully analyzed by technically qualified observers…

If Russia is engaging in cyberwar, that is not particularly evident. Russia’s electronic-warfare units have not shut down Ukrainian communications. Half a dozen generals have gotten themselves killed either by poor signal security or trying desperately to unstick things on the front lines. And then there are the negative indicators on the other side—no Ukrainian capitulations, no notable panics or unit collapses, and precious few local quislings, while the bigger Russophilic fish, such as the politician Viktor Medvedchuk, are wisely staying quiet or out of the country. And reports have emerged of local Ukrainian counterattacks and Russian withdrawals…

Talk of stalemate obscures the dynamic quality of war. The more you succeed, the more likely you are to succeed; the more you fail, the more likely you are to continue to fail. There is no publicly available evidence of the Russians being able to regroup and resupply on a large scale; there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. If the Ukrainians continue to win, we might see more visible collapses of Russian units and perhaps mass surrenders and desertions. Unfortunately, the Russian military will also frantically double down on the one thing it does well—bombarding towns and killing civilians.

There’s also the small matter of that gory, completely unsustainable Russian death toll.

One way to answer the question “Is Ukraine winning?” is to say, “Actually, they’ve already won.” Russia’s original goal of ousting Zelensky and occupying the country is so far out of reach that they stopped listing it as a demand in negotiations weeks ago. And strategically, the war is a rout. Russia will be much weaker militarily and economically after this is over, maybe for decades to come. It’ll be treated as a pariah as long as Putin rules it. If not for its nuclear arsenal, it wouldn’t even be viewed as a major power going forward. Its future is as a Chinese vassal, however hard it may be for them to admit that.

Ukraine is where the Russian civilization was born and where Russia’s status as a great power will die.

Yet even so, the chances of Ukraine breaking up (temporarily) after the war aren’t zero. One British military strategist told NBC, “It is quite possible that once Mariupol falls, that will release Russian forces from the two republics to either push west to Odesa or indeed push north in an effort to threaten the rear of the Ukrainian forces operating in the Donbass, which would pose the Ukrainian high command with a difficult choice about whether it continued to fight there or whether it seeks to withdraw.” I wrote about that a few days ago. There’s a scenario in which Russia’s army is strong enough to finish off Mariupol, then pushes north and tries to consolidate control of the eastern half of Ukraine.

If Putin sued for peace at that point, offering to withdraw if Zelensky partitions the country and concedes the east to Russia, Zelensky would likely say no. The price for that would be more death rained down on Ukrainians by a Russian military that may be too weak on the ground to advance west but remains ruthless enough to keep firing shells and missiles indefinitely from afar. And sometimes from not so far:

Ukrainian officials said on Sunday that an attack by a Russian tank on a home for the elderly in a town called Kreminna in eastern Ukraine’s Luhansk region had killed 56 people on March 11. The incident was belatedly reported, the authorities said, because fighting had made access impossible.

“They just adjusted the tank, put it in front of the house and started firing,” said Serhiy Haidai, a Ukrainian official overseeing the Luhansk Regional State Administration.

If, in a month, Russia controls most of southern and eastern Ukraine and there’s a mountain of Ukrainian corpses, is that a “win” simply because Ukraine still exists in some form as a sovereign nation? Is it a “win” because there’d still be enough of a Ukrainian identity left that, in five or 10 years’ time, an insurgency supplied by the western half of the country might succeed in ousting the Russians from the east?


Did the true number of Russian troop deaths in Ukraine just leak?

ALLAHPUNDIT Mar 21, 2022 4:01 PM ET

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda

I can’t understand how, or why, a pro-Kremlin paper would publish a number like this. As juicy as it is, surely they would have realized how embarrassing it is for their masters and what sort of consequences there might be for revealing it.

I can’t understand either who would have leaked it, as this information must be closely held.

And frankly, given how incompetent the Russians seem and how indifferent they are to loss of life, I’m surprised they’re keeping a count of their own fallen troops to begin with.

But the figure is shocking if true. In less than a month of war, this would easily exceed the number of U.S. KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan, two conflicts that spanned nearly 30 years combined.



The Red Army lost 15,000 men during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Over 10 years.

As gaudy as the apparently leaked number is, it’s in line with other estimates. Five days ago, sources in U.S. intelligence told the Times they believed 7,000 Russians had been killed — conservatively.

Other estimates circulating are higher:


A former internal affairs minister of #Ukraine @AvakovArsen shared the intercepted Russian military summary for March 18: Rus. Army troops killed 12,814. Private company Liga (former Vagner) troops killed 4,451. Total number ofservicemembers killed at war in Ukraine: 17,265.


That’s not wildly out of line with the number published in Komsomolskaya Pravda. Maybe the Ukrainian figures encompass regular Russian forces plus “separatists” fighting in the Donbas while the KP figures are limited to regular forces only.

If it’s true that 10,000 Russians have been killed and another 16,000 wounded, that’s more than 10 percent of the total force out of action in less than a month, with no obvious prospects for mass reinforcements to fill the manpower vacuum.

According to the WSJ, the fingerpointing inside the Kremlin has begun:

The blame game, which includes the detention of at least one senior Russian intelligence official, doesn’t appear to pose any immediate threat to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s iron grip on power, but the U.S. officials are watching the machinations closely.

A U.S. official described as credible reports that the commander of the FSB intelligence agency’s unit responsible for Ukraine had been placed under house arrest.

The official, in an interview, also said bickering had broken out between the FSB and the Russian Ministry of Defense, two of the principal government units responsible for the preparation of the Feb. 24 invasion.

If the FSB spent the weeks before the invasion promising everyone it’d be a cakewalk and the Ministry of Defense is now looking at 10,000 dead then yeah, I imagine some “bickering” would be in order.

Aghast at the horrendous bloodletting on both sides from Putin’s war of conquest, a dejected Daniel Hannan poses a question today at the Examiner: How can any American patriot support Putin?

But what is it that Trump and his followers see in Putin in the first place? This is where I start to worry. For a Reagan conservative, Putin’s flaws are obvious. He does not respect elections. He believes he can make up the rules as he goes along. He defines some of his people as “traitors” and encourages others to go after them. The sole principle of his foreign policy is Machtpolitik — let the stronger take from the weaker. He has replaced multiparty pluralism with a cult of personality. He can’t tolerate criticism.

Are Trumpsters as repelled by these things as Reaganites? Considering that list in an American context, I wonder. Things have changed since the Gipper’s time. In a polarized age, people are readier to overlook the shortcomings of politicians who specialize in “owning” the other side. Instead of wanting to limit the state as a general principle, modern conservatives are happy to make use of it when it suits their ends. And whereas they used to support candidates who shared their principles, they now tend to shift their principles whenever their champion does.

It’s not just nationalist Republicans. Noah Smith notes that Russia has some apologists on the socialist left as well and wonders how that can be. Why do the fringier elements of America’s two parties, which despite each other, nonetheless manage to find common ground in the unlikely figure of Vladimir Putin? His conclusion is astute: “Both the liberal center-Left and the conservative center-Right are basically committed to upholding the global liberal order. Putin, by invading and attempting to conquer a sovereign state, challenges that order. If Putin succeeds, even modestly, it represents a failure for the U.S. establishment figures who tried to stop him. And establishment failures equal insurgent opportunities. Both the rightists and the leftists here are fighting against the Fukuyaman end-of-history idea that gives their own movements little space to move up.”

Both fringes disdain classical liberalism, believing it to be decadent (for different reasons), and are eager to replace it with a form of authoritarianism which they find agreeable. A Russian win would be another black eye for the liberal democratic Euro-American model that’s prevailed since World War II — i.e. “the west” — and might lead more voters here to turn towards the fringes to restore national prestige. As a classical liberal, Hannan naturally finds that prospect and the spectacle of Americans cheering Putin on to victory distressing. But if the leaked numbers of KIA are accurate, I don’t think he should worry much.

What Per Cent Of International Business Billionaires Are Oafs….72%? 84%? More?

Stefan Halper Was Just Another Hack Who Helped Peddle The Russia-Collusion Hoax

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

MARCH 21, 2022

What Stefan Halper lacked in pedigree, he compensated for with his arsenal of connections that allowed him to whisper into the right ears just what the listener wanted to hear.

Author Margot Cleveland profile


early six years have passed since Hillary Clinton and her cronies launched their plot to frame Donald Trump as a co-conspirator of Russia to distract Americans from Clinton’s scandals. Since then, by bits and pieces, the public has learned of Clinton’s role in peddling the Russia collusion hoax to both the press and intelligence agencies.

While there is still much to uncover, a recent exposé of the man the FBI tapped as the key Confidential Human Source (CHS) in investigating the Trump campaign confirmed Spygate’s method of operation: creating mythical men on whose deceitful shoulders the media and the FBI then stood.

While Stefan Halper’s name and the monikers used to identify him in government reports—“Source 2,” or merely “CHS”—appeared regularly in reporting unraveling the Russia collusion hoax, only lately did Halper’s history undergo a thorough vetting. In a recent article, Real Clear Investigations’ Mark Hemingway traced Halper’s history through archived documents and interviews with associates. He uncovered two themes girding Halper’s parallel careers of government informant and Cambridge academic.

Stefan Halper’s Recipe for Success

From his earliest days in government until his retreat from Cambridge University following his outing as a player in the Russian collusion hoax, Halper advanced his professional persona, decade upon decade, by taking creative license with his credentials and exploiting his connections. Puffery appeared in both Halper’s public biography and resumes reviewed by Real Clear Investigations, leaving unanswered the question of whether Halper ever obtained the Ph.D. he claimed later allowed him to reinvent himself as an academic at Cambridge.

Before then, Halper appeared to muddle through a variety of low-level jobs in the federal government, until the mid-1970s. That’s when Halper’s career received a boost when he married Sibyl Cline, the daughter of the well-respected Ray S. Cline.

The senior Cline, who held top intelligence positions with the federal government since the second world war, reportedly arranged for the Ronald Reagan State Department to hire Halper. During the Reagan administration, Halper became close to, among others, Oliver North, but after the Iran-Contra scandal and some time in banking and D.C. think tanks, Halper transitioned to academia. He became a professor at Cambridge University in 2001, where three years later he would claim a second Ph.D.

In addition to the political and other connections Halper accumulated during his 30 years in the D.C. bubble, once at Cambridge, Halper expanded his network across the Atlantic. Halper became cozy with three other characters who later played roles—some prominent—in the Russia collusion hoax. These included Richard Dearlove, the former chief of the British intelligence service MI6; Christopher Andrew, the official historian for the domestic intelligence agency, MI5; and Christopher Steele, who worked under Dearlove at MI6.

Highly Useful Connections

While at Cambridge, the reinvented Halper leveraged his professorship, profiting to the tune of nearly $1 million by writing research papers of questionable worth for the U.S. Department of Defense. Halper added to his wallet by serving as a CHS for the FBI from 2008 until January 2011, when the FBI dropped him for aggressiveness toward a handling agent over a fee dispute. Two months later, the FBI reopened Halper as a CHS, giving him a stern warning that this was his last opportunity with the bureau.

Beyond these money-making ventures that kept Halper connected with players at the DOD and FBI, the academic apparently stayed close to elite members of the American media, including David Ignatius, the foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Post. According to Steven Schrage, who completed his Cambridge Ph.D. under Halper’s supervision, “Halper knew Ignatius for decades” and “bragged’ that “Ignatius was his press contact.”

Another Cambridge student, the Russian-born U.K. historian Svetlana Lokhova who was later sold as a Russian “honey pot,” likewise connected Halper to Ignatius. Lokhova told The Federalist that in May 2018, shortly after Halper was outed as a CIA and FBI informant, she spoke with Ignatius, and when she “registered surprise about Halper’s role” as a CHS, that prompted Ignatius to say he “always found Halper reliable as a source.”

These connections all later proved key to advancing the Russia collusion hoax, but it was Halper’s role as a Cambridge academic that cemented his insertion into the scandal. As a faculty member at the British university, Halper participated in seminars and conferences, including the mid-July 2016 Cambridge University conference at which Halper first met then-Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

Enter: 2016 Campaign

While initially Halper seemed uninterested in the young Trump advisor, that suddenly changed after Dearlove arrived at the conference and spoke privately with Halper. According to the conference organizer, Halper suddenly “seemed desperately interested in isolating, cornering, and ingratiating himself to Page and promoting him­­­self to the Trump campaign.”

Hillary Clinton surrogate Madeline Albright also attended the conference, serving as a keynote speaker. While there, Albright attended a small, private dinner with Halper. Then, just days after the Cambridge conference ended, Albright proclaimed that “Vladimir Putin wants Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton.” The Clinton booster added that “Russia was likely behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails.”

That Albright began peddling the Russia collusion hoax in late July 2016, not long after leaving Halper’s side, seems suspect given that earlier that month Halper had forecast a similar approach to defeating Trump during a Cambridge lecture series on “the phenomenon which is ‘Trump’s maverick candidacy.’” At the time, Halper told his audience that “the deficits in Clinton’s campaign” left the election “almost too close to call.” “If the media focuses on Clinton, she will lose, whereas if they continue to focus on Trump, he will lose,” Halper predicted.

Worming Into Trump Campaign Connections

Two weeks later, the FBI launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign. Soon after that, Halper’s long-time handler, Stephen Somma, visited Halper at his home to request his assistance. According to Somma, he proposed meeting with Halper because Halper “had been affiliated with national political campaigns since the early 1970s,” while Somma “lacked a basic understanding of simple issues, for example what the role of a ‘foreign policy advisor’ entails.”

During Somma’s August 11, 2016, visit with Halper, the FBI handler asked Halper whether he knew George Papadopoulos, who then was serving as a Trump campaign advisor. Halper didn’t, but agreed to speak with Papadopoulos.

Halper then volunteered that he knew a second foreign policy advisor, Page, and asked whether Somma and his team had any interest in Page. Halper also told Somma he “had known Trump’s then campaign manager, [Paul] Manafort, for a number of years and that he had been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn.”

Halper’s claim to know Flynn proved another unsupported boast. He nonetheless told Somma and the other members of the Crossfire Hurricane team of an “incident” he supposedly witnessed at Cambridge involving Flynn. According to Halper, after Flynn spoke to a small group over dinner and drinks at Cambridge, another attendee, the Russian-born Svetlana Lokhova, “surprised everyone” and jumped in Flynn’s cab, then left with Flynn to London. Halper added that he was “suspicious of Lokhova” because of her Russian connections.

However, contrary to Halper’s tale, Flynn had never met Halper and Halper had not attended the Cambridge gathering at which both Flynn and Lokhova were guests. Halper’s claim that Lokhova left with Flynn also proved false. Nonetheless, press reports later repeated the story and suggested Flynn had been compromised by the unnamed Russian student. Lokhova would later sue Halper for defamation, pinning him as the source of the false reports.

Somma and others, however, seemed unaware of Halper’s fabrication. They couldn’t believe their “luck” that Halper supposedly knew three of the four subjects of Crossfire Hurricane. So, over the ensuing weeks, Halper would wear a wire and question Papadopoulos, Page, and even the co-chair of the Trump campaign, Sam Clovis.

Fabricating an Excuse to Spy on Trump’s Campaign

That Halper could arrange a meeting with one of Trump’s top campaign officials mere months before the November election is a testament to Halper’s 50 years of political schmoozing and ladder climbing—further confirmed when Clovis proceeded to have an unguarded hour-long chat with Halper discussing details about Trump’s strategy to defeat Hillary.

Halper came away from these meetings with nothing of import to the investigation into Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia. Nonetheless, the FBI referenced Halper and portions of his wired conversations with Page in the four FISA applications that resulted in the FBI illegally surveilling Page. Omitted from the FISA applications, however, were comments Page made to Halper that conflicted with portions of the Steele dossier.

While the FBI used only minor details acquired by Halper in the FISA applications, Halper’s cross-continental connections with the intelligence communities, political players, and the press, likely advanced the Russia collusion hoax in ways still fully unknown. This likelihood seems strong when one considers how, when the Spygate scandal began to unravel, the same media that had peddled the Russia collusion hoax began a public relations campaign for the players behind the plot, including Halper.

Running Cover for Spies

At first, the press presented the unidentified Halper as “an American academic” and as “an informant” or “source” whose anonymity had to be preserved to safeguard him. To bolster his credentials, the reporting stressed Halper’s position as a professor, highlighted his longtime work for both the FBI and CIA, and cast him as an informant who “aided the Russia investigation both before and after special counsel Robert S. Mueller III‘s appointment.” Then, in a transparent attempt to paint the still-unnamed Halper as a selflessness patriot, the media focused on the “great risks” informants take “when working for intelligence services.”

After he was outed, the Russia-hoax team continued to highlight Halper’s position as a “Cambridge professor” and long-time CHS to preserve the myth of a respected academic and dedicated and reliable informant. The Washington Post ran a puff piece on Halper soon after his name became public, telling its audience “Halper’s connections to the intelligence world have been present throughout his career and at Cambridge, where he ran an intelligence seminar that brought together past and present intelligence officials.”

The Post continued its gushing profile by highlighting Halper’s collaboration with Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service, and their sponsorship of a “seminar that drew Michael Flynn, then director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,” to attend. Also stressed was Halper’s academic work, with the Post noting that Halper had taught “international affairs and American studies at Cambridge from 2001 until 2015, when he stepped down with the honorary title of emeritus senior fellow of the Centre of International Studies, . . .”

The remainder of the article then unquestioningly parroted much of Halper’s resume, before quoting an unnamed U.S. government official saying of Halper: “He thinks well. He writes critically. And he knows a lot of people whose insights he can tap for us as well.”

However, as Real Clear Investigations revealed in its exposé on Halper, he held neither the academic cachet nor the gravitas a seasoned informant might. But what Halper lacked in pedigree, he compensated for with his arsenal of connections that allowed him to whisper into the right ears just what the listener wanted to hear.

In this respect, Halper proves no different than Steele or Rodney Joffe: They are all mythical men, molded by the Clinton campaign, the media, and those complicit in the government to sell the tale of Trump colluding with Russia. In reality, though, they aren’t the James Bond, Jack Ryan, and Jason Bourne that we were sold—they are the Three Stooges with better agents.


MARCH 21, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern undertook to downplay the disgrace of Yale Law School by disruptive protesters at the Federalist Society free speech event last week. We saluted Professor Kate Stith for instructing the disruptive students protesting the event to “grow up.”

That is a tall order. Judge Laurence Silberman had a good idea to encourage the process of maturation. We noted it in “A word from Judge Silberman.”

Stern attacked the reporting of the Washington Free Beacon’s Aaron Sibarium as overblown. Hot Air’s John Sexton compiled the evidence and performed a comprehensive review in “What really happened at the Yale Law School Protest?” Sexton demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Sibarium was right, Stern wrong.

You might say that Sexton is breaking a butterfly on a wheel, but this is one more skirmish in the culture war. Aided and abetted by the media malpractice and deception that have become an eternal verity, suppression of speech is instrumental to left’s conduct of the war.

I, Glenn Ray, first met Dennis Prager at the MINNESOTA STATE FAIR. I knew the Fair well. I was Director of the Minnesota State Horticultural Society….and ancient state institution older than the state, for a number of years. We always had a big show for gardeners at the Fair…..Eventually I was ‘retired’, and so, went into business devoting myself to LANSCAPING AS A REAL ART FORM.

WHAT A JOY! (AND WHAT A SUCCESS FOR THE BODY AND SOUL!….for I still work at age 87 mostly on my own grounds of one magnificent acre, Summer, Autumn, Winter, AND THAT BEAUTIFUL SPRING!

I met Dennis Prager at the Minnesota State Fair around 2004 or 2005. He talked politics morning and afternoon….Unbelievably, it was Conservative Politics by speech and conversation and NOT THE FASCISTIC SCREWBALL LEFT which was so popular among the noisemakers her in GopherLand.

My company was doing well. A good friend, a GOPer pushed me away from work to attend Prager lectures at the State Fair personally. I think it was 2004 I first met Prager talk at the Fair, because that screwball sleaze John Kerry guy from Massachusetts was leading big time in Minnesota….for the Presidency!

I’d spend six or more hours during five day visits around four years or more annually listening to Prager speech explaining one truth after another which no longer had become popular in freedom-disappearing America anymore!

It’s been wonderful seeing Prager World grow…..and it has never really changed much beyond is wonderful growth OF TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCE FOR YOUR AND MY AMERICA!

(And, I’ll be 88 this coming Summer and still garden my acre of beauty here in Fascist Dem land, Minnesota!)

WOW! New York Times Discovering Honesty Over Crooked Joe?

March 20, 2022

The New York Times Signals the End of Biden’s Road

By Clarice Feldman at American Thinker:

In October 2020, prior to the election, Hunter Biden’s laptop was left unclaimed at a repair shop and turned over to the FBI. Yaacov Apelbaum has covered at length the Biden family corruption, their crooked international dealingspornographic images of Hunter and others, evidence of Hunter’s drug use, and the coverup of his and the Biden family’s corruption which he found on the laptop and elsewhere on the internet. (Warning, images in these reports are not for the faint-hearted.)

The New York Post, without all these sordid details and photographs, reported the story in that same month before the election. But in the face of widespread denial, the story got little coverage. It is only now almost two years later, that the New York Times confirms that the Post’s reporting on the laptop was accurate. 

A comprehensive report about the ongoing federal probe into Hunter Biden’s tax filings published by the New York Times on Wednesday night confirmed the existence of the first son’s infamous laptop.

In October 2020, The Post exclusively reported on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop that he ditched at a Delaware repair shop in April 2019.

The laptop’s hard drive contained a trove of emails, text messages, photos and financial documents between Hunter Biden, his family and business associates — detailing how the president’s son used his political leverage in his overseas business dealings.

The repair shop owner reported the laptop to the FBI, which seized the device and its hard drive. 

As part of their investigation into Hunter Biden, the Times reports, federal prosecutors have looked into emails between the first son and his former business associates that were recovered from the laptop.

Emma-Jo Morris the author of the Post report tweeted:

“Just to clarify: the New York Times did not ‘confirm’ my reporting on the laptop from hell. They did not add any new information speaking to its authenticity. All they did was ADMIT that it was legit. That is not a minor distinction.”

No, it isn’t minor. There was ample evidence the report was accurate, as Apelbaum’s reporting all that month demonstrated.

It is hard to imagine how the Times justifies hiding from its readers news this important which clearly would have affected the election.

Its refusal to cover this allowed Joe Biden to get away with brushing off the story without dealing with its serious evidence of incredible family corruption of every sort imaginable.

Brush offs like this when a brave reporter asked about the laptop:

Joe Biden looked away and laughed.

“God love ya man, you’re a one horse pony,” he told the reporter while walking away.

“I promise my Justice Department will be totally on its own making these judgments about how they should proceed,” he added.

Joe Biden oversees the Justice Department, the agency in charge of rooting out corruption – even at the highest levels.

It was not only the NYT, and media figures like Leslie Stahl and Brian Stelter who discounted the report about Hunter’s laptop. Fifty former senior intelligence officials suggested the report was Russian disinformation   

On Wednesday, when the New York Times acknowledged the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop, it struck a blow to Biden and his Democrat lieutenants who have claimed for years the laptop is Russian disinformation.

Biden’s spokesperson, Jen Psaki, is still clinging to Biden’s baseless defense:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday dodged two questions about Hunter Biden’s laptop after the New York Times confirmed the laptop from hell is in fact real. The New York Times finally admitted that Hunter Biden’s laptop is real…. Two White House reporters confronted Psaki about Hunter Biden’s laptop on Thursday and her previous claims it was Russian disinformation. Psaki looked visibly irritated and refused to answer any questions. The president previously said that the [Hunter Biden laptop scandal] was a bunch of garbage and that it was a Russian plant. Does he stand by that assessment?

C’mon man. They gotcha. Almost two years too late, but you can’t continue to hide this. Game’s up.

I can’t disagree with wretchardthecat who apropos tweeted: “The difference between a conspiracy theory and ‘so it happened, get over it’ is about six months.”

Well, that seems to be the Clinton-Obama-Biden playbook for what you do when the evidence of your wrongdoing has finally made its way through the layers of disinformation and media coverup.

I don’t think that will work this time. For one thing, there does seem to be some kind of ongoing federal investigation in which at least Devon Archer, Hunter’s close business associate, was sentenced for defrauding an Indian tribe. And that investigation seems to involve Hunter’s dealings:  

WASHINGTON — In the year after he disclosed a federal investigation into his “tax affairs” in late 2020, President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, paid off a significant tax liability, even as a grand jury continued to gather evidence in a wide-ranging examination of his international business dealings, according to people familiar with the case.[snip]

But Mr. Biden’s taxes are just one element of the broader investigation stemming from work he did around the world. Hunter Biden is a Yale-educated lawyer; his professional life has intersected with his father’s public service, including working as a registered lobbyist for domestic interests and, while his father was vice president, pursuing deals and clients in Asia and Europe.

As recently as last month, the federal grand jury heard testimony in Wilmington, Del., from two witnesses, one of whom was a former employee of Hunter Biden whose lawyer was later subpoenaed for financial records that reflected money Mr. Biden received from a Ukrainian energy company.

Investigators have examined Mr. Biden’s relationships with interests in Kazakhstan, a Chinese energy conglomerate and Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, according to people familiar with the investigation.

They said prosecutors had investigated payments and gifts Mr. Biden or his associates had received from foreign interests, including a vehicle paid for using funds from a company associated with a Kazakh oligarch and a diamond from a Chinese energy tycoon. Prosecutors also sought documents related to corporate entities through which Mr. Biden and his associates conducted business with interests around the world.

I’m inclined to endorse this Facebook post of Michael Walsh:

It’s important for you civilians to know how to read the secret messages encoded in Pravda’s “news” stories. Its admission that — surprise!! — the Hunter Biden laptop stories were all, of course, true is a signal to Dems that the Big Guy is now expendable.

This certainly would be a convenient time to give Joe Biden the hook, as he’s so far underwater he’s dragging the whole party down with him, and a predicted dire assessment of his party’s chances in the midterms seems widespread. If the charges against Hunter are filed, his father is inextricably involved in the foreign payoffs, and a majority Republican Congress in the coming term could well institute impeachment proceedings. So why not have his own party usher him out the door first to signal their togas are clean?

Let’s Pray For President Trump To Win Again in 2024!

Why not Trump in 2024?

by ROGER KIMBALL Mar 20, 2022 at HotAir:

All this brings me back to the adamantine animus against Trump. Charlie says that Trump refused to accept and later tried to “overturn” the results of the 2020 election. My own feeling is that the more we learn about the 2020 election, the more understandable Trump’s unhappiness is. The same goes for the January 6 protest: it was not an effort to “overturn” the election; it was a protest against the many irregularities that tainted the election — a protest, by the way, in which the FBI and other government agencies seemed to have played an important role, just as they did in the farcical Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot…

That said, I would eagerly support Trump should he be the nominee. Why? Three reasons. One, I agree with almost every particular of his platform and believe, from his performance the first time around, that he would continue to deliver peace and prosperity for the American people. I just hope that he has a more loyal team and fewer snakes in the civil service. Two, I think Trump would win: he has tens of millions of avid supporters. Three, it would infuriate the cadre of Never Trumpers, on the well-pressed right as well as the left, and that is a spectacle that would be worth the price of admission.

The prospect of that spectacle brings me back to the puzzlement I mentioned earlier: why the unstoppable animus against Trump? I do not believe it is because people think he is a man of “bad character” or that he issued mean tweets or that he is “divisive.” Such things are mere placeholders. I used to say that the main objection to Trump is “aesthetic,” by which term I meant to encompass his unconventional style and unclubbableness. If Nancy Mitford were writing about Donald Trump, she would certainly describe him as “Non-U.” It’s a matter of class.

How’s Biden’s Invasion Crossing The Rio Grande DOING FOR HIS “RE-ELECTION” IN 2024?

MARCH 21, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at PowerLine:


The Wall Street Journal is out this morning with a long feature about out-of-control crime in San Francisco. It is no longer possible to obfuscate the problem.

Terry Asten Bennett’s family has been running Cliff’s Variety Store since 1936. In all that time, they’ve never experienced the amount of burglaries and property damage that they have recently, Ms. Bennett said.

Thieves smashed a display window and broke down a door to steal items as small as spray paint, and people shattered glass doors on two occasions for no apparent reason.

“These last two years have been insane,” she said. “It used to be a rare occurrence.” . .

Among the 25 largest U.S. cities, San Francisco has had the highest property-crime rate in four of the most recent six years for which data is available, bucking the long-term national decline in such crimes that began in the 1990s. . .

What’s behind this scene? Maybe there’s a clue here:

Despite the city’s long history of progressive politics, some business owners and residents are demanding that political leaders shift to a more law-and-order approach. . .

How about “because of the city’s long history of progressive politics”? There—fixed it for them.

Another clue here:

Some former police officials and business owners blame Mr. Boudin’s focus on keeping people who commit small-scale crimes out of prison. His office, for example, discourages filing charges in cases where suspects are pulled over for traffic infractions and officers find small amounts of drugs. Others point the finger at the police, who cleared just 6% of the city’s property crimes in 2020, more than 8 percentage points lower than the national average. A case is considered cleared if a suspect is arrested, charged and turned over to a court for prosecution, or is identified with sufficient evidence for a charge but can’t be taken into custody for circumstances beyond police control.

Criminology isn’t rocket science. You’d think that a place that has become the playground for the tech-savvy would figure this out sooner or later. Actually, the ones who are figuring it out are leaving the city in droves.


March 19, 2022

Why Don’t American Cities Deserve the Same Care as Ukraine?

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

Of course, Russia’s “special military action,” otherwise known as an invasion of Ukraine, is a humanitarian catastrophe. Photo-journo accounts of hospitals suffering rocket attacks, civilians slaughtered by bomb bursts and sweeps of gunfire,  apartment buildings, entire neighborhoods obliterated, are indeed horrific. Some two million refugees pouring into Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia add to the despondent emotions.

While the spreading incineration in Ukraine is impossible to ignore, neither should be conditions in American cities. The scenes of ravaged American inner cities, with entire sections of cities burned out, abandoned, and derelict, are no less war zones than what we see in Ukraine.

Minneapolis after the George Floyd riots (YouTube screengrab)

US citizen civilians — having no option except to live in rat-infested hellholes, cold water, no heat, toilets that don’t flush, rotted rafters, crumbling walls, sinking foundations, faring no better than war-torn Ukrainians — are unable to escape from disgusting conditions in tenement buildings awaiting safety and health inspectors who never arrive, or firefighters, bulldozer and wrecking ball operators who won’t work in those neighborhoods without a Kevlar vest.

When is the last time you saw photos of hollowed-out towns from western NY, through Pennsylvania, western Maryland, West Virginia, southeast Ohio, East Chicago, Gary, Indiana? Have you driven through urban battle zones from the Bronx to Philadelphia, to Baltimore, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, Los Angeles, and now Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis?

You could interchange photos of those American cities almost indistinguishable from scenes in Kyiv to Kharkiv to Mariupol.  Accompanying the American city images of burned out, dilapidated buildings, and boarded up storefronts are the drug dealing gang lord gunfights, a pandemic of opioid deaths, routine and ubiquitous assaults and killings of innocent everyday American citizens — the elderly ladies just walking across the street, elementary-age boys and girls just hop-skipping home from school, hardscrabble neighborhood shopkeepers just changing the sign on a crate of potatoes — who are refugees in America with no place to go, having no one in the Democrat party, nor Republican establishment who give a damn.

At least Ukrainian refugees have someplace to go. Where are inner-city refugees in America going to find relief? The Democrats are happy to spend billions on resettling millions of illegal aliens, but not one dime in helping inner-city captives escape gunfire, piles of garbage and rubble, with homeless camps everywhere as junkies on the street outnumber cops 100 to 1, and Marxist district attorneys prosecute political opponents while giving celebrity treatment to career arsonists, rapists, child molesters, and cold-blooded killers.

Meanwhile, the Democrats and enabling RINOs — Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Lindsey Graham– cheered on by establishment media, spend billions in aid to Ukraine, pursue reckless economic warfare against the Russian people, propose military provocations against Putin quite smugly displaying their cosmopolitan virtue signaling, expecting working-class Americans who have been neither consulted nor given their consent to sacrifice their meager minimal living conditions. All for Joe Biden & Co to change the subject, after imposing upon our own dispossessed the most wretched economic conditions since the 1930s.

Equally outrageous is the preening about as our warmongers gleefully punish Russian oligarchs, while conveniently collaborating with American kleptocrats enriching themselves and their families.

We know who they are: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and his acolytes, Joe Biden & Co, the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, John Kerry, Al Gore, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Fink of Blackrock, and the Great Reset globalist titans led by Davos’s Klaus Schwab.

These are the corrupt Western plutocrats who slash and plunder, line their own pockets, are in league with totalitarians from Latin America, to China, to Eurasia, to the Middle East, addicted to private security protected black Chevy Tahoe SUV car service, and Martha’s Vineyard/Nantucket/Hamptons compounds with bodyguards, groomed croquet lawns, sculpted terraces, and umbrella-covered boardwalks to the private beach.

Meanwhile, regular American Marys and Joes fare slightly better than medieval serfs under Democrat promises of deliverance from poverty into government-financed prosperity, but in actuality are consigned to a hopeless brutal subsistence.

All while the NBA, NBC, Disney, Apple, Coca-Cola, Nike, Starbucks, Facebook, Big Pharma, manufacturers of appliances, electrical/electronic goods, and everyday staples rake in billions in blood money from collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party whose spoils are made possible by enslaving millions of Chinese people.

Major Wall Street investment bankers and corporate CEOs are then rewarded with eight-figure bonuses, and even more grotesque retirement packages by outsourcing industrial and hi-tech jobs to China, promoting open borders in the US as immigrants  — legal and illegal from software developers to landscape laborers —  undermining jobs and wages for US inner-city citizens, and debt-ridden millennial dropouts, especially working class low wage workers, throughout the Democrat party occupied ruins right here at home.

If we have a moral obligation to fix Ukraine, punish the Russian invaders and profiteers, then under a Kantian moral categorical imperative — where a moral response is unconditional and universal– we must also fix American cities, rescue and offer hope to law-abiding, innocent American citizens who live here, while demanding prosecution of and reparations from the American profiteering ruling class.

 Life is tough. Disasters happen.  Not every infirmity can be remedied. The world is dualistic. Profundities and banalities coexist. Not every mess gets noticed, much less cleaned up, nor does it deserve a resolution.

Responses to catastrophic events are not always moral categorical imperatives; they are mostly contingent. A moral contingency implies a choice, a causation/consequence that can be freely selected, or by-passed.

But if rescuing Ukraine, and punishing Russia, is to be a moral imperative — an unconditional duty — the US warmongers are logically obliged to address the killing fields right here in American cities and towns.

Otherwise, US warmongers are deliberately forsaking their own people, and mocking their own self-righteousness by denying a moral imperative that is unconditionally universal. And so, US warmongers, and their global quislings, forfeit any claim to be a moral people, thus can never be redeemed nor forgiven.

Remember That Evil IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

SpyGate 101: A Primer On The Russia Collusion Hoax’s Years-long Plot To Take Down Trump

For those who care about our country’s future but don’t want to be buried in the minutia of the Russia collusion hoax scandal, here is your big-picture primer.

Author Margot Cleveland profile



s Special Counsel John Durham continues to expose more details of the “SpyGate” or “Russia collusion” scandal, it can be difficult for any apolitical, non-news-junkie member of the public to grasp the ongoing developments.

After all, for more than five years, the corrupt legacy media has refused to report on scandal or done so with a slanted portrayal of the facts. So most Americans remain unaware of the Democrats’ years-long duplicity that sought to destroy first candidate and then President Donald Trump. Add to that reality the overlapping conspiracies and sprawling cast of characters involved, and it can be difficult to follow the story.

That the scandal is dense, however, does not mean it should be ignored. To the contrary, the duplicity must not be disregarded because what Trump’s political enemies tried to accomplish over the course of five years represents the biggest threat our constitutional republic has seen in the last century.

So for those who care about our country and her future but don’t want to be buried in the minutia of the scandal, here is your big-picture primer.

DNC Emails Are Hacked

While every thread of SpyGate could be unraveled more, April 30, 2016, marks the cleanest point to pin the start of the intrigue. It was then, amid the contested presidential primaries, that the Democratic National Committee learned that its computer network had been breached. The DNC then hired a company called CrowdStrike to investigate the hack, and by mid-May, CrowdStrike concluded that Russian actors were responsible for the hack, which the DNC then reported to the FBI.

The public first learned about the DNC server hack on June 14, 2016, when The Washington Post broke the story. Then, on July 22, 2016, after Trump and Hillary Clinton had been declared the presidential nominees, WikiLeaks released a trove of documents, purportedly obtained through the DNC hack.

These documents included emails in which then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other party officials disparaged Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. The behind-the-scenes communiques also revealed that the DNC, which should maintain neutrality between primary candidates, favored Clinton, with top officials plotting ways to harm the Sanders campaign.

Clinton Campaign Plots to Convert DNC Scandal into Trump Scandal

The timing of WikiLeaks’ release of the DNC emails couldn’t have been worse, with delegates poised in Pennsylvania to officially nominate Clinton the Democratic candidate for president. But by Sunday evening, the Clinton campaign had devised a strategy to respond to the scandal: blame it on Trump.

“I’m Jake Tapper at the Democratic Convention in beautiful Philadelphia, where the state of our union is exposed emails just published by WikiLeaks showing Democratic Party officials actively discussing possible ways to sabotage Bernie Sanders, even as they were insisting publicly that they were staying neutral during the primaries,” the CNN host opened the video segment that launched the Russia collusion hoax.

Tapper introduced Clinton’s then-campaign manager Robby Mook, asking him the campaign’s reaction to the leaked emails. After responding that the DNC needed to “look into this and take appropriate action,” Mook pivoted to Trump, premiering the Russia conspiracy theory that would consume the country for the next five years.

“What’s disturbing to us,” Mook began, is that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

Mook continued:

“I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention here, and that’s disturbing. And I think we need to be concerned about that. I think we need to be concerned that we also saw last week at the Republican Convention that Trump and his allies made changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian. And we saw him talking about how NATO shouldn’t intervene to defend — necessarily should intervene to defend our Eastern European allies if they are attacked by Russia. So I think, when you put all this together, it’s a disturbing picture. And I think voters need to reflect on that.”

When Tapper asked Mook for evidence to support his claims, Mook cited unnamed experts and press reports “that the hackers that got into the DNC are very likely by to be working in coordination with Russia.”

“If the Russians in fact had these emails, again, I don’t think it’s very coincidental that they are being released at this time to create maximum damage on Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump,” Mook reiterated.

“It is a very, very strong charge that you’re leveling here,” Tapper interjected. “You’re basically suggesting that Russians hacked into the DNC and now are releasing these files through WikiLeaks to help elect Donald Trump.”

Again, Mook deflected to “a number of experts,” saying, “Experts have said that it is the Russians that, in fact, went in and took these emails. And then, if they are the ones who took them, we have to infer that they are the ones then releasing them.”

Clinton Campaign Co-Opts the Russia Collusion Hoax

While the Clinton campaign introduced the Russia collusion hoax on the eve of the DNC convention to convert the Sanders’ scandal into one about Trump, the strategy also proved a perfect response to the second Clinton scandal — this one involving Clinton’s illegal use of a private server during her time as secretary of state.

The New York Times first broke the news on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had used a private email server to communicate as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Two days later, the Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed any Benghazi-related emails contained on the private server. Upon learning of the document request, a technician for Clinton’s computer service provider deleted approximately 30,000 of Clinton’s emails, which she claimed were personal emails.

By May of 2016, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General had released an 83-page report condemning Clinton’s use of the server. Coverage of this report stressed that the State Department had “deemed more than 2,000 of Clinton’s messages as classified, including 22 that were upgraded to the most sensitive national security classification, ‘top secret.’” At the time, the media also noted that “the FBI is still probing whether any laws were broken laws by putting classified information at risk — or whether her staff improperly sent sensitive information knowing it wasn’t on a classified system.”

The Clinton campaign tried to downplay the FBI’s involvement in the private-server scandal by framing it as “a security inquiry,” but in response to questions about that characterization, then-FBI Director James Comey said he was “not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry,’” stressing “the word investigation” is “in our name.”

“We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do. That’s probably all I can say about it,” Comey concluded.

At a press conference two months later, on July 5, 2016, Comey announced that the FBI had completed its investigation and that while Clinton’s handling of classified information was “extremely careless,” he had referred the matter to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that no charges be filed. Comey took this same position when he testified before Congress, there calling Clinton’s conduct related to the server “sloppy.”

Although Comey publicly declared the investigation into Clinton’s private server closed, when Democrats gathered for their convention in Philadelphia, her campaign continued to face questions about the scandal, with Tapper drilling Mook about Comey’s conclusion that Clinton’s use of the private server had been “sloppy.” Mook quickly changed the conversation to “this election” and what “voters are looking for and asking about in this election.”

Two days later, though, the media took Mook’s lead and converted the Clinton server scandal into a scandal about Trump. A July 26, 2016, opinion article for USA Today, titled “Putin for President 2016,” opened with an acknowledgment that Clinton’s “secret private-server emails are almost certainly already in the hands of Russian intelligence,” and concluded, “Putin can embarrass Hillary — or worse — whenever he wants.”

“We’re getting a small foretaste of that in the release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails,” the piece continued, speaking of the DNC officials engaged in “dirty tricks aimed at Bernie Sanders” and “getting awfully chummy with some allegedly professional journalists.” And with that, the media converted Clinton’s use of a private server to a story about Trump and Russia’s supposed backing of his candidacy.

From then on, the Clinton campaign and a complicit media framed any concern over her use of a home-brew server and any questions about the details buried in the DNC emails not as a scandal about Clinton but as a conspiracy between Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Clinton Campaign Pays for and Peddles Fake Trump-Russia Evidence

By the last week of July 2016, the Russia collusion diversion controlled the narrative, and Democrats repurposed every question about the DNC hack or the sever scandal as an opportunity to peddle it.

Similarly, Clinton’s team converted every comment by Trump, even tangentially related to Russia, as further evidence of a conspiracy. Likewise, her campaign framed every Russia connection, past or present, between Trump, his business, his family, or members of his campaign as concrete proof of collusion.

While the Clinton campaign had not gone public with the Russia-collusion angle until July 24, 2016, when Mook marketed that theme on CNN, it had been collecting supposed intel on Trump’s connections to Russia for some time.

In the first half of 2016, Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign, had hired private investigation firm Fusion GPS to collect opposition research on Trump. In turn, Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele in May or June of 2016 to focus on Trump’s connections to Russia, and by June 20, 2016, Steele had drafted the first of some 17 memoranda that would eventually compose what is now known colloquially as the Steele dossier.

Steele shared his initial memorandum — which contained claims that the Kremlin had blackmail material on Trump, including the salacious and false “golden showers” accusation — with an FBI contact on July 5, 2016. Over the next six months, Steele continued to craft the dossier, relying primarily on an unnamed “Primary Sub-Source,” now known to be Russian national Igor Danchenko.

Danchenko, who has since been indicted for lying to the FBI, is also alleged to have invented some of the supposed intel contained in the dossier. Danchenko also fed Steele false information about the Trump campaign, which a Clinton booster had invented and then passed on to Danchenko.

The bottom line some five-plus years later is that the dossier consisted of a few publicly known accurate facts and a litany of false claims concocted by Danchenko and others and then sold by Steele and the Clinton campaign as the work of a former MI6 Russian expert.

The Steele dossier represented but one aspect of the invented evidence of collusion. The Clinton campaign also paid Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann for his work in crafting, with the assistance of various tech experts, a report purporting to show that the Trump organization had established a secret-communication network with the powerful Russian Alfa Bank.

Additionally, computer scientists who had worked with the Clinton campaign’s attorney “surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge.”

As Steele, Fusion GPS, and other Clinton backers created fraudulent reports, they, along with the Clinton campaign and her lawyers, exploited their relationships with reporters and government officials.

Steele and/or Fusion GPS’s founder Glenn Simpson shared Steele’s memoranda with various news outlets. They also fed the supposed intel to members of the law enforcement and intelligence communities, including representatives in the Departments of Justice and State. After the FBI fired Steele as a source because he had spoken with the media, it arranged for him to continue providing his reports to the FBI by having him meet with a Justice Department attorney instead.

This dual-prong approach resulted in a public saturated with circular confirmation of Trump-Russia collusion. Outlets parroted the false details fed to reporters by Steele and then referenced the FBI’s investigations into the same matters to create the appearance that the investigations confirmed the validity of the leaks. Simultaneously, the FBI used media reports as a basis to confirm Steele’s supposed intel.

Obama Admin Spies on Trump Campaign Under Knowingly False Pretenses

On July 31, 2016, the Obama administration and the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign, branded “Crossfire Hurricane.” While to this day, the FBI maintains it opened Crossfire Hurricane after U.S. officials learned from an Australian diplomat that young Trump adviser George Papadopoulos had bragged “that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton,” former Attorney General William Barr and Special Counsel John Durham have both questioned that account.

The Obama administration’s targeting of the opposition party’s presidential campaign came just as the Clinton campaign began publicly pushing the narrative that Trump was colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And the opening of Crossfire Hurricane came three days after then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Barack Obama and other senior national security officials on intelligence alleging “that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

Brennan’s briefing also noted that intelligence agencies had obtained intel indicating that on July 26, 2016, Clinton approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” In early September 2016, a U.S. intelligence official would forward an investigative referral to the FBI regarding “Clinton’s approval of a plan” about “Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.”

Even with this foreknowledge of the Clinton campaign’s plot to frame Trump, and even while watching the execution of the plan in real time, the FBI moved forward with Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI would also later use Steele’s fraudulent reporting to obtain four court orders from the secret FISA court to surveil a former Trump campaign volunteer named Carter Page.

While Page was no longer connected to the campaign when the FBI obtained the FISA surveillance orders, the warrant allowed the FBI to access prior correspondence between Page and the Trump campaign, as well as any communications Page continued to have with individual campaign members. Further, while FISA proceedings are secret, media leaks about the targeting of Page gave the press more material to further the Russia-collusion spin.

Accessing private campaign emails, however, represented but one aspect of the spying that took place under the auspices of Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI also tasked a Confidential Human Source (CHS) with questioning Page, and that CHS “sought specific details from Page related to the Trump campaign, and fed Page unsolicited (and potentially illegal) advice concerning campaign strategy.”

The FBI used the same CHS to question Sam Clovis, a senior member of the Trump campaign. In a recorded conversation, the CHS posed several questions about sensitive campaign strategies and concerns.

The spying on Trump’s campaign also included the FBI using a private Trump security briefing as a possible opportunity to collect information for the investigation.

Investigation into Trump Continues During His Administration

Significantly, Crossfire Hurricane did not end with the 2016 election. Instead, after Trump defeated Clinton, the investigation continued and so did the leaks, with Comey giving Trump a briefing on the Steele dossier — a fact then leaked to give CNN a pretext to report on the Steele dossier.

After Trump’s inauguration, the FBI hatched a plot to oust the president’s national security adviser, again with the help of the media. Comey also began writing secret memoranda of conversations he had with now-President Trump. And after Trump fired Comey, the latter leaked those memoranda to the media through a law professor friend, triggering the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller continued Crossfire Hurricane, retaining many of the original FBI agents. The country would later learn that many of those investigating the Trump campaign held rabid anti-Trump sentiments, when text messages exchanged by members of the Crossfire Hurricane team were made public. Other text messages went missing when several agents wiped their cell phones.

The public learned of even more malfeasance by the Crossfire Hurricane team when the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General released a 400-plus-page report concluding that the DOJ included 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions in the FISA application and renewals related to Carter Page.

These problems and others led then-AG William Barr to appoint U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead an investigation into Crossfire Hurricane, later naming him a special prosecutor.

As part of his investigation, Durham revealed additional misconduct in Crossfire Hurricane when he obtained a guilty plea from a former FBI attorney for altering an email related to the FISA case against Page.

Durham’s team also obtained a statement from another FBI agent involved in the investigation named William Barnett. Barnett told DOJ investigators that there was never any basis for the bizarre “collusion” theory and that Mueller’s office pushed prosecutions with a “get Trump” mentality. But even then, Mueller found no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

There are thousands more details already known and many more players involved — and that’s before whatever else Durham may reveal. But just these basics provide all the information you need to understand SpyGate — and to see why it far surpasses the Watergate scandal.

Why Are Today’s Dems and Their Fems SO FASCISTIC, NOT DEMOCRATIC?

MARCH 20, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


The New York Times Editorial Board published a long essay on free speech on Friday, titled “America Has a Free Speech Problem.” It acknowledges the problem forthrightly:

For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.

The editorial includes poll data in which Americans, especially conservatives, confirm their fear of expressing their opinions lest they be canceled or even fired. None of this is new. The editorialists purport to be even-handed in assigning responsibility for today’s anti-free speech climate, but, weirdly, they put most blame on conservatives.

Thus, while decrying cancel culture, the Times can see some merit in conservatives losing their jobs:

On college campuses and in many workplaces, speech that others find harmful or offensive can result not only in online shaming but also in the loss of livelihood. Some progressives believe this has provided a necessary, and even welcome, check on those in power.

Those in power? How powerful can you be if you lose your job when you disagree with leftists? Aren’t they, obviously, the ones in power?

The editorialists cite the role of social media in the current hostile climate, in particular the prevalence of online “misinformation and disinformation,” which is the purported ground of much contemporary censorship:

[S]ocial media is awash in speech of the point-scoring, picking-apart, piling-on, put-down variety. A deluge of misinformation and disinformation online has heightened this tension.

Here, the Times’s lack of self-awareness is comical. One of the main arenas of censorship over the last two years has been covid. Liberal outlets, including the Times, have censored, suppressed and dismissed views contrary to those of a handful of politicized bureaucrats as “misinformation.” But in many cases, probably most, the dissenters have turned out to be right. And the Times was one of many press outlets that labeled the data on Hunter Biden’s laptop as “disinformation” in order to help Joe Biden win the presidential election.

It no doubt is true, as the editorialists say, that there is plenty of misinformation and disinformation on the internet. Some of it originates with, or is promoted by, the New York Times. But this is nothing new. The point of free speech is to sort out what is, and what is not, misinformation. As it relates to censorship, the key issue is the collusion among liberal press outlets to label as “misinformation,” and to suppress, what is in reality true.

Given the almost daily horror stories of conservatives being silenced, deplatformed, libeled and fired, you may wonder how the Times can possibly think that the main threat to free speech comes from the right. This is their logic:

Many on the right, for all their braying…


…about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.

To my knowledge, no book has been banned in the U.S. in the last 100 years. Choosing books to be purchased for a public school library is an entirely different matter. Deciding that a book is not appropriate for a junior high bookshelf is not “banning” the book; indeed, a large majority of the books now in print undoubtedly fall into that category. The lack of seriousness the Times editorialists display when they make this kind of argument is appalling. But then, no one ever thought that members of the Times Editorial Board are smart.

[A]ll Americans should be deeply concerned about an avalanche of legislation passed by Republican-controlled legislatures around the country that gags discussion of certain topics and clearly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, if not the letter of the law.

It goes far beyond conservative states yanking books about race and sex from public school libraries. Since 2021 in 40 state legislatures, 175 bills have been introduced or prefiled that target what teachers can say and what students can learn, often with severe penalties.
These bills include Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would restrict what teachers and students can talk about and allows for parents to file lawsuits.
The new gag laws coincide with a similar barrage of bills that ostensibly target critical race theory, an idea that has percolated down from law schools to the broader public in recent years as a way to understand the pervasiveness of racism. The moral panic around critical race theory has morphed into a vast effort to restrict discussions of race, sex, American history and other topics that conservatives say are divisive. Several states have now passed these gag laws restricting what can be said in public schools, colleges and universities, and state agencies and institutions.

The Times editorialists fail to understand that the public schools are–like it or not!–governed by the public. It is appropriate, indeed necessary and inevitable, that parents and voters will ultimately decide the content of public school curricula. Left wingers like those at the Times hate this fact, because in recent decades, while parents have generally failed to pay attention, they have had their way: most public schools have been run by far-left teachers’ unions that promote racist dogmas (CRT) and hate America.

But these far-left views do not align with the beliefs of the people who pay the public schools’ bills and whose children attend them. So we are witnessing a tectonic collision as parents and voters finally assert their right to control how their children are taught.

This has nothing to do with free speech. Left-wing teachers and administrators are free to spout their anti-American and racist views on their own time. They just can’t make those repellent opinions part of the public school curriculum that is paid for, and therefore determined by, normal people who are neither racist nor anti-American.

Americans do indeed face a crisis with regard to our traditional right to say what we think, but don’t look to the New York Times as an ally in the fight for free speech.