• 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


March 22, 2022

Dick Durbin blocks documents showing Ketanji Brown Jackson’s judicial record

By Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

The Senate hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination are not going well.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Durbin is blocking the release of documents showing Brown Jackson’s actual record as a judge, taking a page from the tactics of impeachment-obsessed Rep. Adam Schiff.  That’s how Democrats do hearings these days.

According to John Solomon’s Just The News:The Biden administration is keeping more than 48,000 pages of records about Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson from senators reviewing her nomination, including documents about her time at the U.S. Sentencing Commission that she has made a central part of her professional story.Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is “hiding” records from Jackson’s time as vice chair of the Sentencing Commission, where she championed leniency for child predators, says Michael Davis, former chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Monday that 16,000 pages of substantive content has been released on Jackson, compared to the 48,000 pages withheld by the White House under the Presidential Records Act and FOIA exemptions.


“Durbin has refused a request by Republican senators to look at her records on the sentencing commission,” Davis told “Just the News — Not Noise” on Monday, hours after Jackson’s first day of testimony in front of the committee weighing her nomination to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

That signals that there is something they are trying to hide.

According to the Article3Project, Brown Jackson sentenced perverts, predators, and child molesters to less-than-recommended jail and prison time on a consistent basis.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a pro-life Missouri Republican, found that she consistently sentenced these perverts to lesser sentences than the judicial guidelines and rationalized her decisions this way:

“Judge Jackson has opined there may be a type of ‘less-serious child pornography offender’ whose motivation is not sexual but ‘is the challenge, or to use the technology.’ A ‘less-serious’ child porn offender?” he wrote, citing her testimony.

Another example, “Jackson has said that some people who possess child porn ‘are in this for either the collection, or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community,'” Hawley continued. “What community would that be? The community of child exploiters?”

That sounds like makin’ it up as you go along.

She’s also been strikingly soft on kiddie porn purveyors and viewers, despite the hard fact that 80% of viewers of child porn are likely to have molested a child in real life, according to a study from the Mayo Clinic.  She views the hard punishments of these dirtbags as “stigmatization” and “revenge.”

Any concerns for the permanently harmed children in these monstrous crimes?  Apparently not from her — and of course, a show of the records could correct us if we are wrong.

But Durbin wants no such records out there, which can only by default lead to the conclusion that they are worse than what people suspect.

Durbin has been loud and noisy about not turning Brown Jackson’s hearing into a Democrat-style circus about teen frat parties such as the Democrats rained down on then-judge Brett Kavanaugh at his hearings.  A garbage-fest for thee, but not for me.

But Republicans have decided not to go that route.  They instead are interested in looking at the facts and the record.

That apparently is even worse to Durbin, who now wants to suppress hard facts about Brown Jackson’s judicial record.

Durbin would like this hearing to be a celebration of “historics” and “firsts,” with the entire Senate discussion to revolve around Brown Jackson’s skin color, instead of her record.  He wants a public relations show, a rubber-stamp hearing, and of course, the seating of a radical leftist on the Court who will make poor dumb Sonia Sotomayor look temperate and judicial in comparison. 

This is disgusting stuff, and Republicans need to fight it — to withhold quorums until they get the documents they need, vowing to drag out the hearings till the next Republican president is elected in 2024, or else engage in guerrilla research and obtain the documents anyway and then ask the questions anyway, over and over, each member asking as Durbin tries to suppress them, if for nothing else, then to get the word out to the public.  Durbin can scream all he likes, but Republicans have got to fight this, making the little censor in Durbin’s cold black heart feel some hellfire heat.

If there’s to be no discussion of the Brown Jackson record, then it’s time to bring out the frat parties and whatever it was she did when she was 17, complete with charlatan witnesses, just as the Democrats did.  I’d be curious if she ever shouted down a speaker when she was at law school, which, Yale Law students are learning the hard way, is not a sign of a judicial temperament.

The message needs to get out from Republicans that Durbin can have it one way or the other, but he cannot have both.  They need to read him the riot act and get the Brown Jackson record into the Senate hearings.

TO THE LEFTIEST OF THE LEFTIEST DEGREE! Do We Really Need Another FEM Fascist On The Supreme Court?

KBJ vs the Boof Truther: No, the Supreme Court hasn’t been “bought by dark money”

ED MORRISSEY Mar 22, 2022 12:01 PM ET

 Share  Tweet  

Imagine having to sit through this presentation by Sen. Sheldon “Boof Truther” Whitehouse with a straight face. That would be especially difficult when trying to win confirmation to work with the justices that Whitehouse smeared in this opening statement. While praising Ketanji Brown Jackson, Whitehouse declared yesterday that a third of the court is connected to corrupt practices that his own party uses:

What “secretive selection process”? Donald Trump published a list of potential Supreme Court justice appointees before the 2016 election, hoping (and largely succeeding) to convince conservatives of his commitment to promoting originalism and judicial restraint.  Trump openly worked with the Federalist Society, a well-established conservative law activist organization, to develop the list. All three of his nominees came off of those lists, and all three were well-known jurists prior to their appointment.

This was nothing more than a deliberate smear attempt by Whitehouse, whose demagoguery reached its peak during the Brett Kavanaugh hearing and his attempt to pin Kavanaugh down on the true meaning of the teen slang term “boof.” The only thing Whitehouse ended up proving is that he was too big of an idiot to distinguish between “boof” and boff, but not too big of an idiot to provide the most embarrassing line of Senate questioning in memory, if not in our entire history. Whitehouse has firmly established himself as a lobotomized Joe McCarthy, if nothing else.

Besides, that “dark money” process is alive and well among progressives and working in support of Jackson, as Politico pointed out this morning. They just don’t want to talk about it:

After trying for years to match the GOP’s off-the-Hill judicial firepower, Democrats are distancing themselves from a prominent outside group backing Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Senate Republicans want to use Jackson’s confirmation hearing as a forum to slam Demand Justice — a liberal organization that advocates for adding seats to the Supreme Court and pushed for Jackson’s nomination — as a pernicious “dark money” group acting as puppet master to her selection. It’s a playbook Democrats have employed in the past against conservative nominees and the organizations that work to promote them, such as the Federalist Society, but Democrats insist there’s a major difference: they don’t work directly with Demand Justice.

That’s nothing but a lot of boofing, says former Clintonista and now head of Demand Justice Brian Fallon:

For Demand Justice’s executive director, Brian Fallon, the questions about his group are a “badge of honor.” And despite Senate Democrats downplaying its influence, Fallon didn’t hesitate to liken Demand Justice as a counter to conservative groups, including the Judicial Crisis Network.

“It’s obviously hypocritical for [Republicans] to complain about advocacy groups on the left when all we’re trying to do is catch up to the network of groups that have long been active on the right for the last 40 years,” Fallon said in an interview. “But I don’t think it’s successfully done anything to derail or put into question the confirmation prospects for any of the Biden nominees over the last year including Ketanji Brown Jackson.”

On that point, I agree with Fallon, but the hypocrisy isn’t limited to Republicans. Whitehouse’s boofbaggery is every bit as hypocritical, as Democrats worked for years to organize their lobbying on judicial nominations to be as effective as the GOP and conservatives. They have adopted the same structures and play in the same donor-opacity pool.

To her credit, Jackson didn’t take Whitehouse’s argument seriously. Chuck Grassley gave Jackson an opportunity to reject his smear attempt, and she grabbed it quickly and firmly:


What will Whitehouse say in response? My friend and colleague Katie Pavlich thinks he might be wondering the same thing:


In fact, Jackson’s comments in this hearing have some Federalist Society-oriented observes cautiously optimistic. Dan McLaughlin notes that Jackson at least feels compelled to pay respect to originalism:

This morning, prompted by Durbin, Jackson gave an answer that pays tribute to the originalist position: “I’m looking at original documents. I am focusing on the original public meaning because I am constrained to interpret the text. Sometimes that’s enough to resolve the issue. . . .” That is not the end of the inquiry, of course; Republicans on the committee can and should probe further into how Jackson thinks through these issues and how her record shows her bending the law, at times, to reach favored outcomes. But it is another measure of the intellectual and political victory of originalism’s argument about the legitimacy of constitutional and statutory text that, rather than stand up for the progressive critique of originalist methodology, a Democratic nominee facing a Democratic senate professes to embrace “original public meaning.”

Don’t get your hopes up too high on that point, but McLaughlin is struck by the retro nature of how Jackson frames her responses to progressive-priority issues:


This is likely a demonstration of a mastery of the political process, not necessarily a keen insight as to how Jackson will eventually rule on constitutional issues. Still, with Democrats in control of the Senate and the White House, this could have been worse. It certainly turned out that way for the Boof Truther

Remember the HUNS?



For me, the Ukraine situation is pretty simple. Ukraine didn’t invade Russia, Russia invaded Ukraine. And Russia is our geopolitical rival/enemy, while Ukraine is not. So I am on Ukraine’s side and am happy to do what we can to help the Ukrainians, without committing acts of war against Russia. Like, say, shooting down their airplanes.

So I am part of what seems to be an unusually broad consensus among Americans. That said, I agree with Scott that commentators like Tucker Carlson perform a valuable service by providing a counterpoint to the hawkish, pro-Ukraine perspective that we hear every day. Candace Owens is another who has been a Ukraine/war skeptic, and, like Tucker, she has been accused of promulgating Russian propaganda.

That is the angle the New York Times is taking. A Times reporter reached out to Candace to let her know that a smear was in the offing:

Candace is so much smarter than a Times reporter that you knew right away this was going to be good. Candace didn’t disappoint:

Just for fun, she piled on:


Candace concluded with expressions of sympathy for both the Ukrainian and Russian people. She also said this about the likes of the New York Times:

I don’t think the Times article has appeared yet. Maybe it never will. If it does, I don’t expect it will include any quotes from Candace Owens.


Dear Ghr, Joe Biden, the Dems certified know-nothing-in-chief, is taking our beautiful America downhill at breakneck speed. It is time to “Impeach 46”! Wouldn’t you agree? He is what he is, an expected absolute failure until they commit him to the nearest insane asylum, or put him, and his son Hunter, behind bars both dressed in orange suits.

Incompetent old has been, so far, the dimmest bulb in ‘our’ White House; and fountain of endless fibs. We must get him, and his functional-illiterate cackling Kamala, out of office before it is too late to save Ukraine, our exceptional America, and the civilized world! I tell you, I have been having nightmares since pickpocket Joe’s grand electoral heist on November 3, 2020 because I sensed what was coming. Is there anyone out there listening?

Ghr, I read your beautiful piece on your upbringing in the Tundra. I would have enjoyed those magical years savoring your great grand-mama’s apple strudel and other German delicacies.

Stay warm for spring is yet to arrive in your neck of the woods. Remember that I always wish you well, whatever the season. May the Lord’s blessings be always at your door.

Cjack…Early Morning Comments from the Gulf…Monday, March 21, 2022…

…It is Time to Evict Joe the Loon, Killer of the American Dream…


Dear Ghr, Joe Biden, the Dems certified know-nothing-in-chief, is taking our beautiful America downhill at breakneck speed. It is time to “Impeach 46”! Wouldn’t you agree? He is what he is, an expected absolute failure until they commit him to the nearest insane asylum, or put him, and his son Hunter, behind bars both dressed in orange suits.

Incompetent old has been, so far, the dimmest bulb in ‘our’ White House; and fountain of endless fibs. We must get him, and his functional-illiterate cackling Kamala, out of office before it is too late to save Ukraine, our exceptional America, and the civilized world! I tell you, I have been having nightmares since pickpocket Joe’s grand electoral heist on November 3, 2020 because I sensed what was coming. Is there anyone out there listening?

Ghr, I read your beautiful piece on your upbringing in the Tundra. I would have enjoyed those magical years savoring your great grand-mama’s apple strudel and other German delicacies.

Stay warm for spring is yet to arrive in your neck of the woods. Remember that I always wish you well, whatever the season. May the Lord’s blessings be always at your door.

Cjack…Early Morning Comments from the Gulf…Monday, March 21, 2022…

Dear Friend and Fellow American OF THE GOOD KIND, DEAR CJACK:

“Regarding your very civil question about removing charming criminal, semi-senile, the magnificently corrupt, greedy, and sly animal who smiles well whenever needed, Joe Biden from the wee state of Delaware:

Our Horribly Crippled America Would Turn to the SUPER STUPID LEFTY LIFE OF GIGGLING POWER SKILLS OF A KAMALA HARRIS! It couldn’t happen due to the kind of Dems in the Senate who would love to have THIS MISS….TO CONQUER!


And then, there is this GOP guy, Mitch McConnell who seems to be perfectly happy hiding behind the DEM CROWD, doing nothing beyond a freeze!



Shouldn’t Gangster Vladimir Pay A BIG Price FOR HIS HORRORS?

Biden: Yes, Putin used a hypersonic missile

JAZZ SHAW Mar 22, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

Mikhail Metzel, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

Over the weekend we looked at early reports that Russia had struck an ammunition storage site in Ukraine using one of their next-generation Kinzhal hypersonic aeroballistic missiles. The initial report drew questions from analysts for a couple of reasons. First of all, there hadn’t been any confirmation of the strike initially. And if it were true, it would be seen as a very provocative move by Putin, perhaps trying to cow the Ukrainian people into submission. At the time, I speculated that our intelligence agencies are monitoring everything that’s going on in the region using satellite surveillance systems, so we would likely know sooner or later. That turned out to be the case and yesterday President Biden confirmed the incident, proclaiming that this event proves that Putin’s “back is against the wall.” (NY Post)

President Biden on Monday confirmed that Russia launched a hypersonic missile in Ukraine over the weekend and said that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s may launch cyberattacks against the US and use chemical weapons in Ukraine next because his “back is against the wall.”

Biden said Ukraine’s military is “wreaking havoc on the Russian military,” making Putin increasingly desperate in his nearly month-old invasion of Ukraine.

“The more his back is against the wall, the greater the severity of the tactics he may employ,” Biden warned at a Business Roundtable event after the White House earlier in the day implored US companies to enhance cyberdefenses.

I’m not inclined to doubt the veracity of the report because quite frankly, I wouldn’t put anything past Mad Vlad these days. In fact, we’re lucky the missile had a conventional warhead on it rather than a nuke, assuming it really was a Kinzhal. But not all analysts seem to be convinced thus far. Others are saying that even if Russia really did unleash a hypersonic missile, it was really just hype to advance Putin’s narrative rather than some dramatic escalation in a military sense. (NBC News)

U.S. officials and military experts say, what Russia has unleashed appears to be hypersonic hype about a potentially devastating weapon.

“It’s a bit of a head-scratcher to be honest with you,” a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday. “If it’s true, why would you need a hypersonic missile fired from not that far away to hit a building?”

Military experts said the only reason Russian President Vladimir Putin would resort to using this kind of weaponry against the outgunned Ukrainians at this point would be to score propaganda points.

The Pentagon officials that NBC spoke to make some pretty good points as to why this was a strange decision on Putin’s part. First of all, our intelligence sources believe that Russia doesn’t have very many of those missiles in stock yet. And they’re incredibly expensive to build, making it unlikely that more are rolling off the production line while the country’s economy is imploding and the ruble is basically worthless.

Also, it was a total waste of resources to use one of the Kinzhal missiles to take out a building. It’s a weapon that is designed to evade missile defense systems. And Ukraine has never really had any sort of advanced missile defense technology. On top of that, they only loaded it up with a conventional explosive that could have been carried by older missiles at a fraction of the price.

Putin was essentially trying to put on a show of strength, demonstrating to the world that he’s in charge of one of the most advanced military machines on the planet. But who exactly was he trying to impress? Probably not the Ukrainians, for whom that strike was just another conventional rocket hitting one of their buildings, albeit a really fast and expensive one.

Is this another sign that Putin’s judgment is faltering, leaving his grip on reality in question? Perhaps. But in yesterday’s statement, Joe Biden didn’t seem to have all that clear of a grasp on the picture either. He claimed that Russia “just launched their hypersonic missile because it’s the only thing that they can get through with absolute certainty.”

As already stated, there is almost no sort of missile defense system in place guarding Ukraine against conventional missile attacks. All of the shattered cities and civilian centers demonstrate this fact clearly. So it’s clearly not true that a hypersonic weapon is required to “get through with absolute certainty.” And it’s not as if they were sending a surgical strike to try to take out Zelenski. The target was an ammo dump. If they missed they could have just tried again.

In any event, even if we assume that the strike over the weekend really was done with a hypersonic weapon, we probably won’t be seeing many more of them. The Russian government can’t afford to waste them at this point.


March 22, 2022

John Bolton Inadvertently Reminds Us Why We Need Trump

By J. Allen Cartwright at American Thinker:

At the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, establishment Republicans seized the opportunity to score political points by placing the blame for Putin’s aggression squarely upon the shoulders of their primary political rival: former president Donald Trump. Noted renowned neocon and former ambassador to the UN John Bolton:

“I think one of the reasons Putin did not move during Trump’s term in office was he saw the president’s hostility in NATO….  I think Putin saw Trump doing a lot of his work for him and thought maybe in a second term, Trump would make good on his desire to get out of NATO, and then it would just ease Putin’s path [for invading Ukraine] just that much more,”

Former GOP presidential nominee Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) similarly attacked Trump’s foreign policy, arguing:

“Putin’s impunity predictably follows our tepid response to his previous horrors in Georgia and Crimea, our naive efforts at a one-sided ‘reset,’ and the shortsightedness of ‘America First.’” 

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) also joined the fray, tweeting:

Attacks by the GOP establishment against Trump’s foreign policy come at a time when the former President seems to be at his most vulnerable.  A number of Trump-endorsed candidates have struggled with fundraising, a potential sign of waning influence.  Several polls also suggest that Trump’s grip over the GOP is weakening, driven in part by his continued focus on voter fraud in the 2020 election. Editorials suggest that the GOP is moving away from Trump. The hawkish branch of the GOP sees American passivity in the face of Russian aggression as the ideal opportunity to regain the grip over the party that they had throughout the 2000s.  Ironically, attacks from the GOP’s hawkish wing only serve to make Trump more relevant, given the GOP establishment’s disastrous failures on foreign policy front.

Trump’s Foreign Policy

Former President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy had the unique ability to simultaneously delight and enrage both the hawkish neoconservatives and dovish isolationists within the GOP.  Trump demonstrated a willingness to confront foreign aggression with military action as needed, rapidly destroying ISIS (including eliminating it’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi), killing Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani, authorizing air strikes on Syria’s chemical weapons facilities, and pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, for example.  In each act of aggression, however, Trump accomplished something unique compared to his predecessors: he did not start a new war during his term.

On the contrary, Trump managed to effectively broker numerous high profile peace treaties, including the Serbia/Kosovo agreement and the Abraham Accords.  Trump exhibited a willingness to defy foreign policy “conventional wisdom” in pursuit of American interests.  He enraged the foreign policy establishment by meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in North Korea. Trump would ultimately leave North Korea with no deal in place, but his decision to engage with Kim Jong Un was a far cry from the media’s hysteria suggesting that Trump was driving the US into a full-blown nuclear war.  The neocons howled when Trump negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban.  While this deal has received additional scrutiny following Biden’s complete and utter failure of a withdrawal, it is important to note that not a single American solider was killed in the 18 months following the agreement.

Similarly, the deep state wrung their hands as Trump successfully pressured NATO allies to contribute more to their defense budget.  Unlike the Bush/Obama years that saw the US get involved militarily in IraqAfghanistanLibyaYemenSyriaSomalia, and Pakistan, Trump’s foreign policy was generally one of restraint: Trump was selective about when to exert military strength (e.g. the fight against ISIS), while exhibiting a willingness to seek peace whenever possible (e.g. the Abraham accords, negotiating with Kim Jong Un).

However, it is the current Russia-Ukraine conflict that best illustrates Trump’s foreign policy prowess.  Under Trump, American became a net exporter of petroleum for the first time in 75 years, an achievement that even George W. Bush, frequently attacked for his ties to “big oil,” could not attain. While Trump achieved energy independence, his European counterparts became increasingly dependent upon Russian energy.  Now, under Biden, gasoline has reached new record prices, while we beg hostile nations like Venezuela to sell us oil.  Trump imposed sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Europe; Biden waived the sanctions.  Trump observed in 2018 that NATO, and Germany in particular, would be unable to stand up to Russia due to their dependence on Russian energy.  Four years later, Europe is scrambling to change their energy policy in response to Russia’s aggression.  Trump faced severe criticism from his own party for playing hardball with NATO and demanding that member states contribute more to their defense budget.  Suddenly, with war on their doorstep, Europe has decided to heed Trump’s advice by increasing defense spending.  Despite Bolton and Romney’s criticisms, Trump’s policies on energy and NATO were prescient, suggesting he understood Russia far better than so-called foreign policy “experts” in the West.

The ‘West’ Cannot Just Be America

Russia’s aggression in the face of “Western” weakness has led pundits on the right to fear that China and other hostile nations will be emboldened to act with aggression.  Such fears are justified.  Russia may eventually attack a NATO member state. China may soon move into Taiwan.  It follows, then, that “the West” could face major war on two fronts.  To be clear, Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine is reprehensible, just as China’s treatment of Taiwan is a moral travesty.  However, too often “the West” is synonymous for “America,” and America cannot do it alone. We are expected to provide for the defense and security of the rest of the world, take in most of the world’s immigrants, and serve as a marketplace for the world’s good.  This is simply neither sustainable nor just.

Surprisingly, former President Barack Obama may have offered the best description of the current state of “the West” in a 2016 interview with The Atlantic.  When discussing challenges associated with the US-led military intervention to depose Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, Obama correctly lamented that Western nations are often the fiercest advocates of US military adventurism abroad, while refusing to commit significant resources themselves: “[Y]ou’ve got Europe and a number of Gulf countries…who are calling for action [in Libya].  But what has been a habit over the last several decades in these circumstances is people pushing us to act but then showing an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.”  Europe, not the US, is right on the border of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and it is imperative that they have “skin in the game” should the conflict spread. Trump, with his willingness to pressure NATO into meeting their defense obligations, understood this. The neocons do not.

The Current State of US Foreign Policy

The reality is that Americans have no appetite for a war with Russia, as evidenced by a recent poll about US military involvement in Ukraine. The irony is that this is likely due in part to the failed foreign policy of the Bush-era GOP, in which Bolton played a major role.  While Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan was an unmitigated disaster, the optics of our war effort are equally terrible: we spent over 20 years in that country, spent $2.3 trillion dollars, provided training and support… all to see the country fall back to the Taliban in a matter of days

Meanwhile, Libya remains unstable a decade after US intervention, and Iraq continues to face significant challenges.  None of these situations instill public trust in our foreign policy establishment.  Ironically, Russia’s military adventurism is following the same trajectory as the neocon’s wars, at even greater costs: thus far, they have lost an estimated 7,000 soldiersspent tens of billions of dollars each day of the invasion, destroyed their economy, and faced nationwide protests.  “Nation-building,” as it turns out, is extraordinarily costly.  Unfortunately for the Ukrainian people, Putin did not learn from the neocons’ failures.

Perhaps the most encouraging sign of the Trump presidency was the absence of notable GOP hawks (George W. Bush, John McCain, even Mitt Romney) at the 2016 convention, suggesting that the party’s flawed foreign policy of the past had been rejected.  Six years later, the neoconservative movement is down, but not out. While highly unlikely, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are being floated as GOP presidential candidates in 2024, with the goal of re-establishing a hawkish foreign policy as the center of their campaign platform.  For those who don’t want to return to a 2000s-era foreign policy, it may be premature to put Trump out to pasture.

J. Allen Cartwright, is a chemical researcher in the energy sector.


MARCH 21, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at PowerLine:


Remember how everyone said Trump was Putin’s poodle, and an isolationist to boot?

Worth taking in his interview this morning with Stuart Varney on Fox Business:

So much for the “Trump as isolationist Russian stooge.” You get a good sense here why Putin didn’t invade Ukraine on Trump’s watch.

“The Country Had A Good Belly Laugh!”

Conspirators in Their Own Words

Noble left-wing ends always justify odious means, in this case projecting one’s own conspiracist efforts by smearing innocent others as conspiracists.

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

March 20, 2022

For the last five years, the Left—defined as the fusion of the mainstream media, Silicon Valley, the radical new Democratic Party, and the vestigial Hillary Clinton machine—has crafted all sorts of conspiracies to destroy their perceived conservative enemies. 

Their method has focused on one major projection: alleging conspiracy on the part of others, which is a kind of confirmation of their own conspiracies to destroy their opponents in general, and Donald Trump in particular. 

Now they have been caught admitting to such nefariousness. Apparently, they still are exuberant about their slick shamelessness and simply can’t keep quiet. Or they believe radically changed conditions, such as the implosion of the Biden Administration, prompt necessary admissions. 

Hillary’s the One 

For nearly five years anyone who objected that the partisan Christopher Steele and his “dossier” were fraudulent, that Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS was a paid opposition hit team, and their joint birthing of “Trump-Russia collusion” was a myth, was smeared as a denialist or conspiracist. 

But examine what has transpired since 2016. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 22-month investigation found nothing. Mueller in congressional testimony was either addled or disingenuous. He even claimed he knew nothing of Fusion GPS or the dossier, the twin catalysts for his own investigation. 

The more Mueller meandered, the more it was clear that his henchman, partisan lawyer Andrew Weissmann, had hijacked the left-wing “All-Star” and “Dream Team” of lawyers and was running the charade. The more the Left boasted of the legal eagles set to tear apart Trump, the more glaring their failure to find any such evidence supporting their conspiracies. 

Christopher Steele, once the object of left-wing adulation who sought to warp the 2016 election by leaking his smears, is now a pariah. Indeed, he is relegated to the clown-like status of a Michael Avenatti. Steele has testified to what we already knew: He has no notes or sources to substantiate his ludicrous file. 

One of his two “Russian sources” turned out to be a left-wing minor researcher at the liberal Brookings Institution, Igor Danchenko. He is now under indictment for lying. The other is a former Clinton operative Charles Dolan. He now admits he has worked for the Russian government and its affiliates for years. 

So ponder that creepy circular firing squad: Hillary Clinton paid for Christopher Steele to find dirt on Donald Trump. She hid her checks by using the firewalls of the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm, and Fusion GPS. 

Steele, who had not been in Russia in years, simply concocted the story, in part from the fantasies of a Clinton employee! So in the end, Hillary sought to smear Trump with a phony charge of Russian collusion by colluding herself with the Russians, albeit through various firewalls! 

When the investigators found nothing for their $40 million investment, serial leaking, and character assassination, when the author of the slanders cannot even point to a single source, and when his two informants are either under indictment or worked for both Hillary Clinton and the Russian government, then the accusers of conspiracy stand so accused. 

Gasbags Gaslighting 

When Donald Trump alleged that he had been wiretapped—apparently tipped off by a whistleblower—the country had a good belly laugh. Trump was deemed paranoid, a nut. Why would anyone in the lame-duck Obama Administration bureaucracy or the Clinton campaign have sought to monitor Trump’s communications? Who would even have had electronic access to such top-secret confidential communications, the very Domain Name System logs of candidate and then President Trump? 

But now we know that one Michael Sussmann—working again for Perkins Coie, and being paid by the DNC, as a front for candidate Clinton—contacted “techies” who as contractors had access to Trump’s most confidential and private communications. 

Sussmann then was told that a Russian bank, Alfa, had a back-channel line of direct communications with Trump. He then went to the FBI to substantiate to the media that his inventions were worthy of government investigation. Everyone from the ubiquitous Bruce Ohr to the Zelig-like Peter Strzok was somehow connected to the hoax. In truth, the bought techies searched Trump’s private logs for any and everything, and came up only with a Russian bank likely sending one-way spam to a Trump server. 

In other words, Trump was a recipient of electronic noise. But it was useful pings that gave the media a second life to “collusion”—another “bombshell” disclosure planted roundabout by Hillary Clinton who was still slandering Trump as a Putin puppet. 

Again, this sorry tale is not some allegation from the Right. We know the details from a writ of a federal prosecutor who had indicted Sussmann for purportedly lying. Soon he and his techie contractors will likely try to blame one another to avoid indictments, and we should expect even more conspiracies to emerge from those alleging conspiracy. 

Conspiracy Cons 

Most Americans concluded that January 6 was a buffoonish riot, in which hundreds of deluded protesters broke into the capitol, vandalized the premises, and disrupted the government. The public saw it as an embarrassment and believed the perpetrators deserved to be punished. 

But not the Left. They saw “conspiracy” in this keystone bunch. Soon they were screaming about an “insurrection” aspiring to a “coup d’etat,” and demanding over 20,000 soldiers to prevent a second wave. 

Very quickly, however, discrepancies in the left-wing narrative arose. “Five killed” proved to be one person “killed,” conservative protestor Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed military veteran lethally shot by a capitol officer with a checkered record, whose identity was mysteriously concealed from the public for months. 

The other four died from either natural causes or the press of the crowd. Officer Brian Sicknick was not murdered by insurrectionists as alleged. In truth, he died the next day of natural causes. Anyone who complained that the government suppressed communications concerning its preparations for the demonstration, thousands of hours of videos, and widespread use of FBI informants among the protestors was dubbed a nut, or perhaps an alt-Right traitor himself. 

Hundreds were arrested on trumped-up charges. Many sat in solitary confinement without charges filed for months. The Left cooed about a right-wing revolution foiled. 

But do not believe just conservatives that January 6 was a riotous charade trumped up into a politically useful “insurrection.” Instead listen to a left-wing New York Times reporter, Matthew Rosenberg. As an “investigative journalist” he both whipped up public outrage at the riot and in private bragged on a hidden microphone to a female acquaintance that it was mostly a bad joke, a break-in by spontaneously rioting buffoons. 

Or as Rosenberg put it of the supposedly violent insurrectionaries and the fear they instilled among reporters, “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [January 6] outside and we were just having fun! . . . I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f-ck off!’”

And what did the ace New York Times reporter conclude of the trauma from the “coup”?

I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger . . . These f-cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f-ck up. They’re f-cking bitches.

And was the riot preplanned and carefully orchestrated? Hardly: “They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”

How about the “conspiracists” who believed there were lots of FBI operatives and informants among the rioters? They too were on to something: “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.” 

Rosenberg is no conservative. He is not even a disinterested liberal observer. He is an activist New York Times reporter whose official “disclosures” helped to feed the false narrative of a right-wing coup—one that we now know he never even believed in himself.

Laptop Lap Dogs

When Hunter Biden’s laptop turned up just days before the 2020 election with incriminating emails outlining how the Biden family had been shaking down foreign governments using Joe Biden prominence as a past senator and vice president, the Left screamed “conspiracy”!

Joe Biden swore it was “Russian disinformation.” He attacked Trump for “collusion.” Fifty former “intelligence officers” signed on to a public letter blasting the mysteriously appearing laptop as a likely Russian disinformation plot.

We should have been suspicious for a variety of reasons. The two chief signees were John Brennan, former CIA director, and James Clapper, former director of national intelligence. Both were infamous for two reasons. One, they were loud, paid cable-TV pundits, hired to vent their hatred of Donald Trump. And two, both had been previously caught lying under oath to Congress about intelligence matters.

Anyone who read the communications, listened to confirmations of Hunter’s onetime partner Tony Bobulinski, knew anything about Hunter’s serial drug addictions and propensities for losing drug paraphernalia, cell phones, and laptops, and digested the left-wing outrage, knew the laptop was genuine.

No matter—the New York Times and other media blasted them as “conspiracists.” And those smears worked. Social media silenced the story. The mainstream media squashed it as well. The usual mob of Democratic flunkies weighed in on the damnable Ruskies out to get Joe and Hunter by planting a laptop in a Delaware computer service shop.

Yet, after Joe Biden was elected, after it seemed likely that Hunter might well be indicted, in part for the accurate information on the laptop, and after Biden had imploded the Democratic Party and thus might be seen as “expendable,” the Left now confesses that that the laptop really was authentic all along.

Conspiracists’ Conspiracies

We remember the conundrum over the 2020 election. Most conservatives sensed that the election was “only” rigged in the sense that the Left earlier had openly conspired to sue states to drop or change balloting laws. They had sought to warp bureaucracies to change protocols, to pour money into key precincts to absorb the work of registrars, and to transition the nation to a 100-million early and mail-in ballots election. Mark Zuckerberg alone poured nearly $420 million in what the Left used to call “dark money” to alter the very way Americans vote.

It worked.

For the first time in our history, well over 60 percent of the ballots were not cast on Election Day. That fact alone rendered the second presidential debate irrelevant. More mysteriously, the usual rejection rate of mail-in ballots fell from 3-5 percent in most states to a fraction of that normal percentage. So the deluge of ballots meant not that more were naturally suspect, but fewer than ever before?

But again, don’t believe conservatives. The Left was so giddy with their massaging of the election that they wanted their skullduggery high-fived and immortalized. So the “conspiracy” was lauded in detail in Molly Ball’s infamous Time magazine essay, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.” 

Note what she boasted about:

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents, and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. . . . The participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream—a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. 

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.

Ball even bragged of a new “conspiracy” between “left-wing activists” and corporate CEOs. The former on cue were to taper off their post-George Floyd street violence and the latter were to begin sounding off about social justice issues: “There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.” 

If a conservative had written such a tale and serially used the word “conspiracy,” he would have been written off as insane. 

Note that all of the above admissions were either voluntary, or discovered through old “60 Minutes”-style ambush journalism, or arose due to criminal conduct, or were the result of likely political calculations. 

But again, it matters little because such exposés never come with apologies or efforts to atone for the damage. You see, noble left-wing ends always justify odious means, in this case projecting one’s own conspiracist efforts by smearing innocent others as conspiracists. 

Or as the late Harry Reid likewise bragged of his own lying about Mitt Romney’s tax returns in the 2012 presidential race, “It worked, didn’t it?”

“I’m on Team Standard Time, and I Don’t Support The Bill…”

What the Daylight Saving Time Bill Says About Washington


By Bill Scher at realclearpolitics:

March 21, 2022What the Daylight Saving Time Bill Says About Washington

On March 9, 2022, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate to make Daylight Saving Time permanent and end the practice of changing our clocks twice a year. On March 15, the Senate passed that bill, called the Sunshine Protection Act. For a legislative body like the Senate, known for its byzantine rules and maddening filibusters, passing legislation in just six days is shocking. Why was the Senate able to move so quickly, and what does it tell us about how Washington works today?

We know the basics about what happened from Buzzfeed’s Paul McLeod. The Senate’s parliamentary minefield can be circumvented through a procedure known as “unanimous consent,” which means just what it implies and is rarely successful since at least one senator usually raises an objection. Apparently, the Daylight Saving Time bill passed not because every senator supports it, but because several senators “were not told by their staff that the request [for unanimous consent] was happening.”

Why exactly aides kept quiet isn’t clear. Perhaps there was some sort of staffer conspiracy to keep their bosses in the dark and let the bill slip through. But McLeod offers a more charitable explanation: “Sometimes those staff will decide an issue is too benign or obviously doomed to bother their boss with.” (Aides from two of the leading Senate sponsors said, according to the Washington Post, that neither of their offices “have received complaints from other senators.”)

Whatever the backstory, sneaking the ball past the goalie is not something that can be done as a matter of routine because, as McLeod notes, “both parties would need to implement a system where one of their members is present in the Senate chamber at all times to block consent requests. That’s a babysitting duty no one wants to be stuck with.”

I’m on Team Standard Time, and I don’t support the bill. As a parent who often struggles to get his children to sleep, I dread the late summer sunsets made even later by Daylight Saving Time. And I’m partial to the view of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, which says that Standard Time “aligns best with human circadian biology,” while permanent Daylight Saving Time could lead to “chronic sleep loss due to early morning social demands,” contributing to “an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and depression.”

Yet I am a fan of the Senate actually legislating. So I can’t help but be impressed by the power play. Look at the reaction of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who was the Senate’s presiding officer at the time of the bill’s passage. Sinema isn’t a sponsor of the bill. (She’s from Arizona, one of two states that don’t even follow Daylight Saving Time, and the bill wouldn’t affect her state.) Yet at the moment of passage, she pumped both her fists, flashed a wide smile and whispered, “Yes!” Watching a unanimous consent bill passage is like watching a triple play in baseball. Even if your team didn’t execute it, you can’t help but be excited that you got to see one with your own eyes.

Also of note, the bill is bipartisan, with 11 Republican and eight Democratic sponsors. This is hardly unprecedented in the current Congress. We’ve already seen several bipartisan bills signed into law by President Biden, most prominently the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. But the under-the-radar Senate passage of the Sunshine Protection Act is a reminder that when legislation escapes the spotlight, it escapes the political polarization that turns a position on almost any issue into a litmus test of tribal loyalty.

Yet, the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it unanimous consent procedure masked the fact that there is no national consensus around making Daylight Saving Time permanent. As Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Jean Yi of FiveThirtyEight recently explained, permanent Daylight Saving Time has a decent but not overwhelming 59% approval, according to a YouGov poll taken last week. But such numbers can be tenuous.

In 1973, year-round Daylight Saving Time had even stronger support in polls, prompting Congress and Richard Nixon to enact a two-year test. It was a disaster. In the winter, many parents were upset that their kids were going to school in pitch black darkness. A few cases of early morning car accidents involving children reversed the poll numbers. According to the National Opinion Research Center, support plummeted from 79% in December 1973 when President Nixon signed it, to 42% by February 1974. In autumn, Congress pulled the plug on the experiment.

The political challenge of any major change is that there will always be winners and losers. In the case of permanent Daylight Saving Time, where you live determines how dark your mornings would be. The states which would be hit the worst – Michigan, Indiana, North Dakota, and Montana – don’t have any senators sponsoring the bill. Geography, more than partisan affiliation, drives positioning around this idea.

After the Senate’s lightning strike, opponents were awakened and began to contact House members. The chair of the relevant House committee said “there isn’t a consensus” in the House on the matter and indicated he was in no rush to bring a bill to the floor. The Senate, with its staggered six-year terms insulating its members from the politics of the moment, is usually the “cooling saucer” that slows down the frenetic legislating from the House. Now we have a role reversal. Aaron Fritschner, spokesperson for Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer, spoke for himself on Twitter and said, “It’s objectively funny that Senators say their chamber – famously designed to be stupidly slow – accidentally did a thing way too fast with insufficient consideration. That’s supposed to be our job!”

So the nominal unanimous consent of the Senate’s Sunshine Protection Act offers us another example that unifying bipartisanship remains possible in our polarized era. At the same time, the House reaction shows that our bicameral legislative structure is designed well enough to thwart the occasional attempt at shortcuts, and ensure that major changes impacting our daily lives are not enacted in hasty fashion. The system still works.

Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine….


Trump: We can’t win in 2022 and 2024 if we don’t expose how the 2020 election was rigged

by ALLAHPUNDIT at HotAir: Mar 21, 2022

 Share  Tweet  

There’s one person in the world who thought Russia attacking Ukraine was a good idea. Unfortunately for all of us, he happened to be the one person in the world in a position to test that theory.

Similarly, there’s one person in the United States who thinks it’d be smart for the GOP to remind swing voters that the party’s led by a sore-loser conspiracy theorist when those voters might otherwise be primed to vote Republican.

And here again, it’s our misfortune that that person happens to have a de facto veto over everyone who disagrees with him.


Watching that clip calls to mind the debate last week between Philip Klein and Charles Cooke over whether it’d be better for the party for Trump to run again in 2024 and lose in the primary or whether it’d be better for him not to run. Clearly it’s better if he doesn’t run, I think, as that’s the only scenario in which the GOP emerges united behind its eventual nominee. If he runs and gets beat, his tissue-paper ego will require him to believe that the polls were rigged against him again. He’ll never endorse the winner. The most hardcore Trumpers won’t turn out in the fall.

But election trutherism will be a live issue either way, as this clip reminds us. It’ll be more of an issue if Trump himself is a candidate since he’ll be out on the trail every day yammering about it. But even if he opts not to run, the “logic” of his position is sound and even inescapable on its own terms. Namely, if you believe that the last election was rigged — and few GOP candidates in 2024 will be willing to say definitively that it wasn’t — then top priority for the Republican Party should be exposing the mechanisms of that cheating so that Democrats can’t do it again, right?

What’s the point of a Republican running for president in 2024 if those wily liberals can simply tweak the vote totals on Election Day to guarantee another victory?

In a Trump-less 2024 field, every GOP candidate asked about “stop the steal” will respond with a dodge to the effect of “2020 is the past, I’m focused on the future.” Trump’s point, rightly, is that “stop the steal” *is* the future for anyone who professes to believe that the election might have been stolen in 2020. There’s no logically coherent in-between position. If you think there’s a chance that the GOP nominee rightly won two years ago but was defrauded out of a second term, there should be no cause more urgent than uncovering that corruption and making sure that it can’t happen again.

Whereas if you don’t think there’s a chance that Democrats cheated, you should say that forthrightly. Like this guy:


“2020 is the past, I’m focused on the future” is just code for “The election wasn’t stolen but I’m afraid to offend Trump and his most conspiratorial fans by admitting that.” I think most Trump fans would let, say, Ron DeSantis slide if he were the GOP nominee and took that position in order to deflect questions about “stop the steal.” Republican voters want to win in 2024, after all, and they’re going to cut their nominee lots of slack on maneuvering towards that end.

But would Trump?

Unlike his voters, he doesn’t care if the GOP wins. In fact, he might fear the prospect of a new Republican nominee routing the Democrats in a national election. If DeSantis pulled, say, 52 percent of the popular vote against Biden in 2024, it would explode the theory that only Democratic chicanery can explain why Trump has never won as much as 47 percent of the vote. (The last Republican nominee to cross that threshold was … Mitt Romney, who did it against an incumbent president.) A victory by DeSantis would affirm what everyone except the hardcore MAGA base already believes, that Trump is a weaker candidate than most other people whom the GOP might plausibly nominate. And Trump would find that intolerable.

So he’ll need something from the nominee to let him save face. And the thing he’s going to need is agreement that surely Trump couldn’t have lost a national popularity contest fair and square to Joe Biden of all people. The question is what happens if the nominee refuses to give that to him and sticks to the “I’m focused on the future” line. Does Trump refuse to endorse him? Does he accuse the nominee of being “weak” and refusing to “fight”? He’ll end up damaging his successor one way or another. The question is how, and how much.